'Cancer chemical' in soy sauce

What utter nonsense! The Japanese drink gallons of the stuff (Go Kikkoman!) and are exceptionally long-lived

AUSTRALIANS should try to limit their exposure to a "probably" cancer-causing chemical found in many common foods including soy sauce, the food regulator has urged. Food Standards Australia New Zealand said ethyl carbamate (EC) can occur naturally in foods including breads, yoghurt and alcohol that undergo fermentation during processing or storage.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer last year upgraded the risk of EC from "possibly'' carcinogenic to humans to "probably'' carcinogenic. "This knowledge suggests that limiting the consumption of some foods and responsible drinking will reduce EC intake, which would appear advisable in the light of emerging international knowledge about the chemical,'' FSANZ said today.

But the regulator said its own studies on the chemical showed it was not as great problem in Australia as some other countries. The agency last year tested food and alcohol sourced from Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia to measure the EC levels, and thereby estimate dietary exposure and potential risk to Australians' health. Among the 225 food samples tested, the chemical was found only in soy sauce. "Very low levels'' were found in 13 of the 30 types of alcoholic beverages tested, with sake, sherry and port returning the highest readings.

"When compared to overseas studies, EC levels in Australia were lower than those reported in Danish and UK surveys,'' FSANZ said. "The risk to health and safety for Australians from exposure to EC through consumption of food is therefore considered to be negligible. "The risk to health and safety for Australians from exposure to EC through alcoholic drinks, other than sake, is negligible, even for high consumers.''

But the regulator urged drinkers to stick to government guidelines on recommended alcohol consumption to minimise their risk.

Source





PESKY! Obese fare better after stroke

OBESE and overweight people are less likely to die in the five years after a stroke than are their normal weight peers, a new study shows. In the study, researchers analysed data from 21,884 stroke patients in Denmark who had their body mass index (BMI) determined. BMI is an accepted means of determining how fat or thin a person is.

The patients were placed into one of five BMI groups: underweight (BMI ( 18.5), normal weight (18.5 to 24.9), overweight (25.0 to 29.9), obese (30.0 to 34.9), and severely obese (35 and greater) and were followed for up to five years after their stroke. Compared with the normal weight individuals, the overweight, obese and severely obese subjects were 27 per cent, 16 per cent, and 16 per cent less likely, respectively, to die during follow-up, Tom Skyhoj Olsen, from Hvidovre University Hospital and colleagues found. Underweight patients, by contrast, were 63 per cent more likely to die, they report in the February 29th online issue of Neuroepidemiology.

According to the researchers, the link between obesity and poor disease outcomes, in general, is usually fuelled by the presence of other conditions. Obese people who are otherwise healthy may fare just as well as, or perhaps in the case of stroke, better than their lean counterparts, they conclude.

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!

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

Three new obesity genes discovered

Shhhh!

Three new genes that may be involved in obesity have been discovered with a new method for investigating the genetic origins of ill-health

In standard genetic studies, researchers compare the genomes of people with a medical condition and control subjects who are free from it, in search of the DNA markers that are more common in one group or the other. But in the new approach, scientists from the United States looked first at the fat and liver tissue of obese mice. By comparing their gene expression profiles with those of normal mice, they were able to identify three genes, called Lpl, Lactb and Ppml1 that appear to control weight gain.

Using the technique, the US team – led by Eric Schadt, of Rosetta Pharmaceuticals in Seattle – was also able to discover how the genes are switched on and off. The genes were found to promote inflammation in mice which in turn encouraged obesity. If these genes have similar effects in humans, it would add to the number of genes known to affect obesity. Last year a British team discovered the first gene to be reliably associated with obesity, called FTO. The research is published in the journal Nature.

Source






Hope for blindness prevetion?

A protein found in blood cells could be the key to treating or preventing two of the commonest causes of blindness, scientists in the United States believe. In mice that simulate the processes of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic retinopathy, damage was prevented by drugs that activate a protein called Robo4, they report in Nature Medicine. The protein stopped the growth of abnormal blood vessels and stabilised existing ones, according to Professor Dean Li and colleagues from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Abnormal blood vessel growth and leakage are two primary factors in AMD and diabetic retinopathy. “Many diseases are caused by injury or inflammation destabilising blood vessels and causing them to leak fluid into adjacent tissues” Professor Li said. “We found a natural pathway – the Robo4 pathway – that counter-attacks by stabilising blood vessels.”

New treatments are needed for both conditions. AMD is the commonest cause of loss of sight in the elderly and diabetic retinopathy is the commonest cause in people of working age. Treatments for one form of AMD do exist, but the best drugs are extremely expensive and at best slow down the disease. Many patients with AMD have been denied treatment with Lucentis on the NHS, at least until they have lost the sight of one eye.

