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".

"What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum

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



31 December, 2007

Cannabinoids May Inhibit Cancer Cell Invasion

This is preliminary stuff but it looks interesting

Cannabinoids may suppress tumor invasion in highly invasive cancers, according to a study published online December 25 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Cannabinoids, the active components in marijuana, are used to reduce the side effects of cancer treatment, such as pain, weight loss, and vomiting, but there is increasing evidence that they may also inhibit tumor cell growth. However, the cellular mechanisms behind this are unknown.

Robert Ramer, Ph.D., and Burkhard Hinz, Ph.D., of the University of Rostock in Germany investigated whether and by what mechanism cannabinoids inhibit tumor cell invasion. Cannabinoids did suppress tumor cell invasion and stimulated the expression of TIMP-1, an inhibitor of a group of enzymes that are involved in tumor cell invasion.

"To our knowledge, this is the first report of TIMP-1-dependent anti-invasive effects of cannabinoids. This signaling pathway may play an important role in the antimetastatic action of cannabinoids, whose potential therapeutic benefit in the treatment of highly invasive cancers should be addressed in clinical trials," the authors write.

Source




The evils of caffeine!

A few years ago, we ordered a fine saltwater fishing reel from a fine specialty sporting goods purveyor in California. It arrived in fine condition, in a fine box listing attributes that would turn the angler into a fisherperson of superhuman ability. The box, however, was marred by a hideous, scary sticker warning that the product therein contained, by the findings of the most oppressive nanny state in the history of the world (the aforementioned California), could cause cancer to ourselves, our loved ones and our unborn, yea unto generations. A fishing reel? Well, no, not the reel itself, but the oil the manufacturer had diligently but sparingly applied so as to improve the efficiency of precision machined parts and bearings.

That warning, and literally millions of others like it, resulted from California's Proposition 65, a 1986 initiative authored by the infamous Tom Hayden that has turned California into the warning label capital of the world, worrying more about driplets of this and droplets of that than mudslides, fires and earthquakes that really do pose consequential dangers to Californians in their lifetimes. Now it's caffeine in the Prop 65 crosshairs. On December 10, California's "Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee" (we kid you not as to the name) voted 4 to 3 to add caffeine to a new list for review, which will take about a year, and possible inclusion on the Prop 65 warning list.

Well, what could be wrong with that, health-conscious citizens will undoubtedly ask. Let's start with the fact, largely and conveniently ignored by most nannies including those with advanced degrees, that the very foundation of toxicology (first enunciated by Paracelsus, the father of toxicology) is "the dose makes the poison." That applies to every substance, natural or man-made, which humans ingest or to which we are exposed. Water and arsenic will both kill you dead, but neither in the "doses" to which most humans are exposed.

Caffeine has been studied as many times as almost all other potentially dangerous substances and found to pose no risks (and provide some benefits) when used in moderation. That means it is probably not conscientious to buy a Starbucks card for an infant, but for most of us, we are not "dosing" to any deleterious level, and "at-risk" individuals would be much better advised to consult physicians rather than the state of California. The real kicker, typically Californian, is that if caffeine is added to the Prop 65 warning list, the warnings will not apply to coffee or tea, of which caffeine is a natural component, from which most caffeine is consumed, but only to prepared drinks in which caffeine is part of the formula. That makes sense in no known scientific or health context, but only in the context of political correctness so out of control that it, in and of itself, is a danger.

Not to be outdone by the state, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom intends to try to tax sales of soft drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (one of the latest demons being mined by junk science proponents). The stated rationale is the rate of childhood obesity in San Francisco. The tax will not, however, be applied to all sales of such beverages across the board, but only to "big box retailers," something only a moral titan like Newsom could dream up.

It's for the kids, but how many kids do you know who go running into Sam's Club or Costco after school for their soda, considering that the smallest unit sold by the big boxers is a week's supply for a family of eight. The corner store, with infinitely more individual sales more frequently directly to the so-called population at risk, skates on the tax.

Punitive, discriminatory and self-defeating hypocrisy, with big tax bucks the only objective? Absolutely. It's also just politics as usual for a new breed of politicians so cynical as to not even bother to make their stories plausible. But all that is to be expected. The sheeple (great word, author unknown) of California, San Francisco or anywhere else who roll over for this nonsense are the ones who really need to take a look in the mirror.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



30 December, 2007

Why I've no appetite for the Fife Diet

A 'small, grassroots movement' has sprung up in Scotland based on eating only food produced nearby. Local boy James Panton is appalled.



Burntisland is a picturesque town on the banks of the River Forth in east Scotland. It is home to the Fife Diet, the latest eco-trend, in which people are attempting to minimize their `carbon footprint' by living only on food that has been grown or produced in Fife. I grew up in Burntisland and lived for the first few years of my life on an enforced `Fife diet' - and I find the idea of eating nothing but local produce appalling.

The Fife diet, at least the one I vaguely remember from childhood, seemed to consist of an awful lot of mince with neeps and tatties (turnip and potatoes), stovies (bacon or corned beef with potatoes and onions) and stews (made of god-knows-what, but there were definitely potatoes involved). My mother was an immigrant from Nottingham in the English midlands, so she knew of culinary possibilities that existed beyond the Firth of Forth and she worked hard to educate my dad's rather conservative tastebuds.

Once a week, she would slip in a spaghetti bolognese, which Dad approved of as sufficiently mince-based, although to this day he cuts up his spaghetti with a knife and fork and is suspicious of parmesan. One of my sisters was a dab hand at quiche lorraine (or egg and bacon flan with exotic aspirations). A couple of times a year we had food from the Chinese takeaway on the High Street. Traditional Scottish egg foo yung, which I remember bearing remarkable similarities to scrambled egg with peas and onions, was a favourite. I know for a fact that we had a fondue set, but it was never used in front of the children.

I suspect that my early childhood diet wasn't that different to many people with my kind of Scottish small-ish town background in the late Seventies and early Eighties. We weren't particularly conservative, but the menu was pretty traditional, based on ingredients that had been used for decades and cooked in the same old ways. More interesting ingredients and ways of cooking were available: Edinburgh was just over 30 minutes away on the train and it was home to fruit and veg shops selling exotica of all shapes and sizes; there were Italian delicatessens with cheeses that came in a wider range than `red cheese' and `yellow cheese', and there were general stores that smelt of Indian spices and even Chinese supermarkets if you knew where to look. The foods from such specialist shops weren't part of my daily diet, though - they were expensive treats and curiosities, not daily staples, and they weren't generally available down in our local Co-op store.

Since I left Burntisland and moved to London at the age of 18, my daily diet has changed beyond all recognition. But what is remarkable is that so too has the daily diet of my parents and my older brothers and sisters who still live in or around Burntisland. Things that were once exotic are now commonplace in the supermarket and even at the Co-op: shipped and flown from around the world in bulk, they are available at a price that makes them affordable as everyday grub.

So there is something depressing about the news that Burntisland is now home to what the Guardian has called a `small grassroots movement' (1) (note the radical twang) that thinks the way to make the world a better place is to eat only foods that have been grown in the region of Fife. Inspired by the Vancouver-based 100 Mile Diet (2), in which participants attempted to survive on food produced within 100 miles of their homes, the Fife Diet draws its ingredients from an even smaller area of land. The diet is premised on the notion that reducing the number of `food miles' (the miles travelled by the food we eat between production and consumption) is one of the most important contributions individuals can make to saving the planet.

Mike Small, the inspiration behind the diet, claims that this is `not a back-to-nature movement rejecting the twenty-first century. It is a flexible, consciousness-raising exercise to show what realistic changes individuals can make'. He is surely right - the Fife Diet is a product of a peculiarly twenty-first century form of moralistic miserliness where the future of the planet is understood to be dependent upon the consumption choices made by individual families. The more they can reject the advances of food production and transportation that the late twentieth century brought to small towns like Burntisland the better.

The Fife Diet is celebrated as a way of bringing local communities together and supporting local producers and their products against `the ecological insanity of transporting food around the world' (3). Implicit in this is a politically correct kind of economic protectionism which seeks to celebrate everything local in opposition to producers from other parts of the world. Although I'm a fan of Burntisland, and I have many friends in Fife, I'm not convinced that its small farmers are any more deserving than the rather more efficient producers in many other parts of the world.

According to the diet's website `It's no good just saying no. We can't just oppose Tesco, rage against food miles and rant against food-packaging. In all aspects of socio-ecology we need to build alternative platforms and movements from within the shell of the old decaying society' (4). Unlike the 19 families who have so far signed up to the Fife Diet, I'm not at all convinced that having a diet so exotic as to include such luxuries as salt and pepper, tea and coffee and even the occasional glass of wine - all of which are ruled out in the Fife Diet in an attempt to curb climate change - is an expression of social decay. On the contrary, these foodstuffs were even part of the rather limited diet of my family when I was a young child.

And I am certainly not convinced that Tesco and other supermarket chains are the source of social decay. In fact, they are the means by which everyone from London to Burntisland can get hold of cheaply produced and distributed food from around the world - and all a damned sight more interesting than the neeps and tatties of my youth. The Fife Diet may be regarded as radical by those with low horizons, but attempting to solve the world's problems by retreating to the local shows that such campaigners are starved of imagination.

Source




In praise of McDonald's

To gauge this pell-mell nation's velocity, visit here with Jim Skinner, chief executive officer of a company on pace to have a net income for 2007 of $3.46 billion, up 12.7 percent, on revenues of almost $23 billion. The evolution of McDonald's mirrors that of the nation in which it serves 27 million customers a day.

Americans commonly say this or that distinction is "as clear as night and day." Americans, ricocheting around the country around the clock, are erasing the distinction between night and day. Breakfast, the meal most apt to be eaten at home, now accounts for more than 25 percent of U.S. business for McDonald's. More than 90 percent of its restaurants have extended hours - beyond the regular 6 a.m. through 10 p.m. - and about 35 percent are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, up from less than 10 percent just five years ago.

America is in the third era since its meals began to mirror its mobility. First came the Steak 'n Shake Era. That restaurant chain began downstate in 1934, in the perfectly named town of Normal, Ill., as Americans were getting used to eating out. They were leery of food that came from a kitchen they could not see, so Steak 'n Shake put its grills behind glass in full view and adopted the slogan "In sight it must be right."

In 1955, when Ray Kroc launched the McDonald's Era, Americans were doing what Dinah Shore urged them to do, seeing the U.S.A. in their Chevrolets, seeking novel experiences - but not in food. When they got out of their cars for nourishment, they wanted no surprises. Hence the rise of franchising - the same food here, there and, eventually, everywhere.

Now we are in the Snack Wrap Era. Last year McDonald's started selling chicken and other stuff wrapped in tortillas. This product was a response to consumer appetites for something to eat between meals and with one hand on the steering wheel. More and more Americans do not want to get out of their cars: Most of America's McDonald's have drive-through windows, and most of these restaurants sell most of their food through those windows.

McDonald's exemplifies the role of small businesses in Americans' upward mobility. The company is largely a confederation of small businesses: 85 percent of its U.S. restaurants - average annual sales, $2.2 million - are owned by franchisees. McDonald's has made more millionaires, and especially black and Hispanic millionaires, than any other economic entity ever, anywhere.

McDonald's has 14,000 restaurants in America, another 17,000 in 117 other countries. The company will add another 1,000 in 2008, more than 90 percent of them abroad. Such is the power of the McDonald's brand, 48 percent of the people of India were aware of McDonald's before it opened its first restaurant on the subcontinent.

Skinner's job is to maximize shareholder value. Shareholders should be pleased. The value of their stock has more than doubled during his three-year tenure. McDonald's stock will have either the best or second-best (if second, only to Merck & Co.) gain among the Dow industrials this year.

The food fascists are not pleased. Pursing their lips and waxing censorious at the mere mention of McDonald's, they blame it for fat people. But although it might seem peculiar to cite McDonald's customers as evidence of Americans' increasing health consciousness, consider this: Red meat has become suspect and McDonald's now sells as much chicken as beef - 150 percent more chicken in dollar volume than just five years ago.

Do the arithmetic, says Skinner. Americans eat 90 meals a month. The average American, who has 900,000 restaurants to choose from, eats three of those meals at McDonald's. Surely the other 87 meals are more of a problem. Even McDonald's core customers, who eat there 50 times a year, consume more than 1,000 meals elsewhere.

Although its core products remain hamburgers, fries and milkshakes, it sells a lot of salads to the 52 million customers it has every day worldwide. Kroc, who died in 1984, once said he did not know what his company would be selling in 2000 but he knew it would be selling more of it than anyone else. He was right.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



29 December, 2007

Black breast cancer is different

Those pesky genes again

African-American women diagnosed with breast cancer in their mid-30s or younger appear to be more likely than most other women to have a genetic predisposition for the disease, new research suggests. The study, published today in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is one of the first to examine the prevalence of mutations in the tumor suppressor gene BRCA1 by ethnic group in breast cancer patients with and without a family history of breast cancer. According to one estimate, nearly two out of three women who have the BRCA1 mutations are likely to develop breast cancer by age 70.

While African-American women as a group had a lower prevalence of BRCA1 mutations than most white and Hispanic women in the study, African-American women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 35 were roughly twice as likely to carry the mutations. If confirmed in larger studies, this finding could help explain why African-Americans tend to develop more aggressive and deadly breast cancers than other racial groups, says researcher Esther M. John, PhD, of the Northern California Cancer Center. "For whatever reason, African-American women are less likely to be tested [for BRCA mutations] than white women," John tells WebMD. "One message to clinicians might be that they should probably be tested more often."

The study included female breast cancer patients -- younger than age 65 at diagnosis -- enrolled in a California breast cancer registry between 1996 and 2005. Researchers confirmed a high prevalence of BRCA1 mutations among women of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, with 8.3% of these patients carrying the mutations compared to 3.5% of Hispanic women, 2.2% of non-Hispanic white women, 1.3% of African-American women, and 0.5% of Asian-American women.

Not surprisingly, BRCA1 mutations were more common in women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer and less common in breast cancer patients diagnosed later in life. Roughly 17% of African-American patients diagnosed with breast cancer prior to age 35 carried a BRCA1 mutation, compared to 8.9% of Hispanic patients, 7.2% of non-white Hispanics without Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, and 2.4% of Asian-American patients.

Larger studies are needed to confirm the findings, John says, because of the small number of young breast cancer patients enrolled in the study. Just 30 of the 341 African-American study participants were younger than 35, and five of them tested positive for BRCA1 mutations. John and colleagues conclude that a better understanding of the expression of BRCA mutations among different racial and ethnic groups will help doctors better identify women who should be screened.

In an accompanying editorial, Dezheng Huo, MD, PhD, and Olufunmilayo Olopade, MD, of the University of Chicago call the study by John and colleagues "a good starting point for narrowing the knowledge gap in characterizing the BRCA1 gene." Olopade tells WebMD that minority and other medically underserved women undergo genetic testing for BRCA mutations at a much lower rate than white women. She and Huo write that it is important "to design and evaluate interventions for improving genetic testing uptake in underserved populations, so that genetic testing can achieve full potential as a tool for effective cancer control and prevention."

Source




A bad year to be fat in Britain

The year kicked off with the news that an overweight boy from North Tyneside could be taken from his mother by child protection officials. Her apparent crime: overfeeding her son. He was allowed to stay at home, but in the months to come various investigations - including one by the BBC - would uncover that obesity had been a factor in perhaps as many as two dozen child protection cases.

Some professionals said allowing a child to become obese had to be viewed as a form of neglect, given the potential health consequences. Others believed that to treat childhood obesity as a parental crime was foraying into unchartered - and potentially rather sinister - territory.

Other obesity-related headlines rolled in thick and fast. From fire chiefs considering charging to move large people from their homes to government equating obesity with climate change, fatness was never far away. "When we first started talking about obesity as a problem, it was very hard to be heard," says Dr Ian Campbell, medical director of the charity Weight Concern. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way - we hear nothing but. And the net result is that the kind of moralising the obese and overweight have always suffered has somehow become institutionalised."

One of the recent developments that particularly concerns the National Obesity Forum (NOF) is the move towards what has been described as "rationing" healthcare for the obese. According to one tally, there are at least eight NHS trusts which have introduced some form of restriction for non-urgent operations on the overweight. Such measures, which range from patients having to prove they have tried to lose weight to straightforward refusal to refer those above a certain BMI (body mass index), received something of an endorsement from then health secretary Patricia Hewitt earlier this year.

The fact is, doctors say, there are sound clinical reasons to delay treatment until patients lose weight. The operation is likely to be more successful, the recovery time shorter. But Dr Colin Waine, NOF chairman, believes that the obese are simply being used by hospitals as a convenient way to cut down on expenditure. "This is really about resources. You can't argue that denying a hip-and-knee operation to an obese person is in their interests, as it may well be the inability to walk about and exercise which is making their problems worse."

Recently the British Fertility Society has joined in, arguing that the obese should be barred from IVF as extra weight put the health and welfare of both mother and baby at risk. This, Dr Waine claims, is "discriminatory".

And the constant debate about the problems fat people pose can get very tiresome for those on the receiving end. "There's always been prejudice," says Vicki Swinden, founder of Fat Is The New Black. "But what's changed is that this now seems to be totally acceptable. It's perfectly legitimate now for a person standing in an airline queue to say: 'I'm not sitting next to that person, they're too fat.'" Fat Is The New Black argues that being fat does not necessarily mean you are not fit, or prone to ill health, and indeed this stance has been backed up by several studies. Most recently, a major US investigation found the overweight had no higher risk of dying of cancer or heart disease and overall lived longer than those of a "normal" weight.

Yet no-one seriously contends that obesity is not a problem - even if there is debate as to how great a risk it poses. But there is suggestion that perhaps we are harping on too much about it. "It's got to a stage now where it's actually hard to get any useful messages across because people have heard so much, often contradictory, information, that they just think: obesity blah blah blah," says Mrs Swinden.

The Health Secretary Alan Johnson recently said obesity was a problem "on the scale of climate change". Increasingly there are fears that we hear so much about the doom and gloom of global warming that we have started to switch off. "We don't want this to happen with obesity. We know what the problem is. We don't need more reports, more studies, more talking," says Dr Waine. "We just need to get with it now: the government, the food industry, the community and the individual - we need to get cracking."

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



28 December, 2007

Seven health myths revealed

Reading in dim light won't damage your eyes, you don't need eight glasses of water a day to stay healthy and shaving your legs won't make the hair grow back faster. These well-worn theories are among seven "medical myths" exposed in a paper published Friday in the British Medical Journal, which traditionally carries light-hearted features in its Christmas edition. Two US researchers took seven common beliefs and searched the archives for evidence to support them.

Despite frequent mentions in the popular press of the need to drink eight glasses of water, they found no scientific basis for the claim. The complete lack of evidence has been recorded in a study published the American Journal of Psychology, they said. The other six "myths" are:

* Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight. The majority of eye experts believe it is unlikely to do any permanent damage, but it may make you squint, blink more and have trouble focusing, the researchers said.

* Shaving makes hair grow back faster or coarser. It has no effect on the thickness or rate of hair regrowth, studies say. But stubble lacks the finer taper of unshaven hair, giving the impression of coarseness.

* Eating turkey makes you drowsy. It does contain an amino acid called tryptophan that is involved in sleep and mood control. But turkey has no more of the acid than chicken or minced beef. Eating lots of food and drink at Christmas is probably the real cause of sleepiness.

* We use only 10 per cent of our brains. This myth arose as early as 1907 but imaging shows no area of the brain is silent or completely inactive.

* Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death. This idea may stem from ghoulish novels. The researchers said the skin dries out and retracts after death, giving the appearance of longer hair or nails.

* Mobile phones are dangerous in hospitals. Despite widespread concerns, studies have found minimal interference with medical equipment.

The research was conducted by Aaron Carroll, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, and Rachel Vreeman, fellow in children's health services research at Indiana University School of Medicine.

Source




The chocolate merry-go-round

Good for you, bad for you, good for you ....

For those of you tucking into dark chocolate this Christmas using the excuse it is good for you, think again. A top medical journal said any health claims about plain chocolate may be misleading. Plain chocolate is naturally rich in flavanols, plant chemicals that are believed to protect the heart. But an editorial in the Lancet points out that many manufacturers remove flavanols because of their bitter taste. Instead, many products may just be abundant in fat and sugar - both of which are harmful to the heart and arteries, the journal reported.

Previous studies have suggested that plain chocolate can help protect the heart, lower blood pressure and aid tiredness. But the Lancet said: "Dark chocolate can be deceptive. "When chocolate manufacturers make confectionery, the natural cocoa solids can be darkened and the flavanols, which are bitter, removed, so even a dark-looking chocolate can have no flavanol. "Consumers are also kept in the dark about the flavanol content of chocolate because manufacturers rarely label their products with this information."

