Paracetamol causes liver damage

Aspirin used to be the first-choice analgesic but it tends to promote bleeding so paracetamol became the new religion. I wonder what the next religion will be now? That any drug that does anything also has side effects is a REAL "inconvenient truth". I have always stuck with aspirin, myself. Its ratio of benefit to risk is huge

PARACETAMOL, the drug commonly found in headache tablets, has surpassed hepatitis and alcohol to become the most common cause of liver failure in Australia. Doctors are being urged to exercise caution when prescribing paracetamol following cases of patients suffering accidental poisoning after taking only the recommended dose of the painkiller, often sold under the brand Panadol.

A report published in The Medical Journal of Australia found people who didn't eat enough, drank a lot of alcohol or took certain medications were vulnerable to toxic effects from paracetamol. Elderly people with kidney or heart and lung problems may also be at increased risk. "Accidental paracetamol poisoning should be suspected in any patient with acute liver failure," the report said. "Clinicians should be cautious about prescribing regular doses of paracetamol for pain control in malnourished or fasting patients, and need to counsel patients who are regular users of the drug." Healthy people are usually able to metabolise paracetamol, most of which is excreted from the body in urine. But the drug can accumulate in people with risk factors, rendering even a normal dose toxic.

The Accidental Paracetamol Poisoning report, compiled by experts from Austin Health in Victoria, describes the case of a 45-year-old Australian woman who died from liver failure. She was taking paracetamol for abdominal pain after having a hysterectomy and suffering complications. Her eating had been poor because of pain, vomiting and treatment. "The patient ... was noted to be displaying odd behaviour," the record states. "The following morning she became increasingly confused and drowsy. "She was admitted to the intensive-care unit, where her conscious state deteriorated rapidly and she required intubation." The woman was transferred to a liver transplant unit but died before a donor organ became available. A post-mortem examination found a toxic level of paracetamol in her body.

Hepatitis and alcoholism is another major cause of acute liver failure. Parents are warned not to give children painkillers unless they have high fever or severe pain. Dr David Thomas, pediatric spokesman for the Australian Medical Association, said: "Paracetamol and ibuprofen are drugs - they aren't without risks or side-effects

Source





Another stupid birthday cake ban

Why not ban milk? It is highly calorific. No-one even THINKS of offering any evidence that the cake ban will make anyone slimmer, of course. Who needs evidence when you KNOW?

[NSW] schools are banning students from bringing birthday cakes to class in an effort to curb unhealthy eating habits. They say the no-cake policy will also help reduce the risk of allergic reactions among students, such as the potentially fatal anaphylaxis that can be triggered by peanuts. The move follows a crackdown on junk food in most school canteens that has involved a ban on items such as chips and soft drinks.

Cranbrook School's junior school is among the first to ask pupils not to bring birthday cakes, also requesting that parents do not send in other types of celebratory treats. Its new "nutritious food and beverage" policy also encourages parents to provide healthy school lunches and covers food eaten while on school camps and excursions. Pupils are discouraged from bringing sports or carbonated drinks. The junior school's latest newsletter to parents says: "There are many other enjoyable ways for the boys to celebrate their friends' birthdays at school and we will be exploring these instead. The boys can always enjoy a birthday cake with family and friends outside of school time." Junior school head Michael Dunn said the policy would come into effect at the start of the new term. He said that, as well as being health-conscious, the policy showed respect for children with allergies. Some Sydney preschools have already introduced a strict no-cake policy, as well as lunch-box inspections, to ensure children do not eat junk food during the day.

"This could be something that is going to become bigger," NSW Parents and Citizens Federation president Di Giblin said. "If you have got 30 children, you have got 30 birthday cakes coming through. "We have got to acknowledge that it's a treat, and part of healthy eating is a balance and choice, so while we understand it is a celebration, we can do it in a way that is healthy."

Tina Jackson said an all-out ban on birthday cakes at school seemed too strong. At Mosman Public, attended by her year 2 daughter Angelica, pupils can bring cakes but smaller-sized treats are recommended. "The school does prefer that you give cupcakes," Ms Jackson, executive director of the National Trust of Australia, said. "The kids so enjoy having the cupcakes and it makes the day really special. A ban does seem a bit harsh." She said there had been efforts to ensure the school canteen offered healthy options.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

New prostate treatment

Seattle-based biotech Dendreon is hoping to get U.S. approval for the first cancer drug that would train the body to fight off cancer on its own, with few side effects. But researchers, statisticians and Wall Street analysts are fiercely debating whether there is enough data about this radical new treatment.

Dendreon's Provenge is a so-called cancer vaccine. Researchers prefer the term immunotherapy because it would treat, not prevent, cancer. A personalized drug, composed of human immune system cells, is created for each patient; the idea is to give the immune system the tools it needs to fight off the disease.

On Thursday, a panel of experts convened by the Food and Drug Administration will debate whether the drug is ready to be marketed. The FDA often follows the recommendation of such panels, but it doesn't have to. Already, briefing documents have been posted saying that the drug seems very safe--although there is a worry of stroke--and reviewing the arguments about whether or not it is effective at prolonging patients' lives.

Why is there any question at all? When researchers run a clinical study, they define a specific goal. For instance, that drug will extend life over a prespecified time or prevent tumors from growing compared to a placebo. The whole study is designed around this goal. If the trial falls short, its results can only be used to generate new questions, not to draw scientific conclusions.

Provenge has failed in both of its main studies--but it seems to help patients live longer. The clinical trials tested the drug in a relatively small number of cases, with only 127 men in the main study who showed a benefit. But survival was extended four months for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Statistical rules aside, Provenge fans say, survival is awfully hard to fake, and desperate metastatic prostate cancer patients who would get Provenge have only one drug, the chemotherapy Taxotere, at their disposal. The Taxotere drug, made by Sanofi-Aventis, has many unpleasant and dangerous side effects.

The data has convinced some who were skeptical that Provenge may have merit. Philip Kantoff, a urological oncologist at Harvard Medical School and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, is conducting a big clinical trial that should firmly establish whether and how much Provenge helps patients. He has consulted with Dendreon. For a long time, he was one of Provenge's doubters. "I thought the concept was too simplistic for belief," Kantoff says. "I didn't think it had a snowball's chance in hell of working."

But the data showing the drug increases survival has made him cautiously optimistic. "I'm still skeptical, but I think there's something going on here," he says. His doubts rest mainly on the fact that results were small. "If this were a much larger study, to me this would be a slam dunk."

Kantoff says that if the drug were approved, he would probably prescribe it. So far Provenge seems mostly to cause flu-like symptoms, but FDA reviewers note there may also be an increased risk of stroke. If the medicine is fairly safe and might be effective, why not offer it to patients?

David Penson, a urologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine, has also gone from being a doubter to an investigator in a Provenge clinical trial and a consultant for Dendreon (he says he has received less than $10,000 in fees). "When they first released their data, they had to massage some data to show a clinical difference," he says. Dendreon's first study showed efficacy only in less-sick patients.

