Saturday, February 28, 2009
Angry people have more heartbeat irregularity
It has been known for years that hostility (chronic anger) is weakly associated with a higher incidence of coronary heart disease but I suppose that the wheel needs continual re-invention
Anger really can kill, doctors have warned. Feelings of rage can trigger potentially deadly irregular heart rhythms, research shows. The finding, from a study of patients with cardiac problems, could explain other studies which have linked the anger sparked by world events - from the loss of a World Cup match to a war - with heart attacks. 'When you put a whole population under a stress factor, sudden death will increase,' said researcher Dr Rachel Lampert. 'Our study starts to look at how does this really affect the electrical system of the heart.'
Dr Lampert, of Yale University in the U.S., studied 62 adults being treated for an irregular heartbeat - a common condition which raises the risk of heart attack. She said: 'We found in the lab setting that yes, anger did increase this electrical instability in these patients.'
Patients in the study took part in an exercise in which they recounted a recent angry episode while Dr Lampert's team did a test called T-Wave Alternans that measures electrical instability in the heart. The men and women, who all had defibrillators implanted in their chests to monitor their heartbeat and shock it back into rhythm when necessary, were then tracked for three years. Those who were rated as the angriest were more than ten times more likely to need a shock from the device, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology reports.
However, Dr Lampert cautioned against applying the results to people with healthy hearts. She is now studying whether anger management classes can help those with the conditions studied - ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation.
Sudden cardiac death accounts for more than 400,000 deaths each year in the United States, according to the American College of Cardiology.
Cure for peanut allergy closer
This again shows that exposure to peanuts has a major role in preventing peanut allergy
A group of children with severe peanut allergies have had their conditions successfully treated, allowing them to eat nuts without suffering any reaction for the first time. The success of the preliminary clinical trial, conducted by Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, eastern England, shows the possibilty of modifying an allergy by desensitising the sufferer. Scientists say that the development brings them one step closer to curing nut allergies.
Researchers gave small daily doses of peanut flour to children with severe peanut allergy to help them to build tolerance to the nuts over a six-month period. By the end of the trial, the children could eat up to 12 nuts a day without suffering a life-threatening reaction in the form of anaphylaxis.
Peanut allergy is increasingly common, affecting an estimated 2 per cent of British schoolchildren. Reactions can range from itching, rashes and swelling to breathing difficulties caused by a narrowing of the airways, and severe asthma. It is the most common serious allergic reaction but, unlike other childhood food allergies, it rarely recedes over time.
Pamela Ewan, a consultant allergist and lead researcher, said that the trial offered hope for sufferers. "Until now there has been no treatment that has modified the disease," she told The Times. "There has only been effective management of the problems. "We do not like to talk of cures, but that is what we are aiming for. If you can switch off the allergy, you can claim you have cured the person." Andrew Clark, a consultant in paediatric allergy who worked on the trial, said that further studies were planned into different types of nuts, as well as other foods, including kiwi fruit.
In the study, published in the journal Allergy, four children were given daily doses of peanut flour, starting with 5mg mixed into yoghurt. Over six months the dose was increased every two weeks until the children could tolerate 800mg of the protein. This was 160 times the starting dose and equivalent to five peanuts. A larger study by Addenbrooke's, involving 20 children aged 7 to 17, is showing similar results. A total of 12 patients have completed treatment and none has shown signs of reaction to peanuts. Some of them were showing tolerance reaching 12 peanuts a day. The original four children are keeping up their tolerance with a "maintenance" dose of five peanuts a day.
Mr Clark said: "If they were to stop there is some evidence that tolerance would be lost and they may have a reaction." He said that the children's tolerance levels would be monitored and future studies would assess whether the dose could be given as a daily pill. After three or four years, the body may have adjusted and there could be a more "permanent cure" to the allergy, he said. "Every time people with a peanut allergy eat something, they're frightened that it might kill them. Our motivation was to find a treatment that would change that and give them the confidence to eat what they like. "All of these children say it has improved their quality of life and they've lost that fear of having an acute reaction if they accidentally eat a peanut."
Mr Clark warned families not to try to replicate the study at home. Previous trials in the 1990s, which used injections rather than oral doses, produced serious side-effects. The Addenbrooke's study was sponsored by the Evelyn Trust, a Cambridge charity supporting medical research.
Friday, February 27, 2009
HRT 'could double the threat of skin cancer'
Epidemiological rubbish. Maybe the women on HRT were more active so got more sun exposure
Women who undergo hormone replacement therapy for the menopause could be dramatically increasing their risk of skin cancer. Those on HRT for more than six months at a time are twice as likely to develop a malignant melanoma, researchers discovered. They also found taking the Pill for more than six months makes it 28 per cent more likely that a cancerous mole will develop.
The study, published in the journal Annals of Oncology, compared nearly 800 Dutch women diagnosed with a melanoma between 1991 and 2004 with a group of 4,000 cancer-free women. It is thought the higher risk may be due to the way oestrogen in the HRT stimulates the growth of skin cells, called melanocytes. The study, by experts at Leiden University in the Netherlands, is the latest to highlight the health risks associated with taking HRT. It is already linked with breast cancer and an increased risk of potentially fatal blood clots.
Malignant melanomas kill around 1,700 people a year in the UK. Over-exposure to the sun's rays is the major cause and since the mid-1990s there has been a 24 per cent increase in cases. Dr Joanna Owens, from Cancer Research UK, said UV radiation was still the biggest danger. She said: 'Without knowing how much sun exposure these women had, this study tells us nothing new.'
Three daily cups of tea can reduce risk of stroke
As a regular tea drinker, I am much inclined to applaud this report but, as far as I can see, any beneficial effects are very small in absolute magnitude and benefits have been claimed for coffee too
The great British cuppa can protect against stroke, a study suggests. Drinking three cups of tea a day cuts the risk of brain clots by 21 per cent, say scientists from the American Heart Association who analysed 10 studies in China, Japan, Finland, Holland, Australia and the U.S. It is thought that tea may help by reducing blood pressure.
Other possibilities are that chemicals present in tea - catechins and theanins - contribute to improved blood vessel function. 'Tea drinking may be one of the most actionable lifestyle changes to significantly reduce the risk of stroke,' said the study.
Dr Catherine Hood of the Tea Advisory Panel said: 'These latest health findings are really exciting for all of us tea drinkers. 'Despite different countries studied and the different tea drinking customs represented across the studies, the meta-analysis showed that tea consumption was associated with reduced risk for stroke and reduced risk of death from stroke.' The study found that the risk of a fatal or non-fatal stroke in people drinking three or more cups a day was reduced by 21 per cent compared to those who did not drink tea.
Dr Hood said there were three key mechanisms in which tea could prevent stroke. 'Firstly, tea has been shown to reduce blood pressure in stroke-prone rats and blood pressure control is the key strategy to reduce risk of stroke in humans. 'Secondly, tea and the catechins it contains can improve blood vessel function. Thirdly, through the effects of theanin, tea has a positive effect on brain function and may reduce blood vessel damage in the brain. 'In the research, the beneficial effect was not specific to green or black tea. Black tea was as effective as green tea in reducing stroke.'
But the Stroke Association warned that 'excess caffeine intake is believed to contribute to high blood pressure'. 'Therefore we recommend moderate consumption of tea.'
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Now eggs are GOOD for you
And fried eggs are best of all, would you believe? In the '90s eggs were of course very bad for you. It shows you how slapdash much "research" is and how unwise it is to take official pronouncements seriously
Starting the day on an egg could keep your blood pressure in check, research suggests. Scientists have shown that eggs produce proteins that mimic the action of powerful blood pressure-lowering drugs.
The finding comes a few days after a study exploded the myth that they can increase the danger of heart attacks. It now appears that eggs may be good for the heart, lowering blood pressure in the same way as Ace inhibitors, prescription-only pills taken by millions around the world. The drugs lower blood pressure by stopping the hormone angiotensin narrowing the body's blood vessels.
The researchers, from the University of Alberta in Canada, showed that when eggs come in contact with stomach enzymes they produce a protein that acts in the same way. Fried eggs proved particularly successful at blocking angiotensin, lab-based tests showed, the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry reports. But the researchers, whose study was funded by the poultry industry, said more work was needed to show the effects outside a lab and in the human body.
Earlier this month, British researchers proclaimed that, contrary to popular perception, it is healthy to go to work on an egg. Researchers for the British Nutrition Foundation - part-funded by the poultry industry - concluded that the type of cholesterol found in eggs has minimal effect on raising heart disease risks. It is saturated fat, rather than the cholesterol found in eggs, that is the main dietary culprit in raising cholesterol levels. Smoking, being overweight and lack of exercise also influence blood fat and cholesterol levels and heart disease risk.
