Tuberculosis and illegal immigration

The article below is from a nationalist site but makes a good point. Why is London a world headquarters of TB? The demographics give a clear answer: Immigrants are only a small proportion of the overall British population but are a massive proportion of the TB sufferers. And since the immigrants concerned undoubtedly live at close quarters with others of similar ethnic origins, that some of those others become infected in no way detracts from the immigrant origin of the problem. Many of the "British born" TB sufferers mentioned would no doubt be relatives of immigrants. The fact that many sufferers lived in Britain for 2 years before presenting to a doctor is also of course meaningless, given the slow progress of TB. I presume that Britain, like any other advanced country, has some health screening for legal immigrants so the problem undoubtedly is a direct consequence of Britain's large illegal immigration problem

"Lazy hacks at the Labour supporting Daily Mirror have made some very strange claims concerning TB (Tuberculosis)!

Apparently, despite all the reports from various health agencies and trusts, TB has little to do with immigration and everything to do with poverty! That's why, presumably, it is at sky-high levels in places such as Leicester, Slough, Bradford, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Hackney - but not in Liverpool, Newcastle, Swansea and Plymouth!

Daily Mirror claim: "Half of all TB diagnosed is in British People that were born in the UK!" and "It's a disease of the poor rather than a disease of immigrants"

Government's Health Protection Agency says: "As in previous years the London region accounted for a substantial proportion of cases in 2005 (43%) and had the highest rate of disease (46.3 per 100,000). Most tuberculosis cases continue to occur in young adults (61% were aged 15-44 years) and in the non-UK born population (72%)."

Daily Mirror claim: "Most immigrants with TB tend to have already lived here for two years and contract it due to stress and poor living conditions".

NHS says: "It is true that over half of the people diagnosed with TB in this country were born abroad but immigration alone does not explain the recent rise in TB cases. Around 40% of people born overseas who develop TB in this country have lived here for more than 10 years (but - presumably - have maintained physical contact with their home countries and with people from those countries - Ed.)

If the Mirror tells lies about TB what other subjects does this Labour supporting rag lie about?

And according to the World Socialist Web Site:

"Medical experts are warning about the developing threat of tuberculosis (TB) in Britain, and especially in London. The Annual Public Health Report 2000/2001 produced by the East London & The City Health Authority highlights some of the conditions that have enabled TB to take a hold."

"Districts in East London have been particularly affected: Newham with 108 cases per 100,000 of its population has made London "tuberculosis capital of the affluent Western world". The figures even put it ahead of Russia, where the collapse of the public health system has led to 91 cases per 100,000, whereas in India the figure is 41 per 100,000."

In other words your average Londoner has a higher chance of contracting TB in, say, Barking - than he ever has in, say, Turkey!"

Source





Vitamins 'raise death risk', big study finds



The study below may not be the last word on ill-effects from vitamin supplements but I think it is clear that the "antioxidants" beloved of the health-food freaks at least do no good. The abstract of the original article by Bjelakovic et al is here. I also noted the mildly harmful effects of antioxidants on February, 16th. (Scroll down).

Antioxidant supplements including vitamins A and E, taken by millions to fight disease may actually raise the risk of death, a review of 68 studies on nearly 250,000 people has said. The report relates only to synthetic supplements and not to fruits and vegetables in everyday diets which are natural and contain less concentrated levels of antioxidants, said the study from the Centre for Clinical Intervention Research at Denmark's Copenhagen University Hospital. It said the increased death risk is about 5 per cent higher than those not given supplements and that figure is probably conservative. It was reported the study found Vitamin A was the worst offender, raising the death risk by 17 per cent.

The finding drew fire from critics who said it was flawed and based largely on studies of people who were already chronically ill before they were treated with the supplements. While the review did not pinpoint any biochemical mechanism that may be behind the increased death risk, it may be that "by eliminating free radicals from our organism, we interfere with some essential defensive mechanisms," the study concluded. Antioxidants are believed to fight free radicals, atoms or groups of atoms formed in such a way that they can cause cell damage.

"Beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E given singly or combined with other antioxidant supplements significantly increase mortality," the study found. It also found no evidence that vitamin C increases longevity and though selenium tended to reduce mortality, more research is needed on that topic.

Balz Frei, director of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, said the study and the data studied are both flawed because more than two-thirds of the previous research that was examined involved people with heart disease, cancer or other risks who were being treated to see if the supplements worked. "This kind of approach does not work," he said. "Over the years it has become clear from these clinical trials that antioxidants don't work in disease treatment."

The Complementary Healthcare Council (CHC), which represents the industry in Australia, said the results were based on old data [so old data is bad?? Goodbye history!] and included trials which allowed doses of vitamins not accepted in Australia. CHC executive director Tony Lewis would not comment on the study's claims but said the evidence was "weak".

Australian expert Luis Vitetta, from the Centre for Complementary Medicine and Research, said the results were "very concerning" and added strength to evidence that vitamins could do more harm than good. "There's a billion dollar vitamin industry based on this idea that people can prevent disease when they're actually just putting themselves at extra risk," said Professor Vitetta.

Australian Medical Association spokesman Chris Cain said there was really no need for anyone to take vitamin supplements unless prescribed by a doctor. "It is important for people to take these vitamins with the advice and support of their doctor," he said. "The reality is that if people have a healthy and balanced diet, they will get all of the vitamins they need. Of course there are special circumstances where people develop problems in metabolising vitamins, but in that case they will be prescribed them by a doctor."

The study, published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association, said that 10 per cent to 20 per cent of adults in North America and Europe - up to 160 million people - may consume the supplements involved. "The public health consequences may be substantial," it said. "We are exposed to intense marketing" which holds the opposite view of what the researchers found, it added. "We did not find convincing evidence that antioxidant supplements have beneficial effects on mortality," concluded the study. "Even more, beta carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E seem to increase the risk of death."

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.

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

Popular painkillers claimed to increase risk of heart disease

This is another chicken and egg finding where the authors boldly but incautiously say the chicken came first. It seems more reasonable to conclude that people with health problems -- including high blood pressure -- are more likely to take painkillers. But I guess that is too unsurprising to get an article devoted to it into a medical journal

Popular painkillers such as aspirin, ibuprofen and acetaminophen can raise blood pressure and thus the risk of heart disease among men, US researchers report. Men who took such drugs for most days in a week were about a third more likely to be diagnosed with high blood pressure than men not taking them, the researchers found. Their findings, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, reinforce a study published in 2002 that these commonly used drugs raise blood pressure in women. "This is a potentially preventable cause of high blood pressure," Dr John Forman of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, who led the study, said.