Colleagues convinced Penson to give Provenge a try in clinical trials, and he was impressed. He remembers one patient, a doctor, who went from being wasted and fatigued from his metastatic prostate cancer to being able to play golf again. Patients don't care if a drug meets the original primary endpoint of Dendreon's study, an improvement in X-rays, says Penson. "All they care about is living longer."

This is the argument at the heart of the case for Provenge. Neal Shore, medical director of the Carolina Research Center, says rejecting Provenge now would be "grossly unfair to the patients who have no other options but to enter clinical trials." Shore argues that "a lot of people will end up dying" before bigger clinical trials could show a benefit.

But there are other issues at play. Once a drug is approved, other medicines can get on the market by proving they are better. If an ineffective drug slips through, that could open the door to other less effective medicines. Another worry is that the benefit of Provenge might be real but less robust than it appears. Because larger issues are at play, this is exactly the kind of situation in which the FDA might go against the decision of an advisory panel. Even if Dendreon has a great day on Thursday, the company won't be home free.

Source






Pesky! Top nutritious choice is in the can



CHALLENGING a long-held belief, a Choice study has found that canned and frozen vegetables can be more nutritious than their fresh counterparts. The consumer magazine tested frozen, canned, week-old and fresh vegetables, both cooked and uncooked, for the contents of certain nutrients. With the exception of broccoli, all canned and frozen vegetables tested contained more or equal percentages of vitamins and anti-oxidants.

"Frozen English spinach was more nutritious than cooked fresh spinach," Choice spokeswoman Indira Naidoo said. Canned tomatoes contained about five times more lycopine, which is believed to prevent heart diseases and prostate cancer, than fresh ones. Accordingly, canned green beans and carrots were more nutritious than their fresh counterparts, and there was little difference between canned and fresh corn.

The vegetables were purchased in Melbourne, but University of Queensland expert Mike Gidley said he would not expect different results for vegetables bought in a Queensland supermarket. "Absolutely fresh is the most nutritious," the director of Centre for Nutrition and Food Sciences said. "But what we call fresh has often taken a long time to get from the field to the supermarket."

New technologies made it possible to keep these vegetables looking fresh for weeks, Choice states. Frozen and canned vegetables, in contrast, are often processed directly after being picked. When buying canned vegetables, consumers may face another problem. Choice claims it is very difficult for Australian consumers "to compare the true cost of prices". Cans in different sizes have different prices, and sometimes bigger cans or packets are not the cheapest option as one might believe, Choice states.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Germans claim Alzheimer's toxin breakthrough

GERMAN researchers claim they have found a way of blocking the formation of a toxin blamed for the onset of Alzheimer's disease. The researchers from the chemistry department at Berlin's Free University said the discovery could prove useful in the development of medicines to combat the fatal brain disease.

Biochemist Gerd Multhaup said his team had largely managed to inhibit the formation of Amyloid-Beta Asse42, which destroys nerve cells and plays a key role in the onset of Alzheimer's. They have patented the technique which subverts the formation of the toxin, he said.

The group's findings will be published in The Embo Journal science review at the end of April. There is currently no cure for Alzheimer's but there are medicines aimed at mitigating the effects of the debilitating disease.

Source




Big blow for cholesterol theory

Pfizer spent more than $900 million testing its experimental heart pill, torcetrapib. But in December a 15,000-patient study revealed that this chemical increased death rates, forcing Pfizer to suddenly drop the project. What went wrong? Why torcetrapib failed is the biggest mystery facing the $260 billion global pharmaceutical industry, which has spent years in a research dry spell. On paper, torcetrapib looked like a winner. It boosted levels of good cholesterol, known as HDL, by 50%. It cut bad cholesterol, or LDL, by 20% on top of existing meds like Pfizer's Lipitor. Pfizer had hoped that would lead to a wave of new good-cholesterol-raising drugs that could reduce heart attack rates far beyond what Lipitor can do alone.

But the terrible results have thrown the whole concept of raising HDL via drugs into turmoil. Here at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), researchers unveiled results of new studies that examined the neck and coronary arteries of patients on the drug using ultrasound imaging. They showed Pfizer's pill did nothing to clear out clogged arteries as had been hoped.

One study used a technique that peers directly inside the coronary arteries using a catheter. It found the drug raise blood pressure by 4.6 points, far more than expected. Two other ultrasound studies even hinted that torcetrapib might have made plaque buildup in the carotid artery in the neck worse. These murky results may not stop other drug companies from testing HDL boosters, but they will significantly delay the development of those drugs. For the foreseeable future, doctors will probably be forced to refocus on getting bad cholesterol down as far as they can. Other HDL-boosting drugs presented at the meeting also failed or yielded mixed results. An Eli Lilly pill to raise HDL and cut triglycerides, or particles of fat in the blood, proved no more effective than older drugs and were potentially dangerous. A method of injecting HDL into patients' veins, developed by Australian flu-shot-maker CSL Limited, failed to confirm the promise of a similar experiment three years ago, although it did hint that the medicine might clear arteries some.

The torcetrapib mystery is deepened because data from the big 15,000-patient trial are not yet available. Study head Philip Barter of the University of Sydney told an overflow crowd at the meeting that it would be the early fall before results of that trial can be fully analyzed to see what went wrong. "Nothing is being hidden," he said. "We still just do not know" what happened. Pfizer Senior Vice President Michael Berelowitz said Pfizer is exhaustively reviewing "every element" of the patient data to figure out what happened.

Cleveland Clinic cardiologist and ACC head Steven Nissen, who conducted one of the ultrasound studies, says there are three possible explanations of how torcetrapib went awry. One is that torcetrapib produced HDL that did not work properly. Another is that the blood pressure side effect made the drug toxic. Experts who still hold out hope for such medicines are betting on a third possibility. The drug might have caused some nasty damage to blood vessel walls, and the increased blood pressure was just a consequence of this more severe damage. The drug "was obviously toxic. It may be doing something bad to blood vessels, and the blood pressure is just a manifestation," Nissen said.

The Pfizer drug worked by blocking the cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP), and there has long been a controversy among cardiologists whether this approach to raising good cholesterol would be beneficial. If so, then it would mean that similar CETP-blocking drugs in development at Merck and Roche Holding are highly unlikely to work.

But some experts say it's at least possible that the drug's problems were caused by strange side effects linked to torcetrapib's tendency to raise blood pressure. "I realize that it is proposing a lot," says Daniel Rader of the University of Pennsylvania, "but I do think it is possible." He thinks other companies should cautiously continue to test their HDL-raisers. John Kastelein of the University of Amsterdam, who conducted two of the imaging studies, says it is still possible other CETP inhibitors like those from Merck and Roche might work.

With two big studies indicating no positive effect on arteries, "it starts to increase the evidence that this may not have been a good idea at all, and that the whole concept is just not the right approach," says Baylor College of Medicine cardiologist Christie Ballantyne, who noted that there had long been "a major debate" about whether CETP inhibitors could work.

The genetic evidence about CETP inhibitors was always murky, says Evan Stein, director of the Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center in Cincinnati. He says doctors should focus as much as possible on reducing bad cholesterol, which has proven benefits.

Nissen argues that the potential of CETP inhibitors is too great to abandon, even given the risks. But he says that the failure of torcetrapib is a setback that will cost drug developers many years. "You cannot kill the whole class just because the first drug has an unusual toxicity," he says.

