BOYS GROW TITS

Could this be an alternative to boob jobs?

Boys have been warned against using oils or hair gels that contain lavender or tea tree oil after three reported cases of them growing breasts. Researchers in the US believe that the oils may have hormone-like properties that lead to gynaecomastia — the growth of breasts. When the boys stopped using the oils, the breasts disappeared. Writing in New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers say that the repeated use of such oils may disrupt hormonal function.

One of the boys was aged 4, and his mother said that she had applied a lavender-based “healing balm” to his skin. A 10-year-old had regularly used a styling gel containing lavender and tea tree oil, applying it to his hair and scalp. The third boy, who was 7, had used lavender soap and skin lotions. In all cases the problem was resolved within a few months of the boys giving up the products.

The researchers, at the US National Institutes of Health and the University of Colorado School of Medicine, say that the oils “may possess endocrine-disrupting activity that causes an imbalance in oestrogen and androgen pathway signalling”. They investigated this by growing breast cancer cells in test tubes and adding diluted extracts of lavender and tea tree oil. These experiments showed that the oils had activity that mimicked the female sex hormone oestrogen.

To have the effects found in the boys, the oils would need to have penetrated the skin, and the team did not investigate whether this was possible. They point out that the development of breasts is not uncommon during puberty in boys, but is extremely uncommon before puberty. There is no known physiological cause. Usually, exposure to an environmental chemical is identified as the cause. This can also happen, very occasionally, in older men, the researchers say. They say: “This report raises an issue of concern, since lavender oil and tea tree oil are sold over the counter in their ‘pure’ form and are present in an increasing number of commercial products, including shampoos, hair gels, soaps and body lotions.” Because of the small number of cases that were studied, further work was needed to confirm the link, they said.

Products that contain the oils are usually sold as “natural” aids to relaxation or skin care. Tea tree oil comes from the leaves of a plant called Melaleuca alternifolia, native to Australia. It is claimed to offer cosmetic and medical benefits, including combating bacterial and fungal infections. Lavender oil is used in aromatherapy and massage oils. Boots, the pharmacist, said that it sold pure lavender and tea tree essential oils, “but as with any essential oil we don’t recommend them for children or pregnant women”. The shop was not withdrawing products or issuing safety warnings because the chances of receiving sufficient doses to cause hormone imbalance through the skin was unlikely, the spokeswoman said. “This is a preliminary study. As long as customers follow advice about how to use cosmetics and medicines correctly, we regard our products as safe.”

Source




SLEEPING PILLS MAKE YOU FAT

Some users of a popular sleeping pill have been binge-eating while sleepwalking, leading to enormous weight gains. In one report lodged with the Federal Government's drug reaction committee, a woman put on 23kg over seven months while taking the powerful prescription drug Stilnox. It was only when she was discovered eating in front of an open fridge while asleep that the problem was resolved. In other reported cases:

ANOTHER user who had experienced mysterious weight gain was found by a relative taking food from a fridge and kitchen cupboards while asleep.

A WOMAN woke up with a paint brush in her hand, having painted her front door in her sleep.

TWO Australians claimed to have driven while asleep.

ONE user described walking around his house like a mad man while asleep.

SIXTEEN Australians were discovered exhibiting bizarre behaviour while sleepwalking.

The Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee received 104 reports of hallucinations and 62 reports of amnesia since 2001 from users of Stilnox, the brand name for zolpidem. A 20-pill pack of Stilnox sells for $30 to $35. ADRAC yesterday warned users to be aware of potential side effects, but did not call for the medication to be stripped from shelves. The product remained on the market despite a 2002 ADRAC review which found about 75 per cent of the reports about the drug described one or more reactions, particularly hallucinations, confusion, depression and amnesia.

An ADRAC spokeswoman said it was imperative the drug remain available. "It is important for some people with insomnia to have it at their disposal," she said. "But even then we only recommend a person use it for less than four weeks due to tolerance and loss of effect with repeated use." The spokeswoman said ADRAC felt it was worth advising doctors that Stilnox should only be used as a last-resort drug.

Melbourne Health director of pharmacy David Ford said he had not met any patients with major side effects from Stilnox. "It seems like these cases reported to ADRAC are one-off events," Mr Ford said. Clinical trials of Stilnox had found no major side effects, with some of those involved reporting mild drowsiness, he said. "It would be interesting to see if those who experienced these extreme side effects had taken Stilnox with another prescribed drug, or even illicit drugs or alcohol, which may all exacerbate the effect," Mr Ford said.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

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