Warning: capitalism can damage your health

Deaths rose sharply in communist countries that rushed to privatise. Does that prove economic `shock therapy' kills? Or was it that the statistics rapidly became more honest in such countries? You would have to be naive to believe Communist statistics and old habits die hard

For a communist nation wishing to show off its capitalist credentials, mass privatisation was a killer move. Literally. In Russia, when the sell-off of state-owned companies was at its height, the death rate of working adults rose by 18 per cent and the life expectancy dropped by nearly five years. Men of working age, suddenly bereft of both employment and the healthcare that frequently accompanies it, found themselves greeting the Grim Reaper well ahead of schedule, sometimes having downed a bottle or two of aftershave.

This is, in caricature, the controversial thesis offered by David Stuckler, Lawrence King and Martin McKee, in The Lancet recently. The scientists - Dr Stuckler and Dr King are sociologists at Oxford and Cambridge respectively, and McKee is Professor of European Public Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine - claim that hasty mass privatisation in several former Eastern bloc and Soviet states coincides convincingly with a spike in their death rates. They speculate the main link between the two is unemployment, a well established cause of ill health and stress, as well as a trigger for life-shortening behaviour, such as binge drinking.

The study has ignited an intriguing, and sometimes ill-tempered, debate about how swiftly - or slowly - a fledgeling economy should emerge from its chrysalis. In their analysis, the researchers gently wag a finger at Jeffrey Sachs, the world-famous economist and advocate of "shock therapy" - the sudden lifting of price controls and subsidies, coupled with the flogging off of state companies and assets - to catapult countries irreversibly into capitalism. "The need to accelerate privatisation is the paramount economic policy issue facing Eastern Europe," the economist once wrote.

Unsurprisingly, Professor Sachs is none too keen to have up to a million communist corpses piled at his door. He counters that the link between privatisation and deaths is "zero"; that a rise in dangerous drinking among Russians was due not to unemployment but to the abandonment of an anti-alcohol campaign; and that the notoriously poor Soviet diet must bear some blame. It's a peculiar choice, that last one, for the cerebral professor: short of adulteration with poison, diet cannot explain sudden changes in death rates.

As well as pointing this out, the academics retort that "the countries Professor Sachs cites as successes (in terms of their transition to free-market economies) were only successful because they did not follow his advice".

It's not so much velvet glove, this spat, as boxing glove, and it looks like going the full ten rounds. At the very least, we should admit the possibility that shock therapy has hit the ropes. and why it matters. Because China and India are poised to sell off many of their state-owned enterprises in the hope of ascending to the top of the economic heap. Stop and think about it. Two of the most populous nations on earth are heading down the path of capitalism, and there is half-decent evidence that the way this path is travelled could spell the difference between life and death for millions.

Dr Stuckler and Professor McKee say their paper is about epidemiology, not ideology. Their aim was to peer deeper into the high human price paid for the death of communism in Europe, a fact that is not in dispute. Unicef estimates it caused three million premature deaths. The United Nations calculates that ten million men disappeared during the transition. Life expectancy dropped in many affected countries (for Russian men, who especially suffered, it fell from 64 to 58 between 1991 and 1994). Unemployment and hazardous drinking (including the consumption of spirits and even aftershave) were found to be serious factors.

But why did some countries, such as Russia and Kazakhstan, suffer steeper rises in their death rate than other countries going through similar turmoil, such as Slovenia? Dr Stuckler et al decided to try to put numbers and a timeline to a hunch: that the way market reforms were carried out might be the key. As the authors summarise: "Any disruption to the established social order creates high levels of social stress." Anecdotally, the countries that sprinted to capitalism appeared to suffer most; those that cantered emerged relatively unscathed.

They defined "mass privatisation" as the transfer of at least 25 per cent of large, state-owned enterprises to the private sector within two years. On average, the countries with mass privatisation programmes saw the death rate for adult men (aged between 15 and 59) rise by 13 per cent; in total, it represented nearly a million extra deaths. Across the five worst countries, which included Russia and Kazakhstan, the average death rate shot up by 42 per cent for a short period in the early nineties.

Other countries, such as Croatia and Slovenia, which dismantled the machinery of communism more slowly, did not see such a dramatic rise. Also, those countries where people belonged to social networks such as the Church, or trade unions were less badly affected; interestingly, it is this aspect that the authors regard as their key breakthrough.

"The Poles came out well (from communism)," Professor McKee told me. "Why? Because they meet each other at Mass every Sunday."

The authors speculate that those countries undergoing shock therapy unwittingly swept safety nets away with the old order. Many Russians lived in "one-company towns"; when the companies and jobs disappeared, so did healthcare, childcare and the social hub.

The Economist has lambasted the paper and the research has provoked a torrent of invective in the blogosphere. But what should matter more is whether the paper represents decent science; here, we must note the opinion of Professor Sir Michael Marmot, perhaps the biggest name in the field of how social circumstances affect health: "With all the caveats, Stuckler and colleagues' study is relevant beyond Eastern Europe..."

The paper has been wrongly viewed by outsiders as an ideologically motivated attack on capitalism; its authors have fallen victim to an occupational hazard of social science. "We are not stark raving Leninists," sighs Professor McKee, who confesses to being flabbergasted at the critics. Of course capitalism is a good thing, he says, but we should pursue it with human welfare - as well as political and economic considerations - in mind. Privatising at a prudent pace, while ensuring the jobless have social support, is the ideal scenario.

China and India are embracing free markets. China alone has a population of 1.4 billion, roughly ten times that of Russia. If there is an inkling of truth in the analysis, then "shock therapy" could jeopardise tens of millions of lives. And there's nothing therapeutic about that.

SOURCE





MMR-autism scare: the truth is out at last

The `vaccine court' in the United States, and its excellent expert witnesses, have finally slain and buried MMR junk science.

`To conclude that Colten's condition was the result of his MMR vaccine, an objective observer would have to emulate Lewis Carroll's White Queen and be able to believe six impossible (or, at least, highly improbable) things before breakfast. The families of children with autistic spectrum disorders have waited in vain for adequate evidence to support the autism-MMR hypothesis. Although I have the deepest sympathy for families like Colten's, struggling emotionally and financially to find answers about ASD's [Autistic Spectrum Disorders] causes, and reliable therapies to treat ASD's symptoms, I must decide Colten's case on the evidence before me. That evidence does not establish an adequate factual basis from which to conclude that Colten's condition was caused by his vaccines.'

Denise K Vowell, 12 February 2009, Special Master, US Court of Federal Claims. Petitioners: Kathryn and Joseph Snyder (parents of Colten).Respondent: Secretary of Health and Human Services

`I feel a deep sympathy and admiration for the Cedillo family. And I have no doubt that the families of countless other autistic children, families that cope every day with the tremendous challenges of caring for autistic children, are similarly deserving of sympathy and admiration. However, I must decide this case not on sentiment, but by analysing the evidence. Congress designed the [vaccine injury compensation] programme to compensate only families of those individuals whose injuries or deaths can be linked causally. to a listed vaccination. In this case the evidence advanced by the petitioners has fallen far short of demonstrating such a link.'

George L Hastings, 12 February 2009, Special Master, US Court of Federal Claims. Petitioners: Theresa and Michael Cedillo (parents of Michelle). Respondent: Secretary of Health and Human Services

`The Hazlehursts' experience as parents of an autistic child, as described during the evidentiary hearing in this case, has been a very difficult one. The undersigned is moved as a person and as a parent by the Hazlehursts' account and again extends to the Hazlehursts very sincere sympathy for the challenges they face with Yates. The undersigned's charge, however, does not permit decision-making on the basis of sentiment but rather requires a careful legal analysis of the evidence.

`The parties have submitted a wealth of evidence and have presented the testimony of a number of experts who have extensive clinical and research experience in the particular areas of interest in this case. Having carefully and fully considered the evidence, the undersigned concludes that the combination of the thimerosal-containing vaccines and the MMR vaccine are not causal factors in the development of autism. The weight of the presented evidence that is scientifically reliable and methodologically sound does not support petitioners' claim. Petitioners have failed to establish entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act.'

Patricia E Campbell-Smith, 12 February 2009, Special Master, US Court of Federal Claims. Petitioners: Rolf and Angela Hazlehurst (parents of William Yates). Respondent: Secretary of Health and Human Services

In 2007 federal judges were appointed as `special masters' in three test cases selected from the families of more than 5,000 children claiming compensation on the grounds that a combination of vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal in the first year of life and the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine after 12 months, caused them to develop autism and related health problems.

The first case in the `Omnibus Autism Proceedings' - that of Michelle Cedillo - was heard by George L Hastings in Washington, DC in June 2007; the second - that of William Yates Hazlehurst - by Patricia E Campbell-Smith in Charlotte, North Carolina in October 2007; the third - that of Colten Snyder - by Denise K Vowell in Orlando, Florida in November 2007. On 12 February, in simultaneously published judgments, all three judges rejected claims that vaccines caused autism in these children (1).

