Does cholesterol hold the key to a vaccine against Aids? Scientists find way to stop HIV damaging the immune system
Sad if this is seen as further demonization of cholesterol. It in fact demonstrates the importance of cholesterol
Scientists have found a way to prevent HIV from damaging the immune system and say their discovery may offer a new approach to developing a vaccine against Aids.
Researchers from the United States and Europe working in laboratories on the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) found it is unable to damage the immune system if cholesterol is removed from the virus's membrane.
"It's like an army that has lost its weapons but still has flags, so another army can recognise it and attack it," said Adriano Boasso of Imperial College London, who led the study. The team now plans to investigate how to use this way of inactivating the virus and possibly develop it into a vaccine.
Usually when a person becomes infected with HIV, the body's innate immune response puts up an immediate defence. But some researchers believe HIV causes the innate immune system to overreact. This weakens the immune system's next line of defence, known as the adaptive immune response.
For this study -- published yesterday in the journal Blood -- Boasso's team removed cholesterol from the membrane around the virus and found that this stopped HIV from triggering the innate immune response. This in turn led to a stronger adaptive response, orchestrated by a type of immune cells called T cells.
Aids kills around 1.8 million people a year worldwide. An estimated 2.6 million people caught HIV in 2009, and 33.3 million people are living with the virus.
Major producers of current HIV drugs include Gilead Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.
Scientists from companies, non-profits and governments around the world have been trying for many years to make a vaccine against HIV but have so far had only limited success.
A 2009 study in Thailand involving 16,000 volunteers showed for the first time that a vaccine could prevent HIV infection in a small number of people, but since the efficacy was only around 30 per cent, researchers were forced back to the drawing board.
An American team working on an experimental HIV vaccine said in May that it helped monkeys with a form of the Aids virus control the infection for more than a year, suggesting it may lead to a vaccine for people.
HIV is spread in many ways -- during sex, on needles shared by drug users, in breast milk and in blood - so there is no single easy way to prevent infection.
The virus also mutates quickly and can hide from the immune system, and attacks the very cells sent to battle it. "HIV is very sneaky," Boasso said in a statement. "It evades the host's defences by triggering overblown responses that damage the immune system. ‘It's like revving your car in first gear for too long -- eventually the engine blows out.
He said this may be why developing a vaccine has proven so tricky. "Most vaccines prime the adaptive response to recognise the invader, but it's hard for this to work if the virus triggers other mechanisms that weaken the adaptive response."
HIV takes its membrane from the cell that it infects, the researchers explained in their study. This membrane contains cholesterol, which helps keep it fluid and enables it to interact with particular types of cell.
Normally, a subset of immune cells called plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) recognize HIV quickly and react by producing signaling molecules called interferons. These signals activate various processes which are initially helpful, but which damage the immune system if switched on for too long.
Working with scientists Johns Hopkins University, the University of Milan and Innsbruck University, Boasso's team found that if cholesterol is removed from HIV's envelope, it can no longer activate pDCs. As a result, T cells, which orchestrate the adaptive response, can fight the virus more effectively.
SOURCE
An antibiotic found in liver of sharks 'could revolutionise human medicine'
And it's a cholesterol type molecule!
An antibiotic found in sharks could be used as drug to treat human viruses and revolutionise medicine, new research has found.
The compound, found in the liver of the predator, could be used as a new type of drug to treat a broad spectrum of diseases from dengue and yellow fever to hepatitis B, C and D.
The antibiotic, squalamine, is already known to be safe for use in humans as an antiviral agent.
Dr Michael Zasloff, from Georgetown University who led the study, said: ‘To realise that squalamine potentially has broad antiviral properties is immensely exciting, especially since we already know so much from ongoing studies about its behaviour in people.’
They found that in both lab and animal experiments squalamine produced antiviral activity against the human pathogens found in the diseases such as some forms of hepatitis which cannot currently be treated.
Along with offering medical advances this discovery may solve the mystery of how sharks with primitive immune systems can so effectively fight viruses that plague all living creatures.
Dr Zasloff said: ‘I believe squalamine is one of a family of related compounds that protects sharks and some other “primitive” ocean vertebrates, such as the sea lamprey, from viruses. ‘Squalamine appears to protect against viruses that attack the liver and blood tissues, and other similar compounds that we know exist in the shark likely protect against respiratory viral infections, and so on.
‘We may be able to harness the shark's novel immune system to turn all of these antiviral compounds into agents that protect humans against a wide variety of viruses. ‘That would be revolutionary. While many antibacterial agents exist, doctors have few antiviral drugs to help their patients, and few of those are broadly active.’
Dr Zasloff discovered squalamine in 1993 and it has already been used in clinical trials to treat cancer and several eye disorders.
‘I was interested in sharks because of their seemingly primitive but effective immune system. No one could explain why the shark was so hardy,’ he said. When he started to ‘play’ with the compound he found that it inhibited the growth of rapidly growing blood vessels, such as those found in tumour growth and certain retinal diseases.
Since 1995 it has been synthesised in the laboratory rather than taking any natural shark tissue.
Dr Zasloff remained interested in how the natural cholesterol type molecule, which has a net positive electrical charge, acted as an immune agent in sharks.
When it enters cells, and it can only access certain cells including those in blood vessels, capillaries and the liver, squalamine ‘kicks off’ positively-charged proteins that are bound to the negatively charged surface of the cells inner membrane.
Some of these displaced proteins are used by viruses to replicate and without the protein a virus's life cycle is disrupted, the microbe is rendered inert and the cell containing it is destroyed.
This means that squalamine seems to be designed to fight certain viral infections, Dr Zasloff claimed. He said: ‘To me, the key to squalamine is that once in the body it times its action to match the life cycle of most viruses. ‘Most viruses take hours to complete their life cycle, the same time period that squalamine renders tissues and organs viral resistant after administration. ‘In addition, it acts fast to stop viral replication, clearing the body of these predators within hours.
‘Furthermore, because squalamine acts by making the host's tissues less receptive for infection, rather than by targeting a specific viral protein, the emergence of viral resistance would not be anticipated.’
In tissue culture studies squalamine was shown to inhibit the infection of human blood vessel cells by the dengue virus and human liver cells infected with hepatitis B and D, which can cause liver failure and cancer.
In animal studies, scientists from across the USA discovered that squalamine controlled infections of yellow fever, Eastern equine encephalitis virus, and murine cytomegalovirus, and in some cases cured the animals.
The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition online yesterday.
SOURCE
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Two cups of coffee every day 'may cut stroke risk'
The original journal article is much more tentative than the popular report below. And with good reason. The comparision was with people who drink NO coffee! Who are those guys? Alcoholics? Tea drinkers? Mormons? People too poor to buy coffee? Without knowing that the results are meaningless. The conclusion of the journal abstract is the maximum you could realistically say: "Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that moderate coffee consumption may be weakly inversely associated with risk of stroke"
Just two cups of coffee a day can significantly reduce the risk of stroke, research shows.
Experts have previously been divided over the drink, with some suggesting the beverage is a dangerous stimulant, and others that it could save lives. But a comprehensive analysis of the health benefits of coffee has confirmed it can have a powerful preventative effect against one of Britain’s biggest killers.
Scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, pooled results of earlier studies to find a definitive answer. They gathered statistics from eight studies surveying nearly half-a-million people, carried out from the mid 1960s to 2011.
The results, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, showed those drinking two cups a day were 14 per cent less likely to suffer a clot on the brain, while drinking three to four cups a day reduced the dangers by 17 per cent.
But consuming more than that does not necessarily boost protection, the study showed. Caffeine addicts drinking six or more cups daily see a reduction in risk of just 7 per cent.
The researchers said antioxidants in coffee may protect blood vessels in the brain from damage caused by lipoprotein, dubbed the ‘bad’ cholesterol. But they stressed there are still lingering concerns that it can increase blood pressure.
The scientists said: ‘Coffee is a complex mixture of substances that may have both beneficial and harmful effects.’
SOURCE
Nanny state health targets take the taste out of the traditional British fry-up
The traditional British fry-up is under threat from government health targets, industry experts warned yesterday. Butchers and retailers say a drive to cut salt levels will make breakfasts with bacon and sausages less appetising.
More than 60 food firms and supermarkets have to cut salt levels by next year to meet targets set by the Government.
At least 80 per cent of sausages are thought to exceed the threshold, which allows 1.13g of salt per 100g. The sausage maker Richmond’s products, for example, typically contain around 2.2g per 100g, while Tesco’s own-brand bangers contain 1.5g per 100g.
For bacon, which will be limited to 2.88g of salt per 100g, most supermarkets’ own brands exceed the threshold with up to 3.6g.
Ministers want to reduce our salt intake to 6g a day from 8.6g in 2008, the last year for which figures are available. They say eating too much salt can raise blood pressure, contributing to thousands of premature deaths every year from heart disease and strokes.
But Andrea Martinez-Inchausti, of the British Retail Consortium, said it was ‘pointless’ to keep reducing salt in products if it meant shoppers just added it at the table. She said: ‘If salt is reduced further there’s a danger that products will no longer taste the way consumers want them to.’
The BRC and the Food and Drink Federation have drawn up a list of eight products for which it is proving difficult to reduce salt without losing flavour. As well as bacon and sausages, they include bread, cheese, cakes and pastries, pesto and other sauces, and canned fish.
So far 62 retailers, including Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Waitrose and Asda, have agreed to comply with the Government’s targets on salt reduction.
SOURCE
The original journal article is much more tentative than the popular report below. And with good reason. The comparision was with people who drink NO coffee! Who are those guys? Alcoholics? Tea drinkers? Mormons? People too poor to buy coffee? Without knowing that the results are meaningless. The conclusion of the journal abstract is the maximum you could realistically say: "Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that moderate coffee consumption may be weakly inversely associated with risk of stroke"
Just two cups of coffee a day can significantly reduce the risk of stroke, research shows.
Experts have previously been divided over the drink, with some suggesting the beverage is a dangerous stimulant, and others that it could save lives. But a comprehensive analysis of the health benefits of coffee has confirmed it can have a powerful preventative effect against one of Britain’s biggest killers.
Scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, pooled results of earlier studies to find a definitive answer. They gathered statistics from eight studies surveying nearly half-a-million people, carried out from the mid 1960s to 2011.
The results, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, showed those drinking two cups a day were 14 per cent less likely to suffer a clot on the brain, while drinking three to four cups a day reduced the dangers by 17 per cent.
But consuming more than that does not necessarily boost protection, the study showed. Caffeine addicts drinking six or more cups daily see a reduction in risk of just 7 per cent.
The researchers said antioxidants in coffee may protect blood vessels in the brain from damage caused by lipoprotein, dubbed the ‘bad’ cholesterol. But they stressed there are still lingering concerns that it can increase blood pressure.
The scientists said: ‘Coffee is a complex mixture of substances that may have both beneficial and harmful effects.’
SOURCE
Nanny state health targets take the taste out of the traditional British fry-up
The traditional British fry-up is under threat from government health targets, industry experts warned yesterday. Butchers and retailers say a drive to cut salt levels will make breakfasts with bacon and sausages less appetising.
More than 60 food firms and supermarkets have to cut salt levels by next year to meet targets set by the Government.
At least 80 per cent of sausages are thought to exceed the threshold, which allows 1.13g of salt per 100g. The sausage maker Richmond’s products, for example, typically contain around 2.2g per 100g, while Tesco’s own-brand bangers contain 1.5g per 100g.
For bacon, which will be limited to 2.88g of salt per 100g, most supermarkets’ own brands exceed the threshold with up to 3.6g.
Ministers want to reduce our salt intake to 6g a day from 8.6g in 2008, the last year for which figures are available. They say eating too much salt can raise blood pressure, contributing to thousands of premature deaths every year from heart disease and strokes.
But Andrea Martinez-Inchausti, of the British Retail Consortium, said it was ‘pointless’ to keep reducing salt in products if it meant shoppers just added it at the table. She said: ‘If salt is reduced further there’s a danger that products will no longer taste the way consumers want them to.’
The BRC and the Food and Drink Federation have drawn up a list of eight products for which it is proving difficult to reduce salt without losing flavour. As well as bacon and sausages, they include bread, cheese, cakes and pastries, pesto and other sauces, and canned fish.
So far 62 retailers, including Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Waitrose and Asda, have agreed to comply with the Government’s targets on salt reduction.
SOURCE
Sunday, September 18, 2011
'Shy' children at risk of being diagnosed with mental disorder
Children who are merely shy or sad are at risk of being diagnosed with mental disorders and given powerful drugs. Psychologists say that new guidelines being developed in America will lead more young people seeing their common problems regarded as illnesses that must be treated, rather than just being given support.
They fear that pupils who are quiet at school could be diagnosed with “social anxiety disorder” while those who become withdrawn after suffering a bereavement are classified as having a “depressive disorder”.
Children who just talk back to adults or lose their temper regularly could be diagnosed with “oppositional defiant disorder”.
As a result, those found to have these increasingly broad mental disorders could be prescribed powerful medication such as Prozac or Ritalin to control or alter their behaviour.
Now the pressure is increasing for a national review of the use of such drugs on schoolchildren as well as more research into their long-term effects, following a vote at the TUC Congress on Wednesday.
