This short Brian Greene video from this week's Aspen Ideas Festival is not to be missed by those of you who love science and those of you who weren't properly introduced to the joy of the subject.
http://www.aifestival.org/audio-video-library.php?menu=3&title=315&action=full_info
Brian Greene is the author of The Elegant Universe, Icarus at the Edge of Time and The Fabric of the Cosmos. He is a full professor at Columbia University.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Selenium "Highly Unlikely" to Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk
FDA has concluded that minimal evidence supports the linking of selenium consumption and reduced risk of prostate cancer, likely delivering a further blow to Bayer One A Day Men’s Multivitamins products containing the mineral and touting its prostate health benefits.
In a decision dated June 19, the agency informs attorney Jonathan Emord that it “intends to consider the exercise of its enforcement discretion” for a claim stating the following: Two weak studies suggest that selenium intake may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. However, four stronger studies and three weak studies showed no reduction in risk. Based on these studies, FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that selenium supplements reduce the risk of prostate cancer.
The agency's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition is allowing two similarly weak qualified health claims for selenium and bladder and thyroid cancer. FDA rejected all claims for a number of other site-specific cancers Emord had sought, including lung, brain and breast cancers.
In an e-mail, Emord said the agency’s decisions violate First Amendment standards and “reveal a profound and unscientific bias against communication of accurate information concerning the relationship between these nutrients and these disease risks.”
FDA currently allows QHCs linking selenium and vitamins C and E to reduced risk of “certain forms of cancers,” but has not approved the mention of any specific cancers.
Under its new leadership, FDA has shown little willingness to be flexible when claims fall outside approved language and supporting science. Commissioner Peggy Hamburg recently said the agency does not wish “to delve too deeply into the wordsmithing of various claims and labels,” but does want them “to accurately reflect the best available science with respect to the safety and benefits of a given product.”
The agency's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition is allowing two similarly weak qualified health claims for selenium and bladder and thyroid cancer. FDA rejected all claims for a number of other site-specific cancers Emord had sought, including lung, brain and breast cancers.
In an e-mail, Emord said the agency’s decisions violate First Amendment standards and “reveal a profound and unscientific bias against communication of accurate information concerning the relationship between these nutrients and these disease risks.”
FDA currently allows QHCs linking selenium and vitamins C and E to reduced risk of “certain forms of cancers,” but has not approved the mention of any specific cancers.
Under its new leadership, FDA has shown little willingness to be flexible when claims fall outside approved language and supporting science. Commissioner Peggy Hamburg recently said the agency does not wish “to delve too deeply into the wordsmithing of various claims and labels,” but does want them “to accurately reflect the best available science with respect to the safety and benefits of a given product.”
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Women's Multivitamin Study
Here is an article by the health ranger, Mike Adams, that was published in Natural News on February 10, 2009. We think you will find it interesting.
A study published in the Febuary 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine claims that multivitamins were useless at preventing cancer and cardiovascular disease in women. The mainstream media predictably picked up on this story, gleefully running it as "proof" that nutrition is worthless and only pharmaceuticals can enhance your health.
What they're not telling you, though, might shock you. Here's the truth about this so-called "scientific" study on multivitamins: No multivitamins were even used in the study! The women followed in this study weren't actually given any multivitamins at all. They were simply asked if they take multivitamins! There was no quality control in the study - since no multivitamins were given to women.
Did these women take cheap, synthetic vitamins bought at discount stores? Or did they take quality supplements from better sources? Nobody knows because it wasn't tracked!• Most people SAY they take multivitamins, but don't. If you ask most people, they will TELL you they eat healthy, and that they take multivitamins. But in reality they don't. Most people greatly exaggerate the description of their own health habits. Multivitamin consumption FREQUENCY was not accurately measured. There was no ability of this study to reliably measure how often consumers actually took their multivitamins. Did they take them once a week? Once a month? Once a year? Even taking them once a year would have counted in this study as "taking multivitamins." Gee, no wonder the results showed no improvement...In effect, this study did not measure the effects of multivitamins on cancer and heart disease. What it really measured was the degree to which people exaggerate their own claims of health habits, and the degree to which the mainstream media so easily falls for junk science.