And the journal also pointed out that even with flavanols present, chocolate-lovers should be mindful of the other contents. "The devil in the dark chocolate is the fat, sugar and calories it also contains. "To gain any health benefit, those who eat a moderate amount of flavanol-rich dark chocolate will have to balance the calories by reducing their intake of other foods - a tricky job for even the most ardent calorie counter.

"So, with the holiday season upon us, it might be worth getting familiar with the calories in a bar of dark chocolate versus a mince pie and having a calculator at hand."

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



27 December, 2007

Beauty and intelligence are linked. Both reflect general biological fitness

One of the most detailed studies on the link between beauty and intelligence was done by Mark Prokosch, Ronald Yeo and Geoffrey Miller, who also work at the University of New Mexico. These three researchers correlated people's bodily symmetry with their performance on intelligence tests. Such tests come in many varieties, of course, and have a controversial background. But most workers in the field agree that there is a quality, normally referred to as "general intelligence", or "g", that such tests can measure objectively along with specific abilities in such areas as spatial awareness and language. Dr Miller and his colleagues found that the more a test was designed to measure g, the more the results were correlated with bodily symmetry-particularly in the bottom half of the beauty-ugliness spectrum.

Faces, too, seem to carry information on intelligence. A few years ago, two of the world's face experts, Leslie Zebrowitz, of Brandeis University in Massachusetts, and Gillian Rhodes, of the University of Western Australia, got together to review the literature and conduct some fresh experiments. They found nine past studies (seven of them conducted before the second world war, an indication of how old interest in this subject is), and subjected them to what is known as a meta-analysis.

The studies in question had all used more or less the same methodology, namely photograph people and ask them to do IQ tests, then show the photographs to other people and ask the second lot to rank the intelligence of the first lot. The results suggested that people get such judgments right-by no means all the time, but often enough to be significant. The two researchers and their colleagues then carried out their own experiment, with the added twist of dividing their subjects up by age.

The results of that were rather surprising. They found that the faces of children and adults of middling years did seem to give away intelligence, while those of teenagers and the elderly did not. That is surprising because face-reading of this sort must surely be important in mate selection, and the teenage years are the time when such selection is likely to be at its most intense-though, conversely, they are also the time when evolution will be working hardest to cover up any deficiencies, and the hormone-driven changes taking place during puberty might provide the material needed to do that. Nevertheless, the accumulating evidence suggests that physical characteristics do give clues about intelligence, that such clues are picked up by other people, and that these clues are also associated with beauty. And other work also suggests that this really does matter.

One of the leading students of beauty and success is Daniel Hamermesh of the University of Texas. Dr Hamermesh is an economist rather than a biologist, and thus brings a somewhat different perspective to the field. He has collected evidence from more than one continent that beauty really is associated with success-at least, with financial success. He has also shown that, if all else is equal, it might be a perfectly legitimate business strategy to hire the more beautiful candidate.

Just over a decade ago Dr Hamermesh presided over a series of surveys in the United States and Canada which showed that when all other things are taken into account, ugly people earn less than average incomes, while beautiful people earn more than the average. The ugliness "penalty" for men was -9% while the beauty premium was +5%. For women, perhaps surprisingly considering popular prejudices about the sexes, the effect was less: the ugliness penalty was -6% while the beauty premium was +4%.

The difference also applies within professions. Dr Hamermesh looked at the careers of members of a particular (though discreetly anonymous) American law school. He found that those rated attractive on the basis of their graduation photographs went on to earn higher salaries than their less well-favoured colleagues. Moreover, lawyers in private practice tended to be better looking than those working in government departments. [Heh!]

More here




New hope from Britain in battle against Clostridium difficile

A vaccine that operates on the same principle as the jab for diphtheria and tetanus could be used to stamp out cases of the virulent hospital superbug Clostridium difficile, researchers say. Scientists will start recruiting patients next year for clinical trials of the vaccine, which has the potential to prevent thousands of deaths in British hospitals each year.

The vaccine, given to healthy patients last year to check its safety, works by using a small quantity of formaldehyde to neutralise toxins emitted by the bacteria. In laboratory trials and tests on at least three patients with chronic C. difficile infections, it rendered these toxins harmless, helping the immune system to fight off illness naturally. A jab against C. difficilecould be provided to at-risk groups within eight years, the researchers suggest.

C. difficile is the most common form of hospital-acquired infection and diarrhoea in the Western world. It contributed to the deaths of nearly 4,000 people last year. Cases of the superbug, which is harder to control than MRSA, increased by 8 per cent last year compared with 2005.

Acambis, the company developing the vaccine, said that it was negotiating with the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency on whether British patients could take part in the next stage of the trials. The company, based in Cambridge, East Anglia, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, said that it had identified a number of vaccine formulations and planned to begin the second phase of trials towards the end of next year.

The bacterium occurs naturally in the intestines of 3 per cent of healthy adults and two thirds of infants, where it rarely causes problems. However, it can cause illness - from mild to severe diarrhoea, or in some cases severe inflammation of the bowel - when its growth is unchecked. Treatment with antibiotics can disturb the balance of "normal" bacteria in the gut, allowing C. difficile to thrive.

Michael Watson, the executive vice-president for research and development at Acambis, said: "Formaldehyde may be best known as the pickling ingredient for Damien Hirst's shark, but it's also a key ingredient in vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough. "In a typical C. difficile infection the toxins break apart and irritate the lining of the bowel. Our vaccine is designed to prevent this and render the toxins harmless, so they can be destroyed by the immune system."

Most people can recover from an infection naturally but patients whose immune reaction is weakened by age or illness have trouble fighting off the bug. Infections can be treated with antibiotics but an estimated 20-30 per cent of patients suffer a relapse.

The vaccine could provide a longer-term solution to the problem, and counter the emergence of drug-resistant strains, Dr Watson said. "We estimate that between 2010 and 2015, patients could start seeing the benefits," he added. The NHS is also using technology invented to protect Britain against biological weapons to fight superbugs. Air disinfection units, which kill up to 98.5 per cent of germs in the air, including drug-resistant strains of C. difficile, E. coli and MRSA, have been approved for use in hospitals after tests at Porton Down, the Government's bio-warfare research centre in Wiltshire.

Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells hospitals trust in Kent, where at least 90 patients died as a result of C. difficile infections, will be the first to use the technology.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



26 December, 2007

DOING NOTHING REDUCES YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE SLIGHTLY

Not exactly a great surprise but that seems to be the conclusion below. Popular summary followed by journal abstract

MEDITATION may not only relax the mind, it could also reduce high blood pressure. In Current Hypertension Reports this week, researchers have combined the results of 23 published studies on stress reduction programs and high blood pressure. In each of the studies, participants were randomly assigned to either a stress reduction technique or placebo-type control for at least eight weeks. The transcendental meditation technique, which involves sitting comfortably with your eyes closed for 15 to 20 minutes twice a day, significantly reduced high blood pressure. This effect was not seen with any of the other forms of relaxation tested, including other types of meditation and stress management. On average, transcendental meditation reduced systolic blood pressure (the peak pressure in the arteries, reported first in a blood pressure reading) by 5.0 points and diastolic blood pressure (the lowest pressure in the arteries, reported second) by 2.8 points compared to no treatment. This form of meditation could be used alongside prescribed medications to lower blood pressure, say the authors.

Source

Stress Reduction Programs in Patients with Elevated Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

By Maxwell V. Rainforth et al.

Substantial evidence indicates that psychosocial stress contributes to hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Previous meta-analyses of stress reduction and high blood pressure (BP) were outdated and/or methodologically limited. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review of the published literature and identified 107 studies on stress reduction and BP. Seventeen trials with 23 treatment comparisons and 960 participants with elevated BP met criteria for well-designed randomized controlled trials and were replicated within intervention categories. Meta-analysis was used to calculate BP changes for biofeedback, -0.8/-2.0 mm Hg (P = NS); relaxation-assisted biofeedback, +4.3/+2.4 mm Hg (P = NS); progressive muscle relaxation, -1.9/-1.4 mm Hg (P = NS); stress management training, -2.3/-1.3 mm (P = NS); and the Transcendental Meditation program, -5.0/-2.8 mm Hg (P = 0.002/0.02). Available evidence indicates that among stress reduction approaches, the Transcendental Meditation program is associated with significant reductions in BP. Related data suggest improvements in other CVD risk factors and clinical outcomes.

Current Hypertension Reports 2007, 9:520-528




IGNORING THE OBVIOUS

If you had a close relative who had Parkinsons (the shakes), wouldn't it tend to make you depressed and anxious? If I had such a relative the fear of getting it myself would certainly freak me. But the geniuses below cannot apparently see that. They think there is some biological connection between Parkinsons and depression. Note also that there seems to have been no controls for observer bias. Raters should have been given histories of both relatives and non-relatives without being told which was which

Increased Risk of Depressive and Anxiety Disorders in Relatives of Patients With Parkinson Disease

By Gennarina Arabia et al.

Context: Relatives of patients with Parkinson disease (PD) have an increased risk of PD and other neurologic disorders; however, their risk of psychiatric disorders remains uncertain.

Objective: To study the risk of depressive disorders and anxiety disorders among first-degree relatives of patients with PD compared with first-degree relatives of controls.

Design, Setting, and Participants: In a population-based, historical cohort study, we included 1000 first-degree relatives of 162 patients with PD and 850 first-degree relatives of 147 controls. Both patients with PD and controls were representative of the population of Olmsted County, Minnesota.

Main Outcome Measures: Documentation of psychiatric disorders was obtained for each relative separately through a combination of telephone interviews with the relatives (or their proxies) and review of their medical records from a records-linkage system (family study method). Psychiatric disorders were defined using clinical criteria from the DSM-IV or routine diagnoses.

Results: We found an increased risk of several psychiatric disorders in first-degree relatives of patients with PD compared with first-degree relatives of controls (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.95; P <.001). In particular, we found an increased risk of depressive disorders (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.89; P = .006) and anxiety disorders (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.05-2.28; P = .03). The results were consistent in analyses that adjusted for type of interview, excluded relatives who developed parkinsonism, or excluded relatives who developed both a depressive disorder and an anxiety disorder.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that depressive disorders and anxiety disorders may share familial susceptibility factors with PD.

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(12):1385-1392

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

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



25 December, 2007

MORE ON "EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE"

Following is an email I received from a specialist anesthetist

EBM has become a "buzzword" of the Health Care Administration, with several "agendas":

1. Somehow bureaucrats are playing "catch up", like THEY invented EBM to "purify" those dumb doctors. Much is a ploy to save money - somewhat like Leftists NEVER being satisfied with Bush's performance in war and economics, there is NEVER enough medical evidence to "prove beyond a doubt" that some treatment is valid. This saves money for the insurance company. Since NO therapy can be "absolutely proven", insurers LOVE EBM.

2. There is ANOTHER agenda - to take decision making away from the physician by publishing "guidelines" that any aide or nurse can perform - by reading the manual. This locks doctors out of the loop.

3. Much of this EBM in recent years comes from primary care - presented as NEW because it is NEW TO THEM. For many years, they have practiced based on "my experience", more often flawed than EBM. They think that application of science to medicine is something new.

In truth, anesthesiologists have known about this stuff for generations. It was an anesthesiologist (Virginia Apgar) who developed a scoring system for evaluation of newborns in the 50.s. This numerical score was the FIRST score for such, which in the past was simply descriptive. Since the 1930's, science has been a core value of anesthesiologists. We laugh at such arrogance among the primary care and health care bureaucracies.




IS TESTOSTERONE A FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH?

The study below showed that giving testosterone patches to old guys with low testosterone levels produced slimmer tummies and more muscle. What the inevitable downside might be is not yet known. Shorter lifespan is a possibility. And whether it helps normal men of that or other ages is not shown

Testosterone Therapy Prevents Gain in Visceral Adipose Tissue and Loss of Skeletal Muscle in Non-obese Aging Men

By C. A. Allan et al.

Background: Trials of testosterone therapy in aging men have demonstrated increases in fat free mass and skeletal muscle, and decreases in fat mass, but have not reported the impact of baseline body composition.

Objective: To determine the effect, in non-obese aging men with symptoms of androgen deficiency and low-normal serum testosterone levels, of testosterone therapy on total and regional body composition, and hormonal and metabolic indices.

Methods: 60 healthy but symptomatic, non-obese men aged ~ 55 years with TT levels <15nM were randomized to transdermal testosterone patches or placebo for 12 months. Body composition, by DEXA (fat mass, fat free mass, skeletal muscle) and MRI (abdominal subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue, thigh skeletal muscle and intermuscular fat) and hormonal and metabolic parameters were measured at Weeks 0 and 52.

Results: Serum TT increased by 30% (P=0.01) LH decreased by 50% (P<0.001). Relative to placebo, total body fat free mass (P=0.03) and skeletal muscle (P=0.008) were increased and thigh skeletal muscle loss was prevented (P=0.045) with testosterone therapy while visceral fat accumulation decreased (P=0.001) without change in total body or abdominal subcutaneous fat mass; change in visceral fat was correlated with change in TT levels (r2=0.36; P=0.014). There was a trend to increasing total and LDL cholesterol with placebo.

Conclusion: Testosterone therapy, relative to placebo, selectively lessened visceral fat accumulation without change in total body fat mass, and increased total body fat free mass and total body and thigh skeletal muscle mass. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of these body compositional changes on markers of metabolic and cardiovascular risk.

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, October 16, 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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



24 December, 2007

Patients beating the regulators

Lots of people die while regulators take years to evaluate new treatments so it is good that there is a loophole for those who are prepared to take a risk

Australians with type 2 diabetes are signing up for a costly, unproven stem cell "cure" at a South American clinic. The San Nicolas Clinic says 89per cent of its patients are insulin and medication-free 90 days after being injected with their own stem cells. The treatment costs $US16,000. Some patients who have undergone the same stem-cell therapy for heart disease - which is illegal in all Western countries - say it has given them "a new lease on life". But the world's leading stem-cell scientists warn that patients desperate for a miracle cure are putting themselves at grave risk by undergoing a treatment yet to be fully tested in humans.

The San Nicolas Clinic is bank-rolled by a US energy corporation and is part of the International Clinics of Regenerative Medicine. ICORM director Mike Bartlett said more than 300 patients had been successfully treated for heart disease, diabetes, emphysema and Parkinson's disease at its hospitals in South America and Asia. Mr Bartlett spent last week in Sydney meeting diabetes specialists and cardiologists to encourage them to refer their end-stage patients. To date, 31 Australians with type2 diabetes and seven with heart disease had indicated a wish to travel to Argentina as soon as possible, and a further 208 had made inquiries, he said.

Dr Ross Walker, a Sydney Adventist Hospital cardiologist and author of the bestselling book The Cell Factor, said he would travel to the San Nicolas Clinic early next year to assess the claims for himself. "I believe it is the next big thing in medicine but I want to see solid scientific evidence that it doesn't do any harm before recommending it for the wider population," he said.

Under the patented process, 250millilitres of a patient's blood is manipulated to yield millions of therapeutic stem cells. The cells are then injected into the diseased organ or tissue. Patients are usually sent home within two days. Numerous patients have testified to the "miraculous" effects of the treatment, which uses adult stem cells, not the more ethically-questionable embryonic stem cells. Keith Fanning said the $70,000 he spent flying his dying father, Mick, 75, to Bangkok for stem-cell therapy was "the best $70,000 I ever spent". Oxygen-dependent and barely able to walk before the procedure in July, Mr Fanning's ejection fraction (EF) - the measurement of the capacity at which the heart is pumping - increased so much that he can now breathe, talk and eat on his own. His insulin dependency is also down and his violent shaking from Parkinson's has virtually disappeared. "I'm the ultimate sceptic and it's the closest thing I've seen to a miracle," he said from his Queensland home.

In October, Lynley White, from Melbourne, spent $45,000 to have 30 stem-cell injections in her heart after traditional drug therapy failed to improve her cardiomyopathy. "My doctors laughed at me and said I had rocks in my head but so far so good. I'm feeling more and more energetic," she said. At 62, she was unlikely to receive the heart transplant she needed to keep going. Of the 120 people who have tried the treatment at Bangkok Heart Hospital, four have died. But Mrs White said her only fear was she would not survive the anaesthetic. "My ejection fraction was getting lower and lower - it got down to 12 when it should be 55 plus - and I thought 'I've got to help myself'," she said. Immediately after treatment her EF rating was up by 64 per cent.

Dr Teija Peura, director of human embryonic stem cell laboratories at the Australian Stem Cell Centre, said: "It's understandable that patients who are desperate can't wait for treatment to go through the approval process but it's dangerous because these countries are giving treatment which they don't know how or why [it] works." The International Society for Stem Cell Research said the only stem cell-based therapy with clearly proven efficacy was bone marrow transplantation for blood disorders and leukaemia.

Source




The British scene: Don't drink if you want to be merry

With undercover cops spying on pub staff, and everyone else conforming to official wisdom on 'binge-drinking', Xmas boozing might be a rather flat affair.

When you're sipping a festive pint in your cosy local this Christmas, beware the figure lurking behind you, strangely interested in your trips to the bar. In Blackpool, England, recently, police piloted a scheme where undercover officers spied on patrons and bar staff. The underwhelming result of this dragnet was that two bar staff were fined for serving drunk customers. Now it looks like this scheme could be heading to a boozer near you (1). But it's not just the forces of law and order watching our behaviour that we should be concerned about - it's the little puritan voice inside our heads, as scripted by health campaigners and moral guardians.

The plainclothes surveillance scheme in Blackpool is one of a recent barrage of initiatives and commentary aimed at Britain's apparently frenzied and deadly alcohol consumption. The campaign on drink driving isn't just for Christmas anymore, it's for life. Other government-funded adverts remind us that while we may feel superhuman after a drink or two, that's precisely when we're more likely to have an accident. Then there's the constant advice to count the number of units you consume (as if you could count after a session).

The media draw daily on Dantesque visions of our streets as `the playgrounds of puking post-adolescents' (2) where `weekend droves pile into chain pubs and the police have been known to set up mobile holding rooms' (3). While `confessions of a middle-class binge drinker' columns sniggered at recent panics about `respectable' home drinking, the drive for behaviour modification has continued apace. Even the homely Campaign for Real Ale (Camra) now defines pubs as `the proper place to enjoy a drink in a responsible and regulated atmosphere' (4).

The attack on our drinking habits is part of a wider process in which the political class and lifestyle authoritarians, lacking any grander vision of the world, turn the banal facts of existence - like the things we consume for sustenance and pleasure - into morally charged issues because they have little to offer us in any other sphere. And whether they are haranguing us about public behaviour or private habits, the space they really want to colonise is inside our heads: our guilty consciences.

This potent cocktail of conformity is two parts misanthropy to one part health neurosis. When we swallow this mix - apologising for that next glass, fretting about another cigarette or worrying about the letch at the Christmas party - we are doing the puritans' work for them. As Dolan Cummings argued in a recent essay, when smokers say they welcome the ban on public smoking because it will help them quit, they `express a peculiar sort of resolution: one which they claim to be incapable of exercising without external compulsion. By banning smoking in pubs, we collectively save ourselves from temptation.' (5)

An Australian business venture provides a startling illustration of this increasing rejection of personal responsibility. In 2004, Virgin Mobile responded to an apparent Aussie epidemic of embarrassing drunken calls to exes and colleagues. Their service allowed customers, before drinking, to dial `333' followed by the number they wanted to avoid `drunk dialling'. For 25 cents, attempts to phone blacklisted numbers initiate a message: `This call cannot be connected; this is for your own good.' Psychologist John McIlroy believed `it could come in handy for Americans who know themselves well enough to not have self-control over their impulses' (6).

This version of the human subject as incapable of personal restraint leads to obsessive use of the term `binge' in alcohol coverage. The hysterical portrayal of bingeing also exposes the root of anti-alcohol culture: a fear of human agency and by implication humanity itself.

Alcohol becomes the locus for behaviour politics because it removes inhibitions, acting as social glue. Drink can make us feel fearless, free or profound. At the right pitch of tipsiness, alcohol exaggerates our great qualities; we're perhaps more animated, articulate or communicative. Whether that's about anything of substance is another matter. Alcohol can also magnify morbidity or aggression, it is true, but current policy is founded on the assumption that these murkier qualities will emerge in the first sip of a pint. The assumption is that everyone needs some kind of rules and regulation because we can all suddenly `get out of hand' (7).

