SMOKERS TEND TO BE DEPRESSED -- AND IT'S GENETIC

Popular summary below followed by abstract. Note that the genes predisposing to smoking also predispose to generally bad behaviour -- which helps to explain the long-known fact that smoking tends to be part of a syndrome of general social disadvantage: Smokers tend to be dumber, poorer etc. The present finding shows how broad that syndrome is

SMOKING and depression have a common genetic link, according to a new study in the journal Twin Research and Human Genetics. The study found that nicotine dependence and major depression are both associated with extreme rebellious behaviour during childhood and adolescence -- a condition known as "conduct disorder". In 1992, the research team conducted telephone interviews with 3360 pairs of male twins aged 35 to 53, who served in the military during the Vietnam War. Fifty-six per cent of the pairs were genetically identical twins, and 44 per cent were fraternal twins who shared half their genes. Answers from each twin were compared to estimate the genetic and environmental influences on nicotine addiction and major depression. Genes that increased a person's risk of developing nicotine addiction and major depression were also found in those with conduct disorder. The findings may also help to explain why smoking seems to run in some families, say the authors.

Source

Journal Abstract follows:

Common Genetic Risk of Major Depression and Nicotine Dependence: The Contribution of Antisocial Traits in a United States Veteran Male Twin Cohort

By Qiang Fu et al.

Many studies that found associations between depression and nicotine dependence have ignored possible shared genetic influences associated with antisocial traits. The present study examined the contribution of genetic and environmental effects associated with conduct disorder (CD) and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) to the comorbidity of major depression (MD) and nicotine dependence (ND). A telephone diagnostic interview, the Diagnostic Interview Schedule-III-R, was administered to eligible twins from the Vietnam Era Twin (VET) Registry in 1992. Multivariate genetic models were fitted to 3360 middle-aged and predominantly white twin pairs (1868 monozygotic, 1492 dizygotic pairs) of which both members completed the pertinent diagnostic interview sections. Genetic influences on CD accounted for 100%, 68%, and 50% of the total genetic variance in risk for ASPD, MD and ND, respectively. After controlling for genetic influences on CD, the partial genetic correlation between MD and ND was no longer statistically significant. Nonshared environmental contributions to the comorbidity among these disorders were not significant. This study not only demonstrates that the comorbidity between ND and MD is influenced by common genetic risk factors, but also further suggests that the common genetic risk factors overlapped with those for antisocial traits such as CD and ASPD in men.

Twin Research and Human Genetics. Volume: 10, Issue: 3, June 2007, 470-478





SOME HOPE FOR CROHN'S DISEASE

Popular summary followed by journal abstract. The benefit conferred by the drug seems rather weak, sadly. Only a net 8% of patients showed some benefit from the drug after 6 weeks, rising to 10% after 26 weeks. Still no real light at the end of the tunnel

CROHN'S disease -- an inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract -- affects an estimated 28,000 Australians and has no known medical cure. But a study in the New England Journal of Medicine this week has found that a new drug called certolizumab pegol is an effective treatment for adults with the disease. The drug acts by blocking a protein called tumour necrosis factor (TNF), which is a major cause of gut inflammation. The study involved 662 patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease, who were randomly assigned to receive certolizumab pegol or a placebo. After six weeks, 35 per cent of patients who received the drug showed improvement in their symptoms, while improvement was seen in 27 per cent of patients who received the placebo. The only side effect of certolizumab pegol was a small increase in the risk for serious infection, including one case of pulmonary tuberculosis.

Source


Abstract:

Certolizumab Pegol for the Treatment of Crohn's Disease

By: William J. Sandborn et al.

Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy of certolizumab pegol in 662 adults with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. Patients were stratified according to baseline levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and were randomly assigned to receive either 400 mg of certolizumab pegol or placebo subcutaneously at weeks 0, 2, and 4 and then every 4 weeks. Primary end points were the induction of a response at week 6 and a response at both weeks 6 and 26.

Results: Among patients with a baseline CRP level of at least 10 mg per liter, 37% of patients in the certolizumab group had a response at week 6, as compared with 26% in the placebo group (P=0.04). At both weeks 6 and 26, the corresponding values were 22% and 12%, respectively (P=0.05). In the overall population, response rates at week 6 were 35% in the certolizumab group and 27% in the placebo group (P=0.02); at both weeks 6 and 26, the response rates were 23% and 16%, respectively (P=0.02). At weeks 6 and 26, the rates of remission in the two groups did not differ significantly (P=0.17).

Serious adverse events were reported in 10% of patients in the certolizumab group and 7% of those in the placebo group; serious infections were reported in 2% and less than 1%, respectively. In the certolizumab group, antibodies to the drug developed in 8% of patients, and antinuclear antibodies developed in 2%.

Conclusions: In patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease, induction and maintenance therapy with certolizumab pegol was associated with a modest improvement in response rates, as compared with placebo, but with no significant improvement in remission rates.

NEJM Volume 357:228-238; July, 2007

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Milk gets some praise

Considering how fattening it is, praise for milk is a bit unexpected. The findings are however very weak -- a slight difference between extreme groups found only by aggregating a variety of not-very-comparable studies. Certainly no reason for anybody to increase their milk intake

Calcium and vitamin D, whether from food or supplements, may help lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, according to a research review. A number of studies have found links between type 2 diabetes risk and calcium, vitamin D and dairy food intake. When the results from these studies are combined, the new review found, people with the highest intakes of vitamin D and calcium had an 18 percent lower risk of diabetes than those with the lowest intakes. Similarly, people who ate the most dairy food had a 14 percent lower diabetes risk than those who ate the least dairy.

Though it's not clear why calcium and vitamin D are linked to diabetes risk, lab research has pointed to some possibilities, according to the review authors, led by Dr. Anastassios G. Pittas of Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston. Both nutrients may be important in the functioning of insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, and in the body's proper use of insulin, the researchers explain in their report, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

Insulin is a hormone that helps move sugar from the blood into the body's cells to be used for energy; type 2 diabetes develops when the body becomes resistant to insulin, allowing blood sugar levels to soar. Only a limited number of studies have tested whether calcium or vitamin D supplements can improve the body's insulin sensitivity and blood sugar metabolism. And the studies that have been done have reached conflicting conclusions, the review found.

