Red wine may stain your teeth, but new research shows it also keeps them from decaying. Italian scientists demonstrated red wine made it difficult for harmful bacteria to cling to teeth, and, in a statement on the United Kingdom's National Health Service site, concluded that the prevention of tooth decay "may be another beneficial effect of the moderate consumption of red wine." MORE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Learning God's Healthy way to a better Life!
Red Wine Fights Tooth Decay
The latest anti-smoking campaign is not about health, drugs, or children ...
It is about JURISDICTION... They want it!
Politics of Division
Today, the primary tactic is to "divide and conquer" - to heap guilt on smoking parents making them out to be the villain who doesn't care for their children. In the place of parents, Hillary's "Village", trial lawyers, and big government made its entrance as the savior of the children.
You are told, for example, that cigarette smoking is the most preventable cause of premature death and that smokers have a greater risk of developing various diseases including clogged arteries, cancer, and pulmonary disease. Beyond the loss of life, they are quick to point out the alleged economic consequences of smoking: $50 billion in direct medical costs related to smoking, added strains on already overburdened health-care systems, losses stemming from such factors as absenteeism from work, reduced productivity, fire losses, and lost income because of early death. Indeed, they claim that smoking is responsible for approximately 7 percent of total U.S. health care costs.
So, Americans blindly accept higher taxes to pay for more failed government programs, increased government intrusion into American businesses, and higher insurance premiums to line the pockets of insurance industry CEO's.
The liberal propagandists who want your money understand that one of the first milestones they must achieve is to turn public opinion away from the ruthless capitalist tobacco companies and look to big government and socialist programs to protect you.
But, "government studies prove..." you might say? Have you ever looked at these studies objectively, or do you just take their word for it? Take for example the EPA report that mentions carcinogens found in smoke. Why do you suppose they listed them in a chart, without explanation? Why? So the unsophisticated could draw the false conclusion that this somehow answers the question which science cannot.
The American public is expected to trust those who brought us "dancing condoms" to our television screens encouraging teens to engage in "protected sex", have made AIDS the first disease in history to be endowed with civil rights, and have called the wholesale slaughter of millions of babies in their mothers womb "freedom of choice."
Insurance companies surely can't be wrong. They spend all that money on those actuarial studies that prove a connection between smoking and disease. The insurance salesmen tell us we pay higher premiums because smokers have a higher risk of contracting disease and their health care costs are higher than the non-smoker. What they don't tell you is that their insurance plans cover "domestic partners" (that's politically correct jargon for homosexuals) whose risk of contracting AIDS and other sexually transmitted disease is astronomical and their health care costs are out of control. No double standard here!
Imagine the uproar if insurance companies wanted to charge homosexuals more for their insurance. Homosexuals cost the federal and state government enormous dollars in healthcare. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, given today’s life expectancy rates, the years of potential life lost due to AIDS are 24% more than the years lost from lung cancer.
A pain therapy not advised for back
U.S. neurologists have issued new guidelines for transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation used to treat pain.
Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation therapy applies a mild electrical current to the nerves through electrodes using a pocket-sized portable unit.
Members of the American Academy of Neurology in St. Paul, Minn., say research on the nerve stimulation therapy for chronic low-back pain has produced conflicting results. For the guideline, the authors reviewed all evidence for low-back pain lasting three months or longer. Acute lower-back pain was not studied.
"The strongest evidence showed that there is no benefit for people using transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation for chronic low-back pain," Dr. Richard Dubinsky of Kansas University Medical Center in Kansas City, who wrote the guideline, said in a statement.
"Doctors should use clinical judgment regarding transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation use for chronic low-back pain. People who are currently using transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation for their low-back pain should discuss these findings with their doctors."
The guidelines, published in the journal Neurology, also determined the nerve stimulation technique can be effective in treating diabetic nerve pain -- also called diabetic neuropathy -- but concluded more and better research is needed to compare it with other treatments for this type of pain.
