Alzheimer's tackled by testosterone boost

RESEARCHERS in Perth have made a groundbreaking discovery into the prevention of Alzheimer's disease, after showing that boosting testosterone levels in the body can lower levels of a toxic brain protein linked to the development of the crippling condition. Preliminary results from a clinical trial of West Australian men, presented at the prestigious Royal Society of Medicine in London, show that not only does the use of a testosterone cream lower the protein beta amyloid but importantly it appears to improve memory.

Professor Ralph Martins, of the Sir James McCusker Foundation for Alzheimer's Research at Hollywood Private Hospital, said from London that he was excited by early results from an ongoing trial of healthy men aged 50 to 72 who had a testosterone deficiency and only mild signs of memory loss. They have been treated at Perth's Well Men Centre using a WA-made testosterone cream, and the trial follows an earlier study of guinea pigs which showed the treatment reduced their levels of beta amyloid.

Professor Martins said that it was the first real evidence of cause and effect. "In the past we've shown an association, so when you lower testosterone, you raise beta amyloid levels, and we've also shown an association with people at higher risk of getting Alzheimer's, but we wanted to see what happens in the brain," he said.

Source





Cancer trigger mapped

A DEADLY "active ingredient" in almost all human cancers has been mapped by Australian scientists, bringing the world closer to a potentially life-saving treatment. The breakthrough, published today in the international journal Science, will speed up the global research effort to develop anti-cancer drugs that "switch off" tumour growth.

Cancer researchers at the Children's Medical Research Institute have discovered the composition of an enzyme called telomerase, overactive in almost 90 per cent of cancers. It makes both healthy and cancerous cells immortal and is regarded as one of the most important triggers in cancer. Telomerase was believed to contain a mixture of any of 32 different proteins, but Dr Scott Cohen and his team found only two were involved. "We discovered it was a really simple composition," Dr Cohen said. "All these researchers studying it can really focus now, and that should boost the productivity of research into new drugs, which is very exciting."

The team made the finding by growing cancer cells to collect the hard-to-find enzyme, then purified it down and used a $1 million telescope to work out what it contained. "The next step is to define its shape, if you can do that you can pretty effectively design drugs to very specifically target telomerase, turn it off and stop the cancer growth," Dr Cohen said. The researchers say it is one of the biggest achievements in the telomerase field since the enzyme was discovered by former Melbourne researcher Elizabeth Blackburn in the 1980s.

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.

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

PSYCHOLOGISTS SAY THAT FIZZY DRINKS ARE BAD FOR YOU

Journal abstract follows:

Effects of Soft Drink Consumption on Nutrition and Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

By Lenny R. Vartanian et al.

The authors are with the Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

In a meta-analysis of 88 studies, we examined the association between soft drink consumption and nutrition and health outcomes. We found clear associations of soft drink intake with increased energy intake and body weight. Soft drink intake also was associated with lower intakes of milk, calcium, and other nutrients and with an increased risk of several medical problems (e.g., diabetes).

Study design significantly influenced results: larger effect sizes were observed in studies with stronger methods (longitudinal and experimental vs cross-sectional studies). Several other factors also moderated effect sizes (e.g., gender, age, beverage type). Finally, studies funded by the food industry reported significantly smaller effects than did non-industry-funded studies. Recommendations to reduce population soft drink consumption are strongly supported by the available science.

The naivety of this paper is rather breathtaking. From their introductory courses onward, psychologists are told that correlation is not causation. So have they simply shown that fat kids drink more fizzy drinks? I would think so. In my observation they do, anyway. Fat kids eat and drink more in general. And if you drink more fizzy drinks, do you have as much room for milk etc? That gets close to being true by definition, I think. And if kids drank less softdrink, would that make them slimmer? Not if they drank more milk -- which is highly calorific. It is a disgrace that this bit of garbage "research" was ever published -- but intellectual standards in psychology have always been very low -- nearly as low as in sociology. See here. But it's good business-bashing so that ensured its publication




Brain mishaps produce "cold" morality

This finding does tend very strongly to reinforce the clinical impression that psychopaths have "a bit missing" -- a brain abnormality -- whether from genetics, trauma, intrauterine environment or other reasons

Imagine that someone you know has AIDS and plans to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let it happen or to kill the person. Do you pull the trigger?

Most people waver or say they couldn't, even if they agree that in theory they should. But a new study reports that people with damage to one part of the brain make a less personal calculation. The logical choice, they say, is to sacrifice one life to save many.

The research shows that emotion plays a key role in moral decisions, scientists claim: if certain emotions are blocked, we make decisions thatright or wrongseem unnaturally cold.

Past studies have linked damage to some brain areas with a lack of any discernible conscience, part of a syndrome commonly called psychopathy. The new study, by contrast, identified a region of brain damage tied to what the researchers portrayed as a narrower deficit: one that strips morality of an emotional component while leaving its logical part intact.

The scientists presented 30 males and females with scenarios pitting immediate harm to one person against future harm to many. Six participants had damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, a small region behind the forehead; 12 had brain damage elsewhere; another 12 had no damage.

The scenarios in the study were extreme, but the core dilemma isn't. Should one confront a coworker, challenge a neighbor, or scold a loved one to uphold the greater good? The subjects with ventromedial prefrontal damage stood out in their stated willingness to harm an individuala prospect that usually generates strong aversion, researchers said.

"They have abnormal social emotions in real life. They lack empathy and compassion," said Ralph Adolphs of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif., one of the researchers.

"In those circumstances most people. will be torn. But these particular subjects seem to lack that conflict," said Antonio Damasio of the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles, another of the scientists.

"Our work provides the first causal account of the role of emotions in moral judgments," added a third member of the research team, Marc Hauser of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. The study appears March 21 in the advance online edition of the research journal Nature.

What's "astonishing," Hauser added, is "how selective the deficit is... [it] leaves intact a suite of moral problem solving abilities, but damages judgments in which an aversive action is put into direct conflict with a strong utilitarian outcome." Utilitarianism is the belief that the top priority in ethics should be what's best for the greatest number of people.

Humans often deviate from this principle because they recoil from directly harming one another. This aversion is "a combination of rejection of the act [and] compassion for that particular person," Damasio said. The question, Adolphs asked, is whether "social emotions" such as compassion are "necessary to make these moral judgments."

The study's answer will inform a classic philosophical debate on whether humans make moral judgments based on norms and societal rules, or based on their emotions, the scientists predicted. It also holds another implication for philosophy, they said: it shows that humans are neurologically unfit for strict utilitarian thinking, and thus suggests neuroscience could test different philosophies for compatibility with human nature.

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 GREAT STATIN FRAUD

Lipitor is a common statin. There is a "Cholesterol Skeptics" site here

A doctor accused of wittingly prescribing useless or possibly lethal drugs would vehemently - and understandably - deny it. This makes it rather difficult to oppose the prevailing medical consensus on statins - the cholesterol-lowering drugs prescribed to four million people in Britain at a cost of 1 billion pounds a year. That's quite a sum. It could pay the salaries of 700,000 nurses or build two spanking new teaching hospitals.