The implications of the finding may go even farther because there are other diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, in which blood vessel stability is lost, allowing fluids to leak into the lungs. Tumours hijack blood vessel growth to feed on nutrients. Although this study did not prove Robo4 would treat those diseases, Professor Li believes it merits investigation.

Scientists from the University of Bristol said last week that they were ready to launch clinical trials of a drug to treat AMD and diabetic retinopathy. Professor Dave Bates and Dr Steve Harper have identified a naturally occurring form of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) that inhibits the formation of new blood vessels. Professor Bates said: “We discovered the potential of VEGF165b in 2001 and have spent the last six years proving its efficacy. We plan to demonstrate clinical proof of concept of the drug in diabetic retinopathy and wet AMD patients by mid2009 so this is a very exciting time for us.” The drug technology, which has been developed with the help of the charity Fight for Sight, is being licensed to a biopharmaceutical company, PhiloGene Inc.

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!

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

New hope in fight against Alzheimer's

AUSTRALIAN researchers have discovered a drug that could delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease and improve quality of life for sufferers. A trial of 78 people conducted in Sydney, Melbourne and Sweden showed patients who took the drug for 12 weeks had a significant improvement in their ability to plan and carry out everyday activities. Professor Colin Masters, from the Mental Health Research Institute of Victoria at the University of Melbourne, said the drug could be the first to slow or reverse the early effects of Alzheimer's disease. "Disease modification, where you modify or slow down the rate of decline, is the holy grail because you can potentially delay the onset of the disease if you get in early," he said.

Dementia affects 220,000 Australians. That figure is expected to rise to 731,000 by 2050. Alzheimer's Australia executive director Glenn Rees said scientific modelling showed the ability to delay the progression of dementia by five years would halve the number of people with the disease by 2040. He said current medications could be used to treat the symptoms of dementia, such as memory loss, but they did not slow or stop the progression of the disease.

A survey of 1380 people released last month by Alzheimer's Australia and drug company Pfizer found three-quarters of those would take a test predicting their likelihood of developing the disease, if it was available. Mr Rees said a predictive test would only be useful if medication was available to treat those at risk.

The experimental drug, PBT2, reduced the amount of a protein associated with Alzheimer's in the cerebrospinal fluid, compared to the placebo. Melbourne University spin-off company Prana Biotechnology plans a larger clinical trial.

Israeli researchers last week said memory loss could be slowed significantly in mice by one of the 400 chemicals present in marijuana, called cannabidiol, which could have ramifications for Alzheimer's sufferers.

Source






Blood clot pill approved in Britain

A daily pill that could help to prevent tens of thousands of deaths due to blood clots will be available to hospitals within weeks. The condition, venous thrombo-embolism (VTE), causes one in ten fatalities in hospital and kills at least 25,000 people in England every year, more than 20 times the number of deaths attributed to the superbug MRSA.

Pradaxa, the first new blood-thinning treatment in more than 50 years, is set to receive its licence next month. It will be used initially after hip and knee replacement surgery when the risk of blood clotting is high. But doctors hope that the anticoagulant pill could also be used to treat thousands of other patients at risk from heart conditions and strokes.

As many as half of all patients going into hospital risk developing VTE, which occurs when part of a deep-vein thrombosis or blood clot migrates to the lungs, heart or brain, with potentially deadly consequences. Such clotting is common after surgery, especially in the elderly, the overweight or those confined to bed for more than three days.

Last year the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidelines recommending that all patients should be assessed on admission to hospital for their risk of developing VTE but an audit by the all-party parliamentary thrombosis group in November found that less than a third of hospitals were doing so. Of those who were screened, only half the patients deemed at risk were receiving preventive treatment, a study published in The Lancet last month suggested.

A report by Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, admitted that "there was no systematic approach to identifying and treating those patients at risk from blood clots in hospitals and that there was significant room for improvement". At present, many hospital patients at risk of blood clots are given warfarin, which was licensed in the 1950s. Warfarin is effective but can trigger excessive internal bleeding. An alternative drug, heparin, involves a lengthy course of injections.

Preliminary results from a trial involving 34,000 patients suggest that Pradaxa is as effective in preventing clotting as existing treatments but it should be cheaper and easier to take. It works by reversing and inhibiting the effects of thrombin, a protein that allows clots to form after surgery.

Produced by the German company Boehringer Ingelheim, the drug is being evaluated by NICE and if approved it could be available to NHS patients within weeks. Another anticoagulant, Xarelto, is in development by Bayer, with preliminary results suggesting that it could be even more effective than Pradaxa.