A few trials have, however, suggested that the supplements may forestall type 2 diabetes in people who are on the verge of developing diabetes, or "pre-diabetic," based on their blood sugar levels, according to Pittas and his colleagues. It's too soon to recommend calcium or vitamin D for managing diabetes, the researchers conclude, but more clinical trials are warranted. Many Americans do not get enough vitamin D or calcium, they note, and supplementing people's diets with the nutrients would be an easy, inexpensive way to prevent or treat type 2 diabetes.

Source

Journal Abstract follows:

The Role of Vitamin D and Calcium in Type 2 Diabetes. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

By Anastassios G. Pittas et al.

Context: Altered vitamin D and calcium homeostasis may play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (type 2 DM).

Evidence Acquisition and Analyses: MEDLINE review was conducted through January 2007 for observational studies and clinical trials in adults with outcomes related to glucose homeostasis. When data were available to combine, meta-analyses were performed, and summary odds ratios (OR) are presented.

Evidence Synthesis: Observational studies show a relatively consistent association between low vitamin D status, calcium or dairy intake, and prevalent type 2 DM or metabolic syndrome [OR (95% confidence interval): type 2 DM prevalence, 0.36 (0.16-0.80) among nonblacks for highest vs. lowest 25-hydroxyvitamin D; metabolic syndrome prevalence, 0.71 (0.57-0.89) for highest vs. lowest dairy intake]. There are also inverse associations with incident type 2 DM or metabolic syndrome [OR (95% confidence interval): type 2 DM incidence, 0.82 (0.72-0.93) for highest vs. lowest combined vitamin D and calcium intake; 0.86 (0.79-0.93) for highest vs. lowest dairy intake]. Evidence from trials with vitamin D and/or calcium supplementation suggests that combined vitamin D and calcium supplementation may have a role in the prevention of type 2 DM only in populations at high risk (i.e. glucose intolerance). The available evidence is limited because most observational studies are cross-sectional and did not adjust for important confounders, whereas intervention studies were short in duration, included few subjects, used a variety of formulations of vitamin D and calcium, or did post hoc analyses.

Conclusions: Vitamin D and calcium insufficiency may negatively influence glycemia, whereas combined supplementation with both nutrients may be beneficial in optimizing glucose metabolism.

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 92, No. 6 2017-2029





Gene may be a fountain of youth

One of the genes that protects people from cancer may also help delay ageing, according to a study published yesterday. The findings could lead to new drugs that prevent or fight cancer while extending healthy youth and lifespan, said Manuel Serrano, a researcher at the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, who worked on the study.

Dr Serrano said researchers genetically changed mice to have an extra copy of a key cancer-fighting gene called p53 and found it also played an important role in delaying ageing. "Everyone agrees that the ageing is produced by the accumulation of faulty cells," Dr Serrano said. "In other words, p53 delays ageing for exactly the same reason that it prevents cancer." The study was published in the journal Nature.

Previous cancer studies have shown that p53 can cause premature ageing symptoms by killing too many cells when it goes into overdrive, but Dr Serrano said his research strictly regulated the gene so that it turned on only when needed. The gene -- and another that regulates signals to p53 -- did their normal job of producing a protein that kills damaged cancer cells. But the researchers found that mice with an extra copy of the genes actually lived longer even when stripping out the impact of having less cancer. "This is the first anti-cancer gene tested for its effect on ageing," Dr Serrano said. "The mice lived 16 per cent longer in their average lifespan."

The p53 gene makes sure that damaged cells destroy themselves and do not divide uncontrollably to cause a tumour. The role of p53 in cancer has been known for many years. Dr Serrano said he and his team applied this knowledge to ageing and targeting damaged cells. "The expectation is that having more p53, mice will have a stricter quality control for cells, hence less cancer and less ageing," he said.

Dr Serrano said other research had shown that mice and worms that ate less had slower metabolisms and lived longer. His study offers evidence that the mice can benefit from the extra copy of the genes without being starved.

The study opened up possibilities for drugs based on p53 to delay ageing, but researchers would need to find the right balance in boosting the gene to prevent potentially harmful effects, he said. "There are a number of chemical compounds that have been developed by the big pharmaceutical companies and these compounds are able to boost p53 in the organism," he said. "These compounds are being tested now for their possible anti-cancer activity and hopefully in the light of our study also for their possible anti-ageing activity."

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Hostility linked to heart disease risk

This is very old news but it probably bears repeating. One previous reference -- from 25 years ago: Diamond, E. L. (1982) The role of anger and hostility in essential hypertension and coronary heart disease. Psychological Bulletin 92, 410-433.

PEOPLE who seem to always be looking for a fight may find themselves at greater risk of heart disease, a new US study suggests. Researchers found that adults whose spouses rated them high on the "antagonism" scale were more likely to have calcium build-up in their heart arteries, an indicator of artery-clogging plaque. The relationship was mainly apparent in older, rather than middle-aged, adults. A number of studies have found a link between hostile temperament and heart disease.

These latest findings, published in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine, suggest that a specific component of hostility - antagonism - is particularly hard on the heart. For the purposes of psychosocial assessment, antagonism refers to a person's tendency to be suspicious of others, argumentative, competitive or emotionally cold. The study subjects included 300 middle-aged and older married couples in which neither spouse had been diagnosed with coronary heart disease.

Dr Timothy Smith and colleagues at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City had participants answer questions about their own temperament and that of their spouses. The researchers also used CT scans to gauge the amount of calcium in study participants' arteries. Calcium is a component of the plaques that harden and narrow the coronary arteries in people with heart disease. A high calcium "score" indicates elevated risks of heart attack and stroke. As mentioned, people with higher antagonism scores, based on their spouses' answers to a standard questionnaire, were more likely to have significant calcium build-up in their arteries.

However, when Dr Smith's team considered study participants' own ratings of their temperament, there was no link between hostility and coronary calcium. In contrast, no plaque build-up was observed in people whose hostility was mainly characterised by outbursts of anger. More research, they said, is needed to understand why argumentative people might have a higher heart disease risk.

