Thimerosol vaccines now decisively vindicated

The vaccine preservative Thimerosal is not linked with autism, a new study reports. The data also suggest that the dilettante "scientist" Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. should perhaps go back to practicing law and stop exploiting parental fear and suffering for his own political agenda.

Despite an absence of intriguing, let alone compelling, evidence that mercury-containing Thimerosal was associated with autism, vaccine makers voluntarily began removing Thimerosal from their products in 1999 -- providing a perfect opportunity to study whether the removal (and, therefore, Thimerosal) had any effect on autism rates.

So using data reported to the California Department of Development Services from 1995 to 2007, researchers from the California Department of Health compared the prevalence of autism with exposure to Thimerosal. Their results were published this week in the Archives of General Psychiatry (Jan. 2008). The data showed that the prevalence of autism for children at each year from 3 to 12 years increased throughout the study period -- even after 2000 when Thimerosal began disappearing from vaccines. From 1999 to 2004, average exposure to Thimerosal among infants and 2-year olds was reduced by more than 90 percent and 84 percent, respectively - yet reported cases of autism continued to increase in unabated fashion.

A classic test in epidemiological study is to observe what happens to the rate of disease when the suspected agent is removed. When Thimerosal was removed, the rate of disease was unaffected. Ironically, it has taken the removal of Thimerosal to vindicate it.

This result is not unexpected since there has never been any reason to believe that Thimerosal was a causal factor in autism spectrum disorders, which have reportedly increased in recent decades. Use of Thimerosal began in the 1930s in response to tragedies such as the January 1928 deaths of 11 of 21 children given a diphtheria vaccine inadvertently contaminated with staphylococci. Thimerosal was then used without incident for more than 65 years before the panic began in 1998 with the publication of a paper in British medical journal The Lancet reporting autistic regression and diarrhea among a small number of patients following administration of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination.

As retold in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health, the Internet enabled the controversial report to cross the Atlantic and spawn a coalition comprised of parents of autistic children and groups opposed to compulsory vaccination. Political muscle was soon added when Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), whose grandchild had been diagnosed with autism, began a series of congressional hearings. But despite the emergence of the anti-Thimerosal movement as a cause celebre, there has never been a single credible study implicating Thimerosal in any way with autism. The new California Department of Health study should be the end of the controversy.

That brings us to Kennedy who seems to revel in his profound scientific ignorance. In a June 20, 2005 Rolling Stone article entitled "Deadly Immunity", he wrote, "It was only after reading the [testimony of a Centers for Disease Control epidemiologist at a closed door government meeting], studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation's pre-eminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between Thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real."

Kennedy's article had so many significant inaccuracies that Rolling Stone was forced to append to it five paragraphs of corrections. Undeterred, two years later Kennedy wrote an article entitled "Attack on Mothers."

Recounting the onset of autism in a 2-year old, Kennedy wrote, "After hearing that story a couple dozen times, a rational person might do some more investigation. That's when one encounters the overwhelming science -- hundreds of research studies from dozens of countries showing the undeniable connection between mercury and Thimerosal and a wide range of neurological illnesses." Kennedy went on to accuse the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the pharmaceutical industry of "ginning up" studies "designed to disguise the link between autism and Thimerosal." So Mr. Kennedy, is the California Department of Health also a member of the vast Thimerosal conspiracy?

There may be some ideological overlap between Kennedy's anti-Thimerosal rantings and his jihad against coal-fired electric plants whose emissions include small amounts of mercury. He recently blogged about the "calamitous externalized costs" of coal, including "global warming.dead forests and sterilized lakes from acid rain, poisoned fisheries in 49 states and children with damaged brains and crippled health from mercury emissions, millions of asthma attacks and lost work days and thousands dead annually from ozone and particulates."

It's quite possible that Kennedy chooses to exploit the Thimerosal-autism controversy in order to broaden his base of support for his anti-coal/global warming agenda. Anti-Thimerosal parents groups have proven to be extremely passionate about their cause and they would be a formidable force were they to campaign against coal-fired electricity with the same zeal as they did with Thimerosal.

Though use of Thimerosal has for the most part ended, its vindication is not merely of academic interest. It should serve as yet another data point against Kennedy and others who foment panic and urge a rush-to-action based on flimsy facts and misdirected anger.

Source






'Heart risk' from calcium supplements

The findings below are pretty weak but it should serve as another reminder of the narrow focus in much medical advice

Older women who take calcium supplements to maintain bone strength may have an increased risk of heart attack, researchers in New Zealand said on Tuesday. The researchers cautioned that they do not consider their findings the definitive word on the subject, but said the higher heart attack risk they saw merits further study. "This effect could outweigh any benefits on bone from calcium supplements," researchers led by Ian Reid of the University of Auckland wrote in the British Medical Journal. Many women take calcium supplements to try to prevent osteoporosis, a condition in which bones become weak and brittle, leading to fractures.

The study involved 1,471 healthy post-menopausal women, average age 74, who already had participated in a study on the effects of calcium on bone density and fracture rates. Of them, 732 were given a daily calcium supplement and 739 were given a placebo. They were followed for five years. Heart attacks were more common in the women taking the calcium supplements, with 31 women who took supplements experiencing a heart attack compared to 21 women who got a placebo, the researchers said.

