Posted: Thursday, December 14, 2006
Publication Date: December 14, 2006

1. Focus your efforts on things that matter; inform yourself about possible risks.

The American Council on Science and Health is dedicated to helping you set rational priorities for a healthy and long life. While it is tempting to focus our anxiety on mysterious threats that lie largely beyond our own control, such as a possible terrorist attack (see ACSH's terrorism preparedness report), the truth is that when it comes to achieving long life and good health, we largely determine our own fate, through routine, everyday decisions.

One threat that was in the news a lot in early 2006 that we would do well to avoid panicking about is avian flu, or "bird flu." Although the strain of influenza that has passed from birds to humans (mostly in Southeast Asia) seems quite virulent, thus far it has not demonstrated the ability to pass from one person to another -- which would have to happen in order for a true pandemic to occur. Currently, individuals should be alert to news about this possible pandemic but should understand that the risk is still theoretical. For more information on avian flu, see the ACSH report.

As we get ready to start a new year, instead of brooding over worst-case scenarios, a more effective plan would be to improve important health-related aspects of our lifestyles -- by quitting smoking (or, better, not starting in the first place), engaging in regular exercise, and taking advantage of technology that protects us against health and safety hazards, such as bicycle helmets and appropriate immunizations. To make the best health choices, resolve to sift carefully through the health advice that surrounds us, and focus your efforts on the things that really matter.

2. Don't smoke.

If you don't smoke, don't start. If you do smoke, resolve to quit this year. Half of all adults who once smoked cigarettes have kicked the habit. You can, too. For more information on quitting, see ACSH's booklet Kicking Butts in the Twenty-First Century. If you have tried to quit multiple times but haven't stayed off cigarettes, consider an alternative nicotine source such as gum, lozenge, patch, or smokeless tobacco: these substitutes won't diminish your nicotine addiction but will eliminate your exposure to the many toxins and carcinogens in tobacco smoke.

Unfortunately, while many adults are trying to kick the habit, many teens are getting hooked. Over 20% of high school student are current smokers, and will be prone to all the negative health consequences of the habit.(1) ACSH's teen-friendly site on the facts about smoking can be accessed at: http://thescooponsmoking.org.

This is our major New Year's resolution because cigarette smoking is the number one cause of preventable deaths in this country. Smoking is responsible for over 400,000 deaths in the U.S. each year and more than $50 billion in medical expenditures. One in every five deaths in the United States is smoking-related, and half of all lifelong smokers die of a smoking-related disease.(2)

So don't let another year go up in smoke. Start the New Year smoke-free.

3. Achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Eat a balanced diet and handle foods safely.

Over half of Americans are overweight, and about a third are obese (meaning that they have a Body Mass Index of 30 or more).(3) The proportion of the population that is overweight has been increasing rapidly in the U.S. for the past 20 years in both the adult and the pediatric population.(4) Excess weight is associated with increased risks of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, arthritis, gallbladder disease, and some types of cancer.(5) Obesity is hard to treat once established: prevention is a better route to take. To help reduce excess weight and to maintain a healthy weight, experts recommend that Americans eat a balanced diet, moderate total calorie intake and portion sizes, and exercise regularly.(6)

The keys to good nutrition are variety, moderation, and balance. There are no "good" or "bad" foods -- but there certainly are "good" and "bad" diets. Recently "trans fatty acids" have been singled out as a particularly evil ingredient in our food supply -- some have stated that they are responsible for literally thousands of deaths from heart disease each year. But be aware that the science does not support all this hyperbole: get the straight facts from the ACSH paper on trans fats.

In addition, many people worry too much about hypothetical hazards from traces of pesticides or other chemical residues in food while paying too little attention to more important food-related risks. For an informative look at the "carcinogenic" chemicals naturally present in food, see ACSH's Holiday Dinner Menu.

One of the most important food-related risks is contamination by microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, and some parasites). Diseases caused by microorganisms in food cause an estimated 5,000 deaths, 325,000 serious illnesses, and 76 million cases of gastrointestinal illness in the U.S. each year.(7)

Be aware that foodborne illness can be contracted from any type of food: fruits and vegetables, as well as meat and poultry products, can carry disease-causing microbes. Keep foods safe, and follow the four principles of the President's National Food Safety Initiative: 1) Clean: Wash hands and surfaces often. 2) Separate: Don't cross-contaminate. 3) Cook: Cook to proper temperatures. 4) Chill: Refrigerate promptly.(8)

For more information, read ACSH's booklet on food safety, Eating Safely: Avoiding Foodborne Illness.

