medical student

Public option may be dropped from final health care bill

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:14:00 +0000

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina has said he could vote for a bill without the government insurance plan.

Washington (CNN) -- House Democrats are signaling that a final health care bill will drop the government-run public health insurance option favored by liberals but rejected by conservatives from both parties.

A House-Senate conference committee will begin negotiations next month on merging health care bills passed by the Democratic majorities in each chamber.

However, voting in both chambers was extremely close, raising concerns that a compromise might fail to win the necessary final approval.

One of the main differences between the two measures is the public option. The House bill contains the public option as a competitor to private insurers in a national heath insurance exchange open to people now unable to get coverage, but the Senate version lacks a public option.

President Obama, who has made health care reform his top domestic priority this year, has expressed general support for a public option but stops short of insisting on the provision.

Liberal Democrats in the House have said they want to keep the public option, but one of their leaders -- Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the chamber's third-ranking Democrat -- said Sunday that he could vote for a bill without the government insurance plan.

"We want a public option to do basically three things: create more choice for insurers, create more competition for insurance companies and to contain costs," Clyburn said on the CBS program "Face the Nation." "So if we can come up with a process by which these three things can be done, then I'm all for it. Whether or not we label it a public option or not is of no consequence."

The Senate health care bill required the support of all 60 members of the Democratic caucus to overcome a Republican filibuster. Such precarious support allowed individual moderates in the Democratic caucus to wield major influence on the bill, with at least two -- Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- saying they would oppose the measure if it contained the public option.

On Sunday, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, acknowledged the reality of the Senate politics. Asked on "Fox News Sunday" about the public option, Van Hollen said, "It's not dead, but we also recognize that the Senate was able to just muster the 60 votes."

The House could drop the public option if "there are other mechanisms in whatever bill comes out that will keep down premiums," Van Hollen said.

Supporters of a public option say it would provide nonprofit competition to private insurers that would bring down costs, but opponents contend that it is the first step toward a government takeover of the health care system.

In place of a public option, the Senate bill includes a provision allowing private insurers to offer nonprofit coverage overseen by a government agency.

Both the House and Senate bills would permit the creation of nonprofit private insurance cooperatives to increase competition.

Health care debate won't end with bill's passage, experts say

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:53:00 +0000

Debate over health care reform could continue long after President Obama signs a bill into law.

(CNN) -- Arguments over the massive overhaul of the health care system -- which congressional Democrats hope to pass by next month -- are expected to keep shaking up the country long after the vote.

Congress' plan could be the first legislation of its kind passed along strict partisan lines. In modern history, legislation of such scope -- including Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965 -- has had at least some support from the opposition.

"The bottom line is that, unlike other major legislation which has passed with more bipartisan support, health care is going to remain a political football, and people are going to have a sense that it is not fully settled yet for a while," said David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN who also worked in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton administrations.

"It's sign of the unhealthy quality of our politics that a bill this significant in our social history is passing with only one party in favor," he said.

Sarah Binder, an expert on Congress and legislative politics with the Brookings Institution, said that in the past two decades, Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly polarized.

"It just seems that the incentive to disagree seems to be growing," she said.

Because of the ideological polarization, the parties are growing further apart in policy terms, and thus reaching across the aisle is becoming a tougher task, Binder said.

The polarization, coupled with another development in recent history -- partisan team play -- has contributed to the heightened partisan rancor surrounding the health care debate, she said.

Partisan team play is more about keeping a party cohesive and opposed to the other party than it is about underlying policy, she added, comparing this session of Congress to the 103rd, the last time Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. There was a "whole slew of Democratic initiatives in '93-94 where Republicans said, 'We're not going to vote for these,' " Binder said.

Ilona Nickels, a congressional analyst and lecturer, said that with the current health care legislation, there was never much hope for bipartisanship, because the divide between the parties over the role and size of government intervention is "a pre-existing issue."

"Once you grow government to tackle any major societal problem, it is doubtful you would be able to bring any Republicans aboard," she said in an e-mail to CNN.

No Republicans supported the bill passed in the Senate, and the House version received just one Republican vote. Before a final bill can be sent to President Obama's desk, the two versions must be merged into one and voted on again.

Senior Democratic sources say that a traditional House-Senate conference committee is unlikely to meet to work out differences, because that would allow the GOP to slow the progress in the Senate. Democratic leaders from both chambers may instead circumvent the traditional process through informal, high-level talks, the sources said.

Most Americans disapprove of the current health care legislation, according to CNN's most recent polling.

"In addition to the polarization that already exists, there is deep polarization in the country about the bill itself on the merits," Gergen said. "There may be instances, but I can't think of them, when a major piece of domestic legislation has passed in the teeth of public disapproval."

Nickels, who spent several years as a congressional staff aide, pointed to the 1980s for an example of the risks of acting on legislation without public support.

Congress passed the Catastrophic Coverage Act in 1988. The legislation was intended to expand Medicare to protect seniors against catastrophic medical expenses. To pay for it, enrollees saw higher monthly premiums and a surtax. Senior citizens became livid when they fully understood its impact, Nickels said.

Democratic Rep. Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois championed the legislation, which was enacted with the help of the AARP. Nickels recalled that angry voters booed the congressman and pelted his car with eggs. The law was repealed in 1989.

"In the battle of the spin wars to come on the health care bill, no one should underestimate the public's reaction once the impact of the bill's provisions become clearer and, if enacted, actually felt," Nickels said.

Still, it's an important historical win for Obama if he signs the health care bill into law, Gergen said.

"What the White House hope would be is that over time, people would come to appreciate it. People will adjust and find that the benefits of the bill far outweigh the negatives and that it will be a major plus for his party over time. Right now it's not," he added.

Debate over the legislation will play a key role in the upcoming midterm elections, with Democrats pushing its benefits and Republicans slamming its costs.

"It's pretty clear at the moment that unless opinion swings in favor of the bill, as it may, then Republicans will run against the reform in 2010 elections and probably in 2012. And that will present the prospect that over time they can change it," Gergen said, noting that even some Democrats have said they intend to change the bill over time.

But in order for Republicans to make gains at the polls, it would take a "delicate balancing act" since those gains would likely come from independent voters, said Republican strategist Karen Hanretty. Independent voters are fiscally conservative and wary of the massive price tag attached to health care reform, but they also don't like partisanship, she noted.

Anticipating some conservative Democrats losing in this year's congressional elections, Nickels said she thinks the White House is knowingly sacrificing some members of its own party in exchange for what the administration believes will be a seminal accomplishment.

CNN's Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

Senate vote next step on what could be a long road for health care

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:41:00 +0000

The Senate is expected to hold a procedural vote Saturday night.

(CNN) -- If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has his way, his chamber will vote Saturday to proceed with debate on its version of the health care bill.

If he's successful, Senate Democrats can breathe a sigh of a relief momentarily -- but it's too early for them to celebrate. The road to final passage of health care legislation is still long and bumpy.

Reid needs 60 votes for the procedural vote this weekend, another 60 votes to close debate -- which could last for weeks -- but only 51 for final passage. Reid has said he hopes to vote on the final bill before the end of the year. President Obama's original deadline for Congress was last August.

The first hurdle appeared to be reached Saturday when Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said she will support bringing the Senate health care reform bill to the floor for debate, giving Democrats the 60 votes needed to prevent a Republican filibuster.

The House passed its version of health care reform two weeks ago, with 220 representatives voting in favor and 215 against. Thirty-nine Democrats opposed the plan and one Republican supported it.

But it's a tougher fight for Democrats in the Senate, where it is much easier for the GOP minority to stifle the will of the Democratic majority.

If the Senate does pass a bill, a congressional conference committee will need to merge the House and Senate proposals into a consensus version requiring final approval from each chamber before moving to Obama's desk to be signed into law.

Already, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have reached agreement on a broad range of changes that could affect every American's coverage.

Among other things, they have agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

They have also agreed to create health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage. Both the House plan and a plan approved by the Senate Finance Committee would limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Insurers would be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person's gender or medical history.

Medicaid, the government-run health care plan for the poor, would be expanded significantly under both proposals. The House bill would extend coverage to individuals earning up to 150 percent of the poverty line, or roughly $33,000 for a family of four; the Senate plan ensures coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of four.

Democratic leaders in both chambers agree on establishing nonprofit health care cooperatives and stripping insurance companies of an antitrust exemption that has been in place since the end of World War II.

What are the major differences?

For starters, the House bill is more expansive -- and hence expensive -- than the Senate bill. The House bill, projected to guarantee coverage for 96 percent of Americans, will cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The Senate bill, estimated to cover 94 percent of Americans, comes with an $848 billion price tag, according to the CBO.

One of the biggest divides between House and Senate Democrats is over how to pay for the plans. The House package is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and new spending constraints in Medicare and Medicaid.

Specifically, individuals with annual incomes over $500,000 -- as well as families earning more than $1 million -- would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.

The Senate measure also trims entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

The bill also includes a range of tax increases and new fees. The Medicare payroll tax on individuals earning $200,000 a year and couples earning $250,000 a year would increase by a half-percentage point, from the current 1.45 percent to 1.95 percent.