An even bigger sum is 15 billion. That is the profit the pharmaceutical industry made last year from this, the most profitable class of drugs ever invented. They are so profitable that the latest statins to reach the market came with a 600 million promotion budget, to "promote" the notion to family doctors and policymakers that the lower the cholesterol the better, and that at least half the population would benefit from the drugs.

But it is not so. Statins are useless for 95 per cent of those taking them, while exposing all to the hazard of serious side-effects. Hence my ever-growing file of letters from those who regrettably have had to find this out for themselves, illustrated by this all-too-typical tale from Roger Andrews of Hertfordshire, first prescribed statins after an operation for an aortic aneurism (that he had cleverly diagnosed himself).

Over the past few years Mr Andrews had become increasingly decrepit -what can one expect at 74? - with pain and stiffness in the legs and burning sensations in the hands so bad that when flying to his son's wedding in Hawaii he needed walking sticks and a wheelchair at the transfer stops. However, he forgot to pack his statins, and felt so much better after his three-week holiday that when he got home he decided to continue the inadvertent "experiment" of not taking them. Since October most if not all of his crippling side-effects have gone. Several friends can tell a similar story, and they have friends too.

The take-home message is that statins are only of value in those with a strong family history of heart disease or men with a history of heart attacks. For everyone else they are best avoided as they seriously interfere with the functioning of the nerve cells, affecting mental function, and muscles. This is all wittily explained in a recent book by a Cheshire family doctor, Malcolm Kendrick, "The Great Cholesterol Con" (John Blake Publishing, 9.99). There are, I suspect, many out there, like Mr Andrews, wrongly attributing their decrepitude to Anno Domini, when the real culprits are statins.

Source





Few benefits in stent surgery, researchers find

FOR patients with clogged arteries who have not had a heart attack, the widely used surgical treatment of balloon angioplasty with the insertion of a stent is no better than conventional drug treatment, researchers have found. In a study of more than 2000 patients, those receiving only drug therapy had the same number of heart attacks, strokes and deaths as those who received the drugs and underwent the artery-opening angioplasty, US Department of Veterans Affairs researchers told a meeting of the American College of Cardiology in New Orleans on Monday. The only difference was a slight improvement in the quality of life for those receiving angioplasty because of fewer chest pains, known as angina.

The finding could rock an industry worth $US6 billion ($7.4 billion) a year, of which $US3.2 billion is done in the US. As many as 65 per cent of the estimated 1 million stenting procedures performed each year occur in such patients at a cost of about $US40,000 per procedure.

"This is good news for patients and physicians," said William Boden, of the University of Buffalo School of Medicine, who led the study. In the rush to perform angioplasty, the effectiveness of drug treatment "was lost in the shuffle", Dr Boden said. "It was considered old-fashioned, ho-hum. Now we can say to physicians … 'You are not putting patients in harm's way.' That is something we didn't know before."

Experts cautioned the results did not apply to patients who had suffered a heart attack because of a blockage in the coronary artery. Numerous studies have shown that angioplasty is the gold standard for those patients, and physicians urge that it be implemented as soon as possible to reopen the artery and restore blood flow to the heart. But in non-emergency situations, the drugs act fast enough to forestall the need for angioplasty.

Stent makers said the study provided little new information, did not include the newest generation of drug-eluting stents and did not address the key issue of whether stents prevented the need for further angioplasties. They also argued that the device's greatest benefit was improving quality of life.

The study, also published online by the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first large analysis examining the stent's value for those with what is known as stable disease. The mortality rate was about 8 per cent in both groups at the end of the study. Related risks such as death, heart attack and other cardiovascular incidents were 20 per cent and 19.5 per cent, respectively, a statistically negligible difference.

The study's results "should lead to changes in the treatment of patients with stable coronary artery disease, with expected substantial health-care savings," wrote the cardiologists Judith Hochman and Gabriel Steg in an editorial in the same edition of the journal.

The study enrolled 2287 patients at 50 medical centres and hospitals in the US and Canada. All the patients had at least a 70 per cent blockage of their coronary artery and chest pains several times a week. Most also had high cholesterol and high blood pressure, and many had diabetes. After an average of 4.6 years of monitoring, there were 211 deaths, heart attacks or strokes in the group receiving angioplasty and 202 in the group receiving only drug therapy. The only difference between the two groups was that angioplasty patients had fewer symptoms of angina, although even that difference was not as large as had been expected. After three years, 67 per cent of those in the angioplasty group were free of angina, compared with 62 per cent in the medication-only group, according to the study.

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 delicious rhetoric of the food police

The writer below has got part of the story but does not seem to realize that, like all leading Leftists, the food Fascists are motivated primarily by hatred and envy -- in this case hatred and envy of successful food and beverage companies. What the Fascists do makes little sense if helping people were their aim but it makes every sense as an attack on big companies

Earlier this month, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) published a report analyzing the nutritional value of some commonly-ordered dishes at Ruby Tuesday, On the Border, the Cheesecake Factory, and other popular chain restaurants. Amazingly, CSPI found that bacon-cheeseburger pizza and peanut-butter-cookie-dough-chocolate cheesecake aren't healthy. As the report explained, without a hint of sarcasm, "the numbers were shocking." Turns out that today's "restaurants now dish out even more calories, even more bad fat, and even more sodium" than the restaurants of yesteryear. Who would've thought?

CSPI issued the report to rejuvenate its support for the Federal Menu Education and Labeling (MEAL) Act, which would force restaurant chains to publish nutritional info next to the name of every standard menu item. The measure was introduced in both the House and Senate in the last Congress and is expected to be reintroduced this year.

Schoolmarmish alarmism is nothing new for CSPI. The Columbus Dispatch once called CSPI "the nation's mirthless nanny about food and drink," and the organization has been sounding the alarm on soda, caffeine, salt, sugar, fat, alcohol, pizza, mozzarella sticks, and, well, everything else that's tasty for more than 35 years. Today, CSPI is one of the country's most influential advocacy groups, with an annual budget of $17 million and around 900,000 subscribers to its monthly newsletter. And thanks to its frequent studies and dependably inflammatory rhetoric, CSPI is popular with the press. Their latest report made it on CNN's American Morning and a host of local news outlets. Consequently, as Jacob Sullum once pointed out in Reason, "[CSPI] has the ability to grab headlines, kill sales of products it doesn't like, and shape regulatory policy."

Just look at Procter & Gamble's olestra, a fat substitute approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use as a food additive in 1996. When first approved for consumption, there was much hope that olestra would shrink America's collective waistline, because the calorie-free additive gave foods the same texture as those fried in oil. But thanks to the efforts of CSPI, snacks made with olestra were forced to include an FDA label that warned of "abdominal cramping and loose stools," even though science was never able to demonstrate that olestra's gastrointestinal effects were any worse than those caused by foods high in fiber. And because of that warning label and the rhetoric of CSPI and its allies, olestra's sales never lived up expectations. After all, bran muffins and baked beans don't come with unappealing, government-mandated health warnings -- because few people are going to buy a product that warns of gastrointestinal problems. These days, olestra is nearly impossible to find.

