SAFETY UPDATES

National Poison Week
This week is National Poison Week in the US. This annual health observance has been in place since 1962. We will deal with this topic in detail next week. In the meantime, here are some resources for you to check out:

• Poison Prevention by the CDC
• Medications disposal

FDA Issues Final Rule Restricting Access and Marketing of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco Products to Youth
The final regulations on access of minors to tobacco products is out. The new regulations include, among others:

• Prohibition of selling cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to those younger than 18
• Restriction of distribution, and promotion of these products to make them less accessible and less attractive to the young
• Prohibition of giving out free samples of cigarettes
• Prohibition of tobacco brand name sponsorship of any athletic, musical or other social or cultural events.

According to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:

“This ruling is a critical piece of a coordinated effort to save lives, lower costs, and reduce suffering from heart disease, cancer and other tobacco-related illness. Today, we’re addressing a larger public health effort to prevent our children from becoming the next generation of Americans to die early from tobacco-related disease. This is a great step toward a healthier America.”

Safety Review of Avandia (Rosiglitazone)
The US FDA is conducting a review of safety data on the diabetic agent rosiglitazone which is expected to be finished in July 2010. In the meantime, it gives some advice for people take the drug, which can be found here.

Safety Review of Osteoporosis Medications
Oral bisphosphonates are indicated for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. The FDA data on these drugs based on questions whether they increase the risk of fractures in the bone below the hip bone. The FDA review found no elevated risk for this type of fracture associated with oral bisphosphonate use.

RECENT APPROVALS

FDA Approves First Totally Implanted Hearing System
The US FDA has just approved an implanted hearing system for the treatment of moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss. Esteem is the first totally implanted hearing system, and consists of three implantable components: a sound processor, sensor, and driver.
Sensorineural hearing loss is caused by genetic or environmental factors (e.g. noise, injury, infection) that results in reductions in sound perceptions and eventually permanent hearing loss.

FDA Approves Drug  to Treat Condition That Causes Elevated Ammonia Levels
Another approval this week is for Carbaglu (carglumic acid) Tablets, indicated for the treatment of hyperammonemia in N-acetylglutamate synthase or NAGS deficiency. NAGS deficiency is a rare genetic disorder usually occurring in newborn babies. The deficiency results in high ammonia blood levels that can be fatal. NAGS deficiency can be detected by genetic testing.

TWO BIG CANCER TRIALS FAIL

Trial # 1:
Avastin, Roche’s bestselling cancer drug failed to meet primary endpoints in a key Phase III prostate cancer trial. Roche’s daughter company Genentech announced the trial results showed that Avastin does not extend survival in patients with late stage prostate cancer. Just last month, the industry was also disappointed with Avastin’s poor performance in  a trial on inoperable or advanced stomach cancer. Avastin is approved for the treatment of colorectal, breast, lung and kidney cancer and a type of brain tumor.

Trial # 2:
Pfizer’s Sutent failed to meet endpoints in two Phase III trials on late-stage breast cancer. Sutent (sunitinib) is indicated for metastatic renal cell carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. The company will continue testing Sutent on other solid tumors.

THE LATEST UPDATES ON CANCER SCREENING

1 in 4 states cut back on routine mammograms
The new US breast cancer screening guidelines have started to make an effect. Some states have already started cutting back on routine mammograms for women under 50 and uninsured. Proponents of the guidelines might be pleased but some groups are concerned about this trend.

According to Dr. James Thrall, chair of the American College of Radiology’s Board of Chancellors:

“Lawmakers at all levels need to act now to ensure that these recommendations do no further damage, and that women have full and ready access to mammography.”

Panel Calls for Reducing Colorectal Cancer Deaths by Striking Down Barriers to Screening
A National Institutes of Health panel met in February to discuss how to increase the use of colorectal screening. A 2008 survey showed that the screening rate among 50-year old adults is 55%, which experts consider to be too low.