Other researchers have theorised that chronic hostility may contribute to heart problems both directly and indirectly. Negative emotions have physiological effects, like raising blood pressure and stirring up stress hormones, which can take a toll on the cardiovascular system over time. In addition, people with hostile personalities may be resistant to adopting healthy habits or following medical advice.

Source





The official "obesity" obsession is hurting a lot of young people

PANIC over childhood obesity has contributed to a dramatic rise in the number of teenage girls starving themselves, vomiting, abusing laxatives and smoking in an effort to shed weight, the author of a national study released today said. The study of 8950 children and adolescents showed an almost doubling of girls aged 12 to 18 engaging in "eating-disordered behaviour" because they believed they were overweight, said Jenny O'Dea, associate professor of nutrition and health education at the University of Sydney. Youth Cultures of Eating showed 18 per cent of girls surveyed in 2006 had starved themselves for at least two days, up from from 9.9 per cent in 2000.

The study, funded by the Australian Research Council, also showed 11 per cent used vomiting for weight loss, up from 3.4 per cent. Eight per cent smoked to suppress appetite, up from 2.4 per cent. The report noted that obesity declined among wealthy teenage girls, from 4.6 per cent in 2000 to 3.9 per cent in 2006.

The number of obese children, boys and girls, was "levelling off", Dr O'Dea said, with a rise from 5.1 per cent in 2000 to 6.4 per cent in 2006. She said the heavy focus on childhood obesity and media attention on "skinny celebrities" such as Paris Hilton were to blame for the increase in eating-disordered behaviour. "I think there has been undoubtedly a media panic and a moral panic about childhood obesity in the last six years and I would certainly suggest that some of that comment has got into the minds of teenage girls who think that losing weight will make them a better and a happier person - that's a big myth," she said. "What schools need to do is tread very, very carefully with obesity prevention and only give positive messages and never do anything that is critical and negative."

The executive officer of the Australasian Society for the Study of Obesity, Tim Gill, agreed there had been "some degree" of panic but said campaigns had been very sensitive. Dr Gill said there had not been any emphasis on weight loss, but on such things as increased physical activity. "There is a difference between clinical eating disorders and self-reported [eating-disordered] behaviour," he said. The level of clinical eating disorders among girls was "very, very low and has been for some time". "The problem of obesity is of equal if not of greater concern . so it would be wrong to stop focusing on obesity for fear that it might increase eating disorders," Dr Gill said. "[But] there has been some moralising . even the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health have both moralised this issue, saying it's a lack of self-control and a lack of will."

The executive officer of the Eating Disorders Foundation, Greta Kretchmer, said the obesity epidemic had "almost been a scare campaign" and there had been an increase in teenage girls calling the foundation's helpline over the past five years. "We're certainly aware that there is an increase in eating-disordered behaviour," she said.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Vitamin C myth blasted

The idea that vitamin C supplements can ward off colds is a myth, a major review of the evidence has concluded. The analysis of data from 30 studies involving more than 11,000 people found no evidence that high doses of the vitamin have any effect against colds for the average person.

The research, conducted by Australian and Finnish scientists, found that extra vitamin C is beneficial only for people under extreme physical stress, such as marathon runners and soldiers, who are 50 per cent less likely to catch a cold if they take daily supplements. For people living ordinary lives, any benefits conferred by vitamin C are so small that they would not be worth the effort or expense, the researchers said. Professor Harri Hemil„, of the University of Helsinki, who led the meta-analysis, said: "It doesn't make sense to take vitamin C 365 days a year to lessen the chance of a cold."

The analysis appears in the latest issue of The Cochrane Library, published by the research organisation, the Cochrane Collaboration, an international organisation that evaluates medical research. Scientists pooled information from studies, spanning several decades, that looked at the effect of taking daily supplements of at least 200 milligrams of vitamin C.

The belief that vitamin C can prevent or treat the common cold was championed in the 1970s by the Nobel prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling, who encouraged people to take 1,000 milligrams of the vitamin daily. This is more than 17 times the recommended daily amount of 60 milligrams, which can be obtained from a single glass of orange juice.

Source




Veggies won't cure your cancer

But that is such a heresy that the researchers don't want to believe their own results

Eating very large amounts of fruit and vegetables does not improve the survival chances of women with breast cancer, scientists have found. A study of more than 3,000 women who had been treated for the disease showed that boosting fruit and vegetable consumption way beyond normal guidelines did not help them to live longer. Women who obeyed the super-strict eating rules imposed by scientists over seven years were just as likely to die or suffer a recurrence of breast cancer as those on a healthy "five-a-day" diet. In about 17 per cent of cases in both groups the cancer returned and 10 per cent of the women died.

Half the patients were placed on a low-fat diet which included five servings of fruit and vegetables a day. The other half were asked to make enormous changes to their diet. As well as limiting the fat they consumed to no more than 20 per cent of total calories, they were expected to eat five servings of vegetables, plus 470 millilitres of vegetable juice, three servings of fruit and 30 grams of fibre a day.

Many women in the intervention group found the regime tough - but after four years they were consuming on average 65 per cent more vegetables, 25 per cent more fruit, 30 per cent more fibre and 13 per cent less fat than their colleagues on the easier "control" diet.

However, the results published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that all the extra effort was in vain. Professor Marcia Stefanick, from Stanford University School of Medicine in California, who led the Women's Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) study, said: "I was really surprised and, frankly, a little disappointed by the results. We expected the twofold increase in vegetables and fruits, plus the increased fibre and reduced fat, to make a difference in the recurrence rates."

However, she pointed out that rates for the recurrence of breast cancer in the control group were much lower than expected. At the start, the researchers had anticipated that 30 per cent of the "five-a-day" dieters would suffer a relapse. She said many of the women had already adopted a healthier diet than the average American. "I would certainly hope that people don't interpret these results as evidence that eating a lot of vegetables doesn't make a difference in breast cancer," she said. "What it shows is that getting more than the recommended amounts doesn't change the recurrence rate for women who have already had treatment for early-stage breast cancer."

Previous animal studies have shown that plant-derived foods contain anticancer agents. Research also suggests that high-fat diets might be linked to increased cancer risk.