The heightened sense of freedom alcohol provides is precisely why it's troubling - and the pleasure it provides so baffling - to increasing numbers of official killjoys. Current `drink responsibly' public information films betray fears that the demon drink will unleash the violent, vile core lurking beneath the thin veneer of polite social intercourse. The evolution of attitudes to smoking from a private matter to a public scourge reveals how potent the desire to control our conduct has become. Below I have listed what I consider to be key rhetorical stages in the journey from liberty to prohibition - best illustrated by the bans on public smoking but increasingly defining the discussion of alcohol, too:

Availability phase: availability is problematic, with the suggestion that we're bombarded with advertising seducing us to rabidly consume cut-price crates. Youth, it is said, are hit hardest.

Health/crime phase: consumption, we are told, leads to ill-health or criminality. The proper priorities are to extend your life and to relieve your financial burden on the state, showing you're a morally worthy individual by demonstrating health preoccupations. Because disease/crime can result from consumption, such behaviour is therefore inherently bad. Redefining previously acceptable consumption as `abuse' or `addiction' is key.

Anti-social phase: consumption is discussed as anti-social, displaying offensive disregard for sacred environmental and psychological concerns; it pollutes air and relationships. This phase overlaps with the health/crime phase because `the government is redefining "the social" to mean an area where people cause a costly amount of damage (either fiscal or environmental) that the government has to mop up' (8).

Misanthropic momentum phase: warnings are issued that control-measures only go part of the way to addressing much deeper problems that require further bans/legislation/education, particularly surrounding people's ability to parent.

Common sense phase: in the run-up to a ban, and in the period after, the defining outlook is silent compliance. To argue that the ban is an infringement on freedom is to challenge the health position, and is therefore an affront to common sense and `The Science'.

For those who don't believe that restrictions on public intoxication are likely, it should be noted that drunkenness in public is already illegal in many US states. Serving an intoxicated patron has been illegal in Australia since 1998. The increasingly aggressive implementation of intoxication law in these countries serves as sobering examples of how the campaign against drunkenness could play out in Britain.

In Virginia, during Christmas 2003, local police launched a sting on 20 neighbourhood bars and restaurants to `apprehend "drunk" patrons before they try to drive'. Officials said evidence could have been based on `unflicked cigarette ashes, an excessive number of restroom visits, noisy cursing, or a wobbly walk'. Police in Dallas have performed similar sting operations on the publicly legless. In 2006, agents entered 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication (9). In August 2007, San Diego City Council banned alcohol on all city beaches and parks for a year trial period.

An essay by American sociologist William Sumner, written in 1883, throws light on the deadening logic of behaviour manipulation policy. In the essay, entitled `On the Case of a Certain Man Who Is Never Thought Of', Sumner notes: `The fallacy of all prohibitory, sumptuary, and moral legislation is the same. A and B determine to be teetotallers, which is often a wise determination, and sometimes a necessary one. If A and B are moved by considerations which seem to them good, that is enough. But A and B put their heads together to get a law passed which shall force C to be a teetotaller for the sake of D, who is in danger of drinking too much. There is no pressure on A and B. They are having their own way, and they like it. There is rarely any pressure on D. He does not like it, and evades it. The pressure all comes on C. The question then arises: who is C? He is the man who wants alcoholic liquors for any honest purpose whatsoever, who would use his liberty without abusing it. He is the Forgotten Man again. what each one of us ought to be.' (10)

The public tap on the back from bar-room spies is overtly Orwellian, yet it's the internal spying we really have to watch: measuring yourself against `concerning' statistics; suddenly reassessing intake; seeing others as vulnerable. So, for example, daft drunken antics are now reframed as potentially psychologically damaging. This is why staff Christmas parties were vetoed by nine out of 10 employers last year over fears they could lead to tribunal claims. A survey of 4,915 companies showed most managers fear that employees may behave inappropriately and drink too much alcohol at the office party. The striking majority of respondents (86 per cent) said they'd received complaints from staff due to a Christmas party incident (11).

The new prohibition project - whether it relates to smoking, drinking, or interpersonal office relationships - relies on making us internalise ever-restricted norms of what is `healthy' and `dangerous' activity. We could ignore the momentum of behaviour politics and adopt the state's dim view of us: as forever in need of protection from ourselves and each other. It would be better, however, to forget what our indiscretions might cost the National Health Service and remember the social cost of perceiving everyday freedoms and interactions as little more than potential occasions for harm.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



23 December, 2007

Shorties less healthy

I get a bit tired of singing the same old song but once again we see that the role of social class is neglected. I can't be bothered to look up the studies but it has often been found by psychologists that taller people are more successful in life -- so shorties are more likely to be working class and working class peoiple are less healthy anyway. So what we observe below could well be a class effect rather than a shortness effect. That the effect is noticeable among women only may mean that tall women are particularly desired by high-status men. Note that models are always tall

Women with shorter legs may have an increased risk of liver disease, an extensive UK study suggests. Researchers looked at 4,300 women between the ages of 60 and 79. They found the shorter-legged women had higher levels of four liver enzymes which indicate how well the organ is working and if it has been damaged.

There is a growing body of evidence to link leg length and health, the Bristol University team wrote in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The reserachers randomly selected participants from the British Women's Health and Heart Study. They were drawn from 43 British towns.

Both leg and full height were measured, and blood samples taken to measure four liver enzymes: ALT, GGT, ALP and AST. The longer the leg length, the lower the levels of three of these enzymes. The team, led by Dr Abigail Fraser, speculated that their findings were linked to upbringing.

"Our interpretation of the results is that childhood exposures, such as good nutrition that influence growth patterns also influence liver development and therefore levels of liver enzymes in adulthood and/or the propensity for liver damage," they wrote. At the same time, they added, "greater height may boost the size of the liver, which may decrease enzyme levels so ensuring that the liver is able to withstand chemical onslaught more effectively." "This is a very interesting study and we would be keen to see any further research relating to these initial findings," said a spokesperson from the British Liver Trust.

"The study clearly asserts the importance of a healthy lifestyle [Rubbish!] particularly from a young age. We would like to encourage everyone to maintain a healthy diet in order to prevent themselves from fatty liver disease - something which is not alcohol related - which affects an estimated one in five people in the UK."

Source




Lung cancer 'link to lack of sun'

Groan! This time it is possible genetic and environmental differences that are overlooked. That the people of tropical and non-tropical climates ARE genetically different can be seen from skin-colour alone -- but I guess we are not allowed to mention that

Lack of sunlight may increase the risk of lung cancer, a study suggests. Researchers found lung cancer rates were highest in countries furthest from the equator, where exposure to sunlight is lowest. It is thought vitamin D - generated by exposure to sunlight - can halt tumour growth by promoting the factors responsible for cell death in the body. The University of California, San Diego study appears in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Experts warn that exposure to sunlight is still the major cause of skin cancer - a disease which is on the increase around the world. Lung cancer kills more than one million people every year around the globe. The researchers examined data from 111 countries across several continents. They found smoking was most strongly associated with lung cancer rates - accounting for up to 85% of all cases. But exposure to sunlight, especially UVB light, the principal source of vitamin D for the body, also seemed to have an impact.

The amount of UVB light increases with proximity to the equator. The analysis showed lung cancer rates were highest in those countries furthest away from the equator and lowest in those nearest. Higher cloud cover and airborne aerosol levels were also associated with higher rates of the disease.

Lead researcher Dr Cedric Garland said lung cancer, in common with many other forms of the disease, usually began in the epithelial cells that line the surface of the tissues in the organ. Cancer results when cells start to divide in an uncontrolled fashion. He said vitamin D stimulated the release of chemicals which, in combination with calcium, formed a glue-like substance which bind these cells tightly together, and put a brake on their division. There was also evidence that vitamin D may also slow the progress of cancer once it develops.

Dr Garland also stressed that moderate exposure to sunlight did not significantly raise the risk of the most serious form of skin cancer, melanoma. He said the only form of skin cancer that was related to ordinary, moderate exposure to sunlight was squamous cell carcinoma, which killed far fewer people than lung cancer, and other forms of the disease which might also be prevented by moderate exposure to the sun. Moderate exposure would be five to 15 minutes per day within two hours of midday, on mainly clear days, when season and temperature allow, with 40% of skin area exposed. A hat with a wide brim should be worn when in the sun for more than a few minutes, but sunscreen should be skipped during this period, as it prevents vitamin D synthesis.

Dr Kat Arney, of the charity Cancer Research UK, stressed that smoking was by far the biggest cause of lung cancer. She said: "There is growing evidence that vitamin D could help to reduce the risk of some cancers, such as bowel cancer, but the link between vitamin D and lung cancer is still unclear. "In this case, the researchers have not actually measured people's vitamin D levels, and there may be several other factors that need to be taken into account. "These include differences in sun protection behaviour in various countries, as well as differences in the way that cancer cases are registered. "We know that vitamin D is essential for good health, but the time in the sun needed to get enough vitamin D is much less than the time it takes to tan or burn."

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



22 December, 2007

Class war over cancer

The article below says that poor people have worse disease outcomes -- with cancer particularly. But one of the most consistent findings we see when anyone looks at the social class basis of disease is that middle class people have better health -- even in countries with socialized medicine. So blaming the bad outcomes described below solely on lack of health insurance -- as is done below -- is disingenuous. There is no doubt that the quality of the health care accessed does make some difference but much of what is described below simply reflects the fact that middle-class people are healthier anyway -- for a variety of reasons.

People diagnosed with cancer who don't have health insurance are more likely to die because they are less likely to get screening tests and so are typically diagnosed with advanced disease, a new study from the American Cancer Society finds.

The finding proffers strong evidence that differences in cancer survival are directly related to lack of access to health care. "If you are uninsured, and you are diagnosed with cancer, you have a 60 percent greater chance of dying from cancer than if you were insured and diagnosed with cancer," said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer at the cancer society. "There is not a cohort of insured and a cohort of uninsured cancer patients that have the same five-year survival," Brawley added. "It's always the uninsured who do worse."

Part of the problem is that uninsured people don't have access to screenings, Brawley said. "But part of it is that uninsured people don't have access to the best doctors or have access to good doctors who are overwhelmed. The end result is the quality of care the poor folks get is not as good as the quality of care of the wealthier or the insured," he said. There are also people who are underinsured, Brawley said. While these people have access to care, high co-pays and deductibles make the care unaffordable, particularly high-priced chemotherapy drugs, he noted.

"Where it becomes frightening and morally reprehensible is people who have significant pain and can't get narcotics and other pain medications they need, because they can't afford them," Brawley said. People don't realize they are underinsured until after they have gotten sick, Brawley said. "There are a substantial number of Americans who don't realize they are a cancer diagnosis away from economic disaster," he noted.

The study, in the January/February issue of CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, used data from the National Cancer Database, which is the only national registry that collects data on patient insurance. The report is an overview of systems of health insurance in the United States. It has data on the association between health insurance, screening, stage at diagnosis, and survival for breast and colorectal cancer.

The link between access to care and cancer outcomes is particularly striking for cancers that can be prevented or found early by screening and for which there are effective treatments, including breast and colorectal cancer. Only about 38.1 percent of uninsured women aged 40 to 64 have had a mammogram in the past two years, compared with 74.5 percent of insured women. In addition, 20 percent to 30 percent of uninsured women are diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer, compared with 10 percent to 15 percent of women with private insurance, according to the study.

Uninsured women are less likely to be diagnosed with early breast cancer than women who are privately insured. This disparity was greatest among white women, where almost 50 percent of those with private insurance were diagnosed with early-stage cancer, compared with fewer than 35 percent of uninsured white women. Moreover, 89 percent of insured white women were living five years after breast cancer diagnosis compared with 76 percent of uninsured white women. For black women, five-year survival rates are 81 percent for those with private insurance and 65 percent for uninsured women.

For men and women aged 50 to 64 who have private insurance, 48.3 percent were screened for colorectal cancer in the past 10 years compared with fewer than 18.8 percent of the uninsured. In addition, uninsured patients are more likely than those with private insurance to be diagnosed with stage IV colorectal cancer and less likely to be diagnosed with stage I colorectal cancer, the researchers found.

For whites, 66 percent of insured patients survive colorectal cancer for five years, compared with 50 percent of those without insurance. For blacks, five-year survival rates are 41 percent among the uninsured compared with 60 percent among privately insured patients.

Additional findings in the study include:

Uninsured women were less likely to have a Pap test in the past three years than insured women (68 percent vs. 87.9 percent). Among insured men, 37.1 percent had a prostate specific antigen test, compared with 14 percent of uninsured men. People aged 18 to 24 have the highest probability of being uninsured.

Lower-income people are more likely to be uninsured. Blacks, Hispanics, Asian American/Pacific Islanders, and American Indian/Alaska Natives are more likely to be uninsured than whites. Of those without insurance, 53.6 percent have no usual source of health care.

The uninsured are more likely to delay care, not receive care, and not obtain prescription drugs because of costs. Among people who saw a health-care provider, those without insurance were less likely to be advised to quit smoking or lose weight.

Brawley noted that while some of the uninsured qualify for Medicaid, coverage doesn't begin until the cancer has been diagnosed. "You have someone who is uninsured and poor -- gets none of the screenings, gets none of the early detection opportunities -- when they finally go to the doctor, it's because they are so sick, they can no longer go to work, or their family is forcing them to go to the emergency room," Brawley said. "What you have is someone who a year ago we could, relatively cheaply, fix, maybe even cure, but now that they have ignored their symptoms, it's no longer fixable, we are going to treat them, but the treatment is going to be very expensive."

The remedy to the problem is "making sure that everyone who wants health insurance can get affordable health insurance," Brawley said. "In this country, we need to have an open conversation about this issue." One expert thinks this study highlights the need for a health insurance program that covers everyone. "Sadly, many Americans must face the challenges of cancer with no insurance coverage, or with Medicaid, which is often grossly inadequate as coverage," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. [Woolly Steffie would say that. She has even claimed repeatedly that socialized medicine would REDUCE bureaucracy! It might do so initially but over the years bureaucracy is like an ever-growing cancer] For these cancer patients, diagnosis is delayed and survival is shortened, Woolhandler said. "We need nonprofit national health insurance to be sure that everyone gets the health care they need, particularly people with cancer."

Source




Cannabis smoke 'has more toxins'

It has always seemed likely that if tobacco smoke is bad for you, cannabis smoke would be too -- depending in part on what it had in it. The report below details just what that is

Inhaled cannabis smoke has more harmful toxins than tobacco, scientists have discovered. The Canadian government research found 20 times as much ammonia, a chemical linked to cancer, New Scientist said. The Health Canada team also found five times as much hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides, which are linked to heart and lung damage respectively. But tobacco smoke contained more of a toxin linked to infertility. Experts said users must be aware of the risks.

About a quarter of the population in the UK smokes tobacco products, while a sixth of 15 to 34-year-olds have tried cannabis in the past year, making it the most commonly used drug.

Previous research has shown cannabis smoke is more harmful to lungs than tobacco as it is inhaled more deeply and held in the lungs for a longer period. However, it has also been acknowledged that the average tobacco user smokes more than a cannabis user.

Researchers from Health Canada, the government's health research department, used a smoking machine to analyse the composition of the inhaled smoke for nearly 20 harmful chemicals. They also looked at the sidestream smoke, given off from the burning tip of the product and responsible for 85% of the smoked inhaled through passive smoking.

In most cases, the comparison on sidestream smoke broadly mirrored that of inhaled smoke. However, in the case of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, the toxin linked to infertility, the researchers found concentrations were actually higher in cigarette smoke. The study also showed little difference in the concentrations of a range of chemicals, including chromium, nickel, arsenic and selenium.

Lead researcher David Moir said: "The consumption of marijuana through smoking remains a reality and among the young seems to be increasing. "The confirmation of the presence of known carcinogens and other chemical is important information for public health."

Dr Richard Russell, a specialist at the Windsor Chest Clinic, said: "The health impact of cannabis is often over-looked amid the legal debate. "Evidence shows it is multiplied when it is cannabis compared to tobacco. "Tobacco from manufacturers has been enhanced and cleaned whereas cannabis is relatively unprocessed and therefore is a much dirtier product. "These findings do not surprise me. The toxins from cannabis smoke cause lung inflammation, lung damage and cancer."

Stephen Spiro, of the British Lung Foundation, added the findings were "a great worry".

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



21 December, 2007

Evidence-Based Medicine

There is a rather confused article below. It starts out saying "Proponents of EBM assume it will improve the quality of health care by basing medical decisions primarily on statistically valid clinical trials" and then says "EBM, by contrast, relies primarily on epidemiological data". Which is it? Both cannot be true. I would deplore the latter and support the former. The article is really just another example of the old cry by clinicians that they "just know".

A new buzzword entered the medical lexicon in 1992 when the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group published one of the first articles on the phenomenon in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). In the years since, the role that evidence-based medicine (EBM) plays in medical care has increased exponentially. Some now question whether it should play such a prominent role.

"[EBM is not] medicine based on evidence, but the equivalent in the field of medicine of a cult with its unique dogma, high priest ... and fervent disciples," says Dr. John Service, editor-in-chief of Endocrine Practice. Indeed, if a doctor questions EBM today, it seems he or she runs the risk of being branded an infidel or heretic, or worse.

Proponents of EBM assume it will improve the quality of health care by basing medical decisions primarily on statistically valid clinical trials; therefore, information gained from randomized clinical trials (RCT) preempts information from all other sources. Yet, isn't it ironic that a review of the literature by this author and others turns up no evidence as defined by EBM to validate this assumption?

"The failure to conduct a randomized controlled trial, the recognized best form of evidence according to EBM, and reliance on expert opinion, namely theirs (the worst form of evidence according to them), hoist EBM by its own petard," notes Service. EBM purports to provide "statistical proof" when in fact what it provides is "statistical data." Data does not necessarily equate to proof. Data is open to interpretation, which can change over time or vary depending upon one's perspective.

Dr. George Spaeth makes this point in evaluating the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study, which involved more than 1,000 people who had increased intraocular pressure but no optic nerve damage or visual field loss. Only 5 percent of those treated went on to develop visual field loss, whereas 10 percent of those not treated did.

This data can be used to argue either for or against treatment, Spaeth notes, depending on one's interpretation and incentives. The treating physician could argue that instituting early treatment would reduce visual field loss from glaucoma by 50 percent. Yet, a third-party payer with financial incentive could just as easily argue against treatment, noting that the overwhelming majority of patients with elevated intraocular pressure do not get worse, even when not treated. Consider the evidence. Who is right? They both are.

Is there, indeed, a best practice regarding the approach to elevated intraocular pressure? If so, how should the algorithm be constructed? Who should have the ultimate discretion in making that decision? Should it be the treating physician, with the best interest of the individual patient in mind? Or a third party with the best interest of the bottom line in mind? Clinicians now fear medical malpractice suits if they do not follow EBM guidelines in treating patients. But as one resident recently asked me, which guidelines do you follow? Even guidelines about the same disease can vary substantially, depending upon which professional organization promulgated them. What's more, by following them, don't we freeze medical practice in time? How is progress to be made in health care if we are forced to walk in lockstep with algorithms promulgated last year or the year before?

It is not the epidemiological data of EBM that I question, but rather the manner in which it is used to displace clinical judgment. The physician has taken the history, performed the physical, reviewed the labs, and discussed the illness with the patient and family. He knows the patient's wishes, desires, and values. All this critical information must be considered when treating patients.

EBM, by contrast, relies primarily on epidemiological data, which it uses in a way that preempts all other information collected by the treating physician. In fact, non-quantifiable information such as the patient's values and the physician's clinical experience are not even taken into account in EBM.

It is absurd to think that a third party, operating at a distance in time and space from the patient being treated, is able to make a better medical decision than the treating physician and therefore should be allowed to preempt the treating physician's decisions. Entire medical conferences are devoted to EBM, focusing on the statistical purity of the studies. Statisticians are hired to participate in such conferences. Meanwhile, the clinical question for which evidence was being sought takes a back seat. "The result is form taking precedence over substance," says Service. In the process, it is often forgotten that a group's responses, as an aggregate, can be quite different from an individual's response to a specific therapy. Patients are individuals, not groups. When one treatment is shown to be better than another on a population basis, this does not necessarily mean that it is the best treatment for the patient.