FDA warns of extortion scam targeting online prescription buyers
Reporting from Fort Lauderdale, Fla. - Extortionists posing as federal agents have taken as much as $31,000 from frightened people who thought they would be prosecuted for purchasing their medications from outside the country, federal regulators say.
The Food and Drug Administration has received 75 to 100 reports nationwide recently of people receiving calls from individuals claiming to be FDA special agents or law enforcement officials, the agency said this week. The targets were told that buying drugs online or over the phone was illegal and that if they did not immediately pay their "fine," they would be arrested, jailed or deported, the FDA said.
Several dozen people sent the money, usually through a wire service, to an address in the Dominican Republic, FDA spokesman Tom Gasparoli said. Most paid about $1,000 to $5,000, although some sent much more.
"People thought they just had been trying to save money by buying from online companies, and some of them really panicked," Gasparoli said. "They thought there would be an officer outside their door at any moment."
It is against the law for American consumers to re-import drugs from foreign countries, but only the courts can impose fines, with penalties payable to the U.S. Treasury.
It's unclear how those running the extortion scheme decided whom to call, but Gasparoli said the majority of victims had bought, or thought they were buying, prescription drugs from Canada. It's estimated that almost 2 million Americans a year buy their medications through pharmacies in Canada, whose healthcare system negotiates with manufacturers, keeping prices substantially lower than in the U.S.
Gasparoli said telemarketers associated with the extortionists posed as an online pharmacy and, in some cases, called consumers and tempted them with low prices. Those who bought the drugs were later called by the fake agents.
Experts say prescription shoppers should be cautious when buying online. An Internet pharmacy may not be legitimate if it:
* offers to sell you medication without a prescription.
* will sell you a controlled substance.
* does not have a secure website. Secure sites show a padlock icon toward the bottom of the page.
* does not have a telephone number or a way to contact a pharmacist.
FDA officials encourage anyone who gets a call from a fake federal agent or law enforcement officer assessing and collecting fines to file a report by calling (800) 521-5783.
The Food and Drug Administration has received 75 to 100 reports nationwide recently of people receiving calls from individuals claiming to be FDA special agents or law enforcement officials, the agency said this week. The targets were told that buying drugs online or over the phone was illegal and that if they did not immediately pay their "fine," they would be arrested, jailed or deported, the FDA said.
Several dozen people sent the money, usually through a wire service, to an address in the Dominican Republic, FDA spokesman Tom Gasparoli said. Most paid about $1,000 to $5,000, although some sent much more.
"People thought they just had been trying to save money by buying from online companies, and some of them really panicked," Gasparoli said. "They thought there would be an officer outside their door at any moment."
It is against the law for American consumers to re-import drugs from foreign countries, but only the courts can impose fines, with penalties payable to the U.S. Treasury.
It's unclear how those running the extortion scheme decided whom to call, but Gasparoli said the majority of victims had bought, or thought they were buying, prescription drugs from Canada. It's estimated that almost 2 million Americans a year buy their medications through pharmacies in Canada, whose healthcare system negotiates with manufacturers, keeping prices substantially lower than in the U.S.
Gasparoli said telemarketers associated with the extortionists posed as an online pharmacy and, in some cases, called consumers and tempted them with low prices. Those who bought the drugs were later called by the fake agents.
Experts say prescription shoppers should be cautious when buying online. An Internet pharmacy may not be legitimate if it:
* offers to sell you medication without a prescription.
* will sell you a controlled substance.
* does not have a secure website. Secure sites show a padlock icon toward the bottom of the page.
* does not have a telephone number or a way to contact a pharmacist.
FDA officials encourage anyone who gets a call from a fake federal agent or law enforcement officer assessing and collecting fines to file a report by calling (800) 521-5783.