Kate Fallon, general secretary of the Association of Educational Psychologists, told delegates: “Behaviours develop over a long period of time, often with a range of complex causes; we can’t ‘cure’ the behaviours we don’t like with a quick fix of medicine. They usually require careful management by all the adults around the child.
“In 2013 we’re expecting new criteria for the definition of mental illness to be adopted here in the UK. These criteria will lead to many more children being diagnosed as mentally ill, based on reports of their behaviours.
“A shy child could be diagnosed with social anxiety; a sad or temporarily withdrawn child could be diagnosed with depression.
“These are conditions which are also likely to be treated with medication – and under these circumstances, Congress, we will be putting potent drugs into children with little or no understanding of what it will lead to.
“In a society that wants quick results using drugs to improve behaviour is very tempting. But there can be other ways of improving children’s behaviour which typically involve time and energy from people.”
Research has found that children under the age of six are being prescribed the drug Ritalin for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, prompting calls for the Department of Health to investigate the scale of the problem and the potential long-term damage it may be causing.
Recent figures show 650,000 children aged between eight and 13 are on the pscyhotropic drug, up from just 9,000 two decades ago, while others are taking Prozac for depression or anxiety.
Fears are growing that the number of children diagnosed with mental disorders and prescribed drugs will increase still further after 2013, when a new “bible” of the psychiatric profession is published.
Known as DSM-5, the book widens the diagnostic criteria for many supposed conditions including social anxiety disorder, better known as shyness, and will likely be adopted by the health authorities in Britain after appearing first in the US.
The proposed new definition for social anxiety disorder states that it is marked by “fear or anxiety about one or more social situations in which the person is exposed to possible scrutiny by others. Examples include social interactions (e.g., having a conversation), being observed (e.g., eating or drinking), or performing in front of others (e.g., giving a speech)”.
In children this fear could be expressed by “crying, tantrums, freezing, clinging, shrinking or refusal to speak in social situations”.
Young people will be deemed as having oppositional defiant disorder if they display symptoms including losing their temper, arguing with adults, deliberately annoying people or being “spiteful or vindictive at least twice within the past six months” to people other than their brothers or sisters.
The British Psychological Society has also raised concerns about the proposed revisions to the DSM.
It does not dispute that some children have emotional and behavioural problems but says that patients and the public are “negatively affected” by the continued “medicalisation” of natural and normal responses to their experiences, and that classifying such problems as “illnesses” ignores their wider causes.
Prof Peter Kinderman, chairman of the society’s Division of Clinical Psychology, said: “We’re not certain that a diagnosis and a medical response is the best way to help these kids.
“Absolutely understand and help, not necessarily diagnose and treat.”
SOURCE
A 10p vitamin B pill a day from middle age may ward off Alzheimer's
This looks very encouraging but the very high doses used raise serious concerns about damaging side-effects
Taking one vitamin B pill a day from middle age could protect your memory as you grow older – and even ward off Alzheimer’s, British researchers say. The supplement, which costs just 10p, is described as the ‘first glimmer of hope’ in the battle to find a drug that slows or stops the development of the disease.
Pensioners who took high doses of the vitamin once a day for two years did 70 per cent better on a simple memory test than those who did not. The Oxford University scientists say the pill prevents the memory lapses that can be a precursor to dementia. They also found it cut brain shrinkage linked to memory loss by up to 500 per cent.
They say people should consider taking high-dose vitamin B from middle age – but only after seeking their doctor’s advice.
Alzheimer’s and forms of dementia blight the lives of more than 800,000 Britons. That number is expected to double within a generation, as the population ages.
In landmark research published last year, Dr Celeste de Jager and her colleagues, who are also behind this study, showed that high doses of vitamin B cut brain shrinkage linked to memory loss. The latest results, presented at the British Science Festival in Bradford, show that it also helps stop memory from failing.
In the trial, 270 pensioners with mild cognitive impairment – the slight memory lapses that can be a precursor to Alzheimer’s – were asked to take a vitamin B tablet once a day for a year, or given a dummy pill to take instead.
The tablets contained extremely high amounts of vitamins B6, 9 and 12. For instance, the dose of B12 was up to 300 times higher than could be obtained by eating foods rich in the vitamin, such as bananas, wholegrains and meat.
The pill reduced the shrinkage of the brain, which happens naturally with age, by 30 per cent on average – but it halved it in those with the highest levels of a chemical called homocysteine in their bloodstream. In one case, it was cut five-fold.
Homocysteine is a natural compound that builds up in the body as we age and, at high levels, is linked to memory loss and Alzheimer’s. Vitamin B breaks it down. In the study, those with higher than average levels of homocysteine who took vitamin B performed almost 70 per cent better on a memory test than those who took the placebo pill.
It specifically bolsters episodic memory, the type needed to remember things such as shopping lists – and one of the first to deteriorate in Alzheimer’s.
In addition, those with the very highest levels of homocysteine who took vitamin B were less likely to have progressed towards Alzheimer’s, and in some cases, their memory lapses disappeared entirely after the two years.
Researcher Professor David Smith termed the effects ‘striking’. But while the team said those in middle age could benefit from the treatment, they stressed they must speak to their doctor.
High-dose vitamins may trigger cancer and are known to fuel existing cancers. They may also react with medicines including arthritis and psoriasis drugs.
SOURCE
Children who are merely shy or sad are at risk of being diagnosed with mental disorders and given powerful drugs. Psychologists say that new guidelines being developed in America will lead more young people seeing their common problems regarded as illnesses that must be treated, rather than just being given support.
They fear that pupils who are quiet at school could be diagnosed with “social anxiety disorder” while those who become withdrawn after suffering a bereavement are classified as having a “depressive disorder”.
Children who just talk back to adults or lose their temper regularly could be diagnosed with “oppositional defiant disorder”.
As a result, those found to have these increasingly broad mental disorders could be prescribed powerful medication such as Prozac or Ritalin to control or alter their behaviour.
Now the pressure is increasing for a national review of the use of such drugs on schoolchildren as well as more research into their long-term effects, following a vote at the TUC Congress on Wednesday.
Kate Fallon, general secretary of the Association of Educational Psychologists, told delegates: “Behaviours develop over a long period of time, often with a range of complex causes; we can’t ‘cure’ the behaviours we don’t like with a quick fix of medicine. They usually require careful management by all the adults around the child.
“In 2013 we’re expecting new criteria for the definition of mental illness to be adopted here in the UK. These criteria will lead to many more children being diagnosed as mentally ill, based on reports of their behaviours.
“A shy child could be diagnosed with social anxiety; a sad or temporarily withdrawn child could be diagnosed with depression.
“These are conditions which are also likely to be treated with medication – and under these circumstances, Congress, we will be putting potent drugs into children with little or no understanding of what it will lead to.
“In a society that wants quick results using drugs to improve behaviour is very tempting. But there can be other ways of improving children’s behaviour which typically involve time and energy from people.”
Research has found that children under the age of six are being prescribed the drug Ritalin for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, prompting calls for the Department of Health to investigate the scale of the problem and the potential long-term damage it may be causing.
Recent figures show 650,000 children aged between eight and 13 are on the pscyhotropic drug, up from just 9,000 two decades ago, while others are taking Prozac for depression or anxiety.
Fears are growing that the number of children diagnosed with mental disorders and prescribed drugs will increase still further after 2013, when a new “bible” of the psychiatric profession is published.
Known as DSM-5, the book widens the diagnostic criteria for many supposed conditions including social anxiety disorder, better known as shyness, and will likely be adopted by the health authorities in Britain after appearing first in the US.
The proposed new definition for social anxiety disorder states that it is marked by “fear or anxiety about one or more social situations in which the person is exposed to possible scrutiny by others. Examples include social interactions (e.g., having a conversation), being observed (e.g., eating or drinking), or performing in front of others (e.g., giving a speech)”.
In children this fear could be expressed by “crying, tantrums, freezing, clinging, shrinking or refusal to speak in social situations”.
Young people will be deemed as having oppositional defiant disorder if they display symptoms including losing their temper, arguing with adults, deliberately annoying people or being “spiteful or vindictive at least twice within the past six months” to people other than their brothers or sisters.
The British Psychological Society has also raised concerns about the proposed revisions to the DSM.
It does not dispute that some children have emotional and behavioural problems but says that patients and the public are “negatively affected” by the continued “medicalisation” of natural and normal responses to their experiences, and that classifying such problems as “illnesses” ignores their wider causes.
Prof Peter Kinderman, chairman of the society’s Division of Clinical Psychology, said: “We’re not certain that a diagnosis and a medical response is the best way to help these kids.
“Absolutely understand and help, not necessarily diagnose and treat.”
SOURCE
A 10p vitamin B pill a day from middle age may ward off Alzheimer's
This looks very encouraging but the very high doses used raise serious concerns about damaging side-effects
Taking one vitamin B pill a day from middle age could protect your memory as you grow older – and even ward off Alzheimer’s, British researchers say. The supplement, which costs just 10p, is described as the ‘first glimmer of hope’ in the battle to find a drug that slows or stops the development of the disease.
Pensioners who took high doses of the vitamin once a day for two years did 70 per cent better on a simple memory test than those who did not. The Oxford University scientists say the pill prevents the memory lapses that can be a precursor to dementia. They also found it cut brain shrinkage linked to memory loss by up to 500 per cent.
They say people should consider taking high-dose vitamin B from middle age – but only after seeking their doctor’s advice.
Alzheimer’s and forms of dementia blight the lives of more than 800,000 Britons. That number is expected to double within a generation, as the population ages.
In landmark research published last year, Dr Celeste de Jager and her colleagues, who are also behind this study, showed that high doses of vitamin B cut brain shrinkage linked to memory loss. The latest results, presented at the British Science Festival in Bradford, show that it also helps stop memory from failing.
In the trial, 270 pensioners with mild cognitive impairment – the slight memory lapses that can be a precursor to Alzheimer’s – were asked to take a vitamin B tablet once a day for a year, or given a dummy pill to take instead.
The tablets contained extremely high amounts of vitamins B6, 9 and 12. For instance, the dose of B12 was up to 300 times higher than could be obtained by eating foods rich in the vitamin, such as bananas, wholegrains and meat.
The pill reduced the shrinkage of the brain, which happens naturally with age, by 30 per cent on average – but it halved it in those with the highest levels of a chemical called homocysteine in their bloodstream. In one case, it was cut five-fold.
Homocysteine is a natural compound that builds up in the body as we age and, at high levels, is linked to memory loss and Alzheimer’s. Vitamin B breaks it down. In the study, those with higher than average levels of homocysteine who took vitamin B performed almost 70 per cent better on a memory test than those who took the placebo pill.
It specifically bolsters episodic memory, the type needed to remember things such as shopping lists – and one of the first to deteriorate in Alzheimer’s.
In addition, those with the very highest levels of homocysteine who took vitamin B were less likely to have progressed towards Alzheimer’s, and in some cases, their memory lapses disappeared entirely after the two years.
Researcher Professor David Smith termed the effects ‘striking’. But while the team said those in middle age could benefit from the treatment, they stressed they must speak to their doctor.
High-dose vitamins may trigger cancer and are known to fuel existing cancers. They may also react with medicines including arthritis and psoriasis drugs.
SOURCE
Friday, September 16, 2011
Statins and Pregnancy
Stephanie Seneff
You may not be old enough to remember the disaster incurred by the widespread practice in Europe in the 1950's of treating depression with the then newly discovered drug Thalidomide. When you take a Lipitor tablet you are taking a drug that, like Thalidomide, is labeled "Class X" with respect to its potential harm to the fetus, and is even worse than Thalidomide in terms of the kind of damage it can do to your unborn child. A woman who is in the childbearing age group should never be advised to take a statin drug. While there are warnings associated with the ads and on the labels claiming that you should "stop taking Lipitor" should you become pregnant, the drug companies seem intent on hushing up the fact that these drugs are toxic to the developing fetus.
Clearly it would be unethical to conduct a controlled experiment that intentionally exposes a pregnant woman to statins, and therefore such controlled studies have not been done. However, in one of the few available retrospective studies of statins and pregnancy, researchers from the U.S. National Institutes of Health found that statin use during the first trimester of pregnancy led to severe central nervous system defects as well as limb deformities. Twenty out of 52 women who had been exposed to statins during the first trimester had babies with severe deformities, which is nearly a 40% rate of severe birth defects.
"Of the 20 babies born with malformations, five had severe central nervous system defects, and five had malformed limbs. One baby had both, according to Muenke. There were also two cases of a very rare birth defect called holoprosencephaly, which occurs when the brain fails to divide properly." (Statins and Birth Defects) .
Doctors in Liverpool have even had the audacity to propose that statins be prescribed to pregnant women, an idea that these authors find wildly disturbing: (Statins during Pregnancy) . There seems to be a general lack of awareness, even among doctors, of the degree of harm these drugs can inflict on the developing fetus.
Great Britain now has the dubious distinction of being the only country where you can buy statin drugs over the counter (NonPrescription Statins) . This means that any naive young woman thinking she can self-treat high cholesterol may end up with a severely malformed baby, and chances are she won't even realize it's due to the drug.
