Cinnamon does not control blood sugar or fat levels

By Megan Rauscher

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Cinnamon does not appear to have any impact on blood sugar or cholesterol levels in people with diabetes, Connecticut-based researchers report in the journal Diabetes Care.

"The preponderance of evidence currently available does not suggest that cinnamon has the ability to decrease a person's risk of heart disease by helping them control their diabetes or lower their cholesterol," Dr. Craig I. Coleman, of Hartford Hospital, who was the principal investigator, told Reuters Health.

Several studies have looked at the impact of cinnamon on blood sugar and lipids (fats) in patients with diabetes but had only modest sample sizes and yielded mixed results, Coleman and colleagues note in their report.

This led them to perform a large review, or "meta-analysis," of five studies in which a total of 282 type 1 or type 2 diabetic patients were randomly assigned to receive cinnamon or a placebo and were followed for up to 16 weeks.

All five studies used cinnamon cassia, "the same cinnamon most people have in their spice racks at home," Coleman noted. Doses ranged from 1 to 6 grams daily.

As mentioned, the use of cinnamon did not significantly alter hemoglobin A1C -- a marker of blood sugar control.  It also had no effect on fasting blood sugar levels or lipid parameters.  Analyses by subgroup and sensitivity did not appreciably alter these results.

Coleman told Reuters Health that the inspiration for conducting this specific analysis came from one of his research fellows, Dr. William Baker.  "He works in a chain pharmacy as a pharmacist, now and then, and he was asked by a patient whether cinnamon was useful in treating diabetes."

"As pharmacists,we want to be able to provide patients ... with the best information about these over-the-counter treatments, which are often readily available but under researched," Coleman said.  Based on the current study, "we would not recommend its use to patients," he said.

Study links protracted cellphone use with tumors

Tumors of the parotid (salivary) glands are significantly more common in people who use cellular phones over a relatively long period, according to a retrospective study of nearly 500 Israelis who contracted such benign or malignant growths compared to more than twice as many healthy controls. This is reportedly the first study of the possible effects of cellphone use by Israelis, who are known to utilize them for many minutes per day and start at young ages.

Illustration.
Photo: Bloomberg [file]

The study, led by Sheba Medical Center physician and Tel Aviv University epidemiologist Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, was announced late last week on the Web site Science Daily (www.sciencedaily.com) and published recently in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Sadetzki, who has appeared several times at Knesset committees about the possible risk of cellular phone usage, said that while the results needed to be confirmed by additional and longer studies, in the meantime precautions should be taken. These include limiting the use of cellphones by children and both kids and adults using earphones and other means to distance the cellphone from the head whenever possible.

She conducted her study as part of the international Interphone Study, which aimed to discover if cellphone use and several kinds of brain and salivary gland tumors were linked.

CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE STORY

Beef Industry Responds to Secret Video

Cattle Industry Denounces Mistreatment of Sick Animals; Says Nearly All US Cattle Treated Well DENVER (AP) -- Despite a secretly taped video showing workers at a Southern California slaughterhouse abusing sick or crippled animals, nearly all cattle bound for American dinner tables are treated humanely, a cattle industry spokesman said Monday.

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder. "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

An American Medical Study that you have to Learn about From Europe! WHY???

For decades, researchers believed that if people with diabetes lowered their blood sugar to normal levels, they would no longer be at high risk of dying from heart disease. But a major U.S. study of more than 10,000 middle-aged and older people with Type 2 diabetes has found that lowering blood sugar actually increased their risk of death, researchers reported. The researchers announced that they were abruptly halting that part of the study, whose surprising results call into question how the disease, which affects 21 million Americans alone, should be managed.

What treatments are available for women with thinning hair?

FROM ENGLAND Hair loss doesn’t just affect men – 40 per cent of women over 35 are affected by thinning hair. Zoe Strimpel gives the lowdown on what treatments are available and Dr Toby Murcott looks at the scientific evidence behind them
Hair loss woman pulling hair from a hairbrush

REGAINE SCALP SOLUTION FOR WOMEN
What is it? A spray containing an active ingredient, minoxidil, which the manufacturers claim increases the supply of blood and nutrients to hair follicles, stimulating growth.
What science says There is good evidence that minoxidil reduces male and female-pattern baldness. Treatment needs to be continued, perhaps for life, as new hair is lost within months if it stops.
Cost £24.95; Boots.com

HAIRBEAM LASER COMB
What is it? A comb-like object that uses infrared lasers to penetrate the scalp and stimulate hair follicles.
What science says A different type of medical laser has some success in treating alopecia areata, patchy hair loss, but scientists are unclearhow it works. There is no evidence that Hairbeam is effective for normal-pattern hair loss. A 2007 report found no reliable studies of laser-based devices.
Cost £495; www.versacchi-ireland.com

NOURKRIN
What is it? A range of products – scalp lotion, shampoo, conditioner and supplements – containing a marine protein extract to stimulate hair regrowth. Also claims to stimulate blood flow in the scalp.
What science says A single 2006 trial of 55 people found that Nourkrin supplements did reduce hair loss over a six-month period. While an indication that it might work, this is far from conclusive; more trials would be needed.
Cost £19.95 for lotion, £8.50 each for shampoo and conditioner, £35.99 for 60 tablets; hairthinning.co.uk

PLANTUR 39 SHAMPOO
What is it? A caffeine-based shampoo that claims to counteract the effects of postmenopausal hormone imbalance. It stops dihydrotestosterone (DHT), the hormone largely responsible for hair loss, from attacking the hair follicles.
What science says Test-tube studies suggest that caffeine stimulates the growth of hair follicles. Further data reveals that caffeine can penetrate the scalp and hair follicles when applied as a shampoo. This suggests that caffeine may boost the number of hair follicles in a real-life situation, but there are no clinical trials of this particular shampoo.
Cost From £8.99; pureandgentleskincare.com

REVIVOGEN
What is it? Topical mixture aiming to block the production of dihydrotestosterone (DHT).
What science says This contains many different ingredients intended to reduce DHT. While there is evidence that they do in the lab, there is none that this formulation works in real life.
Cost £65 for three months’ supply; expresschemist.co.uk

TRICOMIN SHAMPOO, CONDITIONER AND FOLLICLE HAIRSPRAY
What is it? A copper-based range of products that claim to inhibit DHT.
What science says There is some evidence that copper does this in the test tube, but there are no independent clinical trials demonstrating this in real people.
Cost £59.99 for spray, shampoo and conditioner; www.tricotec.co.uk

FOLTÈNE HAIR & SCALP TREATMENT
What is it? The active ingredient here is tricosaccaride, a naturally occurring chemical in skin tissue, thought to stimulate hair growth. The treatment claims to extend the hair’s growth phase and reduce the percentage of hair lost in the shedding phase.
What science says One 1987 trial of 30 men with various types of hair loss suggested that this treatment reduces hair loss. This is insufficient evidence to say much more than it has potential and further trials are required.
Cost £23.95; beautystoreonline.co.uk