The Truth about Eggs
The Truth About Eggs
Eggs have gotten a bad rap over the last few decades. Deemed bad for the heart by health experts, they have been the subjects of criticism and scrutiny. But are our white (sometimes brown) friends really that unhealthy for us? In the last few years, numerous health organizations have been vindicating eggs' reputation. So what are we to believe; why were eggs chastised, only to be acclaimed again?
old egg myths
It was previously thought that eggs raised blood cholesterol levels -- one of the main causes of heart disease. The yolk in a single large egg contains five grams of fat, so it was only natural for nutritionists to assume that eggs clogged up people's arteries, especially since they also contain dietary cholesterol .Another myth was that cholesterol is fat. That is simply not true. Cholesterol is a waxy substance that resembles fat, but has little to do with it. Today, scientists know that cholesterol content in food and the cholesterol in our blood aren't as directly related as once thought. So to unravel the mystery that is the egg, one must look at cholesterol.
cholesterol
First, one has to understand that cholesterol is not necessarily bad. Humans need it to maintain cell walls, insulate nerve fibers and produced vitamin D, among other things. Second, there are two types of cholesterol: dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol . Both are important.Dietary cholesterol is found in certain foods, such as meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and diary products. The second type (blood cholesterol, also called serum cholesterol) is produced in the liver and floats around in our bloodstream. Blood cholesterol is divided into two sub-categories: High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL), and Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL). LDL cholesterol is considered bad because it sticks to artery walls.
What is bad, however, is the amount of LDL blood cholesterol in the body. Too much of it can cause heart problems, but scientists are now discovering that consuming food rich in dietary cholesterol does not increase blood cholesterol. At least that is what some experts believe (they are somewhat disagreeing on the matter... as usual).
Evidence showing that eating a lot of dietary cholesterol doesn't increase blood cholesterol was discovered during a statistical analysis conducted over 25 years by Dr. Wanda Howell and colleagues at the University of Arizona. The study revealed that people who consume two eggs each day with low-fat diets do not show signs of increased blood cholesterol levels.
So what does raise blood cholesterol? One of the main theories is that saturated fat does. Of the three types of fat (saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated), saturated fat raises blood cholesterol and LDL levels. It so happens that eggs contain mostly polyunsaturated fat, which can actually lower blood cholesterol if one replaces food containing saturated fat with eggs.
delicious, nutritious
Eggs are actually quite nutritious. They are not just fat (yolk) and protein (white). In fact, they contain a wide array of essential vitamins and minerals. Here is what's in an egg...Vitamins
A: good for the skin and growth.
D: strengthens bones by raising calcium absorption.
E: protects cells from oxidation.
B1: helps properly release energy from carbohydrates.
B2: helps release energy from protein and fat.
B6: promotes the metabolism of protein.
B12: an essential vitamin in the formation of nerve fibers and blood cells.
Minerals
Iron: essential in the creation of red blood cells.
Zinc: good for enzyme stability and essential in sexual maturation.
Calcium: most important mineral in the strengthening of bones and teeth.
Iodine: controls thyroid hormones.
Selenium: like vitamin E, it protects cells from oxidation.
best type of protein
If that wasn't enough, egg whites contain the purest form of protein found in whole-foods. It is so high that nutritionists use them as the standard when comparing other whole-food proteins. Their "biological value" -- a measurement used to determine how efficiently a protein is used for growth -- is 93.7. Milk, fish, beef, and rice respectively have a bio value of 84.5, 76, 74.3, and 64.The higher the value, the better the protein is absorbed. This is why many bodybuilders include eggs in their diet. When a person eats beef, for instance, all of the protein is not necessarily absorbed and used to rebuild tissue.