CNNMoney: Senate tax hike misses the mark

In addition, insurers providing costly health coverage -- known as "Cadillac" plans -- would face a 40 percent tax on premiums of greater than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. The Senate bill also includes a 5 percent tax on the cost of elective cosmetic surgery, as well as new fees for insurers and pharmaceutical manufacturers. The revenue from all the taxes and fees is projected to exceed $200 billion.

Proponents of the tax on high-end plans argue it's one of the most effective ways to curb medical inflation. A large number of House Democrats are adamantly opposed to taxing such policies, arguing that such a move would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for more generous benefits.

Another key sticking point: the dispute over a government-run public option. Both plans include a public option, but the Senate bill gives individual states until 2014 to decide whether they want to opt out.

Under both plans, individuals would be required to purchase coverage, but the House bill includes more stringent penalties for most of those who fail to comply. The Senate plan would require individuals to buy health insurance, with a fine for noncompliance of $95 in the first year that would escalate to $750 by 2016. Parents would be responsible for providing coverage for children up to age 18.

The House bill would impose a fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual's income.

Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Employers also face a much stricter mandate under the House legislation, which would require companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.

The Senate bill would require companies with more than 50 employees to pay a fee of up to $750 per worker if its employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

Abortion also promises to remain a major obstacle for both chambers.

The Senate plan would allow abortion coverage through privately funded premiums in both a government-run public insurance option and private plans purchased with the assistance of government subsidies.

The more conservative House of Representatives plan, in contrast, would bar abortion coverage under both the public option and private policies purchased with government subsidies. House Democratic leaders opposed the measure, but added it to win critical support from anti-abortion members. Both plans would allow for exceptions in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.

Health care rhetoric heats up before key vote

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:39:00 +0000

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, center, with Sens. Jack Reed, left, and Robert Menendez, works Friday for the weekend vote.

Washington (CNN) -- Traditional Senate decorum yielded to brass-knuckle politicking Friday in the health care debate as top Democrats sought to close party ranks before a key procedural vote this weekend.

Senate Democrats slammed their GOP colleagues as leaders of a counterproductive party of fear caught in an obstructionist mind-set dating back to the New Deal.

In turn, Republicans ripped Democrats for pushing a bill that conservatives say will force millions of Americans to drop insurance plans they like while jacking up premiums and doing nothing to slow spiraling medical costs.

The harsh rhetoric was backdrop for a rare Saturday night Senate vote on whether to proceed formally with floor debate on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's sweeping $848 billion health care bill.

The White House issued a statement Friday urging "quick action on this landmark bill.

"This legislation meets the president's criteria for health insurance reform: it provides stability and security to those with insurance; offers access to quality, affordable health care for those who do not have insurance; cuts costs for families, small businesses and the government; and does so without adding a dime to the deficit," the statement from the Executive Office of the President said, without mentioning the president by name.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, meanwhile, issued a strongly worded letter Friday to the Senate insisting that body adopt strict limitations on insurance coverage for abortions, as the House of Representatives did two weeks ago.

The bishops called on senators to keep in place "the long-standing and widely supported federal policy against government funding of elective abortions or plans that include elective abortions."

If Republicans stay unified in opposition to the bill, Reid will need the support of all 58 Senate Democrats along with independent Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to reach the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.

Two key Democratic moderates -- Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas -- have refused to indicate publicly if they'll back Reid. Each has expressed concern about the cost and scope of the legislation.

A third Democrat whose support had been in doubt -- Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- said Friday he will vote to start debate.

"Throughout my Senate career I have consistently rejected efforts to obstruct," Nelson said in a statement. "That's what [Saturday's] vote ... is all about."

Nelson said his decision should not be construed to mean he ultimately would vote to pass the bill.

"It is only to begin debate and an opportunity to make improvements," he said. "If you don't like a bill, why block your own opportunity to amend it?"

cnn

Senate Dems suggest they're open to altering health care bill

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:37:00 +0000

Senate Dems suggest they're open to altering health care bill

November 23, 2009 12:11 p.m. EST

Senate reform moves ahead

Washington (CNN) -- Amid conflicting and heated rhetoric, a political pragmatism began to emerge Sunday as senators prepared for a debate on a sweeping Democratic health care bill.

Senate Democrats barely won a vote Saturday night to open debate on the 2,074-page bill. The debate on amending the proposal is expected to last for weeks and won't begin until after Thanksgiving.

Some legislators got a head start Sunday, reciting well-honed arguments for and against the bill and offering perspectives on the political realities facing Congress.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chamber's second-ranking Democrat, acknowledged he was open to changing the bill's controversial government-run public health insurance option favored by the left.

"We are open because we want to pass the bill," Durbin told the NBC program "Meet the Press."

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-New Hampshire, summed up the situation to CNN's "State of the Union" program: "Listen, in the end, this is going to be a compromise. It's not going to be a perfect bill, but it's going to be a very important starting point."

Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, a Democrat appointed last year to fill the seat vacated when Ken Salazar became interior secretary, told CNN he would support the health care bill even if it meant losing his job in his first election for the seat next year.

Republican opponents continued attacking the bill, calling it an unnecessary takeover of the health care system that would harm, not help, the economy and the American people.

"We do not believe completely restructuring one-sixth of our economy is a good idea at any time," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, told CNN. "It is a particularly bad idea when we're looking at double-digit unemployment."

McConnell and other Republicans call for an incremental approach that they say would reduce the costs of health care without creating new bureaucracy and taxes.

"We think we ought to go step-by-step to improve the system," McConnell said. "The American people are not complaining about the quality of health care. They're complaining about the cost of health care."

Democrats respond that the Republicans are ignoring millions of Americans who can't get health insurance.

Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Democrat who was a Republican for most of his long career until changing parties this year, told "Fox News Sunday": "The one option which is not present in my judgment is the option of doing nothing."

"We have the opposition refusing to admit that there's any problem with health care, refusing to admit that there's any problem with global warming, refusing to take a stand on the economic crisis," Specter complained about his former party.

The 60-39 Senate vote Saturday to open debate revealed the partisan divide on the issue, and the fragility of the Democratic support. Democrats needed their entire caucus, including two independents, to muster the 60 votes required in the 100-member chamber to overcome a Republican filibuster. Share your thoughts on health care reform

Now several conservative and moderate Democrats say they won't support a final bill that includes a public insurance option. Republicans unanimously oppose the public option, which means it cannot survive in the chamber without unanimous Democratic support.

"I don't think anybody feels this bill will pass" in its current form, Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut told NBC's "Meet the Press." Lieberman voted to start debate on the bill, but reiterated Sunday he would join a Republican filibuster if the public option remains in the proposal when it comes time to end the debate.

The U.S constitution declares that the government should collect taxes for the welfare of the nation. If healthcare isn't that I don't know what is.
--colemorris, from Soundoff

He called the public option a "radical departure" from the government regulation and litigation traditionally used to deal with failed competition in the U.S. market economy.

Other risky issues for Democrats include abortion and tax increases to pay for health care reform. A comic moment occurred when Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York responded simultaneously when asked on the CBS program "Face the Nation" if the Senate bill would raise taxes, Kyl saying "yes" and Schumer saying "no."

The bill includes tax increases aimed at those earning more than $200,000 a year and insurers providing "Cadillac" health plans worth more than $8,500 a year for individuals or $23,000 for families. It also would set a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery.

In contrast, a separate health care bill that the House of Representatives narrowly passed this month includes an income tax surcharge on individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.

Republicans say any tax increase is bad in a struggling economy because it hinders growth and gets passed on to consumers. Democrats argue the bill's tax provisions don't hit the lower or middle class and will create incentives for private insurers to lower the cost of policies.

On abortion, the House bill has more restrictive language regarding the use of federal funding, and some Senate Democrats said Sunday they would resist adding it to their chamber's proposal.

"We shouldn't be using health care reform to rewrite long-standing policy from the federal government on abortion," Bennet said on CNN. "It's just not right. It's not the place we should be doing it."

If the Senate manages to pass a bill, a congressional conference committee will then need to merge the House and Senate proposals into a consensus version requiring final approval from each chamber before moving to President Obama's desk to be signed into law.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Senate health care bill would extend health coverage to 31 million additional Americans and reduce the federal deficit by about $130 billion over the next 10 years, through 2019. Any effect on the deficit in the following decade would be "subject to substantial uncertainty," but probably would result in "small reductions in federal budget deficits," the CBO report said.

Both the Senate and House bills would require individuals to buy health insurance, with penalties for non-compliance. Unlike the House version, the Senate bill does not mandate that all employers offer health care.

The two bills are virtually identical on a broad range of changes, including creating health insurance exchanges, expanding Medicaid, subsidizing insurance for low- and some middle-income families, and capping out-of-pocket medical expenses, while preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

cnn.com

RSNA 2009 Quality Counts

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:23:00 +0000

RSNA 2009 Quality Counts

November 29, 2009 - December 4, 2009 | McCormick Place - Chicago, IL

Founded in 1915, the Radiological Society of North America is a professional membership society committed to excellence in patient care through education and research. More than 40,000 medical imaging professionals are members of RSNA, including radiologists, radiation oncologists, medical physicists and allied scientists.