According to Dr. Donald Steinwachs, panel chair, and professor and director of the Health Services Research and Development Center at the Johns Hopkins University

“We recognize that some may find colorectal cancer screening tests to be unpleasant and time-consuming. However, we also know that recommended screening strategies reduce colorectal cancer deaths. We need to find ways to encourage more people to get these important tests.”

Harry Smith colonoscopy to air on ‘Early Show’
The co-anchor of “The Early Show” Harry Smith had a colonoscopy scheduled on Wednesday, March 10 and the procedure was shown live in observance of the National Colorectal Cancer Awareness month.

Cancer society stops urging docs to offer PSA test
The American Cancer Society (ACS) has not supported routine PSA screening for prostate cancer since the 1990s and its stand remains the same. However, it is urging doctors to discuss the pros and cons of the procedure openly with their patients. ACS recommends the following to primary care physicians:

• Discuss the pros and cons of testing with patients, offering written information or videos that discuss the likelihood of false test results and the side effects of treatment.
• Stop routinely giving the rectal exam because it has not clearly shown a benefit, though it can remain an option.
• Use past PSA readings to determine how often follow-up tests are needed and to guide conversations about treatment.

In the British Diabetic Association’s Guide for those treated with insulin you will find all the answers you need to understand and take control of your diabetes. Knowing about diabetes is the key to coping with it. Dr John Day, an outstanding authority in diabetes and an experienced doctor, clearly explains all the latest recommendations for healthy eating, exercise, and medical treatment, helping people with diabetes to maximise their lifestyle while minimising their difficulties. Practical and realistic solutions to common problems are given. People with diabetes and their relatives and friends will find this book an invaluable source of guidance and advice. As a sportsman living with diabetes, I am continually learning about my condition. This book is essential for anyone living with type 1 diabetes. It contains all the information you need. If you only buy one book on diabetes – this is the one for you. I cannot recommend it too highly. Gary Mabbutt MBE BDA Registration No. 339181 England BDA Charity Reg. No. 215199Introducing Diabetes. Type 1 (Insulin Dependent) Diabetes. Controlling Your Diabetes. Is Your Treatment Effective? Keeping Good Control. Multiple Injection Treatment. What Can Go Wrong? The Long-Term Effects of Diabetes and Your General Health. Marriage, Pregnancy, Parenthood and Contraception. Diabetes in Children and Adolescents. Diabetes and Your Daily Life. The British Diabetic Association. Index.In the British Diabetic Association’s Guide for those treated with insulin you will find all the answers you need to understand and take control of your diabetes. Knowing about diabetes is the key to coping with it. Dr John Day, an outstanding authority in diabetes and an experienced doctor, clearly explains all the latest recom@0£×=q ¾Û€

There’s uproar about a supposedly effective treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS). Patients have their hopes up and are demanding for it whereas health experts are asking for prudence and patience while they examine the evidence and test the hypothesis behind the treatment. In this series, I will try to bring you the latest about this treatment.

How it all began

Brilliant ideas sometimes arise when tragedy strikes people where they hurt the most – their family. Paolo Zamboni, a professor of medicine at the University of Ferrara was confronted with the debilitating effects of MS right within the four walls of his home when his wife was diagnosed with MS in 1995. The vascular surgeon conducted an extensive literature research on MS. He found some possible answers in old medical literature. Thus, his “big idea” popular known as chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) was conceived although he prefers to call it the “liberation theory” because it liberated his wife from the debilitating symptoms of MS.

Autoimmune vs vascular disease

MS has always been thought to be an autoimmune disease, wherein the cells of the immune system attack the myelin sheath that protects and insulates the nerves.

Zamboni found some old medical articles which hypothesized MS to be caused by iron overload in the brain. In digging further, he found some similarities pathogenesis and physiology of MS and chronic vein disease (CVD). CVD causes weakness and lesions in the lower extremities (legs) because of the occlusion of the veins.