Millions of people take the painkillers as pills every day to treat headaches, arthritis, muscle pulls and other aches and pains. "These are the three most commonly used drugs in the United States," Dr Gary Curhan, who also worked on the study, said in an interview.

For their study, the researchers looked at a continuing study of male health professionals. After they filtered out everyone who already had high blood pressure and other problems, they had 16,000 men whose records they checked for four years. Men who took acetaminophen (paracetamol), sold generically and under the Tylenol brand name, six or seven days a week were 34 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with high blood pressure than men who did not take analgesics.

Men who took aspirin that regularly were 26 per cent more likely to have high blood pressure than non-users. For non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDS, which include ibuprofen and naproxen, the increased risk was 38 per cent. Men who took 15 or more NSAID pills a week were 48 per cent more likely than non-users to have high blood pressure. The drugs can affect the ability of blood vessels to expand, and may also cause sodium retention - two factors that can both raise blood pressure. Being overweight reduced the risk from acetaminophen, but raised the risk from NSAIDS, the researchers found.

But men who were advised by a doctor to take an aspirin a day to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke should not stop taking them, cautioned Dr Curhan. "The benefit outweighs the risk," he said in an interview. The American Heart Association issued its own advisory based in part on the report's findings. "We advise physicians to start with non-pharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy and exercise, weight loss to reduce stress on joints, and heat or cold therapy," said the Association's Dr Elliott Antman, also of Brigham and Women's Hospital.

The Heart Association was especially worried about the use of COX-2 inhibitors, prescription arthritis drugs designed to be safer than NSAIDS. Many have been found to actually raise heart risk and cause strokes. "We believe that some physicians have been prescribing the new COX-2 inhibitors as the first line of treatment. We are turning that around and saying that, for chronic pain in patients with known heart disease or who are at risk for heart disease, these drugs should be the last line of treatment," Dr Antman said.

Dr Curhan said it would be important to study patients directly, not simply look at their medical records, to fully understand the risks and what might be causing the effect. "Even if we can't explain the direct mechanism, it seems pretty clear," he said.

Source





Garlic 'doesn't work' for cholesterol: Researcher claims

But the study is based on very limited sampling -- non-sampling, actually -- and a relatively short time period. On balance, however, the conclusion is probably right -- at least as far as the narrow range of health effects examined is concerned. The journal abstract is here

Eating garlic raw or in supplement form does not lower "bad" cholesterol levels, despite widespread health claims for the pungent plant bulb, researchers said today. "It just doesn't work," said Christopher Gardner of the Stanford Prevention Research Centre in California. "There's no shortcut. You achieve good health through eating healthy food. There isn't a pill or an herb you can take to counteract an unhealthy diet."

Some of the claims that garlic lowers cholesterol emanate from laboratory experiments but there is no proof it reacts in the body the same way, Gardner wrote in the Archives of Internal Medicine. In test tubes and some animal subjects the compound released from crushed garlic, allicin, has been found to inhibit the synthesis of cholesterol. But in Gardner's study of 192 subjects who had slightly elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL), the so-called bad cholesterol that tends to clog arteries, garlic had no impact. "Our study had the statistical power to see any small differences that would have shown up, and we had the duration to see whether it might take a while for the effect of the garlic to creep in. We even looked separately at the participants with the highest versus the lowest LDL cholesterol levels at the start of the study, and the results were identical," Gardner said.

The participants' cholesterol levels ranged from 130 milligrams per deciliter of blood to 190 milligrams - any higher and their doctors would have prescribed cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, he said. The study's funding came from the US National Institutes of Health. The participants were divided into four groups: one ate a clove of garlic six days a week, usually in a gourmet sandwich prepared for them; two other groups consumed the equivalent amount of garlic either in a popular garlic supplement pill or powder, one of which advertised itself as "aged" garlic that removed the bad-breath problem; and the other group consumed a placebo. Gardner said other health claims ascribed to garlic - that it strengthens the body's immune system and combats inflammation and cancer - needed to be studied, too.

Garlic's healthy reputation goes back to the ancient Egyptians, and it was widely consumed by the Greeks and Romans. Its juice has also been used as an antiseptic. Its assumed benefits may have something to do with it growing wild around the Mediterranean, where diets are often rich in healthy olive oil, fish, nuts and fruit. Garlic can be helpful in spicing up healthy dishes, such as stir fry or Mediterranean salads, Gardner said. "But if you choose garlic fries as a cholesterol-lowering food, then you blew it," he said.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Better to get it up your nose?

The study by Belshe et al. reported below seems to show that nasal sprays trump standard flu injections but it it did not compare like with like. It is an amazingly rubbishy research design for a top-ranking medical journal such as NEJM to report -- with the effect of vaccine type and administration method hopelessly confounded

FLU shots in the arm or thigh could soon be a thing of the past for kids, with new research in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that a nasal spray vaccine is 55 per cent more effective at preventing flu attacks than the traditional injection. The study involved 8475 children aged between six months and five years, from the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Around half the children received the standard flu injection, containing influenza virus particles that are unable to grow (inactivated vaccine). The other half received a nasal spray of live influenza virus that has been modified so that it doesn't cause illness (live attenuated vaccine). The nasal spray is a more effective vaccine, suggest the authors, because it mimics the way the body normally encounters the flun-- through the nose and mouth. They emphasise, however, that it can cause wheezing in children under 12 months.

Source. The journal abstract is here.





ARE WALNUTS GOOD FOR YOU?

They may well be but a recent study by Corwin et al. purporting to prove it is pretty laughable. Media summary below. Full article here. A tiny and highly unrepresentative sample examined over a very short time-period makes the "research" concerned little more than a student exercise. It is a classical example of sophisticated statistics applied to low-quality data

Walnuts and linseeds could help to protect bones from osteoporosis, according to research in the latest edition of Nutrition Journal. These foods, as well as soybeans and canola oil, contain high levels of plant-based omega-3 fatty acids. There were a total of 23 participants in the 24-week study _ 20 men and three women. They were divided into three groups, and for six weeks they ate either the control diet (called the ``average American diet'') or one of two other diets rich in fatty acids. Participants then had three weeks off to eat whatever they liked, followed by another six weeks on one of the other diets. This continued until each participant had spent six weeks on each diet. Different chemicals are released into the blood when bone is being formed and when it is being broken down. Researchers found that those on the high omega-3 diet had much lower levels of bone breakdown than the controls.