Experts agree that to test new HDL-boosters or other drugs designed to prevent or reverse the build-up of artery plaque, drug companies are going to have to take a much more cautious approach. Pfizer plunged ahead with all its studies at once. Now drug companies will have to do imaging studies like those conducted by Kastelein and Nissen first, before plunging into larger, more definitive trials. These take at least three years.

Allen J. Taylor, chief of cardiology at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, says it is "reassuring" that imaging studies were consistent with the large torcetrapib trial and would have prevented torcetrapib from being developed if they were done first. But Pfizer's Berelowitz warns he would derive "no certainty" based on imaging studies, given that they have not always delivered clear results.

For the moment, doctors who are treating heart disease may find themselves going back to the future. They will treat bad cholesterol as well as they can with medicines like Lipitor and Zocor, which have been around since the introduction of Merck's Mevacor 20 years ago. HDL-boosting drugs are "not ready for prime time," says Sanjay Kaul, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. He believes that developing HDL drugs is going to be a long and difficult road. "The next 10 to 15 years will be a fertile time for research on HDL. And sooner or later we will get there."

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Australia's folate battle

That folate is bad for the elderly does not matter, of course. Let them eat cake!



The humble loaf of bread has become the meat in the sandwich, as health experts and food authorities slug it out over whether our staple food should be put on medication. Now the big manufacturers have entered the bun fight, releasing to the Herald a white paper on why the industry will fight the Government over its plan to introduce synthetic folate into our daily bread. On Monday, Food Standards Australia New Zealand put its final paper up for industry discussion on why mandatory folic acid fortification of the flour used exclusively for bread was needed to cut down the number of neural tube birth defects such as spina bifida.

But George Weston Foods and Goodman Fielder, with backing from the Australian Food and Grocery Council, have amassed a wealth of reasons why mandatory fortification is a bad idea. The industry is raising concerns over the risks to the general population in "medicating the food supply", including cancer scares, and are arguing that there are far more effective means of reducing birth defects than adding 200 micrograms of folic acid to every loaf of bread they produce.

Both sides agree that mandatory fortification would not protect the section of population targeted - women planning to get pregnant and those in the early stages of pregnancy. They would still have to take a folic acid supplement to guard against spina bifida. The bread industry claims that for pregnant women to protect themselves, they would need to eat between 10 and 18 slices of bread per day.

But the food standards agency, which has the support of the Australian Medical Association, is arguing that in the US long-term fortification has shown a marked decrease in the incidence of spina bifida. And while pregnant women would still have to take a supplement, the fortification of bread would act as a "safety net". However, Dr Rosemary Stanton, a nutritionist, opposes the Government move, comparing adding folic acid to bread to "adding vitamins to lollies". "It's just giving people another excuse not to eat fruit and vegetables," she said.

Source





Quarantine rediscovered

Similar measures might have prevented the spread of AIDS. But we must not be nasty to homosexuals, must we? Better to let them die! That's just the sort of values we expect from the morally incoherent Left

Behind the county hospital's tall cinderblock walls, a 27-year-old tuberculosis patient sits in a jail cell equipped with a ventilation system that keeps germs from escaping. Robert Daniels has been locked up indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of his life, since last July. But he has not been charged with a crime. Instead, he suffers from an extensively drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis, or XDR-TB. It is considered virtually untreatable. County health authorities obtained a court order to lock him up as a danger to the public because he failed to take precautions to avoid infecting others. Specifically, he said he did not heed doctors' instructions to wear a mask in public.

"I'm being treated worse than an inmate," Daniels said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press last month. "I'm all alone. Four walls. Even the door to my room has been locked. I haven't seen my reflection in months." Though Daniels' confinement is extremely rare, health experts say it is a situation that U.S. public health officials may have to confront more and more because of the spread of drug-resistant TB and the emergence of diseases such as SARS and avian flu in this increasingly interconnected world.

"Even though the rate of TB in the U.S. is at the lowest ever this last year, we live in a globalized world where, if anything emerges anywhere, it could come to our country right away," said Mark Harrington, executive director of the Treatment Action Group, an American advocacy group.

The World Health Organization warned last year of the emergence of extensively drug-resistant TB. The new strain, which has been found throughout the world, including pockets of the former Soviet Union and Asia, is resistant not only to the first line of TB drugs but to some second-line antibiotics as well. HIV patients with weakened immune systems are especially susceptible. In South Africa, WHO reported that 52 of 53 HIV patients died within an average of 25 days after it was discovered they also had XDR-TB.

How to deal with people infected with the new strain is a matter of debate. Dr. Ross Upshur, director of the Joint Centre for Bioethics at the University of Toronto, said authorities should detain people with drug-resistant tuberculosis if they are uncooperative. "We're on the verge of taking what was a curable disease, one of the best known diseases in human endeavors, and making it incurable," Upshur said. But a paper Upshur co-wrote on the issue in a medical journal earlier this year has been strongly criticized. "Involuntary detention should really be your last resort," Harrington said. "There's a danger that we'll end up blaming the victim."

In the United States, which had a total of 13,767 reported cases of tuberculosis in 2006, public health authorities only rarely have put TB patients under lock and key. Texas has placed 17 tuberculosis patients into an involuntary quarantine facility this year in San Antonio. Public health authorities in California said they have no TB patients in custody this year, though four were detained there last year.

Upshur's paper noted that New York City forced TB patients into detention following an outbreak in the 1990s, and saw a significant dip in cases. In the Phoenix area, only one other person has been detained in the past year, said Dr. Robert England, Maricopa County's tuberculosis control officer.

Daniels has been living alone in a four-bed cell in Ward 41, a section of the hospital reserved for sick criminals. He said sheriff's deputies will not let him take a shower -- he cleans himself with wet wipes -- and have taken away his television, radio, personal phone and computer. His only visitors are masked medical staff members who come in to give him his medication. The ventilation system draws out the air and filters it to capture the bacteria-laden droplets he expels when he coughs. The filters are periodically burned. Daniels said he is taking medication and feeling a lot better. His lawyer would not discuss his prognosis. Daniels plans to ask for his release at a court hearing late this month. Daniels lived in Russia for 15 years and returned to the United States last year after he was diagnosed. He said he thought he would get better treatment here, and hoped eventually to bring his wife and children from Russia. He said he briefly worked in an office in Arizona for a chemical company before he was put away. He said that he lost 50 pounds and was constantly coughing and that authorities locked him up after they discovered he had walked into a convenience store without a mask. "Where I come from, the doctors don't wear masks," he said. "Plus, I was 26 years old, you know. Nobody told me how TB works and stuff."

County health officials and Daniels' lawyer, Robert Blecher, would not discuss details of the case. But in general, England said the county would not force someone into quarantine unless the patient could not or would not follow doctor's orders. "It's very uncommon that someone would both not want to take treatment and will willingly put others at risk," England said. "It's only those very uncommon incidents where we have to use legal authority through the courts to isolate somebody."