Zamboni then looked at ultrasound scans of the veins in the neck of MS patients and found some anomalies. 90% of the MS patients he examined had blocked or narrowed veins which drain the blood from the brain. Zamboni believes the blockage causes a reflux or backflow, observable in the scan, which can lead to accumulation of iron deposits. Iron damages the walls of the blood vessels and allows cells in the blood, including immune cells, to penetrate the blood-brain barrier and attack the myelin.

Thus, according to Zamboni, MS is not an autoimmune disease but a vascular disease.

The treatment

Zamboni’s idea is simple: clear the blockage and cure the disease. The procedure is very like angioplasty wherein a catheter is inserted in the blood vessel in the groin up to the neck where a balloon is then inflated to clear the blockage. As soon as the blockage is cleared, normal blood flow will be restored and the symptoms will go away. Zamboni performed the simple procedure on his wife and it worked. She has been symptom-free for about 3 years now.

Since then Zamboni has tested the procedure on several MS patients, with promising outcomes.

Is CCSVI the cure we have been waiting for? Next week, I’ll be bring you the opinions and insights of experts.

When we talk about things environmental, we think of air and water. And when we talk about environmental carcinogens, we think of man-made toxic chemicals in the things that we eat and drink and the air we breathe. This way of thinking is basically right. But there is more to environmental carcinogens than what many people are aware of. Let us take a look.

Carcinogens in body care products

You don’t have to eat carcinogens to get exposed to them.

What you might not know: Carcinogens may also be present in the soap and shampoo, in your household cleaning liquids. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has prepared a safety guide to body care products called Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database.

What you might not know: Lots of these chemicals are found in significant amounts in natural waters that could potentially contaminate our drinking water. Phthalates, triclosan and bisphenol A (BPA) are just 3 examples of chemicals identified.

Carcinogens in the air

Ok, so everybody knows that smoking can kill you. Smoking is associated mainly with lung cancer but also increase in risk for other cancers including breast, prostate, and neck cancers.

What you might not know: You don’t have to be a smoker to get lung cancer. Passive or secondhand smokers can get lung cancer, too. Exposure to asbestos, an industrial chemical can also cause lung cancer.

What you might not know: And finally, carcinogens need not be dirty, stinky, or man-made. Radon is an odorless, colorless naturally-occurring gas that causes most of the lung cancer cases among non-smokers.

Carcinogens in your food

Organic food is becoming popular. The American Cancer Society advocates the use of organic food to avoid taking in pesticides, preservatives, and other food additives. The EWG regularly tests fresh produce for pesticides and releases their so-called Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 lists.

What you might not know: Carcinogens may not be in the food itself. It might be in the food packaging (e.g. bisphenol A). It might be in your teflon cookware. It might be in your granite countertops (e.g. radon and uranium.

Carcinogens and electromagnetic field

Still a hotly debated topic is whether the use of mobile phones causes cancer or not. But phone manufacturers are developing phones that emit less and less radiation. The EWG has just released its 2010 Cell Phone Radiation Report.

What you might not know: The cancer threat is not only coming from your handset, but also from phone masts and antennas.

The story of BPA aka bisphenol A takes an unexpected yet welcome turn last Janaury when no less than the US FDA admitted that BPA may be bad you and for your family.

Yes, this is the same FDA that in October 2008 issued the following statement:

“Consumers should know that, based on all available evidence, the present consensus among regulatory agencies in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan is that current levels of exposure to BPA through food packaging do not pose an immediate health risk to the general population, including infants and babies.”

In “Update on Bisphenol A (BPA) for Use in Food: January 2010”, the US FDA expressed some “concerns” about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children. Working together with the National Toxicology Program, FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research, the regulatory body is conducting studies to further clarify questions about the health risks of BPA. In the meantime, the FDA is

• taking reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply. These steps include: a) supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing baby bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market; b) facilitating the development of alternatives to BPA for the linings of infant formula cans; and c) supporting efforts to replace BPA or minimize BPA levels in other food can linings.
• supporting a shift to a more robust regulatory framework for oversight of BPA.
• seeking further public comment and external input on the science surrounding BPA.
• not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk from BPA exposure

The European Food Safety Authority which was also at first skeptical about the BPA threat also issued an update on this issue. In particular, EFSA gives some conservative estimates of BPA exposure through diet in the table below.

