Friday, January 15, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Eye-Care-Focused Nutritional Biotechnology Company Reformulates Flagship Multiple: Macula Complete -- COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Jan. 6 /PRNewswire/ --
Monday, December 21, 2009
Men for All Seasons
We agree with The Scientists.com - one individual stands out as the most accomplished scientists of 2009.
Unless you have been living under a rock this year, you probably know that Francis Collins, MD, PhD, was appointed director of the National Institutes of Health in August.
The geneticist accepted the position after 15 years at the helm of the National Human Genome Research Institute, during which time he helped finish the Human Genome Project ahead of schedule and under budget. Since taking control of the NIH, Collins has been pushing an agenda focused on personalized medicine and stem cell research, backing the efforts by approving 40 new human embryonic stem cell lines as eligible for federal funding. Dr. Collins has also found time to be a much more public figure than previous NIH directors, taking time out to rock with Aerosmith's Joe Perry and joke around with Stephen Colbert.
While directing the National Human Genome Research Institute, he formed a rock band called 'The Directors" with other NIH scientists. They frequently dueled with a rock band from Johns Hopkins University, led by esteemed cancer researcher Bert Vogelstein who once said, "Anyone who likes to play with toys has got to like science because scientists have the world's best toys."
Bart Gordon comes in as a close second in our opinion.
As Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, the 13th term Democrat from Tennessee played a key role in ensuring science got a major boost from stimulus funding.
Bart Gordon also authored bills to further nanotechnology research and commercialization (H.R. 554, passed February 11), require that the President create a national water strategy (H.R. 1145, passed April 23), and improve science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education programs (H.R. 1709, passed June 8).
Gordon also helped allocate $400 million in stimulus funding to start the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency -- Energy, which funds high risk, high reward energy research. Although the Congressman announced he won't be running for re-election next year, science sure was lucky to have him around in 2009.
Unless you have been living under a rock this year, you probably know that Francis Collins, MD, PhD, was appointed director of the National Institutes of Health in August.
The geneticist accepted the position after 15 years at the helm of the National Human Genome Research Institute, during which time he helped finish the Human Genome Project ahead of schedule and under budget. Since taking control of the NIH, Collins has been pushing an agenda focused on personalized medicine and stem cell research, backing the efforts by approving 40 new human embryonic stem cell lines as eligible for federal funding. Dr. Collins has also found time to be a much more public figure than previous NIH directors, taking time out to rock with Aerosmith's Joe Perry and joke around with Stephen Colbert.
While directing the National Human Genome Research Institute, he formed a rock band called 'The Directors" with other NIH scientists. They frequently dueled with a rock band from Johns Hopkins University, led by esteemed cancer researcher Bert Vogelstein who once said, "Anyone who likes to play with toys has got to like science because scientists have the world's best toys."
Bart Gordon comes in as a close second in our opinion.
As Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, the 13th term Democrat from Tennessee played a key role in ensuring science got a major boost from stimulus funding.
Bart Gordon also authored bills to further nanotechnology research and commercialization (H.R. 554, passed February 11), require that the President create a national water strategy (H.R. 1145, passed April 23), and improve science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education programs (H.R. 1709, passed June 8).
Gordon also helped allocate $400 million in stimulus funding to start the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency -- Energy, which funds high risk, high reward energy research. Although the Congressman announced he won't be running for re-election next year, science sure was lucky to have him around in 2009.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Darwin's Minstrel
The on-line Life Sciences Magazine called The Scientist posted an interesting piece to honor the November 24, 2009 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's seminal work, On the Origin of Species.
"Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the strongest, but survival of those that best fit their environment, " says Brett Keyser, who co-wrote Darwinii, a play that focuses on big ideas, including natural selection, sexual selection, adaptation, and the struggle for survival.
View a delightful Brett Keyser video at this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy0GzVD8Ldw
Keyser also has been quoted as saying, "Darwin work added to our understanding of the world. He showed us that nature is always a delicate balance, which is important for our current understanding of how the decisions we make now can change our environment. "
Big Ideas, Art and Science: perfect entertainment for the 2010 Aspen Ideas Festival.