BOOTS EXPERT HAIR LOSS TREATMENT SPRAY FOR WOMEN
What is it? Much publicised spray based on a complex extracted from Costa Rican coffee beans and Indian pennywort. The claim is that together they work to slow down hair thinning, encourage thicker hair, and boost the overall feel and condition of the hair.
What science says There is evidence that caffeine can reduce the amount of DHT in the test tube, but none from clinical trials. There is no known link between the other ingredients and hair loss.
Cost £19.99; Boots.com

NANOGEN HAIR THICKENING SPRAY
What is it? A topical range that uses pantothenic acid and water to make the hair swell as the water is forced to the centre of the hair shaft.
What science says There is evidence that some of the ingredients do this, but no research demonstrating that this approach is effective.
Cost £7.62; www.nanogen.co.uk

Bad breath? 10 solutions

 
Brushing tongue with toothbrush to prevent bad breath

FRESH PARSLEY If you chew this herb in small amounts, you can stop people heading for the door when you strike up conversation.
What science says Anecdotally famous for removing garlic breath, there is no research suggesting that it can help with that or halitosis. Like many plants parsley does have some antibacterial properties, a possible but unproven link to curing bad breath.
Cost 69p for 25g, Waitrose

MASTIC GUM A natural resin taken from the Pistacia lentiscus tree on the Greek island of Chios is said to have antiseptic properties and to decrease acidity in the mouth.
What science says Two studies of 75 patients published last year found that chewing mastic gum reduced the amount of mouth bacteria. However, the researchers did not measure bad breath, so it’s impossible to say whether fewer bacteria also meant less halitosis.
Cost £19.95 for 100 capsules, hollandbarrett.com involving 40 patients and recommended scraping for maximum effect. However, a small study last year found that tongue scraping alone is not enough; you have to brush your teeth properly as well.
Cost £2.99, Boots.com

ANTIBACTERIAL MOUTHWASHES These are said to swill away the bacteria that cause bad breath. Many also have antiplaque properties, so are kind to your teeth too.
What science says As bacteria produce most bad breath, an antibacterial mouthwash can reduce the problem, according to a review published last May. Another trial of ten people in the same year found that the most effective was a mixture of chlorhexidine and zinc. However, this has yet to be confirmed by other research, and other formulations are also effective.
Cost Corsodyl mouthwash with chlorhexidine, £3.59 from shops nationwide

“LIVE” YOGHURT Live yoghurt is said to decrease levels of hydrogen sulphide, the smelly gas produced by bacteria in the mouth, through the action of the live bacteria Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus.
What science says There are no published studies on whether the bacteria in yoghurt can minimise bad breath. It might work, but without research it is impossible to say.
Cost £1.67 for 100g, Tesco

BAKING SODA Brushing with baking soda, or bicarbonate of soda, is meant to counteract high levels of acidity in the mouth, a possible cause of bad breath.
What science says Research published between 1996 and 1998 found that brushing with toothpaste containing 20 per cent baking soda reduced bad breath for up to three hours. Interestingly, a paper published in 2001 suggested that baking soda-powered chewing gum might also be effective.
Cost Arm & Hammer, baking soda toothpaste, £1.89 for 100ml, superdrug.com

PEPPERMINT OIL Some natural health practitioners believe that popping capsules of this oil may keep your breath minty fresh.
What science says A study in July last year of 32 intensive care patients showed that an essential oil mouthwash, with peppermint oil in its list of ingredients, reduced bad breath. But the study is too small to draw any conclusions.
Cost £5.49 for 60 capsules, Boots.com. Mint mouthwash, £4.49 for 250ml, greenpeople.co.uk

FENNEL SEEDS Chewing on fennel seeds after a meal was a traditional way of masking mouth odours.
What science says There are no studies of the impact of fennel seeds on bad breath, but extracts of fennel do have some antibacterial properties. As bad breath is caused by some mouth bacteria it may have an effect.
Cost £1.39 fo 30g, Waitrose

HOLLAND AND BARRETT BREATH CHECK CAPSULES These contain parsley seed oil and sunflower seed oil.
What science says I can find no published research to say whether these ingredients have any effect on smelly breath; either for good or bad.
Cost £4.99 for 150 capsules, hollandandbarrett.com

MAGNOLIA CHEWING GUM Preparations containing the bark of this tree are thought to help treat nausea, indigestion and menstrual cramps. Recent studies indicate that it can also work to freshen your breath.
What science says Chewing gum containing magnolia bark extract was shown in a 2007 study to reduce the amount of halitosis-causing bacteria in nine healthy volunteers. The research was done by the Wrigley’s.
Cost Still in development

BOOTS EXPERT TONGUE CLEANER The bacteria that cause bad breath reside on the tongue and don’t like exposure to oxygen. If you scrape your tongue, you not only scoop them up, but also expose them to oxygen, which may help to prevent halitosis.
What science says Cleaning or scraping your tongue can lessen bad breath. What’s more, scrapers appear to be more effective than simply using a toothbrush as a tongue cleaner, at least according to a review published by the respected Cochrane Collaboration. The authors examined two studies

FRESH IDEAS

Mervyn Druian, a dentist and spokesman for the British Dental Association, gives his checklist for keeping dragon breath at bay

- Professional help Gum problems are the main cause of bad breath, so get checked out by your dentist or hygienist

- Drink plenty of water Avoid having a dry mouth, as dead and dying bacteria and cells, which would normally be swept away by saliva, linger, stagnate and release pungent gases. And be aware that the more you chat, the worse you’ll smell. Talking makes yourmouth dry, so drink plenty of water.

- Eat fruit Chewing fruit not only hydrates the mouth, but also efficiently dislodges the dead and dying cells and bacteria in the mouth that lead to bad breath.

- Always eat breakfast “Morning breath” is caused by breathing through your mouth during the night, making it very dry by the time you wake up. The smell will linger if you don’t eat – and coffee and cigarettes make it worse.

- Dental floss Fundamental to maintaining good oral hygiene.

- Medical problems Persistent bad breath may indicate an underlying condition such as diabetes or kidney problems.

For more details Visit the British Dental Association website, www.bda.org

Blood test detects ovarian cancer early

Researchers have developed what they believe is the first blood test that accurately detects ovarian cancer at an early stage. "The ability to recognize almost 100 percent of new tumors will have a major impact on the high death rates of this cancer," senior author Dr. Gil Mor, from Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said in a statement. "We hope this test will become the standard of care for women having routine examinations."

Feeling stressed out linked to cervical cancer

Feeling stressed could play a role in the development of cervical cancer, a new report suggests. But experts say the findings are still preliminary and it's too soon to rush out and enroll in a stress-management course

TEEN DIES FROM CUT FINGER! Infection the Cause

A U.K. teen, who unknowingly suffered from a rare condition that affects just one in four million people, died after contracting an infection from a tiny cut on his finger, it is reported by the Daily Mail.

Matthew Corbett, 18, cut his ring finger while vacationing with his family in Spain and contracted a minor infection, according to the report.

At the time Corbett was unaware he suffered from aplastic anemia, a condition in which bone marrow does not produce sufficient new cells to replenish older blood cells. People with the condition have lower counts of all three blood cell types: red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets.

The condition prevented Corbett's body from fighting the infection from the cut and it quickly spread up his arm, according the Daily Mail.