The main stream media remains utterly clueless about nutrition, and it simply reprints practically any study published in a medical journal, even when that study is obviously based on deceptive science and a pro-Pharma agenda. All these attacks on vitamin C, vitamin E, antioxidants and multivitamins have the same source: The Big Pharma-funded mainstream media and its effort to try to discredit nutritional supplements in order to please advertisers.The very idea that nutrition is bad for you but Big Pharma's chemicals are good for you is insane to begin with. But that's what they want you to believe: Nutrition isn't required in the human body, they claim. But pharmaceutical chemicals are essential!What they want you to do is shut up, eat your (processed) food, take your (chemical) medications, get your (fraudulent) disease screening, pay your taxes, watch television ads, make more (sheeple) babies and stop questioning the status quo. And multivitamins? Stop wasting your money on them. You'll need that money to buy more monopoly-priced pharmaceuticals, after all.
A study published in the Febuary 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine claims that multivitamins were useless at preventing cancer and cardiovascular disease in women. The mainstream media predictably picked up on this story, gleefully running it as "proof" that nutrition is worthless and only pharmaceuticals can enhance your health.
What they're not telling you, though, might shock you. Here's the truth about this so-called "scientific" study on multivitamins: No multivitamins were even used in the study! The women followed in this study weren't actually given any multivitamins at all. They were simply asked if they take multivitamins! There was no quality control in the study - since no multivitamins were given to women.
Did these women take cheap, synthetic vitamins bought at discount stores? Or did they take quality supplements from better sources? Nobody knows because it wasn't tracked!• Most people SAY they take multivitamins, but don't. If you ask most people, they will TELL you they eat healthy, and that they take multivitamins. But in reality they don't. Most people greatly exaggerate the description of their own health habits. Multivitamin consumption FREQUENCY was not accurately measured. There was no ability of this study to reliably measure how often consumers actually took their multivitamins. Did they take them once a week? Once a month? Once a year? Even taking them once a year would have counted in this study as "taking multivitamins." Gee, no wonder the results showed no improvement...In effect, this study did not measure the effects of multivitamins on cancer and heart disease. What it really measured was the degree to which people exaggerate their own claims of health habits, and the degree to which the mainstream media so easily falls for junk science.
The main stream media remains utterly clueless about nutrition, and it simply reprints practically any study published in a medical journal, even when that study is obviously based on deceptive science and a pro-Pharma agenda. All these attacks on vitamin C, vitamin E, antioxidants and multivitamins have the same source: The Big Pharma-funded mainstream media and its effort to try to discredit nutritional supplements in order to please advertisers.The very idea that nutrition is bad for you but Big Pharma's chemicals are good for you is insane to begin with. But that's what they want you to believe: Nutrition isn't required in the human body, they claim. But pharmaceutical chemicals are essential!What they want you to do is shut up, eat your (processed) food, take your (chemical) medications, get your (fraudulent) disease screening, pay your taxes, watch television ads, make more (sheeple) babies and stop questioning the status quo. And multivitamins? Stop wasting your money on them. You'll need that money to buy more monopoly-priced pharmaceuticals, after all.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Genetically Modified Foods?
I just received this news release from a fellow board member of the Optometric Nutrition Society.
One May 19, 2009, The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that "GM foods pose a serious health risk" and calling for a moratorium on GM foods.
Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects" and that "GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health." The AAEM calls for:* A moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labeling of GM food.
* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GM foods. * Physicians to consider the role of GM foods in their patients' disease processes.
* More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.
"Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health," said Dr. Amy Dean, PR chair and Board Member of AAEM.
"Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions," said Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM. "The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil." The AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org/gmopost.html.
We recommend that everyone reading this blog take the time to read the AAEM's position paper on genetically modified foods. We can't possibly afford the disease consequences associated with new-to-nature-molecules that prove to be harmful - think hydrogenation and trans-fats.
One May 19, 2009, The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that "GM foods pose a serious health risk" and calling for a moratorium on GM foods.
Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects" and that "GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health." The AAEM calls for:* A moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labeling of GM food.
* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GM foods. * Physicians to consider the role of GM foods in their patients' disease processes.
* More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.
"Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health," said Dr. Amy Dean, PR chair and Board Member of AAEM.
"Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions," said Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM. "The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil." The AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org/gmopost.html.
We recommend that everyone reading this blog take the time to read the AAEM's position paper on genetically modified foods. We can't possibly afford the disease consequences associated with new-to-nature-molecules that prove to be harmful - think hydrogenation and trans-fats.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Why Portion Control Avantrx?
The Question: Why would a company focused on nutrients and eye disease launch a portion control formula into the eye care market?
The Answer: An increased risk of developing type-2 diabetes and a host of other degenerative disease is directly linked to the amount of excess subcutaneous and visceral fat we carry on our bodies. Visceral fat surrounds vital organs and is metabolized by the liver, which turns it into blood cholesterol. It also increases Il-6 and C-reactive protein, the inflammatory markers associated with disease and metabolic syndrome that precedes development of type-2 diabetes and most all degenerative disease, including the four major eye diseases, cataract, macular degeneration, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released data this past Thursday that suggests the rate of new type-2 diabetes cases nearly doubled in the United States in the past 10 years.
The study, led by Karen Kirtland, provides an up-to-date picture of where the disease is exploding. The information should be a big help as the government and health insurance companies decide where to focus prevention campaigns, Petersen said.
Diabetes was the nation's seventh-leading cause of death in 2006, according to the CDC. More than 23 million Americans have diabetes, and the number is rapidly growing. About 1.6 million new cases were diagnosed among adults last year.
In Type 2 diabetes, cells do not properly use insulin, a hormone needed to convert sugar into energy. The illness can lead to complications such as heart disease, blindness, kidney failure and poor circulation that leads to amputations.
The study involved a random-digit-dialed survey of more than 260,000 adults. Participants were asked if they had ever been told by a doctor that they have diabetes, and when the diagnosis was made.
The researchers had data for 40 states for the years 2005-07. West Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Tennessee had the highest rates. Puerto Rico was about as high as West Virginia. Minnesota, Hawaii and Wyoming had the lowest rates.
It is not entirely clear why some states were worse than others. Older people, blacks and Hispanics tend to have higher rates of Type 2 diabetes, and the South has large concentrations of all three groups. However, West Virginia is overwhelmingly white.
The report asked about diagnosed diabetes only. Because an estimated one in four diabetics have not been diagnosed, the findings probably underestimate the problem, said Angela Liese, a diabetes researcher at the University of South Carolina.
Lifestyle changes that include portion control of nutrient-dense diets and daily exercise can dramatically lower the risk of developing type-2 diabetes and the other degenerative diseases.
The Answer: An increased risk of developing type-2 diabetes and a host of other degenerative disease is directly linked to the amount of excess subcutaneous and visceral fat we carry on our bodies. Visceral fat surrounds vital organs and is metabolized by the liver, which turns it into blood cholesterol. It also increases Il-6 and C-reactive protein, the inflammatory markers associated with disease and metabolic syndrome that precedes development of type-2 diabetes and most all degenerative disease, including the four major eye diseases, cataract, macular degeneration, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released data this past Thursday that suggests the rate of new type-2 diabetes cases nearly doubled in the United States in the past 10 years.
The study, led by Karen Kirtland, provides an up-to-date picture of where the disease is exploding. The information should be a big help as the government and health insurance companies decide where to focus prevention campaigns, Petersen said.
Diabetes was the nation's seventh-leading cause of death in 2006, according to the CDC. More than 23 million Americans have diabetes, and the number is rapidly growing. About 1.6 million new cases were diagnosed among adults last year.
In Type 2 diabetes, cells do not properly use insulin, a hormone needed to convert sugar into energy. The illness can lead to complications such as heart disease, blindness, kidney failure and poor circulation that leads to amputations.
The study involved a random-digit-dialed survey of more than 260,000 adults. Participants were asked if they had ever been told by a doctor that they have diabetes, and when the diagnosis was made.