Ellen Troyer, MT MA
Biosyntrx CEO
Chief Research Officer
"Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the strongest, but survival of those that best fit their environment, " says Brett Keyser, who co-wrote Darwinii, a play that focuses on big ideas, including natural selection, sexual selection, adaptation, and the struggle for survival.
View a delightful Brett Keyser video at this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy0GzVD8Ldw
Keyser also has been quoted as saying, "Darwin work added to our understanding of the world. He showed us that nature is always a delicate balance, which is important for our current understanding of how the decisions we make now can change our environment. "
Big Ideas, Art and Science: perfect entertainment for the 2010 Aspen Ideas Festival.
Ellen Troyer, MT MA
Biosyntrx CEO
Chief Research Officer
Friday, October 16, 2009
Eye Memory
A new study published in the journal Neuron suggests that eye movements pick the right answers in memory tests, even when the brain doesn't.
Apparently, eye movements correspond to activity in the hippocampus, one of the most important learning and memory centers in the brain. Eye movements are now suggested to reveal unconscious memories.
Two researchers showed volunteers in a functional MRI scanner pictures of 3 faces paired with 50 photos of outdoor scenes. The volunteers were then asked to choose which face had been matched with which landscape scene. When the scene was shown, activity in the hippocampus increased, followed 500 to 750 milliseconds later by eye movements directed toward the correct face, even if the volunteer had clearly chosen a different face.
Eye movements may become a new way of helping scientists understand how much people who are unable to talk and patients with dementia or schizophrenia remember. People with these disorders may remember far more than they are able to say.
Bottom line: keep your eyes and brain healthy.
Apparently, eye movements correspond to activity in the hippocampus, one of the most important learning and memory centers in the brain. Eye movements are now suggested to reveal unconscious memories.
Two researchers showed volunteers in a functional MRI scanner pictures of 3 faces paired with 50 photos of outdoor scenes. The volunteers were then asked to choose which face had been matched with which landscape scene. When the scene was shown, activity in the hippocampus increased, followed 500 to 750 milliseconds later by eye movements directed toward the correct face, even if the volunteer had clearly chosen a different face.
Eye movements may become a new way of helping scientists understand how much people who are unable to talk and patients with dementia or schizophrenia remember. People with these disorders may remember far more than they are able to say.
Bottom line: keep your eyes and brain healthy.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Buy Supplements From Reputable Companies
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 7, 2009 — In response to a “Perspective” article published on-line today by the New England Journal of Medicine, which discusses the regulatory status of dietary supplements, the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), the leading trade association representing the dietary supplement industry, issued the following statement by Andrew Shao, Ph.D., vice president, scientific and regulatory affairs, CRN:
“We question how a perspective article about the regulatory status of dietary supplements was accepted for publication in a leading scientific journal, yet facts were not checked. This article contains numerous errors, omissions or misinterpretations with regard to the regulation of dietary supplements, including the misstatement of how botanical supplements were regulated prior to the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). The author may be a credible doctor, but his expertise in understanding the practicalities of the regulatory framework for dietary supplements is questionable.
Contrary to what has become an urban myth, DSHEA did not lessen the oversight of dietary supplements—in fact, DSHEA actually provided the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with new enforcement authority not previously available. For example, DSHEA provided FDA with additional authority to remove adulterated or unsafe supplement products from the market. Further, DSHEA gave FDA authority to issue good manufacturing practices (GMPs) specific to dietary supplements to help ensure the quality and safety of dietary supplements, a critical component of dietary supplement regulation, conspicuously absent from this article. It is already against the law to manufacture and market adulterated or contaminated dietary supplements.