Researcher Professor Bruce Griffin, of the University of Surrey, said: 'The ingrained misconception linking egg consumption to high blood cholesterol and heart disease must be corrected. 'The amount of saturated fat in our diet exerts an effect on blood cholesterol that is several times greater than the relatively small amounts of dietary cholesterol. The UK public do not need to be limiting the number of eggs they eat. 'They can be encouraged to include them in a healthy diet as they are one of nature's most nutritionally dense foods.'
The British Heart Foundation dropped its three-egg-a-week limit in 2005. However, almost half of Britons believe the limit still applies, a poll found.
One-shot jab for every type of flu `ready in 5 years'
A universal therapy or vaccine for every type of flu is "within our grasp", according to scientists who have identified proteins that can neutralise most strains of the virus that affect humans. The discovery of three immune proteins that are effective against a broad range of influenza viruses promises to provide a new line of defence against a pandemic, and could prevent many of the 250,000 deaths from seasonal flu that occur worldwide every year. A treatment based on the research is expected to begin patient trials during the winter of 2010-11, and could be ready for widespread use within five years.
At present, vaccines against one sub-type of the virus do not protect against others, meaning that three kinds must be incorporated in the seasonal flu jab. "I certainly believe that a pan-therapy for all kinds of inluenza may be within our grasp," Robert Liddington, of the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, California, who led the research, said.
In the new research, published in the journal Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, Dr Liddington's team identified three monoclonal antibodies that are effective against flu viruses belonging to 10 of the 16 H subtypes. Both the H5N1 avian flu virus, which has so far infected 408 people and killed 254, and the Spanish flu virus, were neutralised by the antibodies.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Greenfield shoots her mouth off again
"Social websites harm children's brains". She said much the same nearly a year ago -- with a similar lack of proof. She does have a research background in brain function but she is primarily a science popularizer and can be relied on to support the wisdom of the day -- which is why she has been much honoured in various ways.
Not long ago she was selling a "brain training program" called "Mindfit" but such programs have subsequently been found to be of very questionable use and may do more harm than good. She appears unaware of the contradiction of promoting a computer-based brain training program while otherwise warning of the harm that computer use does.
She has also bad-mouthed Larry Summers for his truth telling about mathematical ability and mocks Christians. So wait for the double-blind studies of social networking websites rather than trust the mere "fears" of this attention-seeker.
Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned. Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred. The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day. But they will strike a chord with parents and teachers who complain that many youngsters lack the ability to communicate or concentrate away from their screens. [Given the dumbed-down education they get today, that has to be expected]
More than 150million use Facebook to keep in touch with friends, share photographs and videos and post regular updates of their movements and thoughts. A further six million have signed up to Twitter, the 'micro-blogging' service that lets users circulate text messages about themselves. But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good. Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively 'rewire' the brain.
Computer games and fast-paced TV shows were also a factor, she said. 'We know how small babies need constant reassurance that they exist,' she told the Mail yesterday. 'My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.'
Her comments echoed those she made during a House of Lords debate earlier this month. Then she argued that exposure to computer games, instant messaging, chat rooms and social networking sites could leave a generation with poor attention spans. 'I often wonder whether real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf,' she said.
Lady Greenfield told the Lords a teacher of 30 years had told her she had noticed a sharp decline in the ability of her pupils to understand others. 'It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations,' she said. She pointed out that autistic people, who usually find it hard to communicate, were particularly comfortable using computers.
'Of course, we do not know whether the current increase in autism is due more to increased awareness and diagnosis of autism, or whether it can - if there is a true increase - be in any way linked to an increased prevalence among people of spending time in screen relationships. Surely it is a point worth considering,' she added.
Psychologists have also argued that digital technology is changing the way we think. They point out that students no longer need to plan essays before starting to write - thanks to word processors they can edit as they go along. Satellite navigation systems have negated the need to decipher maps.
A study by the Broadcaster Audience Research Board found teenagers now spend seven-and-a-half hours a day in front of a screen.
Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning.
Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia. 'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'
HIV gene therapy trial results seen as positive
Results from the first clinical trial of gene therapy in patients infected with HIV are reported online in the research journal Nature Medicine this week. The treatment appeared to safely increase the number of immune system cells normally attacked by the virus, said researchers. But the therapy wasn't found to significantly reduce the number of HIV viruses themselves in patients' bodies.
Gene therapy is a strategy involving introducing genes into patients through various means in order to replace defective genes or otherwise help the body fight illness. Gene therapy is an appealing option to treat AIDS and the virus responsible for it, HIV, the scientists who conducted the new study propose. That's because the therapy is seen as potentially a onceonly treatment that fights the virus, preserves the immune system and avoids lifetime antiretroviral therapy.
Ronald Mitsuyasu of the University of California, Los Angeles and colleagues completed the first randomized, controlled gene transfer clinical trial in 74 HIVinfected adults. About half the patients received blood stem cells carrying a a molecule called OZ1. The molecule contains a gene previously found to prevent viral replication by targeting two key HIV proteins.
OZ1 caused no adverse effects, the investigators said. Counts of CD4+ lymphocytesthe cell population that is depleted by HIVwent higher in the treated patients than in those who had received a placebo treatment with no actual therapy, the scientists said. The differences were found by 100 weeks into the trial. "This study indicates that celldelivered gene transfer is safe and biologically active in individuals with HIV and can be developed as a conventional therapeutic product," Mitsuyasu and colleagues wrote.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
foie gras: More PETA lies unmasked
When Village Voice reporter Sarah DiGregorio set out to investigate foie gras production at Hudson Valley, activists prepped her for a conspiracy. "With 150 people living on-site," warned anti-foie gras campaigner Holly Cheever, "they can cherry-pick out the disastrously sick ducks" to hide animal abuse from the media. Armed with a list of criteria from an animal welfare expert, DiGregorio spent a day at the farm examining ducks at every stage of the production process. This week, she revealed her findings: Someone is cherry-picking evidence in the "foie gras wars." But the farmers aren't the culprits.
Despite the fact that there are only four farms in the U.S. that produce the fatty liver delicacy, activists from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) have put a great deal of effort into stigmatizing the tiny industry and its customers. And as DiGregorio writes in the first sentence of her article, shock videos depicting sick and struggling birds are a crucial part of their campaigns.
It's very hard to watch the video about foie gras from PETA and not conclude that you should lay off fatty liver.
But like Anthony Bourdain and others who have visited the farms for themselves, the scene at Hudson Valley was nothing like what PETA's torture video had led her to expect:
[T]he sights could not have been more different from the horrifying images I'd seen on the Internet. I was at the farm for five hours, all told. I saw thousands of ducks, but not a drop of duck vomit. I didn't see an animal that was having a hard time breathing or walking, or a duck with a bloodied beak or blown-open esophagus. So where are the terrible images coming from?
DiGregorio explained that the PETA footage must have been shot at an industrial farm abroad, probably in France. The cages shown in activist shock videos don't even exist on any of the four farms in the U.S. However, as the owner of Hudson Valley explained, the "cage free" facilities haven't deterred HSUS and other groups from trying to sue them out of business. Hudson Valley's legal costs were $50,000 this month alone.
It's no secret why PETA and HSUS have spent so much time, money, and energy trying to demonize producers and consumers of foie gras: It's a gateway to vilifying pork, cheese, veal, and the long list of other foods they want Americans to stop eating. But fortunately for culinary enthusiasts who enjoy the delicacy and other animal products, DiGregorio and others are routinely more convinced by reality than by vegan propaganda films:
If I had seen with my own eyes that Hudson Valley produced foie gras by abusing ducks, this article would have turned out very differently. But that just wasn't the case.
Gender gap closes in on life expectancy
This sounds reasonable. I seem to recollect that male and female life expectancies have already roughly equalized in Israel
The final gender gap is closing. Men, who usually die many years earlier than women, will live as long as their wives within two generations, scientists believe. As long as men continue to improve lifestyles that are far healthier than in previous decades, and gains in women's health level off, the tipping point will arrive in about 2035, an American government statistician predicted last week. That year will mark the birth of the first generation of westerners who can expect to live well into their late eighties, regardless of their gender.
In the past, western men died earlier than women because they went to war or took on jobs such as mining or deep sea fishing with chronic health consequences. The dominance of macho cultures also meant they tended to eschew improved medical and dietary advice which, since the 1940s, has helped women add 2« months a year to their lifespan. Yet the latest survey released last week by the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) noted that the gap is shrinking fast. "Men born in 2006 could expect to live 3.6 years longer, and women 1.9 years longer, than those born in 1990," scientists reported in their annual survey of 300m Americans. Male life expectancy is now 75.1 and women's 80.9.
A CDC statistician, who did not wish to be named, said that the data applied across western nations where gender gaps were closing at varying rates. "Unless patterns change dramatically, maybe by war or epidemic, there will be a convergence point in around 25 years' time or so. That will benefit the children of children born over the past couple of years," he said.
There will still be great global disparities, however. The twins born to the Hollywood actress Julia Roberts in 2004, for example, are likely to live up to 50 years longer than twins born on the same day in Swaziland, where current life expectancy barely hovers above 30.