Protein is a complex substance, which is why bodybuilding protein supplement makers are constantly trying to refine the quality of their product and why some protein shake brands boast that their protein is made from egg whites. Having said that, each large egg contains 6.3 grams of protein.
how to eat eggs
Experts advise that despite being low in saturated fat, one should not eat more than two eggs a day on a low-fat diet. Egg yolk is mainly fat, so even though it doesn't raise blood cholesterol levels, it can cause other problems if abused.Contaminated eggs kill up to 5000 individuals each year. One egg in 10,000 is contaminated with salmonella, so you should never eat undercooked eggs, make eggnog on your own or mimic Rocky by swallowing them raw.
The proper way to cook eggs depends on the type of food served. The American Egg Board advises that grills should never be set higher than 250F. Anything above that will leave the interior raw while burning the outside. If an egg has runny parts, it means it is still not cooked properly.
mmm, mmm, eggs
So now you know the truth about the incredible, edible egg. Once a foe, now a friend, this mighty whole-food contains many great nutrients and isn't as bad as people once thought. A great source of protein and easy to prepare, eggs are nature's golden food... if you don't eat too much of them, that is.SOURCE:
Pressure rises to stop antibiotics in agriculture
The mystery started the day farmer Russ Kremer got between a jealous boar and a sow in heat.
The boar gored Kremer in the knee with a razor-sharp tusk. The burly pig farmer shrugged it off, figuring: "You pour the blood out of your boot and go on."
But Kremer's red-hot leg ballooned to double its size. A strep infection spread, threatening his life and baffling doctors. Two months of multiple antibiotics did virtually nothing.
The answer was flowing in the veins of the boar. The animal had been fed low doses of penicillin, spawning a strain of strep that was resistant to other antibiotics. That drug-resistant germ passed to Kremer.
Like Kremer, more and more Americans — many of them living far from barns and pastures — are at risk from the widespread practice of feeding livestock antibiotics. These animals grow faster, but they can also develop drug-resistant infections that are passed on to people. The issue is now gaining attention because of interest from a new White House administration and a flurry of new research tying antibiotic use in animals to drug resistance in people.
Researchers say the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals has led to a plague of drug-resistant infections that killed more than 65,000 people in the U.S. last year — more than prostate and breast cancer combined. And in a nation that used about 35 million pounds of antibiotics last year, 70 percent of the drugs went to pigs, chickens and cows. Worldwide, it's 50 percent.
"This is a living breathing problem, it's the big bad wolf and it's knocking at our door," said Dr. Vance Fowler, an infectious disease specialist at Duke University. "It's here. It's arrived."
The rise in the use of antibiotics is part of a growing problem of soaring drug resistance worldwide, The Associated Press found in a six-month look at the issue. As a result, killer diseases like malaria, tuberculosis and staph are resurging in new and more deadly forms.
In response, the pressure against the use of antibiotics in agriculture is rising. The World Health Organization concluded this year that surging antibiotic resistance is one of the leading threats to human health, and the White House last month said the problem is "urgent."
"If we're not careful with antibiotics and the programs to administer them, we're going to be in a post antibiotic era," said Dr. Thomas Frieden, who was tapped to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this year.
Also this year, the three federal agencies tasked with protecting public health — the Food and Drug Administration, CDC and U.S. Department of Agriculture — declared drug-resistant diseases stemming from antibiotic use in animals a "serious emerging concern." And FDA deputy commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein told Congress this summer that farmers need to stop feeding antibiotics to healthy farm animals.
Farm groups and pharmaceutical companies argue that drugs keep animals healthy and meat costs low, and have defeated a series of proposed limits on their use.
_______
America's farmers give their pigs, cows and chickens about 8 percent more antibiotics each year, usually to heal lung, skin or blood infections. However, 13 percent of the antibiotics administered on farms last year were fed to healthy animals to make them grow faster. Antibiotics also save as much as 30 percent in feed costs among young swine, although the savings fade as pigs get older, according to a new USDA study.
However, these animals can develop germs that are immune to the antibiotics. The germs then rub into scratches on farmworkers' arms, causing oozing infections. They blow into neighboring communities in dust clouds, run off into lakes and rivers during heavy rains, and are sliced into roasts, chops and hocks and sent to our dinner tables.