RSNA hosts the world's largest annual radiology meeting, publishes two highly respected peer-reviewed journals, offers opportunities to earn CME, and provides research and education grants to young investigators.

Annual Conference Homepage

Protests held over closing of UPMC branch

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:21:00 +0000

Dozens of people are protesting the decision to close a suburban Pittsburgh hospital.

The protesters held signs and distributed fliers Nov. 27 outside the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's headquarters downtown. UPMC plans to close a hospital in nearby Braddock on Jan. 31. UPMC reports the hospital lost $27 million in the past six years, and projects a $10 million annual loss if it remains open.

Opponents say UPMC is closing a vital community resource. The hospital is the borough's largest employer, with about 650 workers. UPMC spokesman Paul Wood says the health system invested $60 million in the Braddock facility but "was unable to create the success story it had hoped for."
modernhealthcare.com

30 ways to outsmart the flu By Francesca Castagnoli

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:40:00 +0000

As anxieties about H1N1 mounths, there are easy steps to keep your family safe from the flu this season.

(Parenting.com) -- In the new "super flu" era, who among us hasn't thought of bundling up our kiddos in hats, gloves, and surgical masks this winter? Better yet, how about plastic bubbles? (Remember that true story?)

Pediatricians' offices have been fielding calls and visits from worried moms since news of the novel flu strain -- originally called "swine flu" but now known officially as the H1N1 virus -- broke last spring and a global pandemic was declared. Yikes! How concerned should you really be?

"You should take H1N1 seriously because the flu is a serious thing, but it's not necessarily any worse than other flu strains," says Dr. David Goldberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at St. Joseph's Children's Hospital in Paterson, New Jersey. What you should watch for in your family: the usual flu symptoms of fever, cough, sore throat, congestion, body aches, headache, chills, and fatigue. In addition, a significant number of H1N1 sufferers have experienced vomiting and diarrhea.

The good news is that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been reporting from the onset of the outbreak that most H1N1 victims have experienced only mild symptoms, and at press time that continues to be the case.

But there's still a lot that's unknown, and that's the main reason people are freaking out. Scientists can't predict how the H1N1 virus will behave or what its potential for harm is. What they are sure of: the same illness-prevention strategies that you already know are the key to beating back the flu and other pesky winter bugs. Follow our easy stay-well prescription and watch your family thermometer collect dust in the medicine cabinet. Your most uneventful cold-and-flu season ever awaits!

CNN iReport: How are you battling H1N1 and seasonal flu?

Wake-up call

The immune system functions better with a healthy diet, notes Atlanta, Georgia, pediatrician Dr. Jennifer Shu, the coauthor of Food Fights, so kick off your family's day with a breakfast rich in protein and colorful fruits and vegetables. Think pepper-packed omelettes, broccoli or spinach quiche, pumpkin or zucchini breads.

Be sure to include some whole-grain carbohydrates to keep them pumped until the lunch bell rings. Start a healthy competition to see who can eat the most colorful foods over a week. Post a chart in your kitchen and have everyone fill in what they had daily. Got a kid who tolerates only one food group? Ask your doctor about giving him a multivitamin to make sure he's getting all the nutrients he needs, recommends Shu.

Parenting.com: 12 parenting rules you can break

Germ warfare

• Wipe down the handle of your shopping cart, the doorknobs of public bathrooms, even your kid's menu (just think how many tots have licked the photo of that ice cream sundae).

• Bring your own books, toys, or a portable video game to play with at the doctor's office. Yes, offices clean their toys, but the odds are huge that a sick kid had his hands on them not long before you arrived.

• Use your own pen at the doctor's office, pharmacy, and checkout counter (adults carry germs, too!).

• Spray down the bathroom with a household disinfectant such as Lysol or Clorox Clean-Up if a family member has been sick. Other germ magnets that could use a spritz: phones, remote controls, microwaves, and refrigerator door handles. You can also spray down toys at the end of the day -- once the disinfectant dries, it's no longer hazardous.

• Try not to hug soiled linens close to you to avoid spreading germs from dirty laundry to your body. Wash your hands afterward.

• Sanitize like crazy if you go to an indoor play space!

Avoid wardrobe malfunctions

From chilly bus stops to stuffy classrooms to hot gym classes: Most kids could use a series of costume changes throughout the day. Temperature fluctuations alone won't make him sick, but overheating can lead to dehydration, leaving him run-down and more vulnerable to a bug lurking in another kid's sneeze or on that shared math book. Layers that can be easily snapped on or zipped off with confidence will keep kids comfortable -- and looking cool.

Dish up vitamin D

Making sure your kid is getting enough vitamin D should be another one of your first lines of defense because it helps activate immune cells. Trouble is, most kids aren't these days because the main source of D is sunlight. Between slathering on sunblock in warm weather and spending a lot of time indoors during the winter, seven out of ten children in the U.S. have low levels of vitamin D, according to a study done by Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

Good food sources of vitamin D include fortified milk and juices, cheese, eggs, and salmon. Still, it's tough to get the recommended 400 international units (IU) daily. Unless your child is a big milk drinker -- to help you do the math, one cup of milk has about 100 IU of vitamin D -- you should talk to your pediatrician about a supplement; the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends one up until age 18.

Just for baby

Vitamin D is the one thing breast milk unfortunately doesn't have enough of, so if that's what your baby's drinking exclusively, ask your doctor for a 400-IU supplement. Infants who are consuming at least 32 ounces of formula daily are covered, but once solids are added to their diet, they're likely to need a supplement, too.

Parenting.com: Swine flu and pregnancy: What you need to know

Power up the probiotics

Sign us up! A recent study showed that kids who were given twice-daily probiotic supplements for six months experienced fewer fevers, coughs, and runny noses during the cold and flu season than children who were not. But what the heck are probiotics? Good germs that restore balance to the digestive system, thereby boosting immunity. You can find them in:

foods Stonyfield Farms and Dannon make yogurt and yogurt drinks with probiotics. Stir in a spoonful of honey (after age 1) -- it's also believed to trigger immune function. Whole grains and bananas contain prebiotics, a type of fiber that fosters the natural growth of probiotics.

supplements Ask your pediatrician about a supplement like Florastor Kids or Culturelle for Kids -- both can be mixed into juice or soft foods. Probiotic supplements may also be used to treat diarrhea when it's a side effect of antibiotics.

Parenting.com: How to accident-proof your kids

Wipe 'em clean

Kids put their fingers in everything from their friends' cupcake frosting to their own noses, and they may not always have the time -- or the inclination -- to wash their hands during the busy school day. Pack travel-size, alcohol-based hand sanitizer gel or wipes in your child's lunch box, backpack, and gym bag. And check the labels: Studies show that hand sanitizers should have a concentration of at least 60 percent alcohol or they won't work.

Nose blowing 101

It sounds easy enough, but many younger kids reflexively inhale instead of blowing out. Try these tricks:

solo-nostril blow Place your finger over a nostril. Dangle a tissue over the other and ask him to "push" his boogers out. When he blows correctly, he'll see the tissue flutter and understand that the air (and boogers) are coming out of his nose and making the tissue move.

oink it out Give your child a tissue and tell him to make a piggy face by scrunching his nose, then "oink" while blowing hard enough into the tissue that his tummy sucks in.

Wash, wash, and wash again

When To Do It You know the drill -- have your child wash her hands before meals, after using the bathroom, after coughing, sneezing, or nose picking, after touching animals (and cleaning up their waste), and after she's come in from outside. The trick is not to slack off. Ever.

How Long For at least 15 to 20 seconds, or long enough for your child to sing the alphabet or "Happy Birthday" twice.

What Temp Have your kid wash in water that's warm but not too hot. Heat isn't going to kill the bacteria or viruses anyway. Washing removes them, and if your kiddo is comfortable, she's more likely to do it.

Parenting.com: 14 things not to feel guilty about

How Much Soap Some, but not gobs (skip antibacterial soap -- it may promote resistance). Effective hand washing requires soap and friction, says Shu, so make sure she rubs her hands together vigorously.

Is It Contagious?

Cough As a general rule, if a child has an occasional cough but his energy is up, he's probably not still sick -- tickles and hacks can linger long after a cold has run its course. Dry coughs from allergies and asthma are also not contagious. But if a child has a persistent cough and is acting tired or irritable, he is more likely to be coming down with something.

Cough accompanied by a fever should be considered contagious. A barking cough may be croup or whooping cough, while a loud, loose cough from the chest may indicate bronchitis or pneumonia, all of which may be contagious and should be checked out by a doctor.

Parenting.com: 20 of the greatest mom tips, ever

Fever A child is sickest the day before a fever begins and for the first three days she is unwell (if it lasts that long). Once a child is under 101 degrees for 24 hours (without medication), she is much less contagious.

Flu A child is most contagious the day before she comes down with the flu, and she remains contagious until she is under 101 degrees for 24 hours (without medication). The fever can last from three to seven days.