The decisions whether and how to treat a disease ultimately lie with patients, who makes these decisions with their doctors' help. It's a value judgment, and there is no way to measure value. It is not quantifiable in inches, pounds, or miles per hour. The ultimate discretion regarding how information from multiple sources (including EBM, prior clinical experience, and the patient's unique circumstances, wishes, and desires) are integrated for treating individuals should be in the physician's hands. Since he has the ultimate responsibility for the patient's care, he should have the ultimate discretion

Source




When fatness becomes madness

THE world has officially gone mad. I thought we had reached that stage when Lisa Marie Presley married Michael Jackson, but last week we went a step beyond. Someone in a position of authority recommended that children as young as four be weighed on arrival at kindergarten to curb the obesity "crisis". Call me old-fashioned, but further marginalising fat kids at an age when their peers display an apparently innate cruelty is not a good idea. What will we do with those who do not meet the arbitrary body mass index? Send them to kiddie fat camps?

A relative used to tell my curvaceous cousins that the doors would have to be widened if they did not stop putting on weight - and this to prepubescent girls. We live in a PC world now that recoils from such offensive language, but I'd rather that kind of jaw-dropping candour to the subterfuge people resort to these days. My relative's brand of mean-spirited taunts now hides behind "concern" for our "health", but this is not about health - it's about appearance. If the issue is health, why are we not concerned about those skinny people who eat dreadfully? Everyone knows this person - rake thin, a McDonald's bag always in hand, able to inhale a pack of Tim-Tams at one sitting. These lucky folk have their freak metabolisms to thank, which brings me to my next point.

The word hereditary rarely crops up in the obesity debate, despite overwhelming evidence that any health condition and body type is 95 per cent hereditary. As a society we want to assign blame. If you are fat it is your fault: you are slovenly, lazy, undisciplined. A dietitian will dispute this assertion, but society isn't having it. It has gone so far that a television show recently polled viewers on whether Santa was too fat.

A few years ago I had a gig as an in-store Santa at a shopping mall. For 14 days I sat for four hours a day in my chair, facing a US fast food chain outlet that sells ice-cream and mystery-meat hot dogs. I got to see who, if anybody, typified the average customer there. Nine out of 10 were thin. Where were all the "undisciplined" fatties one would expect? As they have been hounded since birth about their weight, they made rare, sheepish appearances.

Did I crack and have an ice-cream after watching others eat for 14 days in a row? Of course not. I was watching my weight.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



20 December, 2007

MORE MEDITERRANEAN DIET NONSENSE

Just another proof that middle class people are healthier. They are far more likely to have got the religion of the Mediterranean diet than others. And the effects were as weak as one would expect in those circumstances.

The Mediterranean diet has been a fetish among epidemiologists ever since low levels of heart disease were observed in Greece and Italy. To acknowledge that Greeks and Italians might be GENETICALLY different from Northern Europeans would be politically incorrect, of course. Diet had to be the cause of why Greeks and Italians did better. Greeks and Italians don't live especially long however. For instance, Australians have a diet that is as far away from the Mediterranean in composition as Australia is geographically, yet they live longer than Greeks and Italians. And the long-lived Japanese have a quite different diet too. But we must not let facts upset a medical consensus, must we? Popular summary followed by Abstract below.

Eating the Mediterranean way could help you live longer, according to the first study to look at how the dietary pattern relates to mortality in a U.S. population. Men whose diets were closest to the Mediterranean ideal were 21 percent less likely to die over five years than men whose diets were least Mediterranean-like. Similar results were seen in women. "These results provide strong evidence for a beneficial effect of higher conformity with the Mediterranean dietary pattern on risk of death from all causes, including deaths due to cardiovascular disease and cancer, in a US population," Dr. Panagiota N. Mitrou of the University of Cambridge in the UK and colleagues conclude.

A number of studies have linked the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in fish, fruits and vegetables and nuts and low in dairy foods and red meat, to health benefits, the researchers note in the Archives of Internal Medicine. They looked at diet and mortality in 380,296 men and women, 50 to 71 years old, who were participating in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. For both men and women, the researchers found, the risk of death from any cause over the five-year follow-up period was lower for those with the most Mediterranean-like diets. Deaths from cancer or cardiovascular disease were also significantly lower in this group.

The benefit was especially strong in smokers who were not overweight, who nearly halved their risk of death if they closely followed the Mediterranean diet pattern. Smokers may have had the most to gain from the antioxidant and blood fat-lowering effects of Mediterranean-style eating, Mitrou and colleagues suggest.

Source

Mediterranean Dietary Pattern and Prediction of All-Cause Mortality in a US Population

By Panagiota N. Mitrou et al

Background: The Mediterranean diet has been suggested to play a beneficial role for health and longevity. However, to our knowledge, no prospective US study has investigated the Mediterranean dietary pattern in relation to mortality.

Methods: Study participants included 214,284 men and 166,012 women in the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-AARP (formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons) Diet and Health Study. During follow-up for all-cause mortality (1995-2005), 27,799 deaths were documented. In the first 5 years of follow-up, 5,985 cancer deaths and 3,451 cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were reported. We used a 9-point score to assess conformity with the Mediterranean dietary pattern (components included vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, whole grains, fish, monounsaturated fat-saturated fat ratio, alcohol, and meat). We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using age- and multivariate-adjusted Cox models.

Results:The Mediterranean diet was associated with reduced all-cause and cause-specific mortality. In men, the multivariate HRs comparing high to low conformity for all-cause, CVD, and cancer mortality were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83), 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.87), and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.76-0.91), respectively. In women, an inverse association was seen with high conformity with this pattern: decreased risks that ranged from 12% for cancer mortality to 20% for all-cause mortality (P = .04 and P < .001, respectively, for the trend). When we restricted our analyses to never smokers, associations were virtually unchanged.

Conclusion: These results provide strong evidence for a beneficial effect of higher conformity with the Mediterranean dietary pattern on risk of death from all causes, including deaths due to CVD and cancer, in a US population.

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(22):2461-2468




Australia: Leftist broadcasters vent their predictable hatred of drug companies -- to dangerous effect

DOCTORS have condemned ABC television's The 7.30 Report over a story about bone drugs, which they claim was alarmist and inaccurate. According to professional group the Australian and New Zealand Bone and Mineral Society, the story, broadcast last Wednesday, may cause worried cancer and osteoporosis patients to stop treatment. "We want to set the record straight," said the society's president, Philip Sambrook, a rheumatologist with the University of Sydney and Royal North Shore Hospital.

The contentious story - presented by Nick Grimm - stated that so-called bisphosphonate drugs can cause the jaw bone to dissolve, a disfiguring condition called osteonecrosis of the jaw, or ONJ.

But the society said the claims were misleading, and warned that if cancer patients stayed off bisphosophonate medications such as Zometa and Aredia for prolonged periods, their disease could more easily spread. Further, if people with osteoporosis stopped drugs such as Aldomet and Fosamax, they could suffer serious fractures of the spine and hip. "Patients have been contacting practitioners and I've had emails from people around the country I haven't seen," Professor Sambrook said. "They were scared, having heard thereport."

He said the story incorrectly implied that all patients were at risk and that they were not warned by doctors or advised of simple alternatives such as calcium supplements. "Not uncommonly in cancer sufferers, but in rare cases with osteoporosis, bisphosphonates can interfere with the normal bone healing of the jaw, resulting in ONJ, or death of the bone," Professor Sambrook said. "However, the risk of this rare side effect can be significantly reduced by good dental care."

He added that calcium and vitamin D supplements might be sufficient to treat mild cases of osteoporosis, but they were ineffective against severe osteoporosis. Professor Sambrook was also critical of the claim that "bisphosphonates are a booming business for drug companies", which downplay side effects and exaggerate benefits. And he said it was factually incorrect to claim, as the report did, that the drugs had been listed on the Public Benefits Scheme only last December. "They were listed 10 years ago," Professor Sambrook said.

In a letter seen by The Australian, Professor Sambrook wrote to The 7.30 Report's executive producer, Ben Hawke, outlining these and other problems. In response, the full interview with Professor Sambrook has been posted on the program's website, along with others used in the story. However, he has not had a formal reply from Hawke. The Australian was unable to obtain comment from Hawke or ABC staff.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



19 December, 2007

Anorexia `cannot be picked up by looking at photographs of super-thin models'

I have long said that anorexia is just another obsessive compulsive disorder -- an inherited brain dysfunction or "psychosis". In layman's language, anorexics are "mad". The study below, however, is too small to be conclusive.

Anorexia may be caused by inherited differences in the way a sufferer's brain operates, leading to obsessive behaviour, according to research. Rather than being triggered by images of super-thin models and celebrities, the eating disorder could be brought on by the in-built way in which the brain responds to pleasure and reward. It has been argued that images of unhealthily thin stars in the media have encouraged anorexic behaviour in impressionable young women. But a study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry suggests that the brains of anorexia sufferers behave differently to those of the rest of the population and that certain people are born with a susceptibility to develop the condition.

A team of psychiatrists, led by Walter Kaye, of the University of Pittsburgh, tested the emotional responses of 13 former anorexics compared with those of 13 nonsufferers. The women were asked to play a computer game where correct guesses were rewarded financially. During the test, the team used functional MRI scans to monitor the participants' brain activity by measuring blood levels in certain areas.

Among the nonsufferers, the brain region connected to emotional responses - the anterior ventral striatum - showed strong differences between winning and losing the game. Among the women with a history of anorexia, however, there was little difference in activity between winning and losing. Professor Kaye said: "In anorexia, this might impact on food enjoyment. For anorexics, then, perhaps it is difficult to appreciate immediate pleasure if it does not feel much different from a negative experience."

Another brain area, the caudate, involved in linking actions to outcome and planning, was far more active in the recovering anorexics than in the control group. The former tended to have exaggerated worries about the consequences of their behaviours, looked for rules where there were none and were overly concerned about making mistakes.

"There are some positive aspects to this kind of temperament. Paying attention to detail and making sure things are done as correctly as possible are constructive traits in careers such as medicine or engineering," Professor Kaye said. "But carried to extremes, such obsessive thinking can be harmful, which is what happens in anorexia. This piece of research points to the fact that the brains of people with anorexia are wired differently. "This means they react and think in different ways to the ordinary person and that they are more likely to go on to develop anorexia regardless of whether they have been exposed to images of super-thin models."

Professor Kaye said that his study showed that even former anorexics still had difficulty enjoying simple pleasures. "What this points to is that anorexics have something different going on in their brains, which marks them out as having either different structures in the brain or different pathways for processing thought that stay with them for life. We may be able, with a lot of hard work, to get them back to eating, but deep down in their brain there appear to be biological differences that don't go away."

Ian Frampton, a psychologist at Exeter University, has been working with anorexics using the same MRI technology. He said: "Professor Kaye's research supports a growing feeling that anorexia is a biological condition caused by the brains of some people being structured in a different way. We are still conducting our research, but we are seeing similar things. "We are not totally sure what is happening in these youngsters but we think that some of this might be inherited or some might be due to a fault in the developing brain either in the womb or during early childhood."

Dr Frampton said that while all adolescent girls have issues about body image, for most it is a passing phase: "We need to move away from this idea that supermodels are to blame. It is probably not good for them to look as they do. But for anorexics, the desire not to eat and to be thin seems to be already in them and not something they can pick up by looking at a magazine. "There were, after all, anorexics before super-thin models."

Source




Cholesterol mysteries

More proof that nobody really understands what goes on with cholesterol or the drugs used to treat it. See here for a summary of the "mysteries" concerned

Pfizer stunned heart doctors a year ago when it announced that its experimental good-cholesterol boosting drug had killed patients in final-stage trials. Now Merck says it plans to begin final-stage trials of a similar good-cholesterol boosting drug next year. Both the Merck compound and the ill-fated Pfizer compound raise HDL, or so-called good cholesterol, by blocking a key protein called CETP. The hope is that this, when combined with existing cholesterol drugs, will prevent more heart attacks. Pfizer's compound, torectrapib, was touted as the next big thing in cardiology--until large-scale human trials found a much higher death rate in patients that took it vs. Lipitor.

The terrible results from torcetrapib have thrown the field of boosting good cholesterol into turmoil. One theory is that the increased deaths were due to torcetrapib's tendency to raise blood pressure and boost aldosterone. But another theory is the entire mechanism is flawed, and the blocking CETP produces dysfunctional HDL that just worsens the problem. Confusing matters further, the big torcetrapib trial found not only more heart deaths but also more deaths from infection and cancer in those who took Lipitor alone.

Merck's drug anacetrapib doesn't raise blood pressure or aldosterone like the Pfizer compound. No increased heart side effects have been seen in trials so far. But whether it produces the right kind of HDL particles is unknown. "The simple answer is that it still is a puzzle" about what went wrong with torcetrapib, Merck research chief Peter Kim said at an analyst meeting Dec 11. The quality of HDL produced by CETP blockers "is a key question in the scientific community" currently. "We have to run clinical studies and evaluate whether this is a good mechanism."

Kim said Merck plans to move step-by-step into large-scale trails of its CETP drug next year by first doing more extensive trials next year to evaluate blood parameters over longer periods of time. In 2009, if these show no signs of problems, it plans to begin a a large-scale "outcomes" study to determine whether the drug prevents heart attacks. Exactly what form this trial would take has yet to be determined, Kim says, as "there are many things that are being argued about . we are still doing a lot of work in the labs."

Merck takes some confidence that blocking CETP can work from the fact that most animal studies show that CETP-blockers reduce artery gunk. Also, the HDL produced by anacetrapib appears to be functional in test tube experiments.

In another risky gambit, Merck says that it plans to file for regulatory approval for its obesity drug taranabant next year. The drug is the same class as Sanofi-Aventis' rimonabant (Acomplia), which was once heralded as a miracle pill but was roundly rejected by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel last summer because of concerns over psychiatric side effects.

Kim says the company observed "dose-dependent psychiatric adverse events" in its trials of taranabant. He said that he thought the psychiatric effects were directly related to the drug's mechanism.

To minimize problems, the company is only studying the lower two of four doses used in the second-stage tests. It is also including people with controlled depression in its final-stage studies. It hasn't made a final decision as to what indications it will file for, although it will likely include obesity.

Merck says it has seven drugs in final-stage trials, including an osteoporosis drug that works by a new mechanism, a new cancer drug for treating sarcoma in collaboration with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, and a new hepatitis B vaccine.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



18 December, 2007

ANOTHER BORING OBEISANCE TO THE CHOLESTEROL RELIGION

The usual epidemiological crap. We read that people with lots of "good" cholesterol heal better after stroke. Why? The authors below appear just to assume that the relationship is a cause-effect one. It might not be. I will use my usual example of why not but that is only one possibility:

That middle class people for a variety of reasons might be more virtuous in the cholesterol department does not seem to be considered. And middle class people have better health for various reasons too. So are we just looking at a class effect? Who knows? Epidemiological correlations are basically uninformative by themselves. They are only useful for hypothesis formation. The fact that blacks did less well may however reinforce the social class explanation

Association of diabetes, homocysteine, and HDL with cognition and disability after stroke

By George C. Newman et al.

Objective: To delineate factors associated with cognitive function following stroke and test the hypothesis that vascular risk factors associated with oxidative stress impair recovery.

Method: We performed a post hoc analysis of the extensive longitudinal database from the 3,680 subjects (over 35 years old) entered between 1996 and 2003 into the Vitamin Intervention for Stroke Prevention trial using a linear mixed effects model. The primary outcome variables were scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS).

Results: MMSE and mRS gradually improved during the 2-year follow-up period. Increased age and nonwhite race, recurrent stroke, diabetes mellitus, left hemisphere cortical lesions, and values of high-density lipoprotein and homocysteine were independent predictors of less successful cognitive recovery. A strong interaction between homocysteine and age indicated a threshold effect beginning in the late 50s. No vitamin treatment effects were identified. Similar factors were identified for recovery of disability as assessed by the mRS, although there were qualitative and quantitative differences.

Conclusions: The finding that diabetes, high-density lipoprotein, and homocysteine predict poorer cognitive function and greater disability after stroke is consistent with the hypothesis that metabolic stress plays a significant role in the poststroke period.

NEUROLOGY 2007;69:2054-2062




Prawns offer hayfever hope

VOLUNTEERS are wanted to trial a world-first treatment for hayfever made from prawn shells which researchers say is showing promising signs of success. Sydney-based company Novotech is seeking hayfever sufferers aged 15 to 60 who are otherwise healthy to be volunteers to trial a nasal spray made from natural ingredients derived from prawn shells. The trial involves the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research along with six other centres in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, with trials are being conducted in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.

More than three million Australians are affected by hayfever. Melbourne doctor Stephen Hall said the spray encouraged the body's immune system to have a less exaggerated response to allergens such as grass and pollen. He said the potential for side effects was low because the treatment was inhaled. Dr Hall said early signs were promising and if this continued, a decision on the treatment's public availability may be known mid-next year. "We're hopeful if all goes well that we have good data and quick recruitment, we'll be in a position to know by June or July," Dr Hall said.

Among the volunteers is Carol Jenkins, 52, of Glen Iris in Melbourne, who has suffered hayfever since she was a teenager. She spends each November to February nursing hayfever symptoms that cause her tiredness and sleepless nights and is hopeful of a cure. "I've had my medication over the years. But nothing cures it," she said. "It's constant sneezing and thinking twice before going outdoors. "It's debilitating."

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



17 December, 2007

'Holy Grail' of cancer treatments expected within two years

QUEENSLAND scientists expect to start clinical trials within two years on what has been described as the "Holy Grail" of cancer treatments. Dr Ming Wei from the University of Queensland Department of Medicine says he is "very confident" of success in developing the treatment, which uses bacteria from kangaroos to attack tumours. The world-first therapy could save millions of lives each year.

Professor Ian Frazer, who developed a cervical cancer vaccine, has hailed the work of his Queensland colleagues. "The Holy Grail of cancer treatments is to come up with treatments which can deal with the tumours without harming the patient," he said.

Starting next month, Dr Wei will lead a team of 10 scientists genetically modifying a common bacterium from kangaroos to develop a product that is expected to be effective in combating up to 90 per cent of cancers. "It will work on any solid tumours anywhere in the body," said Dr Wei, who is based at the Prince Charles Hospital in Brisbane.

The bacterium will be injected into tumours, releasing special enzymes which liquefy the cancer mass, shrinking it, and stimulating the body's natural immune forces. "Most people with cancer die from the spread of the tumour, not the primary tumour mass itself," Dr Wei said. One in four Australians dies from cancer.

The bug being developed by Dr Wei's team also occurs in humans, cattle and soil but the form found in the stomachs of eastern-grey kangaroos contains more protein-digesting enzymes. "It's an anaerobic bacterium, which means it doesn't need oxygen to multiply. It can multiply much faster than the tumour cells, effectively starving the tumour of the 'food' it needs to grow," Dr Wei said. The scientists will genetically engineer the bacterium to boost its cancer-busting power even further.

The potential of the bacterium in curing cancer was first identified by doctors in Germany nearly 100 years ago when they noticed that some patients spontaneously recovered after suffering a bacterial infection and fever. The UQ team has been experimenting on human tumours in rats, with a 60 to 65 per cent success rate and Dr Wei said it would be "no more than two years before we can bring this into clinical trials". A product could be ready to market within five years.

Source




Warning: Congress May Be Hazardous to Your Health

It has given the FDA an impossible and destructive burden

Since 1906 we've entrusted Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the safety of our vital food and drugs. Foolishly, we've also entrusted Congress and successive administrations to provide appropriate oversight and management of the agency. Now, after a century of Washington-style bureaucracy-building, America is stuck with an FDA that's unequivocally incapable of safeguarding either our food or our drugs.

This isn't just some uninformed opinion. The past year's flood of news stories about fatal food contamination - including spinach and peanut butter - are there for all to see. But it's also the official finding of the FDA's own blue-ribbon advisory group, the Science Board, which recently issued a damning report titled "FDA Science & Mission At Risk." The report notes that "the Agency suffers from serious scientific deficiencies and is not positioned to meet current or emerging regulatory responsibilities." Gail Cassel, a co-author of the report, said, "The wheels are coming off. In fact, I would say they're off. They're already off."

In 1990, the report says, Congress added pre-market approval for disease prevention and nutrient descriptor claims for food products. And in 1994 it added pre-market review for newly marketed dietary supplements. This sort of mission creep "has made it increasingly impossible for FDA to maintain its historic public health mission."

Indeed, the litany of FDA deficiencies is breathtaking in scope: Inadequate inspection of manufacturers, a "badly broken" food import system, a food supply "that grows riskier each year", a "dearth" of scientists trained in emerging technologies, an "obsolete" information-technology system and more. Warnings of the potential collapse of the FDA have been around for years and the FDA's own Science Board says the crises predicted earlier "are now realities, and American lives are at risk."