University of Pennsylvania medical ethicist Art Caplan said Maricopa County health officials were confronted with the same ethical dilemma that communities wrestled with generations ago when dealing with leprosy and smallpox. "Drug-resistant TB, or drug-resistant staph infections, or pandemic flu will raise these questions again," Caplan said. "We may find ourselves dipping into our history to answer them." Daniels said he realizes now that he endangered the public. But "I thought I'd come to a country where I'd finally be treated like a person, and bam, here I am."

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Red meat seems to increase breast cancer risk -- but does it?

This seems to be a comparison of meat-eaters with vegetarians. That vegetarians suffer fewer adverse outcomes could be due to many factors -- reduced total calorie intake, greater care about lifestyle etc. Making meat consumption the cause rather than a marker goes beyond the evidence

EATING even small amounts of red meat can greatly increase a woman's risk of breast cancer, according to a study published today. Post-menopausal women who ate large amounts (more than 103 grams) of processed meat a day could be 64 per cent more likely to suffer the disease, while the researchers found as little as 57g of beef, pork or lamb a day showed an effect. Even younger women faced a slightly raised risk if they ate red meat every day, according to the study which appears in the British Journal of Cancer.

The study, led by Professor Janet Cade of the University of Leeds, involved studying the diets of 35,000 women aged between 35 and 69 for eight years. The research states: "Women, both pre and post-menopausal, who consumed the most meat had the highest risk of breast cancer. "Women generally consuming most total meat, red and processed meat were at the highest increased risk compared with non-meat consumers."

The women completed 217-item food questionnaires and were divided into three groups depending on whether they were low, medium or high meat-eaters. They were compared with women in the study who were vegetarian and researchers also took into account smoking, weight, fruit and vegetable intake, education, age and use of hormone replacement therapy.

Professor Cade told Britain's Daily Telegraph: "The findings are robust. Whatever we adjusted the data for we could find an association. "Really, these results could apply to all women. At home I have cut down on the amount of red meat we eat as a family a week. "I am not suggesting that everyone should become a vegetarian, that would be unrealistic, but the findings were strong and I think we should pay attention to them."

But the study was dismissed as "rubbish" by Sandy Crombie, chairman of the Scottish region of The Guild of Q Butchers, who pointed out that 56g of meat was roughly half a quarter-pound burger. He told the newspaper: "Two ounces (57g) is absolutely tiny. I have never heard such rubbish, it's a tiny amount. "This is ridiculous, it's silly, it's barely worth talking about."

Source

Abstract from the British Journal of Cancer (2007) 96, 1139-1146 follows:

Meat consumption and risk of breast cancer in the UK Women's Cohort Study

E F Taylor et al.

We performed a survival analysis to assess the effect of meat consumption and meat type on the risk of breast cancer in the UK Women's Cohort Study. Between 1995 and 1998 a cohort of 35 372 women was recruited, aged between 35 and 69 years with a wide range of dietary intakes, assessed by a 217-item food frequency questionnaire. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox regression adjusted for known confounders. High consumption of total meat compared with none was associated with premenopausal breast cancer, HR=1.20 (95% CI: 0.86-1.68), and high non-processed meat intake compared with none, HR=1.20 (95% CI: 0.86-1.68). Larger effect sizes were found in postmenopausal women for all meat types, with significant associations with total, processed and red meat consumption. Processed meat showed the strongest HR=1.64 (95% CI: 1.14-2.37) for high consumption compared with none. Women, both pre- and postmenopausal, who consumed the most meat had the highest risk of breast cancer.





Telling toxic tales about GM food

A Greenpeace-financed study claims GM corn is bad for us. Why did the media swallow it?

Another month, another GM-crop scare. `Monsanto Corn Allegedly Toxic,' read the headline in Red Herring. The Daily Mail faithfully parroted the Greenpeace scare-line that `GM corn "could cause liver and kidney damage".' But this story demonstrates nothing more than the ability of the anti-biotech campaigners at Greenpeace to manipulate the media. In turn, several media outlets have demonstrated their willingness to unquestioningly accept the agenda of a political pressure group when it fits in with their own long-running paranoia about what big business is doing to our food.

The concocted controversy is over the supposed dangers posed by a variety of biotech corn that has been safely grown in the US and Canada since 2003, and safely consumed for three years there, and Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Russia, the Philippines, and Mexico. The allegations (technically, they're more innuendo than specific allegation) are made in a peer-reviewed paper in the May issue of Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. But this is all old non-news.

European safety authorities approved the corn, called MON863, for import, feed, and processing in 2005 and again in 2006. Sold under the name YieldGard Rootworm, it reduces the need to spray insecticides with an organic-approved protein that is safe for fish, birds, mammals, and people.

Greenpeace didn't like the European approval, so they sued in order to get access to the data used to make those decisions. After getting the data, they paid a group of researchers at the University of Caen to `re-evaluate' it. Not surprisingly, given their near-religious opposition to agricultural biotechnology, the Greenpeace-paid group says the data show `signs of toxicity'. `Our counter-evaluation show that there are signs of toxicity and that nobody can say scientifically and seriously that consumption of the transgenic maize MON863 is safe and good for health,' lead author of the study, Professor Gilles Eric Seralini, told France's TF1 television station.

Sounds scary, right? But it's not. Even after applying an overly `sciency' thicket of statistical gimmickry, all that they show is that there is variation among rats - normal variation like you would find in any group of people. None of the findings are in any way alarming or out of the range of normal variability. As Andrew Apel at AgBioView notes: `In a nutshell, the Greenpeace-backed reinterpretation rests on data which show statistically significant differences in serum protein values or triglycerides mainly in rats fed low doses of MON863, but not in rats fed high doses of the corn. It's generally thought that the dose makes the poison, but in this case high doses showed no discernible effects. Does this truly reveal, as the title of the new paper suggests, "Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity?" The authors of the paper attempt to explain this by saying, cryptically, "This sex- and dose-related effect resulted in the fact that the growth variations of the 11 per cent GMO males are highly statistically lower [emphasis added] than their controls, and 33 per cent-GM-fed females higher."'

However you'd like to interpret that, it remains the case that scientists evaluating MON863 rat studies have consistently found the variations occurred randomly, were generally of small magnitude, and were within the normal range for laboratory rats. The fully-accountable food safety scientists of more than a dozen governments have approved this corn after exhaustive safety evaluation. These public servant-scientists have staked their jobs and reputations on the integrity and accuracy of their safety approvals. If something goes wrong, they will be the ones who will be called upon to explain their decisions.

Greenpeace wants us to ignore these dozens and dozens of expert scientists in favour of the self-serving `counter evaluation' of raw data by three scientists who claim to see `disturbed' livers and kidneys where dozens of others see only normal variation. The European Food Safety Authority has announced they will give the report a thorough read. Then I hope they will escort it, tout suite, into the `circular file', aka the bin!

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Wacky idea

I expected the date of the article below to be April 1, but it wasn't! There are any number of isotopes. Are they all the same? If this were serious science at least the class of isotopes would have been identified. As it is, it looks like just another bit of pseudo-scientific health-nuttery

Indulging in an isotope-enhanced steak or chicken fillet every now and again could add as much as 10 years to your life. Scientists have shown for the first time that food enriched with natural isotopes builds bodily components that are more resistant to the processes of ageing. The concept has been demonstrated in worms and researchers hope that the same concept can help extend human life and reduce the risk of cancer and other diseases of ageing, reports Marina Murphy in Chemistry & Industry, the magazine of the SCI.