Runny Nose A runny nose is indicative of a cold, which is most contagious for the first three days. Clear, green, yellow, and even rust-colored boogers are all created equal, and while thick, green ones can mean the cold is settling in, they are no more indicative of contagiousness than the clear kind. If the nose is still running after seven to ten days, it can be a sign of a sinus infection, which needs treatment but is not contagious.

Sore Throat A sore throat with other symptoms, especially fever, is possibly strep or something else contagious, so consult your doctor.

Stomach Bug Kids are most contagious the day before they begin to vomit or develop diarrhea (which is probably why the darn bugs spread at lightning speed) and remain contagious for the first three days (again, if it lasts) or until they have not vomited or had diarrhea for 24 hours.

Symptom Soothers

Hello, inevitable: Despite all your best efforts, your kid got sick. A quick checklist for keeping her comfy:

• Give her a pain reliever if she has a fever of 101 degrees or higher. Call your doctor to confirm the dosage.

• Fill her up with extra fluids Offer water, juice, ice pops, or Pedialyte.

• If she has chills, wrap her up so she feels warm but not bundled.

• Prop up her head to allow her nose to clear if she's stuffed up.

• Help her breathe easier by applying a menthol rub like Vicks VapoRub to her chest (for kids over 2).

• Serve her chicken soup. According to some studies, it can actually loosen congestion.

• Give her a shot of saline nasal spray if she'll tolerate it.

• Add nose-and-throat-soothing moisture to her room by turning on a humidifier or vaporizer.

• Run her a bath Cool water may help bring down a fever. If she's coughing or congested, run a hot shower to steam up the bathroom.

• Air out her room while she's taking her bath or shower so it feels fresh and clean for bedtime.

• Keep your cool -- even in the age of H1N1, your child will get better!

Once more into the breach

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:38:00 +0000

A man in Baghdad reads a newspaper bearing an image of Barack Obama. Photograph: Sabah Arar/AFP/Getty Images

There is little doubt that, if UN staff and ambassadors could vote, Barack Obama would have won by an even bigger landslide than he achieved. From his speeches they expect him to negotiate where possible, to build consensual international alliances. They may not get all that they want.
(Winning back hearts and minds, 6 November 2008)

After Obama's election I wrote here: "It may not be the second coming, but to use the eschatological phraseology of the Palins of this world, it is certainly the end of the reign of the Antichrist." I also recalled what I'd said during the campaign: "The world looked upon these elections as an IQ test for the American public. The electorate has aced the test. It has put centuries of racism behind it and elected a president who shows signs of knowing where the rest of the world is."

Frankly, while still far from euphoric, I feel vindicated. The coalition of not-so-covert racists, teabaggers, birthers and defenders of Medicare against the state should be a reminder to the purist Obama-detractors of the left just who could instead be staffing the US government now.

OK, Rush Limbaugh's "magic Negro" did not wave a wand and change everything immediately. But in many ways it is remarkable how much Obama has achieved in the face of financial crisis. And no one who saw how much money and support he got from Wall Street can be honestly be surprised at the shape of his response.

The current plans for healthcare reform leaves a lot to be desired, above all a public option. But it is happening, at least. One hopes that Obama is biding his time to come in and leash the Blue Dogs of Capitol Hill to get it through. But even then he has breached the wall of opposition, and another term and "once more into that breach" should bring in reform – if only because of the fiscal costs of not doing it.

Guantánamo is not closed, but it is closing, and with it the lawless domestic and international doctrines of the Bush-era justice department. US troops have been pulled from Iraqi cities, and we can be reasonably sure that if the Iraqi government asked them to leave the country, they would go. Yes there is talk of a build up in Afghanistan, but that is, after all, what Obama promised, even if he certainly should take a more active role in revising the tactics and strategy there. He has scrapped the son-of-Star Wars missile defence programme in Europe that was expensive, ineffective and needlessly provocative to the Russians.

The UN dues are paid up, and Obama has adopted a multilateral outlook. On the Middle East, he has quietly confronted Binyamin Netanyahu, held firm on Israel meeting its own promises on settlements and, relatively un-noticed, told Israel that it should do as Richard Goldstone says and hold an impartial inquiry into Gaza.

When he backslides, by all means let people shove. But let them remember how far up the slope he's pushed us in less than a year.

To read the rest of the Cif America series looking back on Obama's election victory, click here

The politics of quagmire

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:33:00 +0000

Barack Obama talks about healthcare at the White House. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty

Obama's message of bipartisan unity may have propelled him to the White House, but it also gave Pennsylvanians permission to deviate from the Democratic party line in the polling booth
(Obama's short coattails, 9 November 2008)

To me, last year's election was not a triumph of the Democratic "brand". Instead, Pennsylvanians voters' ticket-splitting was a victory of personality and policy over party. The mood of Americans over the past year have only underscored that impression.

Take the "missing" Barack Obama supporters. Having coasted to victory in part because of his widespread grassroots support, Obama was supposed to be able to unleash those supporters on issues at will. But his supporters are largely absent from the healthcare debate. Was his support superficial?

Hardly. The missing supporters happen to coincide with dropping approval ratings for congressional healthcare reform and growing pessimism about the country's political compass. For the first time under Obama, a majority of Americans think the country is "headed down the wrong track".

But it's not a conservative backlash to his policies. The underlying poll numbers show that Republicans are disliked more now than a year ago. At the same time, support for healthcare reform's government-run public health insurance option steadily grows, indicating that the darkening mood is coming from the left and centre, and in response to the too conservative approach to reform Congress and the president are taking.

Blame the US Senate. Due to a quirky procedural rule that requires 60 of 100 Senate votes to end debate on any bill or presidential appointment, power to pass laws resides in a small group of corporate-friendly, conservative Democrats. Obama's approach has been muted and focuses on consensus-building and compromise, a strategy suited to passing legislation through the Senate, but which has also resulted in a limping Frankenstein-monster healthcare bill loaded with taxpayer subsidies for private industry and containing a stripped-down and nearly impotent version of the public option. Hardly the stuff of "hope" and "change", or the "fierce urgency of now".

The danger here isn't that Obama supporters will vote in droves for Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. It's that they will stay home, disillusioned with the government's politics-as-usual, under-the-table game of footsie with corporate America. Obama can change that, but only by matching the boldness of his rhetoric with real reforms.

A good start would be to pressure the Senate into fixing its procedural logjam.

To read the rest of the Cif America series looking back on Obama's 2008 election victory, click here

A year on, has Barack Obama met the hopes of the world?

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:02:00 +0000

Barack Obama on stage in Grant Park, Chicago, on 4 November 2008. Photograph: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

Keith Richburg: On one year

Time is needed to clear the mess he inherited

Before he was elected president, Barack Obama, in The Audacity of Hope described himself as "a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. "I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them," he added.

Now just over nine months into office – with his struggle to get a health care bill, the regular nightly savaging by conservative talk show hosts, and escalating attacks from emboldened Republicans – Obama's prediction seems prophetic.

He came to office riding the impossibly high hope that he was a transcendent political figure, the rare leader who could overcome this country's deep divisions of race, party and ideology, to be a unifier and a healer after the divisive presidency of George W Bush. Now we are again back to our ideological trenches.

His critics on the far right – who never really bought into "Obamamania" but felt silenced by his popularity – are increasingly strident in their attacks. And his supporters on the far left, once breathlessly trading YouTube links of every Obama campaign speech, find themselves disillusioned that he was not the populist champion who would immediately bring American troops home and create universal health care.

"I'm a little perplexed," a 42-year-old songwriter named Karen Davis, an early Obama supporter, told me in Jersey City. "I knew he was a centrist. I knew he wouldn't try to ram through a bunch of populist, progressive ideas." But, she added: "This isn't what I voted for… I haven't passed over into disappointed. I'm a little frustrated."

The decline has been tracked in polling by the Washington Post and others. In January, two days before he took office, a Post poll found that 79% of Americans had a favourable view of Obama, and 71% said the election gave Obama a mandate for major social and economic change. The most recent Post poll, on 18 October, found his approval rating had dropped to 57%. Other polls put this lower; Gallup and NBC News at 51%, CNN at 55%. The Real Clear Politics "poll of polls" average puts Obama's approval rating at 51.6%.

What all the polls broadly agree on is this; Obama's drop in popularity from the heights of January can be attributed to the Republicans and professed independents moving away. Democrats still largely support the president, even if some on the left are growing frustrated. Republicans and independents – particularly those who describe themselves as "conservative" – have given up. So what happened?

The debate over the $787bn stimulus package and the bailout of the motor industry stoked fears that Obama was spending too much. Projections of soaring deficits have spooked fiscal conservatives. The August shouting match over health reform – with cries of "death panels" pulling the plug on ageing grannies and Republicans decrying a government "takeover" of health care – took its toll.

My view is that nine months is way too early to assess this presidency. Guantánamo Bay will be closed – just not yet. Troops will come home from Iraq, but not yet. Some form of a health care bill will pass, but its effects won't be felt for years. The economy should recover, and add jobs, in time.

Obama seems never likely to live up to the lofty expectations of his most ardent – and impatient – supporters, or to be as awful as some of his most strident critics say. Time is needed to clean up the mess he inherited. Yet no one these days is of a mind to wait and see. To use the phrase he repeated on the campaign trail, we live with "the fierce urgency of now".