"Antibiotic-resistant microorganisms generated in the guts of pigs in the Iowa countryside don't stay on the farm," said Union of Concerned Scientists Food and Environment director Margaret Mellon.
More than 20 percent of all human cases of a deadly drug-resistant staph infection in the Netherlands could be traced to an animal strain, according to a study published online in a CDC journal. Federal food safety studies routinely find drug resistant bacteria in beef, chicken and pork sold in supermarkets, and 20 percent of people who get salmonella have a drug resistant strain, according to the CDC.
Here's how it happens: In the early '90s, farmers in several countries, including the U.S., started feeding animals fluoroquinolones, a family of antibiotics that includes drugs such as ciprofloxacin. In the following years, the once powerful antibiotic Cipro stopped working 80 percent of the time on some of the deadliest human infections it used to wipe out. Twelve years later, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study linking people infected with a Cipro-resistant bacteria to pork they had eaten.
Johns Hopkins University health sciences professor Ellen Silbergeld, who has reviewed every major study on this issue, said there's no doubt drug use in farm animals is a "major driver of antimicrobial resistance worldwide."
"We have data to show it's in wastewaters and it goes to aquaculture and it goes here and there," agreed Dr. Stuart Levy, an expert on antibiotic resistance at Tufts University in Boston. "Antibiotic use in animals impacts everything."
_______
Farmer Craig Rowles remains unconvinced.
It's afternoon in one of his many rural Iowa pig barns, roaring with snorting and squealing pigs. Some snooze in corners, while others hustle toward their troughs, their slop laced with a steady supply of antibiotics.
"If there was some sort of crossover between the use of the antibiotics in animals and the antibiotics in humans, if there was in fact a real issue there, wouldn't you think we would have seen it?" said Rowles, also a veterinarian who sells 150,000 hogs a year. "That's what the science says to me."
The modular modern barn, home to 1,000 pigs, is a hygienic place. Manure plops through slatted floorboards; an invisible funk steams back up. Rowles dons a sanitary white paper jumpsuit and slips plastic booties over his shoes; he's anxious that his 100-pound pigs aren't exposed to outside germs. A few sick swine are isolated, corralled in a pen near the entrance.
Antibiotics are a crucial part of Rowles' business, speeding growth and warding off disease.
"Now the public doesn't see that," he said. "They're only concerned about resistance, and they don't care about economics because, 'As long as I can buy a pork chop for a buck 69 a pound, I really don't care.' But we live in a world where you have to consider economics in the decision-making process of what we do."
Rowles gives his pigs virginiamycin, which has been used in livestock for decades and is not absorbed by the gut. He withdraws the drug three weeks before his hogs are sent for slaughter. He also monitors his herd for signs of drug resistance to ensure they are getting the most effective doses.
"The one thing that the American public wants to know is: Is the product that I'm getting, is it safe to eat?" said Rowles, whose home freezer is full of his pork. "I'm telling you that the product that we produce today is the safest, most wholesome product that you could possibly get."
_______
Some U.S. lawmakers are fighting for a new law that would ban farmers like Rowles from feeding antibiotics to their animals unless they are sick.
"If you mixed an antibiotic in your child's cereal, people would think you're crazy," said Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y.
Renewed pressure is on from Capitol Hill from Slaughter's bill and new rules discussed in regulatory agencies. There is also pressure from trade issues: The European Union and other developed countries have adopted strong limits against antibiotics. Russia recently banned pork imports from two U.S. plants after detecting levels of tetracycline that the USDA said met American standards.
Farmers and drugmakers are battling back. Pharmaceutical companies have spent $135 million lobbying so far this year, and agribusiness companies another $70 million, on a handful of issues including fighting the proposed new limits. Opponents, many from farm states, say Slaughter's law is misguided.