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.

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

OVERFEEDING IS NOW CHILD ABUSE IN BRITAIN

Overweight adults are already being denied some medical services in Britain. This criminalization of fat is therefore a harbinger of worse discrimination to come. I suppose however we should be glad that the social workers now seem to have given up on witchcraft scares as a way to attack families. At least fat is not imaginary. Progress of a sort, I guess. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if they concentrated on (say) children of drug addicts instead of on ordinary decent families? Social work schools are covens of Leftism and the ingrained Leftist hatred of ordinary decent people happily getting on with their lives is always the best predictor of whom social workers will target. You can be sure that no social worker will ever mention how small the difference is between the average lifespans of slim and overweight people. A "crack" baby, or a baby with fetal alcohol syndrome, on the other hand, DOES have serious problems.

Note further that dieting normally promotes weight GAIN so the intervention described below is as ill-conceived as it is authoritarian

An eight-year-old boy who weighs 14 stone, more than three times the average for his age, may be taken into care if his mother fails to improve his diet. Connor McCreaddie, from Wallsend, near Newcastle upon Tyne, has broken four beds and five bicycles. The family claims to have a history of intolerance to fruit or vegetables. On Tuesday his mother and grandmother will attend a formal child protection conference to decide his future, which could lead to proceedings to take him into care.

Connor could be placed on the child protection register, along with victims of physical and sexual abuse, or on the less serious children in need register. The intervention of social services is a landmark in the fight against youth obesity. The boy's mother, Nicola McKeown, said: "If Connor gets taken into care that is the worst scenario there could be. Hopefully, we will be able to work through it and come up with a good plan and he will just be put on the at-risk register or some other register. That wouldn't be so bad because, hopefully, there will be some help for us at the end of it."

Two specialist obesity nurses, a consultant paediatrician, the deputy head of Connor's school, a police officer and at least two social workers are expected to be on the panel deciding what action should be taken. One National Health Service source said: "We have attempted many times to arrange for Connor to have appointments with community and paediatric nutritionists, public health experts, school nurses and social workers to weigh and measure him and to address his diet, but the appointments have been missed. "Taking the child into care or putting him on the child protection register is absolutely the last resort. We do not do these things lightly but we have got to consider what effect this life-style is having on his health. Child abuse is not just about hitting your children or sexually abusing them, it is also about neglect." The source added: "The long-term health effects of obesity such as diabetes are well known and it is concerning that Connor is more than twice the weight he should be. There has to be some parental responsibility."

Source





ALTERNATIVE BLOOD PRESSURE DRUG

An over-the-counter alternative remedy available through chemists and health shops is just as effective at reducing high blood pressure as powerful prescription drugs, without causing their undesirable side-effects such as heart and kidney problems, Australian research suggests.

The new study has found the remedy - an antioxidant found naturally in the body called co-enzyme Q10 (CoQ10) - reduces systolic blood pressure (when the heart is contracting) by up to 17mm of mercury and cuts diastolic pressure (heart at rest) by up to 10mm. Frank Rosenfeldt, head of the cardiac surgical research unit at Melbourne's Alfred Hospital and lead author , says this is "in the ballpark" of reductions generally achievable with prescription drugs.

The study, just published online by the Journal of Human Hypertension (doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1002138), combined the results from 12 previous trials involving 362 patients. The authors said their results meant there was a "convincing case for conducting a high-quality prospective randomised trial of CoQ10 in order to validate the results". "Until the results of such trials are available, it would seem acceptable to add CoQ10 to conventional anti-hypertensive therapy, particularly in patients who are experiencing intolerable side-effects," they wrote.

Currently four main drug classes are used to treat high blood pressure, or hypertension: ACE inhibitors, diuretics, beta blockers and calcium channel blockers. Side-effects from these drugs can include heart and kidney malfunction, cough and depression. However, CoQ10 typically costs just over $50 for a bottle of 60 50mg capsules - making it significantly more expensive for patients than these existing drugs, subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Patients pay just the $30.70 co-payment for a PBS drug - or just $4.90 if they are a concession-card holder.

Rosenfeldt says CoQ10 is already taxpayer-subsidised in Hungary, Italy and Denmark, and should be added to the Australian PBS. However, he said patients should discuss their treatment with their own doctor before taking CoQ10, as it could prove dangerous if combined with other medications: "If they were on anti-hypertensive therapy and took this on top, they might get low blood pressure."

Other independent experts say the findings are interesting, but agree with the authors' call for further research. Philip Barter, director of the Heart Research Institute in Sydney and author of over 200 research papers in international journals, said although the new study had pooled results from 12 trials, only four were double-blind, randomised controlled trials - those that give the most reliable results - and even these were based on very small groups of participants. "I don't want to dismiss the analysis - it's interesting," Barter said. "But before I was prepared to recommend this as a form of treatment, I would like to see it put to the test in a bigger trial where it would be looked at alongside other treatments - many of which are now long out of patent thus available as cheap generic drugs."

Source

Journal abstract:

Coenzyme Q10 in the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis of the clinical trials

By F L Rosenfeldt et al

Our objective was to review all published trials of coenzyme Q10 for hypertension, assess overall efficacy and consistency of therapeutic action and side effect incidence. Meta-analysis was performed in 12 clinical trials (362 patients) comprising three randomized controlled trials, one crossover study and eight open label studies. In the randomized controlled trials (n=120), systolic blood pressure in the treatment group was 167.7 (95% confidence interval, CI: 163.7-171.1) mm Hg before, and 151.1 (147.1-155.1) mm Hg after treatment, a decrease of 16.6 (12.6-20.6, P<0.001) mm Hg, with no significant change in the placebo group. Diastolic blood pressure in the treatment group was 103 (101-105) mm Hg before, and 94.8 (92.8-96.8) mm Hg after treatment, a decrease of 8.2 (6.2-10.2, P<0.001) mm Hg, with no significant change in the placebo group. In the crossover study (n=18), systolic blood pressure decreased by 11 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure by 8 mm Hg (P<0.001) with no significant change with placebo. In the open label studies (n=214), mean systolic blood pressure was 162 (158.4-165.7) mm Hg before, and 148.6 (145-152.2) mm Hg after treatment, a decrease of 13.5 (9.8-17.1, P<0.001) mm Hg. Mean diastolic blood pressure was 97.1 (95.2-99.1) mm Hg before, and 86.8 (84.9-88.8) mm Hg after treatment, a decrease of 10.3 (8.4-12.3, P<0.001) mm Hg. We conclude that coenzyme Q10 has the potential in hypertensive patients to lower systolic blood pressure by up to 17 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure by up to 10 mm Hg without significant side effects.