Keith Richburg is New York bureau chief of the Washington Post

Overweight friends eat more when they dine together

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:45:00 +0000

By Amy Norton Amy Norton – Wed Aug 19, 1:57 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Overweight children and teenagers may eat more when they have a snack with an overweight friend rather than a thinner peer, a new study suggests.

In a study of 9- to 15-year-olds, researchers found that all kids, regardless of their weight, tended to eat more when they had the chance to snack with a friend than when they were with a peer they did not know.

But the biggest calorie intakes were seen when an overweight child snacked with an overweight friend.

The findings, reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, highlight the role of friends' influence in how much kids eat -- and, possibly, in their weight control.

It's not surprising that children eat more when they are with friends instead of strangers, according to lead researcher Dr. Sarah-Jean Salvy, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

The same pattern has been found in adults, Salvy told Reuters Health in an email. This, she explained, may be partly because people are more self-conscious around strangers, and partly because friends act as "permission-givers."

"They set the norm for what is appropriate to do, or in this case eat," Salvy said.

For the study, Salvy and her colleagues had 23 overweight and 42 normal-weight children and teens spend 45 minutes with either a friend or an unfamiliar peer. Each pair was given games, puzzles and books for entertainment, along with bowls of chips, cookies, carrots and grapes.

Overall, the researchers found, pairs of friends downed more calories than did unacquainted pairs. And overweight friends consumed the most -- 738 calories, on average, versus 444 calories when an overweight child was paired with normal-weight friend.

Normal-weight kids consumed an average of about 500 calories when paired with a friend, regardless of the friend's weight.

Salvy noted that a recent study of adults found that people were more likely to gain weight over three decades if their same-sex friends were overweight or obese -- suggesting a role for "social influence" in body weight.

When it comes to children and teens, it's known that many follow their friends' lead in deciding whether to smoke or drink. The current findings, Salvy said, suggest that kids' eating habits are also "largely determined by their social network."

The good side of that, according to Salvy, is that helping one child make healthy changes may end up influencing his or her friends as well. She said her research interest now is to see whether there is in fact such a "contagion effect" on friends' eating habits.

SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, August 2009.

Evidence for acupuncture in impotence is weak

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:37:00 +0000

By Joene Hendry Joene Hendry – Tue Aug 4, 2:53 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Men may not want to pin their hopes on acupuncture as a treatment for impotence, or erectile dysfunction, a new review of evidence suggests.

Acupuncture is an ancient Chinese method of stimulating specific body points through the insertion of specialized pins that sometimes carry faint electrical charges. Traditionally, acupuncture has been used to maintain and restore body functions.

Several studies had reported "acupuncture increases nitric oxide," which has been tied to the ability to maintain erections, Dr. Myeong Soo Lee, at Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine in Daejeon, told Reuters Health by email.

Yet to date, published studies that evaluated acupuncture as a treatment for erectile dysfunction provide "no convincing evidence" that acupuncture is beneficial for this condition, Lee and colleagues report in the journal BJU International.

After assessing 80 research studies, Lee's team found only 2 that were randomized controlled trials - that is, studies that compared a treatment group with group that did not receive treatment or underwent a sham treatment. This trial design is the gold standard for research studies. (The acupuncture treatment was applied all over the body, not on the penis itself.)

One of those two trials reported benefits, while the other did not, the authors note.

Lee's group also identified 2 trials, in a total of 45 men, that did not include a group of men that did not receive treatment or underwent a sham treatment.

Those trials both suggested some benefit from acupuncture among men with erectile dysfunction, but the investigators caution that the design leaves studies open to bias and often suggest false-positive results.

Taken together, these results fail to show whether acupuncture offers any benefit as a treatment for erectile dysfunction. "More rigorous trials are required," Lee said.

SOURCE: BJU International, August 2009.

Op-Ed: Fighting new flu strain will take collective vigilance

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:34:00 +0000

By Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, and Arne Duncan

Washington, DC — Every fall, we deal with new strains of seasonal flu. But this year, we'll also confront a potentially serious flu virus that first appeared last spring. While scientists won’t know exactly how strong the 2009 H1N1 flu will be until the middle of the flu season, they’re warning it could cause more illness as our kids return to school.

We don’t need to wait to act. In the fight against flu, preparation is more than half the battle — and we need everyone to chip in.

We in the federal government have been aggressively responding to the new H1N1 since April. We’re building on what we learned from the early spring season and from health officials in the southern hemisphere where flu seasons are already underway.

In addition to preparing the seasonal flu vaccine as usual, government scientists and vaccine manufacturers are working around the clock to produce a vaccine to protect people from the new H1N1 flu virus. And we’re making good progress on both fronts — the seasonal flu vaccine is ready for distribution and we’re on track to have an H1N1 vaccine by mid-October.

We’re also working closely with cities, states and across government agencies to make sure we have a rapid, coordinated response this fall. In the last few months, we’ve sent more than $350 million in federal grants to states, tribes, territories and hospitals to help them strengthen their flu response.

In early July, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Education held a flu summit for governors and public health officials. Just this week, we hosted another summit for mayors and county officials and webcast it on flu.gov — which has become the best place to find up-to-date information about flu.

Our agencies are working with the Department of Agriculture to make sure children will have access to healthy meals if their schools close, and with Departments of Commerce and Labor to reach people at work. The Obama Administration has briefed members of Congress at a special bi-cameral, bi-partisan session. And HHS has worked with Members — Republicans and Democrats — on “prevent the flu” public service announcements to air in August when they’re home.

But federal government efforts won’t be enough. The lines of defense against the flu need to reach into every living room and kitchen.

This new H1N1 is not the flu we’re used to. It was just getting started when our flu season should have been ending. While anyone can get sick, the pattern of infection is unusual. It hasn’t yet affected many seniors, but it spreads rapidly among otherwise healthy kids up to college age. Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continue to observe higher levels of flu-like illness than normal for this time of year.

But there’s one way in which the 2009 H1N1 flu isn’t different: it can still send you to the hospital with fever, cough, sore throat, headache, chills and fatigue, and sometimes, diarrhea and vomiting. For the worst cases, it’s still deadly. And it’s especially dangerous for people with chronic illnesses such as asthma, heart disease, or diabetes, and women who are pregnant.

Until a vaccine arrives in October, prevention is our best defense. That means we all need to make sure we wash our hands frequently with soap and water, cough or sneeze into a tissue, and stay home from work or school if we’re sick.

It also means planning ahead. Parents should talk to their employers and make child care arrangements in case their kids get sick. And if a school closes, learning shouldn’t stop. Schools need to create opportunities to learn online and work with parents to find ways for students to bring textbooks and other resources home.

If you’re an employer, you should plan to get by with a reduced staff. You don’t want an employee who’s ill to spread flu in the workplace. If you’re a medical provider, you should plan to handle more calls and patient visits. An outbreak will bring people who have flu and people who have flu-related symptoms or concerns into your office.

To help people get ready for flu season, we’ve created a “one-stop” website — www.flu.gov. You’ll find tips to prevent, and respond to an outbreak and checklists and fact sheets that will help families, businesses and others get prepared.

We got a head start on the flu season by beginning our preparations this spring. But the next few months will have the biggest impact on how the upcoming flu season plays out. Widespread, determined, and sustained efforts are needed to prevent the spread of flu and reduce the harm it causes. Let’s get to work.

Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano and Arne Duncan serve in President Barack Obama's Cabinet and head the departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Education respectively.

HPV Vaccine: Study Suggests Gardasil Is Safe

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:31:00 +0000

By ALICE PARK Alice Park – Thu Aug 20, 4:15 am ET

Generally the fact that a vaccine appears to be as safe as the manufacturer had promised shouldn't be news. It should be a given. But when it comes to the controversial vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV), even the most straightforward data come with an asterisk.

The vaccine, called Gardasil and manufactured by Merck, is one of the first immunizations to protect against a cancer - in this case, cervical cancer, which is most commonly caused by infection with HPV. Because the virus is sexually transmitted, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended in 2006 that girls get the vaccine at ages 11 and 12, before they become sexually active, so they have the best chance of avoiding the cancer and genital warts caused by HPV. States joined in, attempting to mandate HPV vaccination for school entry, but parents balked, in part because of concerns about encouraging promiscuity. It didn't help that girls were prone to fainting after getting the shot or that more than two dozen girls died shortly after getting immunized. (Read "HPV Test Screens Best for Cervical Cancer.")

To address those concerns, researchers at the CDC and the FDA, which keep track of adverse events related to vaccines once they are approved, now report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that the rate of adverse events associated with the 23 million doses of Gardasil administered since 2006 is similar to the prelicensing rate among the 21,000 girls and young women who tested it in clinical trials and to that of other vaccines.

That should be reassuring. But the study did find that users of Gardasil faint and develop blood clots more often than those receiving other shots. The clots are extremely rare, though. In about 90% of these cases, the girls may have been more vulnerable to developing clots because they smoked or were overweight or on birth control pills. "Was it that this age group also tends to have these risk factors or did the vaccine have some sort of role?" asks the CDC's Dr. Barbara Slade, lead author of the paper. "We really don't know." (See more about HPV.)