When a $2 billion-a-year federal agency crashes and burns, it's fair to ask, "Who's at fault?" Beyond the bureaucrats themselves, responsibility lies with Congress and the many administrations who have failed to hold legislators in check. The new FDA Science Board report underscores the damage done by decades of expanding regulatory mandates by Congress with very little oversight - just the sort of irresponsible headline-making legislative action which plays well among constituents but fatally undermines the agency's ability to fulfill its core mission.

The critical question today is: Will this startling analysis have any affect on Congress? We'll know soon enough. The House Energy & Commerce Committee will soon vote on H.R. 1108, a bill which could well put the final nail in the FDA's coffin. The bill would saddle the agency with new regulatory responsibility for the entire tobacco industry - a task which is beyond the FDA's charter, beyond its expertise, and beyond all reason. It is unnecessary, untimely and unworthy of congressional action. All this bill does is pander to a bunch of vocal anti-tobacco zealots.

This is a moment when the Energy & Commerce Committee should step back and reconsider the wisdom of piling yet another regulatory burden onto FDA's already full plate. Instead, it should focus on paring the agency's agenda back to an affordable, rational and narrowly focused food and drug safety program. Either that or slap a huge warning label across the Capitol dome: "Warning: Congress May Be Hazardous to Your Health."

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



16 December, 2007

New breast cancer drug offers long protection with fewer side-effects

Get it while you can. Good drugs often get taken off the market because of very rare apparent adverse side-effects. A drug with no side-effects will have no main effects

A new drug for breast cancer is better than the treatments that are already widely available and can prevent the disease returning for up to eight years, researchers say. Anastrozole, marketed as Arimidex, is thought to have set a new bench-mark for treating early stage breast cancer in postmenopausal women whose disease is fuelled by oestrogen.

The latest study confirms that the drug produces better results than tamoxifen, which has been a preferred treatment for more than 20 years. The study, published in The Lancet Oncology medical journal, suggests that the drug continues to work even after a patient stops taking it, with a greater chance that tumours will not return or spread.

Although tamoxifen is credited with saving the lives of 20,000 women since the 1980s, it is estimated that 23,000 new breast cancer patients a year could benefit from anastrozole and related drugs, known as aromatase inhibitors.

Anastrozole was approved for use on the NHS in August and has been prescribed to patients with breast cancer since November. Continuing trials are also investigating whether the treatment should be offered as a preventive therapy to women whose genes put them at particular risk of developing the disease. About four in five of the 41,000 women found to have breast cancer each year have passed the menopause and 70 per cent of these have cancers that are exacerbated by oestrogen.

Anastrozole acts by cutting the level of oestrogen circulating in the blood-stream, reducing the cancer risk in so-called receptor-positive cancers. The study looked at the safety and effectiveness of anastrozole compared with tamoxifen, which is sold as Nolvadex, Istubal and Valodex. Researchers followed the progress over five years of postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive early breast cancer who were randomly assigned to either treatment or a combination of the two.

In a previous study, the chances of surviving for more than 68 months (5½ years) were 15 per cent greater for those on anastrozole than for those taking tamoxifen. In addition, the amount of time that passed before the breast cancer recurred rose by 25 per cent, and there was less cancer spread.

In the latest update on the trial after 100 months (just over eight years), researchers noted that the benefits of anastrozole were maintained even after the treatment was completed. Furthermore, the differences between the two groups in the time it took for the cancer to recur, if it did, increased. The study also suggested that there was no significant difference in the threat of heart disease between the treatment groups – an area of previous concern. Although anastrozole can cause loss of bone density and increase the risk of fractures in women taking the drug, a common osteoporosis drug can help to prevent this side-effect, experts say.

The authors concluded: “The findings of this report extend the previously reported superior efficacy of anastrozole over tamoxifen at 68 months of follow-up to 100 months. We also show a carry-over benefit for recurrence in the hormone-receptor-positive population which is larger than that shown for tamoxifen.”

Margaret Coulton, 61, a retired office worker from Hesketh Bank, near Preston, had surgery to remove a tumour in September 2003 and has been taking anastrozole for nearly four years as part of a clinical trial after initially taking tamoxifen. Switching to anastrozole banished the symptoms she was getting, such as hot flushes, tiredness and nausea, and allowed her to stop taking drugs for depression, another side-effect of tamoxifen, she said.

Cancer charities welcomed the latest results. Emma Pennery, a nurse consultant at Breast Cancer Care, said: “From our contact with hundreds of people living with breast cancer we know that many will be delighted to see this latest evidence of success.”

Source




Official "obesity" deception

'One in four Australian children and one in two adults are already overweight or obese," the Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, told a conference of obesity experts this week. Where are they, minister? In the past fortnight, I've been in the centres of Sydney and Melbourne, in Newcastle and Katoomba, and in Sydney suburbs including Maroubra, Gladesville and Parramatta. I've seen plenty of fat adults but nothing like one in two. I've seen thousands of children, but were a quarter of them fat? No way. So we have to ask again, where are they? Either Australia's fat people are hiding, too scared to come out and incur the wrath of the Health Minister, or else something fishy is going on. As fishy as Roxon's other claim, that obesity is costing the economy $21 billion a year.

The claims were made this week to justify the Government's absurd plan to have every four-year-old weighed before they go to school, starting next year. This will add a quarter of a million extra tasks to the workload of our general practitioners and health clinics. This is ridiculous.

"It's totally inappropriate," says Professor Jan Wright from the University of Wollongong's faculty of education. Wright, a co-author with Michael Gard of the book Obesity Epidemic: Science, Ideology And Morality, says there are "many pieces of work in research literature regarding the horrendous experiences" of children who have gone through this sort of thing. "The fact the child is weighed and assessed and there's a report to the parents, it's a kind of surveillance expected of parents that is horrendous."

We have to fight back. If this is the first step in the introduction of a Rudd Labor nanny state, it is necessary to make a stand now. The obesity epidemic is a myth created by the pharmaceutical and health industries, and we don't have to accept their nonsense. There are three main points to be made about fat. First, it is not nearly as extensive as claimed. Second, being a bit overweight is not as bad as most people believe. And third, there's not much you can do about it anyway.

The first step in this is to separate the terms "overweight" and "obese", which are hugely different but are always lumped together to increase the size of the alleged problem. When we do this we will find that the weight of the general population has not increased dramatically in recent decades.

Patrick Basham is a co-author, with John Luik, of Diet Nation, a sceptical look at weight issues around the First World. He says: "The average person is not getting significantly fatter. Where there has been significant weight gain, it is not amongst most people but among people who were already obese."

A study of 8500 Australian children was reported by Adele Horin in the Herald in October. Jenny O'Dea, an associate professor of nutrition and health education at the University of Sydney, said the study found obesity in children was concentrated in poor families and certain ethnic groups. She said the suggestion that all children were at risk of obesity had "been blown out of the water by this research". O'Dea said: "We want to avoid stigmatising already socially marginalised groups", so Labor's plan to weigh every child starting school, which had already been declared, would be a "disaster".

Basham says 1 or 2 per cent of the population of a country such as Australia has a real obesity problem and needs to be helped. But pretending everyone is at risk of obesity and should be monitored and even assisted is a misuse of resources.

Even if one believes the general population is fatter than it once was, we should be cautious about assuming this is a bad thing. A recent major study published in The Journal Of The American Medical Association found that overweight people have a lower death rate than people who are normal weight, underweight or obese. The study was carried out by Katherine Flegal and other federal government researchers at the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Being up to nearly 14 kilograms overweight reduces by 40 per cent your chance of dying from a range of common diseases and risks, not least because it improves your chances of recovering from surgery, injury and infections.

The findings have outraged many health experts, and in response they have made some good points. These include the fact that being overweight does increase the chance of death from some illnesses, even if it reduces the chance of death from many others. It has also been pointed out that health is about more than whether you die.

But it is important to note that worrying about being overweight is rarely useful. Dale Atrens, a reader emeritus in psychobiology at the University of Sydney, has made an extensive study of scientific literature in this area. He says, "The injunction to lose a little weight is probably the most common medical prescription. It is given to untold millions each day through both official and unofficial channels. Globally, the weight loss industry is approaching a trillion-dollar turnover. This is astonishing in light of the fact that there is no systematic evidence that any of the weight loss schemes (except surgery) have any more than transient effects." The next time someone, even a health minister, tries to make you feel guilty about carrying a few extra kilos, just say no.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



15 December, 2007

On The "Benefit" of Fruits And Veggies In Cancer

Although a low-fat, high-fiber diet rich in fruit and vegetables has been associated in some studies with decreased cancer risk, findings published in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggest that adding more produce to one's diet may not offer a corresponding benefit. In the study conducted at University of California, San Diego, by John P. Pierce, PhD, and colleagues, among survivors of early stage breast cancer, adoption of a diet that was very high in vegetables, fruit, and fiber and low in fat did not reduce additional breast cancer events or mortality during a 7.3-year follow-up period:

[...] ... women in the early stages of breast cancer who ate substantially more than five servings a day of fruit and vegetables did not have an advantage over their counterparts who followed the five-a-day plan when it came to progression of the disease: The aim of the study, which was carried out at the University of California, San Diego, was to determine whether a diet very high in veggies, fruit and fiber and low in fat would lower three types of risk among women who had been treated for early stage breast cancer:

* risk of recurrence

* risk of new primary breast cancer

* risk of death from all causes

John P. Pierce, PhD, of UCSD and colleagues conducted the randomized controlled trial with 3,088 women between 18 and 70 years old who were previously treated for early stage breast cancer.

About half the women participated in a program that included phone counseling, cooking classes and newsletters that advocated daily targets of five vegetable servings plus 16 oz. of vegetable juice; three servings of fruit; 30 grams of fiber; and 15 percent to 20 percent of energy intake from fat. The other half received printed information describing the "five a day" diet.

During the four-year span of the study, the group that received the extra intervention ate 65 percent more vegetables, 25 percent more fruit, 30 percent more fiber and 13 percent less fat than the comparison group. Both groups of women received similar clinical care.

Breast cancer events occurred in 518 study participants during the study period -- 256 in the intervention group and 262 in the comparison group. Deaths numbered 315, with 155 occurring in the intervention group and 160 in the comparison group.

The results suggested no significant advantage in preventing the recurrence of breast cancer based on demographics, earlier dietary patterns, type of tumor or type of treatment. Researchers followed the women in the study group for 7.3 years and found no evidence that the low-fat diet extra high in fruit, vegetables and fiber was any more helpful in preventing cancer recurrence or death than the five-a-day diet.

Source




SOME LIES FROM TWO ANTI-FAT IDEOLOGUES

The study immediately above is one of many showing that type of diet does not affect cancer. See also here, for instance. But what about total calorie intake? Do fatties get more cancer? We might think so from the article below. There is a lot of weasel wording in the article but one is still left with the impression that fat ladies get more breast cancer. That is an absolute lie. It has been known for some time that they get LESS breast cancer

Diet and breast cancer risk reduction

By Linos E & Willett WC.

The association between diet and breast cancer risk has been investigated extensively and has led to some recommendations for prevention. Research suggests that maintaining a healthy weight may reduce the risk for breast cancer after menopause. Additionally, alcohol increases the risk for breast cancer even at moderate levels of intake, and women who drink alcohol also should take sufficient folate, which can mitigate this excess risk. Interesting questions for future research include the role of soy products, red meat, energy balance, and vitamin D, with particular attention to timing of exposure in early life. Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and dietary factors may differentially affect certain breast cancer subtypes; future studies should therefore attempt to characterize associations according to tumor characteristics.

J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2007 Sep;5(8):711-718

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

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



14 December, 2007

KETCHUP IS GOOD FOR YOU

Only if you accept the cholesterol religion, though. High correlations in tiny samples don't mean much anyway. I once had a correlation of .808 obtained on a small group go to zero when I tested the same hypothesis on a larger and more diverse group. A pity the study isn't more substantial. I am sure that the food freaks must frown on ketchup. Abstract below:

Tomato juice decreases LDL cholesterol levels and increases LDL resistance to oxidation

By Marja-Leena Silaste et al.

High dietary intakes of tomato products are often associated with a reduced risk of CVD, but the atheroprotective mechanisms have not been established. This study was conducted to investigate the effects of increased dietary intake of tomato products on plasma lipids and LDL oxidation. The diet intervention included a baseline period, a 3-week low tomato diet (no tomato products allowed) and a 3-week high tomato diet (400 ml tomato juice and 30 mg tomato ketchup daily). Twenty-one healthy study subjects participated in the study. Total cholesterol concentration was reduced by 5.9 (sd 10) % (P = 0.002) and LDL cholesterol concentration by 12.9 (sd 17.0) % (P = 0.0002) with the high tomato diet compared to the low tomato diet. The changes in total and LDL cholesterol concentrations correlated significantly with the changes in serum lycopene (r 0.56, P = 0.009; r 0.60, P = 0.004, total and LDL, respectively), beta-carotene (r 0.58, P = 0.005; r 0.70, P < 0.001) and gamma-carotene concentrations (r 0.64, P = 0.002; r 0.64, P = 0.002). The level of circulating LDL to resist formation of oxidized phospholipids increased 13 % (P = 0.02) in response to the high tomato diet. In conclusion, a high dietary intake of tomato products had atheroprotective effects, it significantly reduced LDL cholesterol levels, and increased LDL resistance to oxidation in healthy normocholesterolaemic adults. These atheroprotective features associated with changes in serum lycopene, beta-carotene and gamma-carotene levels.

British Journal of Nutrition (2007), 98:1251-1258




DOES THE FOLLOWING STUDY IN THE LANCET TELL YOU ANYTHING?

Yes. It tells you what the authors' assumptions were. It is just a modelling exercise -- not research. You can be sure that there was no mention of this

Chronic disease prevention: health effects and financial costs of strategies to reduce salt intake and control tobacco use

By Perviz Asaria et al.

Summary

In 2005, WHO set a global goal to reduce rates of death from chronic (non-communicable) disease by an additional 2% every year. To this end, we investigated how many deaths could potentially be averted over 10 years by implementation of selected population-based interventions, and calculated the financial costs of their implementation. We selected two interventions: to reduce salt intake in the population by 15% and to implement four key elements of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). We used methods from the WHO Comparative Risk Assessment project to estimate shifts in the distribution of risk factors associated with salt intake and tobacco use, and to model the effects on chronic disease mortality for 23 countries that account for 80% of chronic disease burden in the developing world. We showed that, over 10 years (2006-2015), 13.8 million deaths could be averted by implementation of these interventions, at a cost of less than US$0.40 per person per year in low-income and lower middle-income countries, and US$0.50-1.00 per person per year in upper middle-income countries (as of 2005). These two population-based intervention strategies could therefore substantially reduce mortality from chronic diseases, and make a major (and affordable) contribution towards achievement of the global goal to prevent and control chronic diseases.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



13 December, 2007

THE LUNCH-BAG POLICE – COMING TO A SCHOOL NEAR YOU

Six children who attend St. Stephen’s Catholic Elementary School in Woodbridge Ontario, just northwest of Toronto, are taking their school to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. For six years the school had a voluntary program that monitored all kids’ lunches. Teachers would check the students’ lunches to make sure that they didn’t contain such things as peanuts or egg products; ingredients that can pose a danger to children with allergies. The York Catholic District School Board ended the program last year. Maurice Brenner, who is assisting the little litigants, claims that these children suffer disabilities and therefore are entitled to protection from the human rights body.

It is amazing how human rights tribunals that were created to ensure that everyone in society had the same rights regardless of race, religion, creed, etc. are now instrumental in depriving people of what few rights are left in a society run by ever intrusive governments. If this application is successful, students entering the school will be once again subject to their lunches (which presumably will be eaten) searched by teachers acting as the lunch police.

In recent years teachers have become notorious for whining and complaining at contract negotiation time about how overworked they are despite of the fact that they get two months off in the summer and other holiday breaks that others can only dream about. If it ends up that they will be required to sift through lunches and take on the role of the peanut police, perhaps they will have a point about being overworked and underpaid.

Brenner claims that he just wants the school to reinstate the program and claims that he’s not looking for a province wide law. But if the Ontario Human Rights’ Commission upholds the complaint, it is difficult to see how the procedures will not have to be implemented on a province-wide basis. There is nothing different about these particular students at this particular school. Surely these students will not be granted “rights” that other kids do not have. And Dalton McGuinty and his government will be only too happy to have everyone’s lunches inspected; no right is too important to not be taken away; for the good of the children of course.

It’s true that exposure to certain foods can cause serious illness and even death. But as the family and friends of the late Jordan Manners discovered, bullet wounds can be fatal and being within the walls of a school offers no protection from the gun violence that has become rampant in recent years. So let’s not just protect these children; let’s protect all of them.

If it is permissible to comb through a student’s lunch on the grounds that it might contain harmful substances, then students, teachers and everyone else who enters a school building should be searched for guns and anything else that can be used as a weapon. It is hard to believe that 15-year-old Jordan Manners will be the last student to be shot or attacked with a weapon within our school system. All children deserve to be protected; not just those who suffer from serious allergies.

This will never happen of course. It simply isn’t politically correct to deprive students of their privacy rights by searching them for weapons rather than peanut butter. While there will be a lot of support for lunch police in certain circles, the thought of conducting weapons searches will be met with cries of fascism, Nazism, Mike Harrisism and a whole slew of “isms”. In this politically correct world, the rights of certain members of society always trump the rights of others.

If there is any certainty, it will be that those who proclaim about rights the loudest will have no objection to students’ lunches being frisked on a daily basis. And it will only be a matter of time before these searches become province-wide.

Source




Drunk? It's in your genes

THE US ARMY has helped discover a gene that dictates how much booze mice will consume - but it is unsure if humans have the same one. Researchers working with the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), a joint venture of the US Army and the National Institute of Health, discovered a gene variant which helps brain cells communicate with each other. The researchers said that mice with a variant of the Grm7 gene consumed more alcohol than other mice during experiments.

According to the NIAAA, scientists had already discovered that genes played a part in alcoholism, but it was not known which ones. NIAAA director Dr Ting-Kai Li said that finding link between the Grm7 and alcohol consumption was a breakthrough. "This is a noteworthy contribution, particularly since identifying genes that predispose to alcohol-related behaviours is such an arduous task," Dr Li said.

One of the researchers, Professor Csaba Vadasz from New York University's School of Medicine, said that if a similar gene variant was found in humans, new drugs could be developed to fight alcohol dependence.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



12 December, 2007

Red meat sheds men's dangerous belly fat

What "incorrect" advice!

A DIET rich in red meat can help overweight men shed layers of dangerous tummy fat. The findings from the CSIRO study suggest high protein intake effectively strips abdominal weight, but opponents of the diet say eating extra meat comes with its own risk, cancelling out the benefits. The study compared a diet high in protein, red meat and fibre with one high in carbohydrate and fibre. Trials on more than 100 overweight and obese men found that both diets led to similar weight losses but the high protein diet was more effective at reducing abdominal fat levels.

"Abdominal fat is a key risk factor for men for a range of diseases including colorectal and other cancers," CSIRO dietitian Dr Manny Noakes said. "The results also show that a range of indicators of bowel, kidney and bone health showed no difference between the high protein diet and the high carbohydrate diet."

Independent nutritionist Rosemary Stanton warned the diet was a double-edged sword. A [fraudulent] report released last month by the World Cancer Research Fund showed a higher incidence of many cancers, including colorectal cancer, with a high meat diet. "You need to balance any short term effects on abdominal fat with the long term risk of increasing the risk of cancer," she said. "When you do that you have to wonder whether it's worth the risk."

Source




Leftist nutters Blast McDonald's Report Card Advertising

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is demanding that McDonald's immediately stop advertising on children's report cards. Last week, students in Seminole County, Florida received their report cards in envelopes adorned with Ronald McDonald promising a free Happy Meal to students with good grades, behavior, or attendance. "This promotion takes in-school marketing to a new low," said Susan Linn, director of CCFC and a psychologist at Judge Baker Children's Center. "It bypasses parents and targets children directly with the message that doing well in school should be rewarded by a Happy Meal."

The advertisement appears on report cards envelopes for students in kindergarten through fifth grade. The envelopes are used to transport report cards to and from home throughout the school year.

"My daughter worked so hard to get good grades this term and now she believes she is entitled to a prize from McDonald's," said Susan Pagan, an Orlando parent. "And now I'm the "bad guy" because I had to explain that our family does not eat at fast food chains. I'm outraged that McDonald's is trying to exploit my daughter's achievement - and that the Seminole County School Board would help facilitate this exploitation."