"Chaos will ensue," said Kansas Republican Congressman Jerry Moran. "The cultivation of crops and the production of food animals is an immensely complex endeavor involving a vast range of processes. We raise a multitude of crops and livestock in numerous regions, using various production methods. Imagine if the government is allowed to dictate how all of that is done."
He's backed by an array of powerful interests, including the American Farm Bureau, the National Pork Producers Council, Eli Lilly & Co., Bayer AG, Pfizer Inc., Schering-Plough Corp., Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto Company, who have repeatedly defeated similar legislation.
The FDA says without new laws its options are limited. The agency approved antibiotic use in animals in 1951, before concerns about drug resistance were recognized. The only way to withdraw that approval is through a drug-by-drug process that can take years of study, review and comment.
In 1977 the agency proposed a ban on penicillin and tetracycline in animal feed, but it was defeated after criticism from interest groups.
There has been one ban: In 2000, for the first time, the FDA ordered the poultry medication Baytril off the market. Five years later, after a series of failed appeals, poultry farmers stopped using the drug.
In 2008 the FDA issued its second limit on an antibiotic used in cows, pigs and chickens, citing "the importance of cephalosporin drugs for treating disease in humans." But the Bush Administration — in an FDA note in the federal register — reversed that decision five days before it was going to take effect after receiving several hundred letters from drug companies and farm animal trade groups.
Laura Rogers, who directs the Pew Charitable Trusts Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming in Washington D.C., says the federal government, from Congress to the administration, has failed to protect the public.
"Because of poor regulations and oversight of drug use in industrial farm animals, consumers in the U.S. do not know what their food is treated with, or how often," she said. "Nor is there a system in place to test meat for dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria."
_______
Back in Missouri, farmer Kremer finally found an antibiotic that worked on his leg. After being released from the hospital, Kremer tested his pigs. The results showed they were resistant to all the same drugs he was.
Kremer tossed his hypodermic needles, sacked his buckets of antibiotic-laced feed, slaughtered his herd and started anew.
"I was wearing a syringe, like a holster, like a gun, because my pigs were all sick," he recalled. "I was really getting so sick and aggravated at what I was doing. I said, 'This isn't working.'"
Today, when Kremer steps out of his dusty and dented pickup truck and walks toward the open-air barn in the foothills of the Ozark Mountains, the animals come running. They snort and root at his knee-high gum boots. There are no gates corralling the 180 pigs in this barn. He points to a mound of composting manure.
"There's no antibiotics in there," he says proudly.
Kremer sells about 1,200 pigs annually. And a year after "kicking the habit," he says he saved about $16,000 in vet bills, vaccinations and antibiotics.
"I don't know why it took me that long to wake up to the fact that what we were doing, it was not the right thing to do and that there were alternatives," says Kremer, stooping to scratch a pig behind the ear. "We were just basically killing ourselves and society by doing this."
____
Martha Mendoza is an AP national writer based in Mexico City. Margie Mason is an AP medical writer who reported from Missouri and Iowa while on a fellowship from The Nieman Foundation at Harvard University.
Cholesterol Vital for Human Existence
"Cholesterol-free" sign can be found even on vegetable oil labels these days. Yet, vegetable oil simply cannot contain any cholesterol since the latter can be found in animal products only. We will forgive manufactures this advertisement trick and will try to find out whether cholesterol is indeed as scary as it is portrayed.
Vasiliy Petrov, M.D., a cardiologist, will assist us in this task.
High cholesterol level is on the top of the list among the risk factors causing fatal diseases linked to atherosclerosis. It outruns any other risk factor, including high blood pressure, smoking, obesity and diabetes.
On the other hand, cholesterol is a required component contained in most of the tissue. It is vital for human existence. Cholesterol aids in building new cells, hormone production, and creation of intercellular membranes isolating internal organs from negative environment; helps to digest vitamins and accumulate energy.