SOURCE
Fat is good for you: Mothers who eat low-fat yoghurt during pregnancy 'more likely to have asthmatic children
This is certainly a good laugh so I won't speculate on the causal chain
Mothers-to-be who eat low-fat yoghurt are more likely to have children with asthma, a study found. The analysis of the habits of tens of thousands of pregnant women also linked low-fat yoghurt with the development of hay fever.
The researchers, from the respected Harvard School of Public Health in the US, said that it may be missing fats that protect against allergies. Previous research has linked low-fat dairy products with difficulty in becoming pregnant.
In the latest study, more than 60,000 women were quizzed on their eating habits while pregnant. The health of the babies they had was then tracked until the age of seven. The results credited milk with helping ward off asthma. However, low-fat, but not full-fat, yoghurt, seems to do the opposite.
Children whose mothers ate low-fat yoghurt while carrying them were 60 per cent more likely to have developed asthma by the age of seven than those who weren’t exposed to the food in the womb.
And their odds of hay fever were three times higher than those of other children, the European Respirator Society’s annual conference heard.
The increased risk only applies to low-fat yoghurt that contains fruit but the researchers are unable to explain why this is. They say that full-fat dairy products may contain fats that help programme the unborn baby’s immune system away from allergies. It may also be the case that low-fat yoghurt with fruit contains ingredients that raise the risk of asthma and hay fever.
Or simply that women who eat this kind of yoghurt are unhealthy in other ways.
The previous research, also from Harvard, revealed that eating low-fat dairy products can greatly increase the risk of infertility. Even small amounts of everyday foods and drinks can reduce a woman’s possibility of becoming mother, with just a pint of semi-skimmed or skimmed milk or two pots of yoghurt a day almost doubling the risk of anovulatory infertility - a very common condition in which a woman stops ovulating.
However, eating full fat dairy products has the opposite effect, with a bowl of ice cream a day being enough to boost the chances of motherhood.
SOURCE
Stephanie Seneff
You may not be old enough to remember the disaster incurred by the widespread practice in Europe in the 1950's of treating depression with the then newly discovered drug Thalidomide. When you take a Lipitor tablet you are taking a drug that, like Thalidomide, is labeled "Class X" with respect to its potential harm to the fetus, and is even worse than Thalidomide in terms of the kind of damage it can do to your unborn child. A woman who is in the childbearing age group should never be advised to take a statin drug. While there are warnings associated with the ads and on the labels claiming that you should "stop taking Lipitor" should you become pregnant, the drug companies seem intent on hushing up the fact that these drugs are toxic to the developing fetus.
Clearly it would be unethical to conduct a controlled experiment that intentionally exposes a pregnant woman to statins, and therefore such controlled studies have not been done. However, in one of the few available retrospective studies of statins and pregnancy, researchers from the U.S. National Institutes of Health found that statin use during the first trimester of pregnancy led to severe central nervous system defects as well as limb deformities. Twenty out of 52 women who had been exposed to statins during the first trimester had babies with severe deformities, which is nearly a 40% rate of severe birth defects.
"Of the 20 babies born with malformations, five had severe central nervous system defects, and five had malformed limbs. One baby had both, according to Muenke. There were also two cases of a very rare birth defect called holoprosencephaly, which occurs when the brain fails to divide properly." (Statins and Birth Defects) .
Doctors in Liverpool have even had the audacity to propose that statins be prescribed to pregnant women, an idea that these authors find wildly disturbing: (Statins during Pregnancy) . There seems to be a general lack of awareness, even among doctors, of the degree of harm these drugs can inflict on the developing fetus.
Great Britain now has the dubious distinction of being the only country where you can buy statin drugs over the counter (NonPrescription Statins) . This means that any naive young woman thinking she can self-treat high cholesterol may end up with a severely malformed baby, and chances are she won't even realize it's due to the drug.
SOURCE
Fat is good for you: Mothers who eat low-fat yoghurt during pregnancy 'more likely to have asthmatic children
This is certainly a good laugh so I won't speculate on the causal chain
Mothers-to-be who eat low-fat yoghurt are more likely to have children with asthma, a study found. The analysis of the habits of tens of thousands of pregnant women also linked low-fat yoghurt with the development of hay fever.
The researchers, from the respected Harvard School of Public Health in the US, said that it may be missing fats that protect against allergies. Previous research has linked low-fat dairy products with difficulty in becoming pregnant.
In the latest study, more than 60,000 women were quizzed on their eating habits while pregnant. The health of the babies they had was then tracked until the age of seven. The results credited milk with helping ward off asthma. However, low-fat, but not full-fat, yoghurt, seems to do the opposite.
Children whose mothers ate low-fat yoghurt while carrying them were 60 per cent more likely to have developed asthma by the age of seven than those who weren’t exposed to the food in the womb.
And their odds of hay fever were three times higher than those of other children, the European Respirator Society’s annual conference heard.
The increased risk only applies to low-fat yoghurt that contains fruit but the researchers are unable to explain why this is. They say that full-fat dairy products may contain fats that help programme the unborn baby’s immune system away from allergies. It may also be the case that low-fat yoghurt with fruit contains ingredients that raise the risk of asthma and hay fever.
Or simply that women who eat this kind of yoghurt are unhealthy in other ways.
The previous research, also from Harvard, revealed that eating low-fat dairy products can greatly increase the risk of infertility. Even small amounts of everyday foods and drinks can reduce a woman’s possibility of becoming mother, with just a pint of semi-skimmed or skimmed milk or two pots of yoghurt a day almost doubling the risk of anovulatory infertility - a very common condition in which a woman stops ovulating.
However, eating full fat dairy products has the opposite effect, with a bowl of ice cream a day being enough to boost the chances of motherhood.
SOURCE
Michigan to Require BMI Reports on Children
What business is it of theirs? And they have no control over it anyway. There is no known instance of government meddling having any lasting effect of the sort desired on the population targeted. Though I suppose North Korea might be an exception to that
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder plans to require doctors to tell state health officials where the children they treat fall on body mass indexes that can indicate if they're overweight or obese. The move would help track a growing obesity problem while opening the way for doctors to be more proactive in offering advice.
The state already requires doctors to report how many children are immunized.
Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel told The Associated Press Tuesday the new requirement will make weight screening part of every child's medical care. She calls it "an important step in managing pediatric obesity."
About 800,000 Michigan children are considered overweight or obese based on height and weight.
Obesity and infant mortality are expected to be top priorities when Snyder announces his health and wellness initiative Wednesday.
SOURCE
What will keep our food safe?
Any conversation about the superfluity of the federal government or her legion of agencies will invariably turn to this question: "Who will keep our food safe?" It is as sure as Godwin's law — except in this case, the fascists have, inexplicably, become the good guys.
Apparently, the FDA and the USDA have a stellar and unblemished track record of keeping the populace safe from tainted food and dangerous medicines. It is a measure of the success of state propaganda that such a glaring untruth is so commonly seen as axiomatic and beyond question.
One of the great challenges for advocates of a truly free society is to present their vision of how certain functions of government would be replaced by the free market and voluntary cooperation. We are no less presumptuous than advocates of central planning if we dogmatically claim a comprehensive vision of how things will be in our "libertopia."
As Murray Rothbard pointed out, the libertarian's primary task is to: "offer a few guidelines on how markets might develop where they are now prevented or restricted from developing; but he can do little more than point the way toward freedom, to call for government to get out of the way of the productive and ever-inventive energies of the public as expressed in voluntary market activity."
While we cannot be about the business of substituting one group of central planners for "our sort" of central planners, the nature of our argument behooves us to offer a vision of freedom — not what it must be, but what it could be.
As it pertains to the role of agencies like the FDA and USDA, we need look no further than the sustainable- and organic-food movement to see how the free market makes up for government failures; and it is no great leap to imagine the same market forces supplanting the public option altogether.
Perhaps ironically, it is luminaries of the modern movement toward "sustainable" food, generally confirmed statists, who furnish the crux of our argument.
There is a general consensus among those who are deeply devoted to such things that the USDA Certified Organic sticker is, at best, a limited indicator of the agricultural practices involved in the production of various foodstuffs. The USDA program is, like any government agency, bloated, inefficient, and inconsistent. It is rife with corruption and requires expenditures of time and money that preclude many small farmers from participating.
As a result, many small producers are eschewing the USDA label as simply not worth it. Michael Pollan, an icon in the sustainable-food movement, consistently encourages people to forgo Certified Organic produce for local, reasoning that "It often is organic, even if not certified, and you can always ask the farmer. The cost of organic certification can also become burdensome for a small grower."
The farm that runs the CSA (community-supported agriculture) to which I belong is explicit in their disclosure of their growing methods, all the while explaining that they have not received "official" organic certification. In short, there seems to be a general consensus among advocates of organic and sustainable agriculture that the government seal of approval is limited in its value.
But simply buying everything from a local producer is a difficult proposition for the majority of us; time and geographic concerns preclude this as a viable option. How, then, can the average consumer be assured that they are buying food products that have been produced in a manner that is consistent with their ideals? In the face of the failure of the government's program, as usual, the free market has provided a solution. And it is in this free-market solution that we see the germ of an idea that could totally supplant the government's role in the inspection and regulation of agriculture and medicine — and do it more cheaply, efficiently, and with far greater accountability.
In the absence of a reliable government organic-food regulatory agency, the market has provided several voluntary options. The Certified Naturally Grown program offers "a non-profit organization offering certification tailored for small-scale, direct-market farmers and beekeepers using natural methods." They rely on voluntary participation and a peer-review system that is less expensive, less paperwork intensive, and more efficient than the USDA program.
Whole Foods Market has developed their own alternative for certifying certain production techniques for livestock and poultry, through a partnership with an animal-welfare nonprofit.
These are two options, but there are several others. All share a focus on voluntary cooperation between food producers and certifiers, and greater accountability to the consumer, as they can't hide their flaws behind the veil of government immunity. These programs, and others like them, are infinitely scalable, completely voluntary, and represent a real challenge to the notion that "only the government can …"
The same organizational structure that has rendered the Certified Organic label obsolete could immediately step in to fill the void left by the absence of the FDA and USDA. Private, third-party certifiers could inspect livestock and produce and affix their seal of approval only when certain standards are met. That the reputations of the inspectors and the farmers are truly on the line would preclude much of the graft and inefficiency that is a constant feature of the current system. Certified, inspected produce would compete with uninspected produce for shelf space and consumer demand. I've focused on the grocery side of the equation, but the same general principles would apply to drug development and regulation.
As Rothbard continues: "No one can predict the number of firms, the size of each firm, the pricing policies, etc., of any future market in any service or commodity. We just know — by economic theory and by historical insight — that such a free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly of bureaucratic government."
SOURCE
What business is it of theirs? And they have no control over it anyway. There is no known instance of government meddling having any lasting effect of the sort desired on the population targeted. Though I suppose North Korea might be an exception to that
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder plans to require doctors to tell state health officials where the children they treat fall on body mass indexes that can indicate if they're overweight or obese. The move would help track a growing obesity problem while opening the way for doctors to be more proactive in offering advice.
The state already requires doctors to report how many children are immunized.
Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel told The Associated Press Tuesday the new requirement will make weight screening part of every child's medical care. She calls it "an important step in managing pediatric obesity."
About 800,000 Michigan children are considered overweight or obese based on height and weight.
Obesity and infant mortality are expected to be top priorities when Snyder announces his health and wellness initiative Wednesday.
SOURCE
What will keep our food safe?
Any conversation about the superfluity of the federal government or her legion of agencies will invariably turn to this question: "Who will keep our food safe?" It is as sure as Godwin's law — except in this case, the fascists have, inexplicably, become the good guys.
Apparently, the FDA and the USDA have a stellar and unblemished track record of keeping the populace safe from tainted food and dangerous medicines. It is a measure of the success of state propaganda that such a glaring untruth is so commonly seen as axiomatic and beyond question.
One of the great challenges for advocates of a truly free society is to present their vision of how certain functions of government would be replaced by the free market and voluntary cooperation. We are no less presumptuous than advocates of central planning if we dogmatically claim a comprehensive vision of how things will be in our "libertopia."
As Murray Rothbard pointed out, the libertarian's primary task is to: "offer a few guidelines on how markets might develop where they are now prevented or restricted from developing; but he can do little more than point the way toward freedom, to call for government to get out of the way of the productive and ever-inventive energies of the public as expressed in voluntary market activity."
While we cannot be about the business of substituting one group of central planners for "our sort" of central planners, the nature of our argument behooves us to offer a vision of freedom — not what it must be, but what it could be.
As it pertains to the role of agencies like the FDA and USDA, we need look no further than the sustainable- and organic-food movement to see how the free market makes up for government failures; and it is no great leap to imagine the same market forces supplanting the public option altogether.
Perhaps ironically, it is luminaries of the modern movement toward "sustainable" food, generally confirmed statists, who furnish the crux of our argument.
There is a general consensus among those who are deeply devoted to such things that the USDA Certified Organic sticker is, at best, a limited indicator of the agricultural practices involved in the production of various foodstuffs. The USDA program is, like any government agency, bloated, inefficient, and inconsistent. It is rife with corruption and requires expenditures of time and money that preclude many small farmers from participating.