It's that uncertainty that is beginning to bother many physicians about the HPV vaccine. According to Dr. Charlotte Haug, editor in chief of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association and author of an editorial that JAMA published alongside Slade's paper, cervical cancer can be effectively picked up with Pap smears, a routine part of regular gynecological exams, and it's not clear that adding Gardasil to those screenings would significantly reduce a woman's chance of developing the disease.

Meanwhile, public health experts at Columbia University have a new study that shines a light on the marketing of Gardasil. They say Merck may be indirectly influencing doctors to use the vaccine by providing grants to professional medical organizations which then train and pay physicians to speak about the benefits of HPV vaccination. Merck denies the allegations. "The material developed by these societies is done independent of Merck and without any influence or review from Merck," says Dr. Richard Haupt, who heads the company's HPV-vaccine program. (Read "Selling Gardasil at the Movies.")

As GlaxoSmithKline prepares to launch its own HPV vaccine in the U.S. and states continue to debate mandated immunizations, some doctors are taking a wait-and-see approach. "It's too early to begin to make decisions about mandates," says Dr. Joseph Bocchini, who chairs the American Academy of Pediatrics committee on infectious diseases. "We need more time to educate families and physicians and to get more data on the duration of immunity and safety." That's something many parents will agree with.

When Cancer Changes Your Appearance

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:24:00 +0000

By Brian Nelson

I have survived over 40 years of ill health. Even so I have learned to live a life of chronic patienthood where I am not dominated by illness. I have managed to focus on goals that have nothing to do with illness. Living life for me is learning to surf above the uneven terrain of my health.

Brian Nelson with his wife Diane before cancer changed his appearance.

Today, Mr. Nelson copes with extensive swelling in his face — a side effect of head and neck cancer treatment.

My health history is so involved I have created a Google document to keep track of it. I’ve had three kidney transplants, a pancreas transplant, 27 years of Type 1 diabetes, and four-plus years of metastasizing cancer. I’ve broken my leg, elbow, wrist, both feet, hands, skull and ribs (yes, I might be accident prone from time to time). Plus, I’ve coped with all the secondary illnesses that waltz along with these problems, including osteoporosis, gastroparesis, cataracts, gallbladder failure, impacted bowel and chronic bleeding.

Today, my most obvious issue, a side effect of treatment for head and neck cancer, is chronic facial swelling, also known as moon face. The removal of several lymph nodes from my neck and subsequent radiation treatments have rendered my lymphatic system unable to drain fluids from my head. I get up each morning and remind myself that I’m going to be swollen, tired and nauseous. So if I get something done, like epoxy the hatches of the kayak I’m building, it’s a great day. Or if I get through all my (liquid) food, it’s a great day. Or if one of our cats comes up to say hello, rubs itself on my leg and settles down for a nap near me … yep: great day!

The changes in my appearance as a result of my cancer treatment can be difficult for other people to understand. Last week, the cable service technician arrived at our door. He wasn’t the most charming of people. When Diane, my wife, opened the front door, he barked: “You don’t have dogs?” She reassured him we didn’t and he entered, only to be confronted by me, a stooped, swollen-headed man who breathed through a hole in his neck and was dressed like a samurai on holiday.

To further his unease, I started talking to him – apologizing for my terrible diction and unintelligible voice (an unfortunate and unintended result of my cancer). When he responded, “Why doesn’t she interpret?” I naturally started to don my “kill the technician” armor, preparing for a loud but unintelligible assault on the jerk.

Diane realized that I was about to sink our chances of ever again receiving the BBC America channel and hastily cautioned me that “now wasn’t the time.” I disagreed, and by head nods and hand gestures we commenced to argue.

Luckily I lost the argument. Diane talked with the tech, listening to his fear of contagion and fear of my spitting on him, and correcting him about my medical condition and my ability to spit. The contrite tech then confessed that two of his close relatives had died from cancer and apologized to both of us. I accepted his apology instead of lopping off his head, and he redoubled his efforts at perfecting our service, going above and beyond.

How does one deal with someone whose appearance has changed from the dashingly handsome (O.K., I’m taking some poetic license) to totally disfigured and, one might say, grotesque? We’ve been trained by movies and TV to worship perfection. After all, the bad guy is always either bald, short, limps, is missing an eye, scarred or has some other abnormality to distinguish him from us, the perfect audience. My close friend recently told me he was “shocked, I tell you, shocked,” by my appearance when he saw me again after six months. I’m shocked sometimes too.

It’s as much a learning curve for me as for others. I am not sure how people will take me: whether I will make them uncomfortable, whether they will be able to overlook the changes and look for the person who still inhabits this misshapen head. I have to talk myself into going out now. A little pep talk reassures me that, whatever others may think, I must not quit trying. My difficult speech has similarly influenced my choices – I tend not to answer the phone and am now a listener in group settings, only lobbing in a few bon mots every so often, and then re-lobbing them until people understand. My timing is truly unique. To combat the verbal steamrollering of members of my family, I raise my hand before speaking. Quite humiliating, sort of, but very effective.

What do I want people to do? I want everyone to feel comfortable around my appearance. Don’t worry that you have to address my illness in a compassionate way, or at all. Just say what you want when you want. I’ll let you know if you offend, or if I need something. What I enjoy most is watching others enjoy themselves.

My friend Steve said to me, “Well, you’ve got that portly Asian look down now.” That was nice, funny and quite off the cuff. It made me feel that I could relax and not worry that the conversation was going to slide into the Grand Canyon of medical awkwardness.

My neighbor’s 3-year-old daughter treats me just like everyone else, someone to flirt with! So if you see a slightly hobbled, melon-headed man wearing a hat, walking toward you with a stick, just say, “Hi, it’s a great day, isn’t it?” And I’ll say, “Yep, it’s a great day,” and feel it too.

Brian Nelson, 50, is a former actor, insurance salesman, theater director and computer consultant and says he only wears kilts at weddings. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife Diane and four cats, Whitman, Yeats, Poe and Emily. He recently began blogging about his life and health at http://briananelson.blogspot.com/

Biden to announce almost $1.2B for medical records

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:21:00 +0000

Biden to announce Thursday nearly $1.2 billion to promote electronic medical records system

By Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Joe Biden plans to announce Thursday nearly $1.2 billion in grants to help hospitals transition to electronic medical records.

Biden and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius were set to detail in Chicago how that piece of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan would help Americans when they go to the hospital or their doctors. It also is a what's-in-it-for-me way for the White House to illustrate how it is spending parts of the massive amount of taxpayer dollars.

"With electronic health records, we are making health care safer, we're making it more efficient, we're making you healthier and we're saving money along the way," Biden said in remarks provided to The Associated Press ahead of delivery. "These are four necessities we need for health care in the 21st century."

Meanwhile, a top aide at the Health and Human Services Department planned to send people who signed up to receive health care communications from the administration an e-mail heralding medical information technology as a way to improve care. Jeanne Lambrew, the director of HHS' Office of Health Reform, sought to explain the spending program to anyone who has had to fill out the same form at doctor's offices over and over again.

"All that paperwork is more than just annoying. It wastes time, prevents quick and accurate diagnoses and makes our health care system less efficient," she wrote. "And it simply doesn't make sense in today's digital age."

HHS also launched an online video touting Sebelius' trip to Omaha, Neb., earlier this year to look at how one facility was using electronic records.

"Electronic health records can help reduce medical errors, make health care more efficient and improve the quality of medical care for all Americans," Sebelius said in her remarks prepared for Chicago. "These grants will help ensure more doctors and hospitals have the tools they need to use this critical technology."

Of the money set aside, $589 million would establish centers to help hospitals and clinics with technical aspects of choosing systems for electronic health records. Another $564 million would be set aside to help hospitals share patients' information with each other.

The grants are not be available until Oct. 1, when the new federal fiscal year begins.

Sebelius, whose father was governor of Ohio, plans to visit Ohio State University Medical Center on Friday to discuss electronic medical records there.

Office of Health Reform: http://www.healthreform.gov/

new!! Obama makes moral case for health reform

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:15:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama said, as the world's richest nation, had a moral duty to offer health care to everyone, in a fresh bid to bolster support for his top domestic priority.

Obama addressed an estimated 140,000 people on a call sponsored by 30 progressive religious denominations as the White House tried to still disquiet among liberals, and opposition among Republicans, to his health reform plan.

"The one thing you all share, is a moral conviction, you know, that this debate over health care goes to the heart of who we are as a people," said Obama on the call also including his domestic policy director Melody Barnes.

"I believe that nobody in America should be denied basic health care because he or she lacks health insurance," Obama said, after calling into a webcast including clergy and believers of Evangelical, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish orders.

"No one in America should be pushed to the edge of financial ruin because an insurance company denies them coverage," Obama said.

Obama hit out at what he branded "fabrications" whipped up by opponents of his policy, including claims that it would expand abortions, give health care to illegal immigrants and ration end-of-life care.