A team led by Mikhail Shchepinov, formerly of Oxford University, fed nematode worms nutrients reinforced with natural isotopes (naturally occurring atomic variations of elements). In initial experiments, worms' life spans were extended by 10%, which, with humans expected to routinely coast close to the centenary, could add a further 10 years to human life.

Food enhanced with isotopes is thought to produce bodily constituents and DNA more resistant to detrimental processes, like free radical attack. The isotopes replace atoms in susceptible bonds making these bonds stronger. 'Because these bonds are so much more stable, it should be possible to slow down the process of oxidation and ageing,' Shchepinov says.

The isotopes could be used in animal feed so that humans could get the "age-defying" isotopes indirectly in steaks or chicken fillets, for example, rather than eating chemically enhanced products themselves. Shchepinov says an occasional top-up would be sufficient to have a beneficial effect.

Ageing experts are impressed with the isotopic approach. Aubrey de Grey, the Cambridge-based gerontologist, says it could be very relevant to the rates of several chemical and enzymatic processes relevant to ageing 'It is a highly novel idea,' he says. 'But it remains to be seen whether it can be the source of practicable therapies, but it is a prospect that certainly cannot be ruled out.'

Charles Cantor, a professor of biomechanical engineering at Boston University, said: 'Preliminary data indicates that this approach can potentially increase lifespan without adverse side effects. If this is borne out by further experiments the implications are profound.'

Isotopes could also be used in pet food or as a means to protect workers or soldiers from radiation. Deuterium, a natural isotope of hydrogen (with one proton and on neutron rather than just one proton) could be used routinely. Previous successes in extending lifespan have involved withdrawing food to the point of near starvation, a process called caloric restriction.

Source






Plastic panic

It started innocently. A mother on my local parenting email list here in New York asked a question about weaning her baby from the pacifier. Moms and dads in my neck of the woods are a good natured lot and soon began a lively exchange of war stories, of pacifiers lost on long haul flights, of binkies exchanged for coins by the `pacifier fairy' and how the dentist says they rarely affect teeth, so one shouldn't worry. And then someone, half in jest, mentioned that she had read somewhere that pacifiers cause attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and wasn't that just absurd? Debate and speculations ensued: `It was the plastic ones'; `No, the rubber ones'; `They don't make that kind any more'; `What about the silicon ones?'; `Actually the real threat is plastic baby bottles'.

The story emerged in the form of cut-and-paste quotations with links to articles on the internet and went something like this: When plastic containers are heated, they break down, leaching a dangerous toxic chemical into the foods stored in them. The nasty chemical, bisphenol-A (BPA), supposedly mimics the effects of the hormone estrogen causing cancers, impaired immune function, premature puberty, obesity, diabetes and ADHD.

By coincidence a new study from the Environmental California Research and Policy Center purported to show that the levels of BPA leaching from baby bottles were far higher than previously reported and recommended 11 `simple and easy changes' to help parents avoid exposing their children to toxic chemicals, including: avoiding canned goods and foods wrapped in plastics, buying aluminium or stainless steel sippy cups, selecting only plastics displaying the numbers one, two or five in the triangular recycling symbol on their undersides, while avoiding those displaying the number three (number four was not mentioned) and never allowing children to put plastic toys in their mouths.

And then things got a little torturous. It seems there are only a few local places that sell aluminium-lined sippy cups. Glass baby bottles, though aesthetically pleasing, are heavy and breakable. And it's all a bit pricey. One woman got prepared to throw out every last plastic cup, plate and utensil. In the playground, parents joked nervously about the damage already sustained over months of wanton plastic gnawing. Scary stuff - if it was true. Except that the evidence was as flimsy as the wrapper on a juice box straw.

This particular scare traces its roots back to a 1998 study by Frederick von Saal, a researcher and environmental activist at the University of Missouri-Columbia. His work with mice exposed to low levels of BPA seemed to show side effects including the early onset of puberty in female mice and increased prostate weight in males.

The study caused some initial concern, but so far no other peer-reviewed study has been able to replicate von Saal's results. Scientists commissioned by the Food and Drug Administration, the European Community and the Japanese Ministry of Health have all tried and failed. Finally, last year, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis released its report reviewing the studies of BPA and found that there is `no consistent affirmative evidence of low-dose BPA effects for any endpoint'. (2) Among the inconsistencies they pointed to were: the effects seen in mice don't occur in rats; effects seen in small numbers of mice aren't observed in studies of larger numbers of mice; no studies have been done on animals more closely related to human beings; human exposure to BPA is typically significantly lower than even the low levels used in lab experiments on rodents. Furthermore, they pointed out that while estrogen and BPA share some similar properties, they aren't exactly the same; large doses of the hormone estrogen, for instance, have been shown to cause cancer, while large doses of BPA do not.

You might think this information, coupled with the fact that many of today's parents used plastic containers throughout their own childhoods with no apparent ill effects would be reassuring enough. But parents don't get off that easily. `It's all about exposure over time', one mother explained. `There is no way, in our society, to completely protect ourselves or our children against the dangerous toxins in plastics, cleaning products, pesticides etc. So my attitude is: do what you can, but don't make yourself nuts.' And yet, the hyper-awareness of risk that has come to define parenting today seems uniquely suited to accomplish just that....

And while it might be tempting to label New Yorkers as the `most neurotic and obsessive parents in the world', as Manhattan gossip-mag Gawker.com did, anxieties like these are ubiquitous. In the past month alone, every major parenting magazine in the country ran a story about toxins in the environment. Mothering magazine, a publication all about `natural family living', regularly advises parents about the dangers of vaccines, ultrasounds, epidurals, pesticides, non-organic baby clothing and other products.

One mom told me: `I was just talking with a friend yesterday about the new studies about fish, which now say the advice to avoid it while pregnant (due to mercury) is wrong, and that children born to women who did not eat fish during pregnancy are at risk of lower IQ's! I'm one of those who avoided most fish during pregnancy. It really is crazy making!' ....

In the end, perhaps the best thing we can do is to accept that though we will love our children for all time, we can't keep them safe for all time. Nor should we feel obliged to try. To be a parent is to discover the world anew alongside our children. Whether they experience the world as something to be embraced or as a threatening place riddled with hidden dangers and risks depends on how we, the parents, approach it. That, at least is something all of us can control.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

End to blood typing problems?

A life-saving method of converting blood from one group to another has been pioneered by scientists. The breakthrough could potentially mean the end of blood-donor shortages and boost supplies of sought-after group O negative blood. O negative blood is known as “universal” because it can be given to anyone in a blood transfusion. Giving patients the wrong type of blood can cause severe immune system reactions and can be fatal.

Writing in the journal Nature Biotechnology, an international team of researchers described how they converted blood from group A, B or AB to group O. The process uses bacterial enzymes found in fungi, which can be used as biological “scissors” to cut sugar molecules from the surface of red blood cells.