As a result, many small producers are eschewing the USDA label as simply not worth it. Michael Pollan, an icon in the sustainable-food movement, consistently encourages people to forgo Certified Organic produce for local, reasoning that "It often is organic, even if not certified, and you can always ask the farmer. The cost of organic certification can also become burdensome for a small grower."
The farm that runs the CSA (community-supported agriculture) to which I belong is explicit in their disclosure of their growing methods, all the while explaining that they have not received "official" organic certification. In short, there seems to be a general consensus among advocates of organic and sustainable agriculture that the government seal of approval is limited in its value.
But simply buying everything from a local producer is a difficult proposition for the majority of us; time and geographic concerns preclude this as a viable option. How, then, can the average consumer be assured that they are buying food products that have been produced in a manner that is consistent with their ideals? In the face of the failure of the government's program, as usual, the free market has provided a solution. And it is in this free-market solution that we see the germ of an idea that could totally supplant the government's role in the inspection and regulation of agriculture and medicine — and do it more cheaply, efficiently, and with far greater accountability.
In the absence of a reliable government organic-food regulatory agency, the market has provided several voluntary options. The Certified Naturally Grown program offers "a non-profit organization offering certification tailored for small-scale, direct-market farmers and beekeepers using natural methods." They rely on voluntary participation and a peer-review system that is less expensive, less paperwork intensive, and more efficient than the USDA program.
Whole Foods Market has developed their own alternative for certifying certain production techniques for livestock and poultry, through a partnership with an animal-welfare nonprofit.
These are two options, but there are several others. All share a focus on voluntary cooperation between food producers and certifiers, and greater accountability to the consumer, as they can't hide their flaws behind the veil of government immunity. These programs, and others like them, are infinitely scalable, completely voluntary, and represent a real challenge to the notion that "only the government can …"
The same organizational structure that has rendered the Certified Organic label obsolete could immediately step in to fill the void left by the absence of the FDA and USDA. Private, third-party certifiers could inspect livestock and produce and affix their seal of approval only when certain standards are met. That the reputations of the inspectors and the farmers are truly on the line would preclude much of the graft and inefficiency that is a constant feature of the current system. Certified, inspected produce would compete with uninspected produce for shelf space and consumer demand. I've focused on the grocery side of the equation, but the same general principles would apply to drug development and regulation.
As Rothbard continues: "No one can predict the number of firms, the size of each firm, the pricing policies, etc., of any future market in any service or commodity. We just know — by economic theory and by historical insight — that such a free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly of bureaucratic government."
SOURCE
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
A healthy childhood 'boosts job prospects' deep into middle-age
Ho hum: This is just another instance of high IQ people being healthier, having less divorce etc. It is the high IQ that confers advantages throughout life, though the other things accompanying high IQ may help
The blessings of a happy and healthy childhood are still a benefit to peoples’ lives deep into middle age, a new study has found. It said that men and women who were well-off and fit as children are more likely to win promotion at work than less favoured children.
And they keep on being more successful at work into their 50s and throughout their careers, it said.
The study by researchers from Princeton University was based on the records of more than 10,000 Whitehall civil servants whose progress has been tracked since the 1980s.
It comes at a time of deepening concern about the effects of a damaged childhood on adults – concern heightened by the August riots and the perception that many of those caught up in a wave of amoral lawlessness had been brought up in troubled families and without fathers.
Children are most likely to enjoy good mental and physical health alongside financial and emotional security if they come from a family headed by married parents.
The Princeton study by academics Anne Case and Christina Paxson said that Whitehall provided few examples of children from poor and unhealthy families but nevertheless their records still provided ‘evidence that health and socio-economic status in childhood influences occupational status in adulthood.
‘Adults who had better childhood health, as measured by childhood hospitalisations and adult height, start at higher grades in the civil service on average, and are promoted to higher grades after they enter Whitehall.’
It added that results had been amended to take into account the advantages won from a good education, so that there could be no doubt that good childhood health played a part in career success much later in life.
The researchers said: ‘In summary, in this selected sample of white collar workers, not only are poorer health and worse social circumstances in childhood associated with lower initial employment grade, but they are associated with a widening of earnings gaps over time.
‘Those who were healthy in childhood and those from higher socio-economic backgrounds are significantly more likely to be promoted.’
The findings are based on the Whitehall study which has plotted the lives and careers of 10,308 civil servants in white collar jobs in 20 government departments. The tracking began in 1985 when the men and women in the study were aged between 35 and 55.
Most research projects over the past 20 years have followed the progress of children only until their late teens. They have shown that those with the best health and the most comfortable financial backgrounds are most likely to well at school and go on to good education and good jobs.
All studies have found that the children most likely to do well are those from traditional married families, which tend have the most money and the best health. Children of cohabitees do less well, and those who are most likely to become failures come from single parent and broken families.
SOURCE
Does breast cancer screening do more harm than good?
Today, around 1.5 million women, mostly between the ages of 50 and 70, are screened in the UK each year and the programme, it is claimed, saves the lives of around 1,300 women annually.
The perceived wisdom is that breast-cancer screening is a no brainer. If you have cancer, any cancer, surely it’s best to catch it as early as possible so that it can be more effectively treated and you have the highest chance of survival. The annual cost of around £100 million to run the programme seems like money well spent.
Unfortunately, there is a growing body of respected medical and research opinion which shows things are simply not that clear cut.
Last week, a paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine reiterated the conclusion that, far from being of huge benefit to women, breast-cancer screening may, in fact, be doing nearly as much harm as it does good.
‘I can understand why people find this hard to believe,’ says Dr Karsten Jorgensen, a research scientist with the independent Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark, who has carried out in-depth research into the harms and benefits of breast screening.
By comparing survival rates from an area of Denmark that has had no screening against areas that have, the Cochrane Centre found that far from the NHS claim that screening saves the lives of 1,347 lives each year, the true figure is more like 500. This means that for every life saved, 2,000 women have to be screened.
Furthermore, Dr Jorgensen and his team claim that of those women screened, around one in four will receive an incorrect diagnosis — a false positive — during her screening lifetime.
This is when a woman will be told their mammogram has thrown up something suspicious that will need further investigation, such as a biopsy, only to be told later there is no cancer.
Even worse, he says, thousands of women in the UK are being over-diagnosed each year — that is, they are being treated for cancers which they simply do not have.
These figures are backed up by Australian research published in 2010, which found that one in three of all invasive cancers diagnosed by screening falls into this category.
This means that every year in the UK up to 7,000 women receive unnecessary surgery, plus possible chemotherapy and radiotherapy, with all the long-term health risks such as lymphoma, infections and stroke for a cancer which may never have existed.
Unsurprisingly, the findings by medical bodies around the world that challenge the benefits of screening have created a furious debate in the medical and scientific community. ‘These same criticisms have been trotted out a number of times by the same authors,’ says Professor Julietta Patnick, director of the NHS Cancer Screening Programme.
‘On each occasion, they have been comprehensively rebutted in the public domain by various experts.
‘The most recent estimates suggest that screening saves one life for about 400 women screened over a ten-year period. We know that 97 per cent of women with screen-detected cancers are alive five years later compared to just over 80 per cent of all women who were diagnosed without screening, and attending a screening lowers a woman’s risk of having a mastectomy.’
'Once a mammogram picks up an abnormality you go into a system that processes you with little thought about you as an individual'
Dr Trish Groves, deputy editor of the British Medical Journal, a publication which has led the debate on breast screening, doesn’t entirely agree.
‘There are two main issues when we look at breast screening,’ she explains. ‘The first is false positives, when a woman may be told the scan has picked up abnormalities and then is sent for various checks and scans and needle biopsies — even a lumpectomy — only to be told she is clear.
‘The other issue is over-diagnosis and therefore over-treatment. We know around 20 per cent of cases diagnosed by screening are Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS).’ (DCIS is a very early form of breast cancer. Cells inside some of the breast ducts have begun to turn cancerous, but have not yet spread into surrounding breast tissue.)
She adds: ‘DCIS can only be picked up by mammogram and so is relatively new to us. We know little about how it spreads and grows, although initial research suggests around 50 per cent of this type of cell changes will never spread and are not actually cancerous.
‘But, by and large, DCIS is treated in the same way as all other breast cancers — with surgery, sometimes a lumpectomy but occasionally a mastectomy, maybe even chemotherapy. Although some women may be happy to have a complete regime of treatment for a condition which may not be cancerous, most will not.
‘Either way, we have to accept that screening means that a large number of women will undergo a life-changing, painful, nasty treatment regime when, in fact, there is nothing wrong with them at all.
‘We believe that the leaflets for the NHS Breast Screening Programme don’t really explain the potential harm and instead overstate the benefits of screening, rather than offering mammography to women whose symptoms, family histories or genetic make-up suggests they’re at risk of breast cancer, and the harms aren’t really explained at all. We think that should change.
‘Doctors, the public, politicians and, of course, women and their families, might still think that saving one life is well worth the downside of screening thousands of women and giving hundreds of them unnecessary treatments, but shouldn’t they at least be told that the benefits aren’t certain?’
Dr Emma Pennery, clinical director of the charity Breast Cancer Care, says: ‘What is important is that women are properly informed about the risks of the screening programme as well as the benefits. For example, receiving a false positive may be a completely acceptable risk to one woman if she thinks she may have an early detection of cancer. But to another woman this may bring unimaginable strain.
While the arguments rage, oncologists and surgeons believe there are merits to both points of view. ‘I feel it is great pity that the two sides have become so polarised,’ says consultant breast surgeon Mr Rajiv Vashisht, who practises at the Clementine Churchill Hospital and the West Middlesex University Hospital.
He adds: ‘We all want to improve the outlook for breast cancer, and the Cochrane Review and other research has thrown up issues we should all be debating. ‘Overall, I am in favour of breast screening. It does pick up cancers early, which gives women more choices about treatment.
‘False positives are, of course, an issue. Over-diagnosis is something we all dread, but if the results show a problem, we have to assume the worst and treat our patients accordingly.
‘Watch and wait may be a suitable policy for prostate cancer, but breast cancer has a completely different disease path.
‘Prostate cancer is very slow growing and goes first to the surrounding areas — breast goes first to the lungs, liver and bone, and, once that happens, you are struggling to catch up with it. ‘Anyone who works with breast cancer knows what an awful disease it can be and any weapon we have has to be welcomed.’
So, what now is the best option for a woman offered screening?
‘If you have a high risk of breast cancer — a family or genetic risk — then there is no question but that you should be regularly scanned,’ says Professor Jane Maher, chief medical officer of Macmillan Cancer Support and an oncologist. ‘Other women should make sure they fully understand the risks before screening, and the best source of unbiased information is cancer charity websites. ‘Once you know the risks, decide in advance what you will do if you get a positive result.
‘Remember that with the majority of breast cancers there is no need for immediate action. Go away and think about your options, possibly ask for a second opinion, read up on the different treatments options.’
And she says: ‘Finally, don’t just accept what you are being told. Ask questions until you are satisfied you know all the answers.’
SOURCE
Ho hum: This is just another instance of high IQ people being healthier, having less divorce etc. It is the high IQ that confers advantages throughout life, though the other things accompanying high IQ may help
The blessings of a happy and healthy childhood are still a benefit to peoples’ lives deep into middle age, a new study has found. It said that men and women who were well-off and fit as children are more likely to win promotion at work than less favoured children.
And they keep on being more successful at work into their 50s and throughout their careers, it said.
The study by researchers from Princeton University was based on the records of more than 10,000 Whitehall civil servants whose progress has been tracked since the 1980s.
It comes at a time of deepening concern about the effects of a damaged childhood on adults – concern heightened by the August riots and the perception that many of those caught up in a wave of amoral lawlessness had been brought up in troubled families and without fathers.
Children are most likely to enjoy good mental and physical health alongside financial and emotional security if they come from a family headed by married parents.
The Princeton study by academics Anne Case and Christina Paxson said that Whitehall provided few examples of children from poor and unhealthy families but nevertheless their records still provided ‘evidence that health and socio-economic status in childhood influences occupational status in adulthood.
‘Adults who had better childhood health, as measured by childhood hospitalisations and adult height, start at higher grades in the civil service on average, and are promoted to higher grades after they enter Whitehall.’
It added that results had been amended to take into account the advantages won from a good education, so that there could be no doubt that good childhood health played a part in career success much later in life.
The researchers said: ‘In summary, in this selected sample of white collar workers, not only are poorer health and worse social circumstances in childhood associated with lower initial employment grade, but they are associated with a widening of earnings gaps over time.
‘Those who were healthy in childhood and those from higher socio-economic backgrounds are significantly more likely to be promoted.’
The findings are based on the Whitehall study which has plotted the lives and careers of 10,308 civil servants in white collar jobs in 20 government departments. The tracking began in 1985 when the men and women in the study were aged between 35 and 55.
Most research projects over the past 20 years have followed the progress of children only until their late teens. They have shown that those with the best health and the most comfortable financial backgrounds are most likely to well at school and go on to good education and good jobs.
All studies have found that the children most likely to do well are those from traditional married families, which tend have the most money and the best health. Children of cohabitees do less well, and those who are most likely to become failures come from single parent and broken families.
SOURCE
Does breast cancer screening do more harm than good?
