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