Table 1. Conservative estimates of total dietary exposure to bisphenol A at different ages

*  Based on the upper value of 50 microgrammes BPA/litre of infant formula

#  Based on the typical value of 10 microgrammes BPA/litre of infant formula

About BPA

Bisphenol A is an industrial chemical widely used in the manufacture of plastics. It is present in many hard plastic bottles and in food packaging, particularly metal-based food containers and beverage cans. BPA has been shown to leach out of food containers into the food and drinks we consume. BPA is thought to be potentially carcinogenic, endocrine-disruptive, and has been associated with a wide range of diseases.

BPA Resources

Additional resources on BPA:

Food ingredients and packaging: BPA

Bisphenol A (BPA) Information for Parents from the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Full Update on Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications: January 2010

Tips to avoid BPA exposure by the Environmental Working Group

For thousands of years, people have been searching for the fountain of youth. Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham now think they may be on the verge of discovering the proverbial fountain and this fountain is low in calories.

Is it that simple? Reducing your calories means increasing your life span?

The researchers studied two types of lung cells: One type consisted of normal human lung cell and the other type consisted of lung cells at the beginning stages of cancer (precancerous). The two types of cells were grown in media containing normal or low amounts of glucose. Survival rates and the ability to divide were regularly monitored. The results showed:

• Normal cells live longer when grown in low-glucose medium.
• Precancerous cells die in low-glucose medium

According to researcher Dr. Trygve Tollefsbol at the Center for Aging and Comprehensive Cancer Center at the university

“In that time, we were able to track the cells’ ability to divide while also monitoring the number of surviving cells. The pattern that was revealed to us showed that restricted glucose levels led the healthy cells to grow longer than is typical and caused the precancerous cells to die off in large numbers.”

Two key genes have been identified that were responsible for this cellular response of decreased glucose. The telomerase gene encodes the enzyme that allows cells to divide indefinitely. The p16 gene encodes a well known anti-cancer protein. The gene effects were opposite between the 2 cell types tested. Healthy cells had increased telomerase and decreased p16 whereas the precancerous cells had decreased telomerase and increased p16 protein.

Extrapolated to the living human, the body (which is composed of cells) stays healthier and lives longer when we consume less glucose, our main source of calories.

“Our hope is that the discovery that reduced calories extends the lifespan of normal human cells will lead to further discoveries of the causes for these effects in different cell types and facilitate the development of novel approaches to extend the lifespan of humans. We would also hope for these studies to lead to improved prevention of cancer as well as many other age-related diseases through controlling calorie intake of specific cell types.”

Whether this is the fountain of youth or not, we know that eating food with high calories is unhealthy. High calorie intake is associated with a lot of diseases, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer. Aside from prolonging life, low calorie intake seems to prevent disease development. These findings especially hold a lot of promise in anti-cancer therapy.

 Now, it wouldn’t be fair if we don’t tell you what the other side has to say, the other side being the few who are not fully convinced that salt reduction in our diet is warranted for. Thus, this third part is dedicated to what these skeptics have to say.

When I wrote about the salt-reduction efforts in Portugal last June 2009, one reader (Geeta) wrote the following comment:

“Portugal’s PAASH campaign for mass education is indeed a valuable example of the power of media and its need in health education. As we become a technology savvy world, public health campaigns have to learn to effectively communicate their messages through the wide array of media outlets.