While McDonald's has pledged to only advertise its healthier options to children under twelve, the Happy Meal promotion explicitly mentions cheeseburgers, French fries, and soft drinks as options. Happy Meals featured on the report card can contain as many 710 calories, 28 grams of fat, or 35 grams of sugar. McDonald's has also pledged to stop advertising all food or beverage products in elementary schools. Added Dr. Linn, "Turning report cards into ads for McDonald's undermines parents efforts to encourage healthy eating."

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



11 December, 2007

Fitness `is more important than beating obesity in middle age'

This sounds more like the truth but it is probably still exaggerated. Genes are the big factor. The "findings" below are based on self-reports, with all the doubts inherent in that. It is a study of what people say, not of what they do. Psychologists are well aware of the gap between those two things -- which is why we try to validate our tests against actual behaviour

Fitness is more important than thinness in retaining mobility, strength and balance in old age. Middle-aged people who do half an hour's vigorous activity three times a week are half as likely as the sedentary to suffer physical decline and impaired mobility as they get older. "Use it or lose it" was the message, said Dr Iain Lang, of the Peninsula Medical School in Plymouth, who, with collaborators in the United States, studied data on more than 10,000 people aged between 50 and 69 for up to six years.

Importantly, he said, the benefit of exercise was enjoyed regardless of body mass index. All groups roughly halved their risks of physical decline by doing exercise - so that a fit obese person did as well, or better, than a thin, unfit one. "Some people take up exercise and then give up when they don't lose weight," Dr Lang said. "This research shows that you get important benefits from exercise even if it doesn't help you lose weight."

The research was carried out using data from two ongoing studies, the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and the US Health and Retirement Study. Both are long-term studies of the changes that take place as middle-aged people move into old age. Both groups - 8,692 in the US, and 1,507 in England - were asked at the start if they did any vigorous exercise. This could include sports, heavy housework, mowing the lawn, sweeping up leaves, or any job that involves physical labour and would make a participant feel out of breath or sweaty. The team worked out from the answers how many of the participants did at least 30 minutes of this type of exercise at least three times a week. They then compared this with the experience of physical decline in the participants.

They conclude in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society that those who maintained a reasonable level of physical activity were more likely to be able to walk distances, climb stairs, maintain their sense of balance, stand from a seated position with their arms folded, or sustain their hand grip as they got older. Across all weight ranges, the rate of decreased physical ability later in life was twice as high among those who were less physically active. Being overweight or obese was linked with an increase in disability, but much of that increased risk could have been eliminated by keeping fit.

As examples, 21.1 per cent of English people of normal body mass index (20-24.9) became physically impaired over the course of the study if they did no exercise; only 12.4 per cent of them did if they were active. Among the obese (BMI 30 or over), 31.6 per cent of the English participants became physically impaired if they did no exercise, while only 15.4 per cent of the active ones did. Indeed, being physically active almost eliminated the difference in deterioration otherwise noticed between the obese and those of normal weight. The American data showed similar, if less striking, results.

"There are three truly interesting results from this research," Dr Lang said. "The first is that our findings were similar from the US and the UK, which suggests that they are universal. The second is that exercise in middle age does not just benefit people in terms of weight loss - it also helps them to remain physically healthy and active later in life. And the third is that, in terms of results from activity, weight does not seem to be an issue."

Source




Alternative medicines a `health risk'

The unregulated sale of alternative medicines was putting the public at risk, a fatal accident inquiry was told. Elaine Ferrie said an over-the-counter medical supplement was to blame for the death of her brother. She told Perth Sheriff Court that Norman Ferrie, 64, was a "strong, healthy man who never needed to go to the doctor".

Mr Ferrie, of Invergowrie, died from liver failure in 2004, two months after he began taking glucosamine tablets to counter joint pain in his knee. His doctor said that he appeared to have developed an allergic reaction to the medicine.

Ms Ferrie, 59, said: "There should be testing similar to that for prescription medicines to ensure they are manufactured safely." Glucosamine is a chemical that occurs naturally within the joints and is one of the most popular treatments for joint pain.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



10 December, 2007

The vitamin D scare again

They already put the stuff in butter and margarine. If there really is a problem let them put a bit more in

MILLIONS of Australians are living with dangerously low levels of vitamin D, putting them at risk of developing fractures, bone disease and deadly illnesses. A quarter of a century after the Slip, Slop, Slap skin-cancer campaign was launched, several prominent endocrinologists, orthopedic specialists and other experts say the message to cover up has led to vitamin D deficiencies in between 30% and 70% of the population.

While no one disputes the potentially fatal consequences of too much sun exposure, health experts say some safe time in the sun each day is essential for maintaining healthy levels of vitamin D, a crucial bone-strengthening nutrient produced when skin is exposed to sunlight. Endocrinologist Professor Peter Ebeling, head of Osteoporosis Australia, has linked the low levels of vitamin D to a massive increase in the number of people being treated in hospitals with osteoporosis-related broken bones — up from a daily average of 177 to 262 — in the past six years. It costs the health system $1.9 billion a year to treat them.

Professor Ebeling said a study earlier this year showed more than three-quarters of general patients presenting at the Royal Melbourne Hospital had lower than recommended levels. "It's very serious," he said. "A lot of us have been worried about if for a long time but have just realised how widespread it is over the last five to 10 years."

Recent research in Geelong, south-east Queensland and Tasmania found about 40% of residents had insufficient vitamin D levels. During winter, the number of women in Geelong with low levels rose to 54%. Emerging evidence has also linked deficiencies in vitamin D to colon, breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and other diseases. [Note that this article found that vitamin D had NO overall effect on cancer deaths. See also here]

Source




Studies show how fruit, veges reduce cancer

The research results described below do not yet appear to have made it into journal publication so cannot be critically evaluated as yet. The results among humans were probably all just a social class effect, however. Middle class people are healthier and also more likely to report that they eat raw broccoli (whether they do or not). Amusing that you have to eat your vegetables raw, though

JUST three servings a month of raw broccoli or cabbage can reduce the risk of bladder cancer by as much as 40 per cent, researchers report. Other studies show that dark-colored berries can reduce the risk of cancer too - adding more evidence to a growing body of research that shows fruits and vegetables, especially richly coloured varieties, can reduce the risk of cancer.

Researchers at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, surveyed 275 people who had bladder cancer and 825 people without cancer. They asked especially about cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli and cabbage. These foods are rich in compounds called isothiocyanates, which are known to lower cancer risk.

The effects were most striking in non-smokers, the researchers told a meeting this week of the American Association of Cancer Research in Philadelphia. Compared to smokers who ate fewer than three servings of raw cruciferous vegetables, non-smokers who ate at least three servings a month were almost 73 per cent less likely to be in the bladder cancer group, they found.

Among both smokers and non-smokers, those who ate this minimal amount of raw veggies had a 40 per cent lower risk. But the team did not find the same effect for cooked vegetables. "Cooking can reduce 60 to 90 per cent of ITCs, (isothiocyanates)," Dr Li Tang, who led the study, said.

A second team of researchers from Roswell Park tested broccoli sprouts in rats. They used rats engineered to develop bladder cancer and fed some of them a freeze-dried extract of broccoli sprouts. The more they ate, the less likely they were to develop bladder cancer, said Dr Yuesheng Zhang, who led the research. They found the compounds were processed and excreted within 12 hours of feeding. That suggests the idea that compounds are protecting the bladder from the inside, Dr Zhang said. "The bladder is like a storage bag, and cancers in the bladder occur almost entirely along the inner surface, the epithelium, that faces the urine, presumably because this tissue is assaulted all the time by noxious materials in the urine," Dr Zhang said.

In a third study, a team at The Ohio State University fed black raspberries to patients with Barrett's esophagus, a condition that can lead to esophageal cancer. Black raspberries, sometimes called blackberries or blackcaps, are also rich in cancer-fighting compounds. Ohio State's Laura Kresty and colleagues fed 32 grams of freeze-dried black raspberries to women with Barrett's esophagus and 45 grams to men every day for six months.

They measured urine levels of levels of two compounds - 8-isoprostane and GSTpi - that indicate whether cancer-causing processes are going on in the body. Kresty said 58 per cent of patients had marked declines of 8-isoprostane levels, suggesting less damage, and 37 per cent had higher levels of GSTpi, which can help interfere with cancer causing damage and which is usually low in patients with Barrett's.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



9 December, 2007

EXERCISE: GOOD OR BAD?

To my feeble brain, the first report below seems to be contradicted by the two reports following it

Sedentary jobs negate benefits of exercise: study

Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not enough to prevent obesity and diabetes in people who spend long periods doing nothing. New research shows that sitting in front of a computer all day may negate the health benefits of exercise. Ever since Norm and his "Life Be In It" ads encouraged us to get off the couch and do some sport, Australians have been told that 30 minutes of exercise a day is good for our health.

Researchers at the International Diabetes Institute in Melbourne studied more than 8,000 people over the age of 35 who did not suffer from diabetes. The study found that the recommended 30 minutes of exercise a day is not enough to prevent obesity and diabetes in people who also spend long periods doing nothing.

Associate Professor David Dunstan from the International Diabetes Institute led the research. "Using objective measurements of physical activity, that is, using an accelerometer, [we found] that people are spending up to six or seven hours in a seated position or doing nothing during the day," he said. "So what this research is showing is that possibly our modern environment, whereby we're required to sit for prolonged periods, may be contributing to the diabetes and obesity epidemics."

Assoc Prof Dunstan says even if people exercise for the minimum of 30 to 150 minutes each day, if they sit down for several hours they might not be reaping the health benefits. "Even in those people that are achieving that level [of exercise], if they are watching, for instance, television for greater than three to four hours a day, then watching the television increases the risk of diabetes and obesity," he said. "So we're not entirely sure at the moment because this is a fairly new area, maybe going out to the gym and doing the 30 minutes of exercise may not be enough to offset any potential bad effects of sitting on their rear ends for the rest of the day."

The study, which was first published in the US journal Diabetes Care in March, has been followed up with more research by University of Queensland scientists. Assoc Prof Dunstan says this new research shows if people break up their sitting time with a simple walk around the office, they are more likely to increase their metabolic rate. "People who break up their sitting time ... those that are intermittently obtaining what we call incidental physical activity, that is the light activity, those that are breaking up more throughout the day have a lower risk of diabetes," he said. "Those that are getting up and moving about the office, for instance walking to a colleague rather than emailing a colleague, getting up and walking to the photocopier."

Source




Fat and Fit? New Research Rebuffs Obesity Activists' Weight-Obsessed Food Crusades

"You can't tell just by looking at someone if they are fit. You can certainly be fat, even obese, and still be fit . Often the public discussion stops with fatness, but we tried to go beyond that." That's health professor Steven Blair, co-author of a new study published today in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) that puts the fat-fixated dogmas of the nation's food activists to the test. What did Blair and his colleagues at the University of South Carolina find? Regardless of body weight, adults over 60 who are physically active live longer than their couch-bound counterparts. As lead researcher Dr. Xuemi Sui put it to the AFP: "We observed that fit individuals who were obese ... had a lower risk of all-cause mortality than did unfit, normal-weight, or lean individuals."

This JAMA study is just the latest entry in a long line of scientific research showing that physical inactivity, not excess food consumption, is the real culprit behind many of the health problems associated with obesity. And, as we've been saying for years, what's really unhealthy isn't weight itself, but the activist-driven public obsession with weight -- which redirects energies away from programs that encourage exercise and toward ineffective legal controls on food choices.

Today's news makes the message in our new report on how physical activity has been engineered out of modern life even more important. Everyday conveniences make it all too easy to stay stationary. So if you're looking to get healthy, small changes to ordinary behavior that get you moving are the way to go. Constantly fretting about your waistline isn't.

Source




Exercise can prevent Alzheimer's

Regular exercise can cut the risk of Alzheimer's disease by a third while a lack of physical activity can lead to depression and dementia, according to scientists. A study by the University of Bristol, based on 17 trials, found that physical activity was associated with a 30-40 per cent reduced risk of developing Alzheimer's. Separate evidence presented to the British Nutrition Foundation conference linked a lack of exercise to depression and dementia.

It is unclear why exercise has such a great effect but it could be associated with benefits to the vascular system as well as release of chemicals in the brain. Judy Buttriss, director general at the BNF, said that given people were living longer, the implications of such studies were "enormous".

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



8 December, 2007

An argument for a low calorie diet? Or an argument for committed religion?

Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons also seem to have some health advantages but in view of the in vivo results of attenuated calorie consumption, it is the total calorie intake that needs investigation in the situation below



If you want to avoid cancer, live like a monk. That is the inescapable conclusion from research into one of the world's most renowned monastic communities. The austere regime of the 1,500 monks on Mount Athos, in northern Greece, begins with an hour's pre-dawn prayers and is designed to protect their souls. Their low-stress existence and simple diet (no meat, occasional fish, home-grown vegetables and fruit) may, however, also protect them from more worldly troubles. The monks, who inhabit a peninsula from which women are banned, enjoy astonishingly low rates of cancer.

Since 1994, the monks have been regularly tested, and only 11 have developed prostate cancer, a rate less than one quarter of the international average. In one study, their rate of lung and bladder cancer was found to be zero. Haris Aidonopoulos, a urologist at the University of Thessaloniki, said that the monks' diet, which calls on them to avoid olive oil, dairy products and wine on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, helped to explain the statistics. "What seems to be the key is a diet that alternates between olive oil and nonolive oil days, and plenty of plant proteins," he said. "It's not only what we call the Mediterranean diet, but also eating the old-fashioned way. Small simple meals at regular intervals are very important."

Meals on the peninsula, which the Prince of Wales has visited regularly and which can only be reached by boat, are ascetic and repetitive affairs that have changed little over the centuries, although there are variations between the 20 monasteries. The monks sit in silence while, from a pulpit, passages from the Bible are read in Greek. They eat at speed - as soon as the Bible passage is over, the meal is officially completed.

The staples are fruit and vegetables, pasta, rice and soya dishes, and bread and olives. They grow much of what they eat themselves. Agioritiko red wine is made locally from mountain grapes. Dairy products are rare - female animals are banned from the autonomous semi-state.

Life on Athos has changed little over the past 1,043 years. Breakfast is hard bread and tea. Much of the day is taken up with chores - cleaning, cooking, tending to crops - followed by a supper, typically of lentils, fruit and salad, and evening prayers.

Some of the seaside monasteries specialise in catching octopus, a delicacy that is softened up by bashing on the rock. Fish also feeds the Athos cats, protected by the monks for their mouse-catching prowess. Of all domestic animals, only cats are exempt from the ban on females. Some of the monks live in hillside huts or cliff-side caves perched above the sea as satellites of the main establishments, perhaps the closest that modern Christianity gets to medieval hermits. They depend for their sustenance on handouts of bread and olives.

On holidays and feast days such as Christmas and Easter, when other Greeks are feasting on roast meat, the monks prefer fish, their only culinary luxury. Father Moses of the Koutloumousi monastery, one of the 20 organised cloisters scattered over the Athos peninsula, said: "We never eat meat. We produce most of the vegetables and fruit we consume. And we never forget that all year round, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, we don't use olive oil on our food." The olive-oil routine, which also applies to wine and dairy products, appears to have no religious significance, but is a way of eking out their supplies.

All the monks stick to the rigorous fasting periods of the Orthodox Church, in which a strict vegan diet is prescribed for weeks at a stretch. Michalis Hourdakis, a dietician associated with Athens University, said: "This limited consumption of calories has been found to lengthen life. Meat has been associated with intestinal cancer, while fruit and vegetables help ward off prostate cancer."

The lack of air pollution on Mount Athos as well as the monks' hard work in the fields also played their part, the researchers said. There was no mention, however, of whether the absence of women had any effect on the monks' renowned spiritual calm.

Source




How good is the case for fluoridation of water?

The "anti" case is seldom heard but an outline is below. See also here

This is a medical treatment which defies every rule of drug management - administrated compulsorily every day, for a lifetime, regardless of age and medical circumstances (and with little prior education or choice for the community).

McCray seeks to relegate those opposed to his views as "nutters", including me - a medical practitioner vitally interested in early intervention medicine and spokesman for more than 3000 Australian doctors, dentists, scientists and other health practitioners - and my wife, a medical professional and dedicated researcher in this subject. Presumably it also includes a third of Brisbane's population; in a community forum in 2005, Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said he would not support water fluoridation because a third of residents rejected mass medication.

It must also include 14 Nobel Prize winners who oppose water fluoridation on scientific grounds, including Arvid Carlsson who led the successful campaign against fluoridation in Sweden, and who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2000. Is McCray's patronising argument also directed against the 12 North American scientific experts on fluoride who met regularly over three years (National Research Council USA 2006)? They concluded that communities with water fluoridation had increased rates of:

* Hip fractures - fluoride can make bones more brittle and cause joint stiffness and pain.

* Lowered IQ in children, even at low dose.

* Decreased thyroid function.

* Bone cancer - positive in animal studies and later to be seen positive in young boys by a 2006 study.

* Dental fluorosis - staining and pitting of tooth enamel.

We suggest the ADA is being negligent in not following the world's largest group of dentists, the American Dental Association, in stating clearly on its website the warning that fluoridated water should not be used for formula-fed babies.

This website should acknowledge also the research that at least 1 per cent of the population will suffer from allergic reactions from fluoride in water. Might it also include the Centre for Disease Control's acknowledgments in 1999 and 2002 that where fluoride is effective, it is in the topical (local) application to teeth? And is it unreasonable to expect the "all the facts" website be up to date and report the recent publication by the prestigious Lancet, of human neurotoxicity caused by fluoride in water - in similar concentrations now recommended by the dentists for Queensland's drinking water?

For obvious reasons, then, the following situation exists:

* Only nine countries in the world have fluoridation of more than 50 per cent of their public water supplies. Thus Queensland is presently "in step" with most of the world.

* Less than 2 per cent of Continental Europe's drinking water is fluoridated. Europe has abandoned the discredited practice over the past 30 years and with no loss to dental health.

* Japan, China, Scotland and Northern Ireland have rejected fluoridation. Israel has ceased expansion due to recent research exposing negative health effects.

Finally, less than 1 per cent of water used is actually drunk. Most water is for other household use including sewage, and for use by industry etc. Could a less efficient, more wasteful system of medication distribution ever be devised?

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



7 December, 2007

Widespread grief being caused by the obesity war

The girl stood at the edge of the pool, hesitating. Her family encouraged her to join them. What was wrong? She usually loved the water. But this time it was different. She was wearing a dressing-gown over her bathers. She didn't want to take it off. "Why don't you want to go in, Lily?" her mother asked. "Because everyone will laugh at my body and say I'm fat," the girlreplied. My friend's daughter Lily is six. A bigger build than girls her age, but fit and healthy, leaving others behind in school races, she was denying herself the pleasures of a swim because she thought her body would be judged.

So do many others. A Mission Australia national survey of 29,000 young people aged 11 to 24 released this week has found body image is the most important issue for them. The annual survey, asking young people to rank 14 issues in order of concern, puts body image ahead of family conflict, stress, bullying, alcohol and drugs and suicide.

The results are disturbing but not really surprising. Many girls feel disgusted by their bodies, engaged in constant self-surveillance and self-criticism. Their bodies have become an all-consuming project. One in 100 Australian girls suffers anorexia nervosa. Some estimates put the rate of bulimia at as high as one in five. Children as young as eight are being hospitalised with eating disorders. Some hospitals report there are not enough beds to cope with the numbers.

A recent report found one in five 12-year-old girls regularly used fasting and vomiting to lose weight. One in four Australian girls want to get plastic surgery. Women's Forum Australia recently produced a YouTube film clip about our new magazine-style research paper, Faking It. In it, a 10-year-old girl says women's magazines make her want to be thin. She plans to go on a raw fish diet.

Too many girls are trying to imitate half-starved celebrities and airbrushed models in a quest to be hot and sexy. We have allowed the objectification and sexualisation of girls in a culture that is becoming increasingly pornographic. The embedding of sexualised images of women in society has become so mainstream, it is hardly noticed. Everywhere a girl looks, she sees sexualised images of her gender. She's expected to be a walking billboard for the brands of the global sex industry. Playboy make-up, porn star T-shirts, padded bras and pole dancing for little girls: they're being groomed to turn tricks in their stripper chic.

Source




Sex, chocolate and meat 'boost brain power'

What "incorrect" advice!

Plenty of sex, dark chocolate and cold meats are the latest keys to boosting your brain power, according to a new book published in Britain. Authors Terry Horne and Simon Wootton believe those who want to stop their brain deteriorating should avoid watching TV soap operas, smoking cannabis and mixing with moaners.