He was taken to Musgrove Park Hospital in Taunton, Somerset, U.K., on Oct. 14 and specialists diagnosed him with aplastic anemia. Corbett was then moved to the Bristol Royal Infirmary where doctors determined that he needed a bone marrow transplant, according to the report.

After family members were determined to be unsuitable bone marrow donors, one was found in Northern England. He was scheduled to have the tranfusion on Feb. 7, but developed a chest infection beforehand that turned into pneumonia, it is reported. He died Feb. 6.

Click here to read more on this story from the Daily Mail

Top 5 Reasons Why You Should Call-In Sick to Work

 

While many of us jump at the chance to call-in sick to work at the first sign of a cold — other people push through the coughing, sneezing and runny nose to make it into the office. But, is that always a good idea? According to several recent studies, sick employees who drag themselves into work, known as "presenteeism," actually end up costing companies more money than if they decided to stay home. Those costs range from lost productivity to the chances of spreading the illness to fellow co-workers.

I Was Right About the Bird Flu Hoax

 

tamiflu, vaccine, vaccines, bird flu, hoax, scam, avian fluLast year, the number of human cases of avian flu dropped rather than rose for the first time -- from a paltry 115 in 2006 to an even more insignificant 86 in 2007. Frightening headlines warning of a pandemic that could kill 150 million people have all but vanished.

Although some “experts” still argue that preparations against bird flu must continue, many are finally beginning to realize what I said all along -- that this overhyped, oversold “pandemic” was never a threat in the first place. According to Dr. Paul A. Offit, a vaccine specialist at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia, “H5 viruses have been around for 100 years and never caused a pandemic and probably never will.”

Still, according to this New York Times article, scientists and governments are congratulating themselves for averting a threat that never was by stockpiling worthless vaccines, pointlessly culling hundreds of millions of birds, and pouring money into preparation efforts.

I can only imagine that the flu vaccine manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank.

The Truth about Sugar

U.S. probes Chinese factory’s ties to heparin ills

WASHINGTON - Government health officials are investigating if a Chinese factory may be a source of problems with a Baxter International blood thinner linked to hundreds of reports of allergic reactions and four deaths. Baxter buys the active ingredient for the drug heparin from a supplier that manufactures it both at the Chinese factory and a facility in the U.S., Baxter spokeswoman Erin Gardiner said. Baxter inspected both facilities last year and found no quality issues, Gardiner said. However, the company plans to reinspect the facilities "very soon" as part of its own investigation, she said.

TWO MAJOR LIFE STYLE CHANGES TO MAKE - Get Rid of these Two Things

HEALTH BOMB #1: High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has become a modern-day plague. Not only does it contribute to our obesity epidemic, but it has also been linked to:

  • Pancreas dysfunction, diabetes and insulin resistance
  • High cholesterol and heart disease
  • Cancer
  • High blood pressure
  • Anemia
  • Liver damage
  • Infertility
  • And more

Sadly, the average consumption of fructose has doubled between 1980 and 1994. Soft drinks and some fruit drinks are a major source of HFCS, but it is also found in many other products, from crackers to salad dressing.

Fructose contains zero enzymes, vitamins or minerals — and it leeches micronutrients from your body.

Why is it found in so many products? Because, after air, water, and salt, it’s the cheapest ingredient in the American food chain (and we know how the food industry likes to save money…)

I’d also urge you to  be on the lookout for HFCS in its many “disguises” — conveniently (for the food industry) labeled as chicory, inulin, iso glucose, glucose-fructose syrup, fruit fructose, and others.

Another major “health torpedo” you want to watch out for is…

HEALTH BOMB #2: Gluten Wheat (and other grains containing gluten) is NOT your friend. My experience has shown that you could well be one of the estimated 1 in 10 people who have at least a subclinical intolerance to gluten protein. This is actually a food allergy.

I recommend avoiding gluten, even the organic whole-grain types.

Gluten intolerance has been linked to miscarriage, autism, intestinal disease (including irritable bowel syndrome), malnutrition, rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease, and developmental delay in children, just to name a few. Oftentimes, your gluten sensitivity may present with various unexplained symptoms.

Getting rid of these two health bombs will go a long way toward improving your health.

Insurance Companies Robbing Patients Robbing patients to pay CEOs

 leads to unprecedented medical insurance corporation greed.


Over the years, we have frequently commented on the negative role the legal profession and government regulations have had on the healthcare delivery system and rising costs for the patient.

Today we comment on greedy and uncaring medical insurance companies and CEO and executive greed that rivals that seen in other American industries the last few decades.

This particular story is well documented in a recent Jan. 1, 2008 release from The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

A year ago, William McGuire, M.D., was ousted from his position as one of the highest paid executives in the U.S. because of a backdating scandal.

More than 80 corporate officials lost their jobs in the scandal.

Dr. McGuire, former chief executive of UnitedHealth Group, agreed to one of the largest executive-pay givebacks in history, forfeiting $620 million in stock option gains and retirement pay, to settle civil and federal claims against stock-option backdating. The final outcome, however, remains uncertain as of Dec. 28, 2007.

McGuire still retains about 24 million stock options that currently could be cashed in for a gain of about $800 million on top of the $500 million in pay he received from UnitedHealth between 1991 and 2006. A freeze on these assets was continued by U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum in a Dec 26 ruling, pending a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court on whether he has the power to examine the settlement beyond just rubber-stamping it. State courts give varying degrees of deference to special litigation committees.

The committee, appointed by UnitedHealth¹s board, had concluded that some of the accusations against McGuire might have merit, but the cost and risk of suing him might not be worth it. McGuire neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.

The two former Minnesota Supreme Court justices on the committee wrote that their ability to evaluate McGuire¹s potential defenses were, "hampered by his unavailability for an interview." They interviewed 50 other people over the course of a year (Joshua Reed, Chicago Sun-Times Dec. 7, 2007).

Judge Rosenbaum also expressed some thoughts about the amount of money that McGuire had claimed when he was forced out of UnitedHealth. "Words such as 'huge,' 'fantastic,' 'astounding,' 'staggering,' or 'astronomical,' do not describe $1 billion," he wrote. "Such a sum can only be thought of as 'transcendent,' or in terms of the gross national product of smaller members of the United Nations" (Vanessa Fuhrmans and Peter Lattman, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 28, 2007).

McGuire is barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years. He also still faces a criminal inquiry.

UnitedHealth's current CEO, Stephen Hemsley, plans to voluntarily have his remaining options repriced, effectively forfeiting $50 million, on top of the $190 million in gains he agreed to give back last year on options with questionable grant dates (Wall Street Journal Dec. 7, 2007).

While growing into a colossus, UnitedHealth has repeatedly failed to perform its basic job of paying medical bills. UnitedHealth, which covers 70 million Americans, has been sanctioned in nine states for paying claims slowly; shortchanging doctors, hospitals, or patients; or poorly handling complaints and appeals.

One Nebraska woman complained to state regulators thatUnitedHealth's computers had incorrectly rejected claims related to her son's surgery six times.