Simon Frostick, a specialist in orthopaedics at the University of Liverpool, said: "These new drugs will revolutionise the way we prevent and treat blood clots. "Given the new trend for shorter hospital stays following joint replacement surgery, it is becoming increasingly important to have anticoagulant treatments available which are well tolerated and easy to use."

Beverley Hunt, medical director of the UK thrombosis charity Lifeblood, said: "The number of deaths from VTE is nothing short of a public health emergency. "The development of new drugs to treat this problem is terribly exciting. The potential benefit to the NHS is enormous."

Between 1995 and 2003, the NHS Litigation Authority handled more than 450 claims of negligence after patients developed VTE in hospital. It paid out almost 19 million pounds in compensation to sufferers or their bereaved families.

Professor Frostick added: "If these drugs reduce the number of deaths, the requirement for injections and community nurses, as well as other burdens - and if the proper sums are done - they should work out to be cost-effective for the NHS."

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!

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

IS DRINKING TEA GOOD FOR YOU?

The study below says that French women who drink a lot of tea (French women drink tea??) are less likely to get clogged arteries. But is that BECAUSE of the tea or because of whatever it is that makes French women abandon coffee? No need to wonder, though. The replication study below showed differences that were not statistically significant (.08 >.05). So the initial finding looks to have been just a statistical fluke. Both the heading and the conclusions are then essentially lies. How do they get away with it?

Tea Consumption Is Inversely Associated With Carotid Plaques in Women

Stephanie Debette et al.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the relationship of tea consumption with common carotid artery intima-media thickness (CCA-IMT) and carotid plaques.

Methods and Results: The study was performed on 6597 subjects aged ~ 65 years, recruited in the French population for the Three-City Study. Atherosclerotic plaques in the extracranial carotid arteries and CCA-IMT were measured using a standardized protocol. Results were tested for replication in another, younger, French population sample (EVA-Study, 1123 subjects). In the Three-City Study, increasing daily tea consumption was associated with a lower prevalence of carotid plaques in women: 44.0%, 42.5%, and 33.7% in women drinking no tea, 1 to 2 cups/d, and ~3 cups/d (P=0.0001). This association was independent of age, center, major vascular risk factors, educational level, and dietary habits (adjOR=0.68[95%CI:0.54 to 0.86] for women drinking cups/d compared with none). There was no association of tea consumption with carotid plaques in men, or CCA-IMT in both genders. In the EVA-Study, carotid plaque frequency was 18.8%, 18.5%, and 8.9% in women drinking no tea, 1 to 2 cups/d, and ~3 cups/d (P=0.08).

Conclusion— In a large sample of elderly community subjects we showed for the first time that carotid plaques were less frequent with increasing tea consumption in women.

Our aim was to assess the relationship of tea consumption with common carotid artery intima-media thickness and carotid plaques in a large population-based sample of elderly subjects. Increasing daily tea consumption was associated with a lower prevalence of carotid plaques in women, independently of vascular risk factors and dietary habits.

Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2008;28:353.






Pepper drugs fight memory as well as pain

A new class of painkillers derived from chilli peppers may interfere with brain functions such as learning and memory, a study suggests. Drug companies have been testing medicines based on the action of capsaicin, the fiery compound in chillis, which can temporarily desensitise the body's pain sensors. The drugs are designed to be targeted against only the nerves involved in sending pain signals to the brain but experiments on rats have suggested that the painkilling action might have a knock-on effect.

US researchers writing in the journal Neuron say that the drugs' target, a brain receptor known as TRPV1, regulates processes central to mood and memory as well as pain. The findings may also help to explain the potentially suicidal side-effects of the antiobesity drug Acomplia, which has been taken by more than 40,000 Britons. The researchers say that this could be linked to the drug "antagonising" the TRPV1 receptor.

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!

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

Food Fascism gets 8th-grader punished

What could be more normal than a kid eating candy? But the Fascists are determined to stop it

Contraband candy has led to big trouble for an eighth-grade honors student in Connecticut. Michael Sheridan was stripped of his title as class vice president, barred from attending an honors student dinner and suspended for a day after buying a bag of Skittles from a classmate. School spokeswoman Catherine Sullivan-DeCarlo says the New Haven school system banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a districtwide school wellness policy.

Michael's suspension has been reduced from three days to one, but he has not been reinstated as class vice president. He says he didn't realize his candy purchase was against the rules, but he did notice the student selling the Skittles on Feb. 26 was being secretive.