People inherit blood type through their parents’ genes, and the system of categorising groups as A, B, AB or O dates back to 1900. Those in groups A and B have blood containing one of two different sugar molecules that can trigger an immune response. People in group O, the most common group, have neither of these “antigens”, while those in group AB have both.

Patients produce antibodies against the antigens they lack. For this reason, AB individuals, who lack neither, can receive blood safely from any group. But group A patients cannot be given a transfusion of group B blood, and vice versa. Group O patients react badly against A, B or AB blood. However, their own blood, having neither of the sugar antigens, is suitable for people from all the ABO groups. Group O donors are therefore always in demand, and O blood is often in short supply.

A further antigen that can trigger an immune response, a protein called RhD, exists in blood labelled “rhesus positive”. Truly “universal” group O blood is rhesus negative, meaning that it is also missing this antigen, but at the moment this type makes up only 4 per cent of stocks for the National Blood Service (NBS).

The scientists, led by Henrik Clausen, from the University of Copenhagen, screened 2,500 types of fungi and bacteria looking for useful proteins. They found two bacteria, Elizabethingia meningosepticum and Bacterioides fragilis, that yielded enzymes capable of removing A and B antigens from red blood cells. In tests, the antigens were found to vanish from 200ml samples of A, B and AB blood after an hour’s exposure to the appropriate enzyme. The researchers wrote: “Clinical translation of this approach may allow improvement of the blood supply and enhancement of patient safety in transfusion medicine.” Group O blood created using the new method will have to be tested on human beings before it can be used in hospitals.

To create supplies of group O negative blood, rhesus negative A, B and AB blood would have to be selected. No way has yet been found to turn rhesus-positive blood into rhesus-negative. The present system of blood transfusions is wasteful, with 10 per cent of donations in the UK never reaching patients. It is also expensive, with each unit costing more than 120 pounds to extract, screen and store. The NBS, which serves England and North Wales, holds 40,000 units of blood in stock — enough to last about 5½ days. A unit is a single blood donation, or two thirds of a pint. Red blood cells can be stored for only 35 days, and stocks must be replenished continuously by donors.

Source





A feelgood germ

FORGET the spring-cleaning. A study has found evidence that bacteria common in soil and dirt could improve people’s spirits. According to the research, the action of Mycobacterium vaccae (M vaccae) on the brain is similar to that of some commonly used antidepressants. The bacterium, which is related to the microbe that causes tuberculosis, appears to work by stimulating the body’s immune system. This, in turn, prompts certain cells in the brain to produce more serotonin, a hormone associated with feelings of wellbeing.

“These studies help us to understand how the body communicates with the brain and why a healthy immune system is important for maintaining mental health,” said Dr Chris Lowry, a neuroscientist at Bristol University who carried out the research. “They also leave us wondering if we shouldn’t all spend more time playing in the dirt.”

The finding follows separate research by other scientists into the impact of bringing children up in “overhygienic” conditions. They found evidence that exposure to a wide range of common microbes in early life helped to promote healthy development of the immune system. Without such exposure, the immune system seems more likely to mistake the body’s own cells as invaders and launch attacks on them. This could be one of the mechanisms underlying the surge in conditions such as asthma and eczema.

The research by Lowry and a team of 12 scientists at Bristol and University College London (UCL) takes this “hygiene hypothesis” a step further by linking exposure to the microbes found in dirt with good mental, as well as physical, health. Interest in the project arose after human cancer patients being treated with M vaccae unexpectedly reported increases in their quality of life. This could have been caused by the microbe having indirectly activated the brain cells that produce serotonin.

The researchers injected some mice with the bacteria while others were made to inhale it. They then analysed the blood and brains of the infected mice to see what effect the microbes might have had on their immune systems and on serotonin levels. Details will be published in Neuroscience, an academic journal, this week.

The study is highly unlikely to lead to new therapies for depression in the near future but it does build on the growing body of research showing the importance of the human immune system in regulating even the subtlest aspects of health. There are a range of studies supporting the hygiene hypothesis and the idea that exposure to microbes is good for long-term health. In families with several children, the youngest often has the least allergies, most likely because it picks up the elder siblings’ infections so activating the child’s immune system.

Graham Rook, a professor of immunology at UCL who worked with Lowry, has already published research into the link between exposure to microbes and subsequent development of allergies. Rook and two of his co-researchers are also working with S R Pharma, a company looking into whether M vaccae could become the basis of treatments for conditions such as asthma. Rook believes that improved cleanliness may be a contributory factor in diseases such as asthma, eczema and hay fever, along with autoimmune diseases such as Type 1 diabetes and inflammatory bowel disorders such as Crohn’s disease. He said: “We’ve known for a couple of decades now that a whole group of chronic inflammatory disorders are becoming much commoner in the rich developed world.”

The body’s response to such inflammatory diseases is regulated by immune cells which, said Rook, need to encounter harmless bacteria early in life in order to work out how to respond effectively to real threats. Without these encounters, he said, the regulatory cells can malfunction, leading to health problems.

Mark Pepys, professor of medicine at UCL, said that there was “quite a lot of evidence” to support the hygiene hypothesis but said he would be cautious about extending the theory to mental wellbeing.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Belgian fries "healthier"?

Pandering to popular panics

It is the answer to many a diner's prayer in Britain and on the Continent: a way to eat chips and maintain a healthy heart. A new blend of cooking oil, which exploits the healthy properties of the grape seed, is being hailed by French scientists as a breakthrough in the quest for the fast-food industry's holy grail. The oil, which blends rape, sunflower and grape seed, is said to slash the level of damaging fat in fried potatoes. It will replace the artery-clogging greasy chip with the promise of a Mediterranean-style diet, says Quick, the Belgian-based hamburger chain that will introduce it this year.

The group appears to have stolen a march on rivals such as McDonald's and Burger King in the race to create a politically correct form of fast food. "There is really a very impressive level of difference," said David Garbous, sales director for Lesieur, the company that developed the product. "It's possible to say we're going to get healthy chips with this." Lesieur, a business controlled by French farming co-operatives, spent two years putting together what it claims to be the ideal mixture. It says that the results were validated by the French Higher National School of Food Industries in Nancy, eastern France.

These found that the new chips contained low levels of the saturated fatty acids linked to heart disease. The Quick group asked researchers to spend a year evaluating three new cooking oils by "pushing them to the limit" in the laboratory. The scientists cooked and studied 50 kilos (110lb) of chips every day over a two-month period in a deep fryer. They assessed the stability and durability of the oils through chemical and electronic analysis, heating them day after day. The nutritional values were checked by the scientists, who also cooked 600 kilos of dips in the oils. The researchers were then asked to determine which chips tasted best and which had the crispiest coating in blind laboratory tests. Students' impressions of the chips and dips were measured and quantified.

Three tonnes of chips were used before the researchers came to the conclusion that the product met the gastronomic, health and economic requirements laid down by Quick. Their results were then verified in another series of blind tests in the group's restaurants. Quick has already tested the oil in some of its restaurants and says that it will introduce the product throughout the chain later this year.