Yet in the West the benefits of the fight against conditions such as heart disease and cancer, albeit counterbalanced by the recent growth of "lifestyle-related" problems such as diabetes, were already showing themselves. A Briton in his twenties today is likely to live at least five years longer than a man now in his fifties.
There are, however, wide disparities across the UK. According to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), a man dining amid the sushi restaurants of the west London borough of Kensington and Chelsea can expect to live until he is 83, but one living in Glasgow, with its poor diet typified by the notorious deep-fried Mars bar, can only expect to reach 71. On average in Britain, men live to 77.2 and women to 81.5, compared with 70.8 and 76.8 respectively in 1981.
Today the only countries with very narrow gaps between the genders are where both tend to die young. This is changing, but scientists are unsure why. Professor Tom Kirkwood, director of the Institute for Ageing and Health at Newcastle University, said that only a quarter of the factors that dictate how long we live are inherited, with the remainder shaped by the environment. "The trouble is we don't know what the secret is in the balance of nutrition and life-style responsible for the narrowing life-expectancy gap, only that we're all going to live a lot longer - together," he said.
Tony Warnes, professor of gerontology at the Sheffield Institute for Studies on Ageing, said the one widely agreed factor was the change in smoking habits. "Men have reduced their smoking a lot and women, particularly young women, have been more resistant," he said. The ONS said that in 2004 10% of girls aged between 11 and 15 smoked compared with 7% of boys, a trend blamed on the desire to control their weight and look "cool". Their futures are not bright: lung cancer rates are falling sharply among men but rising steadily among women. Warnes also said that some advances in medicine, such as heart treatments, could be more beneficial to men.
As long as greater life expectancy is combined with health advances, everyone should be happy. However, experts warn of the nightmare corollary: that we get the extra years but remain blighted by debilitating conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.
Posted by jonjayray at 12:19 AM
Monday, February 23, 2009
Blood pressure drugs can curb Alzheimer's
This seems a rather striking finding and certainly warrants follow-up with a better sample and more controls
Blood-pressure drugs taken by thousands could reduce the risk of Alzheimer's disease. Patients on medication for hypertension - the medical term for high blood pressure - are less likely to develop dementia than those who are healthy and do not use the drugs, scientists found. Doctors had previously found lowering blood pressure can reduce the risk of dementia later in life. But this study suggests hypertension drugs may have a protective effect because of something they contain rather than because of their effect on blood pressure. Further research is set to establish whether they could help reverse the symptoms of Alzheimer's or even prevent it.
Around 400,000 people in Britain suffer from Alzheimer's with a further one million diagnoses expected over the next ten years. Doctors at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, carried out post-mortem examinations on 300 patients for the study, published in Neurology magazine. They identified which patients had been diagnosed with high blood pressure and which were taking drugs to ease their condition. Analysis found `substantially' fewer symptoms of Alzheimer's in those who had been taking medication for their hypertension than among normal, healthy people.
Neil Hunt, of the Alzheimer's Society, said: `We know high blood pressure doubles the risk of developing Alzheimer's so treating hypertension is vital. It is becoming increasingly important to investigate whether anti-hypertensive medication may also be a potential treatment for Alzheimer's.'
Less Alzheimer disease neuropathology in medicated hypertensive than nonhypertensive persons
By L. B. Hoffman et al.
Objective: To test the hypothesis that use of antihypertensive medication is associated with lower Alzheimer disease (AD) neuropathology.
Methods: This was a postmortem study of 291 brains limited to those with normal neuropathology or with uncomplicated AD neuropathology (i.e., without other dementia-associated neuropathology) in persons with or without hypertension (HTN) who were and were not treated with antihypertensive medications. Neuritic plaque (NP) and neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) densities, quantified in selected brain regions according to the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) neuropathologic criteria, with additional cortical NP counts, yielded 24 neuropathologic regional measures or summaries. Medicated hypertension (HTN-med; n = 77), nonmedicated HTN (HTN-nomed; n = 42), and non-HTN (no-HTN; n = 172) groups were compared by analyses of variance.
Results: The HTN-med group had significantly less neuropathology than the no-HTN group. The no-HTN group averaged over 50% higher mean NP and NFT ratings, and double the mean NP count, of the HTN-med group. The HTN-nomed group had significantly more neuropathology than the HTN-med group, but not significantly less than the no-HTN group.
Conclusions: There was substantially less Alzheimer disease (AD) neuropathology in the medicated hypertension group than the nonhypertensive group, which may reflect a salutary effect of antihypertensive medication against AD-associated neuropathology.
Neurology 2009. Published online February 18
Frozen human egg system improved
THE first "frozen egg" baby born in Australia through a revolutionary technique will give single women and couples greater choice for having children later in life. Lucy was born last October to a Sydney couple, and the success is expected to spark huge interest in the technique.
Freezing has been relatively unsuccessful until now because human eggs are so fragile. It has grown out of a demand from mainly single women in their 30s who want to delay childbirth. The $10,000 process is also suitable for cancer patients who store eggs before radiation or chemotherapy, which often damage the reproductive system. The technique would also be used by women who have a family history of early menopause. Because of low success rates in the traditional method of slow egg freezing, women have had to take their chances by relying on IVF, sometimes leaving it too late.
Since July 2006, Sydney IVF has been testing the process, which boasts almost a 100 per cent success rate in freezing and thawing eggs. The IVF breakthrough works by snap-freezing the egg, which avoids ice crystals forming in the cell and damaging genetic material. Vitrification is used around the world to freeze embryos, but has never been successfully used in Australia for eggs.
Dr Kylie de Boer, general manager of Sydney IVF, said she expected numbers of women and couples wanting to freeze their eggs to soar. "Women want to have their eggs frozen for social reasons, such as they are not ready to have children, or for medical reasons," she said. "We get about 5-10 inquiries a month now for egg freezing for social reasons." Only 25 couples so far have used the process, which involves up to 10 eggs being collected and stored in liquid nitrogen vapour. The pregnancy rate is about 63 per cent.
Lucy's parents, who do not wish to be identified, used the process as part of their IVF treatment. Her mother was 37 when she had her eggs frozen. They were stored for six months before being fertilised and the embryo implanted. Now with a healthy girl, the 38-year-old mother said she would recommend it to other women. "My husband and I are so happy with our beautiful little girl," she said. "My pregnancy was textbook and the birth was a natural one, and occurred at full term. "We would love to have more children and will opt for IVF treatment once again."
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Dangerous nervous Nellies
What the Australian writer below says is perfectly correct but she omits to name the chief guilty parties: Grant-seeking university researchers who put out an unending stream of health scares that in the end promote skepticism about all mainstream medical advice. When everything you like is bad for you and everything unpleasant is good for you, nobody but obsessionals is going to take any notice of it. Medical journal editors need to take the lead and follow the conclusions of all epidemiological articles with a prominent warning saying: "WARNING: The conclusions of this article are speculative". Wakefield was, after all, a mainstream medical researcher. I personally would burn him at the stake for all the harm he has done in pursuit of his own selfish gain but then I would pulp a lot of medical journals too.
Living in a suburb with lots of white, middle-class, educated mothers may be putting your child's health at risk. In such salubrious surroundings can be found dangerous concentrations of vaccine-resisters. These are women who spend too many hours on wacky internet health sites and become convinced immunisation is a giant conspiracy. The educated mother who thinks she knows better than the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists and doctors partly explains why some of Sydney's richest suburbs have the state's lowest child immunisation rates.
It is hardly surprising that North Coast NSW, home to alternative life-stylers and the "natural" wellness set, should rate lowly on coverage. But it was astounding - at first - to see that Sydney's eastern, south-eastern and northern suburbs rate near, or at, the bottom of a list compiled by the Division of General Practice, based on Medicare figures for child immunisation rates. In the November 2008 quarter, Sydney's eastern suburbs - including the city, Vaucluse, Double Bay, Rose Bay and Kings Cross - were ranked last among the state's 34 divisions of general practice and last among 118 divisions nationally. Just above that lot was the Northern Rivers, then north Sydney, south-east Sydney and the Blue Mountains. A similar story emerged from data published in 2005 by the National Centre for Immunisation Research when Mosman had about the same child immunisation rate as Bellingen.
It is possible doctors in these establishment suburbs are too old to be computer-literate or too lazy to record immunisation data as they are meant to do, with consequent under-estimates of the coverage in their areas. Also, parts of the eastern suburbs, such as Kings Cross, have their share of poor and transient families. But as Ray Seidler, medical director of the Eastern Sydney Division of General Practice, told me, these areas are home to "an older demographic of mothers who are conscientious objectors".
Around the world, resistance to vaccination is strongest among the affluent and educated, leading Arthur Allen, author of the book Vaccine, a history of immunisation, to observe that "living in a place with a high percentage of PhDs is a risk factor for whooping cough".