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

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.

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

WHAT FUN! JUST THE SMELL OF FOOD CUTS SHORT YOUR LIFE

If you are a fruit fly

When animals are reared on a near-starvation diet, they live much longer than those that eat freely. Even the fruit fly Drosophila has this reaction to a low glucose diet, and lives considerably longer on a 5% than on a 15% sugar-yeast diet. This effect of dietary restriction is easily reversed when flies consume more food. Libert et al. report a less expected effect: Just the smell of the flies' food (yeast) can inhibit some of the effects of dietary restriction and shorten the flies' life span by 6 to 18%. Flies lacking an essential part of their odor receptors, which results in their having greatly impaired senses of smell, live longer than flies with intact odor sensation.

Journal abstract below:

Regulation of Drosophila Life Span by Olfaction and Food-Derived Odors

By Sergiy Libert et al.

Smell is an ancient sensory system present in organisms from bacteria to humans. In the nematode Caeonorhabditis elegans, gustatory and olfactory neurons regulate aging and longevity. Using the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, we showed that exposure to nutrient-derived odorants can modulate life span and partially reverse the longevity-extending effects of dietary restriction. Furthermore, mutation of odorant receptor Or83b resulted in severe olfactory defects, altered adult metabolism, enhanced stress resistance, and extended life span. Our findings indicate that olfaction affects adult physiology and aging in Drosophila, possibly through the perceived availability of nutritional resources, and that olfactory regulation of life span is evolutionarily conserved.




Genome scan finds new genetic links to autism

I have often said that there is no such disorder as autism but rather several quite distinct disorders that have communication difficulty in common. The now commonly used phrase "autism spectrum disorders" recognizes that too. The common genes found below may therefore be the ones that affect communication difficulty in particular

The first results from a scan of the world's largest collection of DNA from families affected by autism point to two new genetic links that may predispose people to the brain disorder. The research journal Nature Genetics reported the findings in its Feb. 18 online edition. "This largescale study reveals that autism is an extremely diverse condition. [with] numerous genetic origins, rather than a single or few major causes," said Daniel Geschwind of the University of California, Los Angeles, site of one of the study's 13 research centers.

Autism is a complex disorder that strikes as early as 2 or 3 years of age. It disrupts a child's ability to communicate and develop social relationships. Scientists suspect the disease is highly hereditary. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that one in 150 American children is diagnosed with autism or one of its related conditions. Affecting four times as many boys as girls, autism diagnoses have multiplied tenfold in the last decade, for unclear reasons.

The consortium searched for genetic commonalities in autistic people from nearly 1,200 families. The scientists scanned the DNA for variations in gene copy numberstiny tracts of extra or deleted genes thought to be possibly tied to autism.

The large number of families "permitted us to organize autistic children with similar features of this disorder into smaller groups, where gene linkages may be more easily detected," said the university's Rita Cantor.

The results implicated a previously unidentified region of chromosome 11; and neurexin 1, a member of a gene family believed to play a key role in communication between brain cells.

The neurexin finding also highlighted a group of brain cells called glutamate neurons and the genes affecting their development and function, suggesting these are critically involved in autism and related disorders, researchers said.

Scientists cautioned that more studies with even more subjects will be needed to full explain heredity's role in autism. "We are optimistic" that this approach will lead to improved treatments, Geschwind said.

Families who participated had more than one member diagnosed with one of three genetically related diseases: autism, pervasive developmental disorder or Asperger's syndrome.

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: Brainless Greenie logic arrives in the health field

Read the following report and see if you can find the flaw in it. Answer below

Global warming will take a toll on children's health, according to a new report showing hospital admissions for fever soar as days get hotter. The new study found that temperature rises had a significant impact on the number of pre-schoolers presenting to emergency departments for fever and gastroenteritis. The two-year study at a major children's hospital showed that for every five-degree rise in temperature two more children under six years old were admitted with fever to that hospital. The University of Sydney research is the first to make a solid link between climate changes and childhood illness.

"And now global warming is becoming more apparent, it is highly likely an increasing number of young children will be turning up at hospital departments with these kinds of common illnesses," said researcher Lawrence Lam, a paediatrics specialist. "It really demonstrates the urgent need for a more thorough investigation into how exactly climate change will affect health in childhood."

Dr Lam said the results, collated from The Children's Hospital at Westmead admissions, back up beliefs that children are less able to regulate their bodies against climate change than adults. The brain's thermal regulation mechanism is not as well developed in children, making them more susceptible to "overheating" and at risk of developing illness, he said. "They're particularly at risk of extreme changes, much more than other people."

The study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Health Research, analysed several different climate factors, including UV index, rainfall and humidity, collected from the Bureau of Meteorology in 2001 and 2002. Temperatures were the only negative risk factor, with findings linking heat to both fever and gastro disease but not to respiratory conditions.

Surprisingly, rates of gastroenteritis were lower on days with a high UV factor probably, says Dr Lam, because the rays "sterilised" the ground, killing more germs and reducing risk. He said it was still unclear whether the heat directly triggered the illnesses or whether other heat-related problems, like pollution, were responsible. A longer-term study was needed add strength to the findings, Dr Lam said.

Source

The finding concerned Sydney, which is MUCH cooler than Cairns, in tropical North Queensland, where I come from. The only major difference between Sydney and Cairns is the weather and the scenery so if hot weather causes fever, North Queensland should be RIFE with fever cases, right? I have never heard anyone say that it is, either anecdotally or otherwise, and I am quite sure that it would be widely known in North Queensland if it were true. I have, however, heard many cases of people getting ill when they move to a COLDER climate.

It is true that certain nasty viruses (Ross River Fever, Dengue Fever) thrive best in hot climates so some elevated morbidity from that source would be expected. Overall, however, there is no noticeable inferiority in the health of North Queenslanders -- perhaps because there are also various health problems that are greatest in COLD climates. One notes that elderly people often move to warmer climates for the sake of their health. And surely it is WINTER when 'flu is most prevalent!






Group size dictates how much you eat?

The heading on this study must deserve some sort of medal for overgeneralization. That the result might be situation-specific, age-specific etc. seems not to have been considered. Abstract follows:

Eating in larger group increases food consumption

By Julie C Lumeng and Katherine H Hillman

Objective: To determine if children's food consumption is increased by the size of the group of children in which they are eating.