"These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation.

"That is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother's keeper and I am my sister's keeper," Obama said, using a phrase drawn from the Bible.

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele dismissed Obama's call as a gimmick, saying it was evidence the White House was running scared.

"President Obama is frantically struggling to shore up his base," Steele said.

"The religious left talks about their desire for ?social justice.? No bill that funds abortion or strips health care services away from seniors and low-income Americans can or should be considered just," he said.

The White House earlier denied it had given up wooing Republican support for Obama's plan, following reports Democrats may go it alone.

"The president has said countless times he will work with anybody in any party that wants to work constructively on health care reform," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Expectations that the Democrats would fall back on their majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass the bill were fanned by several media reports late on Tuesday and early Wednesday.

The New York Times quoted White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as saying the Republican leadership had made a strategic decision to defeat health care reform, Obama's signature domestic initiative.

But Gibbs said Obama was committed to engaging with Republicans in pursuit of a bipartisan measure.

"There are still several more weeks to go in potential negotiations between Republicans and Democrats. I don't know why we would short-circuit any of that."

Obama would like to win some Republican support for his bid to cut health care costs, expand access and rein in insurance giants, in line with his vow to drain the partisan bile from Washington.

Some polls suggest that most Americans would like a bipartisan solution.

Republican votes may also give vulnerable lawmakers from conservative Democratic districts some cover to vote for the measure, or leeway to oppose it without endangering its chances of passing Congress.

Gibbs said he believed there were some Republicans still working in a "constructive" way to promote health care reform during the August congressional recess.

"We will get in a rocket and fly around the moon if that is what it takes to get everybody together and get an agreement," Gibbs said.

After spending last week repulsing Republican attacks on the health care reform drive, Obama is now facing a liberal backlash, following reports, denied by the White House, that he is prepared to drop a plan for a government-run entity or "public option" to compete with private insurance plans.

In a sign of an intensifying sales job, Obama has lined up a live online and telephone meeting with Organizing for America, the network of millions of grass roots supporters which emerged from his 2008 campaign infrastructure.

The White House said that the president would appear live to take listeners calls on the radio show of conservative commentator Michael Smerconish on Thursday.

MESOTHELIOMA INFORMATION

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:05:00 +0000

MESOTHELIOMA INFORMATION
Mesothelioma in itself is one of the deadliest diseases ever to have been discovered by mankind. Medically, Mesothelioma as a word itself means a tumor that is more likely to transform in a fast proliferating cancer which affects the mesothelial cells of an organ, which form the protective thin covering over the organs like heart, lungs and abdomen.
Whatever is the verbal definition given out to this deadly disease, but those can never for sure weigh the deadliness of this fatal disease. It is an absolutely fatal disease which has taken many a people into its deadly grip. The maximum period of survival after the disease has been diagnosed, has come to the most of a year or two. It is worse form of cancer which is not curable. However, recent studies have suggested that if the disease can be diagnosed at a very early stage then the life of the individual who gets affected by this deadly disease, can be stretched till at the most of 5 years. The treatment of this disease is very expensive but the treatment doesn’t assure life but a few more days, to procure the huge lump-sum required for the treatment, people also file lawsuits to cover the huge incurring expenses for the treatment.
The main cause of mesothelioma has been detected as to the prolonged exposure to asbestos. Most of the patients that have been diagnosed with the disease, had acquired the disease cause of prolonged exposure to asbestos. The statistics of the mesothelioma patients has revealed the connection between the asbestos and the dangerous cancer syndrome.
And usually this disease is found to affect people and workers who work in industries. Usually, industries use asbestos as an imperative input for carrying on different processes; it is being used in factories, automobile, shipyard and construction. Direct exposure to loose asbestos fibers can develop the symptoms of mesothelioma, but the infected cells can remain dormant in the body for a long period of about 15-20 years.
But the worst par of the disease is the fact that this disease generally gets detected in older days i.e. at the age of 50-60 years and also mostly in the last stage. Thereby, reducing the chances of the individual’s recovery. So this is very necessary that people who are likely to take in much asbestos particles should be scanned regularly for any symptoms of mesothelioma.
Government policies have empowered the mesothelioma patients to claim for compensation. They can file lawsuits with the help of their attorneys for claiming such compensation. The mesothelioma victims can sue the company in which he had been employed into, for not being socially rational, but being more inclined towards the flowing profits, and not undertaking any steps to slacken the use of asbestos or using in a more protective way which has resulted in endangering the lives of the employees.

Weight Loss Resources For Us, Overweight

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:14:00 +0000

If you are undecided about where or how to get a good liposuction surgeon, you can patronize several sources such as the internet or get a referral. Your personal doctor can give you a referral to an excellent liposuction surgeon. You can also get a tangible idea about how to get a good plastic surgeon from your general practitioner.

Liposuction has done a lot of favors for sexually repressed people. There has been an indication that people who formerly avoided sex because of the poor impression they had about their bodies now enjoy sex because of the increase in their self esteem thanks to liposuction. You can improve your relationship with your partner, sexually speaking, by having a liposuction done on the less flattering areas of your body.

The cost of liposuction includes both consultation before the surgery as well as the surgery itself. Consultation fees for liposuction may be a couple of hundred dollars plus a couple of more hundred dollars after taking certain pre operative measures. If you decide to employ the services of a reputable liposuction professional you should be sure that you can handle the cost.

Liposuction is a form of surgery that is not limited to the theatre. It can be done in a doctor’s office or an out patient centre if it is not a complicated one. This type of liposuction is generally not expensive.

The incisions made in the course of liposuction cause scaring. The effect depends on the degree of fat removed from the body. The number of incisions of the body determines the severity of the surgery. Scarring is not permanent. It fades after some weeks or months.

Liposuction is a type of cosmetic surgery that can be carried out on the back. The back accumulates so much fat that the body gets disfigured. Fat can be stored in different parts of the back. It could be the region below the breast.

Liposuction involves the breaking up and drainage of fat cells from the body and it is not possible to do so without the body fluid. Sometimes this fluid is excessively drained leading to dehydration. It could also lead to death in severe cases.

The cost for a liposuction procedure will be hinged on how much liposuction you want performed on your body. The cost of liposuction may also be dictated by the doctor who performs it or the location of the practice.
source

lose weight effectively

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:10:00 +0000

We all want to lose weight for different reasons: a wedding, party, beach trip or just to be healthy. Whatever our motivation, trying to lose weight quickly is always tempting. Why only lose a healthy 1-2 pounds per week when you can work harder and lose double or even triple that? The answer is because if you try and lose weight at a very rapid pace, you will increase your risk of adverse health effects and make it more likely that you will gain the weight back and have to go through another diet at a later date.
1.
Step 1

Losing weight requires you to diet as well as exercise. Both of these, if taken to an extreme can cause harm to your body. To diet, you need to cut your calories. This can actually be a healthy step since the foods you should ditch are the ones filled with empty calories. By removing these foods and adding healthy, low calories ones, you will actually improve your health while you lose weight.
2.
Step 2

If you drastically cut calories to speed up weight loss, you risk not being able to get all the vitamins and minerals you need each day. For your body to properly function, you need a certain amount of nutrients. When you cut your calories below 1,200, it makes it very difficult to get them all. Also, when you cut your calories below 1,200, your body will think it is going into a period of starvation. It will begin to slow certain metabolic processes down to conserve energy. When this happens, your weight loss may slow or stop all together.
3.
Step 3

Exercise is the other part of the weight loss equation. To burn more calories, you need to increase your exercise level. Some take this to an extreme and try to workout hard six or even seven days per week to lose extra weight. Sometimes too much of a healthy thing can be bad. With too much exercise, you will start to feel fatigued, lethargic and even start getting injured. Marginally increasing your exercise level is usually preferred over drastically cutting your calories. If you are already eating around 1,500 calories and aren't losing up to two pounds per week, try working out more instead of eat even less.
4.
Step 4

Losing weight quicker than the recommended rate (1-2 pounds per week) will also increase the chance that the weight will come back once you end your diet and exercise. Losing more than two pounds per week requires huge changes to your daily life including big cuts in calories and huge increases in activity levels. Because the changes are so different than what you're used to, once you reach your weight loss goal, you are much more likely to start eating junk food and being sedentary because of how you've been depriving yourself over the last few weeks and months.
5.
Step 5

Think of a diet in which you reduce your calorie intake by 500-1000 per day. Now think of what it must be like to cut 1,500 calories out of each day. The change to your lifestyle will be unbearable and the first chance you get to ease up on your diet, you will, and you will do it in a way that will cause you to gain even more weight than you started off with. Losing weight slowly allows you to better adjust to the changes in your life and makes it less likely you'll revert to your old ways.
6.
Step 6

While it is possible to lose more than 1-2 pounds per week, doing so can put your health at risk. Is losing a few more pounds worth any long term effects to your body? Take the extra few weeks and lose the weight in a healthy way. You'll thank yourself later.

if you're interested in ...try this weight loss program
source

Healthy Diet For Your Eyesight

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Wed, 20 May 2009 21:21:00 +0000

By Joy Bauer, M.S., R.D., C.D.N. - Posted on Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 4:07 pm PDT

More than 13 million people in the U.S. suffer from macular degeneration, and about half of all Americans over the age of 80 have cataracts. From a nutritional standpoint, a large-scale research project conducted by the National Eye Institute has shown that there are several nutrients that help protect our eyes.