The researchers noted that previous research had suggested that taking calcium supplements might protect against vascular disease by lowering levels of bad cholesterol in the blood. They said that because calcium supplements raise blood calcium levels, this possibly accelerates the formation of deposits in the arteries that could lead to heart attack. The new results "are not conclusive but suggest that high calcium intakes might have an adverse effect on vascular health," the researchers wrote. "In the meantime this potentially detrimental effect should be balanced against the likely benefits of calcium on bone, particularly in elderly women," they wrote.

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

"What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum. What a fine fellow!

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

California: The phthalate folly

In addition to the remarks below, readers might want to look at this study, which even suggests that phthalates may be beneficial in some ways

When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a statewide ban in October on children's toys that contain more than minuscule amounts of chemicals called phthalates, he was simply carrying on a California tradition of misguided, often damaging "health" regulations. This is, after all, a state that requires most commercial establishments, from supermarkets to pet stores to hotel lobbies, to display "Proposition 65" signs proclaiming that customers are being exposed to trace amounts of chemicals that can cause cancer or birth defects.

Now, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is eager to expand California's folly to the entire nation. Undeterred by the judgment of experts but swayed by a few experiments with rats and a single flawed epidemiological study, Feinstein has introduced a bill that would ban six types of phthalates in toys. These chemicals are widely used to soften plastic toys and are found in shower curtains, traffic cones and scores of other common items. They also have crucial applications in surgical instruments and intravenous tubing.

Unfortunately, Feinstein's legislation ignores the basic principles of toxicology. For starters, a rat's metabolism differs significantly from a human's. Although rat studies may be useful for suggesting what sorts of toxicity to look for in humans, often they do not predict effects on humans. Indeed, the toxicity of phthalates in rats appears not to be replicated in humans or other primates.

Second, the dose makes the poison. This means that the mere presence of something in the body does not imply harm; one needs to know the dose and length of exposure, what the substance does (if anything) in the body, how it is disposed of and so forth. Virtually any substance, including water, can be toxic at high enough levels. Consider an example taught to all medical students. Part of the work-up for hypertension (high blood pressure) is to inquire whether the patient eats large amounts of licorice, which contains glycyrrhizin, a chemical that promotes sodium and fluid retention and raises blood pressure.

Extremely versatile and cost-effective, phthalates have been rigorously studied in the U.S. and Europe. A panel of scientists chaired by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop reviewed the scientific literature on phthalate exposure in 1999. "[Phthalate-containing] toys and medical devices are safe," said Koop. "The panel's findings confirm what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission have been saying about these products all along. There is no scientific evidence that they are harmful to children or adults."

Numerous studies have shown that human exposure to phthalates under ordinary circumstances is low and harmless. In fact, according to a review performed by the National Institutes of Health, the source of about 85% to 90% of phthalate exposure in adults, and 44% to 60% in infants, is not toys or consumer products but food. Nor are phthalates harmful even at high levels of exposure -- in patients undergoing regular hemodialysis or oxygenation of their blood in an intensive-care unit, for example.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission rejected a national ban on vinyl toys in 2003, after calculating likely exposure to diisononyl phthalate (DINP), the most common phthalate in children's toys. The total time babies from 3 months to 12 months spend mouthing objects is about 10 minutes an hour. Pacifiers (which do not contain phthalates)account for most of babies' sucking time, with their own body parts next. Soft vinyl toys containing DINP were sucked on for under 11 seconds an hour, or under 5 minutes a day. Even those whose sucking was in the 99th percentile were chewing on their DINP-containing toys for no more than 12 minutes a day. The Consumer Product Safety Commission concluded that a baby would have to suck about 10 times as long before he or she could consume enough DINP to have any potential adverse effects.

International scientists agree. In 2003, for example, the European Union's Institute for Health and Consumer Protection concluded in a risk assessment: "The end products containing DINP (clothes, building materials, toys and baby equipment) and the sources of exposure (car and public transport interiors, food and food packaging) are unlikely to pose a risk for consumers (adults, infants and newborns)." Despite the reassuring risk assessments, politicians overruled them, and the EU instituted a "permanent" ban on phthalates in children's toys in 2005.

The public is harmed when lawmakers proscribe the use of a product that has been proved safe and useful. Inevitably, manufacturers will turn to -- and consumers will be exposed to -- alternatives that are likely to be less well tested. Simply put, Feinstein's bill represents bad science, bad law and disregard for the public interest.

Source






Children exposed to lead 'at risk of Alzheimer's'

Children exposed to lead in old paint, Victorian water pipes and unsafe toys could be at risk of Alzheimer's later in life, scientists have said. A study shows that even small amounts of the dangerous metal in the first few years can cause changes in the brain associated with the devastating disease.

Although lead has been banned in petrol and paint, it is still present in older buildings. Last year, millions of toys imported from China were recalled after tests showed they were made with lead paint. The Alzheimer's Society warned, however, against overreacting to the findings, which came from a study of monkeys.

A spokesman said there was no proof that lead exposure caused the disease. The U.S. researchers behind the study say their work shows that lead has toxic side effects that can appear decades after children are exposed. "We're not saying that lead exposure causes Alzheimer's disease, but it's a risk factor," Dr Nasser Zawia of the University of Rhode Island in Kingston told the New Scientist.

His team fed infant formula milk laced with low doses of lead to baby monkeys - and then followed their progress for 23 years. Although the animals did not show any symptoms of dementia, a post mortem of their brains revealed plaques - harmful deposits of protein normally found in Alzheimer's patients.