At one point, UnitedHealth owed Dr. George Schroedinger, an orthopedic surgeon, $600,000. He and his clinic sued UnitedHealth of the Midwest in 2004.

Deciding for the clinic, U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh of Missouri declared that the company's claims processing systems were "flawed in many ways, denying, reducing, and improperly processing claims on a regular basis. And despite innumerable requests, United was unwilling to remedy the underlying errors in its systems" (Star-Tribune Dec. 12, 2007).

Payment troubles continued after the verdict, and Dr. Schroedinger filed a second lawsuit. "These people can never get it right, which says to me that they just plain lie," he said in an interview.

Failure to pay isn't the only complaint. The insurer also gives incorrect information on which physicians are in its network, creating enormous problems for physicians' staff.

The AMA said that no other insurer has prompted as many complaints as UnitedHealth about abusive and unfair payment practices. AMA officials have met with UnitedHealth executives 16 times since 2000, with little to show for it.

"They have always got a new plan to fix it," said Dr. William G. Plested III, past president of the AMA. But "nothing ever happens."

It seems to us that this case is just the tip of the insurance iceberg. More and more stories are appearing daily in the news media about how insurance company are instructing employees their jobs are to deny claims and/or delay payments.

With such a high percentage of medical premiums and other costs going to the legal profession, to maintain compliance with endless government rules/regulations and being hoarded by the insurance companies and executives — is it any wonder medical costs are increasing so dramatically?

It's time to take a closer look at the medical insurance companies.

UnitedHealth Group is not the first medical insurance company to rob patients, hospitals and clinics to pay obscene salaries to their executives.

It's a modern day robbing patients to pay pimps.

Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., comments on medical-legal issues and is a visiting fellow in economics and citizenship at the International Trade Education Foundation of the Washington International Trade Council.

Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a senior fellow and board member of the Discovery Institute and a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

FDA reviewing safety of Botox

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Regulators said on Friday they were reviewing the safety of Allergan Inc's (AGN.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Botox and a competing product after reports of deaths and serious reactions in some patients. The Food and Drug Administration said the most serious cases included hospitalizations and deaths and occurred mostly in children treated for cerebral palsy-associated limb spasticity, a use not approved in the United States.

Women's Health and Diabetes

Bigger Breasted Women More Vulnerable to Diabetes, Says Canadian Study
Patrick Totty
4 February 2008

A Canadian study asserts that girls and young women with big breasts run a 68-percent greater chance of acquiring diabetes by middle age than their smaller-breasted peers.

However, concerned that the finding might inspire some women to seek out breast reductions, researchers emphasize that their conclusion is broad and preliminary. They say there are several other factors besides breast size that they must study before definitively linking size to increased vulnerability to diabetes.

Scientists tracked 92,102 mostly white nurses from 14 U.S. states over a 10-year period to determine if their breast size would increase their chances for developing diabetes by age 35. While preliminarily concluding that large breasts were a common factor in the higher incidence of diabetes, they say weight, family history, smoking, diet and ethnicity probably also play large roles.

The reason for breast size as a factor is that breast tissue tends to be insulin-resistant. Bigger breasts create more insulin resistance in women's bodies, thereby increasing their chances of acquiring diabetes.

The researchers also note that while big breasts can be a genetic endowment, many women acquire them if they become obese - and obesity is often cited as a major factor in developing diabetes.

Source: Canadian Medical Association Journal

Yet Another Lurking Link Between Foods and Cancer


New research shows that a high dietary intake of acrylamide can increase the risk of breast cancer. The study was the first epidemiological study using biological markers for measuring acrylamide exposure, and also the first to report an acrylamide/breast cancer link.

The study examined 374 postmenopausal women who had developed breast cancer, and an additional 374 healthy women who were used as controls. An increased acrylamide hemoglobin level doubled the risk of breast cancer.

Acrylamide is a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted, fried or toasted. It was found to cause cancer in laboratory rats in 2002.

Lipitor Ads Spark Congressional Probe

Lipitor has been running a series of ads in which a kindly "doctor," Robert Jarvik, inventor of the artificial heart, tells viewers about the benefits of the cholesterol-lowering medication Lipitor. These ads, and their use of celebrity endorsers such as Jarvik, are now being investigated by Congress for potentially misleading viewers.

In the ads, Dr. Jarvik appears to be giving medical advice, but he has never obtained a license to practice or prescribe medicine.

Critics of the drug industry claim that such ads emotionally manipulate viewers and underemphasize the potential side effects of drugs.

The congressional probe focuses on the Lipitor ads, but will likely examine others, such as actress Sally Field's endorsement of the osteoporosis drug Boniva.


This isn’t the first time Pfizer is in trouble over their fraudulent claims of what Lipitor can do for you. In 2005 they were sued by healthcare advocates for lying to women and seniors when they claimed Lipitor would reduce their risk of having a heart attack.

The group argued that the drug not only did not work, but that women who took Lipitor ran a 10 percent higher risk of heart attacks than those taking a placebo.

I don’t know the conclusion of that case, but it surely didn’t stop Pfizer from plowing forward with even more absurd claims, which the FDA bought hook line and sinker.

In 2005 Pfizer sold almost $11 billion worth of Lipitor, but after the FDA approved it for reducing stroke and heart attacks risks among diabetics their sales rose to $13 billion in 2006.

This is an unbelievable “oversight” by the FDA, in light of the fact that Lipitor can double the risk of a deadly stroke for diabetics!

Why Statins are Your WORST Option

Statins such as Lipitor are a particularly bad choice for diabetics, but they are a poor treatment even if your only worry is your heart health.

Now, statins do lower LDL (bad) cholesterol very well. The problem is they lower it too well, because cholesterol is still a necessary and natural chemical that your body needs. Cholesterol:

Waterproofs your cell walls
Helps repair cells
Is vital for digesting fats, regulating hormone levels, and neurological function
Despite cholesterol's infamous reputation, having too little of it in your body is as dangerous, if not more so, than too much. Therefore, the result of taking statin drugs can be numerous dangerous side effects, including:

Muscle pain and weakness (most likely due to the depletion of Co-Q10)
Dizziness and cognitive impairment,
Depression
Pancreatitis
Increased cancer risk
Heart failure
The last one is rather counter to the whole supposed point of cholesterol-lowering drugs, don't you think?

And there is this additional evidence that it more than doubles your risk of stroke if you are diabetic, in return for no benefits whatsoever -- unless you enjoy anything on this list; these are the possible consequences of taking statins in strong doses or for a lengthy period of time:

Depression of mental acuity
Anemia
Acidosis
Frequent fevers
Cataracts
What is Your Underlying Problem, and How Can You Treat THAT?

Make no mistake, Lipitor completely fails to treat the underlying problems causing your high levels of cholesterol. Statins are non-specific inhibitors of a number of very important liver enzymes, including the enzyme that causes your liver to make cholesterol when it is stimulated by high insulin levels.

A far more sensible treatment therefore, is to simply shut down the enzyme that makes cholesterol by reducing your insulin and leptin levels, which is the underlying cause of your high cholesterol. 

By eliminating sugar and most grains, you won’t cause this important enzyme to be blocked, and you also will not block other vital coenzymes such as CoQ10.