Source






Vaccines Are Safe

Over the past decade, the public has been presented with a large amount of information about the safety of vaccines. Among the reasons for this interest is the widespread success of routine, universal immunization of infants and children, beginning in the 1940s. Unfortunately, along with reasonable information comes erroneous information, and the safety and effectiveness of vaccines has been questioned. Make no mistake: Many dangerous, life-threatening diseases have been wiped out because of vaccines. Immunization was the greatest public health achievement in the U.S. in the 20th century.

The list of licensed and recommended vaccines has been growing, and not just for infants and children. There are now schedules from professional societies, such as the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and public agencies (e.g., the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) that indicate what vaccines should be given for adolescents and adults, and when. There are specific vulnerable populations.

The considerable focus on vaccines, and their safety, in our information-overloaded society is not surprising, with a surplus of articles in magazines, books, parenting guides, and on the Internet, and stories on radio and television. While these occasionally highlight the benefits of immunization - "No One Got Sick or Died from a Vaccine-Preventable Disease Today" - is not a very exciting story.

More often, the emphasis is on speculation that a vaccine caused a health problem. Further, the widespread availability of litigation and liberal tort in the U.S. has encouraged lawsuits claiming harm from vaccines. Finally, it's human nature to assume cause-and-effect when something bad happens, so a vaccination is an attractive target when administered before the onset of a medical condition. Unfortunately, most of the public receives a lot of health information from these lay sources, rather than their physicians. Professional knowledge of immunization is grounded in science - microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, and statistics.

Vaccines are licensed by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) only when proven to be safe and effective. Recommendations for use are promulgated by committees of scientific experts composed of academics, clinicians and other caregivers that are passionately devoted to our citizens' health and safety. The committees' conclusions, and the rationale for them, are shared with practicing physicians, who are the most reliable source of information for patients. This process is the foundation that leads to the conclusions that licensed vaccines are safe, and fears that vaccines are harmful are unfounded.

Nevertheless, to address these unfounded fears, groups of scientific experts have undertaken investigations to determine possible relationships between vaccines and autism, asthma, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, SIDS, and other diseases, and to ansrwer questions that are posed to them:

Does hepatitis B vaccine cause SIDS? Looking at the numbers of doses administered of the former and cases of the latter, one would conclude the opposite, that hepatitis B vaccine prevents SIDS, since 90 percent of U.S. children have received hepatitis B vaccine, and SIDS cases have dropped dramatically in the past decade (probably due to the AAP recommendation that infants sleep on their backs).

Does the MMR vaccine cause autism? This question received extraordinary attention after it was raised in an article in The Lancet, in 1998, by Drs. Wakefield and colleagues. The co-authors and The Lancet have since retracted the article and its conclusions, and Dr. Wakefield is currently on trial in the U.K. for conflict of interest at the time of its publication. (He was on retainer from lawyers suing for vaccine damages.)

More importantly, an Institute of Medicine (IOM) expert panel evaluated the issue, and concluded that the evidence favored rejection of a connection between autism and MMR vaccine. Fourteen epidemiologic studies have been performed, all demonstrating the absence of a relationship between increased rates of autism and frequency of use of MMR vaccine.

It is unfortunate that the speculation of a relationship between MMR vaccine and autism has resulted in the occurrence of vaccine-preventable diseases (especially measles) in children whose parents refused to allow them to receive the vaccine, and has diverted attention from research into the causes of autism, which has been shown to have prenatal origins.

Is thimerosal a cause of neurologic abnormalities, including autism? The preservative thimerosal, consisting of ethyl mercury, was used in multi-dose vaccine vials. At present, most infancy and childhood vaccines are supplied in single-dose vials, and all such routine vaccines are thimerosal-free. Studies to answer this question, including five epidemiologic surveys, came to the same conclusion as the MMR vaccine autism analyses, that there is absence of a relationship. A pivotal study at the University of Rochester quantifying thimerosal in childhood vaccines stated administration of vaccines containing thimerosal does not seem to raise blood concentrations of mercury above safe values in infants. In short, no studies have established a causal link between vaccines and these diseases.

Many of us recall that only two generations ago we had schoolmates who limped or had withered arms, due to the paralytic polio that infected them. That disease has been eradicated in the U.S. because of the universal use of polio vaccine. During my training, I cared for children made deaf from measles, infants blind and retarded from rubella, and those who died from bacteria like pneumococcus and meningococcus. With vaccination, those conditions no longer occur.

As a physician in my early years of practice, the threat of infection with bacteria called Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib) loomed large for my patients and their families; the outcomes of brain damage or death being distinct possibilities. A vaccine was invented, adopted as policy, and given to U.S. infants and children. I'm pleased to say I no longer worry about Hib infection.