Vaccine-resisters have a range of motivations. Some believe immunisation is unnatural. Others resent the nanny state telling them how to raise their children. Some distrust the medical establishment. But the movement got a big boost in the late 1990s from a bogus health scare that linked autism with a preservative, thimerosal, in the measles/mumps/rubella jab. At least 16 epidemiological studies have disproved the link. And the British doctor responsible for the scare, Andrew Wakefield, stands accused of having doctored the results of his study, according to an investigation by The Times published earlier this month. Wakefield's theory was based on 12 cases, and now even that evidence is questionable.
But for the vaccine-resisters, facts can't be allowed to get in the way of feeling. The sceptics have a lot going for them. For the last two decades medical consumers have rightly learned to question authority; the doctor is no longer god; and consumer choice has extended to patient treatment. Aided by the internet, anyone can bone up on their diseases and ask intelligent questions. And so they should - just as independent scientists should be properly funded to monitor a vaccination's side effects.
But these dummy mummies don't differentiate between fact and hocus-pocus; between a bona fide scientific study and pseudo science. Just as some people still think fluoride is dangerous, others cling to their anti-vaccine stand as a matter of faith, regardless of the evidence. They don't distinguish between the expert view of, say, the pediatrician Paul Offit, author of Autism's False Prophets, and co-inventor of a vaccine against rotavirus, a diarrheal disease that kills tens of thousands in poor countries; and the view of former Playmate of the Year and anti-vaccine campaigner Jenny McCarthy, who has an autistic son, and brings her partner, the actor Jim Carrey, on her rallies. Offit has had death threats; McCarthy has been on Oprah.
What is indisputable is that vaccines have saved countless lives. Smallpox has been eradicated, polio almost defeated, and diphtheria confined to pockets of poor countries. Children are mostly spared debilitating illnesses such as measles and mumps.
But 8000 children in NSW got whooping cough last year, starting with an outbreak on the North Coast, a big increase on previous years. Many were babies exposed to the virus in the months before they could be vaccinated. Babies cough and cough, go blue or red, some stop breathing and need oxygen. Tetanus is just a rusty nail away, and cases of measles are still recorded in Australia.
Ultimately it's selfish not to vaccinate your child. It's relying on everyone else to do so in order to maintain "herd" immunity, which means at least 90 per cent of the community needs to be vaccinated to protect the most vulnerable from disease. It's bad enough that ill-educated, chaotic, itinerant families fail to get their children immunised because they forget, don't know, or don't get round to it. But when smart parents deliberately desist, it's wicked. So intent on not being duped by the "medical establishment", they allow themselves to be duped instead by the likes of Jim Carrey, Jennifer McCarthy, and garbage science.
DNA left at crime scene could be used to create picture of criminal's FACE, say scientists
I guess it will come to that in time
Forensic experts will soon be able to reconstruct facial features and skin just by reading DNA, U.S. scientists said. 'Forensic molecular photofitting' maps the genes that are linked to skin pigmentation and facial structure which means a person's face could emerge from the analysis, Dr Mark Shriver from Pennsylvania State University said.
The process has already been used to help identify and convict serial killer Derek Todd Lee who murdered seven women in Louisiana. Witness statements said the offender was white but genetic testing of DNA at the crime scenes showed he was African American - which helped lead to his arrest. He was convicted in 2004.
Dr Shriver said he has now linked DNA that mark a person's ethnic origin with the gene mix of fixed points on the face, e.g. corners of the mouth and tip of the nose. This allows the computer to build up an image of a face based on the gene mix found in the DNA. Speaking to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago at the weekend, Dr Shriver said 'maybe 500 facial markers and 500 ancestry markers' would be enough to build an accurate and complete face.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Cancer screening 'blights ten lives for every one saved'
More official wisdom of yesteryear down the plughole. Will they ever think to pretest the effects of health advice?
Thousands of women have had unnecessary surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy as a result of routine breast cancer screening, doctors have warned. For each woman whose life is saved, ten healthy ones needlessly receive mastectomies and other treatment, a study found. Experts said the NHS should do more to warn women of the high risk of a false positive.
But cancer groups fear the news may lead to more deaths by putting women off the screenings, which are estimated to save more than 1,400 lives a year in England alone. All women from 50 to 70 are invited for the checks every three years. Around 1.7million had them last year out of the 2.2million who were offered appointments.
But some experts say they are not sensitive enough to show which cases will lead to fatal tumours, and those that pose no threat. More than 45,500 women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year and around 12,300 die. Twenty-three doctors, surgeons, academics and health specialists claimed yesterday: 'There are harms associated with early detection of breast cancer by screening that are not widely acknowledged. 'There is evidence to show that up to half of all cancers and their precursor lesions that are found by screening might not lead to any harm to the woman during her lifespan.
'Yet, if found at screening, they potentially label the woman as a cancer patient: She may then be subjected to the unnecessary traumas of surgery, radiotherapy and perhaps chemotherapy, as well as suffer the potential for serious social and psychological problems. 'The stigma may continue into the next generation as her daughters can face higher health insurance premiums when their mother's over-diagnosis is misinterpreted as high risk. 'We believe that women should be clearly informed of these harms to make their own choice about screening.'
Dr Paul Pharoah, Cancer Research UK Senior Clinical Research Fellow, University of Cambridge, and Professor Michael Baum, Emeritus Professor of Surgery at University College London, were among the experts who wrote to The Times. They criticise information sent to women eligible for the checks for not being honest, adding: 'None of the invitations for screening come close to telling the truth. As a result, women are being manipulated, albeit unintentionally, into attending.'
Jeremy Hughes, of Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said: 'Screening allows early diagnosis and potentially less invasive treatment for breast cancer.'
Office laser printers could be making you sick
There must be a lot of sick people around. That people cough up foreign matter seems not to have been considered
Almost one-third of popular laser printers emit large numbers of ultra-fine particles that could lead to cardio-vascular problems, Australian research has found. Study leader Lidia Morawska, of Queensland Univeristy of Technology's International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health, found harmful tiny particles were formed when toner was fused to the paper.
Professor Morawska said yesterday that these particles, which were about the same size as smoke and vehicle-emission particles, were potentially dangerous. "These particles deposit very deeply in the human respiratory system and can cause irritation which could lead to cardio-vascular problems," she said. "It depends on the concentrations."
Professor Morawska said there was no way for users to know which printers were high emitters. "The driving force is the temperature of the system," she said. She advised office workers to sit as far as possible from laser printers and to make sure the machines were well-ventilated.
Posted by jonjayray at 12:07 AM
Friday, February 20, 2009
Drinking just one glass of wine a day can INCREASE risk of cancer by 168%, say the French
Hey! Where did that wonderful Mediterranean diet go? Isn't France one of the beneficiaries of it? And is not wine an integral part of it? Now I am really confused (NOT)
Drinking just a small glass of wine a day can more than double the risk of cancer, a study claims. It says that consuming just one 125ml glass of wine increases the chance of developing mouth and throat cancer by 168 per cent. Other cancers are also more likely to strike regular drinkers, the study by France's National Cancer Institute (INCA) reports.
Dominique Maraninchi, INCA's president, said: 'Small daily doses of alcohol are the most harmful. There is no amount, however small, which is good for you.' The findings go against previous research, which has found that the antioxidants in red wine can actually reduce the risk of cancer.
The INCA study warned: 'The consumption of alcohol is associated with an increase in the risk of cancers - mouth, larynx, oesophagus, colon-rectum, and breast cancer. 'The cause is above all the transformation of ethanol in alcohol to acetaldehyde, which damages DNA in healthy cells.' This is particularly likely to happen if alcohol is introduced into the body daily - even in small measures, it added.
Official figures show that alcohol is responsible for around 6 per cent - or 9,000 cases - of all cancer deaths in the UK each year, including 5,000 cases of mouth and oesophagus cancer and 2,000 cases of breast cancer. Dr Jodie Moffat, of charity Cancer Research UK, said: 'We know that drinking just small amounts of alcohol, in the form of beer, wine or spirits, increases the risk of several different types of cancer. 'So the more you cut down on alcohol, the more you can reduce your cancer risk.'
Judy O'Sullivan, of the British Heart Foundation, added: 'Between one and two units of alcohol a day may offer some protection against coronary heart disease. 'But there are much healthier ways to look after your heart. 'There is very little evidence that red wine has any specific benefits over other alcoholic drinks.'
The INCA study said alcohol was now the second most avoidable cause of death after tobacco. The findings contradict numerous other studies which have found that the antioxidants in red wine actually reduced the risk of cancer, and that a single glass a day was also good for the liver. A separate study last year published in the medical journal Neurology said those who drank modest amounts of alcohol developed dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, at an 85 per cent slower rate than those who did not drink.