Design: Crossover study.

Setting: University preschool.

Participants: 54 children, ages 2.5-6.5 years.

Interventions: Each child ate a standardized snack in a group of 3 children, and in a group of 9 children.

Main Outcome Measures: Amount each individual child consumed, in grams.

Results: Amount eaten and snack duration were correlated (r = .71). The association between group size and amount eaten differed in the short (< 11.4 minutes) versus the long (> 11.4 minutes) snacks (p = .02 for the interaction of group size and snack duration). During short snacks, there was no effect of group size on amount eaten (16.7 ~ SD 11.0 grams eaten in small groups v. 15.1 ~ 6.6 grams eaten in large groups, p = .42). During long snacks, large group size increased amount eaten (34.5 ~ 16.0 v. 26.5 ~ 13.8, p = .02). The group size effect was partially explained by a shorter latency to begin eating, a faster eating rate, and reduced social interaction in larger groups.

Conclusions: Children consumed 30% more food when eating in a group of 9 children than when eating in a group of 3 children during longer snacks. Social facilitation of food consumption operates in preschool- aged children. The group size effect merits consideration in creating eating behavior interventions.

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

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.

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

A WIN FOR VIDEO GAMERS

Playing Video Games May Contribute To Keyhole Surgery Skills

A small US study suggests that surgeons who played video games have better keyhole surgery skills than those that did not. The study was performed by US scientists at Beth Israel Medical Centre in New York and is published in this month's issue of the Archives of Surgery. The researchers did the study because although anecdotal observations suggest that young surgeons who played video games were better at performing laparoscopies (keyhole surgery) than those who do not, this had not been empirically investigated.

Laparoscopy is a type of surgery where the surgeon has to handle small instruments and go into the patient's body via a small hole or incision, hence the term "keyhole surgery". The surgeon does the operation using a television screen to see where to move the instruments; her or she cannot look straight at the place they are operating on because it is inside the body and the keyhole is too small. The researchers found a strong link between ability to play video games and performing well in keyhole surgery.

The researchers studied 33 surgeons based at New York's Beth Israel Medical Centre. The participants had to play three different video games for up to 25 minutes to assess their current skill, and also answer questions on their past experience of playing video games.

Their surgical skill were measured during a course that took one and a half days to complete. On the course the participants carried out a range of simulated laparoscopic and suturing procedures where their completion time and error rates were measured. The researchers also took note of the participants' level of surgical training, number of cases of laparoscopy performed, and the years they had been in medical practice.

They then ran a cross-sectional analysis to compare participants' laparoscopic and suturing skills against video game experience and video game scores. The results showed that 9 young surgeons who had played video games for at least 3 hours a week made 37 per cent fewer mistakes and worked 27 per cent faster than 15 surgeons who had never played video games. The 9 surgeons with past experience of video game playing also scored 42 per cent higher overall on the range of surgical skill tests. Also, the correlation between video gaming skill and surgical skill as measured by the simulation, was stronger than either the surgeon's training or experience measured in duration. The researchers concluded that video games could help train surgeons who perform keyhole surgery.

In an invited critique that accompanies the same issue of the journal, Doctor Myriam Curet re-iterates the warning that the researchers made in their article ""indiscriminate video game play is not a panacea," and invites the media not to distort the message in this study. She said parents still need to keep a check on their children's video gaming hours and the types of games they are playing.

And looking at the robustness of the article, she points out that it has limitations such as the small sample size. She also draws attention to the jump from the results to the conclusion. The results showed that it was past experience of video gaming that correlated to present level of surgical skill.

Perhaps the most useful contribution that this study makes is that it has opened a door that invites further investigation. One of the authors of the study, Dr Douglas Gentile did a survey in 2004 on video game playing by American teenagers and found that over 90 per cent of them are playing for an average of 9 hours a week. Excessive game playing takes the place of physical exercise, and has been linked to poorer performance at school and aggressive behaviour. Dr Gentile advises that parents should not view this study as supporting the notion that it is OK for children to play video games for more than 1 hour a day. That will not help them get into medical school, he said.

Source

Journal abstract follows:

The Impact of Video Games on Training Surgeons in the 21st Century

By: James C. Rosser et al.

Background: Video games have become extensively integrated into popular culture. Anecdotal observations of young surgeons suggest that video game play contributes to performance excellence in laparoscopic surgery. Training benefits for surgeons who play video games should be quantifiable.

Hypothesis: There is a potential link between video game play and laparoscopic surgical skill and suturing.

Design: Cross-sectional analysis of the performance of surgical residents and attending physicians participating in the Rosser Top Gun Laparoscopic Skills and Suturing Program (Top Gun). Three different video game exercises were performed, and surveys were completed to assess past experience with video games and current level of play, and each subject's level of surgical training, number of laparoscopic cases performed, and number of years in medical practice.

Setting: Academic medical center and surgical training program.

Participants: Thirty-three residents and attending physicians participating in Top Gun from May 10 to August 24, 2002.

Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were compared between participants' laparoscopic skills and suturing capability, video game scores, and video game experience.

Results: Past video game play in excess of 3 h/wk correlated with 37% fewer errors (P<.02) and 27% faster completion (P<.03). Overall Top Gun score (time and errors) was 33% better (P<.005) for video game players and 42% better (P<.01) if they played more than 3 h/wk. Current video game players made 32% fewer errors (P=.04), performed 24% faster (P<.04), and scored 26% better overall (time and errors) (P<.005) than their nonplaying colleagues. When comparing demonstrated video gaming skills, those in the top tertile made 47% fewer errors, performed 39% faster, and scored 41% better (P<.001 for all) on the overall Top Gun score. Regression analysis also indicated that video game skill and past video game experience are significant predictors of demonstrated laparoscopic skills.

Conclusions: Video game skill correlates with laparoscopic surgical skills. Training curricula that include video games may help thin the technical interface between surgeons and screen-mediated applications, such as laparoscopic surgery. Video games may be a practical teaching tool to help train surgeons.





DO FOLATE AND B12 STOP YOU FROM GOING BATTY?

It seems so -- but you need both together

Folate and vitamin B12, two important nutrients for the development of healthy nerves and blood cells, may work together to protect cognitive function among seniors, reports a new epidemiological study from the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University (USDA HNRCA). According to Martha Savaria Morris, PhD, epidemiologist at the USDA HNRCA, "we found a strong relationship between high folate status and good cognitive function among people 60 and older who also had adequate levels of vitamin B12." The study, published the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, also determined that low vitamin B12 status was associated with increased cognitive impairment.