The researchers had data for 40 states for the years 2005-07. West Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Tennessee had the highest rates. Puerto Rico was about as high as West Virginia. Minnesota, Hawaii and Wyoming had the lowest rates.
It is not entirely clear why some states were worse than others. Older people, blacks and Hispanics tend to have higher rates of Type 2 diabetes, and the South has large concentrations of all three groups. However, West Virginia is overwhelmingly white.
The report asked about diagnosed diabetes only. Because an estimated one in four diabetics have not been diagnosed, the findings probably underestimate the problem, said Angela Liese, a diabetes researcher at the University of South Carolina.
Lifestyle changes that include portion control of nutrient-dense diets and daily exercise can dramatically lower the risk of developing type-2 diabetes and the other degenerative diseases.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Our Children and Psychotropic Drugs
A new study published in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health found that American children are three times more likely to be prescribed psychotropic medications for conditions such as ADHA and bipolar disease than European children are. The researchers suggest the difference is in regulatory practices and cultural beliefs.
The lead researcher, Julie Zito, from the pharmaceutical health services research department in the School of Pharmacy at the University of Maryland, suggests there is significantly greater use of atypical antipsychotics and SSRI-type antidepressants for child mental health treatment in U.S. than in Western Europe. She also suggests that most of the use is 'off-label' -- without adequate evidence of benefits and risks, and that closer monitoring should be considered when these medications are used.
Researchers found that the annual prevalence of psychotropic medications among children in the United States was significantly greater than in either the Netherlands or Germany. In the United States, 6.7 percent of children were taking these drugs, compared with 2.9 percent in the Netherlands and 2 percent in Germany. In addition, use of antidepressants and stimulants was three or more times higher in the United States than in the Netherlands or Germany, and use of antipsychotic drugs was 1.5 to 2.2 times greater in the United States than in either of the other countries.
The study suggests that direct-to-consumer drug advertising, which is common in the U.S., is likely to account for some of the differences. The increased use of medication in the U.S. also reflects the individualist and activist therapeutic mentality of U.S. medical culture," the researchers concluded.
It has been suggested many times by researchers that the U.S. has a sick-care system, rather than a health-care system, with a particular emphasis on use of drugs and procedures for diagnosed conditions. This study reaffirms that pattern, with more use of medication for various mental health conditions among children in the U.S than other countries. What this study cannot show is whether the use of medication is appropriate, given variations in culture, or whether other countries under-prescribe psychotropic drugs or whether the U.S. over-prescribes them.
I put my money on over-prescribing.
The lead researcher, Julie Zito, from the pharmaceutical health services research department in the School of Pharmacy at the University of Maryland, suggests there is significantly greater use of atypical antipsychotics and SSRI-type antidepressants for child mental health treatment in U.S. than in Western Europe. She also suggests that most of the use is 'off-label' -- without adequate evidence of benefits and risks, and that closer monitoring should be considered when these medications are used.
Researchers found that the annual prevalence of psychotropic medications among children in the United States was significantly greater than in either the Netherlands or Germany. In the United States, 6.7 percent of children were taking these drugs, compared with 2.9 percent in the Netherlands and 2 percent in Germany. In addition, use of antidepressants and stimulants was three or more times higher in the United States than in the Netherlands or Germany, and use of antipsychotic drugs was 1.5 to 2.2 times greater in the United States than in either of the other countries.
The study suggests that direct-to-consumer drug advertising, which is common in the U.S., is likely to account for some of the differences. The increased use of medication in the U.S. also reflects the individualist and activist therapeutic mentality of U.S. medical culture," the researchers concluded.
It has been suggested many times by researchers that the U.S. has a sick-care system, rather than a health-care system, with a particular emphasis on use of drugs and procedures for diagnosed conditions. This study reaffirms that pattern, with more use of medication for various mental health conditions among children in the U.S than other countries. What this study cannot show is whether the use of medication is appropriate, given variations in culture, or whether other countries under-prescribe psychotropic drugs or whether the U.S. over-prescribes them.
I put my money on over-prescribing.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