The campaign though phenomenal in its reach to 75% of the Portuguese population, I would be interested in the final effects of salt restriction on the hypertension in Portugal. The moment we tag an essential mineral as the primary cause for a disease state like hypertension there is cause for concern. We did it with fats and now it’s salt. Controlled studies on the success of effective long term maintenance of salt restriction by the Portuguese and its effects on the hypertension in the country would be valuable to our understanding of salt and its effects in the human body.

Studies show that most people are not sensitive to salt. Experimental studies of adults with normal blood pressure revealed that a salt restricted diet caused a drop in blood pressure in some but in others to rise. For the majority of cases there was negligible if any change.

For accurate information on salt intake and health please visit The question, therefore, is whether the beneficial hypotensive effects of sodium restriction will outweigh its hazards. Unfortunately, few data link sodium intake to health outcomes, and that which is available is inconsistent. Without knowledge of the sum of the multiple effects of a reduced sodium diet, no single universal prescription for sodium intake can be scientifically justified.”

More recently, he stated heartwire:

“In folks with a diet like that in the US, there are some studies that show an inverse association—less salt, more heart attacks—so the data are conflicting, and it’s a problem.”

John Mariani wrote in 2008:

“This isn’t to say that salt is safe for everyone. Studies show that 30 percent of the Americans who have high blood pressure would greatly benefit from a low-sodium diet. But that’s about 10 percent of the overall population — the rest of us are fine with sodium. And drastically cutting out sodium may actually hurt some people.”

There accusations flying around that these skeptics may have some involvement the Salt Institute, a non-profit trade association whose members are salt producers and sellers. Salt Health (e.g. the site mentioned by Geeta above) is a project of the Salt Institute. The Institute claims it is “dedicated to sound science and SaltHealth.com is a presentation of accurate research condensed for consumers seeking accurate and reliable information.”

Well, readers, the salt debate will get more heated in the coming months. I just hope I gave you enough food for thought in the series to enable you to think objectively and make informed decisions.

]]> http://battlingforhealth.com/2010/03/salt-and-your-heart-health-part-iii-what-the-skeptics-have-to-say/feed/ 0 http://battlingforhealth.com/2010/03/salt-and-your-heart-health-part-iii-what-the-skeptics-have-to-say/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/battlingforhealthcom/~3/24p2MZm9bv0/ http://battlingforhealth.com/2010/03/the-human-egg-cell-raffle/#comments Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:08:23 +0000 Raquel http://battlingforhealth.com/?p=6590 No, it’s not a joke. There’s going to be a raffle on March 17, 2010 and the grand prize is a human egg cell. Is this a publicity stunt or a god-sent blessing for infertile couples? Who is involved? Two fertility clinics are involved. The first one is the London-based Bridge Centre. The second one is the [...]]]>

No, it’s not a joke. There’s going to be a raffle on March 17, 2010 and the grand prize is a human egg cell. Is this a publicity stunt or a god-sent blessing for infertile couples?

Who is involved?

Two fertility clinics are involved. The first one is the London-based Bridge Centre. The second one is the Genetics and IVF Institute (GIVF) in Fairfax, Virginia. The two clinics decided to join forces last year to circumvent UK’s rather restrictive IVF laws and profit from the booming infertility tourism industry in the US.

What is the raffle about?

The raffle is open to British women who are in need of egg donors. The winner can choose the donor from a carefully selected pool of American women aged 19 to 32 years of age. As winner, you basically have access to the donors’ data from their physical appearance, ethnicity, profession, educational background and upbringing. You can even look at their baby pictures as a preview of how the resulting baby might look like. The choice is yours. The only matter you have whatsoever no choice is that the donation and the IVF cycle would be performed in the US.

Infertility tourism

Although the UK has always been the world leader in assisted reproductive technology, many believe that its rather restrictive legislations on infertility prevent many British people from benefiting from their county’s leading edge in the field. One such limitation, they say, is the scarcity of donor eggs. Commercialized egg donation in the UK is forbidden. Egg donors are real “donors” in the true sense of the word, and do not get compensated except for a minimal amount to defray expenses. Thus women rely on family and friends for egg donations or on “egg sharers”, women who have excess eggs during fertility treatments. Either way, the pool of donors is limited and the quality of the eggs is not necessarily optimal. According to the Sunday Mail, of the 36,861 women who had IVF in the UK in 2007, only 956 received donor eggs.