The WHEL study was the largest trial ever undertaken to assess how diet affects breast cancer recurrence. Co-researcher Dr Cheryl Rock, from the John Moores Cancer Centre at the University of California, San Diego, said: "We recognise that several other studies have shown clearly that eating more than five fruits and vegetables a day can make major differences in disease risk, such as in lowering blood pressure and reducing risk of stroke and heart disease." Liz Baker, science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "This study certainly doesn't mean that women who have had breast cancer should stop eating fruit and veg."

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Growth hormone a stroke remedy

INJECTING human growth hormone directly into the brain in the days and weeks after a stroke could lead to improved recovery rates. New research also reveals the treatment could enhance the recovery of newborn babies whose brains are injured because of a lack of oxygen during labour and of people who sustain brain trauma in motor vehicle and other accidents.

Research by University of Auckland scientists Arjan Scheepens and Praneeti Pathipati showed laboratory rats whose brains were injected with animal growth hormone made remarkable recoveries from stroke-like events. "The rats regained 100 per cent of their motor skills within seven days, much faster than untreated animals, and their memory functions improved as well," Dr Scheepens told The Australian during an international neuroscience conference in Melbourne yesterday. "Because people have been using growth hormone for 50 years its pharmacological safety is well known, so we think clinical trials on humans could start pretty much straight away." He estimated that commercial application was five to 10 years away.

Dr Scheepens said the research had enormous potential, given that no effective treatment existed for stroke unless the victim made it to hospital in the first two to three hours after the incident. Very few did. That treatment involved injecting thinning agents to allow blood flow to be restored to affected areas of the brain, and even then it was only effective in halting further damage, he said. "The most exciting aspect of our breakthrough is that it shows a positive effect when the growth hormone is given at a point in time much later than those first hours," Dr Scheepens said. "The rats received injections four days after the stroke, and there was significant improvement."

The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows an estimated 340,000 Australians have some form of acquired brain injury. Dr Scheepens's work may come too late for those who have already incurred injuries but it offers hope for future victims.

The research team first discovered that growth hormone, not normally produced in the brain, was generated as a self-protection mechanism after brain injuries such as a stroke. They found it eventually led to neuron regeneration, and experimented with boosting those regeneration levels by injecting synthetic growth hormones directly into the brain. "The potential we found for humans was a more complete recovery if done in conjunction with physical therapy," Dr Scheepens said. "It's one thing making new brain cells, but you have to tell them where to go. "Future treatment would be a combination of a slow release of the growth hormone via a pump inserted under the skin near your neck with a needle into the brain, and the physical therapy. "The physical therapy would force the neurological growth to be where it's needed."

He said the risk of side effects was small, as the quantity of growth hormone involved was thousands of times less than the levels used by rogue athletes looking to boost muscle mass. Growth hormone is essential for the development of bones, tissues, muscles and the brain, especially in puberty. It is believed growth hormone levels drop as people age.

Synthetic human growth hormone is promoted as an anti-ageing therapy, an industry viewed with scepticism by scientists who say there is little proof to support it. Dr Scheepens said the traditional view that the brain did not have the capacity to regenerate, and so any damage done by excessive drinking was permanent, had long been debunked. "In the last 10 years the neuroscience world has accepted that you do make new neurons throughout your life, and that is particularly important for memory and cognition," he said. "Neurogenesis is an established fact."

Source





A rare good-news report about mobile phones

Refreshing after the endless speculative claims that mobiles will give you cancer

A new study has found mobile phones have enhanced the lives of most Australians. Researchers from the Australian National University, working with colleagues from New South Wales and New England, found only 3 per cent of people believed mobiles had a negative impact on their lives. More than half of those questioned said their mobile phones helped them achieve a better work-life balance. Three-quarters of people said carrying a mobile made them feel more secure.

Research Professor Judy Wajcman says overwhelmingly people use their mobile to phone family and friends. "What it seems to us, when we look at our findings overall is that the mobile phone is not primarily a work tool," he said. "Indeed, one of the principal uses of the mobile phone is to strengthen ties with kin and close relationships, close friends."

The project was based on collaboration between university-based researchers and the peak organisation of mobile phone service providers, the Australian Mobile Telecommunication Association (AMTA), under the umbrella of the Australian Research Council Linkage grant scheme. The report says AMTA's mission is 'to promote an environmentally, socially and economically responsible and successful mobile telecommunications industry in Australia'. The collaboration follows a workshop held in May 2004, jointly sponsored by AMTA and the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Folic acid dangers

The evidence of harm so far seems to be mainly epidemiological but is nonethless of concern when you are forcing the stuff on millions of people. A very high standard of proof that the stuff is NOT harmful would seem to be required in those circumstances. It should be noted that Joel Mason specializes in studies of folate. His epidemiological study was suggested by laboratory and clinical findings

Since the institution of nationwide folic acid fortification of enriched grains in the mid 1990s, the number of infants born in the United States and Canada with neural tube defects has declined by 20 percent to 50 percent. Concurrent with the institution of fortification, however, the rate at which new cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in men and women increased, report scientists at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition.

Research Center on Aging (USDA HNRCA) at Tufts University. Joel Mason, MD, director of the USDA HNRCA's Vitamins and Carcinogenesis Laboratory, and his colleagues analyze the temporal association between folic acid fortification and the rise in colorectal cancer rates, and present their resulting hypothesis in an article in the recent issue of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

Nationwide fortification of enriched grains is generally considered one of the greatest advances in public health policy, says Mason, who is also an associate professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts. But since the time that the food supply in North America was fortified with folic acid, we have been experiencing four to six additional cases of colorectal cancer for every 100,000 individuals each year in comparison to the trends that existed before fortification.

Our analysis suggests that this increase is not explained by chance or by increased cancer screening. Therefore, it is important to analyze risks and benefits of fortification, and encourage scientific debate in countries that are considering instituting or enhancing folic acid fortification.

Mason and his colleagues analyzed data from national cancer registries, one in the United States and another in Canada. The US data were derived from the nationwide Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry that publishes cancer occurrence rates and survival data, covering approximately 26 percent of the population. The Canadian data were obtained from Canadian Cancer Statistics, an annual publication by the Canadian Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute of Canada.