Britain is the tenth biggest drinking nation in the world, consuming around 12 litres of pure alcohol per person per year - the equivalent of three glasses of wine every day. Luxembourg consumes the world's most, at 16 litres per year, ahead of Ireland, Hungary and Moldova, all on around 14 litres. France is in 17th place, on around 11 litres of pure alcohol per year, according to World Health Organisation figures.
The same study also found that eating more than 500g (1.2lbs) of red meat can also raise the risks of colonic cancer, and that excessive levels of salt raise the risk of stomach cancer. The report added: 'Cancer is dependent on many factors, and there is no miracle diet that remove the risks. 'But eating plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables, avoiding alcohol and tobacco, and doing regular physical exercise has been proven to reduce the risks dramatically.'
The story above seems to have originated from a newly issued advisory brochure here (in French). It claims to be a summary of research but no details of any are given. More epidemiological rubbish, I expect
Some skepticism about the firstborn "advantage"
What does surprise me, though, about the findings of the researchers at University College, London, is their conclusion that first-born children are privileged on account of the fuss that besotted parents make of them. David Lawson and Professor Ruth Mace, who conducted a study of 14,000 families, liken the process to primogeniture, the aristocratic inheritance policy whereby the winner takes all, leaving the younger siblings with a choice of Army, Church, marriage and black-sheepdom as career options.
Lawson and Mace talk of "later-born disadvantage", and a "deficit" in parental care. But I doubt if many first-borns would share the conviction that they have drawn the long straw. Most would gladly swap the extra violin lessons and help with their viking longboat model for a dose of the benign neglect enjoyed by their younger siblings.
Eldest children score higher in IQ tests because they spend more time having precociously grown-up conversations with parents. As a result, they are often high achievers, but they are made anxious, burdened with the weight of parental expectation. Depression, adherence to convention and feelings of failure are a high price to pay for an unfair share of attention.
Early on, the eldest of my five children spotted that it was a drag being the first past every milestone. He developed a cunning way to deal with it: he didn't play ball. He loathed school and resisted all organised activity - we are talking here about a child who managed to "forget" to sit one of his GCSEs - until my husband and I accepted that he was going to do what he wanted, regardless of what we had dreamed up for him. In doing so, he passed the baton to his younger sister, who has responded more enthusiastically to the pressure.
When I told him of yesterday's report, he was adamant that he would rather be a younger member of a family. "Parents get better at being parents with later children," he said. And are middle-class parents worse at it than working-class? "Yes, because they aren't so used to having children around. They've spent more years in offices."
There I go, proving the researchers' point by asking the first-born's opinion and ignoring the rest of the family. But I fear he's right. My younger children have it easy. I've long since stopped worrying about whether they are making the most of their talents. So long as they appear happy, and their school reports aren't too dismal, they can pretty much do what they please. That isn't "disadvantage".
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Row erupts over oral cancer paper authorship
These ad hominem accusations are childish. I said at the time (scroll down) that I thought the paper was rubbish and these accusations certainly don't redeem it. If we are getting into ad hominem arguments we might as well argue that all scientists working for governments are influenced by that connection. We might as well argue that they constantly throw up findings that lead to government intervention because it will put them into positions of power enforcing the interventions. And then there is the research-grant hunger that clearly motivates a lot of scientific scaremongering. The only really disinterested scientists these days might be retired ones -- as I am
An international expert on oral cancer withdrew from joint authorship of a paper that drew a link between the disease and theListerine mouthwash made by his university laboratory's corporate sponsors, it has been claimed. The research paper's co-authors say Newell Johnson, whose Griffith University laboratory was funded by pharmaceutical firm Pfizer, Listerine's recent owner, decided not to put his name to the research paper, which made headlines across the world with its finding that alcohol-based mouthwashes were implicated in oral cancer. Professor Johnson says he was never an author.
The claim about his involvement and withdrawal, made by Australian co-authors Michael McCullough of the University of Melbourne and Camile Farah of the University of Queensland, adds a new dimension to the controversy ignited by the paper, published in the Australian Dental Journal last December.
In January UQ's head of dentistry Laurence Walsh came to the defence of mouthwashes, arguing they might prevent oral cancer, but later conceded that Listerine's present owner, Johnson & Johnson, had sponsored some of his workshops. The paper found the risk of oral cancer was increased by prolonged use of alcohol-based mouthwashes and highlighted six Listerine products.
Professor McCullough said the research paper or literature review sprang from a 2007 meeting of the three researchers at a conference in Amsterdam. "After a session on the role of alcohol in oral cancer, we ended up deciding that we would formally write this article and review it between the three of us," hesaid. "We (Farah and I) were pleased. He (Johnson) is an internationally recognised expert in oral cancer."
Professor Johnson, a former head of oral health research at London's prestigious King's College, was involved in the initial discussion, the concept of the review and several drafts of the paper but ultimately decided to withdraw his name as author, Professor McCullough said.
In May 2006 Professor Johnson had announced a ground-breaking sponsorship deal with Pfizer, allowing his dentistry school to "equip its newest research laboratories" at Southport on the Gold Coast. The deal also founded the Listerine chair in periodontology. In June 2006 Johnson & Johnson bought Pfizer's healthcare business.
The HES put to Professor Johnson the account of his involvement in the literature review before it was accepted for publication. He responded: "I was never an author on this paper." Professor Johnson said the value of the Pfizer sponsorship to his laboratories was "commercial-in-confidence". Asked about any commercial restrictions on his research, he said: "Unless you have questions about the science, no comment."
Green/Left deception again
In a February 12 press release about the relicensing process for the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Westchester County, New York, two anti-nuclear activist groups claimed that they were "not convinced" by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's preliminary determination of the plant's safety.
The Radiation and Public Health Project and the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater pointed to data indicating that thyroid cancer rates in three nearby counties were higher than the national average and that strontium-90 was detected in breast milk samples taken from within 50 miles of Indian Point, with the highest results occurring in samples taken closest to the power plant. Not surprisingly, the activists concluded that, "This suggests that emissions from Indian Point may be compromising the health of local residents."
First, Indian Point's radiation emissions are well within long-established safety levels. According to stringent standards set long ago by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the maximum allowable amount of radiation from Indian Point that could be absorbed by someone is 25 millirem per year. But according to the NRC, the hypothetical maximum dose that anyone could possibly have absorbed from Indian Point is only about 7 millirem per year - a dose dwarfed by what is typically absorbed from unavoidable natural and other manmade radiation sources.
The average person in the U.S. receives a dose of about 360 millirem per year, according to the EPA. About 80 percent of this dose comes from rocks and soils, mostly in the form of radon, and cosmic radiation from space. These natural doses can vary greatly depending on where you live. People who live in Denver, for example, receive an extra 50 millirem per year of cosmic radiation simply because of the city's mile-high altitude.
The other 20 percent of the typical annual radiation dose comes from man made sources - mostly mammograms and diagnostic x-rays.
Living near a nuclear power plant typically adds less than 1 millirem to annual radiation doses, according to the EPA. The 7 millirem figure calculated by the NRC for Indian Point doesn't represent an actual dose received by anyone. It is calculated as a maximum possible absorbed dose if someone were to be exposed to maximum emissions at the plant's boundary line for a year. Such exposures are obviously unlikely ever to occur.
Further, the 25 millirem regulatory level set by the EPA is more of an arbitrary standard than a true safety level. There is great debate in the scientific community as to whether such low-level doses of radiation are at all dangerous. Kerala, India, for example, has a relatively high-level of natural background radiation and many residents absorb as much of 2,000 millirem of radiation annually with no reports of increased cancer incidence.
JunkScience.com once measured the radiation emanating from granite statues in the U.S. Capitol Building and discovered that a person standing in statuary hall near the Senate Chamber would absorb 5 times more radiation than would be absorbed by standing at the fence line of a nuclear power plant.
So the radiation that someone could be hypothetically exposed to from Indian Point isn't worrisome. So what's the explanation for the higher thyroid cancer rates in the counties surrounding Indian Point? There isn't one.
First, given the southerly direction of the region's prevailing winds, two of the three counties (Orange and Putnam) are actually upwind of Indian Point. If plant emissions were increasing cancer rates, you would expect to find those cancers downwind of the plant. Although Rockland County, which lies to the south and west of Indian Point, has an elevated incidence of thyroid cancer, that rate is lower than in upwind Putnam. Next, the cancer rate in Westchester County - where Indian Point is located and where maximum radiation exposures would be expected as it is south and east of the plant - is lower than those in Rockland, Orange and Putnam. Also, there are several other New York counties, upstate and far away from Indian Point, that have thyroid cancer rates similar to the three counties near Indian Point. This geography, however, is largely academic since the maximum exposures to which the public could possibly be exposed are at the plant's fence line and there is no evidence of a cancer cluster among those who live and work closest to the plant.
As to the strontium-90 allegedly found in breast milk samples, the NRC says that the low levels detected in the environment surrounding Indian Point "are consistent with decayed quantities of activity from historic atmospheric weapons testing."