Source

Comment below from Panic Watch:

Pertinent details of the study which didn't make it above the fold:

The study was performed on monkeys, not humans. But of course the headline doesn't read 'Monkey children exposed to lead at risk of Alzheimer's.'--that's definitely not as exciting.

The Alzheimer's Society has reacted to this study by saying that there is no proof that lead exposure caused the disease. This is correct. One of the scientists leading the study even told the media: "We're not saying that lead exposure causes Alzheimer's disease."

Even then, "the animals did not show any symptoms of dementia, a post mortem of their brains revealed plaques - harmful deposits of protein normally found in Alzheimer's patients." So the monkeys showed no symptoms of Alzheimer's; they merely had protein deposits that are present in many people after death--both with and without Alzheimer's.

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

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

"What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum. What a fine fellow!

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

Cholesterol drugs good for diabetes patients?

Very narrowly-focused thinking here. Diabetics have their systems messed up enough already without messing them up even further with statins. Furthermore the logic seems poor. The research found that people with low levels of serum cholesterol were better off than those with high levels but how do we know that the advantage concerned was solely or at all due to their intake of statins? A large enough proportion of the lucky ones may have had naturally lower levels of cholesterol -- sufficient by itself to produce the observed differences.

Note that some high quality studies (e.g. the the recent 4D and ASPEN trials) have not produced similar results and that meta-analyses can be corrupted by selective inclusion of results. This meta-analysis did not in fact include the recent negative trials - 4D, ASPEN, and CORONA. It also did not include small trials, unpublished trials, or trials published in languages other than English: Not reassuring.

CHOLESTEROL-LOWERING drugs called statins should be automatically considered for nearly all patients with diabetes, after a study showed the drugs cut heart attacks and strokes even in people with no prior signs of heart disease. Australian and British experts analysed the results of 14 previous trials involving a total of 90,000 people, and found that over nearly five years the number of deaths among the nearly 19,000 diabetes patients fell by nine per cent for every one-unit drop in their level of LDL, or "bad" cholesterol. The drop was almost the same seen in the 71,000 non-diabetic patients, and applied equally to men and women, and both main types of diabetes. Each major cut in LDL cholesterol cut the numbers of heart attacks, strokes and blocked arteries by 21 per cent in diabetic and non-diabetic groups.

Any increase in statin use may place more pressure on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. One statin drug alone, Pfizer's Lipitor (atorvastatin), was the biggest drain on the PBS in 2005-06, costing the scheme nearly $490 million for 8.5 million prescriptions.

The study's authors - from the National Health and Medical Research Council's Clinical Trial Centre at the University of Sydney and the Epidemiological Studies Unit in Oxford - said "most people with diabetes should now be considered for statin therapy", with the exception of children and pregnant women. The study was published yesterday in The Lancet.

Jonathan Shaw, deputy director of the Melbourne-based International Diabetes Institute, said the PBS eligibility criteria for statins should be widened. Currently, diabetes patients only qualify for subsidised statin drugs if they are over 60, or if their blood cholesterol exceeds 5.5 millimoles per litre of blood.

Source

Journal abstract follows:

Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18,686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis

Background: Although statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events in people with diabetes mellitus, there is uncertainty about the effects on particular outcomes and whether such effects depend on the type of diabetes, lipid profile, or other factors. We undertook a prospective meta-analysis to help resolve these uncertainties.

Methods: We analysed data from 18,686 individuals with diabetes (1466 with type 1 and 17,220 with type 2) in the context of a further 71,370 without diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statin therapy. Weighted estimates were obtained of effects on clinical outcomes per 1ú0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Findings: During a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, there were 3247 major vascular events in people with diabetes. There was a 9% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in participants with diabetes (rate ratio [RR] 0.91, 99% CI 0.82-1.01; p=0.02), which was similar to the 13% reduction in those without diabetes (0.87, 0.82-0.92; p<0.0001). This finding reflected a significant reduction in vascular mortality (0.87, 0.76-1.00; p=0.008) and no effect on non-vascular mortality (0.97, 0.82-1.16; p=0.7) in participants with diabetes. There was a significant 21% proportional reduction in major vascular events per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people with diabetes (0.79, 0.72-0.86; p<0.0001), which was similar to the effect observed in those without diabetes (0.79, 0.76-0.82; p<0.0001). In diabetic participants there were reductions in myocardial infarction or coronary death (0.78, 0.69-0.87; p<0.0001), coronary revascularisation (0.75, 0.64-0.88; p<0.0001), and stroke (0.79, 0.67-0.93; p=0.0002). Among people with diabetes the proportional effects of statin therapy were similar irrespective of whether there was a prior history of vascular disease and irrespective of other baseline characteristics. After 5 years, 42 (95% CI 30-55) fewer people with diabetes had major vascular events per 1000 allocated statin therapy.

Interpretation: Statin therapy should be considered for all diabetic individuals who are at sufficiently high risk of vascular events.

The Lancet 2008; 371:117-125. Extended commentary here




Caesareans heading to danger level

Although sometimes necessary, I think there is little doubt that they are overdone

THE number of caesarean births in Australia is reaching unmanageable levels, placing lives at risk and tying up thousands of hospital beds, operating theatres and health workers with a costly elective procedure. With caesarean rates now about 30 per cent, anxious governments and health groups in Australia and overseas are trying to turn back the tide, as evidence of the harm caused by repeat surgical births mounts and doubts emerge about the protection a caesarean birth is thought to provide. Modelling by the NSW Department of Health, which has been obtained by the Herald, shows that a rise of just 1 per cent in elective caesareans would come at the cost of a huge rise in "occasions of service", diverting scarce clinical resources from other areas.