Today, around 1.5 million women, mostly between the ages of 50 and 70, are screened in the UK each year and the programme, it is claimed, saves the lives of around 1,300 women annually.
The perceived wisdom is that breast-cancer screening is a no brainer. If you have cancer, any cancer, surely it’s best to catch it as early as possible so that it can be more effectively treated and you have the highest chance of survival. The annual cost of around £100 million to run the programme seems like money well spent.
Unfortunately, there is a growing body of respected medical and research opinion which shows things are simply not that clear cut.
Last week, a paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine reiterated the conclusion that, far from being of huge benefit to women, breast-cancer screening may, in fact, be doing nearly as much harm as it does good.
‘I can understand why people find this hard to believe,’ says Dr Karsten Jorgensen, a research scientist with the independent Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark, who has carried out in-depth research into the harms and benefits of breast screening.
By comparing survival rates from an area of Denmark that has had no screening against areas that have, the Cochrane Centre found that far from the NHS claim that screening saves the lives of 1,347 lives each year, the true figure is more like 500. This means that for every life saved, 2,000 women have to be screened.
Furthermore, Dr Jorgensen and his team claim that of those women screened, around one in four will receive an incorrect diagnosis — a false positive — during her screening lifetime.
This is when a woman will be told their mammogram has thrown up something suspicious that will need further investigation, such as a biopsy, only to be told later there is no cancer.
Even worse, he says, thousands of women in the UK are being over-diagnosed each year — that is, they are being treated for cancers which they simply do not have.
These figures are backed up by Australian research published in 2010, which found that one in three of all invasive cancers diagnosed by screening falls into this category.
This means that every year in the UK up to 7,000 women receive unnecessary surgery, plus possible chemotherapy and radiotherapy, with all the long-term health risks such as lymphoma, infections and stroke for a cancer which may never have existed.
Unsurprisingly, the findings by medical bodies around the world that challenge the benefits of screening have created a furious debate in the medical and scientific community. ‘These same criticisms have been trotted out a number of times by the same authors,’ says Professor Julietta Patnick, director of the NHS Cancer Screening Programme.
‘On each occasion, they have been comprehensively rebutted in the public domain by various experts.
‘The most recent estimates suggest that screening saves one life for about 400 women screened over a ten-year period. We know that 97 per cent of women with screen-detected cancers are alive five years later compared to just over 80 per cent of all women who were diagnosed without screening, and attending a screening lowers a woman’s risk of having a mastectomy.’
'Once a mammogram picks up an abnormality you go into a system that processes you with little thought about you as an individual'
Dr Trish Groves, deputy editor of the British Medical Journal, a publication which has led the debate on breast screening, doesn’t entirely agree.
‘There are two main issues when we look at breast screening,’ she explains. ‘The first is false positives, when a woman may be told the scan has picked up abnormalities and then is sent for various checks and scans and needle biopsies — even a lumpectomy — only to be told she is clear.
‘The other issue is over-diagnosis and therefore over-treatment. We know around 20 per cent of cases diagnosed by screening are Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS).’ (DCIS is a very early form of breast cancer. Cells inside some of the breast ducts have begun to turn cancerous, but have not yet spread into surrounding breast tissue.)
She adds: ‘DCIS can only be picked up by mammogram and so is relatively new to us. We know little about how it spreads and grows, although initial research suggests around 50 per cent of this type of cell changes will never spread and are not actually cancerous.
‘But, by and large, DCIS is treated in the same way as all other breast cancers — with surgery, sometimes a lumpectomy but occasionally a mastectomy, maybe even chemotherapy. Although some women may be happy to have a complete regime of treatment for a condition which may not be cancerous, most will not.
‘Either way, we have to accept that screening means that a large number of women will undergo a life-changing, painful, nasty treatment regime when, in fact, there is nothing wrong with them at all.
‘We believe that the leaflets for the NHS Breast Screening Programme don’t really explain the potential harm and instead overstate the benefits of screening, rather than offering mammography to women whose symptoms, family histories or genetic make-up suggests they’re at risk of breast cancer, and the harms aren’t really explained at all. We think that should change.
‘Doctors, the public, politicians and, of course, women and their families, might still think that saving one life is well worth the downside of screening thousands of women and giving hundreds of them unnecessary treatments, but shouldn’t they at least be told that the benefits aren’t certain?’
Dr Emma Pennery, clinical director of the charity Breast Cancer Care, says: ‘What is important is that women are properly informed about the risks of the screening programme as well as the benefits. For example, receiving a false positive may be a completely acceptable risk to one woman if she thinks she may have an early detection of cancer. But to another woman this may bring unimaginable strain.
While the arguments rage, oncologists and surgeons believe there are merits to both points of view. ‘I feel it is great pity that the two sides have become so polarised,’ says consultant breast surgeon Mr Rajiv Vashisht, who practises at the Clementine Churchill Hospital and the West Middlesex University Hospital.
He adds: ‘We all want to improve the outlook for breast cancer, and the Cochrane Review and other research has thrown up issues we should all be debating. ‘Overall, I am in favour of breast screening. It does pick up cancers early, which gives women more choices about treatment.
‘False positives are, of course, an issue. Over-diagnosis is something we all dread, but if the results show a problem, we have to assume the worst and treat our patients accordingly.
‘Watch and wait may be a suitable policy for prostate cancer, but breast cancer has a completely different disease path.
‘Prostate cancer is very slow growing and goes first to the surrounding areas — breast goes first to the lungs, liver and bone, and, once that happens, you are struggling to catch up with it. ‘Anyone who works with breast cancer knows what an awful disease it can be and any weapon we have has to be welcomed.’
So, what now is the best option for a woman offered screening?
‘If you have a high risk of breast cancer — a family or genetic risk — then there is no question but that you should be regularly scanned,’ says Professor Jane Maher, chief medical officer of Macmillan Cancer Support and an oncologist. ‘Other women should make sure they fully understand the risks before screening, and the best source of unbiased information is cancer charity websites. ‘Once you know the risks, decide in advance what you will do if you get a positive result.
‘Remember that with the majority of breast cancers there is no need for immediate action. Go away and think about your options, possibly ask for a second opinion, read up on the different treatments options.’
And she says: ‘Finally, don’t just accept what you are being told. Ask questions until you are satisfied you know all the answers.’
SOURCE
Why Statins Do More Harm Than Good
This is the latest from Prof. Seneff. She is of course well out of the mainstream on this and becoming more so but she makes a good case for her conclusions. The acid test would be be in lifetime survival statistics when they become available. Statins may reduce heart disease but do they promote death from other causes?
The severe side-effects of statins create a problem in testing that, however. Because of those side-effects only a minority of people can continue taking statins regularly so that minority may be particularly robust and therefore resistant to other causes of death. In such circumstances theory becomes more important and Prof. Seneff does claim considerable support for testable aspects of her theories
I myself am particularly struck by the "coincidence" of increased Alzheimer's incidence and increased statin use. The mental side-effects of statin use are very similar to Alzheimer's. Taking statins is a rather good way to go rapidly ga ga if you are inclined that way
Americans have been well trained over the past few decades to avoid dietary fat and cholesterol and to stay out of the sun. Their conscientious implementation of this misguided advice has led to an epidemic in obesity and heart disease, along with a host of other debilitating conditions like arthritis and Alzheimer's disease.
Cholesterol is to animals as chlorophyll is to plants. Cholesterol, absent from plants, is what gives animals mobility and a nervous system. It is therefore not surprising that statin drug side effects mainly impact muscles and the nervous system.
The heart, as a muscle, is not exempt from statin toxicity. This is why the incidence of heart failure has steadily risen in step with the widespread adoption of statin therapy, now displacing cardiovascular disease as the number one killer. In this article I am going to take you on a whirlwind tour of the 60,000 foot view of my understanding of the principle causes of the current health crisis in America.
My extensive research has caused me to hypothesize a remarkable feat that the human body can perform in the presence of sunlight, which is to extract sulfur from hydrogen sulfide in the air and convert it to sulfate, taking advantage of the sun's energy to catalyze the reaction.
This process takes place in the skin upon sun exposure, and also in the endothelial cells lining blood vessels, and in the red blood cells, platelets, and mast cells in the blood. This feat is performed by a very interesting molecule called "endothelial nitric oxide synthase,'' a misnomer, since its main responsibility is to synthesize sulfate rather than nitric oxide.
The sulfate so produced plays a huge role in cardiovascular health, both by preventing blood clots and by keeping pathogenic microbes (bacteria and viruses) at bay. But it also plays another role that is just as important, which is to give cholesterol (as well as vitamin D and other sterols) a free ride through the blood stream.
Vitamin D3 (a highly touted nutrient) is synthesized in the skin from cholesterol (a highly demonized nutrient) and its chemical structure is almost identical to that of cholesterol. By attaching to cholesterol or vitamin D3, sulfate makes the molecule water soluble, and this means that it no longer has to travel packaged up inside an LDL particle. LDL, as you probably know, is the so-called "bad'' cholesterol, which will cause doctors to prescribe statins if the level is too high.
A great way to lower LDL levels is to get adequate sun exposure. It's not going to work to take a vitamin D supplement: you have to go outside and soak up the sun, because supplements are never sulfated and vitamin D is not cholesterol. Raw cow's milk is the only dietary source I know of that actually supplies sulfated vitamin D3, but even that is still not cholesterol sulfate.
Because most Americans have inadequate cholesterol in their skin and grossly inadequate amounts of sun exposure, they suffer from a huge deficiency in cholesterol and sulfate supply to the tissues. Not surprisingly, most impacted are the muscles and nervous system.
Because the heart muscle is indispensible, the body has developed a back-up strategy to give it special treatment, which is to synthesize cholesterol sulfate from LDL and homocysteine in the fatty deposits (plaque) that build up in arteries supplying the heart. The macrophages in the plaque extract cholesterol from damaged small dense LDL particles, and export it to HDL-A1. The platelets in the plaque will only accept cholesterol from HDL-A1, which they then convert to cholesterol sulfate.
They obtain the sulfate through yet another process which requires energy and oxidizing agents, extracting the sulfur from homocysteine. With insufficient homocysteine, the sulfur will most likely be extracted from cartilage, which gets its strength from extensive disulfide bonds. This, in my view, is the main cause of arthritis -- depletion of sulfur from the cartilage in the joints. So now you have both cardiovascular disease and arthritis as a consequence of a low-fat diet and aggressive sun avoidance.
Statin drugs dramatically lower LDL levels by interfering with cholesterol synthesis, and this wreaks havoc on the liver, the main back-up supplier of cholesterol to the tissues when cholesterol intake and cholesterol sulfate production are down. With the American diet, the liver has another huge task, which is to convert fructose to fat.
The fat cannot be stored or shipped (via LDL) if there is insufficient cholesterol. As a consequence, the liver abandons this task, and the fructose builds up in the blood, causing extensive glycation damage to blood proteins. One of the impacted proteins is the apoB in LDL, which interferes with LDL's ability to deliver its goods to the tissues, including cholesterol, fats, vitamins A, D, E, and K, and antioxidants. So LDL levels fall sharply with statins, and so does the bioavailability of all these nutrients.
Muscle cells come to the rescue, heroically, by extracting excess fructose from the blood and converting it to lactate, using anaerobic metabolism. They have to switch over to anaerobic metabolism anyway, because coenzyme Q10, another casualty of statin therapy, is in low supply. Coenzyme Q10 is crucial for aerobic metabolism.
Lactate is a great fuel for the heart and liver, but the problem is that the muscle cells get wrecked in the process, due to massive overdoses of fructose, in the context of inadequate cholesterol, which would have offered some protection. This is a principal contributor to the excessive muscle pain and weakness associated with statins. Eventually, the muscles can't do it any more, and you're now on the verge towards heart failure.
People on long-term statin therapy start to notice that their hair is receding faster, they're developing cataracts, they can't hear as well as they used to, they keep forgetting things, they can't open the pickle jar any more, and perhaps they'll need rotator cuff surgery soon, as their shoulders are so sore. They think it's just because they're growing old, but these are all side effects that my research, together with my students at MIT, has uncovered, by comparing statin drug side effects with side effects associated with other drugs in age-matched reviews.
Even more alarming are the rare but debilitating and even life-threatening side effects we've detected, such as ALS and Parkinson's disease, heart and liver failure, neuropathy and severe muscle damage. A 17-year study on the elderly confirmed what I already suspected: low serum cholesterol is associated with increased frailty, accelerated mental decline, and early death. (Ref 1.)
Statins are not the answer for anyone seeking to avoid cardiovascular disease. The answer, instead, is to modify the diet to include foods that are rich in cholesterol and saturated fat, to avoid empty carbohydrates, especially high fructose corn syrup, to eat foods that are good sources of sulfur, and, most especially, to spend plenty of time outdoors in the sun.
SOURCE
Australia: Breakfast food bans could be counterproductive
IF you buy junk food at a drive-through in NSW it may astound you to learn from new mandatory labelling that popcorn chicken is basically fat suspended in a superstructure of chicken eyeballs. This will no doubt shock the people who missed the memo that health food doesn't come in buckets.