Or look at soda, which CSPI has called "liquid candy" since 1998. In recent years, California, Connecticut, and several local districts have banned soda sales in their schools. Fearing lawsuits, the country's top three soft-drink companies started removing sweetened drinks like Coke and iced teas from school cafeterias and vending machines this past fall.

Or look at trans fat, which CSPI first warned about in 1993. In December 2006, New York became the first U.S. city to mandate the elimination of trans fats from all city restaurants, and just last month, Philadelphia followed suit. Chicago, Seattle, Washington, and several other major cities are also considering trans fat bans, as is the entire state of Massachusetts. So much for Tastykakes, Krispy Kremes, and greasy cannolis from Mulberry Street.

From olestra to soda to trans fat, the problem for CSPI is that it doesn't like the choices Americans make. So it wants to use the regulatory authority of the government to force businesses to follow its choices instead. Menu labeling is no different. First, it's incredibly impractical. Whereas pre-packaged foods are always the same size, restaurant portions are not standardized -- and simply cannot be. Burger King, for instance, can ensure that its Whoppers are made with 4-ounce burger patties on sesame seed rolls, but can it really ensure that every employee uses the same amount of mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato, ketchup, onion and pickle? And once menu labeling spreads -- as it certainly would -- does anyone actually want restaurants to serve identically-portioned slices of filet mignon and Chilean sea bass?

Further, menu labeling is unlikely to have any actual impact. Since the May 1994 introduction of mandatory nutrition labels on packaged foods, America hasn't slimmed down one bit. Instead, it's gotten fatter. Just like nutrition labels, the only people who would take advantage of menu labels are already health conscious. Indeed, because nutritional analysis an incredibly expensive undertaking, menu labeling will do little but drive up the cost of dining out and drive smaller restaurants out of business.

No one denies that Americans are fat. And if anything, we're getting fatter. Whereas 6.1 percent of American children between 12 and 19 were obese in 1974, nearly 16 percent are obese today. But, as DC-based writer Sam Ryan once wrote in the Chicago Tribune, "We're fat by choice, not because we're stupid or ignorant. Some of us enjoy stuffing our faces with double-burgers, extra cheese... We know that fruits and vegetables are healthier for us than ice cream and Cheetos." The problem for the folks at CSPI isn't that people don't know that the Cheesecake Factory's Outrageous Chocolate Cake is chock full of calories, but that they just don't care. After all, if demand for healthy foods were higher, then America's most-popular chain restaurants would be forced to revamp their menus. But maybe -- just maybe -- people who order Ruby Tuesday's Colossal Burger don't care about the nutritional value of their food.

When CSPI issued its most recent report, the organization's executive director, Michael F. Jacobson, complained about "lasagna with meatballs on top; ice cream with cookies, brownies, and candy mixed in; 'Ranchiladas,' bacon cheeseburger pizzas, buffalo-chicken-stuffed quesadillas, and other hybrid horribles that are seemingly designed to promote obesity, heart disease, and stroke." His rhetoric, as always, was designed to scare people into supporting CSPI's latest cause. Instead, it just made me hungry.

Source






Court date after schoolgirls find no C in Ribena

GLOBAL drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline faces a court case today for misleading advertising after two 14-year-olds from New Zealand found its popular blackcurrant drink Ribena contained almost no vitamin C. High school students Anna Devathasan and Jenny Suo tested the children's drink against advertising claims that "the blackcurrants in Ribena have four times the vitamin C of oranges" in 2004. Instead, the two found the syrup-based drink contained almost no trace of vitamin C, and one commercial orange juice brand contained almost four times more than Ribena. "We thought we were doing it wrong, we thought we must have made a mistake," Miss Devathasan, now aged 17, told New Zealand newspapers of the school experiment.

A GSK spokeswoman in New Zealand refused to comment ahead of the case on the grounds that it could affect the legal process. A GSK spokeswoman in Britain, which is the lead market for Ribena, said the company had been in discussion with the New Zealand Commerce Commission regarding Vitamin C levels and the way these levels had been communicated in New Zealand. "GSK has conducted thorough laboratory testing of Vitamin C levels in Ribena in all other markets," the spokeswoman said. "This testing has confirmed that Ribena drinks in all other markets, including the UK, contain the stated levels of Vitamin C, as described on product labels."

Ribena, first made in the 1930s and distributed to British children during World War II, is now sold in 22 countries. GSK paid little attention to the claims of Miss Devathasan and Miss Suo until their complaints reached the commerce commission. But it now faces 15 charges related to misleading advertising in an Auckland court, risking potential fines of up to $NZ3 million ($2.65 million).

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.

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

Just Say No to this `radical rethink' on drugs

The latest British review of the drug problem peddles dangerous myths about helpless addicts, and suggests making the state drugdealer-in-chief

After a two-year review of the drugs problem in the UK, a prestigious commission established by the UK Royal Society for the Arts (RSA) has come up with a `radical rethink' aiming to influence the impending major government review of the National Drugs Strategy (1). Another current campaign against addiction - the `Get Unhooked' TV and cinema adverts featuring smokers impaled on fish-hooks - reveals the prevailing contempt for those regarded as being in the grip of a chemical dependency that also pervades the RSA report (2).

The common theme is that the user of drugs (whether nicotine, heroin or alcohol) is an automaton, a being without intentions and unable to make choices, a physiological system that requires pharmacological correction. To pursue the official metaphor, the drug user is on a par with a fish, a level of vertebrate life so low that only the most fundamentalist of animal rights activists can be bothered to protest against fishing.

The `Get Unhooked' adverts offer a powerful endorsement of the myths underlying both current drugs policy and the RSA's radical rethink. These myths are exposed by Theodore Dalrymple, whose devastating critique of `pharmacological lies and the addiction bureaucracy' is informed by the experience of working as a psychiatrist at a British prison (3).

The first myth is the notion that addiction is the result of an unfortunate accident: one minute the hapless victim is swimming happily in the pond of life and the next is impaled by the hook of the malign substance. The apparently random victim is instantly at the mercy of whoever holds the rod and line - and in the advert is agonisingly dragged along the floor. But, as Dalrymple shows, becoming addicted to heroin requires effort and discipline, determination and time. Though the notions that the drug is the active agent and the addict the passive victim are popular among users and drug workers alike, they deny both the responsibility of the individual for adopting this lifestyle and the possibility of rejecting it. The image of the pathetic addict squirming on the hook is also contradicted by the reality of the busy and purposeful life required to sustain a drug habit.

The second great myth is that withdrawal from drugs is a deeply traumatic process - like removing a barbed hook from your mouth. This myth has reached a high pitch of histrionic exaggeration in relation to heroin, in the familiar `cold turkey' horrors dramatised in novels and films. Reporting both extensive professional experience and the medical literature, Dalrymple confirms that heroin withdrawal is an uncomfortable, but not a serious condition, with a much lower rate of complications than withdrawal from alcohol, barbiturates or benzodiazepines.

