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
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
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.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Omega-6 Fatty Acid Jobs
Dietary Omega-6 fatty acid is responsible for the bodies ability to mount a lifesaving inflammatory response when needed. This includes spiking a fever to kill off bacterial and viral infections, swelling to protect bones, and clotting to prevent us from bleeding to death.
Biologist have now discovered that the smell of death or injury that repels living beings has been identified as Omega-6 linoleic acid. A biology professor at McMaster University, David Rollo, found that corpses all emit the same death stench produced by this fatty acid.
Dr. Rollo suggests that recognizing and avoiding the dead could reduce the chances of catching the disease, or allow you to get away with just enough exposure to activate your inate immunity.
He also suggests that linoleic acid is reliable and quickly released from cells following death. Evolution appears to have favoured such clues because they were reliable associated with demise, and avoiding contagion and predation are rather critical to survival.
I am always in awe of the the brilliant way the body uses nutrients.
Biologist have now discovered that the smell of death or injury that repels living beings has been identified as Omega-6 linoleic acid. A biology professor at McMaster University, David Rollo, found that corpses all emit the same death stench produced by this fatty acid.
Dr. Rollo suggests that recognizing and avoiding the dead could reduce the chances of catching the disease, or allow you to get away with just enough exposure to activate your inate immunity.
He also suggests that linoleic acid is reliable and quickly released from cells following death. Evolution appears to have favoured such clues because they were reliable associated with demise, and avoiding contagion and predation are rather critical to survival.
I am always in awe of the the brilliant way the body uses nutrients.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Grand Junction CO & Health Reform
Grand Junction Colorado's health care system is often sited as excellent and one to be envied.
The system excels because of extraordinary collaboration. This did not occur at random or in a vacuum. Effective collaboration results from the tenacious commitment of its key players to a shared vision of community performance, realized through incentives, information sharing, and appreciation of distinct comparative advantages. Many lessons of the Grand Junction experience should inform the national health reform debate.
Lesson #1:
Vision and incentives are essential to an operational sense of community. Grand Junction’s leaders view their own self-interest and the community’s interests as congruent.
Lesson #2:
Information systems and data sharing are essential for collaboration and trust. The electronic records system and the interoperability enable evidence-based collaboration on complex and high-cost cases, across institutions and among clinicians.
Lesson #3:
Complementary institutions pursuing their comparative advantages facilitate collaboration. Grand Junction’s providers allow specialized complements to focus on specific populations to ensure that all residents get the right care at the right time.
Lesson #4:
Primary care is the core of any high performance health system. Throughout a patient’s life, primary care physicians in Grand Junction are involved in all levels of treatment. Continuity and collaboration between primary care physicians, specialists, and other members of care teams leads to higher-quality care, better outcomes, and lower costs. Most importantly, team-based care refocuses the delivery system on the patient, not on the provider.
I am happy to provide a PDF of an article called Grand Junction, Colorado: A Health Community That Works to all interested readers. The authors are Len Nichols, Micah Weinberg and Julie Barnes.
The system excels because of extraordinary collaboration. This did not occur at random or in a vacuum. Effective collaboration results from the tenacious commitment of its key players to a shared vision of community performance, realized through incentives, information sharing, and appreciation of distinct comparative advantages. Many lessons of the Grand Junction experience should inform the national health reform debate.
Lesson #1:
Vision and incentives are essential to an operational sense of community. Grand Junction’s leaders view their own self-interest and the community’s interests as congruent.
Lesson #2:
Information systems and data sharing are essential for collaboration and trust. The electronic records system and the interoperability enable evidence-based collaboration on complex and high-cost cases, across institutions and among clinicians.
Lesson #3:
Complementary institutions pursuing their comparative advantages facilitate collaboration. Grand Junction’s providers allow specialized complements to focus on specific populations to ensure that all residents get the right care at the right time.
Lesson #4:
Primary care is the core of any high performance health system. Throughout a patient’s life, primary care physicians in Grand Junction are involved in all levels of treatment. Continuity and collaboration between primary care physicians, specialists, and other members of care teams leads to higher-quality care, better outcomes, and lower costs. Most importantly, team-based care refocuses the delivery system on the patient, not on the provider.