Last week the Cancer Council NSW continued its war on fast food with an assault on Bubble O'Bill, the Paddle Pop lion, the Coco Pops monkey and Toucan Sam, long-serving avian ambassador of Froot Loops cereal. Should the Cancer Council succeed, parents can rest assured any food promoted by a jungle creature in drag will be taken off the shelves and replaced, presumably with a plain olive green box.
Once again the food nannies will have succeeded not only in taking the fun out of another meal but in removing what effectively has served as a warning sign for parents that products are junk food. Foods such as Nutri-Grain, many mueslis and "healthy breakfast spreads" such as peanut butter and Nutella are promoted not by cartoons but by sports people.
If Nutella had a cartoon bird on it perhaps people would have worked out faster that just because a marathon runner promotes it, chocolate isn't a breakfast food. Certainly the San Diego mother who sued Nutella for selling her fake health food would have had a harder time proving she was not a complete idiot.
Bans on food and beverage advertisements for products that are high in fat, salt and sugar are defended with studies such as the 2006 Access Economics report on obesity in Australia that claimed it cost us $8.3 billion. Obesity certainly is a serious health problem with links to cancer and diabetes, but picking on the fun foods as the sole culprits and treating parents like idiots reveals an agenda based as much on cultural prejudice as health consciousness.
Mass-produced, commercial junk food is easy to recognise; certainly the mascots help. However, posh food is often as bad for your health but is rarely marketed with anything as crass as a cartoon toucan. Wagyu beef has become increasingly popular in part because it has a high fat content and consequently is full of flavour. Perhaps a Pokemon-style cow mascot would help us remember at the butcher that Wagyu is not a healthy alternative to lean beef, fish or lentils.
At the ice cream fridge the poshest ice creams have the highest milk fat content. That's why they are so delicious. While Paddle Pops are clearly labelled junk food by the presence of the Paddle Pop lion, Maggie Beer's ice cream has a picture of very dignified and grown-up looking treats on the box. Eating a little of either won't hurt you but if you're planning to watch The Notebook, the Lion represents more value for your money.
My waistline has been enhanced by a range of foods both healthy and unhealthy, gourmet and gourmand. There are a remarkable number of kilojoules in fast and slow, fancy and plain, wholesome and junk, the amount of sugar in "diet" foods being an obvious case in point.
The Cancer Council's bans won't address the avalanche of kilojoules available in our prosperous society. What they can look forward to is enabling parents such as the San Diego Nutella mum to blame food producers or the government for their failure to meet a basic parenting requirement: feeding their kids properly.
SOURCE
This is the latest from Prof. Seneff. She is of course well out of the mainstream on this and becoming more so but she makes a good case for her conclusions. The acid test would be be in lifetime survival statistics when they become available. Statins may reduce heart disease but do they promote death from other causes?
The severe side-effects of statins create a problem in testing that, however. Because of those side-effects only a minority of people can continue taking statins regularly so that minority may be particularly robust and therefore resistant to other causes of death. In such circumstances theory becomes more important and Prof. Seneff does claim considerable support for testable aspects of her theories
I myself am particularly struck by the "coincidence" of increased Alzheimer's incidence and increased statin use. The mental side-effects of statin use are very similar to Alzheimer's. Taking statins is a rather good way to go rapidly ga ga if you are inclined that way
Americans have been well trained over the past few decades to avoid dietary fat and cholesterol and to stay out of the sun. Their conscientious implementation of this misguided advice has led to an epidemic in obesity and heart disease, along with a host of other debilitating conditions like arthritis and Alzheimer's disease.
Cholesterol is to animals as chlorophyll is to plants. Cholesterol, absent from plants, is what gives animals mobility and a nervous system. It is therefore not surprising that statin drug side effects mainly impact muscles and the nervous system.
The heart, as a muscle, is not exempt from statin toxicity. This is why the incidence of heart failure has steadily risen in step with the widespread adoption of statin therapy, now displacing cardiovascular disease as the number one killer. In this article I am going to take you on a whirlwind tour of the 60,000 foot view of my understanding of the principle causes of the current health crisis in America.
My extensive research has caused me to hypothesize a remarkable feat that the human body can perform in the presence of sunlight, which is to extract sulfur from hydrogen sulfide in the air and convert it to sulfate, taking advantage of the sun's energy to catalyze the reaction.
This process takes place in the skin upon sun exposure, and also in the endothelial cells lining blood vessels, and in the red blood cells, platelets, and mast cells in the blood. This feat is performed by a very interesting molecule called "endothelial nitric oxide synthase,'' a misnomer, since its main responsibility is to synthesize sulfate rather than nitric oxide.
The sulfate so produced plays a huge role in cardiovascular health, both by preventing blood clots and by keeping pathogenic microbes (bacteria and viruses) at bay. But it also plays another role that is just as important, which is to give cholesterol (as well as vitamin D and other sterols) a free ride through the blood stream.
Vitamin D3 (a highly touted nutrient) is synthesized in the skin from cholesterol (a highly demonized nutrient) and its chemical structure is almost identical to that of cholesterol. By attaching to cholesterol or vitamin D3, sulfate makes the molecule water soluble, and this means that it no longer has to travel packaged up inside an LDL particle. LDL, as you probably know, is the so-called "bad'' cholesterol, which will cause doctors to prescribe statins if the level is too high.
A great way to lower LDL levels is to get adequate sun exposure. It's not going to work to take a vitamin D supplement: you have to go outside and soak up the sun, because supplements are never sulfated and vitamin D is not cholesterol. Raw cow's milk is the only dietary source I know of that actually supplies sulfated vitamin D3, but even that is still not cholesterol sulfate.
Because most Americans have inadequate cholesterol in their skin and grossly inadequate amounts of sun exposure, they suffer from a huge deficiency in cholesterol and sulfate supply to the tissues. Not surprisingly, most impacted are the muscles and nervous system.
Because the heart muscle is indispensible, the body has developed a back-up strategy to give it special treatment, which is to synthesize cholesterol sulfate from LDL and homocysteine in the fatty deposits (plaque) that build up in arteries supplying the heart. The macrophages in the plaque extract cholesterol from damaged small dense LDL particles, and export it to HDL-A1. The platelets in the plaque will only accept cholesterol from HDL-A1, which they then convert to cholesterol sulfate.
They obtain the sulfate through yet another process which requires energy and oxidizing agents, extracting the sulfur from homocysteine. With insufficient homocysteine, the sulfur will most likely be extracted from cartilage, which gets its strength from extensive disulfide bonds. This, in my view, is the main cause of arthritis -- depletion of sulfur from the cartilage in the joints. So now you have both cardiovascular disease and arthritis as a consequence of a low-fat diet and aggressive sun avoidance.
Statin drugs dramatically lower LDL levels by interfering with cholesterol synthesis, and this wreaks havoc on the liver, the main back-up supplier of cholesterol to the tissues when cholesterol intake and cholesterol sulfate production are down. With the American diet, the liver has another huge task, which is to convert fructose to fat.
The fat cannot be stored or shipped (via LDL) if there is insufficient cholesterol. As a consequence, the liver abandons this task, and the fructose builds up in the blood, causing extensive glycation damage to blood proteins. One of the impacted proteins is the apoB in LDL, which interferes with LDL's ability to deliver its goods to the tissues, including cholesterol, fats, vitamins A, D, E, and K, and antioxidants. So LDL levels fall sharply with statins, and so does the bioavailability of all these nutrients.
Muscle cells come to the rescue, heroically, by extracting excess fructose from the blood and converting it to lactate, using anaerobic metabolism. They have to switch over to anaerobic metabolism anyway, because coenzyme Q10, another casualty of statin therapy, is in low supply. Coenzyme Q10 is crucial for aerobic metabolism.
Lactate is a great fuel for the heart and liver, but the problem is that the muscle cells get wrecked in the process, due to massive overdoses of fructose, in the context of inadequate cholesterol, which would have offered some protection. This is a principal contributor to the excessive muscle pain and weakness associated with statins. Eventually, the muscles can't do it any more, and you're now on the verge towards heart failure.
People on long-term statin therapy start to notice that their hair is receding faster, they're developing cataracts, they can't hear as well as they used to, they keep forgetting things, they can't open the pickle jar any more, and perhaps they'll need rotator cuff surgery soon, as their shoulders are so sore. They think it's just because they're growing old, but these are all side effects that my research, together with my students at MIT, has uncovered, by comparing statin drug side effects with side effects associated with other drugs in age-matched reviews.
Even more alarming are the rare but debilitating and even life-threatening side effects we've detected, such as ALS and Parkinson's disease, heart and liver failure, neuropathy and severe muscle damage. A 17-year study on the elderly confirmed what I already suspected: low serum cholesterol is associated with increased frailty, accelerated mental decline, and early death. (Ref 1.)
Statins are not the answer for anyone seeking to avoid cardiovascular disease. The answer, instead, is to modify the diet to include foods that are rich in cholesterol and saturated fat, to avoid empty carbohydrates, especially high fructose corn syrup, to eat foods that are good sources of sulfur, and, most especially, to spend plenty of time outdoors in the sun.
SOURCE
Australia: Breakfast food bans could be counterproductive
IF you buy junk food at a drive-through in NSW it may astound you to learn from new mandatory labelling that popcorn chicken is basically fat suspended in a superstructure of chicken eyeballs. This will no doubt shock the people who missed the memo that health food doesn't come in buckets.
Last week the Cancer Council NSW continued its war on fast food with an assault on Bubble O'Bill, the Paddle Pop lion, the Coco Pops monkey and Toucan Sam, long-serving avian ambassador of Froot Loops cereal. Should the Cancer Council succeed, parents can rest assured any food promoted by a jungle creature in drag will be taken off the shelves and replaced, presumably with a plain olive green box.
Once again the food nannies will have succeeded not only in taking the fun out of another meal but in removing what effectively has served as a warning sign for parents that products are junk food. Foods such as Nutri-Grain, many mueslis and "healthy breakfast spreads" such as peanut butter and Nutella are promoted not by cartoons but by sports people.
If Nutella had a cartoon bird on it perhaps people would have worked out faster that just because a marathon runner promotes it, chocolate isn't a breakfast food. Certainly the San Diego mother who sued Nutella for selling her fake health food would have had a harder time proving she was not a complete idiot.
Bans on food and beverage advertisements for products that are high in fat, salt and sugar are defended with studies such as the 2006 Access Economics report on obesity in Australia that claimed it cost us $8.3 billion. Obesity certainly is a serious health problem with links to cancer and diabetes, but picking on the fun foods as the sole culprits and treating parents like idiots reveals an agenda based as much on cultural prejudice as health consciousness.
Mass-produced, commercial junk food is easy to recognise; certainly the mascots help. However, posh food is often as bad for your health but is rarely marketed with anything as crass as a cartoon toucan. Wagyu beef has become increasingly popular in part because it has a high fat content and consequently is full of flavour. Perhaps a Pokemon-style cow mascot would help us remember at the butcher that Wagyu is not a healthy alternative to lean beef, fish or lentils.
At the ice cream fridge the poshest ice creams have the highest milk fat content. That's why they are so delicious. While Paddle Pops are clearly labelled junk food by the presence of the Paddle Pop lion, Maggie Beer's ice cream has a picture of very dignified and grown-up looking treats on the box. Eating a little of either won't hurt you but if you're planning to watch The Notebook, the Lion represents more value for your money.
My waistline has been enhanced by a range of foods both healthy and unhealthy, gourmet and gourmand. There are a remarkable number of kilojoules in fast and slow, fancy and plain, wholesome and junk, the amount of sugar in "diet" foods being an obvious case in point.
The Cancer Council's bans won't address the avalanche of kilojoules available in our prosperous society. What they can look forward to is enabling parents such as the San Diego Nutella mum to blame food producers or the government for their failure to meet a basic parenting requirement: feeding their kids properly.
SOURCE
Monday, September 12, 2011
The small benefit and huge burden that Statins impose on the body
I reproduce below a small excerpt of a very large scholarly study that points out the huge stresses that statins place on the body. I have of course long condemned the statin fad and have advised everyone I know not to take them but even I did not realize how very damaging statins are to people. Like thalidomide, they may even be teratogenic. Given the importance of the subject, I am putting up this article only today. Read on:
by Stephanie Seneff
I would like to start by reexamining the claim that statins cut heart attack incidence by a third. What exactly does this mean? A meta study reviewing seven drug trials, involving in total 42,848 patients, ranging over a three to five year period, showed a 29% decreased risk of a major cardiac event (Thavendiranathan et al., 2006). But because heart attacks were rare among this group, what this translates to in absolute terms is that 60 patients would need to be treated for an average of 4.3 years to protect one of them from a single heart attack. However, essentially all of them will experience increased frailty and mental decline, a subject to which I will return in depth later on in this essay.
The impact of the damage due to the statin anti-cholesterol mythology extends far beyond those who actually consume the statin pills. Cholesterol has been demonized by the statin industry, and as a consequence Americans have become conditioned to avoid all foods containing cholesterol. This is a grave mistake, as it places a much bigger burden on the body to synthesize sufficient cholesterol to support the body's needs, and it deprives us of several essential nutrients. I am pained to watch someone crack open an egg and toss out the yolk because it contains "too much" cholesterol. Eggs are a very healthy food, but the yolk contains all the important nutrients. After all, the yolk is what allows the chick embryo to mature into a chicken. Americans are currently experiencing widespread deficiencies in several crucial nutrients that are abundant in foods that contain cholesterol, such as choline, zinc, niacin, vitamin A and vitamin D.