Despite scientific proof and a long track record of vaccine safety, we see public policy based on junk beliefs, misinformation, fear, and mass hysteria. In 2006, a number of legislative bodies passed, and executives signed, bills prohibiting use of vaccines containing thimerosal.

From a practical perspective, these restrictions mean little, since all but a few influenza vaccines do not contain thimerosal. But such policies send a bad message: The vaccines that have virtually eradicated many diseases, constituting one of the greatest public health accomplishments of the past century, are dangerous. Further, these policies denigrate our informed medical and scientific communities. This is a disservice to our citizens, and endangers us all.

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!

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

Short men 'more likely to be jealous'

This is not really news. You don't have to be Einstein to know that women prefer tall men and men prefer beautiful women. So plain women or short men are more likely to be rejected and therefore more jealous!

It does however highlight one thing that is often overlooked: That the preference for taller men tends to leave tall women rather high and dry. They find difficulty in getting men who are taller than them. So when they see a one of the rare really tall men with a short lady it does tend to get them irritated ("jealous"). They think that the short lady concerned is taking away one of their rare opportunities. How do I know that? I am tall enough to have had quite a few tall women in my life and they talk to me. And I listen!

Jealous lovers need look no further than their height if they want something to blame for their attacks of the green-eyed monster, new research shows. A study by Spanish and Dutch researchers has found that the shorter a man is the more likely he is to suffer bouts of jealousy. European men questioned by the scientists at the Universities of Groningen and Valencia said they felt most threatened by romantic rivals who were attractive, rich and strong, the New Scientist magazine reported.

Women, on the other hand, were most jealous of others' beauty and charm. They were also most prone to jealousy if they were either short or tall, with medium-height females feeling the most relaxed.

Sydney-based psychotherapist Steven Carroll said the findings, published in the US journal Evolution and Human Behaviour, made evolutionary sense. "From an Australian perspective this is quite right because studies have shown that taller men do best with the ladies," Mr Carroll said. "Young rural Australian men have been seen to worry less about the girls the taller they are and other research has shown that shorter men are more likely to provoke taller men into fights."

But Mr Carroll said when a women actually leaves her partner for another man, jealousy will appear irrespective of height. "The new man could be a midget on life support or Arnold Schwarzenegger and it really wouldn't make a difference to jealousy levels."

The European researchers say it makes sense women of average height are least jealous because, from an evolutionary perspective, they are the most fertile, in the best health, and most popular with men. Mr Carroll agreed but said height was a more complex issue among women, especially in Australia. "Yes, there's the evolutionary angle of average height but in Australia there is much more social pressure than evolutionary pressure to be supermodel tall and fit this legs-up-to-here ideal, and that plays a role too," he said.

The study surveyed 549 men and women in the Netherlands and Spain, with Mr Carroll saying it was "fascinating" the shorter and famously jealous Spaniards had collaborated with the cool and considerably taller Dutch for the research.

Source






Tell a big enough lie often enough ...

The article below is probably correct about the extent to which cholesterol can be lowered. That lower dietary cholesterol would save lives is the lie

Lowering the cholesterol of every Australian by 10 per cent would save 3000 lives a year, according to research which calls for a nationwide shift on diet and exercise. The study by Sydney researchers has found that a small, 10 per cent drop in "bad" LDL cholesterol could be achieved in just a few weeks, primarily by cutting back on saturated fats and exercising more. The shift would save 3000 people annually who would otherwise be dead from heart attack, cardiovascular disease or ischaemic stroke, the researchers at the George Institute for International Health found.

"These are quite significant findings," said Dr Rachel Huxley, the institute's director of nutrition and lifestyle. "We're not talking drugs; we're talking simple diet and exercise changes that an individual can make to lower their LDL in less than a month."

The key change would be lowering saturated fat intake, particularly full fat dairy products, convenience meals, takeaway foods, confectionary, cakes and biscuits - the biggest contributors to LDL in Australia. Statistics show about 12 per cent of energy consumed in an average Australian diet comes from saturated fats, 50 per cent above recommended levels. "If we could cut down on those food items we could make a substantial contribution to reducing the amount of saturate fats that we consume and the number of people that are dying," Dr Huxley 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!

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

The Obesity Police Are Coming

Lawmakers in Mississippi have proposed a bill that would revoke the business license of any restaurant that serves food to fat people, as measured by state health standards. Proponents of the paternalistic nanny-state are intent on transforming obesity into a public health issue. But obesity is a private health matter, of no legitimate concern to government.