I am happy to provide a PDF of an article called Grand Junction, Colorado: A Health Community That Works to all interested readers. The authors are Len Nichols, Micah Weinberg and Julie Barnes.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Healthcare War
Every time I start to semiseriously consider just giving up on today's nasty partisan politics, a favorite writer will force me to take a deep breath, have a good laugh, and in this case - listen to some great music.
Here is San Francisco writer, Sam Barry's September 8 column. Sam is Dr. Betty Kamen's son-in-law. Dr. Kamen is an esteemed member of the Biosyntrx Scientific Advisory Board.
"We are fast approaching the time when we, as a nation—and here I am referring to the United States, not Denmark—must make a decision regarding the healthcare system. Broadly speaking, there are two positions on the healthcare crisis, which can be characterized as follows:
Position 1: Everyone should have healthcare. This should be a national priority. If you think otherwise you are an evil, greedy corporate lobbyist for Big Pharma, the insurance industry, or the AMA, or an insane member of the gun-toting Christian right-wing Republican conspiracy, located somewhere east of Berkeley and west of the Hudson River, probably in Texas or Colorado Springs.
Position 2: Healthcare is for sissies. I have a good job and I have healthcare because I earned it. Later, when I am older, I will have Medicare, which I also earned. Screw the rest of you, except for my loved ones, who deserve nothing but the best because I have family values. People who think differently than me are, in a word, Commies.
As you can see, these two positions are fairly far apart. As I see it, we can all either sit down at the negotiating table and hammer out an agreement that serves the best interests of the nation and its citizenry, or we can grab our weapons, get behind some barricades, and start shooting.
The last time we did this in the United States (the shooting that is)—if you exclude minor incidents like the pitched battles at recent congressional town hall meetings—was during the Civil War. While I am not suggesting we have another civil war over the healthcare crisis, it would solve a couple of problems: one side or the other would win, ending the debate; the economy would get a kick start; many National Guard troops would get to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan to fight Americans right here in America; and there would be some good songs written, which we could all then learn to play on the harmonica. Win, win, win all around."
Thank you Sam, for bringing some much-needed humor to the healthcare issue. As promised, here is a link of you playing two of my favorite tunes. http://www.redroom.com/video/sam-barry-and-todd-swenson-play-theme-black-orpheus-manh%C3%A3-de-carnaval-and-the-way-you-look-ton
Here is San Francisco writer, Sam Barry's September 8 column. Sam is Dr. Betty Kamen's son-in-law. Dr. Kamen is an esteemed member of the Biosyntrx Scientific Advisory Board.
"We are fast approaching the time when we, as a nation—and here I am referring to the United States, not Denmark—must make a decision regarding the healthcare system. Broadly speaking, there are two positions on the healthcare crisis, which can be characterized as follows:
Position 1: Everyone should have healthcare. This should be a national priority. If you think otherwise you are an evil, greedy corporate lobbyist for Big Pharma, the insurance industry, or the AMA, or an insane member of the gun-toting Christian right-wing Republican conspiracy, located somewhere east of Berkeley and west of the Hudson River, probably in Texas or Colorado Springs.
Position 2: Healthcare is for sissies. I have a good job and I have healthcare because I earned it. Later, when I am older, I will have Medicare, which I also earned. Screw the rest of you, except for my loved ones, who deserve nothing but the best because I have family values. People who think differently than me are, in a word, Commies.
As you can see, these two positions are fairly far apart. As I see it, we can all either sit down at the negotiating table and hammer out an agreement that serves the best interests of the nation and its citizenry, or we can grab our weapons, get behind some barricades, and start shooting.
The last time we did this in the United States (the shooting that is)—if you exclude minor incidents like the pitched battles at recent congressional town hall meetings—was during the Civil War. While I am not suggesting we have another civil war over the healthcare crisis, it would solve a couple of problems: one side or the other would win, ending the debate; the economy would get a kick start; many National Guard troops would get to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan to fight Americans right here in America; and there would be some good songs written, which we could all then learn to play on the harmonica. Win, win, win all around."
Thank you Sam, for bringing some much-needed humor to the healthcare issue. As promised, here is a link of you playing two of my favorite tunes. http://www.redroom.com/video/sam-barry-and-todd-swenson-play-theme-black-orpheus-manh%C3%A3-de-carnaval-and-the-way-you-look-ton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