Cholesterol is a remarkable substance, without which all of us would die. There are three distinguishing factors which give animals an advantage over plants: a nervous system, mobility, and cholesterol. Cholesterol, absent from plants, is the key molecule that allows animals to have mobility and a nervous system. Cholesterol has unique chemical properties that are exploited in the lipid bilayers that surround all animal cells: as cholesterol concentrations are increased, membrane fluidity is decreased, up to a certain critical concentration, after which cholesterol starts to increase fluidity (Haines, 2001). Animal cells exploit this property to great advantage in orchestrating ion transport, which is essential for both mobility and nerve signal transport. Animal cell membranes are populated with a large number of specialized island regions appropriately called lipid rafts. Cholesterol gathers in high concentrations in lipid rafts, allowing ions to flow freely through these confined regions. Cholesterol serves a crucial role in the non-lipid raft regions as well, by preventing small charged ions, predominantly sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+), from leaking across cell membranes. In the absence of cholesterol, cells would have to expend a great deal more energy pulling these leaked ions back across the membrane against a concentration gradient.
In addition to this essential role in ion transport, cholesterol is the precursor to vitamin D3, the sex hormones, estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone, and the steroid hormones such as cortisol. Cholesterol is absolutely essential to the cell membranes of all of our cells, where it protects the cell not only from ion leaks but also from oxidation damage to membrane fats. While the brain contains only 2% of the body's weight, it houses 25% of the body's cholesterol. Cholesterol is vital to the brain for nerve signal transport at synapses and through the long axons that communicate from one side of the brain to the other. Cholesterol sulfate plays an important role in the metabolism of fats via bile acids, as well as in immune defenses against invasion by pathogenic organisms.
Statin drugs inhibit the action of an enzyme, HMG coenzyme A reductase, that catalyses an early step in the 25-step process that produces cholesterol. This step is also an early step in the synthesis of a number of other powerful biological substances that are involved in cellular regulation processes and antioxidant effects. One of these is coenzyme Q10, present in the greatest concentration in the heart, which plays an important role in mitochondrial energy production and acts as a potent antioxidant (Gottlieb et al., 2000). Statins also interfere with cell-signaling mechanisms mediated by so-called G-proteins, which orchestrate complex metabolic responses to stressed conditions. Another crucial substance whose synthesis is blocked is dolichol, which plays a crucial role in the endoplasmic reticulum. We can't begin to imagine what diverse effects all of this disruption, due to interference with HMG coenzyme A reductase, might have on the cell's ability to function.
How Statins Destroy Muscles
Europe, especially the U.K., has become much enamored of statins in recent years. The U.K. now has the dubious distinction of being the only country where statins can be purchased over-the-counter, and the amount of statin consumption there has increased more than 120% in recent years (Walley et al, 2005). Increasingly, orthopedic clinics are seeing patients whose problems turn out to be solvable by simply terminating statin therapy, as evidenced by a recent report of three cases within a single year in one clinic, all of whom had normal creatine kinase levels, the usual indicator of muscle damage monitored with statin usage, and all of whom were "cured" by simply stopping statin therapy (Shyam Kumar et al., 2008). In fact, creatine kinase monitoring is not sufficient to assure that statins are not damaging your muscles (Phillips et al., 2002).
Since the liver synthesizes much of the cholesterol supply to the cells, statin therapy greatly impacts the liver, resulting in a sharp reduction in the amount of cholesterol it can synthesize. A direct consequence is that the liver is severely impaired in its ability to convert fructose to fat, because it has no way to safely package up the fat for transport without cholesterol (Vila et al., 2011). Fructose builds up in the blood stream, causing lots of damage to serum proteins.
The skeletal muscle cells are severely affected by statin therapy. Four complications they now face are: (1) their mitochondria are inefficient due to insufficient coenzyme Q10, (2) their cell walls are more vulnerable to oxidation and glycation damage due to increased fructose concentrations in the blood, reduced choleserol in their membranes, and reduced antioxidant supply, (3) there's a reduced supply of fats as fuel because of the reduction in LDL particles, and (4) crucial ions like sodium and potassium are leaking across their membranes, reducing their charge gradient. Furthermore, glucose entry, mediated by insulin, is constrained to take place at those lipid rafts that are concentrated in cholesterol. Because of the depleted cholesterol supply, there are fewer lipid rafts, and this interferes with glucose uptake. Glucose and fats are the main sources of energy for muscles, and both are compromised.
As I mentioned earlier, statins interfere with the synthesis of coenzyme Q10 (Langsjoen and Langsjoen, 2003), which is highly concentrated in the heart as well as the skeletal muscles, and, in fact, in all cells that have a high metabolic rate. It plays an essential role in the citric acid cycle in mitochondria, responsible for the supply of much of the cell's energy needs. Carbohydrates and fats are broken down in the presence of oxygen to produce water and carbon dioxide as by-products. The energy currency produced is adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and it becomes severely depleted in the muscle cells as a consequence of the reduced supply of coenzyme Q10.
The muscle cells have a potential way out, using an alternative fuel source, which doesn't involve the mitochondria, doesn't require oxygen, and doesn't require insulin. What it requires is an abundance of fructose in the blood, and fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) the liver's statin-induced impairment results in an abundance of serum fructose. Through an anaerobic process taking place in the cytoplasm, specialized muscle fibers skim off just a bit of the energy available from fructose, and produce lactate as a product, releasing it back into the blood stream. They have to process a huge amount of fructose to produce enough energy for their own use. Indeed, statin therapy has been shown to increase the production of lactate by skeletal muscles (Pinieux et al, 1996).
Converting one fructose molecule to lactate yields only two ATP's, whereas processing a sugar molecule all the way to carbon dioxide and water in the mitochondria yields 38 ATP's. In other words, you need 19 times as much substrate to obtain an equivalent amount of energy. The lactate that builds up in the blood stream is a boon to both the heart and the liver, because they can use it as a substitute fuel source, a much safer option than glucose or fructose. Lactate is actually an extremely healthy fuel, water-soluble like a sugar but not a glycating agent.
So the burden of processing excess fructose is shifted from the liver to the muscle cells, and the heart is supplied with plenty of lactate, a high-quality fuel that does not lead to destructive glycation damage. LDL levels fall, because the liver can't keep up with fructose removal, but the supply of lactate, a fuel that can travel freely in the blood (does not have to be packaged up inside LDL particles) saves the day for the heart, which would otherwise feast off of the fats provided by the LDL particles. I think this is the crucial effect of statin therapy that leads to a reduction in heart attack risk: the heart is well supplied with a healthy alternative fuel.
This is all well and good, except that the muscle cells get wrecked in the process. Their cell walls are depleted in cholesterol because cholesterol is in such short supply, and their delicate fats are therefore vulnerable to oxidation damage. This problem is further compounded by the reduction in coenzyme Q10, a potent antioxidant. The muscle cells are energy starved, due to dysfunctional mitochondria, and they try to compensate by processing an excessive amount of both fructose and glucose anaerobically, which causes extensive glycation damage to their crucial proteins. Their membranes are leaking ions, which interferes with their ability to contract, hindering movement. They are essentially heroic sacrificial lambs, willing to die in order to safeguard the heart.
Muscle pain and weakness are widely acknowledged, even by the statin industry, as potential side effects of statin drugs. Together with a couple of MIT students, I have been conducting a study which shows just how devastating statins can be to muscles and the nerves that supply them (Liu et al, 2011).
I believe that the real reason why statins protect the heart from a heart attack is that muscle cells are willing to make an incredible sacrifice for the sake of the larger good. It is well acknowledged that exercise is good for the heart, although people with a heart condition have to watch out for overdoing it, walking a careful line between working out the muscles and overtaxing their weakened heart. I believe, in fact, that the reason exercise is good is exactly the same as the reason statins are good: it supplies the heart with lactate, a very healthy fuel that does not glycate cell proteins.
Much more here
I reproduce below a small excerpt of a very large scholarly study that points out the huge stresses that statins place on the body. I have of course long condemned the statin fad and have advised everyone I know not to take them but even I did not realize how very damaging statins are to people. Like thalidomide, they may even be teratogenic. Given the importance of the subject, I am putting up this article only today. Read on:
by Stephanie Seneff
I would like to start by reexamining the claim that statins cut heart attack incidence by a third. What exactly does this mean? A meta study reviewing seven drug trials, involving in total 42,848 patients, ranging over a three to five year period, showed a 29% decreased risk of a major cardiac event (Thavendiranathan et al., 2006). But because heart attacks were rare among this group, what this translates to in absolute terms is that 60 patients would need to be treated for an average of 4.3 years to protect one of them from a single heart attack. However, essentially all of them will experience increased frailty and mental decline, a subject to which I will return in depth later on in this essay.
The impact of the damage due to the statin anti-cholesterol mythology extends far beyond those who actually consume the statin pills. Cholesterol has been demonized by the statin industry, and as a consequence Americans have become conditioned to avoid all foods containing cholesterol. This is a grave mistake, as it places a much bigger burden on the body to synthesize sufficient cholesterol to support the body's needs, and it deprives us of several essential nutrients. I am pained to watch someone crack open an egg and toss out the yolk because it contains "too much" cholesterol. Eggs are a very healthy food, but the yolk contains all the important nutrients. After all, the yolk is what allows the chick embryo to mature into a chicken. Americans are currently experiencing widespread deficiencies in several crucial nutrients that are abundant in foods that contain cholesterol, such as choline, zinc, niacin, vitamin A and vitamin D.
Cholesterol is a remarkable substance, without which all of us would die. There are three distinguishing factors which give animals an advantage over plants: a nervous system, mobility, and cholesterol. Cholesterol, absent from plants, is the key molecule that allows animals to have mobility and a nervous system. Cholesterol has unique chemical properties that are exploited in the lipid bilayers that surround all animal cells: as cholesterol concentrations are increased, membrane fluidity is decreased, up to a certain critical concentration, after which cholesterol starts to increase fluidity (Haines, 2001). Animal cells exploit this property to great advantage in orchestrating ion transport, which is essential for both mobility and nerve signal transport. Animal cell membranes are populated with a large number of specialized island regions appropriately called lipid rafts. Cholesterol gathers in high concentrations in lipid rafts, allowing ions to flow freely through these confined regions. Cholesterol serves a crucial role in the non-lipid raft regions as well, by preventing small charged ions, predominantly sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+), from leaking across cell membranes. In the absence of cholesterol, cells would have to expend a great deal more energy pulling these leaked ions back across the membrane against a concentration gradient.
In addition to this essential role in ion transport, cholesterol is the precursor to vitamin D3, the sex hormones, estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone, and the steroid hormones such as cortisol. Cholesterol is absolutely essential to the cell membranes of all of our cells, where it protects the cell not only from ion leaks but also from oxidation damage to membrane fats. While the brain contains only 2% of the body's weight, it houses 25% of the body's cholesterol. Cholesterol is vital to the brain for nerve signal transport at synapses and through the long axons that communicate from one side of the brain to the other. Cholesterol sulfate plays an important role in the metabolism of fats via bile acids, as well as in immune defenses against invasion by pathogenic organisms.
Statin drugs inhibit the action of an enzyme, HMG coenzyme A reductase, that catalyses an early step in the 25-step process that produces cholesterol. This step is also an early step in the synthesis of a number of other powerful biological substances that are involved in cellular regulation processes and antioxidant effects. One of these is coenzyme Q10, present in the greatest concentration in the heart, which plays an important role in mitochondrial energy production and acts as a potent antioxidant (Gottlieb et al., 2000). Statins also interfere with cell-signaling mechanisms mediated by so-called G-proteins, which orchestrate complex metabolic responses to stressed conditions. Another crucial substance whose synthesis is blocked is dolichol, which plays a crucial role in the endoplasmic reticulum. We can't begin to imagine what diverse effects all of this disruption, due to interference with HMG coenzyme A reductase, might have on the cell's ability to function.
How Statins Destroy Muscles
Europe, especially the U.K., has become much enamored of statins in recent years. The U.K. now has the dubious distinction of being the only country where statins can be purchased over-the-counter, and the amount of statin consumption there has increased more than 120% in recent years (Walley et al, 2005). Increasingly, orthopedic clinics are seeing patients whose problems turn out to be solvable by simply terminating statin therapy, as evidenced by a recent report of three cases within a single year in one clinic, all of whom had normal creatine kinase levels, the usual indicator of muscle damage monitored with statin usage, and all of whom were "cured" by simply stopping statin therapy (Shyam Kumar et al., 2008). In fact, creatine kinase monitoring is not sufficient to assure that statins are not damaging your muscles (Phillips et al., 2002).
Since the liver synthesizes much of the cholesterol supply to the cells, statin therapy greatly impacts the liver, resulting in a sharp reduction in the amount of cholesterol it can synthesize. A direct consequence is that the liver is severely impaired in its ability to convert fructose to fat, because it has no way to safely package up the fat for transport without cholesterol (Vila et al., 2011). Fructose builds up in the blood stream, causing lots of damage to serum proteins.