A third myth is that once the victim is ensnared on the hook, addiction immediately becomes a chronic disease requiring medical treatment - in the forms of diverse regimes of detoxification and rehabilitation. This is contradicted by the familiar experience that many users of drugs abandon the habit spontaneously - if supply is interrupted (by imprisonment) or by some change in circumstances (a new relationship, having a baby). As Dalrymple observes, `a motive is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for them to give up'. This does not work for chronic diseases such as tuberculosis or rheumatoid arthritis. The `treatment' of opiate dependency with methadone - the mainstay of medical management of heroin addicts for decades - has had such a low success rate (in terms of achieving abstinence) that the goal of treatment has largely shifted to achieving `maintenance' on an indefinite supply of this stupefying drug.

Methadone has been associated with a steady expansion of heroin use (and a large number of deaths from methadone overdoses). The RSA's answer is more, but `better and more consistent' methadone prescribing, and - the ultimate badge of radicalism in drugs policy - `heroin prescribing wherever appropriate'. This is popular with the police who believe that it may reduce crime, but not with GPs who will be expected to do the prescribing. It is difficult to think of measures more likely to encourage both the scale of heroin abuse and the mortality and morbidity associated with it (apart, perhaps, from the provision of `shooting galleries' for intravenous drug use and rewarding addicts with residential rehab programmes of the sort promoted by celebrities - both measures approved in the RSA report).

The RSA report proclaims as the essence of its innovative approach its emphasis on `harm minimisation' as the central theme of drugs policy. Of course, `harm minimisation', the mainstay of official drugs `guidelines' since at least 1991, has been another spectacular failure (4). Depriving self-indulgent actions of their worst consequences is likely to encourage them to spread. Dalrymple is alert to the wider implications: `[I]f consequences are removed from enough actions, then the very concept of human agency evaporates, life itself becomes meaningless, and is thenceforth a vacuum in which people oscillate between boredom and oblivion.' The concept of harm minimisation assumes that the authorities take over responsibility for the consequences of individuals' behaviour. It is `inherently infantilising'.

The dogma promoted by the RSA report, that drug addiction is a chronic disease, is both absurd and irresponsible. Drug addiction, as Dalrymple insists, is `a moral or spiritual condition that will never yield to medical treatment'. The medicalisation of drug abuse is a combination of `moral cowardice, displacement activity and employment opportunity'.

I would heartily endorse Dalrymple's radical first step towards tackling the drugs problem: close down all clinics claiming to treat drug addicts (on the basis of my experience as an inner-city GP, I would also recommend closing down drug treatment programmes in primary care). Addicts would then have to face the truth: `They are as responsible for their actions as anyone else.' This measure might help to set them free - and it might also help to release doctors from the corrosive deceptions underlying current drug policies. It is striking that while the RSA report is piously non-judgmental towards drug users and eschews coercive policies, it seethes with righteous indignation at GPs who might refuse to follow its dogmatic approach and insists twice in the five pages of its executive summary that GPs should not be allowed `to opt out of providing drugs treatment'. The notion that doctors should be coerced into providing dangerous treatments for their patients in the hope that this might reduce the crime rate reflects the damaging effect of drug policy on the ethics of medical practice.

Dalrymple concludes with a discussion of the case for the legalisation of drugs, which he concedes is `not a straightforward matter'. After considering both philosophical and prudential arguments, `on balance' he does not favour legalisation - the only point on which he is in accord with the RSA. While recognising the enormous cost to individuals and to society of our relationship with our most familiar intoxicant, alcohol, I believe that we have to learn to live with other `substances', too, without resorting to criminal legislation. However, I strongly agree with Dalrymple's emphasis that `far more important in the long run than the question of legalisation.is our attitude towards addiction'.

The radicalism of the RSA's rethink of drugs policy is symbolised by its bold insistence on the repeal of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act - and its replacement with a Misuse of Substances Act. But changing the labels - while perpetuating the myths about drug use - will do nothing to tackle the damaging effects of drugs on individuals and society. The RSA report concedes that `drugs education' - a concept scarcely less mind-numbing than heroin addiction - has failed. The answer? Never mind that `there has been too little evaluation for anyone to be certain what works', we need more of the same, with the heart-sinking rider that it `should be focused more on primary schools'.

Why not teach children something interesting and inspiring, that might give them the truly radical idea that culture and society have more to offer than drug-induced oblivion?

Source




Medical Leftism

No wonder the intellectual standard of many medical journal articles is so low when we have the sort of shallow thinking displayed below. That lives are saved when tyrannies are deposed or faced down by democratic forces is obviously too deep a thought for these would-be wise ones

Physicians from around the world urged the publisher of The Lancet medical journal to cut its links to weapons sales, calling on the editors to find another publisher if Reed Elsevier refused to stop hosting arms fairs. The doctors made their appeal in the latest edition of The Lancet, released Friday. Editors at The Lancet responded by backing the doctors, calling the situation "bizarre and untenable." They wrote in Friday's edition that - in the interest of health - they may have to consider an "organized campaign" against their own publisher. "The Lancet is one of the most respected international medical journals and should not be linked to an industry involved in weapons designed to cause physical harm and death," wrote Dr. Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians, and Dr. Michael Pelly, the association's international adviser.

Some scientists have called for a boycott of journals published by Reed Elsevier Group PLC. Editors at the British Medical Journal have appealed to researchers to stop sending certain studies to The Lancet and other Reed Elsevier titles. On Friday, The Lancet published three pages of protest letters from leading doctors and organizations, including the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Doctors for Iraq and the People's Health Movement, a public health watchdog.

Reed Elsevier said it supported The Lancet editors' right to free speech, but had no plans to stop its involvement with arms fairs. "We accept that Reed Elsevier publications may occasionally take editorial positions which are critical of their owners," the company said in a statement. "We do not, however, see any conflict between Reed Elsevier's connections with the scientific and health communities and the legitimate defense industry."

The Lancet first learned of its publisher's involvement in the arms industry in 2005. Supported by Britain's Ministry of Defense, Reed Elsevier hosts arms fairs around the world that have showcased weapons - including a 1,100-pound cluster bomb, one of the deadliest known bombs. At the time, editor Richard Horton informed the journal's international advisory board, which urged Reed Elsevier to divest itself of its arms trade business. Last month, criticism of the company gained renewed prominence when the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust withdrew $3.9 million of its investment from the company, because of the publisher's ties to the arms industry. "The Lancet has a particular commitment to child survival, and cluster bombs are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in children, and cause horrendous disabilities," Horton said. "It is completely incompatible for Reed Elsevier to be in this business and also to be a health science publisher." The Lancet's editors said they spoke regularly to Reed Elsevier about their concerns, and have asked for further meetings, but have yet to receive a response.

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.

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

Fresh food now bad for you!

FRESH fruit, vegetables and salad sprouts are responsible for an increase in food poisoning caused by the potentially deadly salmonella and E-coli bacteria. There were 27 outbreaks of gastroenteritis between January 2001 and June 2005 across Australia due to fresh, uncooked produce including orange juice, cucumbers, lettuce and alfalfa spouts, resulting in almost 700 people becoming ill, with 51 hospitalised, a conference has been told. At least half of the outbreaks occurred at restaurants and nearly one-fifth of gastro illnesses were linked to fast food or takeaway shops.