The special masters' concluding summaries, quoted above, are sympathetic, judicious and categorical. The full judgments, amounting to nearly 700 pages of text, are of exceptional interest to anybody concerned to establish the truth in this long-running controversy.

A tribute to American justice

Andrew Wakefield, the former Royal Free Hospital researcher who launched the MMR-autism scare more than a decade ago, and is now based in a private autism treatment clinic in Texas, told a local TV station last week that he believes that this issue `can't be resolved in the courts of law' (2). In general, I am inclined to agree with Dr Wakefield that law courts are not the best places in which to deal with matters of controversy in science. Yet, on the particular issues at stake in the `Omnibus Autism Proceedings', the legal forum offers some advantages.

Though assemblies set up to evaluate claims of vaccine-autism links, by the Medical Research Council in the UK, or the Institute of Medicine in the USA, have sought to involve parents and other lay interests, the terms of discussion have generally been set by scientists and medical authorities. By contrast, the expert witnesses in the vaccine courts are obliged to present their evidence to judges who have no particular scientific expertise: the standard is that of the intelligent, objective, observer.

Parents who attribute their children's autism to vaccines often claim that they - and the scientists and doctors who support their conviction - have been denied a public hearing. The vaccine courts allowed their voices, and those of their legal representatives and supportive experts, to be heard and to be interrogated. The scientific issues, though complex, can be resolved in these cases into a basic question that can be decided by a competent judge: does the evidence support the claim that this vaccine (or combination of vaccines) caused autism in this child? It is also worth recalling the precedent of the exemplary judgment made in relation to claims against the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine in England more than 20 years ago (3).

In each of the three test cases, the special masters heard statements from lawyers for the petitioners (the children's families) and from those representing the respondent (the US health department). They heard evidence from the parents and from expert witnesses called by the parents and those called by the health authorities; witnesses were subjected to cross examination by rival lawyers. The special masters reviewed documents submitted by both sides, including scientific papers and medical reports relating to the three children. They carefully and conscientiously evaluated the evidence and, by a process documented in detail in the judgments, came to their conclusions. By contrast with the proceedings currently underway at the General Medical Council in London, the US vaccine courts offer a process that is transparent, democratic and scrupulously fair and efficient, a tribute to the superiority of the American legal system (4).

A number of aspects of the vaccine court's judgments merit further discussion. The first is the most important, but also the most familiar - the scientific issue of whether vaccines cause autism. The second is the questions raised by the court about the quality of the scientific and medical advice received by the petitioners, and, implicitly, by parents of autistic children more widely who identify with the anti-vaccine and associated biomedical treatment campaigns. The court also raised serious concerns about the activities of three key figures in this controversy - Andrew Wakefield (who did not appear in person but whose work was extensively discussed), the paediatric gastroenterologist Arthur Krigsman and the general practitioner Jeffrey Bradstreet. Both Krigsman and Bradstreet are close collaborators with Wakefield and both appeared in these test cases as expert witnesses and consulting physicians. Both are prominent figures in the Defeat Autism Now! network of practitioners who provide `unorthodox biomedical interventions' for children with autism.

`Bad science'

`Doctor Fombonne summed up the body of scientific research into ASD's [autistic spectrum disorders] causes and the petitioners' TCV-MMR vaccine hypothesis, saying the possibility that some children are genetically predisposed to abnormal reactions to TCVs [thimerosal-containing vaccines] and the MMR vaccine so as to cause autism was less likely than the possibility of the earth being the center of the solar system. His statement is an exaggeration of the evidence (or lack thereof), but is a concise and pithy expression of the general scientific disapproval of petitioners' theories.' (5)

`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 ASD'. (6)

We need not dwell here on the scientific basis of claims that autism may be caused by mercury or MMR vaccines: for a comprehensive review see my new book and Paul Offit's account (7). Let us simply present the conclusions drawn by special master Denise Vowell in the Colten Snyder case (which are similar to those in the other cases). `After careful consideration of all of the evidence', Vowell found that `it was abundantly clear that petitioners' theories of causation were speculative and unpersuasive' (8). In particular, petitioners:

a) `could not reliably demonstrate the presence of measles virus in Colten's central nervous system' (this was `because of pervasive quality control problems at a now-defunct laboratory' - of which more below);

b) `failed to establish that measles virus can cause autism or that it did so in Colten';

c) `failed to demonstrate that amount of ethylmercury in TCVs [thimerosal-containing vaccines] causes immune system suppression or dysregulation';

d) `failed to show that Colten's immune system was dysregulated'.

Vowell also dismissed the concept of `autistic enterocolitis', an inflammatory bowel condition that provides a hypothetical link between MMR and autism, as `speculative and unsupported by the weight of evidence' (9).

Bad scientists

`Respondents' experts were far more qualified, better supported by the weight of scientific research and authority, and simply more persuasive on nearly every point in contention.' (10)

The gulf in relevant expertise and experience between the rival expert witnesses is a recurring theme in the vaccine court judgments. The special masters exposed several instances of `resume padding' among the parents' experts and of illegitimate claims to academic status and authorship of published papers. They noted that one of these experts had become a professional expert witness after retiring from clinical practice 17 years ago. By contrast, the experts challenging vaccine-autism links were highly qualified and highly experienced in the relevant disciplines.

While noting their concerns about the parents' experts' CVs, the special masters emphasised that their judgment was not merely based on the experts' academic authority, but also on their performances in court. All three commented that whereas they found the respondent's witnesses in general to be knowledgeable, well-informed and credible, the parents' experts tended to be ineffectual and unpersuasive. Special master Patricia Campbell-Smith, who presided in the Hazlehurst case, emphasised that the respondent's witnesses were more persuasive because their evidence was `well supported by medical literature and significant clinical experience' (11). She observed that they were `careful in matters of degree', that they offered `specific, detailed criticisms' of rival evidence `explaining carefully' why they considered it was not reliable. By contrast, petitioners' witnesses were `not as disciplined. where differences mattered'. When it came to the interpretation of scientific papers, they gave `greater weight to speculative conclusions' than even the authors of these papers, they used `carefully selected sentences' taken out of context and relied on `scientifically flawed and unreliable articles'.

Take, for example, the contrast between Jean Ronel-Corbier, a paediatric neurologist who treats autistic children, but has no record of academic publications or professional distinction, and Diane Griffin, a virologist with a long record of publication and an international reputation. Both, like most of the expert witnesses, appeared in all three cases. Vowell found Ronel-Corbier to be `earnest and sincere' but considered that his opinions were `heavily laced with generalities, speculation and beliefs largely unsupported by evidence' (12). Hastings agreed that he was `sincere but not reliable'; he appeared `unfamiliar with the medical literature' and was `willing to give opinions on causation on very scant evidence' (13). Vowell found that Griffin was, `despite her inexperience' in court, a `model witness' whose testimony was `careful, reasoned and responsive' (14). She offered `appropriately qualified opinions' and as a result was `compelling and completely convincing'. Campbell-Smith considered Griffin `highly credible and knowledgeable'.

The gulf in academic and professional standards between the rival experts in these cases is not the result of the petitioners' difficulty in persuading high quality scientists and doctors to testify on their behalf. It reflects the fact that the bad science of the vaccine-autism campaign is not supported by reputable scientists and doctors in the relevant disciplines. It is a great misfortune that, over the past decade, thousands of parents of autistic children, on both sides of the Atlantic, have come under the influence of the plausible purveyors of the junk science of the vaccine-autism campaign (15). The great value of the Omnibus Autism Proceedings has been in exposing the work of these shady practitioners to the scrutiny of serious scientists.....

More HERE

Thicker myelin aids IQ!

Not exactly where you would initially look for the genetic basis of IQ. That IQ is polygenetically determined, however, is undoubted

A study has found that the thickness of the insulation of our brain's white matter is directly linked to IQ. Memory, self-control, planning, logic and mathematical ability are all linked to the quality of myelin sheath that protects nerves of white matter from damage, according to New Scientist magazine. Scientists at the University of California in Los Angeles examined the brains of 23 sets of identical twins and the same number of fraternal twins using a new type of magnetic resonance imaging scanner called HARDI.

MRI scans usually show volumes of different tissues in the brain by measuring the amount of water present. HARDI determines water levels diffusing through white matter - an indirect measurement of myelin integrity.

The research also found that inherited genes play a greater role in intelligence than was previously thought [Thought by whom? IQ has been known to be mainly hereditary for around 100 years]. Genes appear to affect intelligence by influencing how well nerve fibres are encased in protective and insulating fatty myelin. A good covering of myelin results in faster nerve impulses. "It's like a picture of your mental speed," chief researcher Professor Paul Thompson told New Scientist magazine.

Identical twins share the same genes while fraternal twins share about half their genes. Comparing the results from each showed that myelin integrity was genetically determined in many parts of the brain important for intelligence. They include the corpus callosum, which brings together signals from the left and right side of the body, and the parietal lobes responsible for visual and spatial reasoning and logic. Myelin quality in these areas correlated with scores from tests of abstract reasoning and overall intelligence.