In 1996 and 1998, there were abrupt reversals in the 15-year downward trends in colorectal cancer rates in the United States and Canada, respectively. Since peaking in 1998 in the United States and in 2000 in Canada, the rates have not returned to their earlier levels. Even though folic acid fortification of enriched grains including bread, cereal, flour, rice, and pasta did not become required until 1998, large food companies began voluntary fortification in 1996, first in the United States and later in Canada.

Folic acid is the synthetic form of folate, a B vitamin that is essential for cell growth. After intestinal absorption, folic acid is converted to methyltetrahydrofolate, found naturally in foods such as leafy green vegetables, legumes and citrus fruits. The body's response to folic acid appears to be complex, says Mason. While fortification of the food supply is clearly beneficial for women of child-bearing age and their offspring, it is possible that it may, coincidentally, be associated with the increase in colorectal cancer rates. Our report is intended to create a foundation upon which to further explore that possibility.

As Mason and his colleagues note, there is a compelling body of scientific evidence suggesting that habitually high intakes of dietary folate are protective against colorectal cancer. Mason explains, however, that there are several reasons why we may have inadvertently created the opposite effect with folic acid fortification. First, folate's pivotal role in DNA synthesis also makes it a potential growth factor for malignant or pre-malignant cells, and when administered in large quantities to individuals who unknowingly harbor cancer cells, it could paradoxically enhance cancer development. The addition of substantial quantities of folic acid into the foodstream may have facilitated the transformation of non-malignant growths into cancers, or small cancers into larger ones, he says. Second, the fact that a synthetic form of folate is used for fortification may be important, suggests Mason. As the total amount of folic acid ingested increases, the mechanism that converts folic acid to methyltetrahydrofolate can become saturated. The leftover folic acid in the circulation might have detrimental effects, as it is not a natural form of the vitamin.

At a time when a number of countries are debating whether or not to institute or enhance folic acid fortification, Mason and his colleagues urge caution and debate. We must examine the effects of folic acid fortification on the population as a whole, which includes better defining the nature of the relationship between folic acid fortification and colorectal cancer, says Mason. Improved monitoring and further research in this field is important to our understanding of the long-term public health effects of fortification.

Source

Journal abstract follows:

(From: Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 16, 1325-1329, July 1, 2007)

A Temporal Association between Folic Acid Fortification and an Increase in Colorectal Cancer Rates May Be Illuminating Important Biological Principles: A Hypothesis

By Joel B. Mason et al.

Nationwide fortification of enriched uncooked cereal grains with folic acid began in the United States and Canada in 1996 and 1997, respectively, and became mandatory in 1998. The rationale was to reduce the number of births complicated by neural tube defects. Concurrently, the United States and Canada experienced abrupt reversals of the downward trend in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence that the two countries had enjoyed in the preceding decade: absolute rates of CRC began to increase in 1996 (United States) and 1998 (Canada), peaked in 1998 (United States) and 2000 (Canada), and have continued to exceed the pre-1996/1997 trends by 4 to 6 additional cases per 100,000 individuals. In each country, the increase in CRC incidence from the prefortification trend falls significantly outside of the downward linear fit based on nonparametric 95% confidence intervals. The statistically significant increase in rates is also evident when the data for each country are analyzed separately for men and women. Changes in the rate of colorectal endoscopic procedures do not seem to account for this increase in CRC incidence. These observations alone do not prove causality but are consistent with the known effects of folate on existing neoplasms, as shown in both preclinical and clinical studies. We therefore hypothesize that the institution of folic acid fortification may have been wholly or partly responsible for the observed increase in CRC rates in the mid-1990s. Further work is needed to definitively establish the nature of this relationship. In the meantime, deliberations about the institution or enhancement of fortification programs should be undertaken with these considerations in mind.





New cancer test reduces breast biopsies

A NEW technique is available for the first time in Australia to give women an instant test for breast cancer, without the pain and anxiety of waiting for biopsy results. Using the technology called elasticity imaging, health professionals can distinguish between benign breast lumps and malignant tumours, which are firmer in consistency.

Queensland Diagnostic Imaging (QDI) has tested more than 40 patients at the North West Private Hospital, on Brisbane's northside, using the Siemens ultrasound technology. One was 33-year-old Antonia Croker, who found a breast lump which was increasing in size during her third pregnancy. As a radiographer, she was keen to get the lump checked out as quickly as possible - but wanted to try the new ultrasound technology. "I like the fact we can get the results on the same day and not having to send away the samples for biopsies,'' Ms Croker said. "The fact I don't have needles and that sort of thing is very pleasant.''

The lump turned out to be benign but women who wanted another check could still choose to have a biopsy, she said. A US-based expert in the detection of breast cancer, Dr Richard Barr, said the ability to visualise tissue elasticity with ultrasound was an enormous advance in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Dr Barr, professor of Radiology at Northern-Eastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, said a US study last year showed the technique correctly identified 17 out of 17 cancerous tumours.

It also identified 105 out of 106 harmless lesions when checked against biopsies of women's breast tissue. It also eliminated the need for 50 to 70 per cent of biopsies, he said. "We're hoping we will be able to significantly reduce the number of biopsies that are done on benign lesions,'' Dr Barr said. "We are in the process now of getting a lot of other sites around the world up and running to see if they can reproduce these results.''

The technology had been approved for use in the US, Australia and other countries but testing of more than 2000 women would continue for the next year, he said. The Siemens technology was also being expanded to ultrasound other parts of the body for other diseases. "One of the things we are interested in is radio frequency ablation when we stick a needle into a tumour and use heat to cook the tumour and kill it,'' Dr Barr said.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

An "incorrect" breakfast can be very good for your memory

EATING a less "healthy" breakfast cereal could improve your memory, Australian research suggests. A study has found that high-glycaemic index cereals, which are generally heavier in carbohydrate and sugar, help young people remember words better in the short term. The findings, presented to a world brain conference in Melbourne, may support pre-exam bingeing on glucose-rich foods, but the researchers caution that eating unhealthy foods is not a sustainable tool for memory.

Michael Smith, a PhD student at the University of Western Australia, compared the impact of low- and high-GI cereal on the ability of healthy teenagers to remember a list of words. The glycaemic index is a measure of how quickly carbohydrate breaks down in the body. Low-GI foods have a gradual effect, believed to be beneficial, while those with a high GI are rapidly digested and cause drastic fluctuations in blood sugar levels.