4. Exercise regularly -- with caution.

Regular exercise will help you control your weight, improve your overall health, and reduce your risk of medical problems such as heart disease and osteoporosis. To get the most benefit, exercise for at least 30-45 minutes three to five times a week.(9)

When you exercise, make sure to take all the safety precautions that are recommended for the activities that you choose. It's especially important always to wear a helmet while cycling or skating. Wearing a bicycle helmet can reduce your risk of head injury by up to 85%.(10) Other safety equipment, such as kneepads and wrist guards, can also reduce your risk of injury.

Although exercise is beneficial for almost everyone, some people need to consult a doctor to find out what level and types of physical activities are safe for them. This precaution is especially important for heart disease patients, people who have a medical condition that might be aggravated by exercise, and people who are taking any type of medication (especially medicines for high blood pressure or heart disease).(11)

5. Separate drinking and driving.

Never drink and drive. Equally important, never ride as a passenger in a car driven by someone who has been drinking alcohol.

Forty percent of all traffic fatalities in the U.S. are alcohol-related.(12) One American is injured in an alcohol-related driving incident every two minutes.(13) Rates of fatal crashes have begun to rise after a decade of decline in alcohol-related crashes. Since 1999, they have increased slightly by 4% to 10% for all age groups except for ages 16 to 17 years,(14) so there's plenty of room for improvement There are nearly 160 million self-reported episodes of impaired driving in the U.S. every year.(15) Every one of these episodes puts people's lives at risk.

So if you plan to drink, make safe transportation arrangements. If no designated driver is available, use mass transit or call a taxi.

6. If you drink alcoholic beverages, keep your intake moderate.

Moderate drinking is OK for most adults (those without a family history of problematic drinking, for example). If you're middle-aged or older, it may even benefit your health by reducing your risk of heart disease. What's moderate? For men age 65 and under, the limit is two drinks per day; for men over 65 and women of all ages, it's one drink per day.(16)

Heavy drinking (that is, drinking that goes beyond the limits of moderation) is not healthful. The heavy drinking of alcohol is associated with increased risks of injury, liver disease, heart disease, high blood pressure, and several types of cancer. It's responsible for more than 100,000 deaths in the U.S. each year.(16)

For more information on the health effects of moderate drinking, see ACSH's booklet Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Health.

7. Take your body to the shop for preventive maintenance.

Your car comes equipped with a maintenance schedule. So does your body. Health authorities recommend that all adults and children should have certain types of preventive care -- such as screening tests and immunizations -- on a regular schedule. The timing of these services depends on your body's "model" and "mileage" (that is, your gender, family history, and age).

Unfortunately, many Americans have fallen way behind on their maintenance schedules. For example, yearly mammograms and breast exams are recommended for women over the age of 40 (if not younger), but over 24% of women in this age group reported not having had these exams for the previous two years.(17)

Everyone over the age of 65 should consult with their physician about being vaccinated against pneumococcal pneumonia and against shingles. Those over 65 should also receive an annual flu shot -- but more than a third of all Americans in this age group didn't get a flu shot last year, and more than 40% have never received the pneumococcal vaccine.(18) Influenza and pneumonia together killed over 60,000 Americans in 2002 (the seventh leading cause of death that year); appropriate vaccinations could substantially reduce this unnecessary death toll.(19)

New vaccines against human papilloma virus, the virus strongly linked to cancer of the uterine cervix, have recently become available. It has been suggested that pre-teen girls be vaccinated against this virus to prevent later development of cervical cancer. Parents should consult their pediatricians about obtaining this vaccine for their daughters. (20)

If you haven't been taking routine care of your body (or your child's body), resolve to make an appointment with your doctor this year to find out what preventive services are recommended. And then follow up by getting the necessary tests and immunizations.

For more information on children's immunizations see ACSH's booklet Vaccinations: What Parents Need to Know.

8. Protect yourself against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The best ways to protect yourself against AIDS are to:

* Never use a non-sterile needle to inject anything into your body.
* Either abstain from sex or have sex only with an uninfected partner in a mutually monogamous relationship.

If you choose to have multiple sex partners (or your partner does), you can reduce your risk of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases in the following ways:

* Urge all prospective sexual partners to be tested for sexually transmitted infections.
* Use condoms properly and consistently.
* Avoid sexual intercourse with people who engage in high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex or intravenous drug use.

9. Check "alternative" practices with your doctor.

More than 40% of Americans use some kind of "alternative" therapy,(21) such as herbal medicine, massage, chiropractic, or aromatherapy. Some people think that all alternative practices are harmless, but this isn't necessarily true -- especially for people with special medical concerns. For example, people with Parkinson's disease should never take the herb kava-kava because it can worsen their disease symptoms.(22) People with osteoporosis should not receive chiropractic therapy because the manipulation could cause a fracture.(23) For more information on possible drug-supplement interactions, see ACSH's brochure What's the Story? Drug-Supplement Interaction.