The most important foods for preventing macular degeneration are ones that are rich in the antioxidants beta carotene, vitamin C, vitamin E, lutein and zeaxanthin, plus zinc and omega-3 fats. Here's a rundown of my top ten picks:

1. Carrots
Mom was right! Carrots are loaded with beta carotene, an antioxidant that helps reduce the risk of macular degeneration and cataracts.

2, 3, 4. Bell Peppers, Broccoli & Brussels Sprouts
These three Bs provide a blast of Vitamin C, another key antioxidant shown to specifically protect the eyes. Steam them, roast them, add to soups and omelets, or combine all three for a pasta primavera (lightly tossed in olive oil and garlic).

5. Ostrich
A healthy and delicious lean substitute for any red or white meat (including beef, chicken, turkey, pork, or lamb) in any of your favorite recipes. It absorbs your favorite seasonings and is loaded with protein, iron and zinc -- one of the critical ingredients for maintaining healthy eyes.

6. Turkey
Turkey is also rich in zinc (plus the B-vitamin niacin, which specifically protects against cataracts). Turkey is a great sandwich stuffer, it's delicious in a salad, and you can easily use lean ground turkey for burgers, chili, and tacos.

7. Sweet Potatoes
Beta carotene to the rescue once again -- thanks to the bright, orange flesh in these sweet special spuds.

8. Spinach
Spinach provides four eye -protecting ingredients! It comes packaged with vitamin C, beta carotene and large amounts of lutein and zeaxanthin -- a matched pair of antioxidants found in high concentrations in the tissue of the macula.

9 and 10. Wild Salmon & Sardines
Yes, omega-3 fats EVEN help your eyes. Studies have shown that regularly eating foods rich in omega-3 fats can help protect tiny blood vessels buried within the eyes. Wild salmon and sardines are among your best sources -- aim for two to three 4-ounce portions each week.

source

for more click here

The Most Shocking "Healthy" Foods! (And What You Should Eat Instead!)

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:40:00 +0000

By David Zinczenko, with Matt Goulding - Posted on Tue, May 19, 2009, 2:54 pm PDT

You know that annoying person in your office or neighborhood who knows how to push your buttons? Well, a lot of food marketers are in the button-pushing game, as well: They’re using buzzwords to tempt you to eat what you shouldn’t. If they can make your belly override your brain, their profit margins might double (often along with the chins).

We’re talking about “reduced fat” products that probably do have less fat--but also piles of sugar and salt to compensate for the lack of flavor--and “all-natural” products that really do come from nature, along with scoopfuls of chemical additives like something straight out of Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory.

And the most deceptive, dangerous word of all? “Healthy.” Because there is really no way to define it, the FDA has no way to regulate it. And just about anything can be “healthy”—or unhealthy—depending on how much you stuff into your mouth. The latest book in our bestselling series—Eat This, Not That! The Best (and Worst!) Foods in America!—rips the confusing labels off the foods you eat, and exposes the ugly truth behind some of the food industry’s most dangerous health claims. This exclusive excerpt will give you a taste of five of the most dangerous “healthy” restaurant foods, plus better ways to make your meal.

WORST 'HEALTHY' SOUP
P.F. Chang’s Chicken Noodle Soup
759 calories
24 g fat (4 g saturated)
4,135 mg sodium
92 g carbs

It’s the best part about getting sick: The promise of chicken noodle soup to come. Studies have shown it works, too, but no study could have planned on the torrent of sodium that swirls around among Chang’s noodles. Experts recommend capping your daily sodium intake at 1400 milligrams, ideally, and no more than 2,400 mg. Any more than that can put you at an increased risk for heart disease, not to mention swell you up via water retention. Unfortunately all Chang’s soups suffer a similar fate. Your only choice is to swap out your bowl for a smaller cup.

Eat This Instead!
P.F. Chang's Egg Drop Soup (cup)
61 calories
2 g fat (0 g fat)
1,122 mg sodium

WORST VEGGIE SANDWICH
Blimpie Special Vegetarian 12”
1,186 calories
60 g fat (19 g saturated, 0 g trans)
3,532 mg sodium
131 g carbs

Just because a meal is vegetarian doesn’t mean it’s good for you. Blimpie's off-menu sandwich (you have to “special” request it) proves the point. It contains diced vegetables resting on a bed of crumbled cornchips and held together with a wad of melted American cheese. Then the whole mess is covered in a sugar-loaded chutney. Hey, a hippo is a “special vegetarian,” too. But you wouldn’t want to see one in a bikini. (Want more? Check out this list of the worst vegetarian meals in America.)

Eat This Instead!
Mediterranean Ciabatta
447 calories
8 g fat (2 g saturated)
1,635 mg sodium

WORST CHICKEN SALAD
T.G.I. Friday's Pecan Crusted Chicken Salad
1360 calories
Fat: Unknown (The company refuses to disclose the nutritional content of the food they’re serving you.)
Sodium: Unknown (but likely through the roof)

Friday’s monster salads are just as massive—and wreak just as much waistline havoc—as their burgers. Six out of the seven salads we analyzed topped out with more than 900 calories, which means that lunchtime can be the start of something big: your belly. Thanks in large part to the crusted chicken and the heavy-duty dressing, this one salad packs more calories than a half-dozen Krispy Kreme Original Glazed Doughnuts. Aren’t salads supposed to be “diet” foods? Click here to see more examples of belt-busting leafy greens.

Eat This, Instead!
House Salad with Bacon
280 calories

WORST WRAP
Applebee’s Chicken Fajita Rollup
1,450 calories

For some curious reason, wraps have come to be viewed as a healthy upgrade from sandwiches, as if those massive tortillas can be filled with nothing but anti-calories. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. The problem with wraps is that they function as holding tanks for fluids, so hurried fry-cooks can squirt in as much sauce as they want without making it look messy. With Applebee’s rollup, the offending sauce is a “Mexi-ranch” sauce, which looks suspiciously more like ranch than anything eaten in Mexico. But here’s the final insult: This “healthy” meal is served with fries. Eat them and you tack on an 400 extra calories.

Eat This Instead!
Garlic Herb Chicken
370 calories

WORST “HEALTHY” FOOD IN AMERICA
Romano's Macaroni Grill’s Parmesan-Crusted Sole
2,190 calories
141 g fat (58 g saturated)
2,980 mg sodium
145 g carbs

“Parmesan crusting” is a process quite similar to the one used to create mozzarella sticks and chicken strips: They’re covered with a sponge-like blanket of breadcrumbs that soaks up oil. But with Macaroni’s parmesan crust, cheese is mixed in with the breadcrumbs. So it’s essentially just another way to ruin a perfectly lean piece of fish. In fact, no parmesan-crusted item on Romano’s menu has fewer than 1,000 calories. Run away, while you still can.

Eat This Instead!
Simple Salmon
590 calories
32 g fat (6 g saturated)
1,800 mg sodium

For more food warnings like these, along with thousands of nutrition facts and tips, check out the new Eat This, Not That! The Best (and Worst!) Foods in America! Also, be sure to sign up for your FREE Eat This, Not That! newsletter for "no-diet weight-loss" advice delivered straight to your inbox!

Have your own examples of ‘healthy’ foods that aren’t? Please share them with the rest of us here.

source

for more click here

Obama names NYC health chief to head CDC

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:36:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama has chosen Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, New York City's health commissioner, to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House said Friday.

New York Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden, left, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, discusses swine flu last month.

"Dr. Frieden is an expert in preparedness and response to health emergencies, and has been at the forefront of the fight against heart disease, cancer and obesity, infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and AIDS, and in the establishment of electronic health records," Obama said in a statement.

Frieden has been commissioner of the New York City Health Department, one of the nation's largest public health agencies, since January 2002. He worked for the CDC from 1990 to 2002.

Frieden received his medical and public health degrees from Columbia University and completed infectious disease training at Yale University. He has written more than 200 scientific articles, the White House announcement said.

"Dr. Frieden has been a leader in the fight for health care reform, and his experiences confronting public health challenges in our country and abroad will be essential in this new role," the statement said.

The CDC, based in Atlanta, Georgia, is the lead federal agency to help state and local health authorities detect and control chronic disease and infectious disease threats, including bioterrorism.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised Frieden's work for the city.

"Dr. Frieden has demonstrated his talent and leadership over the past seven years, and we look forward to working with him in his new role in Atlanta," Bloomberg said in a statement.

"President Obama could not have selected a better person to lead the Centers for Disease Control to meet the challenges ahead and make the nation a healthier place."

Obama also announced that Dr. Richard Besser, who has been acting director of the CDC, will continue in his role as leader of the agency's Coordinating Office for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response.

How to Prevent Getting and Spreading Novel H1N1 Flu

noreply@blogger.com (Hossam REFFAT) — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:28:00 +0000