The author chooses to focus on select isolated examples of incidents, as if they were representative of the industry as a whole and fails to place the information into any kind of context. In the first full year that mandatory reporting of serious adverse events was in existence, FDA received only 1,080 total adverse event reports, 672 of which were considered serious. For context, these numbers are minute in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of adverse event reports FDA receives each year for other regulated products such drugs, biologics and medical devices. The overwhelming majority of dietary supplements are safe and well-made and consumers value the benefits these products can provide.
The problems presented by outliers are not isolated to dietary supplements. Like any regulated industry, there are unscrupulous manufacturers that don’t follow the law—but that is not the fault of the law itself nor of responsible manufacturers and changing the law will not deter rogue companies from breaking the law. What is needed are more resources for both FDA and FTC to step up enforcement efforts. The best bet for consumers is to learn as much as they can about the companies from which they plan to purchase supplement products. Stay away from companies making product claims that purport to cure diseases or promise magic bullet results; focus on companies with good reputations, well-known brands, or third-party certifications; and discuss with your physician or other healthcare professional what products or companies he or she recommends. More than 150 million Americans take dietary supplements each year as part of their healthy lifestyle.”
###
I post this as a voting member of the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), founded in 1973, is a Washington, D.C.-based trade association representing dietary supplement manufacturers and ingredient suppliers. In addition to complying with a host of federal and state regulations governing dietary supplements in the areas of manufacturing, marketing, quality control and safety, our 70+ manufacturer and supplier members also agree to adhere to additional voluntary guidelines as well as CRN’s Code of Ethics. Visit www.crnusa.org.
“We question how a perspective article about the regulatory status of dietary supplements was accepted for publication in a leading scientific journal, yet facts were not checked. This article contains numerous errors, omissions or misinterpretations with regard to the regulation of dietary supplements, including the misstatement of how botanical supplements were regulated prior to the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). The author may be a credible doctor, but his expertise in understanding the practicalities of the regulatory framework for dietary supplements is questionable.
Contrary to what has become an urban myth, DSHEA did not lessen the oversight of dietary supplements—in fact, DSHEA actually provided the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with new enforcement authority not previously available. For example, DSHEA provided FDA with additional authority to remove adulterated or unsafe supplement products from the market. Further, DSHEA gave FDA authority to issue good manufacturing practices (GMPs) specific to dietary supplements to help ensure the quality and safety of dietary supplements, a critical component of dietary supplement regulation, conspicuously absent from this article. It is already against the law to manufacture and market adulterated or contaminated dietary supplements.
The author chooses to focus on select isolated examples of incidents, as if they were representative of the industry as a whole and fails to place the information into any kind of context. In the first full year that mandatory reporting of serious adverse events was in existence, FDA received only 1,080 total adverse event reports, 672 of which were considered serious. For context, these numbers are minute in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of adverse event reports FDA receives each year for other regulated products such drugs, biologics and medical devices. The overwhelming majority of dietary supplements are safe and well-made and consumers value the benefits these products can provide.
The problems presented by outliers are not isolated to dietary supplements. Like any regulated industry, there are unscrupulous manufacturers that don’t follow the law—but that is not the fault of the law itself nor of responsible manufacturers and changing the law will not deter rogue companies from breaking the law. What is needed are more resources for both FDA and FTC to step up enforcement efforts. The best bet for consumers is to learn as much as they can about the companies from which they plan to purchase supplement products. Stay away from companies making product claims that purport to cure diseases or promise magic bullet results; focus on companies with good reputations, well-known brands, or third-party certifications; and discuss with your physician or other healthcare professional what products or companies he or she recommends. More than 150 million Americans take dietary supplements each year as part of their healthy lifestyle.”
###
I post this as a voting member of the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), founded in 1973, is a Washington, D.C.-based trade association representing dietary supplement manufacturers and ingredient suppliers. In addition to complying with a host of federal and state regulations governing dietary supplements in the areas of manufacturing, marketing, quality control and safety, our 70+ manufacturer and supplier members also agree to adhere to additional voluntary guidelines as well as CRN’s Code of Ethics. Visit www.crnusa.org.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
How Much Fish Oil
The American Heart Association (AHA) Summary of Recommendations for Omega-3 Fatty Acid Intake as of May 7, 2009.