This is also exactly what you should be doing if you are diabetic.

To normalize your cholesterol level naturally, and keep your diabetes under control at the same time, these three primary strategies work well 99 percent of the time if properly implemented:

Exercise daily
Eat a low grain, low sugar diet
Take a high quality omega-3 supplement
The omega-3 fats in krill oil or fish oil will influence your HDL cholesterol levels far more safely and effectively than taking a pill -- and for a small fraction of the cost.

I must say I really got a kick out of Robert Jarvik’s public statement where he says in closing: 

“I am a medical scientist specializing in advanced technology to treat heart failure who understands that no one in his or her right mind would want  an artificial heart if it could be avoided with preventive medicine.”

I didn’t say it was a good kick.

To infer that statin drugs are somehow related to preventive medicine is again a grossly misleading statement. There is nothing preventive about these drugs; they do not fix any underlying health issues that might cause problems in the future. Instead they raise your risks of other serious health complications that might cost you your life far sooner than your high cholesterol might have.

 

Scientists discover way to reverse loss of memory

 

 

Scientists performing experimental brain surgery on a man aged 50 have stumbled across a mechanism that could unlock how memory works.

Cell phone talking worse than driving drunk - study

Cell phone talking worse than driving drunk - study

Researchers at the University of Utah have published a study that claims drivers on cell phones are prone to more crashes than drunk drivers. Two psychology professors, David Strayer and Frank Drews, along with toxicology professor Dennis Crouch, conducted the study. 40 test subjects drove a simulated highway while undistracted, drunk and talking on a cellphone. The cell phone using drivers crashed three times, while the drunk drivers surprisingly did OK.

Researchers found that the drunk drivers were more aggressive and followed closer than the cell phone using drivers. They also discovered that cell phone users had significantly slower brake times at 849 ms versus 777 ms of the baseline group. Researchers suggest that cell phones make drivers more sluggish in perception and reaction.

Amazingly the drunk group's times did not significantly different from the baseline group. In addition, there were no crashes with the drunk group even though they had a tendancy to follow up to 2.5 meters (about 8 ft) closer than the cell phone group. The drunk group also had to brake much harder to avoid accidents.

The researchers simulated a 24-mile two-way highway on a "PatrolSim" driving simulator, commonly used by police officers for high-speed pursuit training. In 15-minute driving sessions, the test subjects had to follow and avoid hitting a pace car that would randomly brake. Passing vehicles were thrown is as distractions.

The volunteers had to do the same course four separate times. The first was a baseline test with no cellphone usage or alcohol consumption. Then handheld and hands-free cell phone usage were tested with the subjects maintaining a casual conversation with a research assistant. The final test was done after drinking a mixture of vodka and orange to get the subjects to a .08% blood alcohol level - the legal definition of driving while intoxicated in many states. Unfortunately, researchers didn't test drunk driving with cell phone usage.

There are two issues that can be raised about the study. The first is that crashing in a simulator does not have the same visceral and tragic consequences as crashing in real life. To be sure, there are some huge safety and legal problems with doing a live highway test, but perhaps the volunteers would have done better in a real environment.

Also, while .08% blood alcohol level is considered drunk, that level is usually on the low end for drunk drivers that have crashed. It's not uncommon to find drivers with double that level after an accident.

Cancer-Causing Benzene Still in Drinks


SodaNearly one out of ten of 200 beverage samples analyzed in a recent study by the EPA and FDA still had benzene levels above the U.S. EPA drinking water limit of 5 parts per billion (ppb).

Many manufacturers have reformulated their products to minimize or eliminate benzene. In these reformulated products, benzene levels were 1.1 ppb or less. About 71 percent of beverage samples contained less than 1 ppb.

Benzene can form in beverages that contain the preservative benzoate salt and ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Beverages were reformulated in the early 1990’s to avoid benzene formation, but it has recurred in recent years because new manufacturers were unaware of the problem and added vitamin C to drinks.


Caffeine: Good For Your Skin

We all know what caffeine can do for our moods in the morning, but caffeine is also increasingly celebrated in the dermatological community for its impact on the skin.
For years, caffeine's ability to quickly and effectively constrict blood vessels has made it a valued topical ingredient, particularly in products designed to minimize facial flushing. For that reason, caffeine can be a tremendous boon to those who suffer from rosacea, which is essentially caused by frequently dilated blood vessels that lose their ability to contract.

La Roche Posay Rosaliac products, for example, are a great anti-inflammatory option for anyone who suffers from rosacea or facial redness. Topix Replenix CF Anti-Photoaging Complex SPF 45 is another excellent, well-rounded product that offers a blend of powerful antioxidants, caffeine, and sunscreen.

Caffeine's blood vessel-constricting benefits also make it a go-to ingredient in many eye creams (like MD Formulations Moisture Defense Antioxidant Eye Crème, for example), as it can quickly minimize redness and puffiness.

In addition to its anti-inflammatory benefits, though, caffeine is starting to get lots of attention for its antioxidant properties when used both topically and orally. (That morning cup o' joe might not be so bad after all!)

In fact, research suggests that both oral and topical caffeine may offer powerful anticarcinogenic benefits. A series of studies performed on mice found that caffeinated green and black teas prevented sun damage and even repaired damage once it occurred, whereas decaffeinated teas did not.

One particularly promising study suggested that topical caffeine may also repair UV damage - and that it may prove to be a stronger antioxidant than certain green tea polyphenols, currently among the strongest and best-researched antioxidants around. (On a related note, coffeeberry, which comes from the fruit of the coffee plant, is also getting a lot of attention lately as the next big antioxidant.)


Just a couple words of caution, though: Caffeine is dehydrating, so be sure to follow your coffee or tea with plenty of water. And if you're prone to facial flushing, hot beverages can cause redness; consider enjoying your caffeinated beverages over ice.

Wishing you great skin!

Dr. Baumann is author of the best-selling book," The Skin Type Solution." To learn more about her revolutionary skin typing system, visit her Web site, SkinTypeSolutions.com. 

Drug-resistant staph spreading among gay men

Think that the "gay" lifestyle isn't any of your business? If you do, maybe you should not eat in restaurants or go out in public. Your government has lied to you. The Male (not proven female lesbian) homosexual is a transmitter of disease. That is the Plain Truth, like it or not.

Here is the MSNBC story:

SAN FRANCISCO - A drug-resistant strain of potentially deadly bacteria has moved beyond the borders of U.S. hospitals and is being transmitted among gay men during sex, researchers said on Monday.

They said methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is beginning to appear outside hospitals in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles.

Sexually active gay men in San Francisco are 13 times more likely to be infected than their heterosexual neighbors, the researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable,” said Binh Diep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco who led the study. “That’s why we’re trying to spread the message of prevention.”

According to chemical analyses, bacteria are spreading among the gay communities of San Francisco and Boston, the researchers said.

“We think that it’s spread through sexual activity,” Diep said.

This superbug can cause life-threatening and disfiguring infections and can often only be treated with expensive, intravenous antibiotics.