Dr Richard Haier, from the University of California at Irvine, who worked on the research, said the findings did not mean intelligence could not be improved. "It's just the opposite," he said. "If it's genetic, it's biochemical, and we have all kinds of ways of influencing biochemistry." In future there might be a way to identify the genes involved and enhance their activity, he said. This in turn could lead to treatments for multiple sclerosis, autism and attention deficit disorder, which are all associated with lack of myelin.

SOURCE






Fruit-juice drink has sugar in it! Horrors!

Maybe sugar should be banned from restaurants and cafes too. Who needs sugar in their tea or coffee?



It claims it has "no bad stuff" but children are being warned to avoid a new fruit juice drink. One Sydney school has even taken the extraordinary step of hiring a dietitian to talk to parents and experts have slammed the makers of Golden Circle LOL No Bad Stuff for preying on children. Teachers became alarmed after spotting students as young as six drinking the carbonated fruit juice for breakfast.

Bankstown Grammar School is so concerned about the effects on children it is calling on parents to stop allowing the drink in lunch boxes. The private school has already banned Coke and Mars bars but still finds the sugary sweets creeping into students' bags. "We could try banning it (LOL) but we have tried before on other products and kids still end up bringing them in," principal Terry Lidgard said. "I would rather educate the students ... like harm minimisation."

Manufactured by a leading fruit juice company, the cans of drink contain 26gm of sugar. Emblazoned with large smiley faces and colourful labelling, the drinks have come under fire for looking like caffeine energy drinks such as Red Bull and V. The Children's Hospital at Westmead dietitian Susie Burrell criticised Golden Circle for preying on kids. "They have a big enough market, they don't have to target children like this. It is marketed in a way that makes it look healthy," she said. Golden Circle was contacted but did not respond.

US research advises kids should not consume more than two sweetened drinks a week. "Fruit juice contains sugar and this is highly concentrated. It is bad for teeth. It contains no other nutritional value," Ms Burrell said. "Parents should be giving their children flavoured milk [Really? Milk is highly calorific!] or water." At least one in four children in Australia is overweight.

SOURCE

Congress ratchets up the obesity war

One little bit of language in the omnibus appropriations bill signed today could shift the government's focus on food marketing and childhood obesity from kids under 12 to everyone under 18, potentially affecting hundreds of millions of dollars of food, beverage and fast-food advertising on TV. Besides funding government agencies and a number of pork-barrel projects, the bill signed by President Barack Obama today calls for several government studies, including one examining whether the government should set standards for determining which foods are healthy and appropriate to market to youths as old as 17.

Late Tuesday, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., one of the study's sponsors, inserted a statement in the Congressional Record indicating that the under-17 language should be considered a mistake. "I think it would be more appropriate to limit the scope ... to children under 12," he said. The legislation, though, still has original language.

Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, was the other sponsor for the study. His communications director, Kate Cyrul, took a different tack. "Childhood obesity is on the rise and nearly at an epidemic proportion. And we know the obesity rate does not end with children [who are] 13. It affects all school-age children," she said. "Considering the health risks that are involved and the potential impact on our nation as a whole, it would be irresponsible to only focus on a portion of school-age youth."

The bill calls for the Federal Trade Commission, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an "Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children," according to a report attached to the legislation. "The Working Group is directed to conduct a study and develop recommendations for standards for the marketing of food when such marketing targets children who are 17 years old or younger or when such food represents a significant component of the diets of children," it says. Further, the "Working Group will determine the scope of the media to which such standards should apply," asking that the group report back to Congress by July 15, 2010.

"This proposal is completely unnecessary," said Scott W. Openshaw, director-communications for the Grocer Manufacturers Association. He said the FTC is monitoring the effectiveness of the industry initiative. "Taxpayer dollars and agency time could be made much better use of. Besides, the proposal -- the way it is written -- not only reinvents the wheel, it does so poorly with broad, misdirected language that goes far beyond marketing to children. Too far."

Many marketers have already reined in their food and fast-food advertising. Under Capitol Hill pressure, major food and fast-food companies launched the Children's Food & Beverage Initiative in 2006 and altered their ad mix and their products to sell healthier products to children under 12. Candy-makers pulled their ads from such media.

There has been some criticism, including from the Federal Trade Commission, that even as the voluntary industry action led to healthier products being advertised to children, each company was creating its own standard for what healthy meant. In other words, the government should step in and set standards.

The [far-Left] Center for Science in the Public Interest, for one, is happy about the language in the bill. "I think it's terrific," said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for CSPI. She noted that the FTC has urged development of more uniform standards for what foods are and aren't appropriate to advertise. "This would set up a mechanism to do that." She also said the teen audience could be more at risk. "In a lot of way, teens are more vulnerable than younger kids because they have more options to make choices out of their parents' supervision," she said. [Horrors! Fancy teenagers having choices!]

Food manufacturers and advertising groups, however, were concerned. They traditionally have said that there are no good or bad foods, and that any food can be fine with the right diet and exercise regimen. Dan Jaffe, exec VP of the Association of National Advertisers, said setting standards for what should be advertised and then extending the focus to teens is troublesome. "When you start to look at rules that would affect kids almost old enough to vote, it could raise major issues," he said. "There is a good food-bad food approach and if they are going to say some specific food is not OK to advertise, it would be unconstitutional."

SOURCE







Wonder drug that stole my memory

Statins have been hailed as a miracle cure for cholesterol, but most people know little about their side effects

I had just walked in to the party, and spotted a familiar face. "Oh, hi," I said brightly, "you're just the person I wanted to see: I had something to ask you." There was a pause. "Yes?" said my friend gently. I stood there in confusion. I couldn't remember her name. And the thing I wanted to ask her had slipped completely out of my mind.

That was a year ago, and it had been happening to me more and more frequently. At first I could shrug it off as examples of those senior moments we all have in late middle age. It started with the names of people and places. "Oh, you know, that man who wrote a book about depression. He used to live in that road just off Primrose Hill. Begins with G."

I have always been a trifle absent-minded. Walking home from prep school, I was usually the one who left his lunchbox behind, or managed to lose his cap while taking a short cut through the copse. Even now, I am not the most reliable person in the world with whom to leave the back door keys. But this was different. I was beginning to be plagued not just with forgetfulness but with confusion. I got into small panics, when for a moment I couldn't make sense of what was going on around me or what I was supposed to be doing. Playing doubles tennis, for example, as I do most weekends, I would get the score wrong and I had to watch the other three like a hawk when we started each new game, so that I knew to stand in the right place.

Worse still was when not only proper nouns but also everyday words escaped me. As a novelist and journalist, my whole life is about words: getting them right and putting them down on the page speedily. Now I found myself looking perplexedly at the keyboard, not only for the right word, with the help of a thesaurus, but where to find the letters I wanted on the laptop.

My wife was by now accustomed to providing names and finishing my sentences for me. It was an unhappy time for both of us. She thought that this was how life was going to be for the next 30 years; I became unusually reclusive for fear of making a fool of myself in public. Both of us read about Alzheimer's with a gripping sensation around the heart, although my symptoms did not seem to fit the classic patterns of the condition.

What, if anything, did seem to fit the pattern, besides incipient dementia? I was pretty healthy, except for moderately high cholesterol, for which I took the statin drug Simvastatin. Other than that I went through periods of taking vitamin supplements - that was all. "Did you say Simvastatin?" asked a friend. "Did you know that statins have been linked to memory loss?"

This was news to me. Statins are, I think, among the greatest successes of modern pharmacology. They work by blocking the action of a chemical in the liver which is needed to make cholesterol. By lowering blood-cholesterol levels, they help defend against arterial diseases such as high blood pressure, diabetes and strokes. My doctor, when prescribing me tablets of Simvastatin to be taken once a day, described it to me, rightly I'm sure, as a "wonder drug" which deserves to be taken by most of the Western world.

Because the drug worked so well in reducing my cholesterol, it never occurred to me to think of statins as a feature in my memory loss. But looking back to when I began taking that 40-milligram dose, I realised that it more or less coincided with the intensification of my memory problems. I decided to take the bull by the horns. I went to our very good local doctor, told her what was happening, and asked for her advice. She nodded, and said: "We'll take you off statins for three months. Let's see what happens".

For six weeks or so, I noticed. I continued to go around in a daze. Then my life began changing back. At dinner parties I could tell stories without losing track halfway through. In tennis, I didn't have to think about the scores or where I stood at changeovers. Words came back like old friends jostling to greet me. My shattered confidence began returning as decisions became easier to make. The other day, my wife said, "I feel I've got my husband back".

The strangest thing was that for most of last year I noticed something I had never suffered from before: poor circulation in my fingers and toes. I thought my numb white index fingers might be connected to my furious two-finger typing. Nearly every day I had to stop and massage my fingers to get the blood circulating. Then, at about the time my memory began returning, my circulation came back to normal too. Through this coldest winter for 20 years, my fingers have not once lost their nice healthy pink.