Mr Smith found that the rapidly digested cereals brought memory benefits. "The adolescents that ate the high-GI cereal could actually recall a lot more words than those in the other group," he said. The researchers recruited 38 people aged from 14 to 17 and fed them either a high-fibre bran-based low-GI cereal or a popular corn cereal that is high-GI.

The teenagers were then asked to remember 20 words, including the names of fruit and vegetables, spices and tools. Results showed that when recalling the list 40 minutes later, the high-GI group was more prone to forgetting. But after 60 minutes they were recalling 1.5 more words on average than low-GI cereal consumers.

Mr Smith said while the difference was small it was significant and was the first time high-GI cereals had been shown to have such benefits. Studies have shown that low-GI foods are better for memory.

Source







Internet defeating paternalistic Australian baby laws

If it's OK with the father concerned, why shouldn't couples know more about the biological fathers of their children?

Desperate Australian couples are buying sperm from anonymous "designer donors" through overseas websites. The donor dad's religious beliefs, university major, temperament, ethnic ancestry and even voice recording are available at the click of a mouse. The trend has astonished IVF experts because the commercial trade in sperm is illegal in Australia and donors in Victoria must be registered.

Ethicists say the situation makes a mockery of Australian laws. They worry that detailed online menus let parents try to craft their child's characteristics before conception. Donors are scarce in Victoria and experts warn the state's sperm banks could be depleted in two years.

Major US clinic California Cryobank confirmed it had shipped 20 vials to Australia in the past five years. The sperm bank advertises physical traits - even offering photographs of the donor as an infant. The results of a temperament test, which assess the donor as having one of four temperament types, are also available for a fee. Voice recordings of donors, sketches of his facial features, in-depth medical histories and even high school test results can be bought.

In Australia, donor details are generally limited to ethnicity and medical history, to ensure the donor's features match those of the social father. Specimens from the US site cost between $US250 and $US500 and a donor dossier can be bought for an additional fee. It offers anonymous and known donors, all medically screened, and ships vials in liquid nitrogen to any specified address.

Commonwealth and some state laws make it illegal to sell or receive human sperm or eggs in a commercial transaction in Australia. Offenders face up to 15 years' jail under Commonwealth human cloning laws, but donations with cash subsidies for out-of-pocket expenses are allowed. In Victoria, donor details are recorded so a child can track down his or her biological parent later in life.

British clinic First 4 Fertility, which destroys donor details after a year and is not regulated by health authorities there, says it has also shipped to Australia and wants to expand its business. "We're looking at how we can find a partner in Australia to run a parallel service to ours there," spokesman John Gonzalez said.

Monash IVF's Adrianne Pope said buying sperm abroad was dangerous because it could complicate a child's efforts to trace his or her paternity. Dr Pope said a chronic shortage of donors could be forcing couples to look overseas. "I'd imagine lack of supply is an issue," she said. "We will reach a point where we will run out, probably in the next two years, if we don't start to see a change."

To import sperm to Victoria, a person must have permission from a regulator, the Infertility Treatment Authority. Failure to comply carries a two-year jail term or fines of $25,000. Clinics and donors wanting to use imported sperm must sign a form promising it has not been bought commercially.

Bioethicist Nick Tonti-Filippini questioned the level of details available on the online sites. "I'd be very surprised if Australian clinics were offering that much information - it's more likely to be medical information," Dr Tonti-Filippini said. "When you get into that sort of detail it's a trade, and in Australia there's a very strong reluctance to trade around these things. "There are some basic respect issues involved when you start selling people's sperm, or eggs for that matter. "The idea that you can be conceived by some sort of trade is not one that most Australians would support."

About one in six Australian couples is infertile. Donor Conception Support Group spokeswoman Leonie Hewitt believed the online commercial sperm trade was thriving. "I've heard of it being done, and my concern would be what happens when that child grows up and wants to know its identity and medical history," Ms Hewitt said. "It's not just semen, it's eggs as well." Ms Hewitt said she knew of a Sydney couple who had imported sperm from Sweden and said hopeful couples had been bringing it in from Britain for years. She called for a national donor register similar to Victoria's.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Why do overweight workers earn less?

I am not very au fait with the intricacies of American health insurance but the authors below seem to be saying that overweight workers cost the employer more to insure so the employers pay them less in wages. I would favour a social class explanation. Overweight people are more likely to be working class and hence more likely to be of low intelligence and hence less valuable to an employer. I guess that explanation is too obnoxious for most people but there is plenty of evidence for each step in the reasoning. The truth is rarely politically correct

Obese workers earn less per hour than their thinner colleagues—a finding that is surprisingly robust and does not appear to be explained by differences in education, age, or training. This obesity wage gap is greater for female workers, but it is also true for men. Most often, economists attribute the gap to discrimination against the obese. Occasionally, economists argue that in some jobs (think of supermodels), thinner workers are more productive than obese ones.

My colleague Kate Bundorf and I have developed evidence that favors a different explanation. We think an important reason for the obesity wage gap is that the costs of health insurance are passed through to obese workers. This would be consistent with the theory of wage pass-through, because expected medical expenditures and hence the value of health insurance are greater for obese workers than for thin workers.

In our research, we examined the wage path over a decade for a nationally representative cohort of 12,686 people ages 24 to 31 years old in 1989. For our study, we focused on full-time workers but excluded pregnant women. We separated the workers into two groups: one with health insurance provided by their employer and one without.

We first looked at the wage paths for the group with health insurance (see figure 1). As expected, given the discussion so far, obese workers earn less than thinner workers and the gap grows as the cohort ages and becomes more likely to use medical care. By 2000, obese workers were earning nearly $4.60 an hour less than thinner workers. This wage gap is at least as big as the expected difference in medical expenditures between obese and thin workers.



We then looked at wage paths for the group without health insurance (see figure 2). For this group, the obesity wage gap never develops—thin and obese workers earned about the same, on average, exactly what one would expect to find under the theory of wage pass-through.

Our evidence has important implications for pooling in health insurance between thin and obese workers. Because wages are lower for obese workers only at jobs where health insurance is provided, the obesity wage gap would seem to undo whatever nominal pooling there is of health insurance premiums. If there is no real pooling, Carl and Lenny do not pay for Homer’s body weight decisions and there is no public health crisis.