Each individual has a right to life, which includes the right to eat as one sees fit. A rational judgment about what to eat takes into account many individual factors--nutritional needs, metabolism, genetics, medical history, and a doctor's advice--as well as the pleasure of eating and one's personal views on body shape. The fact that some people may irrationally maintain an unhealthy weight by overeating cannot justify government control over food intake.

Legitimate public health measures, such as quarantining persons with infectious diseases or outlawing disease-spreading cesspools, involve shielding innocent victims from physical force. But fat people do not emit physical forces that impede other people's freedom of action. Hence, government has no right to prevent or punish obesity.

Some say body weight is a proper subject of legislation because taxpayers bear the burden of treating obesity-related maladies. But the solution to escalating health-care costs is not to surrender control of our bodies but to question the prevailing view that government should be involved in paying for health care.

Obese individuals have the same right as anyone else to decide what to eat, and restaurant owners have a right to choose whom they will serve. The Mississippi legislative proposal is a particularly ugly, arrogant attempt to decree public ownership of human bodies. As such, it is an attack on everyone's freedom, and it should be denounced as such.

Source





Fat kid = unfit parent?

The societal panic over childhood obesity, already entrenched in the medical system and evident in the furor over school lunches, is beginning to influence custody judgments and child-welfare authorities in their decisions about fitness to parent. An Ontario family court judgment involving the Children's Aid Society recently cited obesity as a reason for removing a child from the parental home, after determining the mother was contributing to her child's weight gain and was oblivious to the required medical regime.

The details of the case are covered by a publication ban, but the theme is echoed in another case, an epic nine-year custody battle that wrapped up in a Newmarket courtroom last month, much of which centred on the comparative merits of the battling parents in adhering to a diet plan for their obese twins. The children, who were toddlers when the custody dispute began and who were 10 when it was finally resolved in favour of the mother last month, have spent most of their lives in intensive hospital-based obesity programs.

The custody dispute between their parents, Robert and Lisa, pushed the limits of the extent to which childhood obesity could be considered a result of parental neglect, with evidence in the case using language that makes poor nutritional choices seem tantamount to child abuse. The father, Robert, for example, argued that it was "manifestly obvious that the health and very lives of the children were under imminent threat due to their mother's refusal to comply with prescribed nutritional regimes and not overfeed the children," according to the judgment in the case, released on Feb. 11.

The case even drew on the evidence of a renowned childhood obesity expert, Dr. Glenn Berall, chief of pediatrics at North York General Hospital, who described himself as an "advocate for the children" and who urged the court to place the children in the direct care of the parent who had demonstrated the ability to comply with a prescribed weight-management program and to restrict access to the parent who did not reasonably comply. Elliot Birnboim, the lawyer for the mother in the dispute, said this case was the first time the issue of childhood obesity was the primary issue put forth for determining custody.

Even adoption applications are being considered in this way. Last summer, a family court judge in Kansas City deemed Gary Stocklaufer "an unfit adoptive parent" because he was grossly overweight. Weighing more than 500 pounds, he was rejected for health reasons, but was awarded custody this year after undergoing gastric bypass surgery and losing about 200 pounds.

These far-reaching measures suggest the state may increasingly seek a role in the kitchens of the nation, a reflection of cultural attitudes that put obesity beyond mere medical concern and perhaps more in line of social scourge. A recent study found that Canadian childhood obesity rates rank fifth-highest of 34 developed countries. Rates have soared in the past 30 years, from 5% to 30%, with more children reporting ailments common in obese adults, such as joint degradation, Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and respiratory illnesses.

The morality of obesity has come up in the debate over the rise in the number of patients considered "super obese," and whether the medical system or the patient should bear the cost of oversized equipment. Charlene Elliott, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary who researches obesity, was not aware of these specific cases, but said it is interesting to consider "ways in which society's attitudes on obesity play out differently depending on whether the obese individual is an adult or a child."

"If you examine both the media and societal framing of obesity, you will observe a consistent shift in terms of responsibility depending on who is obese. Adults are considered to be responsible for their own bodies [and body size] whereas children are framed as vulnerable -- 'victims' of adult decisions and, therefore, not responsible for their size," she said.

She said this attitude is why, in the context of childhood obesity, there are "all sorts of social engineering remedies playing out," such as policies intended to make the environment more healthy for children, including the lobbying to extend the ban Quebec has on television advertising to children under the age of 13 to the rest of Canada, the banning of sugary sodas in elementary schools, and the mandatory 20 minutes of physical activity in schools.