I would be a fool to pretend that I know anything about the circulation of the blood to the brain, but an even greater fool to suppose that the medication I took might not somehow be connected to it. Unscientific and simplistic though it is, I truly believe what the history of my symptoms suggests that the Simvastatin I took, so effective in lowering my cholesterol, simultaneously affected my brain.

I am not alone in coming to this conclusion. Google "statins" and "memory loss" and you will come upon a selection of websites connecting the two. In a recent Dutch survey of 4,738 statin users, a quarter reported physical or mental side effects, of whom 13 per cent reported memory loss. Nobody knows why this should be [Rubbish! It is well-known that the brain needs cholesterol to function properly. The brain even makes cholesterol], although many researchers point out that statins can block the production of Co-Q10, a vital heart nutrient. The Canadians now print a mandatory warning on all packets of statins that Co-Q10 reduction "could lead to impaired cardiac function".

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Commission on Human Medicines include memory loss as one of the potential adverse effects of taking statins. A recent discussion paper on statins and memory loss, published by the Pharmacotherapy Press, reports that "the effects of these agents on the human brain are not [as] well established. The more lipid-soluble the statin, the greater propensity it has to cross the blood-brain barrier and affect the central nervous system. According to some reports, Simvastatin is the most lipophilic drug in its class."

Sounds worrying to me. Last month Britain's "heart tsar", Professor Roger Boyle, argued that millions of healthy people over 40 should be considered for statin therapy after a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggested the drugs were even more effective than previously thought. The study, of 230,000 people, found that the drugs halved the risk of heart attacks. At present, the prescription of statins for primary prevention of heart disease is confined to those considered to be at high risk of developing heart disease.

Maybe they are right and the benefits of these drugs outweigh the side-effects. However, now that I've got some of my memory back, I'll remember to look for other ways of keeping down my cholesterol.

SOURCE

Four fat myths about obesity and cancer

A new report from the World Cancer Research Fund recycles some highly dubious claims about our waistlines and health. The World Cancer Research Fund is in any case a corrupt body that finds only what it wants to find -- as we see here and here. I imagine that scares are a great help in raising money for "research". WCRF representatives certainly put out scares with great frequency

The fat police have tried to frighten us for so long they’ve used up most of their stock of scary images. Yet the media still run with every ‘The Fat End is Nigh’ story, no matter how absurd.

Exhibit A is today’s World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) report, Policy and Action for Cancer Prevention - Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective, which warns of a global catastrophe from obesity-induced cancer.

As the Observer’s David Smith breathlessly previewed the WCRF report last weekend, ‘Cancer cases are now rising at such a rate in Britain and the rest of the world that the disease poses a threat to humanity comparable to climate change’. Not to be outdone, the Mail on Sunday’s David Derbyshire wrote that the ‘obesity epidemic will double the number of cancer deaths within 40 years… At least 13,000 cases of cancer are caused by obesity in Britain each year’.

The new WCRF report is largely based on a report published two years ago by the same group that claimed that a third of cancers were caused by diet and lack of exercise. That controversial report advised people to be as thin as possible, and to avoid red and preserved meat and alcohol. The problem with this latest effort from the WCRF is that it is as blatantly and foolishly wrong as its 2007 version. This is especially evident in four areas.

Are cancer and obesity linked?

The report’s headline-grabbing claim about the link between obesity and cancer is not supported by the majority of the WCRF’s own data from the 2007 study, or by other, more recent British and American studies. Once you dig beyond the bold claim, you find that what is being claimed is that overweight and obesity can increase your risk for six cancers (cancers of the oesophagus, pancreas, colon-rectum, breast, endometrium and kidney). But even this more limited claim has little scientific support.

Take pancreatic cancer, for example. The 2007 report cites 20 case control studies, but only three show a statistically significant association between obesity and pancreatic cancer. Similarly, of 42 cohort studies on colorectal cancer, only 13 show a link with obesity. Again, with breast cancer and obesity, of 16 studies only three are statistically significant, while eight show a decreased risk between breast cancer and obesity.

Even for oesophageal cancer, the increased risk was generally found in the morbidly obese (ie, those with a body mass index, or BMI, of at least 40 - a very small percentage of the population). And with endometrial and kidney cancers the relative risks were below two. According to the National Cancer Institute, relative risks below two (that is, two times the risk compared to a control group) are so small that they may be due to ‘chance, statistical bias or the effects of confounding factors’.

These claims about a link between obesity and cancer are further called into question by the UK’s recent Million Women Study, which examined the link between 17 of the most common cancers and BMI. In that study, the incidence of 10 of the cancers does not show a statistically significant association with either higher levels of overweight or obesity. Of the remaining seven cancers, the association between overweight and cancer is non-significant in four, and where the results are significant the relative risks (except for endometrial and oesophageal cancer) are never stronger than two, except in the obese.

The supposed link between cancer and overweight and obesity is again called into question by a study from the US National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control published in 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This study found that being overweight was not associated with increase mortality from cancers considered obesity-related, and further noted that ‘little or no association with excess all-cancer mortality with any of the BMI categories’. In other words, the overall risk of dying from cancer was not related to body weight.

Indeed, the study suggested that being overweight might be protective against cancer. For example, in individuals aged 25-59, obesity appeared to be protective against death from cancer. Even for those individuals aged 70 and over, BMIs in excess of 35 were not significantly linked with a higher risk of dying from cancer.

Will ‘five a day’ keep cancer away?

The WCRF report claims that there is a link between a certain kind of diet, obesity and cancer, and that fruits and vegetables, which fat people tend to eat less of, can protect against cancer. Once again, the scientific evidence contradicts such claims. For example, of the 17 cancers discussed in the report, virtually all have statistically non-significant associations with every type of food, which means that they provide no evidence of a link between a particular food and a particular cancer. For example, of the 17 studies cited that looked at a link between colon cancer and processed meat, 13 are not statistically significant.

Despite the advice to avoid red meat, the report itself concludes that ‘there is limited evidence...suggesting that red meat is a cause of oesophageal cancer’. Or, again, ‘there is limited, inconsistent evidence...that grilled or barbecued animal foods are causes of stomach cancer’. If the evidence is so limited and inconsistent, how can the advice to entire populations to reduce red meat consumption or avoid it entirely be so dogmatic?

What of the extraordinary claim that, since fat people tend to eat less fruit and vegetables, they are more likely to get certain cancers? This claim is contradicted by the largest and most expensive randomised controlled studies of the effect of eating certain foods and weight on the risk of getting breast cancer, colon cancer, heart disease, and stroke, that is, the Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial.

Almost 49,000 American women were followed over an eight-year period in terms of eating, weight, and disease. The women in the intervention group ate ‘healthy’ diets that were low fat and high fibre. The results? There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and the control group in the incidence of breast cancer, colon cancer, strokes, or heart attacks.

In fact, the women following the healthy diet didn’t even weigh less than they did at the beginning of the study, or less than the group that continued to eat as they always had. So much for the claim that there is a link between eating certain foods and avoiding cancer.

Are fat children more likely to get cancer in later life?

The WCRF’s Martin Wiseman told the Mail on Sunday that ‘the increase in the number of overweight children is deeply troubling because the more overweight a child is, the more likely they are to be overweight as an adult. And the more overweight the population becomes, the more cases of cancer we are storing up for the future.’

But if Wiseman had simply looked at the official figures on childhood overweight and obesity in the most recent Health Survey for England, he would have found that since the previous survey in 2006, there was a decrease in obese girls aged 2-15, from 18 per cent to 15 per cent. Among boys aged 2-10, the prevalence of overweight declined from 16 per cent to 12 per cent. Indeed, according to the Health Survey, amongst boys and girls aged between 2 and 15, overweight and obesity has been declining since 2004.

Nor is Wiseman’s claim about fat kids becoming overweight adults true. Only morbidly obese children - that is, a very small minority of all children - are at risk for adult obesity. As Charlotte Wright in her Thousand Families Study in Newcastle found, there is ‘little tracking from childhood overweight to adulthood obesity’.

Does exercise protect against cancer?

The final problem with the WCRF report is its assumption that there is a scientifically established link between physical activity, obesity, and cancer prevention. To put it charitably, this assumption is open to significant question. Most of the summaries of the relevant scientific literature on this supposed connection are either non-committal or highly skeptical, despite the common sense claim that exercise is good for one. As one reviewer wrote, ‘It is important to emphasis at the outset that most of what can be written on this topic remains speculative. No study exists which has recorded adequate birth-to-death information relating physical activity to health’.

Moreover, the evidence of a specific cancer-physical activity link is difficult to establish. Commenting on the supposed association between breast cancer and physical activity, Rissanen and Fogelholm wrote that due to the lack of evidence one could not make a public health recommendation for women to exercise to reduce their risk of breast cancer.