The skeletal muscle cells are severely affected by statin therapy. Four complications they now face are: (1) their mitochondria are inefficient due to insufficient coenzyme Q10, (2) their cell walls are more vulnerable to oxidation and glycation damage due to increased fructose concentrations in the blood, reduced choleserol in their membranes, and reduced antioxidant supply, (3) there's a reduced supply of fats as fuel because of the reduction in LDL particles, and (4) crucial ions like sodium and potassium are leaking across their membranes, reducing their charge gradient. Furthermore, glucose entry, mediated by insulin, is constrained to take place at those lipid rafts that are concentrated in cholesterol. Because of the depleted cholesterol supply, there are fewer lipid rafts, and this interferes with glucose uptake. Glucose and fats are the main sources of energy for muscles, and both are compromised.
As I mentioned earlier, statins interfere with the synthesis of coenzyme Q10 (Langsjoen and Langsjoen, 2003), which is highly concentrated in the heart as well as the skeletal muscles, and, in fact, in all cells that have a high metabolic rate. It plays an essential role in the citric acid cycle in mitochondria, responsible for the supply of much of the cell's energy needs. Carbohydrates and fats are broken down in the presence of oxygen to produce water and carbon dioxide as by-products. The energy currency produced is adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and it becomes severely depleted in the muscle cells as a consequence of the reduced supply of coenzyme Q10.
The muscle cells have a potential way out, using an alternative fuel source, which doesn't involve the mitochondria, doesn't require oxygen, and doesn't require insulin. What it requires is an abundance of fructose in the blood, and fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) the liver's statin-induced impairment results in an abundance of serum fructose. Through an anaerobic process taking place in the cytoplasm, specialized muscle fibers skim off just a bit of the energy available from fructose, and produce lactate as a product, releasing it back into the blood stream. They have to process a huge amount of fructose to produce enough energy for their own use. Indeed, statin therapy has been shown to increase the production of lactate by skeletal muscles (Pinieux et al, 1996).
Converting one fructose molecule to lactate yields only two ATP's, whereas processing a sugar molecule all the way to carbon dioxide and water in the mitochondria yields 38 ATP's. In other words, you need 19 times as much substrate to obtain an equivalent amount of energy. The lactate that builds up in the blood stream is a boon to both the heart and the liver, because they can use it as a substitute fuel source, a much safer option than glucose or fructose. Lactate is actually an extremely healthy fuel, water-soluble like a sugar but not a glycating agent.
So the burden of processing excess fructose is shifted from the liver to the muscle cells, and the heart is supplied with plenty of lactate, a high-quality fuel that does not lead to destructive glycation damage. LDL levels fall, because the liver can't keep up with fructose removal, but the supply of lactate, a fuel that can travel freely in the blood (does not have to be packaged up inside LDL particles) saves the day for the heart, which would otherwise feast off of the fats provided by the LDL particles. I think this is the crucial effect of statin therapy that leads to a reduction in heart attack risk: the heart is well supplied with a healthy alternative fuel.
This is all well and good, except that the muscle cells get wrecked in the process. Their cell walls are depleted in cholesterol because cholesterol is in such short supply, and their delicate fats are therefore vulnerable to oxidation damage. This problem is further compounded by the reduction in coenzyme Q10, a potent antioxidant. The muscle cells are energy starved, due to dysfunctional mitochondria, and they try to compensate by processing an excessive amount of both fructose and glucose anaerobically, which causes extensive glycation damage to their crucial proteins. Their membranes are leaking ions, which interferes with their ability to contract, hindering movement. They are essentially heroic sacrificial lambs, willing to die in order to safeguard the heart.
Muscle pain and weakness are widely acknowledged, even by the statin industry, as potential side effects of statin drugs. Together with a couple of MIT students, I have been conducting a study which shows just how devastating statins can be to muscles and the nerves that supply them (Liu et al, 2011).
I believe that the real reason why statins protect the heart from a heart attack is that muscle cells are willing to make an incredible sacrifice for the sake of the larger good. It is well acknowledged that exercise is good for the heart, although people with a heart condition have to watch out for overdoing it, walking a careful line between working out the muscles and overtaxing their weakened heart. I believe, in fact, that the reason exercise is good is exactly the same as the reason statins are good: it supplies the heart with lactate, a very healthy fuel that does not glycate cell proteins.
Much more here
SpongeBob SquarePants bad for concentration
Behaviour changes that last only a few minutes are hardly a great concern but that is all that the report below has demonstrated. That a fast-paced cartoon might wind kids up a bit is is hardly surprising. Any fun game will do the same
Watching fast-paced cartoons such as SpongeBob SquarePants damages young children’s concentration and behaviour, according to psychologists. Tests showed that four year-olds who watched just a few minutes of the popular television show were less able to solve problems and pay attention afterwards than those who saw a less frenetic programme or simply sat drawing.
Researchers say this could be because children mimic the chaotic behaviour of their favourite TV characters, or because the fast-moving and illogical cartoons make them over-excited.
As a result, they suggest that parents consider carefully which programmes they allow their offspring to watch, as well as encouraging them to enjoy more sedate and creative activities such as playing board games.
Angeline Lillard from the University of Virginia, who carried out the experiment, said: “Parents should know that children who have just watched SpongeBob Squarepants, or shows like it, might become compromised in their ability to learn and behave with self-control.
“Young children are beginning to learn how to behave as well as how to learn. At school, they have to behave properly, they need to sit at a table and eat properly, they need to be respectful, and all of that requires executive functions. “If a child has just watched a television show that has handicapped these abilities, we cannot expect the child to behave at their normal level in everyday situations.
SpongeBob SquarePants, an animated series that has been shown on the cable channel Nickelodeon since 1999, tells the tale of an “incurably optimistic and earnest” sea sponge who lives in a pineapple and works in an underwater fast food restaurant. Although its surreal humour has made it popular with adults as well as children, it has been criticised by some evangelical Christians for allegedly promoting homosexuality.
In a new paper published in the academic journal Pediatrics, Prof Lillard and colleagues compared children who watched nine minutes of a Spongebob episode with those who had spent the same time drawing or watching a more realistic and slower-paced Canadian cartoon called Caillou.
They found “little difference” in behaviour and performance between the drawing group and the Caillou group afterwards.
But the four year-olds who had watched SpongeBob saw their “executive function” – the ability to pay attention, solve problems and moderate their behaviour – was “severely compromised”.
Prof Lillard suggested: “It is possible that the fast pacing, where characters are constantly in motion from one thing to the next, and extreme fantasy, where the characters do things that make no sense in the real world, may disrupt the child's ability to concentrate immediately afterward. “Another possibility is that children identify with unfocused and frenetic characters, and then adopt their characteristics.”
SOURCE
Crocus drug that can kill tumours in one treatment with minimal side effects
In mice. The approach is however a clever one so it is to be hoped that its toxicity can be controlled enough to make it usable in humans
A drug derived from plant extracts could wipe out tumours in a single treatment with minimal side effects, according to research. Scientists have turned a chemical found in crocuses into a ‘smart bomb’ that targets cancerous tumours. Crucially, healthy tissue is unharmed, reducing the odds of debilitating side effects.
And unlike other side effect-free drugs, it is able to kill off more than one type of the disease, including breast, prostate, lung and bowel cancer. Potentially, all solid tumours could be vulnerable to drugs developed this way, meaning it could be used against all but blood cancers.
In some tests of the drug, half of tumours vanished completely after a single injection, the British Science Festival will hear this week.
The drug, based on colchicine, an extract from the autumn crocus, is at an early stage of development, and has so far been tested only on mice. But the University of Bradford researchers are optimistic about its potential in humans.
Professor Laurence Patterson said: ‘What we have designed is effectively a “smart bomb” that can be triggered directly at any solid tumour without appearing to harm healthy tissue. ‘If all goes well, we would hope to see these drugs used as part of a combination of therapies to treat and manage cancer.’
Colchicine has long been known to have anti-cancer properties but has been considered too toxic for use in the human body. To get round this, the researchers attached a chemical ‘tail’ to it, deactivating it until it reaches the cancer. Once there, the tail is cut off by an enzyme called MMP, which is found in tumours.
Removing the tail activates the drug, which then attacks and breaks down the blood vessels supplying the tumours with oxygen and nourishment. Cancers use the blood supply to spread around the body and it is hoped that the treatment, called ICT2588, will also combat this.
The first tests on humans could start in as little as 18 months. If successful, the drug could be on the market in six to seven years.
Henry Scowcroft, of Cancer Research UK, said: ‘This is exciting but very early work that hasn’t yet been tested in cancer patients.’ Professor Paul Workman, of the Institute of Cancer Research in London, said the results so far were promising. He added: ‘If confirmed in more extensive laboratory studies, drugs based on this approach could be very useful as part of combination treatments.’
SOURCE
Behaviour changes that last only a few minutes are hardly a great concern but that is all that the report below has demonstrated. That a fast-paced cartoon might wind kids up a bit is is hardly surprising. Any fun game will do the same
Watching fast-paced cartoons such as SpongeBob SquarePants damages young children’s concentration and behaviour, according to psychologists. Tests showed that four year-olds who watched just a few minutes of the popular television show were less able to solve problems and pay attention afterwards than those who saw a less frenetic programme or simply sat drawing.
Researchers say this could be because children mimic the chaotic behaviour of their favourite TV characters, or because the fast-moving and illogical cartoons make them over-excited.
As a result, they suggest that parents consider carefully which programmes they allow their offspring to watch, as well as encouraging them to enjoy more sedate and creative activities such as playing board games.
Angeline Lillard from the University of Virginia, who carried out the experiment, said: “Parents should know that children who have just watched SpongeBob Squarepants, or shows like it, might become compromised in their ability to learn and behave with self-control.
“Young children are beginning to learn how to behave as well as how to learn. At school, they have to behave properly, they need to sit at a table and eat properly, they need to be respectful, and all of that requires executive functions. “If a child has just watched a television show that has handicapped these abilities, we cannot expect the child to behave at their normal level in everyday situations.
SpongeBob SquarePants, an animated series that has been shown on the cable channel Nickelodeon since 1999, tells the tale of an “incurably optimistic and earnest” sea sponge who lives in a pineapple and works in an underwater fast food restaurant. Although its surreal humour has made it popular with adults as well as children, it has been criticised by some evangelical Christians for allegedly promoting homosexuality.
In a new paper published in the academic journal Pediatrics, Prof Lillard and colleagues compared children who watched nine minutes of a Spongebob episode with those who had spent the same time drawing or watching a more realistic and slower-paced Canadian cartoon called Caillou.
They found “little difference” in behaviour and performance between the drawing group and the Caillou group afterwards.
But the four year-olds who had watched SpongeBob saw their “executive function” – the ability to pay attention, solve problems and moderate their behaviour – was “severely compromised”.
Prof Lillard suggested: “It is possible that the fast pacing, where characters are constantly in motion from one thing to the next, and extreme fantasy, where the characters do things that make no sense in the real world, may disrupt the child's ability to concentrate immediately afterward. “Another possibility is that children identify with unfocused and frenetic characters, and then adopt their characteristics.”
SOURCE
Crocus drug that can kill tumours in one treatment with minimal side effects
In mice. The approach is however a clever one so it is to be hoped that its toxicity can be controlled enough to make it usable in humans
A drug derived from plant extracts could wipe out tumours in a single treatment with minimal side effects, according to research. Scientists have turned a chemical found in crocuses into a ‘smart bomb’ that targets cancerous tumours. Crucially, healthy tissue is unharmed, reducing the odds of debilitating side effects.
And unlike other side effect-free drugs, it is able to kill off more than one type of the disease, including breast, prostate, lung and bowel cancer. Potentially, all solid tumours could be vulnerable to drugs developed this way, meaning it could be used against all but blood cancers.
In some tests of the drug, half of tumours vanished completely after a single injection, the British Science Festival will hear this week.
The drug, based on colchicine, an extract from the autumn crocus, is at an early stage of development, and has so far been tested only on mice. But the University of Bradford researchers are optimistic about its potential in humans.
Professor Laurence Patterson said: ‘What we have designed is effectively a “smart bomb” that can be triggered directly at any solid tumour without appearing to harm healthy tissue. ‘If all goes well, we would hope to see these drugs used as part of a combination of therapies to treat and manage cancer.’
Colchicine has long been known to have anti-cancer properties but has been considered too toxic for use in the human body. To get round this, the researchers attached a chemical ‘tail’ to it, deactivating it until it reaches the cancer. Once there, the tail is cut off by an enzyme called MMP, which is found in tumours.
Removing the tail activates the drug, which then attacks and breaks down the blood vessels supplying the tumours with oxygen and nourishment. Cancers use the blood supply to spread around the body and it is hoped that the treatment, called ICT2588, will also combat this.
The first tests on humans could start in as little as 18 months. If successful, the drug could be on the market in six to seven years.
Henry Scowcroft, of Cancer Research UK, said: ‘This is exciting but very early work that hasn’t yet been tested in cancer patients.’ Professor Paul Workman, of the Institute of Cancer Research in London, said the results so far were promising. He added: ‘If confirmed in more extensive laboratory studies, drugs based on this approach could be very useful as part of combination treatments.’
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)