The Communicable Disease Control Conference was told this month that fresh produce in particular may cause outbreaks because it was often eaten raw. Adrian Bradley from the NSW Food Authority said the widely held assumption that fresh produce didn't harbour pathogens such as salmonella, norovirus and Campylobacter was now known to be incorrect. OzFoodNet, the national food-borne illness surveillance system, shows that three major salmonella outbreaks occurred in 2006. More than 120 people in Western Australia and Victoria fell ill in the first half of last year after eating alfalfa sprouts. In October 2006, more than 120 cases of food poisoning caused by eating rockmelons occurred along the eastern seaboard. In November there was a small outbreak of salmonella linked to pawpaw.

Overseas evidence suggests contaminated water, fertiliser, contact with pests or animal faeces or insufficient cleaning of produce prior to sale could cause contamination. A spokesman for the Department of Health and Ageing said centralised growing and distribution of fresh produce, as well as enhanced detection, might be a factor in the increase in outbreak numbers. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) plans to introduce primary production and processing standards for high-risk fresh produce such as sprouts.

The NSW Food Authority said people considered "vulnerable" such as young children, the elderly, diabetics, pregnant women and those with cancer or suppressed immune systems should never eat any type of sprout. It advises avoiding any bruised, damaged, mouldy or slimy produce and washing all produce with cool tap water immediately before eating.

Source





Tamiflu troubles good for Relenza?

Relenza is the alternative to Tamiflu but has not been much marketed because it must be inhaled rather than injected. After the report below, it may now be marketed more energetically. Huge sales in Japan could be expected

The main line of defence against pandemic flu came under threat yesterday after the Japanese Government said that the drug Tamiflu should not be prescribed to teenagers. The warning to GPs came after the drug was linked to 18 deaths in Japan that were caused by suicidal or irrational behaviour. The Japanese Government also told the Japanese distributor of the drug to include a warning not to give it to patients aged between 10 and 19. Japan consumes 60 per cent of the world's Tamiflu.

Britain has bought 14.9 million doses of Tamiflu from the manufacturer, Roche. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said that it had received only two reports of psychiatric symptoms associated with Tamiflu - both involving confusion in elderly patients. It said that there were no reports of depression or suicide linked to the drug.

Last month the European Medicines Agency, which licenses Tamiflu in Europe, asked Roche to incorporate new advice in the "summary product characteristics" document sent to doctors. This will say that there have been reports of abnormal responses but that they cannot be causally linked to Tamiflu. It also urges the close monitoring of patients, especially children.

Roche said yesterday: "Reports of such events leading to death are extremely rare, occurring in around one out of every 5 million influenza patients treated . . . US databases indicate psychiatric symptoms are lower in influenza patients taking Tamiflu versus those not taking Tamiflu." Anti-Tamiflu campaigners in Japan urged the Government to remove the drug from sale.

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.

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

Is dieting good for you?

The authors of "Diet Nation" argue that efforts to lose weight are generally doomed to failure - and may possibly cause more harm than good

By this time of year, most New Year's resolutions to lose weight have long since bitten the dust. But actually, the prospects for successful dieting are never good. Out of every 100 people who diet, only four are able both to lose weight and to maintain their post-diet weight. When it comes to dieting, most of us are hopeless recidivists. Most of us also refuse to accept such glum news. Our image of what constitutes our correct weight and body size, dictated by a media and public health community obsessed with obesity, continues to drive both women and men to attempt something that is largely impossible. Worse, if there is a health effect of dieting, it may actually be detrimental rather than beneficial.

Research finds that 90 per cent of American high school girls are dieting, despite the fact that many are not overweight or obese. A 2001 study of female high school students by Brigham Young University researchers found that 11 per cent had used laxatives to lose weight, 15 per cent had taken appetite control pills, and nine per cent had made themselves vomit after eating. Almost half of these girls restricted their food intake to a mere 1,200 calories a day or less. The World Health Organisation defines starvation as a diet of less than 900 calories per day, yet many diets only allow between 950 and 1,200 calories per day. A recent survey of women's eating habits found that the median caloric intake is only about 1,600 calories per day, even though the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for adult women is 2,200 daily calories.

As Jane Ogden of King's College, London writes in Fat Chance: The Myth of Dieting Explained: `For the large majority of women, dieting does not work. Dieting creates more problems than it solves; dieting and overeating become a vicious circle. Dieters never stop dieting, and never stop using the dieting industry.'

The evidence that diets are doomed to failure is extensive. Several studies that have looked at dieting, diet types and weight-loss counselling have concluded that attempts at weight loss are largely unsuccessful, even in highly controlled situations. In a study that compared low carbohydrate and low fat diets, researchers found that adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups. Another study that compared self-help diets with commercial diet plans found that after two years the differences in the two groups were negligible.

A review of the major commercial weight loss programs concluded that even the comparatively successful programmes were characterised by `high costs, high attrition rates, and a high probability of regaining 50 per cent or more of lost weight in one to two years'. One shudders to think about the odds of the less successful ones. As the US National Institutes of Health's review of weight loss programmes put it, `Regardless of the products used, successful weight loss. was limited'.

The reasons for such failures are not always found in a lack of willpower. Our metabolic rate conspires against sustained weight loss by decreasing in response to reduced caloric intake so the body can still function. Some experts suggest that a fortnight of dieting can lead to a 20 percent decline in metabolic rate. This sets up a vicious cycle in which it becomes progressively more difficult to lose each additional pound, as the dieter's body uses food more efficiently and draws less from its reserve of fat.

The difficulties of dieting are usually put to one side when compared to the alleged health benefits. After all, don't people who lose weight have a lower risk of heart disease and type-2 diabetes? But those who accept the evidence about the dangers of obesity, based on epidemiological studies, should also be aware that there is equally strong evidence from such studies that dieting is bad for you. A National Institutes of Health conference that reviewed the evidence about dieting concluded: `Most studies, and the strongest science, shows weight loss. is actually strongly associated with increased risks of death - by as much as several hundred per cent.'

Dieters have double the risk of getting type-2 diabetes compared to those who are overweight but do not diet. The connection between weight loss and increased risk for an early death is particularly striking in two large studies - the Iowa Women's Health Study and the American Cancer Society study. In the follow-up to the American Cancer Society study, researchers found that healthy obese women were in fact better off not losing weight. Healthy women who lost weight had increased mortality risks from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and all other diseases when compared to healthy women who did not diet. A later study found comparable results for men.

Over the past 20 years, more than two dozen studies have found that weight losses of 20 to 30 pounds (between nine and 13 kilos) - the amount most dieters say they want to lose - lead to an increased risk of premature mortality. During the same period, only four studies have found that losing weight increases life expectancy. Commenting on the gain in life expectancy from such efforts, author and commentator Paul Campos notes that one study `found an eleven-hour increase in life expectancy per pound lost. the equivalent of an extra month of life in return for a permanent 50 pound weight loss'.