A recently published meta-analysis on 52 studies that looked at the association between colon cancer and physical activity reported that 44 were not statistically significant. So the supposed, obvious link between physical activity and preventing cancer dissolves upon closer examination. Once you get beyond the scary headlines, the WCRF’s claims about diet, weight, and cancer turn out to be, at best, dubious and, at worst, simply untrue.

SOURCE






For better exam results simply have a drink of water

This is pretty weird. Sounds like some sort of placebo effect

The key to exam success could be as simple - and as cheap - as a glass of water. Children who have a drink of water before sitting tests fare up to a third better, researchers have found. The reason why isn't clear, but it could be that information flows more smoothly between brain cells when they are well hydrated. In one of the first studies of its kind, researchers from the University of East London looked at the effects of water on the performance of almost 60 boys and girls aged between seven and nine.

Half were given a 250ml glass of water to drink, and 20 minutes later, both groups were subjected to a battery of tests. One test, designed to assess visual attention and memory, involved spotting the differences between two cartoons. The water-drinkers scored 34 per cent better, the research journal Appetite reports. They also did 23 per cent better on a more difficult version of the test and 11 per cent better on a third task that required them to cross out specified letters from a sequence. In tests designed to assess short term memory there were no differences between the two groups.

Researcher Dr Caroline Edmonds said: 'Children who had a drink of water performed significantly better on a number of tasks. Our findings suggest that consuming water benefits cognitive performance in children.' It is possible that water improves the flow of information between brain cells, added Dr Edmonds. Other possibilities include the water drinkers not being distracted by feeling thirsty.

Previous studies have shown that drinking water boosts the brainpower of adults.

SOURCE

Women, keep drinking

Why was a flimsy study apparently showing a link between booze and breast cancer so uncritically accepted? The woman who headed the study is a fraud and a liar whose results were the opposite of what she claimed


For over a decade, a constant stream of studies has warned women who drink that they run an increased risk of getting certain cancers, particularly breast cancer. But this steady stream of anti-drinks advice last week gave way to a global torrent when two new studies about the link between drinking and cancer in women received huge, and typically uncritical, international media attention.

The study that attracted the most attention is sponsored by Cancer Research UK and was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The lead researcher, Naomi Allen from Oxford University, told the Guardian: ‘Given that this is the largest study in the world to look at this, it’s clear that even at low levels of alcohol consumption, there does seem to be a very significant increase in cancer risk, and most women are probably not aware of that.’

Allen came across with even scarier news for Americans, telling the Washington Post that the ‘take-home message’ was this: ‘If you are regularly drinking even one drink per day, that’s increasing your risk for cancer [since] there doesn’t seem to be a threshold at which alcohol consumption is safe.’

One can’t help but wonder just what Allen herself has been drinking in the Senior Common Room at Oxford. After all, her public pronouncements, her recommendations to government, and the reports about her study in the media are certainly not supported by her results.

First, Allen’s study is an observational one, based on data from the UK’s Million Women Study, which is a study about the association between Hormone Replacement Therapy and cancer and heart disease. Allen’s study comes from self-reports about the drinking habits of women in that study.

This means that the study, as an observational study – the weakest kind of epidemiological endeavour and certainly nothing close to the gold standard of a randomised controlled trial – is inherently unable to draw any causal conclusions about a link between drinking and cancer.

Second, the study fails to meet even the most basic requirement of science – that is, being able to validate its measurements – since it is entirely based on the women’s self-reports of their recollection of their drinking. None of these reports was checked and the authors can make no claim about how reliable they are. No one knows how much or how little these women really drank since no one bothered to measure it. This makes any conclusions based on such ‘evidence’ just a tad dicey. At its foundation, therefore, the study can’t warrant that any of its data about the key fact – the drinking habits of its subjects – is accurate. However, the worst is yet to come.

Third, the study is full of significant puzzles that suggest that its results are unreliable. For example, it reports that the incidence of all types of cancer studied in its non-drinking subjects was 5.7 per cent compared with 5.3 per cent for those subjects who had at least a drink a day, and up to 14 drinks a week. In other words, not only was there no dose-response in terms of cancer risk, but teetotallers had a higher population incidence of cancer than those consuming up to 14 drinks a week! Even those women in the study who drank the most (15 or more drinks a week) had a cancer incidence of 5.8 per cent, which is virtually identical to those who drank nothing. But this particular take-home message somehow escaped Allen’s notice, and that of the media as well.

Fourth, the study looked at 21 types of cancer incidence. Of these, it found statistically significant associations between drinking and only four types of cancer. Moreover, these associations were barely significant. The association with breast cancer, with by far the largest number of cases in the study (almost 22,000), was non-significant. Therefore, of the cancer-drinking correlations examined, virtually none was statistically significant.

What is the real take-home message of this study? Perhaps it should be to avoid drinking policy advice produced by Oxford epidemiologists.

SOURCE







Prince Charles accused of 'outright quackery' over detox food supplement

Prince Charles has been accused of ‘ exploiting a gullible public’ by putting his name to a detox treatment. Professor Edzard Ernst, Britain’s top expert on complementary medicine, said the 10 pound Duchy Herbals Detox Tincture relied on ‘ superstition and quackery’ rather than science. Nicknaming the range ‘Dodgy Originals’ after the Prince’s Duchy Originals brand, Prof Ernst said that using herbal potions to detoxify the body was ‘implausible, unproven and dangerous’.

The 10 pound tincture was launched last month as part of the Prince’s range of luxury organic products. Customers are advised to add a few drops of the dandelion and artichoke solution to a glass of water twice a day. Combined with a balanced diet, it is claimed, the product will help the body cleanse itself of ‘toxins’ and aid digestion.

But Prof Ernst, a complementary medicine researcher at Exeter University and a former homeopathic doctor, said there is no evidence that the tincture works. He said: ‘I know everything about artichoke that there is to know. There is a hint it might lower cholesterol to a very minor degree, but that’s all. ‘And there is nothing to know about dandelion. They say they have produced it to the highest standards, and that may be so. But high quality nonsense is still nonsense.’

The professor warned that detox products could be dangerous if they were viewed as a ‘quick fix’ to unhealthy habits. He said yesterday: ‘Prince Charles contributes to the ill-health of the nation by pretending we can all over-indulge and then take his tincture and be fine again. 'Under the banner of holistic and integrative healthcare he promotes a “quick fix” and outright quackery. ‘Prince Charles and his advisors seem to deliberately ignore science and prefer to rely on makebelieve and superstition. ‘Prince Charles thus financially exploits a gullible public in a time of financial hardship.This comes from somebody who should know better and from somebody who arguably should not be deluding the nation and contributing to its ill-health.’ Prof Ernst added that those who do over-indulge should simply drink lots of water, take exercise and get some rest.

The Duchy Originals website states: ‘HRH The Prince of Wales… believes poor health does not exist in isolation, but is in fact a direct consequence of our lifestyles, cultures, communities and how we interact with our environments. ‘He is passionate about adopting an integrated approach to health, as well as exploring how safe, proven complementary therapies can work in conjunction with mainstream medicine.’

A Duchy Originals spokesman said the tincture satisfied ‘all of the relevant sections of both UK and European food laws’. Andrew Baker, the firm’s chief executive officer said: ‘It is a natural aid to digestion and supports the body’s natural elimination processes. ‘It is not – and has never been described as – a medicine, remedy or cure for any disease.’ He added: ‘Duchy Herbals Detox Tincture contains globe artichoke and dandelion which both have a long history of traditional use for aiding digestion. ‘We find it unfortunate that Professor Ernst should chase sensationalist headlines in this way rather than concentrating on accuracy and objectivity.’

Nelsons Organic Pharmacy, which makes the tincture for Duchy Originals, said that artichoke and dandelion had been used for hundreds of years to aid digestion. Its chairman, Robert Wilson, said: We do not believe this product encourages ill-health through over-indulgence.’

SOURCE

More grave statin side-effects

Lower intelligence, memory problems, nightmares, depression, suicide... Statins are the wonder drug for cutting cholesterol. But evidence of severe side-effects keeps piling up

Could statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs taken by more than three million Britons, be doing more harm than good to many thousands of patients? This is the rather alarming suggestion to emerge from two new studies. The research challenges the medical convention that lowering your cholesterol is always a good thing - indeed, they suggest statins may affect intelligence, cause depression and even raise the risk of suicide. The studies add to a growing body of evidence that having low cholesterol levels may prove as dangerous as having high readings.

This has huge implications for British proposals to offer statins to all men over 50 and women over 60, even if they don't have a high cholesterol count. The NHS spends more than o500 million a year on statins. The drugs are commonly prescribed to cut the level of so-called 'bad' LDL cholesterol that our livers create. In patients vulnerable to heart attacks and strokes, the drugs reduce the risk of fatty deposits gathering in their bloodstream and causing life-threatening blood clots.

But cholesterol is also produced by the brain, where it is used to release vital chemicals called neurotransmitters that carry messages between brain cells. Now a study by Iowa State University suggests that statins inhibit this vital process. When brain cells are deprived of cholesterol, they are five times less effective at releasing chemical messengers, says the research, published in the highly respected journal Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences.