Yet, cholesterol is only good for you until its level exceeds safe limits. As soon as it exceeds the mark of 200–250 mg/dL, it turns from a helper into an enemy.
Cholesterol comes from food and penetrates the blood where it transforms into serum cholesterol which can be good or bad. Good cholesterol is composed of high-density lipoprotein (HDL). HDL cleans the arteries. Bad cholesterol is composed of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) that clogs the vascular walls with atherosclerosis plaques.
High-density lipoprotein comes from monounsaturated fats contained in nuts, legumes and corn, and polyunsaturated fatty acids contained in vegetable oils, fowl, and fish.
Bad cholesterol comes from butter, meat, egg yolks, and milk.
Exercise is an important part of preventing high cholesterol levels. Regular physical activity can help to reduce dangerously high levels, especially if it is accompanied by quitting smoking. Dietary supplements that are effective in preventing atherosclerosis contain nicotinic acid, vitamins C and E, and calcium.
Unfortunately, diet and exercise are only effective if cholesterol level insignificantly exceeds the norm. If cholesterol level is higher than the norm by 25% or more, only medication will help.
It is not enough to measure the level of cholesterol in the blood to find out if it is within the safe limits. Significant atherosclerosis is possible with low cholesterol levels, while insignificant atherosclerosis is possible with high levels. It all depends on a proportion of high-density and low density lipoprotein determined through a separate test. Ideally, LDL level should be relatively high (no less than 35 mg/dL, ideally – 65–70 mg/dL), and HDL level should be low (less than 130 mg/dL), while the total amount of serum cholesterol should not exceed 200 mg/dL.
Human body produces on average 1 gram of cholesterol per day. The largest amount (800 mg) is synthesized in the liver, 200 mg is produced by the rest of the cells, and 500 mg comes with food.
According to WHO, the recommended dose of cholesterol for healthy people should be no less than 300 mg per day, while people with high cholesterol levels and those suffering from cardio vascular diseases should consume less than 200 mg per day.
Study: Teens smoking more pot, less tobacco
Cigarette smoking is out but pot use is in among the nation's teenagers, who also report a higher use of prescription painkillers and a waning perception about the risk of illicit drugs, a federal study on students has found.
As more states move to approve medical marijuana, and pot legalization and decriminalization become more mainstream in the national discussion, teens seem more accepting of pot use, according to a study released Monday by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
The national survey, "Monitoring the Future," was conducted by the University of Michigan and queried 47,097 students in the eighth, 10th and 12th grades.
It found that one-fifth of seniors - 20.6 percent - reported using marijuana in the previous month, up from 18.3 percent in 2006. High school sophomores' pot smoking rose from 13.8 percent in 2008 to 15.9 percent this year, statistics that researchers said should capture the nation's attention.
"So far, we have not seen any dramatic rise in marijuana use, but the upward trending of the past two or three years stands in stark contrast to the steady decline that preceded it for nearly a decade," said Lloyd Johnston, who serves as principal investigator on the Michigan study, which has tracked teen drug use since 1975.
"Not only is use rising, but a key belief about the degree of risk associated with marijuana use has been in decline among young people even longer, and the degree to which teens disapprove of use of the drug has recently begun to decline," Mr. Johnston said. "Changes in these beliefs and attitudes are often very influential in driving changes in use."
Judy Kreamer, president of Educating Voices Inc., a nonprofit drug-education and drug-prevention organization in Naperville, Ill., called the survey results "very disturbing" but said they come as no surprise given the messages that advocates have sent youths in recent years.
Scientists crack gene code of common cancers
Two common forms of cancer have been genetically mapped for the first time, British scientists announced, in a major breakthrough in understanding the diseases.
The maps have exposed the DNA mutations that lead to skin and lung cancers, in a discovery scientists said could transform the way these diseases are diagnosed and treated in coming years.