While sex, dark chocolate and eating cold meats for breakfast top the list for the best ways to keep the brain fit, cuddling babies, cheating at homework, doing a business degree and reading out loud are also recommended. "People can make lifestyle choices that will constantly increase our cognitive capacity throughout our adult lives lives," Horne, a university lecturer, told the Daily Mail. "Mix with people who make you laugh, have a good sense of humour or who share the same interests as you and avoid people who whinge, whine and complain as people who are negative will make you depressed."

Horne and Wootton say they base their theories, contained in their book Teach Yourself: Train Your Brain, on research carried out by experts around the world. Many of their recommendations are based on various chemical reactions within the body brought on by certain activities.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



6 December, 2007

Birth date can affect personality

This is an old controversy but there does appear to be something in it. Update: Prof. Brignell is very skeptical

ASTROLOGY may usually be dismissed as harmless superstition, but scientists are discovering that the date we are born can affect our later lives. Research has revealed the time of year a person is born can influence his or her personality, health and even whether they are male or female. But rather than being written in the stars, studies are showing that it is the season of birth that predisposes individuals to different traits.

In the northern hemisphere, women born in May will display more impulsive behaviour while those whose birthday falls in November will be more reflective. Men born in the spring will show greater persistence than those born in winter. Other research has shown that people born in the autumn will tend to be physically active and excel in football while those born in the spring will be more cerebral and may be better suited to chess. Those born between September and December are more prone to panic attacks while there is growing evidence that schizophrenia is higher among those born in the late winter and early spring.

"It is exactly what you would expect if it were temperature related," said Richard Wiseman, a professor of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, who has examined the link between luck and the season of birth. "Many of the effects reverse in the two hemispheres." Professor John Eagle, a psychiatrist at Aberdeen University who has studied the relationships between season of birth and mental health, added: "The two main culprits are diet and the seasonal fluctuations in nutrition, and the increase in infections during the winter."

Astrologers have seized on the findings as evidence that the stars influence personality. But scientists insist there are biological reasons behind the effects.

Source




Obesity rates have leveled off

They have probably now reached a plateau that reflects the reduced level of physical activity which is now typical -- which makes the very common alarmist projections of vastly increased future obesity levels look predictably silly. Straight-line projections of trends in biological phenomena should be the province of morons but sadly they are not. Attention-seekers just find them too useful for their purposes.

Obesity rates in U.S. women seem to be staying level, and the rate in men may be hitting a plateau now, too, according to a new government report released Wednesday. With more than 72 million Americans counted as obese, adult obesity rates for both sexes seem to be holding steady at about 34 percent, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The rates are still too high, said Mark Swanson, a researcher who studies childhood obesity and school nutrition at the University of Kentucky's College of Public Health. "Until the numbers start to go the other direction, I don't think we can consider this a success at all," he said.

The adult obesity rate has generally been climbing since 1980, when it was 15 percent. The entire adult population has grown heavier, and the heaviest have become much heavier in the last 25 years. Obesity is major risk factor for heart disease, certain types of cancer and type 2 diabetes.

The CDC's new report is based on a comprehensive survey by the federal government that includes physical examinations. The results are based on what was found in about 4,400 adults ages 20 and older in 2005 and 2006. About 33 percent of men and 35 percent of women were obese. The new rates were slightly higher than the 31 percent and 33 percent reported in 2003-2004 surveys. However, in generalizing the results to the U.S. population, researchers calculated a margin of error that swallows up the differences between years. In other words, the increases were not considered statistically significant. The obesity rate for women has been about steady since 1999-2000, at around 33 percent. But the male rate trended up, from 27.5 percent in 1999-2000.

The new CDC report compared data over four years. While it looks like the male rate is leveling off, more years will be needed to confirm a trend, said Dr. William Dietz, a CDC expert. If there is a trend, perhaps women are having an influence on the eating and exercise habits of men, Dietz added. Childhood obesity rates for 2005-2006 have not been released yet. Through 2003-2004, they were rising.

So what might be behind leveling adult rates? Increased exercise is one possibility. Last week, the CDC released results of a national telephone survey that found that about half of men and women reported getting regular physical activity in 2005, an increase from the rates reported in 2001. Physical activity prevents new cases of obesity, but it's not clear that explains the new findings, CDC officials said.

Experts believe reducing consumption of high-calorie and fatty foods have an impact. Some restaurants cut back their super-size servings in recent years and that may be helping, said J. Justin Wilson. He's a senior research analyst for the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit coalition of restaurants and food companies.

In the new report, obesity was most common in adults aged 40 to 59. There were large differences by race for women - the female obesity rates in the 40 to 59 age group were 39 percent in white women, 51 percent in Mexican-American women and 51 percent in black women. However, there were no racial or ethnic disparities in the male obesity rates, the CDC said.

The report also found that about a third of obese adults had not been told by a doctor or health care provider that they were overweight. That statistic has held about steady from earlier years, said Cynthia Ogden, a co-author of the report.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



5 December, 2007

THE OLD ACRYLAMIDE SCARE REVIVED

Smokers, barbecuers and coffee-drinkers watch out! They are after you! Yet another stupid epidemiological study based on self-reports and no way of excluding confounding factors -- such as obesity and poverty. The middle class are healthier and also much less likely to report consumption of unprestigious fast food and that alone could account for the small differences observed. See here for the much stronger evidence that acrylamide is NOT harmful.

I might also remark in passing that the differences found below were in rare cancers, were found in very old ladies and were found only between extremes of supposed acrylamide consumption. The use of extreme quintiles for analysis also tends to suggest that there was NO overall correlation between consumption and cancer. Throwing away three fifths of your data is not a persuasive analysis. Attention-seeking medical researchers often do it, though. Popular summary and journal abstract follow:

Fresh fears have been raised over the safety of cooked foods as a wide-ranging study found for the first time that a common chemical caused by frying, roasting or grilling can double the risk of cancer in women. Five years ago, scientists sparked a worldwide alert when they disclosed that many household foods contain the substance acrylamide, which was thought to be a probable cause of the disease. Now a study involving 120,000 people - half of whom were women - has established a direct link between consumption of the chemical and the incidence of ovarian and womb cancer.

Research has shown that acrylamide is found in cooked foods such as bread, breakfast cereals, coffee and also meat and potatoes which had been fried, baked, roasted, grilled or barbecued. The Dutch study found that women who absorbed more acrylamide were twice as likely to develop ovarian or womb cancer as those who ingested a smaller amount. The higher amount eaten by the women involved was the equivalent to a single packet of crisps, half a pack of biscuits, or a portion of chips a day.

The EU has now advised people to avoid burnt toast or golden brown chips because they contain higher levels of the substance acrylamide. They have also recommended eating home-cooked meals which contain much lower amounts of the chemical than processed products, fast food and restaurant meals.

The Food Standards Agency welcomed the report and called on consumers to heed the EU's advice. However, a spokesman said it was not possible to avoid the chemical entirely. "This new study supports our current advice and policy, which already assumes that acrylamide has the potential to be a human carcinogen," a spokesman said. "Since acrylamide forms naturally in a wide variety of cooked foods, it is not possible to have a healthy balanced diet that avoids it."

The findings from the University of Maastricht, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, came only a month after the public was warned about the increased risk of cancer from eating bacon and ham. It also came as the Government launches a five-year strategy to combat the disease.

The Dutch report relied on the Netherlands Cohort Study, which involved 120,000 people aged between 55 and 70, about 62,000 of them women. At the start of the study, participants completed a questionnaire that was used to estimate their acrylamide intake. The participants were followed up through the Dutch cancer registries and after 11 years, 327 had developed endometrial (womb) cancer, 300 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 1,835 suffered breast cancer. The study found that women who had eaten 40 micrograms of acrylamide a day (found, for example in a 32g pack of crisps) had double the risk of endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer than women in the lowest category. There was no link found to breast cancer.

Janneke Hogervorst, at the Department of Epidemiology at Maastricht University, said that "this is the first observation of an association between dietary acrylamide intake and cancer in humans". But she warned: "It is important that these results are corroborated and confirmed by other studies before far-reaching conclusions can be drawn."

About 6,400 women are diagnosed with womb cancer in Britain each year and 7,000 with ovarian cancer, one of the highest rates in Europe. The FSA said people should try to have less fried and overcooked food in their diet. "People should eat a balanced healthy diet which includes plenty of fruit and vegetables, bread, other cereals and potatoes," a spokesman said. "They should also limit the amount of sugary and fatty foods they eat, including fried food such as chips and crisps."

The EU called on people not to overcook their food. "General advice, resulting from this project, is to avoid overcooking when baking, frying or toasting carbohydrate-rich foods," it recommended. "French fries and roast potatoes should be cooked to a golden yellow rather than golden brown colour and bread should be toasted to the lightest colour acceptable."

Dr Lesley Walker, of Cancer Research UK, tried to calm fears over the link, suggesting that other factors could have a greater impact on the chances of cancer. "Women shouldn't be unduly worried by this news," she said. "It's not easy to separate out one component of the diet from all the others when studying the complex diets of ordinary people. "And as acrylamide levels are highest in carbohydrate containing foods - such as chips and crisps - other factors need to be firmly ruled out, especially being overweight or obese, which we know is strongly linked to womb cancer and probably linked to ovarian cancer."

A Food and Drink Federation spokesman said: "The food manufacturing industry has made huge efforts to reduce the formation of acrylamide in manufactured foods using a variety of techniques. "Considerable progress has already been made in reducing levels - for example potato crisps 30-40 per cent, potato fries 15 per cent, crispbread 75 per cent - but more work is needed on coffee."

When the alarm was raised in 2002, the FSA tested a number of products, including Walkers Crisps, Ryvita crackers, Kellogg's Rice Crispies and Pringles crisps. They found higher levels of the chemical occurring naturally in the food than international safety limits permitted in the packaging of the product. Although people fry less food at home, the popularity of fast food means increasing levels are being consumed. In 2000, charred meat and blackened toast were condemned because other chemicals formed on the burnt food were found to contribute to the risk of cancer.

Source

A Prospective Study of Dietary Acrylamide Intake and the Risk of Endometrial, Ovarian, and Breast Cancer

By Janneke G. Hogervorst et al.

Background: Acrylamide, a probable human carcinogen, was detected in various heat-treated carbohydrate-rich foods in 2002. The few epidemiologic studies done thus far have not shown a relationship with cancer. Our aim was to investigate the association between acrylamide intake and endometrial, ovarian, and breast cancer risk.

Methods: The Netherlands Cohort Study on diet and cancer includes 62,573 women, aged 55-69 years. At baseline (1986), a random subcohort of 2,589 women was selected using a case cohort analysis approach for analysis. The acrylamide intake of subcohort members and cases was assessed with a food frequency questionnaire and was based on chemical analysis of all relevant Dutch foods. Subgroup analyses were done for never-smokers to eliminate the influence of smoking; an important source of acrylamide.

Results: After 11.3 years of follow-up, 327, 300, and 1,835 cases of endometrial, ovarian, and breast cancer, respectively, were documented. Compared with the lowest quintile of acrylamide intake (mean intake, 8.9 mg/day), multivariable-adjusted hazard rate ratios (HR) for endometrial, ovarian, and breast cancer in the highest quintile (mean intake, 40.2 mg/day) were 1.29 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.81-2.07; Ptrend = 0.18], 1.78 (95% CI, 1.10-2.88; Ptrend = 0.02), and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.73-1.19; Ptrend = 0.79), respectively. For never-smokers, the corresponding HRs were 1.99 (95% CI, 1.12-3.52; Ptrend = 0.03), 2.22 (95% CI, 1.20-4.08; Ptrend = 0.01), and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.80-1.52; Ptrend = 0.55).

Conclusions: We observed increased risks of postmenopausal endometrial and ovarian cancer with increasing dietary acrylamide intake, particularly among never-smokers. Risk of breast cancer was not associated with acrylamide intake.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(11):2304-13




Honey is better than children's cough syrups for a silent night

It is true that most cough mixtures are pretty useless most of the time

Natural honey is a more effective remedy for children's coughs than over-the-counter medicines, researchers say. A dose of buckwheat honey before bedtime easily outperformed a cough suppressant in a US study. Honey did a better job of reducing the severity and frequency of night-time coughs. It also improved sleep quality for children and their parents.

Dextromethorphan (DM), the active ingredient in many cough mixtures sold in chemists and supermarkets, had no significant impact on symptoms. Honey has been used in medicine for centuries, not only to treat coughs and bronchitis but also to assist the healing of wounds. For coughs it is often mixed with lemon, ginger or brandy.

Ian Paul, who led the researchers from Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, said: "We hope that medical professionals will consider the positive potential of honey as a treatment, given the lack of proven efficacy, expense, and potential for adverse effects associated with the use of DM." DM can cause severe involuntary muscle contractions and spasms, the researchers said. Cases of teenagers using the drug to get "high" were also common, they said.

Dr Paul's team observed 105 children and teenagers with respiratory tract infections. The study ran over two nights. On the first, none of the participants was given any treatment. On the second, they were divided into groups who received either honey, an artificial honey-flavoured DM medicine or no treatment, about half an hour before bedtime. Parents answered questions about their child's symptoms and sleep quality, as well as their own ability to sleep. They rated honey as significantly better for the relief of symptoms. The findings are reported today in the journal Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



4 December, 2007

Cancerous night-shifts?

I suppose we should be thankful that the article below admits that the conclusions it offers are speculative

Like UV rays and diesel exhaust fumes, working the graveyard shift will soon be listed as a "probable" cause of cancer. It is a surprising step validating a concept once considered wacky. And it is based on research that finds higher rates of breast and prostate cancer among women and men whose work day starts after dark. Next month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, will add overnight shift work as a probable carcinogen.

The higher cancer rates don't prove working overnight can cause cancer. There may be other factors common among graveyard shift workers that raise their risk for cancer. [Like being poor] However, scientists suspect that overnight work is dangerous because it disrupts the circadian rhythm, the body's biological clock. The hormone melatonin, which can suppress tumor development, is normally produced at night.

If the graveyard shift theory eventually proves correct, millions of people worldwide could be affected. Experts estimate that nearly 20 percent of the working population in developed countries work night shifts.

Among the first to spot the night shift-cancer connection was Richard Stevens, a cancer epidemiologist and professor at the University of Connecticut Health Center. In 1987, Stevens published a paper suggesting a link between light at night and breast cancer. Back then, he was trying to figure out why breast cancer incidence suddenly shot up starting in the 1930s in industrialized societies, where nighttime work was considered a hallmark of progress. Most scientists were bewildered by his proposal.

But in recent years, several studies have found that women working at night over many years were indeed more prone to breast cancer. Also, animals that have their light-dark schedules switched develop more cancerous tumors and die earlier. Some research also suggests that men working at night may have a higher rate of prostate cancer.

Because these studies mostly focused on nurses and airline crews, bigger studies in different populations are needed to confirm or disprove the findings. There are still plenty of skeptics. And to put the risk in perspective, the "probable carcinogen" tag means that the link between overnight work and cancer is merely plausible. Among the long list of agents that are listed as "known" carcinogens are alcoholic beverages and birth control pills. Such lists say nothing about exposure amount or length of time or how likely they are to cause cancer.

The American Cancer Society Web site notes that carcinogens do not always cause cancer. The cancer society doesn't make its own assessments of possible cancer-causing agents, but relies on analyses by the IARC and a U.S. agency. Still, many doubters of the night shift link may be won over by the IARC's analysis to be published in the December issue of the journal Lancet Oncology. "The indications are positive," said Vincent Cogliano, who heads up the agency's carcinogen classifications unit. "There was enough of a pattern in people who do shift work to recognize that there's an increase in cancer, but we can't rule out the possibility of other factors."

Scientists believe having lower melatonin levels can raise the risk of developing cancer. Light shuts down melatonin production, so people working in artificial light at night may have lower melatonin levels. Melatonin can be taken as a supplement, but experts don't recommend it long-term, since that could ruin the body's ability to produce it naturally.

Sleep deprivation may be another factor in cancer risk. People who work at night are not usually able to completely reverse their day and night cycles. "Night shift people tend to be day shift people who are trying to stay awake at night," said Mark Rea, director of the Light Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, who is not connected with the IARC analysis. Not getting enough sleep makes your immune system vulnerable to attack, and less able to fight off potentially cancerous cells.

Confusing your body's natural rhythm can also lead to a breakdown of other essential tasks. "Timing is very important," Rea said. Certain processes like cell division and DNA repair happen at regular times. Even worse than working an overnight shift is flipping between daytime and overnight work. "The problem is re-setting your body's clock," said Aaron Blair, of the United States' National Cancer Institute, who chaired IARC's recent meeting on shift work. "If you worked at night and stayed on it, that would be less disruptive than constantly changing shifts."

Anyone whose light and dark schedule is often disrupted - including frequent long-haul travelers or insomniacs - could theoretically face the same increased cancer risk, Stevens said. He advises workers to sleep in a darkened room once they get off work. "The balance between light and dark is very important for your body. Just get a dark night's sleep."

Meanwhile, scientists are trying to come up with ways to reduce night workers' cancer risk. And some companies are experimenting with different lighting, seeking a type that doesn't affect melatonin production. So far, the color that seems to have the least effect on melatonin is one that few people would enjoy working under: red.

Source




Anti-salt craze

Strange that they fail to mention that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER!

The nation's top food regulators and the salt industry faced off at an FDA hearing Thursday, although it will be months, perhaps years, before the Food and Drug Administration rules on the salt reduction petition that sparked the hearing. The FDA's conclusion, however, could drastically reduce the amount of salt consumed by Americans every day.

Consumer and health advocacy groups say that after years of neglecting the issue, it's time for government to recognize the harmful effects of salt on blood pressure by imposing limits on salt content in foods sold in stores and to restaurants.

Salt industry representatives question the medical evidence linking salt to heart disease and stroke, and dispute the notion that limits on salt would make Americans healthier.

With each side claiming it has science on its side, and with indisputably high rates of elevated blood pressure in the United States, it is certain that the debate will continue. Even among members of the same family. Jeff Dax said he doesn't often frequent the fast food restaurants that dot Broadway, in Sacramento. He said he typically packs a lunch to eat on breaks from his job as a construction contractor. But that didn't happen Thursday, when he made his way to Taco Bell for a quick taco and quesadilla lunch with his father. Dax, himself an avid cook, said he'd welcome restrictions on salt content in fast foods, citing a family history of clogged arteries and heart disease. "You can always add more (salt)" he said. His father, Tom Dax, disagreed. Like food industry groups, he argues against regulation and for personal responsibility when it comes to diet. "I don't even salt my eggs," he said. "It's better to limit what you eat."

Liz Applegate, a nutrition expert at the University of California, Davis, agrees. While acknowledging studies that show salt contributes to high blood pressure, she said it is foolish to single out the mineral for regulation. "If you cut in half the amount of sodium in, say, a TV dinner, is that going to improve the health of the nation?" she asks. "My answer is no. The bigger issue is too many calories are consumed, and we don't burn the calories. And we don't have enough fruits, vegetables and grains in our diet."

Health advocates pushing for limits on salt content acknowledge that America's health problems are not all rooted in salt consumption. "But this is the single easiest piece of the pie to tackle," said Dr. Stephen Havas, vice president for Science, Quality and Public Health at the American Medical Association, who testified at the FDA hearing Thursday. "You can actually engineer a public health solution. You can systematically reduce the salt in foods and people's palates will adjust very quickly."

Morton Satin, director of technical and regulatory affairs at the Salt Institute, the U.S. salt industry's trade group, disagreed. "They don't understand the role of salt in food," said Satin, citing the highly healthy but salty Mediterranean diet, which features olives, capers and anchovies. Satin, who referred to salt-reduction proponents as "bozos" and "Marx brothers in lab coats," argued that salt limits would make people even less likely to want to eat healthy foods, particularly vegetables like broccoli, which many people agree taste better salted.

Among the proposals before the FDA are a 50 percent reduction in sodium in processed foods, fast food products and restaurant meals over the next decade and improved labeling of food products, including warnings for foods high in sodium. Havas said consumers are still confused about food labeling, and the industry has not done enough voluntarily to make its products healthier. He cited efforts in some European countries, including Great Britain and Finland, to regulate the use of salt in processed foods and to clearly label foods' salt content.

Despite decades of public health messages about the dangers of too much salt, American consumption of salt has actually increased by 55 percent the past 30 years, said Michael F. Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which filed the petition with the FDA. Americans now consume about 4,000 milligrams of sodium per day, about twice the amount recommended by the federal government, Jacobson said. There are 2,300 milligrams in a teaspoon of salt. "We are not sending out the full message about cutting back on sodium, and people are eating more and more processed foods," said Havas.