About 90,000 babies are born in NSW each year, so that 1 per cent increase would mean hundreds more caesarean sections, as well as more bed days, in already overstretched public hospitals. If the caesarean rate rises to 39 per cent - which many experts fear will happen soon - it will mean thousands more surgical births every year. In a public system that is hundreds of beds and thousands of staff short, and in the midst of a mini-baby boom, that extra strain would be unbearable, obstetricians and midwives warn.

Doctors are quick to point out that, when the health of the mother or baby is at risk, or in an emergency, a caesarean is often the safest way to give birth. There is further evidence that private obstetricians' fees are eating away at the Medicare safety net, meaning taxpayers are bearing the brunt of the increases in elective caesareans at state and federal levels.

Such is the concern that NSW Health organised a meeting of the state's leading midwives and obstetricians to develop strategies to reduce the number of women choosing elective caesareans. Six months later many who attended that meeting despair at the absence of a coherent, statewide plan to reduce the number of women who elect to give birth surgically without a medical reason. The director of women's and children's health at St George Hospital, Michael Chapman, believes the rate of elective caesarean sections could be reduced by at least 5 per cent if women were presented with "accurate information in a believable manner".

Professor Chapman said there were strong health and economic arguments for reducing the number of elective caesareans. A caesarean was at least twice as expensive as a vaginal delivery, he said. "The State Government has to face this issue - we have gone up from 2260 births three years ago to 2700 this year [at St George Hospital] and, with a 30 per cent caesarean rate, that is an extra 100 caesars . it is pushing our operating lists to the limit."

A professor of women's health, nursing and midwifery at the Royal Hospital for Women at Randwick, Sally Tracy, said that not only was it far riskier for women to have caesareans when there was no medical reason, but there was now overwhelming evidence that it carried great risk for babies, too. "Up until now . caesarean section was first and foremost done to protect the baby," she said. Yet a study by Professor Tracy, published in the journal Birth last month, found babies born in an elective caesarean at full term were almost twice as likely to be admitted to a neo-natal intensive care unit as those born vaginally. Professor Tracy's research is one of a dozen studies in the past year cataloguing the harm from elective caesareans.

Last month, in its "committee opinion" on elective caesareans, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said surgical birth resulted in a longer hospital stay for the mother, increased respiratory problems for the baby and greater complications in later pregnancies.

A spokesman for the Minister for Health, Reba Meagher, said a policy was released last year to prevent elective caesareans before 39 weeks of gestation unless there were medical reasons. Maternity services were being reviewed, and the Government expected a new policy to be finalised this year, he said. [Don't rush, now!]

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

"What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum. What a fine fellow!

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

Now fruit juice is under attack

Juice makes you FAT! I have long been pointing out that banning fizzy drinks while approving juices is quite crazy and possibly fattening but it seems that the basic facts of the matter have now percolated through to the food freaks too. You can see where this leads, though: BAN EVERYTHING!



THE nation's love affair with fruit juice could be making us fat, experts say. Juice junkies who quench their thirst with super-size drinks might be shocked to know their daily refreshment has more sugar and calories than a can of Coke. As post-Christmas diets and the summer heat send Australians flocking to juice bars, nutritionists have warned that their health-kick efforts could make them put on weight. "Juice is a good, nutritious way to gain weight," dietitian Melanie McGrice said. "Most of us already have a high-kilojoule diet, so for people who are weight conscious they really don't want the extra kilojoules contained in juice. A piece of fruit and water is always going to be a far better choice."

An examination of popular fruit juice brands conducted by Fairfax Media reveals some contain more sugar and kilojoules than soft drinks, and up to half the average daily energy requirement. And compared with fresh fruit and vegetables, they contain less fibre and fewer nutrients. Even red cordial has fewer kilojoules than some fruit juices.

Ms McGrice said that many consumers who believed juices were a healthy alternative to soft drinks were unaware of the number of calories they contained, particularly in large-size concoctions offered by juice bars. For example, a 650-millilitre Boost Juice Tropical Crush has 1391 kilojoules, while a Nudie blueberry and blackberry crushie has 237 kilojoules per 100 millilitres. Coles's Farmland apple juice contains 180 kilojoules per 100 millilitres - the same as Coke.

Dietitians Association of Australia spokesman Alan Barclay said that, although most juice contained nutritious vitamins and minerals, for most people the health benefits were outweighed by the kilojoule content. "Juice will only make you put on weight, so any health benefit will be counteracted by extra kilos," he said.

Catherine Saxelby, author of Nutrition For Life, said the problem with juice was that it contained all the fruit sugar, or fructose, and kilojoules of fruit without the fibre, meaning it was all too easy to overconsume. A 650-millilitre cup of apple juice, she said, contained the kilojoules of four apples but took only a fraction of the time to consume. She called on juice bars to stop offering big sizes at only slightly higher prices and to include a smaller-size alternative. "Those big size portions are a bargain people can't refuse," she said.

"Fibre is the thing that fills you up and stops you overeating, but the juicing process removes that. I would like to see drinks produced in 200-millilitre sizes, not 650 millilitres, which would fit into our diets a lot better. "The bottom line is that half a cup a day, or 125 millilitres, of juice is the maximum we should drink."