All cancers are caused by damage to genes -- mutations in DNA -- that can be triggered by environmental factors such as tobacco smoke, harmful chemicals or ultraviolet radiation, and causes cells to grow out of control.
Scientists from Britain's Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and their collaborators have mapped this genetic damage from the tumours of two patients suffering from lung cancer and malignant melanoma, a deadly skin cancer.
"This is a fundamental moment in cancer research. From here on in we will think about cancers in a very different way," said Professor Mike Stratton who led the institute's cancer genome project.
"Today for the first time, in two individual cancers, a melanoma and a lung cancer, we have provided the complete list of abnormalities in DNA in each of those two cancers," he told the BBC.
"We now see uncovered all the forces that have generated that cancer and we now see all the genes that are responsible for driving those two cancers."
The scientists' research, published in the journal Nature, also gained deeper insights into the way the body tries to repair the damage caused by the cancers and stop the disease spreading.
Stratton said the research could in future change the way cancers are treated -- by using genetic maps to find the defects that caused them.
"Now that we have these comprehensive complete catalogues of mutations on individual cancers, we will be able to see how each cancer developed, what were the exposures, what were the environmental factors and that's going to be key for our understanding generally of how cancers develop," he said.
"And for our individual patients, we will see all the genes that are abnormal and are driving each cancer and that's really critical, because that will tell us which drugs are likely to have an effect on that particular cancer and which are not."
Peter Campbell, a cancer-genomics expert involved in the research, said the number of mutations discovered -- 33,345 for melanoma -- and 22,910 for lung cancer -- was remarkable.
"It is amazing what you can see in these genomes," he said on the website of the journal Nature.
The research shows most mutations could be traced to the effects of chemicals in tobacco smoke (in the lung tumour) or ultraviolet light (in the melanoma tumour), supporting the idea that they are largely preventable.
"Every pack of cigarettes is like a game of Russian roulette," he said.
"Most of those mutations will land where nothing happens in the genome and won't do major damage, but every once in a while they'll hit a cancer gene."
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
Fake sugar may alter how the body handles real sugar
Combining artificial sweeteners with the real thing boosts the stomach's secretion of a hormone that makes people feel full and helps control blood sugar, new research shows.
It's unknown whether this means anything for people's health, but "in light of the large number of individuals using artificial sweeteners on a daily basis, it appears essential to carefully investigate the associated effects on metabolism and weight," conclude Dr. Rebecca J. Brown and colleagues from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Because artificial sweeteners are virtually carbohydrate-free, they have been thought not to have any effect on how the body handles glucose (sugar), the researchers explain.
But there's some evidence that artificial sweeteners may trigger secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1). GLP-1 is released from the digestive tract when a person eats as a "fullness" signal to the brain, curbing appetite and calorie intake.
To investigate further, Brown's team had 22 healthy normal-weight young people take two glucose challenge tests. These tests, which measure how well the body metabolizes glucose, require a person to drink a sugar-filled beverage after fasting for several hours.
Ten minutes before consuming the "glucose load," study participants drank either roughly two-thirds of a diet soda containing an artificial sweetener or the same amount of carbonated water.
In both cases, the increase in a person's blood glucose was the same. But the researchers did find that people secreted significantly more GLP-1 when they drank diet soda before the glucose challenge compared to when they drank carbonated water.
Studies in humans and animals have shown that when artificial sweeteners are consumed without carbohydrates they do not trigger GLP-1 secretion. "However, our data demonstrate that artificial sweeteners synergize with glucose to enhance GLP-1 release in healthy volunteers," Brown and colleagues report.
What this all means to the average diet soda drinker is not known, but the fact that the effect occurred with less than a single can of diet soda suggests it "may be relevant in daily life," the researchers say.
Future research is needed to understand the significance of enhanced GLP-1 secretion for health, they conclude, and studies should be conducted in people with type 2 diabetes and other abnormalities in metabolism.
SOURCE: Diabetes Care, December 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)