While thyroid cancer seems to be on the rise in the U.S. and New York State, no one really knows what exactly causes the disease. The New York State Health Department speculates that part of the reason for the increase may be the expanded use of radiation to diagnose and treat medical conditions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that at least part of the reported increase in thyroid cancer rates is likely explained by improvements in detection and diagnosis. The good news is that deaths from thyroid cancer are not increasing.
What's left, then, is a bunch of celebrity anti-nuclear power activists at the Radiation and Public Health Project - including the likes of Alec Baldwin and Christie Brinkley - seemingly bent on scaring people about nuclear power for no good reason.
Since they believe that man made carbon dioxide emissions drive climate change, you'd think that they would embrace nuclear power as a carbon-free form of generating electricity. Brinkley says that: "unless we stop global warming in the next 10 to 20 years, our children face a future so bleak and frightening, it brings tears to my eyes just to think of it." Baldwin narrated a National Geographic documentary that likened global warming to "doomsday."
If Baldwin and Brinkley really believe that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, it would seem that they ought to be scaring up, not scaring off support for nuclear power.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Some people are born emotionally cooler
I know all about this. I myself am calm under stress. I am almost always calm in fact. Using a term going back to Galen, it would once have been described as "Anglo-Saxon phlegm", and that usage does still sometimes occur. Google it. Anyway, it is a very helpful trait. Since conservatives generally seem to be less emotional than the Left, it would be interesting to see how the syndrome described below correlated with political attitudes. Since military people are overwhelmingly conservative, I think I know the answer. I do myself of course have a small army background and look back at that time in my life with pleasure
Professor Deane Aikins, a psychiatrist at Yale University, said a small minority of individuals remain cool even in the most stressful circumstances. His findings, based on research with the military, found that some individuals did not panic because their body naturally protected them. Unlike the majority of people who were flooded with a stress hormone, they had much lower levels and also showed signs of another hormone that actually calmed them down.
He referred to Chesley Sullenberger, the pilot of the aeroplane that was successfully landed on the Hudson River in New York last month, as an example. "There are some individuals who when confronted with extreme stress their hormone profile is rather unique," he said. "It doesn't reach the same peak as the rest of us. So we're all ready to scream in our chairs, but there are certain individuals who just don't get as stressed. "Their stress hormones are lower and the peptides that down-regulate that stress are higher, so you can see in action the hormonal regular system really hitting overdrive. "Certain people are cooler under pressure and they perform very, very well during these periods of time."
Professor Aikins, who outlined his findings at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, studied hormone stress levels during extreme training exercises like mock survival or combat swimming. He said that while there was no such thing as a "man without fear" certain people were better equipped to deal with it. "I think they were born with it," he said. "We started figuring out we can start predicting who are these individuals who are going to have this cooler hormonal profile under high stress."
He said the research could lead to new training programmes - mental therapies or "push-ups" or medications to make others just as good at dealing with extreme stress. "So much so we're now getting to the point where we might be able to train people to do better under high stress and there might be ways to augment their hormonal system, mental health push ups might help to better deal with that stress."
He said that it was not that the "heroes" were not scared but they just did not exhibit signs of panic. "They say wow that was a really miserable day," he said. "But when you say to them did your heart pound or your palm sweat they just say mm well, it was ok."
He said US special forces as a group tend to "run cooler" than non-special forces. He said it was too early to say what percentage of men were born heroes.
Severe migraine sufferers 'more at risk of heart attack or stroke'
This does rather reinforce the view that migraine is not a single illness but rather a variety of disorders with similar symptoms. The authors correctly note, however, that the connection mentioned is a weak one
Suffering from severe migraines makes women significantly more likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke, a new study suggests. Scientists found that those who experienced blurred or difficult vision during the painful headaches and carried certain genes were twice as likely to have a heart attack or stroke. The findings could indicate that doctors should monitor patients with the condition more closely.
Around nine million people Britain regularly suffer from migraines, with an estimated 80 per cent thought to have an attack at least once a month. Around one in four are thought to have migraine with aura, whose symptoms can include flashing lights, black spots or zig-zag patterns in front of their eyes, as well as debilitating head pain. The researchers found that migraine with aura sufferers who also carried certain genes were twice as likely to have a heart attack or stroke as women who never got migraines.
Migraine with aura sufferers who did not have the genes had no increased risk and neither did those who experienced no visual problems. "The complex relationship among this gene variant, migraine, stroke and heart disease has been the focus of many studies and the results have been controversial," said Dr Markus Schuerks, from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. "Getting to the bottom of whether there is a connection and why may help to develop ways to prevent issues like stroke and heart disease, which are leading causes of death." He called for more studies to back up the findings.
The research looked at 25,000 women, aged over 45, almost a fifth who suffered from migraine, including 1,275 who had migraine with aura. Over 12 years, 625 of the women had a stroke, heart attack or both, according to the study, published in the journal Neurology.
Prof Peter Goadsby, from the University of California, San Francisco, and the Institute of Neurology, London, emphasised that the paper confirmed previous studies that there was no increased risk for stroke or cardiovascular disease in migraine without aura patients. "(This is) good news, as this represents about three-quarters of those affected by the disorder," he said. "Although the risk of cardiovascular disease is doubled in patients with active migraine with aura, it's important to realise the risk is already small, and when you double a small risk you still have a small risk. "The authors rightly note that there were few heart attacks and that the study needs repeating; the margin for error here is wide and it might be that the link isn't there at all. We will only know when we see the results of more research."
Migraine is listed as one of the top 20 most debilitating conditions by the World Health Organisation because of the impact it can have on quality of life.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Fearful memories 'can be erased by blood pressure drug'
Fearful memories can be erased using propranolol, a drug commonly prescribed for high blood pressure, research has shown. The discovery could lead to new ways of treating people suffering from the emotional after-effects of traumatic experiences such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters.
Previous research on animals had shown fear memories are susceptible to being altered at the time they are recalled, as they are "reconsolidated" in the brain. Studies suggested beta-blockers, a family of drugs normally used to treat high blood pressure, may interfere with the reconsolidation process. Now a trial involving human volunteers has given strong support to the theory.
A team of Dutch researchers artificially created a fearful memory by associating pictures of spiders with a mild electric shock delivered to the wrists of the 60 participants. When the volunteers were shown the spider pictures 24 hours later their "startle" response - a measure of fear - was assessed by testing eyeblink reactions. Administering the beta-blocker drug propranolol before reactivation of the fearful memory led to a marked reduction in the startle response. After taking the drug, volunteers were much less disturbed by the spider pictures. The effect appeared to be permanent, as the spider fear seen in the initial experiment did not return to treated participants.
The findings, reported in the journal Nature Neuroscience, raise the possibility of a new approach to tackling emotional problems and post-traumatic stress disorder. The study leader, Professor Merel Kindt, and colleagues from the University of Amsterdam, wrote: "Millions of people suffer from emotional disorders and the relapse of fear, even after successful treatment. "Our findings may have important implications for the understanding and treatment of persistent and self-perpetuating memories in individuals suffering from emotional disorders."
However Dr Daniel Sokol, lecturer in Medical Ethics at St George's, University of London, sounded a word of caution. He said: "Removing bad memories is not like removing a wart or a mole. It will change our personal identity since who we are is linked to our memories. It may perhaps be beneficial in some cases, but before eradicating memories, we must reflect on the knock-on effects that this will have on individuals, society and our sense of humanity."
John Harris, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Manchester, said: "It is obviously up to the individual whether or not she wishes to risk the possible effects, including psychological discontinuity, of erasing unpleasant memories. "An interesting complexity is the possibility that victims, say of violence, might wish to erase the painful memory and with it their ability to give evidence against assailants. "Similarly, criminals and witnesses to crime may, under the guise of erasing a painful memory (perhaps of another sort), render themselves unable (with a good excuse for being unable) to give evidence."
Decoys drive cancer cells to suicide
French specialists overnight unveiled a new weapon against cancer - a molecular "decoy" that mimics DNA damage and prompts cancerous cells to kill themselves. The research, published in a US journal, Clinical Cancer Research, opens up fresh avenues for attacking tumours that are resistant to conventional therapy, they said. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy aim at inflicting sufficient damage to a cancer cell to unleash a process of programmed cell death, also called apoptosis. But sometimes the onslaught does not cause enough damage to activate the apoptosis trigger, and surviving cancer cells are able to repair themselves.
A team led by Marie Dutreix of the Curie Institute in Paris, developed tiny fragments of DNA that mimic the two broken ends of the double-helix genetic code. The trick prompts these holdout cells into believing they are far more damaged than they really are, and commit suicide. The tricksters - appropriately called "Dbaits" - have been successfully tested on mice, Ms Dutreix said. By injecting lab rodents with Dbaits a few hours before radiotherapy, the team were able to wipe out 75-100 per cent of cancer cells on lab rodents, compared with 30-50 per cent using only radiotherapy, and there was no collateral damage to healthy tissue.