Rather than lamenting our inevitable fall off the dieting wagon, perhaps we should resolve to take our slightly plump selves as a testimony not to bad health but good health. Let's raise a well-laden fork to resolving not to think about dieting again until next year.

Source






New prostate cancer drug

An experimental drug designed to fight the spread of aggressive prostate cancer is showing great promise for future sufferers, Australian developers say. A team from the University of New South Wales is working on a new therapy for prostate cancer patients who stop responding to standard hormone treatments. The medication is still in the development stage but if new tests prove successful, it could bring relief for a group of men for whom there is currently no treatment, said study leader Dr Kieran Scott. "We've seen enough positive data to know it's worth testing in people," Dr Scott said.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in Australian men, with patients usually treated with some combination of surgery, radiation and hormone medications. These drugs effectively limit the spread of prostate cancer in the early stages by suppressing the male hormones that tumours need to grow. But over time cancers often stop responding to this treatment, putting men at risk of tumour growth and cancer spread to the bones.

Dr Scott said his team at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney believed it had a new oral medicine that could slow the growth of hormone-resistant cancer and stop its spread. The medication works by blocking an enzyme which releases Omega-6 fatty acids - fats which, when consumed in the diet, have been associated with increased rates of disease. "We think we can slow the growth of tumours that are resistant and we believe the drug may also help slow the growth of tumours in bones," Dr Scott said. "If we can help in those two areas then we'll have a therapy for prostate cancer patients who currently have no good treatment."

The team has been granted Cancer Council NSW funding for a new round of tests, with plans to manufacture and trial the experimental compound in the most severely-affected patients if they have success. "I've been working in this area for 10 or 15 years and to be honest I didn't think this would work," Dr Scott said. "But the data keeps me going because it keeps suggesting this approach really will work."

Other cancer grants awarded include an investigation of genes that predispose people to melanoma and a study of new techniques to minimise breast cancer surgery side-effects.

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.

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

Fertility clock may affect men

Prospective fathers should not leave it too long

WHEN it comes to fertility and the prospect of having normal babies, it has always been assumed that men have no biological clock. But mounting evidence suggests that as men get older, they face an increased risk of fathering children with abnormalities. Several recent studies are starting to persuade many doctors that men should not be too cavalier about postponing marriage and children.

Geneticists have been aware for decades that the risk of certain rare birth defects increases with the father's age. One of the most studied of these conditions is a form of dwarfism called achondroplasia, but the list also includes the connective tissues disorder, Marfan syndrome, and skull and facial abnormalities, such as Apert syndrome.

Some studies suggest that the risk of sporadic single-gene mutations may be four to five times higher for fathers who are 45 and older, compared with fathers in their 20s, says Joe Leigh Simpson, the president-elect of the American College of Medical Genetics. Overall, having an older father is estimated to increase the risk of a birth defect by 1 per cent, against a background 3 per cent risk for a birth defect, he says.

A recent study on autism produced striking findings about this perplexing disorder. Researchers analysed a large Israeli military database and found that children of men who became a father at 40 or older were 5.75 times as likely to have an autism disorder as those whose fathers were younger than 30. "Until now, the dominant view has been, 'Blame it on the mother,' " said Avi Reichenberg, the lead author of the study, published in The Archives of General Psychiatry. "But we found a dose-response relationship: the older the father, the higher the risk. We think there is a biological mechanism that is linked to ageing fathers." The study controlled for the age of the mother, the child's year of birth and socioeconomic factors, but researchers did not have information about autistic traits in the parents. [But see my skeptical comment about that study of Sept. 6th, 2006]

Another Israeli study on schizophrenia, using a registry of 87,907 births in Jerusalem between 1964 and 1976, found that the risk of illness was doubled among children of fathers in their late 40s when compared with children of fathers under 25, and increased almost threefold in children born to fathers 50 and older. "When our paper came out, everyone said, 'They must have missed something,' " says an author of the study, Dolores Malaspina, of New York University Medical Centre. But studies elsewhere have had similar findings, she says. "The fact it's so similar around the world suggests it's due to biological ageing."

Sceptics say the studies find an association but do not prove a causal relationship between an older father's genetic material and autism or schizophrenia, and note that other factors related to having an older father could be at play, including different parenthood styles. Another possibility is that the father's mental illness or autistic tendencies are responsible both for the late marriage and for the effect on the child. "'The problem is that the data is very sparse right now," says Larry Lipshultz, a past president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. "I don't think there's a consensus of what patients should be warned about."

Brenda Eskenazi, of the school of public health at the University of California, Berkeley, however, says men need to be concerned about their ageing. "We don't really know what the complete effects are of men's age on their ability to produce viable, healthy offspring."

Pamela Madsen, the executive director of the American Fertility Association says: "It takes two to make a baby, and men who one day want to become fathers need to wake up, read what's out there and take responsibility. Everyone ages. Why would sperm cells be the only cells not to age as men get older?"

Source





Cocoa 'Vitamin' Health Benefits Could Outshine Penicillin

Ho hum! Another bright-eyed promise of a "natural" miracle

The health benefits of epicatechin, a compound found in cocoa, are so striking that it may rival penicillin and anaesthesia in terms of importance to public health, reports Marina Murphy in Chemistry & Industry, the magazine of the SCI. Norman Hollenberg, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, told C&I that epicatechin is so important that it should be considered a vitamin.

Hollenberg has spent years studying the benefits of cocoa drinking on the Kuna people in Panama. He found that the risk of 4 of the 5 most common killer diseases: stroke, heart failure, cancer and diabetes, is reduced to less then 10% in the Kuna. They can drink up to 40 cups of cocoa a week. Natural cocoa has high levels of epicatechin. [And they have a totally different lifestyle too]

'If these observations predict the future, then we can say without blushing that they are among the most important observations in the history of medicine,' Hollenberg says. 'We all agree that penicillin and anaesthesia are enormously important. But epicatechin could potentially get rid of 4 of the 5 most common diseases in the western world, how important does that make epicatechin?... I would say very important'

Nutrition expert Daniel Fabricant [Fabricant's doctorate is from the Center for Botanical Dietary Supplement Research of Chicago] says that Hollenberg's results, although observational, are so impressive that they may even warrant a rethink of how vitamins are defined. Epicatechin does not currently meet the criteria. Vitamins are defined as essential to the normal functioning, metabolism, regulation and growth of cells and deficiency is usually linked to disease. At the moment, the science does not support epicatechin having an essential role. But, Fabricant, who is vice president scientific affairs at the Natural Products Association [Is that another word for the Placebo Association?], says: 'the link between high epicatechin consumption and a decreased risk of killer disease is so striking, it should be investigated further. It may be that these diseases are the result of epicatechin deficiency,' he says.

Currently, there are only 13 essential vitamins. An increase in the number of vitamins would provide significant opportunity for nutritional companies to expand their range of products. Flavanols like epicatechin are removed for commercial cocoas because they tend to have a bitter taste. So there is huge scope for nutritional companies to develop epicatechin supplements or capsules. Epicatechin is also found in teas, wine, chocolate and some fruit and vegetables.

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.