"My take on this is that obesity should be treated no differently than other cases where conditions can lead to limited fitness to parent," said Dr. Arya Sharma, chairman for obesity research and management at the University of Alberta and scientific director of the Canadian Obesity Network. "Obesity is not a moral failing or necessarily always a lifestyle problem. One has to very specifically look at the causes of obesity -- these can be varied, ranging from genetics, mental-health problems, medications and other issues that may be difficult to control. [In the case of parenting] with the exception of extreme cases, where severe obesity may result in physical limitations to actually look after the kids, in itself increased body weight does not necessarily translate into inability to parent."

Mr. Birnboim, the lawyer in the Newmarket custody dispute, said the ruling was significant because it swept aside "the prejudices about obesity" to try to consider the overall condition of the children. According to the judgment, the parents "have been in almost continuous litigation concerning the diet, health and residence" of their twins. When the children were just two years old, Dr. Berall determined the boy was morbidly obese and his sister overweight, and set them on a prescribed course that included twice-weekly weigh-ins. At one point in the long-running custody battle, he told the court "consistently, with rare exceptions, the children lost weight under the care of their father and consistently gained weight, with rare exceptions, under the care of their mother."

Robert, the father, put forth a custody plan that gave him "sole responsibility for the children's health care, for the primary reason that he could enhance and direct the children's ongoing weight-management program," the judgment said.

The mother, Lisa, argued against the father gaining full custody, saying that his approach to parenting was "his continuous attendances with the children on numerous medical reviews, weigh-ins and the administering of blood tests; combined with his continuous negative references to others and directly to the children that they are overweight, not normal and are ill and in danger of developing certain conditions or diseases."

In the end, the court determined that primary custody should go to the mother, where the children seemed most happy and well-adjusted, while conceding "the weight-management of the children was a problem that needed addressing." "There's no question that obesity has been a hot issue," Mr. Birnboim said. "Not to downplay the health issue, but we've got to push aside some of the prejudices we have about obesity. It doesn't preempt having a happy, well-adjusted child."

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!

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

Diesel fumes trigger speculation

Hey! Who knew? People don't like breathing in diesel fumes!

INHALING diesel exhaust triggers a stress response in the brain that may have damaging long-term effects on brain function, Dutch researchers said. Previous studies have found very small particles of soot, or nanoparticles, are able to travel from the nose and lodge in the brain. But this is the first time researchers have demonstrated a change in brain activity. "We can only speculate what these effects may mean for the chronic exposure to air pollution encountered in busy cities where the levels of such soot particles can be very high," said lead researcher Paul Borm from Zuyd University. "It is conceivable that the long-term effects of exposure to traffic nanoparticles may interfere with normal brain function and information processing."

Prof Borm and his team put 10 volunteers in a room filled with exhaust from a diesel engine for one hour and monitored their brain waves with an electroencephalograph (EEG). The level of fumes was similar to that found on a busy road or in a garage. After about 30 minutes, brain wave patterns displayed a stress response, suggesting changes in information processing in the brain cortex.

Further research is needed to determine the clinical effect of this stress and whether it has any long-term impact on verbal and non-verbal intelligence or memory abilities. Still, the result appears to be another black mark for nanoparticles found in traffic fumes, which have already been linked with increased rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. The study was published in the journal Particle and Fibre Toxicology and is available online at http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/.

Source







The honey cure

At 42 British pounds for a 120g jar, the world’s most expensive honey recently went on sale in Harrods. Life Mel has a list of purported health benefits as long as your arm ? the scientists who created it claim the usual nutritional advantages associated with honey are maximised because the bees that produce it gather pollen from herbs such as Siberian ginseng, echinacea and Uncaria tomentosa that boost the immune system. They say that 2 tsp of Life Mel honey a day, on an empty stomach, sucked slowly, will supply a shot of antioxidants that leave you better able to fight illness and disease.

Life Mel has already established a reputation as something of a miracle nectar: a study published in the respected Medical Oncology journal last year showed that 12 out of 30 cancer patients given the honey after chemotherapy did not experience the usual plummeting white blood-cell count; other patients reported improvements in their quality of life. However, even the researchers, at Sieff hospital in Israel, where the honey is produced, and Oldchurch Hospital in Romford, Essex, admit the sample was small, and that the proven benefits are slight.

But haven’t we heard it all before? Is honey really a cureall, or is this just a load of hype? Trials conducted at the honey research centre at Waikato University, New Zealand, look more promising. The director of the centre, Professor Peter Molan, has focused his investigations on another super-honey, manuka, which is produced by bees that collect pollen from the manuka bush, which grows wild in New Zealand.