If all goes well, clinical trials on volunteers could start by the end of next year, said Ms Dutreix. The technique is especially promising for treating brain tumours and skin cancer, which are notorious for resistance to radiotherapy. If it works, it could also lead to big reductions in dosage of radiotherapy, which can often be toxic to healthy cells surrounding the tumour.
Posted by jonjayray at 12:20 AM
Monday, February 16, 2009
Is chocolate good for you?
Opinion see-saws on this but it seems that dark chocolate in particular might be beneficial. One summary below:
Scientists from around the world have studied chocolate's effect on people's health. For example:
* Antioxidant activity - Scientists from Italy and Scotland fed dark chocolate, milk chocolate, or dark chocolate and a glass of whole milk to healthy volunteers. Dark chocolate boosted the volunteers' blood antioxidant activity. But milk, either in the chocolate or a glass, prevented the effect.
* Vascular function - The inner layer of arteries makes a tiny chemical that widens blood vessels and keeps their linings smooth. Doctors in Greece think chocolate may help keep vessels open. They fed 100 grams (about 3« ounces) of dark chocolate to 17 healthy volunteers. Their vascular function improved rapidly. Swiss investigators found similar effects from dark chocolate but no benefit from white chocolate.
* Blood pressure - Because good vascular function widens blood vessels, it's logical that chocolate might help lower blood pressure. Studies from Italy, Argentina, Germany and the United States have shown that dark chocolate can lower blood pressure in healthy adults and in patients with hypertension. But the benefit is modest and it wears off within a few days of stopping "treatment" with a daily "dose" of dark chocolate.
* Insulin sensitivity - People with diabetes have good reason to avoid chocolate. It's got lots of sugar and calories. But an Italian study suggested that dark, not white, chocolate can improve insulin sensitivity. However, a 2008 investigation of flavanol-enriched cocoa found no improvement in blood sugar or blood pressure.
* Blood clotting - Most heart attacks and many strokes are caused by fatty deposits called plaques that contain cholesterol. The build-up of plaque can cause a blood clot to form. Researchers in Switzerland and the United States found that dark chocolate reduces blood cell activity that can lead to clot formation.
Given this evidence, chocolate could reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke. But all of these hopeful results are based on short-term experiments in a small number of volunteers. Do these bits and pieces of data apply to real life?
Perhaps. The strongest support for chocolate as a health food comes from a 2006 report from the widely respected Zutphen Elderly Study. Researchers evaluated 470 Dutch men between the ages of 65 and 84. All subjects were free of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer when the study began in 1985. Each volunteer provided comprehensive dietary information, and had his blood pressure, cholesterol, body fat, and other cardiovascular risk factors evaluated.
Researchers tracked the men for 15 years. They found that the men who ate the most cocoa-containing products had lower blood pressures than those who ate the least. The average difference was 3.7 mm Hg in systolic pressure and 2.1 mm Hg in diastolic. These differences may not seen substantial, but even after taking other risk factors into account, the chocolate lovers also enjoyed a 47% lower death rate. Most of the benefit was due to a sharply decreased risk of heart disease. And the largest single source of cocoa was dark chocolate.
The Zutphen study is of course epidemiological but there are no obvious confounding factors
Fat fanaticism very dangerous for anorexics
Excerpt from a story about office life by an anorexic -- passed on by Sandy Szwarc
For several months (until I quit in protest), I lived with calories, fat grams and sugar grams labeled on the coffee creamers, having the bowl of chocolates I kept on my desk forcibly removed (by vote, no less! And might I add that I did not get to vote in this Survivor-esque "election"), and as much food/weight chatter going on outside my head as there was inside.
Why won't anyone say how dangerous this is? No one appeared remotely concerned that this man lost too much weight, just that they might lose their bet. Raise your hand if this makes you proud of humanity... I can't tell you how many stories I've heard from men and women with eating disorders whose illness was triggered by a pact to lose weight or eat healthier. Yet dieting and exercise are treated as if they are fail safe and no ill can possibly come from a group of people trying to see who can lose the most weight. People on pro-anorexia sites do this, and people judge these "silly girls" who are no different from anyone else. It's not healthy, period.
"It makes life easier if everyone around you is cutting calories, and the amicable competition keeps people driven. You are less likely to eat bad things from the candy jar," says nutritionist Joy Bauer.
Yeah, except if you're the person who realizes that dieting is a) futile, b) stupid, and c) not likely to increase your health in the long run and then you realize you are completely shut out of this. To me, that was the worst part of the workplace diet bonanza: I had nothing to discuss with my co-workers. All they would talk about was food, weight, and exercise, and I couldn't or wouldn't participate. I was totally isolated and desperately lonely in a time when I really needed the support.
Posted by jonjayray at 12:11 AM
Sunday, February 15, 2009
U.S. court rules vaccines “don’t cause autism”
Vaccines aren't to blame for autism, a special federal court declared Thursday in a blow to thousands of families hoping to win compensation and to many more who are convinced of a connection. The special masters who decided the case expressed sympathy for the families, some of whom have made emotional pleas describing their children's conditions, but the rulings were blunt: There's little if any evidence to support claims of a vaccine-autism link.
The evidence "is weak, contradictory and unpersuasive," concluded Special Master Denise Vowell. "Sadly, the petitioners in this litigation have been the victims of bad science conducted to support litigation rather than to advance medical and scientific understanding" of autism.
Science years ago reached the conclusion that there's no connection, but Thursday's rulings in a trio of cases still have far-reaching implications — offering reassurance to parents scared about vaccinating their babies because of a small but vocal anti-vaccine movement. Some vaccine-preventable diseases, including measles, are on the rise, and last fall a Minnesota baby who hadn't been vaccinated against meningitis died of that disease.
The special court represented a chance for vindication for families who blame vaccines for their children's autism. Known as "the people's court," the U.S. Court of Claims is different from many other courts: The families involved didn't have to prove the inoculations definitely caused the complex neurological disorder, just that they probably did. More than 5,500 claims have been filed by families seeking compensation through the government's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and Thursday's rulings dealt with the first three test cases to settle which if any claims had merit. The first cases argued that a combination of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine plus other shots triggered autism.
"I must decide this case not on sentiment but by analyzing the evidence," said Special Master George Hastings Jr., writing specifically about Michelle Cedillo of Yuma, Ariz., who is disabled with autism, inflammatory bowel disease and other disorders that her parents blame on a measles vaccine given at 15 months. "Unfortunately, the Cedillos have been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment," Hastings concluded.
Attorneys for the families said they were disappointed and may appeal.... Worry about a vaccine link first arose in 1998 when a British physician, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, published a medical journal article linking a particular type of autism and bowel disease to the measles vaccine. The study was soon discredited, and British medical authorities now are investigating professional misconduct charges against Wakefield. Then came questions about thimerosal, a preservative that manufacturers began removing from all vaccines given to infants in 2001. Today it is present only in certain formulations of the flu shot.
FDA approves medicine from engineered goats
Potentially opening a new era in farming and pharmaceuticals, the U.S. government has approved the first drug produced by genetically engineered livestock. The drug, meant to prevent fatal blood clots in people with a rare condition, is a protein extracted from the milk of goats that have been given a human gene. The same drug, which was approved in Europe in 2006 but has not been widely adopted, is the first to have been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under guidelines the agency adopted only last month to regulate the use of transgenic animals in the nation's drug and food supply.
Made by GTC Biotherapeutics, the drug is produced by a herd of 200 goats that live under quarantine on a high-security farm in central Massachusetts. The animals have been bred to contain a human gene that causes their milk to produce a human blood protein that can be extracted and processed into the anti-clotting drug. Proponents say such animals could become a way of producing biotechnology drugs at lower cost or in greater quantities than with the existing methods, which involve extracting the drugs from donated human blood or growing genetically engineered cells in steel tanks. The protein in the goat milk, antithrombin, is sometimes in short supply or unavailable for pharmaceutical use because of a shortage of human plasma donations.
GTC Biotherapeutics said one of its goats can produce as much antithrombin in a year as can be derived from 90,000 blood donations. And if more drug is needed, the herd can be expanded. "If you need more, you breed more," said Thomas Newberry, a spokesman for GTC, which is based in Framingham, Massachusetts.
Other drugs produced in animals are under development. One company, Pharming, based in the Netherlands, plans to apply this year for U.S. approval of a drug produced in the milk of transgenic rabbits to treat hereditary angioedema, a protein deficiency that can lead to dangerous swelling of tissues.
Another company, PharmAthene, working under a U.S. Defense Department contract, is developing a treatment for nerve-gas poisoning in the milk of transgenic goats.
But turning animals into walking pharmaceutical factories does not sit well with some environmental advocates and animal rights activists. "It is a mechanistic use of animals that seems to perpetuate the notion of their being merely tools for human use rather than sentient creatures," the Humane Society of the United States says in its position paper on the practice.