'If you deprive cholesterol from the brain, then you directly affect how smart you are and how well you remember things,' says Yeon-Kyun Shin, the biophysics professor behind the study. 'This may lead to depression and irrational acts.' He believes this is directly caused by disruption in the neurotransmitter release in the brain. Indeed, statins were implicated in the suicide in April 2007 of London teacher Allan Woolley. After being prescribed the drug simvastatin, the housemaster at University College School in Hampstead complained of blackouts, insomnia and nightmares before he then killed himself by standing in front of a train. His family and friends said his death was completely out of character. The coroner ruled that the drug 'was involved' in his suicide.

Shin's findings reinforce another new study, which found that men with a combination of low cholesterol and depression are seven times more likely to die prematurely from suicide, accidents and other unnatural causes than men with only depression.

Scientists who followed nearly 4,500 Vietnam veterans over a 15-year period say the disturbing findings may be due to low blood cholesterol reducing levels of the brain's feel-good chemical messenger, serotonin. Low serotonin is linked to depression, anger, sleep loss and other problems, says Dr Joseph Boscarino, of the American Geisinger research institute, who did the research. 'While it's generally understood that having low cholesterol is a good health sign, combined with other factors, it could actually put a person at risk,' says the report. In fact, there is a significant body of evidence to show that low cholesterol may be as dangerous as high cholesterol.

These reputable studies show how people with markedly low levels of cholesterol are more likely to die from a variety of causes, including strokes, certain cancers, liver disease, lung disease and suicide. The deaths from these other causes mount so quickly that the mortality rate for those with low cholesterol equals the rate for people with very high cholesterol, who are likely to die from heart disease.

The findings do not question the standard medical advice that people with high blood cholesterol should diet or take statins. Current guidelines from the Department of Health say that the maximum healthy total cholesterol level should be less than 5.0 millimoles per litre of blood (mmol/l). But researchers worried about the harmful effects of low cholesterol estimate that the danger threshold may be just below 4.0mmol/l.

One report claims that women on low-cholesterol diets may face infertility problems. This small study of 300 patients by the Toronto Infertility Clinic says that cholesterol is essential for creating the sex hormones oestrogen and testosterone.

Other U.S. research found that women with low cholesterol could be twice as likely to suffer from depression or anxiety problems. Even more worrying, studies of older people have found that those on low- cholesterol diets have a much higher rate of stroke, possibly because cholesterol has a protective effect in mature brain linings.

But the link between low cholesterol, decreased serotonin and dangerous behaviour is particularly strong and disturbing. A study of 80,000 Swedes, for example, shows that men who murder in a fit of rage tend to have below-average cholesterol. Irish doctors report that cholesterol levels are significantly lower in people who have been admitted to hospital after harming themselves. Research in the animal kingdom supports the existence of this problem: studies of captive monkeys reveal that they become abnormally aggressive when put on low-fat diets. And studies on mice indicate that cholesterol may help the brain to suppress reckless impulses.

Meanwhile, the NHS continues to prescribe ever more statins. There is no doubt that statins are life- saving drugs for people who have already had a heart attack. But the guidelines are constantly being revised. Until 2006, statins were prescribed only to men and women under 75 who had a 20 per cent risk of developing coronary heart disease within ten years. Now, the NHS recommends they are given to any adult with a total cholesterol of more than 5.0mmol/l who is thought at risk.

Moving forward, the Government argues that giving all men over 50 and women over 60 a daily dose of statins would save lives, NHS funds and doctors' time. However, Dr Alastair Dobbin, a GP based in Edinburgh, is highly critical of the policy. He has written in the British Medical Journal severely criticising the 'statins for all' approach. He believes it's an expensive waste of time that leaves millions of people falsely reassured and which may have damaging side-effects. 'The new Iowa study shows that we should be really cautious about handing out statins the way we do,' he says. 'We should be very careful about giving a drug to healthy people where there is any risk of any side-effects.'

He adds: 'Research shows that in people over 69 who've had no symptoms of diabetes, angina, stroke or heart attack, statins don't reduce mortality. 'They're invaluable for patients who have had these symptoms, but there's no scientific case for giving them to anyone else. 'It's a sheer waste of money, but the Government is ignoring the research.

'On the other hand, studies have found that patients have suffered memory loss with statins - some people have been unable to even recognise their spouse - yet the problem has disappeared after they stopped taking the drug.' Yet rather than investigating the disturbing links with statins further, the medical establishment has largely hushed, ignored or discredited them, for fear of confusing the 'high cholesterol is bad' message.

One campaign group, The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, includes on its website a list of academic research articles and letters it feels have been unfairly rejected by medical journals. For the sake of everyone's health, and to save the NHS millions it hasn't got, perhaps the answer is to rewrite the public health message to read: moderation in all things - including cholesterol control.

GREAT MEDICAL U-TURNS

The idea that low cholesterol could be bad for you isn't the only health message that's been revised. Here are some others:

EGGS: Only last month, research backed by the British Nutrition Foundation put cholesterol-rich eggs firmly back on our healthy menus. For years, eggs had been associated with an increased risk of heart disease; this has been shown to be wrong.

BACKS: Conventional wisdom held that a bad back should be treated with bed rest. But experts changed their minds, and now stress the importance of movement and exercise.

TONSILS: A tonsillectomy was once almost a childhood rite of passage but are now so discredited that children who do need their tonsils removed can't get the operation.

NUTS: For ten years, pregnant and breastfeeding women were advised not to eat peanuts if there was a family history of allergies. But last December, the Food Safety Agency said it was no longer backing the policy because 'current evidence' does not support it.

MAGGOTS AND LEECHES: These were banned from mainstream therapy after the NHS was formed in 1948. But, in recent years, maggots have been used to keep wounds clean, and leeches to help healing after surgery.

NYMPHOMANIA: This was regarded as a mental illness until the Sixties. These days, women who don't have a strong sex drive are thought to be 'unwell', suffering from Female Sexual Dysfunction.

SOURCE







CABBAGE VERSUS CANCER

A vegetable-based drug could inhibit melanoma, US scientists believe. Compounds extracted from green vegetables such as broccoli and cabbage could be made into a potent drug against melanoma. Tests on mice suggest that these compounds, when combined with selenium (found in cereals, meat and fish) target tumours more safely and effectively than conventional therapy.

"There are currently no drugs to target the proteins that trigger melanoma," says Gavin Robertson, Associate Professor at Penn State College of Medicine. "We have developed drugs from naturally occurring compounds that can inhibit the growth of tumour in mice by 50 to 60 per cent with a very low dose."

The search for a drug to block the protein led them to a class of compounds called isothiocyanates, which are naturally occurring in cruciferous vegetables, though in very low doses.

SOURCE

A really keen food freak

A story from my local paper

Supermarket queues can be testy places, but a recent incident at a Capalaba supermarket, southeast of Brisbane, takes the cake. A woman of evidently rigid vegetarian beliefs objected to the next customer putting her meat too close to the shopping divider. When her protests brought no response, she picked up the divider and whacked the other woman shopper around the head






Naps cause diabetes?

This is brain-dead. All that they have found is that people with less energy nap more

Taking a regular afternoon nap is raising your risk of getting diabetes, say scientists. The danger of developing the illness, which can lead to strokes, blindness and kidney failure, increases by around a quarter among those who nap at least once a week. Experts said the raised risk could be simply down to the fact that those who took forty winks were less likely to be physically active.

Some 2.25million Britons have been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, which is linked to unhealthy lifestyles and obesity. The research, being presented at a conference in Glasgow this week organised by charity Diabetes UK, examined the napping habits of 16,480 older people in China. More than two thirds of the group (68 per cent) took a nap at least once a week. Even when other factors were taken into account, such as the person's weight, the study found napping was linked with an increased risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Overall, those who napped at least once a week had a 26 per cent greater risk of developing the illness compared with those who never took a nap.

The experts, led by a team from Birmingham University, said several factors may be behind the link, including the fact that those who nap are also probably taking less exercise anyway. In addition napping during the day may disrupt night-time sleep - those who sleep for just a few hours a night are known to have a greater chance of developing Type 2. Waking up from a short sleep also activates hormones and mechanisms in the body that stop insulin working effectively, the researchers said. Insulin controls levels of blood sugar.

Dr Iain Frame, director of research at Diabetes UK, said: 'This research could be another step towards explaining the possible link between disturbed sleep patterns and Type 2 diabetes.' He added that being overweight remained a much greater risk factor than sleep issues.

SOURCE






Popular children earn more money when adults

But nothing trumps IQ

A study by Essex University found that for each extra friend a pupil had a school, their salary was two per cent higher 35 years later. Professor Stephen Pudney, one of the researchers from the university's Institute for Social and Economic Research, used data from America in which groups of schoolboys were asked to name their three closest friends in their final year of High School. The number of nominations received by each pupil was added up.