Boost Juice marketing manager Jessica Cleeve said the chain had recently sold 250-millilitre smoothies as part of a promotion and was considering making them a permanent option. "If customers haven't been active, it requires a more measured intake of all food and beverages, including juice. If they have been active, then go for it - if not, go for a smaller size. It's all about balance." Nudie marketing manager Sally Draycott said its drinks were meant to be drunk in 250-millilitre serves. "Our drinks are very filling so you can't really overindulge in them - you have to be pretty gluttonous," she said.

A Deakin University survey last year found that juice and other fruit drinks, including cordial, were a bigger problem than soft drinks in childhood obesity.

Source






IVF mothers conceiving after childbirth

It's almost certainly a relaxation effect. The same thing happens after adoption

IT'S a mystifying phenomenon - IVF mothers conceiving spontaneously months after childbirth - and experts say it may be on the rise. Women who have resorted to IVF after years of failure are regularly falling pregnant naturally soon after baby No. 1. According to some doctors, the number of IVF parents conceiving naturally second time around may be growing. "Twenty-five per cent of women who've been through IVF will conceive within the next two years," said IVF Australia director Prof Michael Chapman. "It's probably increasing, and that's because IVF is being used more and more to treat unexplained infertility."

The IVF couples conceiving naturally second time around are not completely infertile, but rather have reduced fertility. So they may have fallen pregnant naturally the first time if they had kept trying. Other experts say the rise in the phenomenon may simply be because more people are using IVF as it becomes more affordable.

Some experts believe the secret to falling pregnant naturally after IVF lies in a relaxed state of mind. "I have a personal belief that part of it is related to relaxation," Prof Chapman said. "You've got your baby, and you're not trying any more. That's one factor, and maybe the body does know how to get pregnant."

Spotswood bookkeeper Penny Stevens tried for 18 months to conceive naturally before having IVF baby Jack 14 months ago. So she was stunned to discover only months after Jack's birth she was pregnant naturally. Ms Stevens, 39, is convinced the stress of desperately wanting a baby, combined with work stress, was the reason she failed first time, and the absence of that stress was why she succeeded for baby No. 2. "You think you're doing the right thing - you go to uni, work really hard, you get a beautiful house. It wasn't until I got to 34 or 35 I thought, 'OK, I'll have babies now'," said Ms Stevens, who is due in weeks. "And suddenly I couldn't. It frightened the living daylights out of me. It was my worst fear to not have a baby. "This time there was no stress, no pressure, because I had Jack. " I was amazed that we were pregnant naturally because I just had it in my head that we wouldn't."

Prof Chapman recently advised the mother of two IVF babies to use contraception if she didn't want another baby. Eleven weeks later she was pregnant. Monash IVF national medical director Gab Kovacs treated one woman who tried for seven years to conceive naturally before having an IVF baby. Prof Kovacs said the woman tried naturally for two more years before having a second IVF baby, then about six months later conceived a third naturally. Prof Kovacs believes the phenomenon of IVF mums conceiving naturally for subsequent pregnancies comes down to pure chance. "The longer you try, the greater the chance," 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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

"What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum. What a fine fellow!

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

Most destined to lose battle of the bulge

MILLIONS of Australians are locked in the battle of the bulge - and most are destined for defeat. New research shows about half the adult population made New Year's resolutions to fight the flab. And most of the estimated 2 million Victorians who plan to lose weight in 2008 want to shed at least 10kg. But experts say many are heading down the wrong track, turning to fad diets, self-help books and other doomed quick fixes. "We know that most people who lose weight on a diet will regain it and most of those will regain it with interest," Deakin University nutrition expert Dr Tim Crowe said. "Not seeking out the latest quick-fix Hollywood fad diet should be No.1 priority."

But the national Newspoll survey found such quick fixes were exactly what most people pinned their hopes on. It found 55 per cent of people surveyed were looking for an easy answer, while just 42 per cent of men and 32 per cent of women intended to consult a doctor.

Dietitians Association of Australia spokesman Dr Trent Watson said individually tailored advice from a professional was essential. Dr Watson said diets, pills and wonder foods proclaiming fast weight loss should be avoided. "If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is," he said. Dr Watson, from Clued on Food, said sensible weight loss of 1kg a week for men and 500g a week for women could be achieved with healthy eating plans. Healthy diets were based around foods from the four core food groups: fruits and vegetables, breads and cereals, meat and dairy. But it was important to allow for the odd treat....

The Newspoll survey of more than 2000 adults, commissioned by drug manufacturer Abbott Australasia, found half of Australians made New Year resolutions to lose weight. But just a quarter of them believed they would achieve their goal. Of those who went on a diet at the start of 2007, 68 per cent had gone back to their old ways within six months. The weight loss rollercoaster is fuelling a boom in sales of self-help literature, with eight diet books in the top 10 bestsellers list this year.

Source







Cancer breakthrough may stop spreading through the body

Cancer could be stopped from spreading throughout the body following breakthroughs from researchers in the US and Britain. Scientists from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre in New York have discovered that a handful of tiny scraps of genetic material, known as ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules, may control whether or not breast cancer travels to the lung and bone. When "microRNAs" are missing, cancer can spread freely, the scientists found. When they are restored, however, the cancer cells lose some of their ability to metastasise, putting the brakes on the proliferation of cancer.