According to Molan, all types of honey contain hydrogen peroxide -- once used in hospitals as a disinfectant for wounds because of its antibacterial properties -- which is produced from an enzyme, glucose oxidase, which the bees add to nectar. Manuka honey appears to contain other beneficial ingredients, yet to be identified, which help it to fight bacteria. Molan has found that eating 3 tsp manuka honey a day can help fight throat infections and reduce gum disease, as well as maintain good digestive health. He has also shown that, when eaten regularly, manuka also aids memory and reduces feelings of anxiety.

At Aintree Hospital in Liverpool and at the University of Wales, manuka honey has been shown to combat MRSA when applied to wounds; other researchers have suggested it may also be useful as a dressing for eczema, sunburn and acne.

Despite these benefits, experts are not convinced that we should all be dipping a spoon into the jar every day. Lisa Miles, a nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, points out that while honey may have its uses in specific medical settings, it contains 16 more calories (64) per tbsp than sugar (48). “It is just liquid sugar,” she says. “It has a reputation as being healthier than sugar, but, nutritionally, there are few advantages. Honey is 75% sugar and counts as added sugar in the diet, so don’t be fooled.” The only thing guaranteed to happen when you eat more of it, she says, is that you will put on weight.

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!

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

Amusing: Another one of the hoary attacks on white bread

Such attacks go back to the 1920s at least. The study is a classical example of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). Summarizing a lot of studies that are themselves just epidemiological speculation tells us nothing

Eating white bread and sugary breakfast cereals can increase the risk of diabetes, heart disease and even cancer, new Australian research suggests. A world-first study by Sydney scientists has found conclusive evidence that a high GI diet, generally rich in food that is burnt by the body quickly, leads to a higher risk of common lifestyle diseases.

The Glycemic Index (GI) is a measure of how different foods affect your blood glucose levels, with those that are "low GI" released more slowly and deemed better for health. A team of nutrition experts at the University of Sydney evaluated 37 diet studies involving nearly two million people worldwide to analyse the effect of eating high GI foods, which are usually highly processed. The study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found a link between a high GI diet and a high risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The diet was also linked to gall stones and some types of cancer.

"The key message from this study," says lead author Alan Barclay, "is that the GI of your diet is a powerful predictor of disease risk. "Grandma was right, you are what you eat." He said the link with diabetes was "not surprising" because eating high GI foods inflates your blood glucose and insulin levels. "You may literally 'wear out' your pancreas over time [Crap! In the human body, a much-used function tends to get stronger] and eventually it may lead to type 2 diabetes in older age," Mr Barclay said.

The researchers were more surprised by the "strong relationship" between GI and cancer. High GI foods cause constant spikes in blood glucose which increase insulin and a related substance called 'insulin-like growth factor one', both of which have been shown to increase the risk of developing cancer. "Other research shows that a high GI diet tends to reduce 'good' HDL cholesterol levels and raise triglycerides levels; bad news for cardiovascular diseases," he said. "And people with low HDL cholesterol and high triglyceride levels are more prone to gall stones."

The researchers said their findings support eating a low GI diet to maintain healthy weight and help avoid disease. Caryl Nowson, a professor of nutrition and ageing at Deakin University in Melbourne, said because high GI foods were typically high in fat and sugar and low in fibre, they were also ready known to be linked with disease. "This review is just a new way of breaking down dietary information we already have," Prof Nowson said. She said while the benefits of eating according to GI rating had been proven, it was just one of many ways to structure a healthy diet. "If you focus on having a classically balanced diet high in fibre and low in sugar, fat and refined foods you'll find you're eating relatively low GI anyway," Prof Nowson said.

Source






No sex for fatties?

This stuff is as yet unpublished but it sounds like the usual epidemiological crap -- based on self-reports, no doubt

Fat men who care more about sex than losing weight should realise there is a good possibility they will have erectile dysfunction, an obesity expert says. The head of Adelaide University’s medical school, Professor Gary Wittert, said men should take note of research linking obesity to erectile dysfunction. “Australian men care about erection problems, perhaps more so than possible cardiovascular disease,” Prof Wittert said. “This may present an opportunity to improve communication about the benefits of weight loss.”

Prof Wittert said that while many men were aware of several health problems which were caused by obesity, difficulties getting an erection were less known. “It’s becoming well known that there are high levels of obesity in Australian men and that this has significant consequences for chronic diseases, both physical and psychological,” he said. “What is less well known is that not only blood vessels to the heart are affected by obesity but similar effects occur with the blood vessels to the penis with resulting erectile dysfunction and poor urinary tract function.”

Prof Wittert will release some of the findings of a major study into the health and ageing of Australian men tomorrow afternoon. As part of the Florey Adelaide Male Ageing Study, about 1,000 men were examined in an attempt to identify the key factors that determined their reproductive, physical and emotional health.

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!

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