The boys were then interviewed at regular intervals between 1957 and 2004 to measure earnings and relate the figures to the number of friends. Other factors such as intelligence and family income were also taken into account.

They focused on the senior year because adolescents have "been exposed to interactions in different contexts, from mathematics classes to athletics and extracurricular activities", implying that the pool of individuals who could be nominated was much larger.

Professor Pudney said: "A workplace is a social setting. People have to manage each other and work in teams - you can see why social skills would be helpful." Despite the findings, Professor Pudney accepts that intelligence and length of education still have more impact on earning power than social skills.

The study, which was done in conjunction with the University of Chicago and the Institute for Employment Research in Nuremberg, also found that high school students with above average IQ are more likely to nominate others and to be popular in turn. It remarked: "This comes as no surprise, as relative high ability students might both be more attractive as peers and better understand the opportunities arising from social interactions."

The reported added: "Overall, the estimates show that a warmer family environment during childhood is associated with a significantly higher degree of adolescent social engagement. The strongest of these effects are the positive impact of a close maternal relationship on the friendship in-degree (nominations received) and out-degree (nominations given), and the negative impact of poor sibling relationship on the out-degree. This remarks the importance of the early family environment on subsequent adolescent social life."

Other findings included belonging to a relatively wealthier family did not make a student more popular among his peers while there was also some evidence that being relatively younger was associated with a reduction in the amount of nominations received. Students living in rural and small towns were also more likely to nominate others and to receive nominations.

SOURCE

More asthma risk for kids spending hours in front of TV?

I can't find the article listed in the "In press" section of "Thorax" but I suspect more tedious ignorance below. The most reasonable interpretation of the findings: The children of poor people watch more TV and get more asthma

YOUNG children who spend more than two hours glued to the television every day increase their risk of developing asthma, new research shows. A UK study tracked 3000 children from birth to 11.5 years of age, and their parents were also asked to assess their TV watching habits. Six per cent of the children who had no symptoms of wheezing at 3.5 years went on to have asthma by the end of the study.

Children who watched TV for more than two hours a day were almost twice as likely to be in this new asthma group, according to research to be published in the journal Thorax. The study suggests sedentary behaviour in children can spark developmental changes in the lungs.

SOURCE





The secret of long life? It's all down to how fast you react

High IQ is a winner once again

People's reaction times are a far better indicator of their chances of living a long life than their blood pressure, exercise levels or weight, researchers have discovered. Men and women with the most sluggish response times are more than twice as likely to die prematurely.

Edinburgh University and the Medical Research Council in Glasgow tracked 7,414 people nationwide over 20 years in a study which appears to confirm the adage that a healthy mind means a healthy body. The researchers suggest that people's reaction times are a measure of their intelligence, which in turn is an indicator of their body's `system integrity' - how well it is wired together. They said:`Our results suggest that `choice' reaction time, a moderately high correlate of intelligence, is an important risk factor for death from all causes, including cardiovascular disease.'

The study, published in the respected journal Intelligence this week, is the first to look at reaction times and mortality, comparing the results with known risk factors like smoking and drinking. The authors say there is growing evidence that people with higher IQs tend to live longer and healthier lives. While this can partly be put down to differences in lifestyles because more intelligent people are less likely to smoke and be overweight, much of the gap has previously been unexplained.

The 7,414 volunteers in the study have been followed since the mid-Eighties, when their reaction times were measured with an electrical device fitted with a small screen and five numbered buttons. The volunteers had to press the matching button when a number appeared on screen. The time they took to react was measured and averages worked out. Since then, 1,289 have died, 568 of them from heart disease. The researchers then compared the reaction times, smoking habits, weight and other factors of those who had died with those who had survived.

The results showed that people with slow reactions were 2.6 times more likely to die prematurely from any cause. Smoking was the only factor linked to a larger risk of death - as it made it 3.03 times more likely. Physical exercise, blood pressure, heart rate, waist-hip ratio, alcohol consumption and body-mass index all had a lesser effect.

In deaths caused specifically by heart disease, reaction time was the most important factor after blood pressure, this time having a greater effect than smoking. The researchers said: `It has been hypothesised that reaction time, as a measure of speed of the brain's information-processing capacity, may be a marker for bodily system integrity. `This way, slower reaction times, or poorer information-processing ability, might be an indication of suboptimal physiological functioning, which may in turn be related to early death.'

SOURCE

Not too bright? Now the blame is on your father

This replicates a recent Israeli study and similar cautions apply. A social rather than a biological explanation for the finding is the most parsimonious. Older fathers will often be men who had difficulty partnering so may well be biologically unfit in various ways and low IQ could easily be one of those ways. So they pass on their low IQ to their kids in the normal genetic way (IQ is two thirds genetic). A social explanation also does best in explaining the finding with mothers. Late-marrying women are overwhelmingly middle class and hence likely to be of higher IQ. So their kids are smarter too. The QBI does not give publication lists for its members so I cannot check the original study but I doubt that he had the IQ data needed to test or control for the social explanation

Children with older fathers seem to perform worse in intelligence tests, according to a study due out this week. They tended to obtain significantly lower scores in a variety of cognitive tests than those born to younger fathers, researchers have found. The results could be controversial. Until recent years it had been thought that it was a mother's age that had most impact on the health and abilities of children. The father's age, by contrast, was thought to be much less important.

The research, led by John McGrath, of the Queensland Brain Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia, suggests such ideas need rethinking. "The offspring of older fathers show subtle impairments on tests of neurocognitive ability during infancy and childhood," he said. "In light of the trends to delay fatherhood, the clinical implications and the mechanisms underlying these findings warrant closer scrutiny."

Other research has shown linkage between advanced paternal age (men over 35) and an increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism and schizophrenia, as well as dyslexia. Such findings prompted James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, to speak of his concern. His son Rufus suffers from schizophrenia and as more is uncovered about its causes Watson has publicly questioned if he is to blame. "I worry that I was 42 with Rufus," he says. "I read that the frequency of schizophrenia goes up with the age of both parents."

The tests, designed to measure the ability to think and reason, also generated a second startling finding - that children with older mothers gain higher intelligence scores. McGrath analysed data on 33,437 Americans born between 1959 and 1965. All were tested at eight months, four years and seven. The data set, despite its age, remains one of the best resources. McGrath also used advanced statistical techniques to remove environmental influences.

For McGrath one of the key questions is the underlying biological mechanisms. One idea is that as men age the cells that produce sperm suffer increasing numbers of mutations, which are passed on to an offspring. Why, though, would children born to older mothers tend to have higher intelligence? McGrath suggests this is because women's eggs are formed when they are still in the womb and so their DNA is protected from mutation until they are used.

SOURCE




More benefits of moderate alcohol consumption

I don't know what time it is where you are right now, but as the song goes: it's five o'clock somewhere. So go ahead, have a beer! What better way to toast the good news of a new study that shows even more benefits of alcohol?

The research done at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine shows that those who have a few drinks now and then are less likely to suffer from the kinds of physical ailments that so often limit your independence later in life. 25 percent less likely, in fact.

But don't go crazy at the bar - remember, the key words are "light-to-moderate." In fact, the study also found that people who routinely cross that moderation line were actually MORE LIKELY to have physical limitations that can inhibit their independence as seniors. And so were teetotalers!

But it's nothing new that there's a plus to the moderate intake of alcohol. I've told you about lots of studies that prove the health plusses of responsible drinking. Often, this research focuses on the overall benefits of tipping a daily glass or two - things like an increased resistance to heart disease, certain cancers, and the like. There was even a study that concluded that a daily alcoholic drink may stave off age-related mental decline in women 70 and older.

Now that I've made you nice and thirsty, you're probably wondering what the exact definition of "light-to-moderate" is. This study defined it as less than 15 drinks a week - placing a maximum of five drinks per day for men, and four per day for women. One of the study co-authors explained that it's the daily consumption of at least one drink that helps to prompt alcohol's preventative benefits.

I think it's great that in this day and age where fun is being sucked out of nearly every aspect of our lives that researchers are seeking - and finding - the upsides to having a nice glass of wine, beer, or bourbon. This is the kind of research that must drive the health Nazis in this country up the wall. But the fact is, the evidence of all of these studies can't be ignored. Alcohol can be good for you. Just like coffee, another much- maligned beverage.

And to all those stuffed shirt naysayers, I'd encourage you to sit back, relax, and have a drink. it'll do you some good.

SOURCE

New guidelines say two drinks a day increases risk of death

And who do they think is going to be guided by them? This is just more rubbishy "modelling" (Translation: pretentious guesswork) based on equally pretentious epidemiological speculation. All the big Wall St firms had modellers to save them from doing risky things and look where it got them! And none of the climate models predicted that global warming would peak in 1998 and remain flat thereafter either

Two alcoholic drinks a day - the maximum recommended on a regular basis under new national health guidelines - put people at greater risk of death from alcohol than from drowning, being in a pedestrian accident or an accidental fall. The long-awaited [awaited by whom?] guidelines, released yesterday by Australia's top health advice body, warn that the health benefits of alcohol have been overstated, and that someone consuming two drinks a day has nearly one chance in 100 of dying from alcohol-induced injury or illness. That compares with a one-in-683 lifetime risk of drowning, a one-in-403 risk of being in a pedestrian accident and a one-in-125 risk of a fatal fall, the Weekend Australian reports.