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

Amazing authoritarianism from a food Fascist: Kids should only drink water!

PARENTS who give their children fruit juice as a healthy option could actually be making them fat, new research shows. Deakin University researchers found that children who drink more than two glasses of fruit juice - or cordial - a day are more likely to be overweight or obese.

Parents were asked by telephone about their children's intake of certain foods, including fruit juice. The study found intake of fruit juice and cordials was a bigger issue than soft drink for the almost-2200 Victorian four-to-12-year-olds whose parents were questioned. Children who drank more than 500ml of fruit juice a day were more likely to be overweight or obese than those who had none. And those who drank three or more glasses of soft drink or four glasses of fruit juice on a given day were more than twice as likely to be overweight or obese compared with children who did not regularly consume sweetened drinks. "Many more children were drinking the fruit juice and cordial than soft drinks," said nutritionist Andrea Sanigorski.

She said parents might be unaware that regular and large amounts of fruit drinks, including fruit juice, could be bad for their children's long-term health. "I think they think it's a healthier option than soft drink," Dr Sanigorski said. "The main message is that, day in and day out, what kids should be drinking is water; what they should be taking to school is water. "That should be their main drink. "Younger children, in particular, should also be having milk. "Sweetened beverages, whether it's soft drink or fruit juice or fruit drink, is a concentrated form of sugar that they shouldn't be having often or a lot of. "This work raises the awareness for parents that there is, in some cases, just as much sugar in fruit juice and fruit drinks . . . as in the soft drinks."

Dr Sanigorski said the study, published in the international journal Public Health Nutrition, also found few of the children were eating vegetables. "A large proportion of kids, about one in five, had no vegetables on the day that we asked about," she said. "Only 12 per cent had more than three - but the recommendation is for five serves a day." Dr Sanigorski said the study's findings were consistent with those for children in the US and the United Kingdom.

Source






Another field-test of fluoridation

THE teeth of Australia's "fluoride generation" - children born after 1970, when fluoride was added to drinking water - are twice as healthy as their parents' teeth, a landmark dental report has found. But Queensland children are missing out because successive state governments and most councils have always refused to add fluoride to water. Three-quarters of the rest of mainland Australia have fluoridated water supplies, and Brisbane is the only state capital without it. Queensland Health provides subsidies to councils to add fluoride, but will not make it mandatory. Only 5 per cent of Queenslanders - those living in Townsville, Dalby, Mareeba, Moranbah and Bamaga - have fluoride added.

Studies show Queenslanders have 30 per cent more tooth decay than average in Australia. Researcher Professor Gary Slade said the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report, which was released yesterday, proved fluoridation improved teeth for life. "These results provide the first evidence within the Australian population that drinking fluoridated water during childhood translates into significantly better dental health in adulthood."

The survey of more than 14,500 Australians found people born between 1970 and 1990 had an average of 4.5 teeth affected by decay. They had only half the decay levels of the previous generation. However people born before 1930 had an average of 24 teeth affected by decay.

The World Health Organisation has urged governments to legislate to ensure access to fluoride in all countries. But a spokesman for Queensland Health Minister Stephen Robertson said there were no plans to fluoridate the water supplies. "We just offer the subsidies to councils," he said. "It's a decision that we want the councils to make with support from their local communities."

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.

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

EXERCISE AND OBESITY: CHICKEN OR EGG?

Are people fat because they exercise less or do they exercise less because they are fat? The study below cannot not tell us. But why bother with proof when you KNOW what is going on? A pity that what people KNOW is often not true

The risk of children becoming obese could be halved with 15 extra minutes of moderately vigorous exercise each day, study results have suggested. All that is needed is a short game of football or a walk to school brisk enough to get slightly out of breath. The effects are greater in boys than in girls, but both sexes benefit. The findings point to a lack of exercise, rather than gluttony, as the key to obesity in young people. Researchers were surprised to find that boys have just 25 minutes of activity each day on average, and girls only 16 minutes.

The data comes from the Children of the 90s project, which has followed a group of children born in Avon in the 1990s. The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children is one of the biggest and most ambitious cohort studies ever attempted and is producing some of the best evidence on the effects of diet and lifestyle on disease. Researchers fitted 5,500 children aged 12 with activity meters to measure how much exercise they took. The children wore the meters around their waists, taking them off only to sleep, bath or swim. Their body fat was measured using an X-ray emission scanner, which can distinguish between fat and muscle. The results are published in PLoS Medicine.

Professor Chris Riddoch, of the London Sport Institute at Middlesex University, one of the project leaders, said: "We know that diet is important, but what this research tells us is that we mustn't forget about activity. It's been really surprising to us how even small amounts of exercise appear to have dramatic results."

The boys who took the most vigorous activity were more than 30 times less likely to be obese than those who took the least. An extra 15 minutes a day of moderate and vigorous physical activity halved the risk of obesity. Among girls the effects were less dramatic, but still significant. The most active fifth of girls reduced their risk of obesity by two thirds compared with the least active fifth.

Professor Andy Ness, of the University of Bristol, said that the most important activity was the kind that got the children slightly out of breath, or in a sweat. "Recommending an extra 15 minutes of vigorous activity a day may not sound very much, but it is actually double what the average 12-year-old girl does," he said. "In the context of what they are doing, it is quite a lot."

Why the effects should be so much greater in boys remains puzzling. "It could be physiological differences but I think that's unlikely," Professor Ness said. "The other possibility is that boys and girls use activity differently. Boys tend to use activity as the main weight control mechanism, while girls tend to control their weight by eating less." He said that surveys and food production statistics suggested that total calorie intakes had not increased. Yet obesity was rising, so it was reasonable to suggest that this was the result of burning less energy. "Lots of opportunities for activity are factored out of children's lives these days," he said. "There are more sedentary opportunities - sitting in the car, watching television, playing computer games. There's less walking to school, and when they get home Mum and Dad don't want them wandering off into the woods or playing in the streets."

Source




Organic food is no better



ORGANIC food has no nutritional benefit over regular products despite the belief it is healthier and costs much more, scientists say. Shoppers who buy organic often believe they are getting nutritionally superior products - but experts say there is no evidence to support this claim. Research shows most fruit and vegetables on sale in Australia have the same levels of nutrients and no traces of pesticides, regardless of whether they are organic or not.

Jennie Brand-Miller, professor of molecular and microbiological sciences at Sydney University, says many consumers are paying more, mistakenly believing that organic is better. "We need to get the message out there that non-organic produce is genuinely good quality,'' she said. "We have got a lot to gain from eating fresh fruit and vegetables so the best message is eat as much as you like.''

Organic produce is usually more expensive than conventional foods - sometimes double in price. Consultant dietitian Shane Landon said Australian food standards were high, ensuring all produce was safe to eat. "If people do want to pay a bit more to buy organic and have an orange that looks a bit funny that's fine, but I'm not convinced it's healthier,'' he said. A consumer would have to eat truckloads of non-organic food to accumulate any meaningful amount of pesticides or chemicals in their body, he said. And analysis shows some organic produce does contain residual pesticides.