This reasoning does not extend to government-provided health insurance, which is also common in the United States but less so than private coverage. In 2004, there were 174.2 million Americans covered by employer health insurance, 39.7 million covered by Medicare (provided by the federal government to elderly and disabled people), and 37.5 million covered by Medicaid (provided by states to the poor). Under both Medicare and Medicaid, enrollees’ premiums do not depend on body weight and are always much lower than expected medical bills. In many cases, enrollees are not charged premiums at all. Unlike in employer-provided health insurance, there is no wage pass-through that can undo pooling between obese enrollees and taxpayers.



Much more here





New IVF wisdom: Autoimmune syndrome can cause infertility

After three failed attempts at IVF, Julia Kantecki began to lose hope that she and her husband Robert would ever conceive a child. "My baby dream was slipping away. I was 40 and fearful of shrivelling into menopause and a childless future," says Julia, 45, a former marketing director. Robert, 56, had had a vasectomy 20 years earlier and IVF was the couple's only chance of having a child together.

Since her mother had had five children without a problem, Julia, who lived in Doncaster at the time, assumed everything would go smoothly. So it came as an enormous disappointment when she failed to become pregnant. The worst part was that the IVF doctors couldn't offer any definitive explanation for the failure. But her experience is far from unusual - although many women assume that the wonders of modern medicine mean they will conceive easily with IVF, in fact the success rate is around 20 per cent. Julia's doctors simply suggested she might get lucky if she kept trying. She did keep trying, twice over - but without any luck.

Conventional medicine holds that IVF failure and miscarriage are the result of hormonal problems, abnormalities of the uterus, genetically defective embryos or ageing eggs. But doctors from the Alan E Beer Center for Reproductive Immunology, in San Francisco, believe they may be caused by a woman's immune system going into overdrive and wrongly attacking her embryos as if they were foreign bodies. The Beer Center, which has treated more than 7,000 couples for fertility-related immune problems, claims a pregnancy success rate of 85 per cent within three natural cycles or IVF attempts.

While on holiday with her mother, Julia visited a clinic run by Dr Beer. She was told that three IVF failures indicated possible immune problems. Blood test results showed that Julia had abnormally high levels of natural "killer" (NK) cells - thought to help keep the body from developing cancer - and harmful antibodies that doctors at the clinic said were attacking her embryos. "They told me that my body was treating pregnancy as if it was dealing with a cancer and killing my babies before they'd had time to implant in my uterus properly," says Julia. An added complication was an inherited clotting disorder making her susceptible to developing blood clots in the placenta, which could also endanger her embryos.

The good news, one of the nurses told her, was that they knew exactly how to treat these conditions. With the right medications, she stood an 80 per cent chance of having a baby.

It was in the Eighties that Alan Beer, an academic who had trained in immunology and obstetrics, began to suspect that NK cells produced by an over-active immune system could damage embryos and cause implantation failure. He tested women who were miscarrying and suffering IVF failure and found that they had abnormally high levels of NK cells. These, he believed, could attack both the developing embryo and hormones essential to maintain pregnancy. "When women tell me they're always healthy and never get infections, alarm bells start ringing since it suggests their immune systems are working overtime," says Dr Raphael Stricker, who took over as medical director of the Beer Center after the death of Dr Beer last year.

The theory is that this can be redressed artificially, with drugs. "Immune therapy for reproductive failure is a temporary measure. "It's designed to replicate the natural suppression of the immune system at the very beginning of a normal pregnancy," explains Dr Stricker. "The drugs involved are taken for the least amount of time and prescribed at the lowest doses possible."

For Julia, the Beer Center's theories were a revelation. "I was shocked that my body might be such a non-baby friendly environment," she says. "Symptoms like the mild arthritis I had in my fingers, which is also apparently an immune problem, now made sense. "It all sounded too good to be true - but it was worth a try."

She returned home with her first prescription for the drugs, but her GP dismissed the treatment as "unorthodox". Among the UK medical establishment, such methods are regarded as at best unproven and at worst akin to "snake oil". The concern is that vulnerable women undergoing such unproven treatments risk being financially exploited and exposed to potentially dangerous drugs. However, the consultant she saw at Doncaster Royal Infirmary was, says Julia, more "open-minded" and agreed to prescribe the drugs privately.

A few weeks before undergoing her next IVF cycle, she was given a course of prednisolone - a corticosteroid that would suppress her immune system and stop it attacking the embryo - and heparin injections to thin her blood, which would prevent blood clots from blocking the placenta. Three embryos were transferred and two weeks later, she got the result she had waited so long to hear. "To my absolute, total disbelief and delight, the test was positive," she recalls. "At first I was a bit stunned. Robert and I both cried later when the news sank in that I was really pregnant." To their amazement, successive scans revealed a good-sized baby with a strong, regular heart beat.

Even after the pregnancy was achieved it was vital she continued to take the drugs to prevent her NK cells from increasing and killing her growing baby. Julia's consultant assured her that the dose was very low and would have no effect on her baby. Towards the end of the pregnancy her intake of prednisone was gradually reduced and, a few weeks before the anticipated delivery date, she stopped taking the bloodthinning anticoagulant, in case doctors needed to perform an emergency Caesarean. In August 2003, Julia gave birth to her son Thomas.



Her experiences inspired her to help other women find out more about reproductive immunology and she approached Dr Beer with the idea of writing a book - they called it Is Your Body Baby Friendly? Dr Beer died in May 2006, just after its completion. "Without Dr Beer's determination to identify the immune reactions that cause reproductive failure and his pioneering use of immunotherapy, our son would not be here," says Julia. "The debt we owe him is immeasurable."

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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

Israelis oppose HRT panic

The UK-based International Menopause Society (IMS), headed for the past two years by Israeli menopause specialist and Tel Aviv University (TAU) Professor Amos Pines, announced good news this month for women around the world: controversial estrogen replacement therapy in fact decreases the chances of heart disease among its users during the early postmenopausal period.

Research like this and continuing education on women's health issues are the mission of the IMS. It is this research and education, Pines suggests, that is in danger of being smothered in political issues.