World-first modelling of the health risks of alcohol shows that above two drinks a day, the dangers escalate quickly - taking drinkers closer to better-recognised dangers such as car crashes (one in 54), cancer (one in four) and heart disease (one in four).

The guidelines, published by the National Health and Medical Research Council, also recommend that adults drink no more than four drinks on any one occasion. Children and young people under 18, women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and breastfeeding mothers, are all advised to avoid alcohol altogether.

The guidelines, which halve limits set in 2001, were greeted enthusiastically yesterday by health groups. [Yea! New ammunition for dictating to others!]

Despite renewed concern from some experts that many Australians might ignore the advice, some organisations called for even tougher steps. The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation called for mandatory health warnings reflecting the new advice to be put on all alcoholic products, while the Cancer Council Australia said it would have preferred the daily drinking limit for women to be halved again, to one drink.

Jon Currie, chairman of the NHMRC committee that compiled the new advice, said the guidelines were "not telling you what you can and can't do", but were instead designed to help Australians make informed choices about health risks. He said the health benefits of alcohol had been exaggerated and that any positive effect could be achieved by consuming just one drink every two days. In addition, any benefit would affect only middle-aged and elderly people. "There is no level of drinking alcohol that can be guaranteed by scientific evidence as being completely safe," Professor Currie said. [There is no way that Prof. Currie's advice can be guaranteed as completely safe, either]

However, the guidelines have already come in for the same criticism they attracted when released in draft form in October 2007, when they were attacked by some experts as too removed from most people's experience. Alex Wodak, director of the alcohol and drug service at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, said the gap between the two-drink recommended limit and many people's habits was such that "I fear these recommendations will be dismissed by many people".

SOURCE





Common chemical found to block HIV in monkeys

A common chemical found in food and cosmetics has been shown to protect monkeys against HIV infection, raising hopes that a similar treatment can be developed for humans. A team of researchers has identified a compound that, when applied as a gel, appears to block the simian version of HIV from being transmitted between monkeys during sexual intercourse. Scientists said that the chemical, which is applied in the vagina, marked an important advance in the field of microbicides - the development of creams and gels designed to prevent HIV from infecting cells. With an Aids vaccine still decades away, there is a growing consensus that microbicides now offer the most realistic drug strategy to control the spread of the disease.

Last week The Times revealed that research into microbicides - in which Britain is a world leader - is to receive more than 90 million pounds from the Government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation over the next five years.

Aids has claimed more than 25 million lives. Of the 16,000 people around the world contracting HIV every day, the majority are infected by unprotected sex, with the greatest incidence in sub-Saharan Africa and India.

In the new study, researchers at the University of Minnesota found that glycerol monolaurate (GML) appeared to interfere with signalling processes in monkeys' immune systems, blocking SIV - the primate version of HIV - at a key stage of potential infection. When HIV enters the body, defence systems unleash a cascade of orders, dispatching so-called T cells to the site of the infection. These cells are then hijacked by the virus, enabling it to proliferate throughout the bloodstream.

Of the ten female rhesus macaque monkeys injected with SIV, none of the five treated vaginally with GML developed the infection - even after four large doses. Four of the five macaques without GML contracted the virus. The paper, published in the journal Nature, concludes that GML breaks a "vicious cycle" of immune-system signalling and inflammatory response in the cervix and vagina. "This result represents a highly encouraging new lead in the search for an effective microbicide to prevent transmission that meets the criteria of safety, affordability and efficacy," the authors said.

Ashley Haase, the lead researcher, said that a long road lay ahead before the microbicide could be verified as safe and effective for humans but hailed the findings. "If GML as a topical microbicide can add to our prevention, it could contribute to saving millions of lives," he said. "Even though it sounds counter-intuitive, halting the body's natural defence system might actually prevent the transmission and rapid spread of the infection."

GML exists naturally in the human body and is already licensed for use in cosmetics and toiletries and as an emulsifier in foods. Each dose of GML used in the experiment cost less than a penny.

Today's paper follows results from a preliminary trial, released last month, which suggest that another gel, PRO2000, may reduce the chances of women contracting HIV by a third. The findings - the first positive results for a microbicide - raise the prospects of success for a second, larger, trial of the same drug, run by Imperial College London, which is due to finish in August.

Describing the new monkey research as exciting, Professor Andrew McMichael, director of the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, said: "This is an inexpensive compound that could be used in humans and clinical trials are very likely to follow."

Dr Adriano Boasso, research fellow at Imperial, urged caution. "This treatment was tested on a relatively small number of animals and several years of research are still needed to determine whether this approach will eventually develop into a prospective preventive drug," he said.

SOURCE

Fruit juice with added goodness may be bad

FRUIT juices containing added extras such as herbal supplements or antioxidants do not have significant health benefits and may actually be harmful to some people, Australia's leading consumer group says. An investigation by Choice has found juice with extras such as aloe vera, echinacea, ginkgo, ginseng, spirulina, barley grass and wheat grass did not contain enough of the extracts to have any meaningful health impact.

Choice spokesman Christopher Zinn said the low levels could actually be an advantage because some extracts at higher doses were not necessarily safe. He said gingko could interfere with other medications such as anticoagulants while anyone suffering high blood pressure should take ginseng only in small doses and pregnant women should not take it at all. "In our view the use of medicinal herbs in products like juices should be banned unless specific approval is given after a proper safety assessment, an idea which our food regulator has abandoned," he said.

Juices promoting extra antioxidants were also a concern, with no evidence that taking antioxidants as a supplement provided any preventative benefit for cancer or heart disease. "Apple juice has only 14 per cent of the antioxidant capacity you'd get from actually eating an apple," he said. "The juice market is rife with claims which are not matched by reality and it's often best to stick to the whole fruit or vegetable."

Mr Zinn said the juices with added extras were also more expensive than those without. "Many of the products, which go by names such as Kickstart, Energy Lift and Green Recovery, are mostly inexpensive apple juice with a few added extras," he said. One juice from Berri which claimed to contain "over 30 per cent of your daily needs" of omega-3 fats in fact contained only eight per cent of the Heart Foundation's recommended daily dose for men, he said.

SOURCE






How a simple injection could halt diabetes in children

A jab to prevent children developing diabetes came a step closer last night following a British breakthrough. Studies show a common tummy bug is strongly linked to childhood diabetes, which can shorten life and lead to blindness, heart disease, kidney failure and amputation. The findings could lead to a vaccine that would protect against the bug and 'drastically reduce' the prevalence of childhood, or type 1, diabetes.

The studies focused on enteroviruses - a family of more than 100 bugs that cause vomiting, diarrhoea and cold symptoms. The first showed that enterovirus infection of the pancreas is much more common in children with type 1 diabetes than those without. Researchers from the University of Brighton, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, and the Peninsula Medical School in the South West of England found that more than 60 per cent of diabetic pancreases studied had traces of the bug. But it was hardly spotted in those without the disease, the journal Diabetologia reports.

The finding suggests infection plays a key role in the development of the disease. It is thought that enteroviruses trigger a rogue immune response that destroys insulin-producing cells in the pancreas in those genetically vulnerable to diabetes. Further work on the role of enteroviruses could lead to the development of a jab which would 'drastically reduce' the number of people developing diabetes, said the researchers. Type 1 diabetes affects around 300,000 in the UK, including 20,000 children under 15.

Professor Adrian Bone, of Brighton, said: 'There has been a lot of evidence about peaks of diabetes following outbreaks of viral infections but this is the first direct link. 'What nobody else is done is put the viruses at the scene of the crime. It is extremely exciting. 'If you can narrow it down to a specific virus or small family of viruses, then you are in the business when it comes to developing vaccines.'

Professor Noel Morgan, of the Peninsula school, said: 'The next stages - to identify which viruses are involved, how cells are changed by infection and the ultimate goal to develop a vaccine - will lead to findings which we hope will drastically reduce the number of people around the world who develop type 1 diabetes.'

Dr Alan Foulis, of Glasgow, said: 'With 250,000 sufferers, the idea of a vaccine and being able to prevent this disease would be my life's work.'

A second study, by Cambridge University, has linked a gene called IFIH1, type 1 diabetes and enteroviruses, the journal Science reports. Karen Addington, of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, said the studies would give fresh hope to those with type 1 diabetes. She added: 'This life-threatening condition requires a lifetime of painful blood tests and insulin injections. Incidences are increasing by four per cent each year. Research such as this brings us closer to curing this condition.'

Dr Iain Frame, of the charity Diabetes UK, said: 'The next steps to identify the viruses and find out what they are doing to the infected cells will be hugely exciting and will take us a step closer to preventing type 1 diabetes.'

SOURCE