The findings, which appear in the journal Nature, could help with the diagnosis and prognosis of cancer patients, according to Walter and Eliza Hall Institute Associate Prof Jane Visvader. "If we can understand how these microRNAs work, in the long term we can design therapeutic mimics," she said.

In Britain, by studying the growth of human embryonic stem cells, Dr Chris Ward and his team of scientists at the University of Manchester have discovered a key process in the spread of cancer. The study, published in the journal Cancer Research, used the stem cells to investigate how some tumours are able to migrate to other parts of the body, making cancer treatment much harder. The research, funded by the Association for International Cancer Research, found the protein E-cadherin stopped cells from migrating during normal growth. As well as helping cells stick together, researchers found that E-cadherin blocked the action of another protein known to increase the mobility of cells, opening up the potential for new targets to prevent tumour cells from spreading.

Australian Stem Cell Centre CEO, Prof Stephen Livesey, said the breakthrough could help pave the way for new drugs. "An understanding of this mechanism will allow researchers to develop and target more effective treatments to prevent the cancer spreading to other tissues," Prof Livesey said.

Dr Ward said the finding could be applied to 90 per cent of all cancers. "Finding out more about the mechanism that controls the spread of cancer cells will help us find new treatments that can prevent tumours spreading and make them essentially harmless," he said.

However Prof Livesey cautioned the cancer treatment was still far off. "While each new breakthrough such as this one from the University of Manchester is a step closer to more effective cancer treatments, it is also practical to remember that the development of new drugs is a complex process that can take many years," Prof Livesey 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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

"What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum. What a fine fellow!

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

Obesity now a 'lifestyle choice'

Given the genetics of it, it is often a difficult choice

As adult obesity balloons in the US, being overweight has become less of a health hazard and more of a lifestyle choice, the author of a new book says. "Obesity is a natural extension of an advancing economy. As you become a First World economy and you get all these labour-saving devices and low-cost, easily accessible foods, people are going to eat more and exercise less," health economist Eric Finkelstein said. In The Fattening of America, published this month, Finkelstein says adult obesity more than doubled in the US between 1960 and 2004, rising from 13 per cent to around 33 per cent.

Globally, only Saudi Arabia fares worse than the US in terms of the percentage of adults with a severe weight problem - 35 per cent of people in the oil-rich desert kingdom are classified as obese, the book says, citing data from the World Health Organisation and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

With the rising tide of obesity come health problems and an increased burden on the healthcare system and industry. "But the nasty side-effects of obesity aren't as nasty as they used to be," Finkelstein said. "When you have a first-rate medical system that can cure the diseases that obesity promotes, you no longer need to worry so much about being obese," he said. "With our ever-advancing modern medicine there helping to save the day (at least for many people), are government and the media blowing the magnitude of the 'obesity crisis' out of proportion?" his book says.

A study in which Finkelstein and colleagues at the RTI International, an independent research institute in North Carolina that works on social and scientific problems, asked overweight, obese and normal weight people to predict their life expectancy came up with a total difference of four years. Normal weight respondents predicted they would live to 78, the obese to 74, and the overweight 75.5.

Other studies that looked at death data back the conclusion that people who carry excess weight tend to die slightly earlier, the book says, and draws the conclusion that "many individuals are making a conscious decision to engage in a lifestyle that is obesity-promoting". "People make choices, and some people will choose a weight that the public health community might be unhappy about. Why should we try to make them thinner?" Finkelstein said.

Linda Gotthelf, a doctor who heads research at Health Management Resources, a private, nationwide firm that specialises in weight loss and management, agreed that Americans now live longer but stressed that quality of life declines with age. "People are living longer but with more chronic diseases," Dr Gotthelf said. "That brings a diminished quality of life, especially for the obese who have more functional limitations as they age and tend to be on multiple medications."

Dr Gotthelf disagreed that people chose to be obese. "There are studies in which people have said they would rather lose a limb or be blind than obese. Being obese is not a desire," she said. "For many, this is a problem they have struggled with for many years... it gets discouraging after a while," she said. "I would not doubt that if you asked obese people if they could push a button and not be obese, close to 100 per cent would say they would push the button."

Finkelstein says he wrote The Fattening of America to "encourage discussion of what I understand is probably an uncomfortable position for a lot of people." Even if private industry and government take steps to protect society against the costs of obesity, many Americans "will likely continue to choose a diet and exercise regimen that leads to excess weight," because losing weight requires too many lifestyle sacrifices, his book warns.

Source




Health warning over sugar-free gum

A nasty one for the food freaks

Chewing large amounts of sugar-free gum could lead to chronic diarrhoea and damaging weight loss, according to a study by German doctors.

A 21-year-old woman had diarrhoea and abdominal pain for eight months, and lost 11 kilograms (24lb), the British Medical Journal reports. A 46-year-old man lost twice as much in over a year. After no cause was found they were asked about diet. Both heavily consumed sorbitol, a sweetener found in chewing gum and sweets. Every day the woman ate up to 20 grams of sorbitol, the man 30 grams. The source was gum, and the man also ate sweets. After being told to stop, they got better. "The investigation of weight loss should include detailed dietary history with regard to sorbitol," Juergen Bauditz and his colleagues conclude. Linking sorbitol to diarrhoea is not new: just 20 grams causes it in about half the general population, the team says, but warnings are usually in small print.

Wrigley's said that the evidence was that up to 40 grams of sorbitol could be consumed. It labels such products: "Excessive consumption may produce laxative effects."