It killed about 19,000 Americans in 2005, most of them in hospitals, according to a report published in October in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

About 30 percent of all people carry ordinary staph chronically. It can be passed by touching other people or by depositing the bacteria on surfaces or objects.

The bacteria can cause deep-tissue infections if they enter the body through a wound in the skin.

Of those people who carry staph, most carry it in their noses but community-based MRSA also can live in and around the anus and is passed between sexual partners.

STD resurgence
Incidence of MRSA is rising along with the resurgence of syphilis, rectal gonorrhea, and new HIV infections partly because of changes in beliefs about the severity of HIV and an increase in risky behaviors, such as illicit drug use and having sex that abrades the skin, Diep’s team wrote.

Your likelihood of contracting each of these diseases increases with the number of sexual partners that you have,” Diep said. “The same can probably be said for MRSA.”

Staph infections often look like raised red dots on the skin. Left untreated, the areas can swell and fill with pus.

The best way to avoid infection is by washing the hands or genitals with soap and water, Diep said.

Is it safe to eat sushi?

Concerns about the safety of eating sushi were raised this week after reports surfaced over the high levels of mercury in tuna and swordfish. Lab tests commissioned by the New York Times found so much mercury in tuna in 20 Manhattan restaurants and stores that eating six pieces a week would exceed acceptable levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency, the newspaper reported.

Gastric Banding Reverses Impact of Type 2 Diabetes

This press release is an announcement submitted by Monash University Centre for Obesity Research and Education, and was not written by Diabetes Health.

A new world-first study by Monash University researchers has found gastric banding surgery has a profound impact on one of society's biggest health issues - diabetes.

The study, published today in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), found obese patients with Type 2 diabetes who underwent gastric banding were five times more likely to have their diabetes go into long term remission, compared with patients who engaged in conventional weight loss therapies, such as a controlled calorie diet and exercise.

The four-year study, which was led by Drs John Dixon and Paul O'Brien from Monash University's Centre for Obesity Research and Education (CORE), monitored 60 volunteers for two years who underwent significant weight loss of more than 10 per cent of their body weight.

Dr Dixon said of those who underwent gastric banding surgery, 73 per cent achieved remission for Type 2 diabetes, compared to just 13 percent of the people who underwent conventional therapy.

"Our study presents strong evidence that obese patients with a Body Mass Index greater than 30 with Type 2 diabetes need to lose a significant amount of weight to improve their overall health and glycemic management," Dr Dixon said.

"Our study shows that gastric banding surgery can assist those patients to achieve this - and with sustained results."

Professor O'Brien said obesity and Type 2 diabetes were strongly linked and combine to present one of the greatest public health problems facing our community.

"We found that the amount of weight loss was a key determinant of effectiveness. Most of those losing ten per cent of their total weight had remission of the diabetes. Few who lost less did so."

Dr Dixon said the study also found patients who lost substantial weight could not only dramatically reduce their diabetes medications, but also those for controlling blood pressure and lowering blood fats.

"We found that after two years, the surgical group when compared to the conventional therapy group displayed a four times greater reduction in glycated haemoglobin, which can be an indicator of poorly controlled diabetes," Dr Dixon said.

Gastric banding is a medical procedure where a band is placed around a patient's stomach to reduce appetite and food intake. For more information on the study, visit the CORE website: http://www.core.monash.org/.

 

Scientists Figure Out How Alcohol Lowers Blood Sugar

Scientists Figure Out How Alcohol Lowers Blood Sugar
Patrick Totty
23 January 2008

Swedish scientists have found that alcohol lowers blood sugar by redirecting blood within the pancreas and sending massive amounts of it to the islets.

The finding by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, is the first to show how alcohol is able to lower blood sugar levels. What happens is that by sending more of the pancreas's internal blood flow to the islets, alcohol spurs insulin production, which in turn lowers glucose levels.

The scientists injected rats with ethanol alcohol and noted that blood flow to the islets increased fourfold. The alcohol did not affect the amount of blood reaching the pancreas, only the distribution of blood within it.

The study also found that alcohol induced the changes in blood flow by affecting nitric oxide, a chemical compound that medical studies suggest is instrumental in glucose transport and the actions of insulin. Alcohol also affected the vagus nerve, which descends from the brain and into the abdomen and, among other things, signals organs there to secrete.

Source: Endocrinology, January 2008


Tests find hazardous levels of mercury in tuna sushi in New York

NEW YORK: Recent laboratory tests performed for The New York Times found so much mercury in tuna sushi that a regular diet of even two or three pieces a week at some restaurants could be a health hazard for the average adult, based on guidelines set out by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Eight of the 44 pieces of sushi The Times purchased from local restaurants and stores in October had mercury levels so high that the Food and Drug Administration could take legal action to remove the fish from the market.

Although all the samples were gathered in New York City, experts believe similar results would be observed elsewhere. "Mercury levels in bluefin are likely to be very high, regardless of location," said Tim Fitzgerald, a marine scientist for Environmental Defense, an advocacy group that works to protect the environment and improve human health. Most of the stores and restaurants in the survey said the tuna The Times had sampled was bluefin.

In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration joined with the Environmental Protection Agency to warn children and women who may become pregnant to limit their consumption of certain varieties of canned tuna because the mercury it contained might damage the developing nervous system. Fresh tuna was not included in the advisory. The tuna sushi in The Times sample contained far more mercury than is typically found in canned tuna.

Over the past several years, studies have suggested that mercury may also cause health problems for adults, including an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and neurological symptoms.

Dr. P. Michael Bolger, a toxicologist who is head of the chemical hazard assessment team at the Food and Drug Administration, said the agency was reviewing its seafood mercury warnings. Because it has been four years since the advisory was issued, he said, "we have had a study under way to take a fresh look at it."

Tuna samples from the restaurants Nobu Next Door, Sushi Seki, Sushi of Gari and Blue Ribbon and the food store Gourmet Garage all had mercury in excess of one part per million, the "action level" at which the FDA can take food off the market. (In recent years, the FDA has rarely, if ever, taken any tuna off the market.)

The European Union can take tuna and other predatory and long-lived fish off the market at the same mercury concentration, one part per million.

Both Drew Nieporent, a managing partner of Nobu Next Door and Andy Arons, an owner of Gourmet Garage, were shocked by the Times' findings.

"I'm startled by this," said Nieporent. "Anything that might endanger any customer of ours, we'd be inclined to take off the menu immediately and get to the bottom of it."

Arons, whose stores stock yellowfin, albacore and bluefin, depending on the available quality and price, said, "We'll look for lower-level-mercury fish. Maybe we won't sell tuna sushi for awhile, until we get to the bottom of this."

At Blue Ribbon Sushi, Eric Bromberg, an owner, said he was aware that bluefin tuna had higher mercury concentrations. For that reason, he said, the restaurant typically tells parents with small children not to let them eat "more than one or two pieces."

Scientists who performed the analysis for The New York Times said they had been "frankly surprised" at the results and had run the tests several times to be sure there was no mistake in the levels of methylmercury, a form of mercury tied to health problems.