There are also more concrete concerns - that the animals could be harmed, that animal germs might contaminate the drug, and that the milk or meat from genetically engineered drug-producing animals might enter the food supply. There is also a concern that such animals might escape and breed with other animals, spreading the gene, with unpredictable consequences.
Still, it is not clear to what extent the use of the animals will catch on. Established manufacturers might stick with the tried-and-true methods. "I think we have very good ways of making therapeutic proteins today," said Norbert Riedel, chief scientific officer at Baxter International, which makes proteins both from human plasma and in cell culture. One risk of using animals is that drug production can be lost if a disease wipes out the herd.
Still, the government's stance on the GTC drug, which was issued Friday, eliminates one barrier to producing drugs in animals: companies' uncertainty over whether the Food and Drug Administration would ever approve such a drug. "It really takes away one of the biggest issues that have always been on the table, which is how do regulatory agencies view this kind of technology," said Samir Singh, president of the U.S. operations of Pharming.
Indeed, showing that approval could be obtained is a major reason GTC developed its drug, ATryn. Sales of the drug are expected to be modest. It was approved in Europe in 2006, and sales there have been small. ATryn will be sold in the United States by Ovation Pharmaceuticals. It is not clear what the price will be and how that price will compare to that of the product from human plasma. The drug was approved for people born with a rare hereditary deficiency of antithrombin to prevent blood clots while they undergo surgery or childbirth.
People with the deficiency are vulnerable to blood clots. They can reduce that risk by taking blood thinners like warfarin. But during surgery or childbirth, blood thinners are usually not used because they increase the risk of excessive bleeding. The FDA determined ATryn was as effective as antithrombin derived from human plasma in preventing clots. However, the protein derived from plasma lasts longer in the body than the one from goats, probably because the sugars coating the protein are different.
Posted by jonjayray at 12:18 AM
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Another flawed attack on passive smoking
Before I comment on this, let me say that I loathe and detest tobacco smoke and consider those who light up in the presence of non-smokers to be pathetic and offensive addicts. So it would suit me if I could endorse the conclusions of the article below. But I cannot. It is one of a long line of attempts to portray secondhand smoke as harmful but the best research on the topic indicates that it is not . Existing research, however, has mainly looked at passive smoking as a cause of heart and lung disease. The study below takes a new tack. It tries to show that passive smoking makes you stupid.
The research below appears to have been done with unusual care but is still incapable of supporting its conclusions. It found that those who associated with smokers a lot had lower mental alertness. They were slower to process instructions that they were given. But we have known for years that smoking correlates with all indices of social disadvantage, including low IQ. I am delighted to note however that the researchers took extensive account of that and controlled for a whole range of social class indicators. That is rare sophistication in epidemiological research. They did NOT however control for IQ -- which was arguably the most important thing to control for in the circumstances. IQ correlates strongly with mental speed.
So what was in fact found was that low IQ people tend to flock together. It was shown that people who associate with dummies (i.e. smokers) a lot also tend to be dummies (as measured by the tests used in the study below). The study tells us nothing about passive smoking.
Exposure to second-hand smoke boosts the risk of dementia and other cognitive problems, even among people who have never smoked, the largest study of its kind said. Ill effects on non-smokers of constant exposure to tobacco smoke include an increased risk of lung cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke and death, earlier research has shown. As for the impact on brain function, active smoking has been found to impair the mind but the evidence for passive smoking has until now been sketchy.
Using new methods in the largest clinical trial to date, a team led by Cambridge University professor David Llewellyn found that even people who had never smoked but kept constant company with smokers performed less well in cognitive tests. The investigation focused on nearly 5000 adults over the age of 50 who were former smokers or who had never smoked.
The volunteers were divided into four groups according to their exposure to passive smoking. This was determined by saliva samples, which were tested for a by-product of nicotine called cotinine. Cotinine lingers in the saliva for about 25 days. The higher the levels of cotinine, the higher the exposure to recent second-hand smoke.
The volunteers then took neuro-psychological tests that assessed brain function and cognitive abilities, focusing on memory and the ability to work with numbers and words. Using the lowest cotinine group as a benchmark, the researchers found a clear and progressively stronger link between impairment in brain function and exposure to second-hand smoke. In the most-exposed group, the risk of cognitive impairment was 44 per cent higher than the benchmark group.
Factors such as age and medical condition, including a history of heart disease, that could have skewed the outcome were all taken into account. "A similar pattern of associations was observed for never smokers and former smokers," said the study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). "Given the ongoing international policy debate on exposure to second-hand smoke, this is a topic of major public health significance."
Governments in North America, Australia and Europe have progressively enacted "smoke-free" legislation for the workplaces, bars, restaurants and other public places over the last 15 years.
SOURCE. The original academic journal article is: Llewellyn, D.J. et al. (2009) "Exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive impairment in non-smokers: national cross sectional study with cotinine measurement" BMJ 338:b462
Sleep could help prevent the common cold
That bed rest is the ONLY cure for most viral infections has long been accepted but it is good to see some confirmation of that
FLUFF up the pillows and pull up the covers. Preventing the common cold may be as easy as getting more sleep, a study in the United States has revealed. Researchers paid healthy adults $US800 to have cold viruses sprayed up their noses, then wait five days in a hotel to see if they became sick. Habitual eight-hour sleepers were much less likely to get sick than those who slept less than seven hours or slept fitfully. "The longer you sleep, the better off you are, the less susceptible you are to colds," said lead author Sheldon Cohen, who studies the effects of stress on health at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon University. Prior research has suggested that sleep boosts the immune system at the cell level.
This is the first study to show small sleep disturbances increasing the risk of getting sick, said Michael Irwin, a doctor who researches immune response at the University of California, Los Angeles, and was not involved in the study. "The message is to maintain regular sleep habits because those are really critical for health," Irwin said. During cold season, staying out of range of sneezing relatives and co-workers may be impossible.
The study, which appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine, mimicked those conditions by exposing participants to a common cold virus - rhinovirus - and most became infected with it. But not everyone suffered cold symptoms. The people who slept less than seven hours a night in the weeks before they were exposed to the virus were three times more likely to catch a cold than those who slept eight hours or more.
To find willing cold victims, researchers placed ads and recruited 78 men and 75 women, all healthy and willing to go one-on-one against the virus. They ranged in age from 21 to 55. First, their sleep habits were recorded for two weeks. Every evening, researchers interviewed them by phone about their sleep the night before. Subjects were asked what time they went to bed, what time they got up, how much time they spent awake during the night and if they felt rested in the morning.
Then they checked into a hotel where the virus was squirted up their noses. After five days, the virus had done its work, infecting 135 of the 153 volunteers. But only 54 people became sick. Researchers measured their runny noses by weighing their used tissues. They tested for congestion by squirting dye in the subjects' noses to see how long it took to get to the back of their throats.
Sleeping fitfully also was tied to greater risk of catching a cold. Those who tossed and turned more than 8 per cent of their time in bed were five times more likely to get sick than those who were sleepless only 2 per cent of the time. Surprisingly, feeling rested was not linked to staying well. Cohen said he's not sure why that is, other than feeling rested is more subjective than recalling bedtime and wake-up time.
The researchers took into account other factors that make people more susceptible such as stress, smoking and drinking, and lack of exercise, and they still saw a connection between sleep and resisting a cold.
Cold symptoms such as congestion and sore throat are caused by the body's fight against a virus, rather than the virus itself, Cohen said. People whose bodies make the perfect amount of infection-fighting proteins called cytokines will not even know they are fighting a virus. But if their bodies make too many, they feel sick. Sleep may fine-tune the body's immune response, Cohen said, helping regulate the perfect response.
Prior research has tied lack of sleep to greater risk of weight gain, heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke and diabetes.
Daniel Buysse, a doctor doing sleep researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, said spending too much time in bed can lead to more interrupted sleep, which in this study "seems to be even worse than short sleep" for increasing the risk of catching a cold. If it takes a long time to fall asleep or if you are restless during the night, "you would probably benefit from spending a little less time in bed", Buysse said. "If you fall asleep instantly, have no wakefulness during the night, and are sleepy during the day, you would probably benefit from spending a little more time in bed." Buysse was not directly involved in the research, although he commented on an early draft of the study. The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the MacArthur Foundation.
Harvard sleep researcher Sat Bir Khalsa said people do not need to turn to prescription sleep aids to improve their sleep. Setting a regular bedtime, moving computers and televisions out of the bedroom and, when restless, getting out of bed for a while and doing something soothing can help. His research focuses on treating insomnia with yoga.
As preventive measures, vitamin C and herbal supplements have not lived up to their reputation in rigorous studies. Cohen said research has shown people who get more exercise, drink moderately and have lower stress also get fewer colds.
Posted by jonjayray at 12:14 AM