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

"What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum. What a fine fellow!

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

2.5 bottles of wine a week can save your life

Not three? Probable middle-class effect in the results again

People who drink up to almost 2.5 bottles of wine a week have a lower risk of premature death than those who abstain from alcohol, research has suggested. Moderate drinkers are less likely than either teetotallers or heavy drinkers to die of heart disease and other causes, and the protective effect is magnified if they also take plenty of exercise, scientists have found. A weekly consumption of up to 14 drinks --- classified as a glass of wine, a bottle of beer or a single measure of spirits ? offers the greatest health benefits, a 20-year study of almost 12,000 Danish men and women has concluded.

The healthiest were those who were moderate drinkers and moderately or very physically active. Their risk of dying from heart disease was about half that of inactive nondrinkers. Martin Gronbaek, of the University of Southern Denmark in Copenhagen, who led the research, said: "Our study shows that being both physically active and drinking a moderate amount of alcohol is important for lowering the risk of both fatal ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and death from all causes. For both men and women, being physically active was associated with a significantly lower risk for both fatal IHD and all-cause mortality than being physically inactive, and drinking alcohol was associated with a lower risk of fatal IHD than abstaining. "A weekly moderate alcohol intake reduced the risk of all-cause mortality among both men and women, whereas the risk among heavy drinkers was similar to nondrinkers."

In the study, published in the European Heart Journal, a team led by Professor Gronbaek, Berit Heitmann and Jane Ostergaard Pedersen, analysed data collected by the Copenhagen City Heart Study, a long-running research cohort assembled in the 1970s to investigate cardiovascular health.

In the mid1970s, almost 20,000 Danish men and women from the same area of Copenhagen were selected randomly from electoral rolls. About 70 per cent agreed to participate, and 11,914 adults eventually answered detailed questionnaires between 1981 and 1983 about many aspects of their behaviour that were considered possible influences on cardiovascular health, including exercise and drinking habits. The goal was to follow up a large group of ordinary people over a long period to find out whether different behaviours among a people of broadly similar social background were associated with any health effects.

There have been 5,901 deaths, including 1,242 from ischaemic heart disease. Ms Ostergaard Pedersen said: "The lowest risk of death from all causes was observed among the physically active moderate drinkers and the highest risk among the physically inactive non and heavy drinkers."

Source





Elective Caesarean for Term Infants Hikes Respiratory Risks

This is not a strong study methodologically but the differences observed are large and orderly so it would seem to be an argument against "frivolous" caesareans. Journal article here

Waiting a little longer for an elective caesarean may be key to avoiding neonatal respiratory problems in term infants, according to investigators here. Babies delivered by elective caesarean from 37 through 39 weeks carry a two- to fourfold increased risk of overall and serious respiratory morbidity compared with babies delivered vaginally or by emergency caesarean, Anne K. Hansen, M.D., of Aarhus University Hospital, and colleagues, reported in an observational study in BMJ Online. The relative risk in their prospective cohort decreased with even small amounts of increasing gestational age, so that waiting until 39 weeks' gestation halved the 37-week risk, the researchers added. Yet even at 39 weeks an increase in morbidity remained, possibly due to a lack of hormones associated with labor.

If no medical indication is present, the investigators said, evidence-based information about the risks and benefits for mothers and newborns becomes all the more important for adequate counseling.

Respiratory morbidity included transitory tachypnea of the newborn, respiratory distress syndrome, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn, and serious respiratory morbidity (oxygen therapy for more than two days, nasal continuous positive airway pressure, or need for mechanical ventilation).

The study included 34,458 live-born singleton babies without birth defects and with gestational ages of 37 to 41 weeks who were born from January 1998 through December 2006 at the Aarhus hospital. In an intention-to-treat methodology, the infants were categorized in two groups, elective caesarean section and intended vaginal delivery (all vaginal deliveries and emergency caesareans). Of these, 2,687 infants (7.8%) were delivered by an elective caesarean. Compared with newborns given intended vaginal delivery, a fourfold increased risk of respiratory morbidity was found for elective caesarean infants delivered at 37 weeks of gestation (OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 2.4 to 6.5). The risks decreased with increasing gestation. At 38 weeks, the risk was three times greater (OR: 3.0, 95% CI: 2.1 to 4.3), and at 39 weeks, the risk was almost double (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2 to 3.0).

For example, at 37 weeks, 2.8% of infants delivered by intended vaginal delivery had general respiratory problems compared with 10% of those delivered by caesarean. At 38 weeks, the proportion was 1.7% compared with 5.1%, and at 39 weeks it was 1.1% versus 2.1%. The increased risks of serious respiratory morbidity showed the same pattern but with higher odds ratios than those for general respiratory problems. For elective caesarean at 37 weeks, the researchers reported a fivefold increased respiratory risk (OR: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.6 to 16.0).

These results remained essentially unchanged after exclusion of pregnancies complicated by diabetes, pre-eclampsia, and intrauterine growth retardation, or by breech presentation, they wrote.

The mechanisms behind these findings are not known, the investigators said, but the lack of hormones associated with labor could explain the association. During spontaneous labor there is a decrease in the secretion of fetal lung liquid and an increase in its absorption while the release of surfactant is stimulated. This may be mediated by a raised level of catecholamines in the infant in response to rupture of the membranes and labor. This surge, however, is absent when caesareans are carried out before labor, they wrote.