"No one should eat a meal of tuna with mercury levels like those found in the restaurant samples, more than about once every three weeks," said Dr. Michael Gochfeld, professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway, New Jersey, who analyzed the sushi for the Times with Dr. Joanna Burger, professor of life sciences at Rutgers University.

The work was done at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, in Piscataway, New Jersey, a partnership between Rutgers and the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Gochfeld is a former chairman of the New Jersey Mercury Task Force. He also treats patients with mercury poisoning.

More than half of the restaurants and stores surveyed sold sushi with so much mercury that eating just six pieces a week would exceed the amount the Environmental Protection Agency says can be safely consumed by an adult of average weight, which the agency defines as 154 pounds, 70 kilograms. People weighing less are advised to consume even less mercury.

In general, tuna sushi from food stores was much lower in mercury. These findings reinforce results in other studies showing that more expensive tuna usually contains more mercury because it is more likely to come from a larger species that accumulates mercury from the fish it eats.

In the Times survey, 10 of the 13 restaurants said at least one of the two tuna samples purchased had been bluefin. (Itis hard for anyone but experts to tell whether a piece of tuna sushi is bluefin by looking at it.) By contrast, other species, like yellowfin, bigeye and albacore, generally have much less mercury. Several of the stores in the Times sample said the tuna in their sushi was yellowfin.

"It is very likely bluefin will be included in next year's testing," said Dr. Bolger of the FDA. "A couple of months ago, FDA became aware of blue fin tuna as a species Americans are eating."

Studies have found high blood mercury levels among people eating a diet rich in seafood. According to a 2007 survey by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the average level of mercury in New Yorkers' blood is three times as high as the national average. The report found especially high levels among Asian New Yorkers, especially foreign-born Chinese, and people with higher incomes.

The report noted that Asians tended to eat more seafood and speculated that wealthier people favored certain fish, like swordfish and bluefin tuna, with higher mercury levels.

The city has warned children and women who are pregnant or breastfeeding not to eat any fresh tuna or Chilean sea bass or several other fish it describes as "too high in mercury."

Kate Mahaffey, a senior research scientist in the office of science coordination and policy at EPA who studies mercury in fish, said she was not surprised by reports of high concentrations.

"We have seen exposures occurring now in the United States that have produced blood mercury a lot higher than anything we would have expected to see," she said. "And this appears to be related to consumption of larger amounts of fish that are higher in mercury than we had anticipated."

Many experts believe the government's warnings on mercury in seafood do not go far enough. "The current advice from the FDA is insufficient," said Dr. Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health and head of the Department of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark. "In order to maintain reasonably low mercury exposure you have to eat fish low in the food chain, the smaller fish, and they are not saying that."

Some environmental groups have already sounded the alarm. Environmental Defense, the advocacy group, says no one should eat bluefin tuna.

Others take a less absolute position. "I like to think of tuna sushi as an occasional treat," Gochfeld said. "A steady diet is certainly problematic. There are a lot of other sushi choices."

 

Glucosamine not likely to raise "good" cholesterol

By Megan Rauscher

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Glucosamine at commonly taken doses does not increase HDL ("good") cholesterol in people with diabetes, researchers have found.

"Many people take glucosamine for arthritis-like symptoms and, from previous research, we thought glucosamine may also have a beneficial effect on HDL cholesterol," Dr. Stewart G. Albert noted in comments to Reuters Health.

Albert, from Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, and his colleagues evaluated the effects of glucosamine (500 milligrams taken three times daily) versus matching "placebo" capsules in ten people with type 2 diabetes and two with type 1 diabetes.

The three men and nine women in the study, all with low HDL cholesterol, were randomly assigned to take glucosamine or placebo for 2 weeks, and then to cross over to a 2-week course of the alternate therapy.

"We did not find any benefit of glucosamine on HDL cholesterol or any worsening of the diabetes control," Albert said.

In their report of the study in the journal Diabetes Care, the investigators note that the lack of an effect on diabetes control "is consistent with previously published studies on the effect of glucosamine in both diabetic and nondiabetic individuals."

However, "This study does not answer whether higher doses or longer duration of glucosamine may make any difference" to HDL levels, Albert said.

SOURCE: Diabetes Care, November 2007.

Can Chinese Food Cause Cancer?

Chinese food, MSG, egg rollMonosodium glutamate (MSG), a common ingredient in Chinese food, may cause stomach cancer, according to a study by researchers at the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Cancer Research Institute.

Their analysis of 134 patients found that nearly half of those with stomach, rectal and colon cancer were regular consumers of Chinese food from middle- or low-end restaurants. Most of them also had ulcers, which were also linked to MSG.

In 2004, the World Health Organization declared MSG unsafe for human consumption, but it is still widely used.

RAW MILK WINS in CALIFORNIA!

RAW MILK WINS in CALIFORNIA!

Thanks to last minute "hallway negotiations," Assembly Bill AB 1604 passed with unanimous consent during Ag Assembly hearings held on Wednesday. This will ensure, for now, the continued flow of raw milk in California.

It was standing room only at the State Capitol on Wednesday January 16, 2008. Room 4202 was packed to its capacity with over 400 people, including scores of children on parents' laps. The hallway was filled with overflow crowds. Judging by the number of "I love Raw Milk" pins handed out, the total crowd was estimated at 700.

Assembly members Nicole Parra, Tom Berryhill and Mike Villines sealed the fate of AB 1604 with impassioned speeches berating the sloppy governmental process around AB 1735. Testimony was heard from Collette Cassidy and Dr. Ron Garthwaite of Claravale Dairy, Wholefoods Co-president Walter Robb, and Organic Pastures Founder Mark McAfee. More than 75 people spoke at the microphone supporting their choice in raw milk – among them doctors, nurses, pharmacists, PhDs and, most importantly, children, mothers and fathers. 

AB 1604 is a deal we can all live with

Ideally, AB 1735 should have been reversed so as to eliminate the baseless raw milk coliform standard it included. However, the political reality of the moment said otherwise. Allies to the anti- raw milk forces were deeply imbedded in the hearing committee. The mainstream dairy industry and the California Medical Association also stood against AB 1604. Without last minute negotiations to modify AB 1604, it would have "died in committee" and AB 1735 would be the law of the land. Raw milk availability would have become subject to the uncertainties of litigation, and this was a risk for raw milk consumers that we were unwilling to take.

The results of the vote are as follows:

AB 1604 passed as a committee bill and will go forward as a "consent item."
AB 1604 stops all coliform testing for six months.
AB 1604 allows for additional hearings to be held about coliforms and to review the science, including a six inch thick package of research and support documents submitted at the hearing.
AB 1604 allows for a less-than-50 coliform per ml "in the first bulk tank" starting July 2008. This is achievable and fair, and most importantlysatisfied the parties in opposition.
Nicole Parra reads CDFA the riot act

In a rare scene seldom witnessed at the Capitol, Assemblywoman Nicole Parra admonished the CDFA for its deceitful attack on the democratic process, and for misleading the legislature, saying such a process "will not stand." She insisted AB 1604 pass out of the committee, and said it would fail "over [her] dead body." She was particularly passionate about the fact CDFA had cheated the people out of the democratic process. Republican assembly whip Mike Villines strongly supported Nicole, saying a mistake had been made which will now take courage to correct. Assemblyman and Ag Committee member Tom Berryhill wanted a search for who in the CDFA did this, stating that "heads should roll."