Source






Beef about sperm

Consumers were frightened this week by media reports about a new study claiming to link mothers' consumption of beef with reduced sperm counts in their sons ( "Sperm Count Low if Mom Ate Beef, Study Finds" ). But the study amounts to nothing more than a transparent effort to resurrect an already debunked 1990s-era health scare with appalling science and sensational headlines.

From "Mom's beef puts son's sperm count at stake" (Los Angeles Times) to "Meaty momma's boys lose" (Edmonton Sun, Canada) to "Sunday roasts could have hit male fertility" (Daily Mail, UK), gullible media around the world once again fell for science-by-press-release committed by longtime environmental activist-researchers.

The supposed findings of the study were that "men whose mothers had eaten more than seven beef meals a week had a sperm concentration that was over 24 percent lower than in men whose mothers ate less beef "and that three times more sons of high-beef consumers had a sperm concentration that would be classified as sub-fertile, according to World Health Organization standards, in comparison to men whose mothers ate less beef."

But for anyone who makes the effort to look past the press releases touting these findings and to examine the study that supposedly backs them up, these findings fall apart as easily as slow-cooked pot roast.

First, the researchers approached the question of what caused the reduced sperm counts exactly backwards. Rather than investigating all possible causes and eliminating those for which there are no supporting evidence, the researchers, according to their own admission, set out to link maternal beef consumption with fertility problems while ignoring other possible causes. There are myriad causes of infertility. Focusing on a novel one that might make for good headlines - while overlooking established, but less newsworthy, causes - simply does not constitute bona fide scientific investigation.

Then, of course, none of the men studied seemed to have fertility problems in the first place. In fact, the men had all fathered children. But they were nonetheless targeted by the researchers because "[their] rate of consulting a doctor in the past for possible infertility was significantly higher." Simply consulting a fertility specialist, however, does not necessarily indicate that a man has fertility problems.

The researchers' hypothesis is not that beef itself causes infertility, but rather that the hormone-like medicines and chemicals to which cattle may be exposed are at fault. But even if it were true, for the sake of argument, that hormone-like chemicals were linked with male infertility, the researchers would still be obligated to rule out other potential exposures to these chemicals, such as through other foods or occupational exposures in both the mothers and sons, before blaming beef consumption by mothers.

But the study gets worse. Although the researchers tout a study size of 387 subjects, only 51 of the sons had mothers who allegedly ate beef more than seven times per week when they were pregnant. So the researchers drew an awfully sweeping conclusion from a minuscule study population. Moreover, the data on mothers' beef consumption during 1949 to 1983 were collected by surveying the mothers during 1999 to 2005, as long as 50 years after they were pregnant. Such self-reported dietary data were not verified by the researchers and are subject to phenomena known in scientific circles as "recall bias" (memory-impaired responses) or "response bias" (intentionally incorrect responses to, say, avoid embarrassing answers). No one really knows what or how much these women actually ate.

It's also not necessarily true that more frequent beef consumption is greater beef consumption. Someone who consumes four 8-ounce portions of meat per week consumes 14 percent more beef than someone who consumes a 4-ounce portion every day -- yet, in this study, the everyday-meat eater is assumed to be the greater consumer of beef.

Although the researchers say in their media release, "We don't have enough information yet to make any recommendations, and this is not what this study was designed to do," they then proceed to make dietary recommendations including eating only organic beef and generally reducing beef consumption. This study is about causing alarm, not about sound scientific research.

So just who are these researchers and what's their real beef? The University of Rochester's Shanna Swan and Danish researcher Niels Skakkebaek are well-known to followers of the now-defunct 1990s controversy over hormone-like chemicals in the environment, so-called "endocrine disrupters" or "environmental estrogens." Swan, Skakkebaek and others have been trying to scare people that man-made chemicals in the environment and food are reducing fertility, particularly sperm counts. Swan has published 15 related studies since 1997 and Skakkebaek has more than 80 related citations in the scientific literature dating back to 1992.

Despite tremendous media attention, the science of Swan and Skakkebaek has never been particularly persuasive. A National Academy of Sciences committee concluded in 1999 that, "Given the evidence to date, increases in the incidence of male reproductive disorders in humans . cannot be linked to exposures to [hormonally-active agents] found in the environment." And since there do not appear to be any sort of worldwide fertility problems that cannot be explained by other causes, it's no wonder that the endocrine disrupter scare never gained traction.

In addition to the news media's predilection for scary health stories, who, after all, could pass up a story about hamburgers as intergenerational contraceptives? It unfortunately suffers from an abysmal institutional memory, particularly when it comes to science. So Swan and Skakkebaek can always count on gullible reporters parroting their "findings" as if they were novel, credible and important, rather than what they really are: stale, unbelievable and meaningless.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Kill that Alzheimer!

Or so the policy looks in Britain

Drugs commonly prescribed to people with Alzheimer’s disease are accelerating their deaths by an average of six months, a study has found. Up to 45 per cent of people with Alzheimer’s in nursing homes are given sedative drugs known as neuroleptics to try to control behavioural symptoms such as aggression. In severe cases, the drugs may be justified. But a five-year study by the Alzheimer’s Research Trust showed that, as well as reducing life expectancy, they were of no benefit to patients with mild symptoms and were associated with significant deterioration in verbal fluency and cognitive function.

Clive Ballard, professor of age-related disorders at King’s College London, who presented the findings at the charity’s conference in Edinburgh yesterday, said: “It is very clear that even over a six-month period of treatment there is no benefit of neuroleptics in treating the behaviour in people with Alzheimer’s disease when the symptoms are mild. “For people with more severe behavioural symptoms, balancing the potential benefits against increased mortality and other adverse events is more difficult, but this study provides an important evidence base to inform this decision-making process.”

Rebecca Wood, chief executive of the Alzheimer’s Research Trust, said: “These results are deeply troubling and highlight the urgent need to develop better treatments. “Seven hundred thousand people are affected by dementia in the UK, a figure that will double in the next 30 years. The Government needs to make Alzheimer’s research funding a priority. Only 11 pound is spent on UK research into Alzheimer’s for every person affected by the disease, compared with 289 for cancer patients.”

The study examined 165 people with Alzheimer’s living in nursing homes in Oxford-shire, Newcastle upon Tyne, Edinburgh and London. They had been taking neuroleptic drugs for at least three months and took part in a trial in which some were taken off the drugs and others were not. The drugs involved were thioridazine (Melleril), chlorpromazine (Largactil), haloperidol (Serenace), trifluoperazine (Stelazine) and risperidone (Risperdal). Follow-ups in succeeding years showed striking differences in survival. After two years survival was 78 per cent in those taken off the drugs, and 55 per cent in those still on them. After three years the figures were 62 per cent against 35 per cent, and at 42 months 60 per cent against 25 per cent.

Neil Hunt, chief executive of the Alzheimer’s Society , said: “Neuroleptics have been used as a dangerous fix for ‘challenging behaviour’ in people with dementia for too long. “These drugs have now been exposed as having no benefit for people with dementia, while causing a dramatic increase in the risk of death. It is a disturbing revelation that confirms some of our worst fears about neuroleptics, which have been the subject of numerous health warnings. “It is a national scandal that people are being sedated in this way. These drugs must be a last resort only used when all other methods have failed to alleviate the most distressing symptoms of dementia.”