Using data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2002, Morris and colleagues found that people with normal vitamin B12 status and high serum folate, which is a measure of folate in the blood, had higher scores on a test of cognitive function. Blood tests were used to determine folate and vitamin B12 levels, and the cognitive function test assessed aptitudes such as response speed, sustained attention, visual spatial skills, associative learning, and memory. Cognitive impairment was identified when a subject fell into the bottom 20th percentile of the distribution on the test.

"People with normal vitamin B12 status performed better if their serum folate was high," explains Morris, corresponding author of the study. "But for people with low vitamin B12 status, high serum folate was associated with poor performance on the cognitive test." Seniors with low vitamin B12 status and high serum folate were also significantly more likely than seniors in other categories to have anemia, a condition caused by reduced amounts of hemoglobin in oxygen-carrying red blood cells, or by a deficiency in the number or volume of such cells.

"For seniors, low vitamin B12 status and high serum folate was the worst combination," says Morris. "Specifically, anemia and cognitive impairment were observed nearly five times as often for people with this combination than among people with normal vitamin B12 and normal folate." Vitamin B12 deficiency, which affects many seniors due to age-related decreases in absorption, can impact the production of DNA needed for new cells, as well as neurological function.

Vitamin B12 is normally consumed in meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and dairy products, and folate is found in leafy green vegetables, citrus fruits, and beans. Although folate occurs naturally in many foods, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1998 required that all enriched cereal-grain products be fortified with folic acid, the synthetic form of folate, in order to help prevent birth defects in infants.

Morris notes that the study's results are inconsistent with the idea that high folate status delays detection of vitamin B12 by masking one of its key signs: anemia. "When folate fortification was considered, opponents raised the possibility that because more folate might mask anemia, many cases of vitamin B12 deficiency would go undetected, causing people with the condition to suffer neuropsychiatric consequences. But in our study, the people with low vitamin B12 who also had high serum folate were more likely to exhibit anemia and cognitive impairment than subjects with low vitamin B12 status and normal serum folate. So although having high serum folate had an impact on cognitive function in our study, it did not cure anemia, as opponents of food fortification have suggested."

Senior author Jacob Selhub, PhD, director of the Vitamin Metabolism Laboratory at the USDA HNRCA and professor at the Friedman School, says, "Our findings support the often-expressed idea that many seniors would benefit from more folate, but the research shows that we must look at the effects this would have on seniors with age-related vitamin B12 deficiency, who may be more numerous than once realized. There are also indications that too much folic acid and too little B12 is a general phenomenon that affects other systems in the body, and might be a factor in some other diseases."

As with any epidemiological study, Morris cautions that the results show association and not causation. She also notes that because the study only measured levels of total folate in the blood, it is uncertain whether the results were due to unmetabolized folic acid in the body. "We encourage further studies of these relationships and their underlying mechanisms," write Morris and her colleagues at Tufts. "We hope our findings both inform the continuing debate about folic acid fortification and influence future efforts to detect and treat low vitamin B12 status among seniors."

Source

Journal abstract follows:

Folate and vitamin B-12 status in relation to anemia, macrocytosis, and cognitive impairment in older Americans in the age of folic acid fortification

By: Martha Savaria Morris et al.

Background:Historic reports on the treatment of pernicious anemia with folic acid suggest that high-level folic acid fortification delays the diagnosis of or exacerbates the effects of vitamin B-12 deficiency, which affects many seniors. This idea is controversial, however, because observational data are few and inconclusive. Furthermore, experimental investigation is unethical.

Objective:We examined the relations between serum folate and vitamin B-12 status relative to anemia, macrocytosis, and cognitive impairment (ie, Digit Symbol-Coding score <34) in senior participants in the 1999-2002 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Design:The subjects had normal serum creatinine concentrations and reported no history of stroke, alcoholism, recent anemia therapy, or diseases of the liver, thyroid, or coronary arteries (n = 1459). We defined low vitamin B-12 status as a serum vitamin B-12 concentration <148 pmol/L or a serum methylmalonic acid concentration >210 nmol/L-the maximum of the reference range for serum vitamin B-12-replete participants with normal creatinine.

Results:After control for demographic characteristics, cancer, smoking, alcohol intake, serum ferritin, and serum creatinine, low versus normal vitamin B-12 status was associated with anemia [odds ratio (OR): 2.7; 95% CI: 1.7, 4.2], macrocytosis (OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.3), and cognitive impairment (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.6, 3.8). In the group with a low vitamin B-12 status, serum folate >59 nmol/L (80th percentile), as opposed to ~ 59 nmol/L, was associated with anemia (OR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.5, 6.6) and cognitive impairment (OR: 2.6; 95% CI: 1.1, 6.1). In the normal vitamin B-12 group, ORs relating high versus normal serum folate to these outcomes were <1.0 (Pinteraction < 0.05), but significantly <1.0 only for cognitive impairment (0.4; 95% CI: 0.2, 0.9).

Conclusion:In seniors with low vitamin B-12 status, high serum folate was associated with anemia and cognitive impairment. When vitamin B-12 status was normal, however, high serum folate was associated with protection against cognitive impairment.

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

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.

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

SECONDHAND SMOKE EFFECTS ARE REAL

There has been a lot of very weak research purporting to show adverse effects of "secondhand" tobacco smoke -- i.e. smoke inhaled by a nonsmoker as a byproduct of being in the presence of a smoker. The research below would seem to bypass the usual criticisms -- though it should be noted that it provides no data on longevity effects. Given the known reduced longevity of smokers, however, the findings must be considered as very suggestive. Journal abstract follows:

Exposure to Secondhand Smoke and Biomarkers of Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Never-Smoking Adults

By Andrea Venn & John Britton

Background--Exposure to secondhand smoke has been associated with a disproportionately high risk of coronary heart disease, thought to be mediated through inflammation, platelet aggregation, and/or endothelial dysfunction. The epidemiological association between objectively measured exposure to secondhand smoke and biomarkers of heart disease risk has not been investigated, however.