In contrast, egg donation in the US is a commercial initiative and the GIVF in Virginia has elevated this commercialization to new dimensions. It claims to receive up to 500 donor applications a month but these applicants will go through a series of rigorous tests in a two-month period including health and sociodemographic background and only about 5 will eventually make the grade.

According to Jennifer Machovina, GIVF donor egg programme co-ordinator.

“Although it is anonymous, they get asked a lot of questions. We want them to understand this is something bigger than a process with a cheque at the end of it. We have about 200 donors on our books and they cover a big range of ethnicities and backgrounds, so people have more chance of getting a donor who looks like them.”

The result is a pool of excellent quality –and expensive – egg donors. Each donor is estimated to receive $10,000 (£6,600) for every donation process.

Despite the Brits leading edge in reproductive medicine, they lack the capacity to maximize the commercial gains from it. The London clinic admits that the raffle idea was purely American and that they were at first “bemused” by the offer by their partners at the other side of Atlantic. According to Michael Summers, a senior consultant at the Bridge:

“They [their American partners] are much more market-driven than we are, and they do have some rather more creative techniques.”

The dark side of egg donation

So why are Britain and other countries so restrictive about egg donation? It looks like a win-win situation, with the infertile getting quality eggs and the cashless getting the needed cash. One problem lies in the fact that the process of egg donation presents some health risks to the donor.

According to the Times:

“Egg donation is a protracted and painful process that requires treatment with potentially dangerous drugs. A donor has to undergo a course of treatment aimed at stimulating her ovaries to produce a dozen or more eggs in one menstrual cycle, instead of the single ripe egg released every month in natural conditions.”

The other problem is that the anonymity of the whole process makes donors, mostly young women in dire straits, vulnerable to exploitation by fertility clinic. Many of these women go through the process not once but many times to raise money. According to Josephine Quintavalle, founder of Comment on Reproductive Ethics:

“In no other branch of medicine would the ruthless exploitation of the vulnerable be tolerated. These women selling their eggs are taking a huge risk with their health and future fertility simply because they need the money.”

The same anonymity also presents concerns in the future when the blood relationships and consanguinity becomes blurred. The first British woman who used the GIVF donor service had a donor who produces 30 eggs at a time, who had already produced 4 babies in 3 pregnancies (one pregnancy resulted in twins). The relationship between these future children with the same biological mother but non-related birth mothers would be difficult to define.

Criticisms

As expected, criticisms of this venture abound. Some sectors brand the selection process as “baby profiling” service.

Quintavalle continues:

“The capacity of the IVF industry to commodify human life reaches a new low with this latest deplorable initiative.  Imagine a child one day finding out that he or she came into being thanks to such a blatantly commercial initiative.”

]]> http://battlingforhealth.com/2010/03/the-human-egg-cell-raffle/feed/ 0 http://battlingforhealth.com/2010/03/the-human-egg-cell-raffle/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/battlingforhealthcom/~3/t6qpfwPKGG4/ http://battlingforhealth.com/2010/03/henry-vaughan-golden-age-of-spiritual-writing/#comments Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:27:03 +0000 HART (1-800-HART) http://battlingforhealth.com/2010/03/henry-vaughan-golden-age-of-spiritual-writing Henry Vaughan (golden Age Of Spiritual Writing)   $75.03 | Aging Books | Read more... ]]>

Henry Vaughan (golden Age Of Spiritual Writing)

 

$75.03 | Aging Books | Read more...

]]> http://battlingforhealth.com/2010/03/henry-vaughan-golden-age-of-spiritual-writing/feed/ 0 http://battlingforhealth.com/2010/03/henry-vaughan-golden-age-of-spiritual-writing/