An active member of the IMS for the past 12 years, Pines, a member of TAU's Sackler Faculty of Medicine, was voted in as IMS president for a three-year term by the society's board. It was his academic merit and enthusiasm for education on women's health that made him an obvious choice. A board of 12 international members voted him in.

One of the most meaningful and recent projects the IMS has undertaken is to reverse public opinion on the risks of hormone replacement therapy. After a 2002 Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study was published, more than half of menopausal women everywhere stopped using this effective anti-hot-flash and mood-balancing therapy prescribed by their doctors.

"Some people called it a tsunami," recalls Pines, "It was a catastrophic event in the history of menopause. And we were the only society to raise our voices against the new NIH guidelines. We believed that the interpretation of the study was not right and led to the wrong conclusions and misleading media coverage. Too many women stopped taking hormones and they suffered for no valid scientific reason."

Source

Some good sense in the press release from Prof. Pines below:

Response to the Lancet paper on ovarian cancer in the Million Women Study

The Million Women Study (MWS) has reported new data on the risk of ovarian cancer in postmenopausal hormone users1. The study showed a 20% increase in risk when current users were compared with never users. No increase in risk was recorded in women using HRT for less than 5 years, and past users had the same risk as never users. Risk did not vary significantly with types of HRT.

While the data derived from the MWS are not much different from several other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, the Women’s Health Initiative study did not show an increased risk of ovarian cancer2. The IMS would like to comment:

* Following the previous analysis of the MWS on breast and endometrial cancers, there were many reservations concerning the methodology and these are still pertinent

* Most epidemiologists would consider that a relative risk of 1.2 is of minimal clinical significance but will inevitably reach statistical significance with very large numbers.

* Risk is far better reported in absolute numbers rather than relative risk or percentage. The absolute risk for ovarian cancer in the MWS was only one extra case per 2500 women after 5 years and mortality was one per 3300 over 5 years.

It is most regrettable that the risks for all gynecological cancers have been added together to produce an estimated increase in risk of 62% for hormone users. Endometrial cancer should be prevented by combined hormone therapy, and adding percentages is inappropriate and will inevitably cause further unnecessary distress to the many women who are benefiting from HRT.





"Fat tax" proposal shows a severe case of imaginitis

Once you make unproven assuptions, all sorts of crazy conclusions are possible. More crazy epidemiology

A "fat tax" on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published on Thursday. Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes. The purchase tax is already levied on a small number of products such as potato crisps, ice cream, confectionery and chocolate biscuits, but most food is exempt.

The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. "A well-designed and carefully-targeted fat tax could be a useful tool for reducing the burden of food-related disease," the study concluded. The team from Oxford's Department of Public Health said higher taxes have already been imposed on cigarettes and alcohol to encourage healthy living. They used a mathematical formula to estimate the effect of higher prices on the demand for foods such as pastries, cakes, cheese and butter.

However, they said their research only gave a rough guide to the number of lives that could be saved and said more work was needed to get an exact picture of how taxes could improve public health. Any "fat tax" might be seen as an attack on personal freedom and would weigh more heavily on poorer families, the study warned. A food tax would raise average weekly household bills by 4.6 percent or 67 pence per person.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has previously rejected the idea as an example of the "nanny state" that might push people away from healthy food.

The Food and Drink Federation has called the proposed tax patronizing and says it would hit low-income families hardest. It suggests that people eat a balanced diet. The British Heart Foundation said it does not support the tax. "We believe the government should focus on ensuring healthy foods are financially and geographically accessible to everyone," it said.

Source






Laser improves corneal transplants

Patients who need sight-saving eye surgery could get their vision back more quickly and avoid infection with a revolutionary laser-surgery technique, surgeons say. Corneal graft surgery, one of the earliest forms of transplant operation, has been performed for more than 100 years without any fundamental changes to the methods used. But although the operation itself is fairly straightforward, recovery often takes a long time.

By using the latest technology designed for laser eye surgery, surgeons can now achieve a better fit for grafts, putting the pieces together like a jigsaw puzzle and helping to accelerate the healing process. Patients can recover perfect vision with or without their spectacles or contact lenses after about six months, roughly halving the recovery time.

The surgery involves the removal of the central part of the cornea, the clear front window of the eye, and its replacement with a corneal graft - about only 0.5mm thick - from a donor. Traditionally surgeons have done this under the microscope using a "cookie-cutter" knife, with the circular graft being secured to the eye with tiny stitches. But the latest femtosecond lasers can cut the cornea into a precise tongue-and-groove pattern to achieve a better fit with the graft, meaning that surgeons need to use fewer sutures and can remove them more quickly after the operation.

Each pulse of light from the lasers is extremely short, lasting only 50 to 1,000 femtoseconds (or quadrillionths of a second). These ultra-short pulses are too brief to transfer heat or shock to the material being cut, which means that extremely fine cuts can be made with no damage to surrounding tissue.

Previously, patients have had to attend regular check-ups for at least a year to ensure that the stitches did not slip out of place and allow bacteria to infect the eye. Sheraz Daya, an eye surgeon who has pioneered the use of the technique in Britain at the Centre for Sight clinic in East Grinstead, West Sussex, said that patients also recovered their sight more quickly than usual after the operation. Of six NHS and private patients whom Mr Daya has operated on using the technique, most recovered perfect vision after six months, he said, including two who now no longer need to wear spectacles.

He suggests that the lasers could be used in about half of the 2,500 corneal transplant operations carried out in Britain each year. "Rather than trying to attach the flat surface of the eye to a flat surface, with the femtosecond laser we can precisely cut the graft to fit on the eye, forming a stronger bond," Mr Daya told The Times. "This means fewer stitches are required, and they can be taken out after just a few months. Patients can cut down on the time off work and also recover their vision quicker, as it is usually fuzzy or misty in the affected eye until the cornea settles down. Most get an acceptable degree of vision back within three months, which becomes perfect by about six months." Dr Daya added that the new technique also reduced the chances of fragile cornea grafts being torn during the cutting process.

Larry Benjamin, honorary secretary of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and an eye surgeon at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, in Buckinghamshire, said that the new technique could also avoid astigmatism, where the transplanted cornea becomes misshapen, producing blurred images, and may require further surgery.

Source

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

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trans fats:

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

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