That has resulted in a corresponding increase in hypertension, which affects more than 30 percent of U.S. adults. Hypertension, or high blood pressure, is a known risk factor for heart disease and stroke. Excessive salt causes the body to retain fluid, which can overload the body's circulatory system, putting increased pressure on the blood vessel walls, kidneys and heart, Havas said. He cited several studies that link salt consumption with high blood pressure, noting that the World Health Organization has called the evidence conclusive.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



3 December, 2007

Scientists believe they can reverse dementia

AUSTRALIAN scientists believe they have cracked the code to preventing dementia by restoring the decaying brain cells of a 65-year-old to the levels of an 18-year-old. The research, presented to pharmaceutical chiefs at a closed event last week, offers new hope for the 200,000 Australians suffering dementia - a group of degenerative brain disorders that includes Alzheimer's disease.

The scientists have developed two ways to stimulate stem cells and regenerate the brain, boosting mental functions such as understanding and memory. Leading stem cell scientist Dr Rod Rietze and his team at the University of Queensland believe increasing the number of stem cells in young and middle-aged brains will help stave off dementia. "The idea is not to transplant anything - but to stimulate what we have got," Dr Rietze said. "The job of the stem cell is to do two things: keep the body functioning and regenerate the tissue. "It makes sense that if you increase the regenerative cells, the brain lasts longer."

Dementia is a major health burden, costing more than $1.4 billion per year - a figure that is expected to blow out due to a rapidly ageing population and longer life expectancies. As people get older, the number of stem cells in the brain decreases rapidly and brain function deteriorates.

Dr Rietze's first approach to turning back the ageing clock involves injecting growth hormones directly into the brains of mice. The second approach involves using physical exercise on a treadmill to trigger stem cells to multiply naturally and improve brain function. "When people do regular exercise, they age better," Dr Rietze said. "There is a correlative relationship."

Dr Rietze and his team believe sustained physical activity may prevent or delay the onset of age-related dementia as much as injecting growth hormones, restoring stem cell levels of a 65-year-old back to that of an 18-year-old. The scientist, who funded his team's radical research with a $1 million Pfizer Fellowship he won in 2004, has submitted his work to international medical journals. "I think really the next step is to design treatment strategies, and the prevention of diseases," he said.

Source




Sticking a needle in alternative medicine

Exotic therapies such as acupuncture might make people feel good. But the role of medicine is to cure patients' illnesses, not make them happy

Alternative medicine is clearly popular (1). In 1990, 60million Americans spent an estimated $13.7 billion on alternative medicine. Americans visited alternative practitioners 425million times in 1990, more often than they visited their primary care physicians. By 1996 Americans were spending $21 billion on alternative medicine. Surveys in the UK reveal annual expenditure of around œ1.5 billion on alternative medicine. And alternative practices now find themselves nestled alongside the mainstream with the best hospitals providing aromatherapy, homeopathy, reflexology, acupuncture and so forth as adjuncts or alternatives to medicines that have been developed in laboratories and tested in clinical trials.

It is important to realise that the current vogue for alternative medicine is not really about alternative medicine at all - it is about us. The whole point of alternative medicine is that it doesn't change; the techniques of alternative medicine were developed several thousand years ago and you are meant to stick with the procedure as a fixed entity. Relative to scientific medicine, which is constantly attacked by scepticism and the proposal of newer and better procedures, alternative medicine is a closed shop. Alternative procedures are what they are and they are not open to development and change: they work because they work, end of story. So if alternative medicine is becoming more popular, then it is clearly not because of any changes in the practice of alternative medicine; it is because of changes in us.

Three things have changed. Firstly, we are physically much healthier. In all corners of the world, except in the former Soviet Union, life expectancy is rising and people are physically healthier for longer stretches of time during their lives. Many factors have contributed to this happy state of affairs, including improved living and working conditions and the rise of scientific medicine that has yielded vaccination programmes, antibiotics, steroids, radiotherapy, anti-viral medicines, and so on (2).

Secondly, and relatedly, having resolved many serious illnesses that blighted lives right up to the middle of the last century, scientific medicine is bumping up against harder problems associated with mechanical wear and tear, ageing and the existential distress of living in `a world without meaning' (3). Although physical health and longevity both trend in a positive direction, there has been a swathe of new problems that are defined by the subjective report of symptoms rather than the objective signs of disease or damage (4). These are disorders such as non-specific low back pain, fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome - illnesses of the `worried well', or, more precisely, the `worried sick', encouraged by a combination of people being healthy enough to be concerned about symptoms that are unlikely to indicate ill-health and being constantly bombarded with messages about ill-health. It is a rare individual who is unaware of the apparent need to reduce caloric intake, watch their units of alcohol, stay out of the sun, eat five fruit and veg a day, exercise, self examine and heed the occasional twinge as a potential harbinger of disease and death (5). When the banalities of everyday life - eating, drinking, catching the occasional ray of sunshine - are perceived as potential threats to continued life, it is little wonder that people are worried and flock to their GP to parade symptoms without illness.

Thirdly, medicine can be horribly impersonal. Doctors are not much interested in your existential concerns. In fact, your doctor is probably pretty keen to look straight through you to find the disease process lurking below. Of course you are more than your illness and a good doctor will at least attempt to engage you as he or she seeks the source of your sickness. In something like Britain's National Health Service system, however, which is driven by political and economic targets, the good doctor has no time to see you and barely has enough time to see your illness. It's much nicer to see an alternative practitioner who takes the time to get to know you, and prepare a treatment that is apparently tailored just for the kind of person you are and the illness or problem you are carrying.

It is tempting to try to deal with the advance of alternative medicine by carrying out randomised controlled trials of the alternative medicine versus a placebo and/or the conventional medical technique. The Guardian`s `Bad Science' columnist, Ben Goldacre, and other contemporary critics of alternative medicines see much benefit in controlled trials to expose the falsehoods of alternative medicine quackery (6). An excellent example of this approach was recently reported by Haake and colleagues (7). They investigated two types of acupuncture versus conventional therapy for chronic low back pain. The first type of acupuncture was based on traditional Chinese meridians; the acupuncture needles were inserted into appropriate Chinese acupuncture spots. The second type of acupuncture followed the same procedure but the needles were inserted into non-traditional or sham spots. Both these types of acupuncture worked better than conventional therapy, but traditional acupuncture spots did not produce better results than the sham spots. Thus it was concluded that acupuncture needles can be useful to alleviate chronic low back pain but it doesn't matter where you stick the needles. This finding echoes those of previous studies, including the finding that a cocktail stick is as beneficial as an acupuncture needle (8).

There is a reason why noxious stimulation of the skin might alleviate chronic low back pain and other types of pain. The experience of pain is never the simple and direct response to a noxious stimulus and is always the consequence of a balance of peripheral activity with activity in the spinal cord and brain that can increase or decrease the experience of pain. Whenever you hurt yourself and rub the injured region you are affecting that balance to damp the flow of noxious information and create pain relief. Noxious stimuli can also affect that balance, and that is, in essence, what the acupuncture needles do. Precisely how one noxious stimulus affects another is very poorly understood. But what we do know suggests that acupuncture shouldn't really work as well as it did in the Haake study. Rubbing an injured area generally provides only mild short-term relief, and rubbing is not likely to replace more conventional analgesics and anaesthetics any time soon.

Why, then, did the acupuncture prove to be more effective than the conventional treatments for chronic low back pain? One possibility is that acupuncture is just better. We might not understand exactly how it works, but perhaps it does work. However, there are some very good reasons to be highly dubious of this interpretation.

Chronic low back pain is a tricky disorder. More than 70 per cent of all cases of low back pain have no identifiable causal pathology. We don't know why the patients have pain and any diagnosis is based on the report of pain rather than on the observation of damage or disease. These types of pain are increasing at a ferocious rate and it seems unlikely that medical factors alone can adequately explain the large uptake in associated work-related incapacity benefits in most countries since the 1970s (4). Expenditure on these benefits has tripled over the past 30 years despite improvements in life expectancy and morbidity rates over the same period. Currently, in the UK, 70 per cent of recipients of incapacity benefit have health-related problems that are not sufficient to fully explain their incapacity in purely medical terms. In sum, chronic low back pain is more of a psychosocial than a medical problem, and so is unlikely to yield to mainstream medical intervention.

Little wonder, then, that the conventional therapy that was compared with acupuncture was a highly eclectic mix of interventions: `The therapies given in the conventional group were physiotherapy, massage, heat therapy, electrotherapy, back school, injections and guidance. In a few patients, therapies included infusions, yoga, hydrojet treatment and swimming.'

My interpretation of this study, therefore, is that at the current moment in time, patients with a non-specific existential disease prefer to spend time with an acupuncturist than with a heat therapist, and it is no surprise that patients report feeling better when they do things that they prefer to do. But it is not the role of medicine to run randomised control trials of stuff that makes people happy in order to prove that stuff that makes people happy tends to make them feel happy. While randomised controlled trials can be justified in some cases, we should not view them as blanket solutions to the problem posed by alternative medicine. Such trials are extremely time-consuming and expensive, and it is often not worth the time and expense to investigate something that is obviously unfounded. Moreover, conducting such a trial can give the impression that a treatment must be worthwhile, given all the expense and time being invested. A negative finding will not necessarily forestall the advocates of alternative medicine and a comprehensively negative finding is always difficult to achieve. Positive effects can be discovered for all sorts of non-specific reasons that can never be fully explained away even if they are almost certainly spurious.

It is also important that medicine does not get too flippant and include alternative treatments because of the argument that they `seem to work' and they `can't do any harm'. First of all, to the extent that these treatments work it is probably via non-specific psychological mechanisms that are parasitical upon prior experiences with medicines that do work. It would be cynical to deliberately mobilise those non-specific responses to provide benefit from a known ineffective treatment. If medicine becomes less than serious about promoting interventions that are known to work via well-understood and well-studied mechanisms, then the authority of medicine is put at risk and the benefits of non-specific psychological responses to medicine may soon be lost.

Secondly, there is the possibility of harm even if the intervention is seemingly innocuous. Most obviously there is the danger of over-zealous advocates of alternative medicine promoting homeopathy to cure cancer, malaria or AIDS and so forth. Less obviously there is the potential undermining of straightforward, bland, but effective medical advice (6). Recently, Hancock and colleagues reported that those presenting with an acute onset of back pain are best treated with advice to stay active and take paracetamol if needed (9). The addition of spinal manipulation or spinal mobilisation and further medication did not provide for a better outcome.

Time is a great healer and most acute symptoms will resolve quite naturally (10). Alternative medicine is partly promoted using the poisonous idea that doctors providing short and simple interventions are fobbing their patients off and not showing the required concern. This encourages patients to focus on their symptoms of ill-health unnecessarily and consume medicines or partake in activities that are unnecessary, unwise or dangerous. This is quite simply an unhealthy state of affairs that actively encourages people to be sicker than they need to be or otherwise would be. In short, medicine needs to recognise that alternative medicine is part of the problem, not part of the cure.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



2 December, 2007

NEW COMPOUNDS TO HELP RESIST DIABETES

This is geninely interesting work but hyping it as linked to the alleged beneficial effects of red wine and resveratrol is a stretch. The authors themselves decribe the new molecules as "structurally unrelated to" resveratrol. Whether the results transfer from rats and mice to people remains to be seen, however. Side effects could also be a concern. Popular summary below followed by journal abstract:

Millions of people with adult diabetes could one day be treated with a drug based on the healthy ingredient of red wine which could even help prevent other diseases linked with old age. The new class of drugs, which will be tested on patients next year in Europe or the US mimics the effects of a reduced-calorie diet, which is known to extend the lifespan of a wide range of creatures, from worms to mice and monkeys. They work in the same way as resveratrol, the chemical in wine and grapes thought to deliver some of the proposed health benefits and explain the "French paradox," referring to how the French suffer relatively low incidence of coronary heart disease, despite having a diet relatively rich in saturated fats. [It's no paradox. There is no harm in saturated fats]

The problem with red wine is that earlier animal research suggested that around 1000 glasses would have to be consumed each day to take enough resveratrol to reduce the impact of a high fat diet, increase stamina two fold and significantly extend lifespan. Now new compounds have been developed that are roughly 1,000 times more potent than resveratrol and are also 1,000 times better at staving off the development of type 2 diabetes, report researchers led by Christoph Westphal of the company Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge, and David Sinclair of Harvard Medical School, in today's Nature. "The novel drug candidates we have identified can potentially unlock a whole new approach to treating Type 2 Diabetes," stated Dr Jill Milne, lead author of the study.

Type 2 diabetes occurs when the body becomes insensitive to the effects of the hormone insulin and it seems that the new drugs can boost insulin sensitivity substantially. The new drug candidates work by activating a protein called SIRT1, which influences the ageing process and functions to ensure that the body remains receptive to the activity of insulin. The compounds potentially offer an important new avenue for developing treatments to tackle diseases linked to ageing and poor diet.

"The new drug candidates represent a significant milestone because they are the first molecules that have been designed to act on genes that control the ageing process. " For this reason, we feel they have considerable potential to treat diseases of ageing such as Type 2 Diabetes," said Dr Westphal. "The breakthrough in potency we have achieved means that we can obtain the health benefits of resveratrol with a considerably lower dose." "If all goes well, SIRT1 activator drugs could be available on the market as early as 2012 or 2013," he told The Daily Telegraph.

Source

Small molecule activators of SIRT1 as therapeutics for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

By Jill C. Milne et al.

Abstract

Calorie restriction extends lifespan and produces a metabolic profile desirable for treating diseases of ageing such as type 2 diabetes1, 2. SIRT1, an NAD+-dependent deacetylase, is a principal modulator of pathways downstream of calorie restriction that produce beneficial effects on glucose homeostasis and insulin sensitivity3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Resveratrol, a polyphenolic SIRT1 activator, mimics the anti-ageing effects of calorie restriction in lower organisms and in mice fed a high-fat diet ameliorates insulin resistance, increases mitochondrial content, and prolongs survival10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

Here we describe the identification and characterization of small molecule activators of SIRT1 that are structurally unrelated to, and 1,000-fold more potent than, resveratrol. These compounds bind to the SIRT1 enzyme-peptide substrate complex at an allosteric site amino-terminal to the catalytic domain and lower the Michaelis constant for acetylated substrates. In diet-induced obese and genetically obese mice, these compounds improve insulin sensitivity, lower plasma glucose, and increase mitochondrial capacity. In Zucker fa/fa rats, hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp studies demonstrate that SIRT1 activators improve whole-body glucose homeostasis and insulin sensitivity in adipose tissue, skeletal muscle and liver. Thus, SIRT1 activation is a promising new therapeutic approach for treating diseases of ageing such as type 2 diabetes.

Nature 450, 712-716 (29 November 2007)




Pomegranates to the rescue?

It's a good thing these results were not statistically significant. Antioxiodants shorten your life so choosing between a longer life and better erections would be a Devil's bargain! Popular summary below followed by journal abstract:

Pomegranate juice can give men a boost in the bedroom according to scientists. A daily glass can act like Viagra, new research shows. Nearly half the men who drank it for a month in the American study said they found it easier to rise to the occasion, reports The Sun.

It is thought the juice is rich in antioxidants which increase blood supply to the penis. Just like drugs for impotence, the antioxidants raise levels of nitric oxide, which relaxes blood-vessel walls.

Fifty-three volunteers aged 21 to 70 with mild to moderate problems drank 8fl oz with their evening meal. Researcher Dr Christopher Forest, of the University of California in Los Angeles, said: "Pomegranate juice has great potential in the management of erectile dysfunction."

Pomegranates have already been hailed a superfruit capable of reducing the risk of heart disease and preventing prostate cancer. The fruit is believed to have more antioxidants than any other juice, tea or red wine.

Source

Efficacy and safety of pomegranate juice on improvement of erectile dysfunction in male patients with mild to moderate erectile dysfunction: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study

By C P Forest et al.

Abstract

This randomized-controlled trial examined the efficacy of wonderful variety pomegranate juice versus placebo in improving erections in 53 completed subjects with mild to moderate erectile dysfunction. The crossover design consisted of two 4-week treatment periods separated by a 2-week washout. Efficacy was assessed using International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Global Assessment Questionnaires (GAQ). Of the 42 subjects who demonstrated improvement in GAQ scores after beverage consumption, 25 reported improvement after drinking pomegranate juice. Further, 17 subjects showed preference of one beverage to the other. Subjects were more likely to have improved scores when pomegranate juice was consumed (P=0.058). Although overall statistical significance was not achieved, this pilot study suggests the possibility that larger cohorts and longer treatment periods may achieve statistical significance.

International Journal of Impotence Research (2007) 19, 564-567

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

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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



1 December, 2007

ANOTHER TWITCH OF THE ANTIOXIDANT RELIGION

It is doubtful if the study below found anything at all. Old guys who were given both aspirin and beta carotene for many years were found to be a tiny bit more mentally competent than those on placebo. That a tiny effect was found to be statistically significant simply reflects the huge sample size. HOWEVER, was the finding due to the aspirin or the beta carotene? Who knows? The fact that the effect was tiny and the fact that it was not found in people taking the stuff for only about a year suggests an unreliable effect that does not even invite replication. That is probably a very good thing. Antioxidants tend to shorten your lifespan -- so the choice between going ga ga and dying prematurely might not be too pleasant. Popular summary below followed by journal abstract:

BRAIN function declines with age, but it may decline slower in men who take supplements of beta-carotene -- the antioxidant chemical that gives carrots their orange colour. A study in the Archives of Internal Medicine this week found that men who took beta-carotene supplements for more than 15 years had much slower loss of thinking, learning and memory skills than men who did not. In 1982, 4052 healthy men were randomly assigned to take 50mg of beta-carotene or an inactive placebo every other day. They were followed through to 2003, given yearly health surveys and at least one telephone interview between 1998 and 2002 to assess brain function. Men who took beta-carotene had significantly higher scores on several of the cognitive tests compared with men who took the placebo, suggesting that beta-carotene could be used to delay dementia. The authors caution that beta-carotene has also been shown to increase the risk of lung cancer in smokers.

Source

A Randomized Trial of Beta Carotene Supplementation and Cognitive Function in Men

By Francine Grodstein et al.

Background: Oxidative stress contributes to brain aging. Antioxidant treatment, especially over the long term, might confer cognitive benefits.

Methods: We added cognitive testing to the Physicians' Health Study II (PHSII), a randomized trial of beta carotene and other vitamin supplements for chronic disease prevention. The PHSII is a continuation of the Physicians' Health Study (PHS), which had randomized male participants to low-dose aspirin and beta carotene. Participants include those continuing their original beta carotene assignment from the PHS, begun in 1982, and newer recruits randomized as of 1998. The beta carotene arm (50 mg, alternate days) was terminated; follow-up is ongoing for the remaining arms. Near the close of the beta carotene arm, we interviewed 5956 participants older than 65 years to assess general cognition, verbal memory, and category fluency. The primary end point was a global score averaging all tests (using z scores); the secondary end point was a verbal memory score combining results of 4 tests. We compared mean cognition among those assigned to beta carotene vs placebo. We separately examined new recruits and continuing participants.

Results: Among 1904 newly recruited subjects (mean treatment duration, 1 year), cognition was similar across treatment assignments. Among 4052 continuing participants from the PHS (mean treatment duration, 18 years), the mean global score was significantly higher in the beta carotene group than in the placebo group (mean difference in z scores, 0.047 standard units; P = .03). On verbal memory, men receiving long-term beta carotene supplementation also performed significantly better than the placebo group (mean difference in z scores, 0.063; P = .007).

Conclusion: We did not find an impact of short-term beta carotene supplementation on cognitive performance, but long-term supplementation may provide cognitive benefits.

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(20):2184-2190




TREES ARE GREEN REDISCOVERED YET AGAIN

Would you believe that old people who can't see very well any more get depressed by that? Apparently we needed to be told:

IMPROVING the vision of nursing home residents leads to a better quality of life and fewer cases of depression, finds a new study in the Archives of Ophthalmology. The findings suggest that people in nursing homes can benefit greatly from access to basic eye care services, despite any other disability they may have. Researchers surveyed 142 people with vision problems living in nursing homes in the southern US state of Alabama. Seventy-eight of them received corrective eye glasses within a week and were surveyed again after two months. They were compared to a control group of 64 residents who only received their glasses after the follow-up survey. After two months of corrected vision, the immediate-correction group reported dramatic improvement in quality of life and less depression than the delayed-correction group. They had less difficulty performing daily activities, such as reading and watching TV, than the delayed-correction group, and were better able to join in group activities.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

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