Source




More vaccination needed?

Waning immunity after childhood vaccinations has prompted concerns we may need to better protect adults from disease. The report below is from Australia but the implications apply anywhere

When you think chickenpox, do you imagine spotty but otherwise happy kids quarantined at home and amused with colouring books and hot drinks? If so, you may be surprised to learn that pneumonia, inflammation of the heart muscle and swelling of the brain (encephalitis) are all potential complications of this highly contagious disease, which causes 1500 hospitalisations and seven deaths in Australia each year.

Although it's a mostly mild illness in children, chickenpox - caused by the varicella zoster virus, one of the herpes family - can be nasty in adults, particularly the elderly, pregnant women, and other people with compromised immune systems. Since November 2005 a federal Government funded vaccine for varicella has been available free to all children aged 18 months (and at 10-13 years for non-immune children who haven't already been immunised). The problem is, no one is quite sure how long this protection lasts - estimates range from 10 to 20 years, or longer. It's a question that has significant implications as people age and become more susceptible to disease.

An editorial in the respected New England Journal of Medicine (2005;352(22):2344-6) suggested that mass childhood vaccination against chickenpox might ironically be leaving some people more vulnerable to the adult disease, which it said was "far more serious than childhood varicella usually is". And experts are also raising questions about waning post-vaccine immunity to other diseases. Not all vaccines offer lifelong protection and many of the newer ones have just not been around long enough for us to know how effective they are long-term. We know for example that immunity following a vaccination for pertussis - whooping cough - usually lasts only around five to 10 years.

Recently-released draft Australian immunisation guidelines are already suggesting that, contrary to current practice, children might need a second dose of chickenpox vaccine before 13 years of age, and receive their first dose six months earlier, to give them earlier and more sustained protection. "Waning immunity is often under-recognised," says Peter Eizenberg, a Melbourne GP who sits on several national immunisation committees. "It is an important issue in the community, particularly among the elderly, but not just the elderly. People get vaccinated and they forget that only a few of the vaccines give long-term immunity."

The NEJM recently revisited the topic, suggesting again that varicella vaccination could lead to a shift in the disease burden to older people (2007;356:1121-9). "Waning of immunity is of particular public health interest because it may result in increased susceptibility later in life, when the risk of severe complications may be greater than in childhood," the authors say.

Professor Lyn Gilbert, director of the Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology at Westmead Hospital's Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, says the combination of mass childhood vaccination and waning immunity might see an increase in cases of shingles - a painful condition caused by the re-activation of the varicella zoster virus, which continues to lurk in nerve cells after a childhood infection. Shingles has its own set of complications. It can sometimes cause permanent, painful nerve damage and can actually transmit the chickenpox virus itself to people who aren't immune. "Shingles . . . is potentially a time bomb waiting to happen," Gilbert says.

The theory is that because mass childhood vaccination greatly reduces the amount of "wild" virus circulating in the community, it means that people's immunity to varicella is no longer being constantly "topped up" by re-exposure to it. "There is a very plausible model that suggests that if you reduce the incidence of infection in children through mass vaccination and older people are not exposed to wild virus, they are likely to have reactivations," Gilbert says. For the elderly, there may be hope of protection with a new shingles vaccine manufactured by drug giant Merck. Zostavax was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration last year for use in people over 60. It's not yet available in Australia, but there are hopes that it soon will be.

Director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance professor Peter McIntyre says the vaccine would initially be used in the over-60s, but may in future be used for younger patients. Gilbert says in the long term, those vaccinated for varicella in childhood will probably require boosters as they age. But she says uncertainties over whether boosters are needed or not tend to muddy the waters on the true costs of a government funding of vaccines.

And funding of new vaccines doesn't come cheap. In the last financial year, the federal Government spent about $250 million on vaccines. Cabinet this week agreed to spend $124.4 million over five years to immunise babies against rotavirus, which hospitalises 10,000 children a year. Estimates are that this could save the health system some $30 million annually by preventing illnesses.

One disease where waning immunity issues pose a significant challenge is the highly infectious whooping cough (or pertussis), which is on the rise worldwide. It is less dangerous to adults than it is to young babies, for whom it can cause brain damage and even prove fatal. Adults can develop hernias and rib fractures from the coughing, but a particular problem in adults is that it might not be recognised as pertussis at all - missing an opportunity to limit transmission. Most babies are immunised against pertussis, but protection is not achieved until after the third dose at six months of age, so waning immunity to the vaccine and resulting infection in adults is putting these children at risk. "Pertussis is a number one problem," Eizenberg says. "It is in epidemic proportions . . . we have around 10,000 cases a year notified to the department of health and that probably under-represents the true numbers by 3-4 times because mild cases can be hard to diagnose but remain very infectious."

There's still uncertainty over how many pertussis boosters are needed, because the adult booster, called Boostrix, is only relatively new. While the federal Government funds Boostrix for 15 to 17-year-olds, there is no public funding for pertussis vaccination of older adults. Eizenberg would like to see national, publicly-funded routine immunisation with the combined diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine for all eligible 50-year-olds. The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), which advises the federal government, is looking at whether there is a case to recommend a routine pertussis booster in middle age, a decision that would be a world first. "The unknown question is, how long will the vaccine last?" says ATAGI chairman professor Terry Nolan. "There is a possibility that progressive boosting will be needed to protect throughout life."

Another problem is measles, which in the 24 years from 1976 to 2000 caused nearly 100 deaths in Australia. While this figure is small, experts are still concerned. Small outbreaks continue to occur around the country and immunisation levels aren't as high as they could be, particularly in young adults who may not have been fully vaccinated in childhood. As for how long vaccine protection lasts, it has been thought that immunity was long term. But some experts believe that waning vaccine-induced immunity could become an issue. Introduced measles is a particular threat - from Australians who travel overseas."A classic situation is an unimmunised young Australian male, goes to Bali, picks it up there and comes back and infects all his mates," Gilbert says.

Experts say funding issues do make a difference to vaccine uptake and the battle to maintain levels of disease protection. "I think there is a culture amongst a lot of people that if a vaccine is not 'free' then it can't be important," Eizenberg says. This sort of attitude can make it hard for GPs to convince people who don't feel sick that they need a booster jab. McIntyre says although diphtheria/tetanus or diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis is recommended at age 50 (but not publicly funded), "the chances are most people don't do it". "We think most people don't get around to it and doctors forget to remind people and it's not free." Eizenberg says a national adult immunisation register could keep track of all vaccinations and trigger reminders.

It seems the Federal Government agrees in principle. In the last budget it allocated $1.2 million to explore redeveloping the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register into a whole-of-life register that included adult immunisation. Health Minister Tony Abbott is due to see a report on the concept some time this year. According to Gilbert, adult immunisation is becoming much more of an issue. "Increasingly, people are beginning to recognise better the burden of illness in older peo ple." But difficulties in reaching younger adults and unanswered questions about waning immunity means the cost-effectiveness of paying for immunisation programs from the public purse might be doubtful. It seems a big question for the future is, to whom should we give boosters, and can we afford it?

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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