Methods and Results--We have investigated the cross-sectional relation between secondhand smoke exposure, measured objectively as cotinine, and recognized biomarkers of heart disease risk, namely C-reactive protein, homocysteine, fibrinogen, and white blood cell count, in 7599 never-smoking adults from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Compared with subjects with no detectable cotinine, those with detectable but low-level cotinine (range, 0.05 to 0.215 ng/mL) had significantly higher levels of both fibrinogen (adjusted mean difference, 8.9 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.9 to 17.0; P=0.03) and homocysteine (0.8 æmol/L; 95% CI, 0.4 to 1.1; P<0.001) but not C-reactive protein or white blood cell count. Effect estimates of similar magnitude and significance were seen in subjects in the high category of cotinine exposure (>0.215 ng/mL). The increased levels of fibrinogen and homocysteine seen in relation to secondhand smoke exposure were equivalent to ~ 30% to 45% of those seen for active smoking.

Conclusions--Passive smokers appear to have disproportionately increased levels of 2 biomarkers of cardiovascular disease risk, fibrinogen and homocysteine. This finding provides further evidence to suggest that low-level exposure to secondhand smoke has a clinically important effect on susceptibility to cardiovascular disease.




Smoking has 'heroin effect' on brain

SMOKING causes long-lasting changes in the brain similar to changes seen in animals when they are given cocaine, heroin and other addictive drugs. A US study of the brain tissue of smokers and nonsmokers who had died showed that smokers had the changes, even if they had quit years before, the team at the National Institute on Drug Abuse said. "The data show that there are long-lasting chemical changes in the brains of humans," Michael Kuhar of Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the study, said. "The chemical changes alone suggest a physiological basis for nicotine addiction."

A team led by Bruce Hope of NIDA, one of the National Institutes of Health, analysed levels of two enzymes found inside brain cells known as neurons. These enzymes help the neurons use chemical signals such as those made by the message-carrying compound dopamine. Smokers and former smokers had high levels of these enzymes. Hope said other studies had seen the same thing in animals given cocaine and heroin - and it was clear that the drugs were causing the effects. "This strongly suggests that the similar changes observed in smokers and former smokers contributed to their addiction," he said.

Experts on smoking have long said that nicotine is at least as addictive as heroin. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 20.9 per cent of all adults smoke in the US, which adds up to 45 million people. More than 20 per cent of high school students smoke.

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.

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

BREASTFEEDING AIDS SOCIAL MOBILITY?

This is a truly terrible piece of research. It relies on people's recollection of what happened 60 years ago. Given the frailties of memory at that distance, the answers are far more likely to depend on stereotypes rather than on what actually happened. And note that the recollections called for are not even what the person did 60 years ago. The respondents were asked what their MOTHERS did when they were babies! No wonder the authors took nearly 10 years to get such nonsense into print! It's breastfeeding propaganda, nothing more. All that the article actually shows is that people who have done well in life THINK that they were breastfed

The secret to popularity may be set in the way mums feed their babies. A 70-year study in Britain has found those who were breastfed are more likely to climb the social ladder than those who were bottle-fed. The results have been backed by the Australian Breastfeeding Association. Spokeswoman Karen Ingram said breast milk aided cognitive and motor development, which contributes to social skills. "We know through research that the attachment to a mother through breastfeeding can help children attach to others, which makes them more secure and independent," she said.

More than 3000 babies from England and Scotland were monitored from birth in 1937-39. The findings were based on 1414 adults who are still being examined. The study found those who were breastfed were 41 per cent more likely to move up the social ladder as adults than those who had been bottle-fed.

The prevalence of breastfeeding was not dependent on income, siblings, or social class at birth, allowing researchers to disregard other social factors that may have influenced results. The authors suggest breastfeeding influences brain development, which then leads to better exam results and job prospects and greater income.

Source

Journal abstract follows:

Breastfeeding in infancy and social mobility: 60 year follow-up of the Boyd Orr cohort

By Richard Michael Martin et al.

Objective: To assess the association of having been breastfed with social class mobility between childhood and adulthood.

Design: Historical cohort study with 60 year follow up from childhood into adulthood.

Setting: 16 urban and rural centres in England and Scotland.

Participants: 3182 original participants in the Boyd Orr Survey of Diet and Health in Pre-War Britain (1937-39) were sent follow-up questionnaires between 1997-1998. Analyses are based on 1414 (44%) responders with data on breastfeeding measured in childhood and occupational social class in both childhood and adulthood.

Main outcome: Odds of moving from a lower to a higher social class between childhood and adulthood in those who were ever breastfed versus those who were bottle-fed.

Results: The prevalence of breastfeeding varied by survey district (range: 45% to 86%) but not with household income (p = 0.7), expenditure on food (p=0.3), number of siblings (p = 0.7), birthorder (p = 0.5) or social class (p = 0.4) in childhood. Participants who had been breastfed were 41% (95% CI: 10% to 82%) more likely to move up a social class in adulthood (p=0.007) than bottle-fed infants. Longer breastfeeding duration was associated with greater odds of upward social mobility in fully adjusted models (p for trend = 0.003). Additionally controlling for survey district, household income and food expenditure in childhood, childhood height, birth order or number of siblings did not attenuate these associations. In an analysis comparing social mobility amongst children within families with discordant breastfeeding histories, the association was somewhat attenuated (odds ratio: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.80).

Conclusions: Breastfeeding was associated with upward social mobility. Confounding by other measured childhood predictors of social class in adulthood did not explain this effect, but we cannot exclude the possibility of residual or unmeasured confounding.






Breastfeeding has negligible effect on babies' IQ

It is one of the most hotly debated topics in pregnancy and early motherhood. Does breastfeeding really boost a baby's intelligence? Now the largest scientific study yet carried out has settled the issue. Breastfed babies are indeed smarter - because their mothers are. Mothers who breastfeed tend to be more intelligent, more highly educated and to provide more stimulation at home. The higher IQ of their babies is therefore mostly inherited, accounting for 75 per cent of the difference between them and bottle-fed babies, the researchers found.

The rest of the difference is down to the environment in which they are raised. Breastfed babies have mothers who are older and better educated, and live in nicer homes where they get more attention. When all these factors were taken into account, breastfeeding made less than half a point's difference in the intelligence scores - laying to rest a myth that has held sway for almost 80 years.

Geoff Der, a statistician from the Medical Research Council's social and public health sciences unit at the University of Edinburgh, said: "This question has been debated ever since a link between the two was first discovered in 1929. We found 73 articles which dealt with the link." He added: "Breastfed children do tend to score higher on intelligence tests, but they also tend to come from more advantaged backgrounds."

The study, published online by the British Medical Journal today, is based on US data on the breastfeeding history and IQs of 5,000 children and 3,000 mothers, which was not available in the UK. Mr Der concluded: "There is no reason why the same findings would not apply here."