Suggestions of high levels of hormones in chicken have been proven to be an urban myth, as oestrogen has been banned as an ingredient in chicken feed in Australia since the 1960s.

Advocates prefer to eat organic food because it is likely to have travelled a shorter distance from harvest to shop than its non-organic counterparts, therefore making it more environmentally friendly. Professor Brand-Miller said there was some evidence that organic food, which should be produced without the use of pesticides and artificial chemicals, might be kinder to the planet in the long-term. Erin Pearson, a speech pathologist from Oatley, has bought organic food in the past but didn't notice any difference. "I feel the normal stuff is just as good and organic does tend to be more expensive,'' she 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 new dark age

What are the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals ("REACH") regulations really about? It's about killing you

In the 1970s, as a public relations consultant, I helped introduce a new pesticide to the American market. More specifically, to the pest control industry, as it was not available for use by the public. It was called "Ficam" and, after having undergone the costly Environmental Protection Agency registration process, it was quickly and widely used by pest control professionals, not just for its capacity to eliminate cockroaches and a variety of other pest insects, but because it was applied with nothing more toxic than water.

For two decades this pesticide thrived. I wrote case histories of where it was used in hotels, casinos, restaurants, and theme parks, as well as in homes and apartments. The pest control profession embraced it and there never was a single case of it causing any hazard to those who applied it or benefited from it. I never found out why, but for some reason the EPA demanded that the manufacturer re-register the product and the decision was made that it would be withdrawn instead. It was just too costly to prove what everyone already knew. It worked wonders protecting people against the diseases and property damage a wide variety of insect pest species cause on a daily basis.

The EPA did a similar number on a pesticide called "Dursban." This excellent pesticide had been around for decades and was widely used because it was a component in more than 80 products that the public could purchase off the shelf of the supermarket or garden supplies store. The EPA proceeded to restrict its consumer use against insect pests. If it posed such a health hazard, why wasn't there evidence of countless people being affected? Who benefited from its loss? The insects.

Some may remember the "Alar" crisis that impacted the apple growers, particularly in the Northwest. Millions of dollars were lost until it became clear that there was no threat whatever to the public from its use. People are still safely eating apples, just as they were before an environmental group perpetrated the manufactured crisis.

The reason cited for these actions is called "the precautionary principle" that says that, if anything poses a possible risk, no matter how small, a chemical cannot be used. Proof of its effective use, in the case of pesticides, in protecting the public against the vast range of diseases that insects or rodents routinely spread, was not to be considered.

What any chemist or pharmacist will tell you is "the poison is in the dose." It is the amount of exposure that determines the level of hazard and we routinely eat, drink, and use things that have chemicals as part of their structure in such minute quantities as to constitute no threat. As just one example, potatoes contain trace amounts of arsenic, a deadly poison, but no one is ever going to consume enough potatoes at a single sitting.

I was reminded of this when I recently read of still more fear mongering against a plastic ingredient called bisphenol-A, otherwise known as BPA. The food packaging industry has used BPA in the linings of metal cans since as far back as the 1950s. It is also used to make hard plastic as well as lacquers for bottle tops, water pipes, and even dental sealants and tooth coatings. The Environmental Working Group, a self-anointed "watchdog" organization, rolled out the usual scare campaign in early March, claiming that BPA "may be poisoning pregnant women and infants" according to a study by the Group. Typically, these "studies" involve force-feeding huge amounts of the chemical to laboratory rats until a correlation can be made that it poses a threat to humans, but correlation is not the same as causation.

I can assure you that the cost of the canned foods identified and probably all others is about to rise. Indeed, the cost of everything that uses chemicals in the course of its manufacture is going to rise. The reason for this is a program initiated by the European Union that has passed sweeping new chemical regulations that will go into effect in June. Based on that idiotic precautionary principle, the EU has instituted a program intended to rid the world of chemicals they deem to have an impact on the environment and human health. It is called "Green chemistry" and it has more to do with eliminating the use of beneficial chemicals than in offering any protection to Mother Earth and human beings.

The U.S. Commerce Department is putting on "roadshows" for U.S. businesses to bring them in line with the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals ("REACH") regulations. As Kathleen Morson of Stratfor, a private intelligence group that advises U.S. corporations, says, "The REACH regulation represents a shift from the Western regulatory world's reliance on risk assessment to something more precaution-based. Significantly, it shifts the regulatory burden from government agencies to the producers themselves to demonstrate that their chemicals are safe."

No chemical is safe if it is ingested in an amount wherein the dose becomes injurious. This includes the chemical we commonly call water.

Because American manufacturers commonly export their products all over the world and Europe represents a major market for them, they will have no choice but to submit to this EU plan to restrict chemicals, some of which have been safely in use for decades and longer. A little group of Green gnomes in Helsinki will decide the fate of every chemical in use today.

This is what I predict. At some point in the future, after most of the world's pesticides and herbicides, after chemicals used to clean water, after various chemicals used in the ways plastic is a part of our lives have been restricted, a huge plague will make its way across the world. It will be spread as the famed Black Plague was, by insect and rodent pests, and it will kill countless millions of people. A new Dark Age will follow. It will, in fact, have been in place since the imposition of the European Union's draconian anti-chemical program was imposed. What is REACH really about? It's about killing you.

Source





DIY contraceptive device 'better than the Pill'

THE first once-a-month contraceptive that women can insert themselves goes on sale nationally from today, in a move doctors say will revolutionise family planning options. The device - a small, squishy rubber ring - is impregnated with female hormones and is held in place inside the vagina, which absorbs the hormones directly into the bloodstream. Experts say this more direct route of administration allows the product, called NuvaRing, to deliver lower levels of estrogen compared with existing daily pills - reducing the risk of side-effects such as weight gain and tender breasts.

Until today, women have had the option of taking daily contraceptive pills, or seeing a doctor for longer-term treatments such as an injection or a contraceptive implant that sits beneath the skin.

NuvaRing releases its hormones over a three-week period, and can then be taken out for one week to allow women their monthly bleed, although this is much lighter than a normal period as the hormones will have prevented the walls of the uterus from thickening. A new ring is inserted after the fourth week. The makers say that often neither the woman nor her partner can tell it is there, and it should not affect intercourse. However, it can be taken out for up to three hours without reducing contraceptive protection.

The rings cost between $25 and $28, similar to the latest generation of oral contraceptive pills. NuvaRing is prescription-only and is not subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Fertility expert Ric Porter, a gynaecologist at IVF Australia, said that unlike the pill the ring would not lose effectiveness if women had stomach upsets, took antibiotics or drank alcohol. "Young girls taking the pill drink themselves silly, don't absorb the pill and then wonder why they get pregnant," Dr Porter said. "It (NuvaRing) is going to revolutionise women's contraception ability in this country. "Some women won't like it, but the women who forget to take the pill are going to be far better off with one of these."

NuvaRing contains the same hormones as other contraceptives - estrogen and progestin, a synthetic version of progesterone. The most commonly prescribed contraceptive pill delivers 30 micrograms (mcg) of estrogen, and the lowest dose available delivers 20mcg - compared to 15mcg for NuvaRing.

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.

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