Population
Patients without documented coronary heart disease (CHD)
AHA Recommendation:
Eat a variety of fatty fish at least twice a week.
Population
Patients with documented CHD
AHA Recommendation:
Consume about 1 gram of EPA+DHA per day, preferably from fatty fish.
Population
Patients who need to lower triglycerides
AHA Recommendation:
2 to 4 grams of EPA +DHA per day, provided as fish oil capsules and always under physician care.
The AHA report suggest that patients taking more than 3 grams of omega-3 fatty acids from capsules can be at increased risk of internal bleeding and suppressed immune system.
What do epidemiological and observational studies show?
The Good News: Epidemiologic and clinical trials have shown that omega-3 fatty acids reduce CVC incidence. Large-scale epidemiologic studies suggest that people at risk for coronary heart disease benefit from consuming omega-3 fatty acids from plants and marine sources.
However, the ideal amount to take isn't clear, and neither the AHA or the Institute of Medicine recommend more than 500 mg per day (3,500 mg per week) for disease prevention. Evidence from a few prospective secondary prevention studies suggest that taking 2 grams of EPA / DHA per day (fatty fish or supplements) reduces deaths from heart disease. Other retrospective studies suggest not.
Fish Oil is the largest selling product in the supplement industry and agressive marketers are not shy about recommending 2 or more grams of EPA/DHA a day for disease prevention. The American Heart Association clearly recommends physician care for those taking over 3 grams of Omega-3 EPA /DHA on a daily basis.
We at Biosyntrx strongly support fish consumption and fish oil supplementation, but it is not the be-all-end-all magic bullet that some suggest. Excessive amounts of supplemental fish oil may inhibit the body's ability to mount a lifesaving inflammatory response if needed.
Good health and certainly eye health is dependent on adequate consumption of the the full-spectrum of nutrients including fatty acids, portion and weight control, shades when in the sun, committment to regular exercise and loving friend and family relationships.
Population
Patients without documented coronary heart disease (CHD)
AHA Recommendation:
Eat a variety of fatty fish at least twice a week.
Population
Patients with documented CHD
AHA Recommendation:
Consume about 1 gram of EPA+DHA per day, preferably from fatty fish.
Population
Patients who need to lower triglycerides
AHA Recommendation:
2 to 4 grams of EPA +DHA per day, provided as fish oil capsules and always under physician care.
The AHA report suggest that patients taking more than 3 grams of omega-3 fatty acids from capsules can be at increased risk of internal bleeding and suppressed immune system.
What do epidemiological and observational studies show?
The Good News: Epidemiologic and clinical trials have shown that omega-3 fatty acids reduce CVC incidence. Large-scale epidemiologic studies suggest that people at risk for coronary heart disease benefit from consuming omega-3 fatty acids from plants and marine sources.
However, the ideal amount to take isn't clear, and neither the AHA or the Institute of Medicine recommend more than 500 mg per day (3,500 mg per week) for disease prevention. Evidence from a few prospective secondary prevention studies suggest that taking 2 grams of EPA / DHA per day (fatty fish or supplements) reduces deaths from heart disease. Other retrospective studies suggest not.
Fish Oil is the largest selling product in the supplement industry and agressive marketers are not shy about recommending 2 or more grams of EPA/DHA a day for disease prevention. The American Heart Association clearly recommends physician care for those taking over 3 grams of Omega-3 EPA /DHA on a daily basis.
We at Biosyntrx strongly support fish consumption and fish oil supplementation, but it is not the be-all-end-all magic bullet that some suggest. Excessive amounts of supplemental fish oil may inhibit the body's ability to mount a lifesaving inflammatory response if needed.
Good health and certainly eye health is dependent on adequate consumption of the the full-spectrum of nutrients including fatty acids, portion and weight control, shades when in the sun, committment to regular exercise and loving friend and family relationships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