One study limitation, the researchers noted, was the fact that information on the type of delivery was validated by research midwives before data entry, and information on respiratory problems was provided by neonatologists. However, they said, variation may have existed in the use of the international classification of diseases.

The authors noted that while waiting until 39 weeks of gestation halves the 37-week risk, there may be other consequences. Carrying out elective caesareans at greater gestational ages "may result in higher rates of intrapartum caesareans because some women would go into spontaneous labor (in our population 25% of spontaneous intended vaginal deliveries started before 39 weeks' gestation)," they wrote. "Compared with elective caesarean sections, intrapartum caesarean sections may carry an increased risk of complications such as uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section, infections, or even maternal mortality."

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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

"What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum. What a fine fellow!

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

THE SUN IS GOOD/BAD FOR YOU

I am a bit tired of debunking this stuff (see the second post here, for instance) so I will just ask one question: If vitamin D is so good for cancer etc. (dubious), what is wrong with adding the stuff to butter and margarine? -- which most countries have been doing for decades anyway

Enjoying a little sunshine may not be as bad for you as people think. Research from the scientist who alerted the world to its role in skin cancer has suggested that its health benefits may outweigh the risks. The hazards of moderate sunbathing have probably been exaggerated, according to a study that shows how sunlight’s effect of boosting vitamin D production may actually protect the body against cancer.

While ultraviolet (UV) light from the Sun is the chief cause of malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, the new work from the US shows that synthesis of vitamin D can compensate in other ways. The vitamin appears to protect against tumours of the breast, lung, colon and prostate, the study found. The overall effect of sunshine on cancer risk may therefore be positive.

The findings come from a team headed by Richard Setlow, of the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, who played a leading role in establishing that UV radiation can damage DNA and cause melanoma. Though Dr Setlow still considers sunlight a serious health risk, and advises people to protect themselves against excessive UV exposure, his new data show that it can also have health benefits because of vitamin D.

The work could lead to new formulations for sunscreen, so that it filters out harmful UVA radiation that can trigger melanoma, while allowing through more of the UVB radiation that stimulates vitamin D production. It does not suggest that sunbeds are safe, as these rely on UVA radiation.

Though many people regard a tan as healthy, medical opinion changed in the 1950s and 1960s when sunlight’s role in skin cancer was discovered. Dr Setlow led much of the key research. Public health campaigns have since encouraged people to cover up or wear sunscreen when exposed to direct sunlight. In Britain, 8,900 new cases of melanoma are diagnosed annually and it causes 1,800 deaths.

However, some scientists have begun to question whether safety advice is too extreme. While the link to melanoma is not disputed, sunlight is also the principal source of vitamin D, which research suggests improves prognosis in many cancers. It may even help the body to fight melanoma.

In his latest study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr Setlow calculated vitamin D synthesis at different latitudes. People living near the equator in Australia produce 3.4 times more vitamin“ D in response to sunlight than UK residents. Incidence of all skin cancers also increases towards the equator. The scientists also found that incidence rates for other cancers, such as breast, lung and prostate, increased from north to equator too. When they examined survival rates, however, they found that people exposed to more sunlight had a better prognosis. Dr Setlow said: “In previous work, we have shown that survival rates for these cancers improve when the diagnosis coincides with the season of maximum sun exposure.”

Joanna Owens, senior science information officer for Cancer Research UK, said: “A little bit of sun goes a long way. The amount of exposure you need to top up your vitamin D is always less than the amount needed to tan or burn, which increases the risk of skin cancer.”

Source






Patients regret apnoea surgery

An important warning, I think

ALMOST two-thirds of people who undergo surgery for sleep apnoea suffer persistent side-effects and almost a quarter regret their decision to go under the knife. The findings were made by researchers at the University of Adelaide, whose study, published in this week's edition of the British Medical Journal, recommends surgery for obstructive sleep apnoea be performed only after a case review by an ethics committee.

Between 2 and 4 per cent of Australians have sleep apnoea, with middle-aged, overweight men the main sufferers, about 24 per cent of them experiencing the condition, which collapses the upper airways during sleep, sometimes stopping breathing. Treatment usually begins with weight and alcohol management and use of breathing apparatus applying continuous pressure while sleeping before surgery is considered.

Adam Elshaug, a lecturer at the University of Adelaide, reviewed reports from around the world, including his own audit of 94 patients in Adelaide. He found that up to 62per cent of 21,346 patients who had surgery reported persistent side-effects such as a dry throat, difficulty in swallowing, voice changes and disturbances of smell and taste. Up to 22 per cent regretted having surgery. "The success rates were relatively low, ranging from 13 per cent for certain procedures, up to 47 per cent for the more advanced procedures," Dr Elshaug said.

The number of patients undergoing surgery for obstructive sleep apnoea is growing, with 3585 private patients recorded nationally in 2005, up from 3242 in 2004. Sleep specialists and surgeons agree surgery should not be the first port of call for apnoea sufferers, but say it is a viable option for patients who do not benefit from other treatments.

Sam Robinson, an ear, nose and throat surgeon who works with the Adelaide Institute for Sleep Health, said it was "nonsense" to restrict surgery to clinical trials overseen by an ethics committee. "Modern reconstructive surgery will give a satisfactory response in 70 to 80per cent of patients, maybe up to 90per cent," Dr Robinson 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].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

"What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum. What a fine fellow!

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