The researchers also looked at families where one child was breastfed and the other wasn't. This confirmed the findings that breastfeeding made no difference to IQ. Mr Der said: "Intelligence is determined by factors other than breastfeeding. But breastfeeding has many benefits for both mother and child. It is definitely the smart thing to do."

In England and Wales, 77 per cent of babies are breastfed but more than a third of mothers stop within the first six weeks. Nine out of 10 mothers in the professional and managerial class start breastfeeding, compared with just over six out of 10 among manual workers.

Breastfeeding boosts the baby's immune system and protects against infections, and reduces the risk of asthma and eczema in childhood. It also reduces the risk of diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity in adulthood.

But Rosie Dodds, policy researcher at the National Childbirth Trust, said evidence from parts of the world where breastfeeding is more common among poorer women cast doubt on the claim that it had no link with intelligence. In the Philippines, where bottle feeding is a sign of status preferred by working mothers, a study published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2005 found that babies who were breastfed had higher intelligence, despite their more deprived backgrounds.

Ms Dodds said: "We cannot rule out an influence of breastfeeding on intelligence especially in babies born prematurely who may have missed out on what their biological growth would have been. Breastfeeding is more likely to provide the nutrients they need to grow and develop." Another study of 14,600 babies, half of whom were breastfed, conducted by University College hospital, London, and published in the US journal Pediatrics this year, found there were more developmental delays among the children who were bottle fed.

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.

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

TV still being demonized

Strange that no good effects of TV are mentioned -- typical of propaganda. For just a few examnples of the good effects that might have been mentioned, see here. Anything popular is hated by the Left and there is a lot of Leftism and its accompanying low ethical standards in academe so all the adverse findings about TV must be viewed with deep skepticism. For the record, I personally almost never watch TV, although I have two of them -- very old ones

Watching too much television as a child may trigger serious health problems such as autism and obesity, and in girls the early onset of puberty, a scientist has claimed. So great are the dangers, says Aric Sigman, that watching television should be banned for children under three years old and severely restricted as they grow older. Writing in the journal Biologist, Dr Sigman says that the average six-year-old child in Britain will have already spent a year watching television, and claims that the simple act of staring at a bright television screen, regardless of a programme's content, can damage a child's health.

Dr Sigman identified 15 negative effects that, he says, television can have on youngsters, ranging from short-sightedness and diabetes to premature puberty and autism. "We may ultimately be responsible for the greatest health scandal of our time," he writes. "Given the evidence, it would be prudent to cordon off the early years of child development as a time when screen media is excluded and then introduced judiciously as the child matures. "To allow children to continue to watch this much screen media is an abdication of parental responsibility. Truly hands-off parenting."

Dr Sigman's report, which is based on his analysis of 35 scientific studies, claims that television viewing affects levels of melatonin, a hormone linked to when puberty occurs in girls. Melatonin levels increase in the evening, at the onset of darkness, but staring into a bright screen during this period hinders its production.

Research has shown that melatonin affects puberty in females more than males. "Animal studies have shown that low melatonin levels have an important role in promoting an early onset of puberty and linked to reproductive function in several sexually mature animals," Dr Sigman says. Girls have been reaching puberty earlier since the 1950s, which previous research had blamed on an average increase in female weight, but he claims that lower melatonin levels may be another cause.

Dr Sigman, a member of the Institute of Biology and associate fellow of the British Psychological Society, says that watching television also damages sleep patterns, causes over-eating and increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. "Television may induce us to eat more [by] causing our brain to monitor external non-food cues - the television screen - as opposed to internal food cues telling us that we have stuffed ourselves and can stop eating." Low attention spans and poor educational achievement could also be linked to television viewing habits.

Source




HANDY TO KNOW: KILL DEM BUGS FAST

But the dishcloths etc. must be WET first



Sponges and dishcloths are a common source of pathogens which cause food poisoning because the bacteria, which come from uncooked eggs, meat and vegetables, thrive in the damp conditions. It has been estimated that a kitchen sponge may contain 10,000 bacteria, including E. coli and salmonella, per square inch.

Professor Gabriel Bitton, a expert in environmental engineering at the University of Florida, and colleagues contaminated kitchen sponges and plastic scrubbing pads in dirty water which contained faecal bacteria, viruses, protozoan parasites and bacterial spores.

They then zapped the cleaning equipment in a microwave for varying lengths of time. After two minutes on full power, 99% of bacteria were inactivated. And E. coli bacteria were killed after just 30 seconds.

Bacillus cereus spores - which are largely associated with vegetables or foods in contact with soil and are normally quite resistant to radiation, heat and toxic chemicals - were completely eradicated after four minutes in the microwave.

Professor Britton said it was likely to be heat, rather than radiation, that proved fatal as microwaves worked by exciting water molecules. He recommended microwaving damp not dry sponges to minimise the risk of fire and to only microwave non-metal scrubbing pads. Two minutes every other day would be sufficient for people who cook regularly, he said.

"Basically what we find is that we could knock out most bacteria in two minutes. "People often put their sponges and scrubbers in the dishwasher, but if they really want to decontaminate them and not just clean them they should use the microwave," he said.

The team also looked at whether the microwave oven could be used to sterilise contaminated syringes. It was found to be an effective method but took far longer - up to 12 minutes for the Bacillus cereus spores.

Professor Hugh Pennington, a food safety expert at the University of Aberdeen said heating was an effective way of sterilising kitchen equipment. "If you want to make sure you have a clean sponge there's nothing wrong in popping it in the microwave but I'd rather people didn't use sponges."

He added that most cases of food poisoning occurred when people were preparing raw chicken and then used the same surface to prepare ready to eat foods such as salad. "I don't think it would make a difference to food poisoning figures but I can't see anything wrong in it. He said heat was an obvious method of sterilisation.

Source




Surprise! Severe headaches make you depressed

WOMEN who suffer from severe headaches are more likely to be depressed, according to a new study in Neurology this week. Researchers surveyed 1032 women from six headache clinics in the US. Of these, 593 reported episodic headache (fewer than 15 headaches per month) and 439 had chronic headache (more than 15 headaches per month). Overall, 90 per cent of the women experienced migraines, and 18 per cent suffered from current major depression. Those with chronic headache were four times more likely than those with episodic headache to have symptoms of major depression. Among women diagnosed with severely disabling migraine, the likelihood of major depression increased 32-fold if the patient also reported other physical symptoms, including low energy, trouble sleeping, nausea and muscle pain.

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.

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