Gifts of raw milk and a march to the governor's office

After the hearings OPDC quarts of Raw milk were given away to all who attended. Then hundreds of supporters marched to the governor's office with a gift of raw milk, to ask for his support. A smaller group also sought support from the speaker of the senate. OPDC marketing director, Kaleigh McAfee, gave raw milk to Nicole Parra, who is lactose intolerant. The word is that she enjoyed it and had no problems at all!

Next Steps

January 16th was a  great day for raw milk but the work is not completed. The next step is to contact your state assemblyman and ask for support of AB 1604 at next vote. Tell them it is a "consent" bill that includes a compromise and has everyone's support. When the vote is closer, we will be asking you to contact Senator Dean Flores as well.

Congratulations to everyone in the raw milk movement.

We have spoken with a heartfelt voice so strong it is impossible to measure, except perhaps, by the tears of many who attended. Your actions have created a power that only comes from the people united in a real purpose.

The people have spoken and raw milk is here to stay!
Warmly,

Mark McAfee, Founder OPDC

 

Thank You for Smoking

Thank You for Smoking

by Peter Brimelow (nonsmoker, but tolerant)

The hangperson's noose is unmistakably around the tobacco industry's neck. In Florida and Mississippi, state governments are attempting to force tobacco companies to pay some smoking-related health care costs. In Washington, D.C., the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed that "secondhand smoke" is a significant risk for nonsmokers and the Food & Drug Administration is making noises about regulating nicotine as a drug. And recently the American Medical Association agreed, reasserting that nicotine is addictive. Smokers have already been driven away from many workplaces into the street for a furtive puff. But further legal harassment, to the point of what an industry spokesman calls "backdoor prohibition," seems unstoppable.

Lost in this lynching frenzy: the fact that smoking might be, in some small ways, good for you.

Hold on now! Let's be clear: The Surgeon General has indeed determined that smoking is dangerous to your health. Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases are highly correlated with cigarette consumption. Annual smoking-related deaths are commonly said to be over 400,000 (although critics say the number is inflated).

But so is driving automobiles dangerous to your health (over 40,000 deaths a year). Yet people do it, because it has rewards as well as risk. And they judge, as individuals, that the reward outweighs the risk.

This is called freedom.

Well, what are the rewards of cigarette smoking? Apart from intangible pleasure, the most obvious is behavioral. A battery of studies, such as those by British researcher D.M. Warburton, show that cigarettes, whatever their other effects, really do stimulate alertness, dexterity and cognitive capacity.

And alertness, dexterity, etc., can be useful. Such as when driving. Or flying – as Congress recognized when it exempted airline pilots from the ban on smoking on domestic flights.

These behavioral benefits suggest an answer to the Great Tobacco Mystery: why almost a third of adult Americans continue to do something they are told, incessantly and insistently, is bad for them. (Duke University economist W. Kip Viscusi reported in his 1992 book, Smoking: Making the Risky Decision, that survey data show smokers, if anything, exaggerate the health danger of their habit.)

Smokers, according to numerous studies such as those by University of Michigan researchers Ovide and Cynthia Pomerleau, are different from nonsmokers. They tend toward depression and excitability. Current understanding is that nicotine is "amphoteric," that is, it can act to counter both conditions, depending on how it is consumed. (Quick puffs stimulate, long drags calm.)

The implication is fascinating. A large part of the population seems to be aware of its significant although not pathological personality quirks, and to have discovered a form of self-medication that regulates them.

Of course, this explanation for the stubbornness of smokers is not as satisfying as what Washington prefers to believe: mass seduction by the wicked tobacco companies and their irresistible advertising. Nor would it justify huge rescue operations by heroic politicians and bureaucrats.

Beyond its behavioral effects, smoking seems also to offer subtler health rewards to balance against its undisputed risks:

Parkinson's disease. The frequency of this degenerative disorder of the nervous system among smokers appears to be half the rate among nonsmokers – an effect recognized by the Surgeon General as along ago as 1964.

Alzheimer's disease. Similarly, the frequency of this degenerative mental disorder has recently been found to be as much as 50%less among smokers than among nonsmokers for example, by the H studies reviewed in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 1991.

Endometrial cancer. There is extensive and long-standing evidence that this disease of the womb occurs as much as 50% less among smokers as documented by, for example, a New England Journal of Medicine article back in 1985. The triggering mechanism appears to be a reduction of estrogen levels.

Prostate cancer. Conversely, smoking seems to raise estrogen levels in men and may be responsible for what appears to be a 50% lower rate of prostate cancer among smokers, although this needs corroboration.

Osteoarthritis. This degenerative disorder of bone and cartilage is up to five times less likely to occur among heavy smokers as documented, for example, by the federal government's first Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Colon cancer, ulcerative colitis. These diseases of the bowel seem to be about 30% and 50% less frequent among smokers as documented, for example, by articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association and in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1981 and 1983, respectively.

Other benefits that have been suggested for smoking: Lower rates of sarcoidosis and allergic alveolitis, both lung disorders, and possibly even acne. Smokers are also lighter ironically, because obesity is a leading cause of the cardiovascular disease that smoking is also supposed to exacerbate. So you could quit smoking and still die of a heart attack because of the weight you put on.

None of these health benefits is enough to persuade doctors to recommend occasional cigarettes, in the way that some now occasionally recommend a glass of wine.

But consider this theoretical possibility: Should 60-year-olds take up smoking because its protection against Alzheimer's is more immediate that its potential damage to the lungs, which won't show up for 30 years if at all?

A theoretical possibility and likely to remain theoretical. Research into possible benefits of tobacco and nicotine is widely reported to be stymied by the absolutist moral fervor of the antismoking campaign.

Under the Carter Administration, the federal government abandoned its research into safer cigarettes in favor of an attack on all smoking. No effort is made to encourage smokers to switch to pipes and cigars, although their users' lung cancer and heart disease rates are five to ten times lower (somewhat offset by minor increases in mouth and throat cancers). There is no current support for studies of the marginal increase in danger for each cigarette smoked, although it appears the human system can clear the effects of three to five of the (much stronger) pre-1960 cigarettes, if dispersed across a day, with relatively little risk.

Instead, the extirpation of smoking had become another "moral equivalent of war" as President Carter called the energy crisis in the 1970s, and as price and wage controls were viewed earlier. There is no role for tradeoffs, risk-reward calculations or free choice.

Why don't tobacco companies point out the potential offsetting rewards of smoking? Besides the usual corporate cowardice and bureaucratic inertia, the answer may be another, typically American, disease: lawyers. Directing the companies' defense, they apparently veto any suggestion that smoking has benefits for fear of liability suits and of the possible regulatory implications if nicotine is seen as a drug.

Which leaves smokers defenseless against a second typically American disease: the epidemic of power hungry puritanical bigots.

Peter Brimelow [send him mail] editor of VDARE.com, was senior editor of Forbes. This article is from the July 4, 1994, issue.

Copyright © 1994 Peter Brimelow