Even if an alternative therapy isn't dangerous in itself, it can hurt you if you use it as a substitute for proper medical care. Most alternatives have not been proven effective, and many don't work at all. If your problem turns out to be serious, you could endanger your health -- or even your life -- by experimenting with unproven therapies instead of seeing a physician promptly.

If you use alternative therapies, you should let your medical doctor know. However, more than 60% of Americans who use alternative methods don't do this.(24) To find out whether any alternative practices you would like to try are safe for you, resolve that you will always check out these methods with your doctor before you start.

10. Use automobile safety devices every time.

A recent survey showed that 81% of all Americans now buckle up -- at this rate, seat belts prevent 15,700 deaths, 350,000 serious injuries, and $67 billion in economic costs associated with traffic injuries and deaths every year.(25) This year, resolve that everyone in your car will be buckled into the proper restraint every time. That means seat belts for adults, booster seats (in the rear seat) for older children, and properly installed safety seats (in the rear seat) for small children and infants.

11. Protect your dental health.

You can help keep your teeth healthy by brushing and flossing, getting regular dental care, using fluoride as recommended by your doctor or dentist, eating balanced meals, and limiting snacks. While most people know this, here's something you may not know: more than two million teeth are knocked out every year, many of them from sports-related injuries.(26) Many of these injuries could have been avoided if the person were wearing a mouth protector. So if you play sports that involve a risk of mouth injury, resolve to wear a mouth guard every time.

12. Install and maintain a working smoke detector.

Smoke detectors save lives. They're your best protection against death or injury in a nighttime fire in your home. But they won't protect you if they're not working. The American Red Cross recommends that you test your smoke detectors once a month, replace the batteries at least once a year, and replace the detectors themselves every ten years. You can also protect your family from fire by planning at least two escape routes from every room in your home and making sure that all family members know how to use them.(27)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use among high school students -- United States, 1991-2005. MMWR. 2006: 55(26);724-726. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5526a2.htm

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Life Lost, and Productivity Losses -- United States, 1997-2001.MMWR 2005:54(25):625-628. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5425a1.htm

3. Hedley A, Ogden CL, Johnson CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, Flegal KM. Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity Among U.S. Children, Adolescents, and Adults, 1999-2002. JAMA 2004; 291: 2847-2850.

4. Ibid.

5. Must A, Spadano J, Coakley EH, Field AE, Colditz G, Dietz WH, The disease burden associated with overweight and obesity. JAMA 1999;282:1523-1529.

6. From a Surgeon General page entitled "Choose a Healthy Weight for Life." Available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_advice.htm

7. From a CDC press release dated Sept. 16, 1999 and titled "CDC data provides the most complete estimate on foodborne disease in the United States." Available at http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r990917.htm

8. These principles are listed in many government documents. They came from an FSIS "food safety feature" dated July 1999 and titled "Cleanliness Helps Prevent Foodborne Illness." It's available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/cleanliness.htm

9. The American College of Sports Medicine, available at www.acsm.org/pdf/Guidelines.pdf .

10. According to a Consumer Product Safety Commission press release dated April 21, 1999 and available at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml99/99099.html

11. From the American Heart Association’s recommendations on physical activity, available at http://216.185.112.5/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4563

12. From the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control's "Impaired Driving." http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. References for this statement can be found in ACSH's report on moderate drinking.
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.391/pub_detail.asp

17. From the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Prevalence Data, 2002. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/Trends/trendchart.asp?qkey=10060&state=US

18. This statistic comes from a Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey in 2002, which asked, "During the past 12 months, have you had a flu shot?" In the age group 65+, 35.1% said no. When asked if they’d received the pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine, 37.0% of people 65 or older said no. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/Trends/TrendData.asp

19. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 53, No. 17, March 7, 2005. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/nvsr53_17tableE2002.pdf

20. From the CDC’s "HPV and HPV Vaccine -- Information for Healthcare Providers," revised August 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV-vaccine-hcp.htm

21. Eisenberg DM et al, Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997. JAMA 1998;280:1569-1575.

22. References for this statement can be found in our draft report on supplements and the elderly.

23. From a National Safety Council fact sheet called "Is Alternative Medicine Going Mainstream?" http://www.nsc.org/pubs/fsh/archive/spr99/altmed.htm

24. From the article by Eisenberg cited above.

25. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, November, 2006. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2006/810677.pdf

26. From an American Dental Association press release entitled "Mouth Protectors: Don't Play Without One." http://www.ada.org/public/topics/mouthguards.asp

27. From the American Red Cross fact sheet "Are You Ready for a Residential Fire?" http://www.redcross.org/services/disaster/0,1082,0_584_,00.html

(Resolutions updated by Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D., Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health.)

Related Links
"Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2007" Sticky-Backed, Postable List!

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

By Josh Bloom, Ph.D.
Posted: Monday, August 15, 2005

ARTICLES
Publication Date: August 15, 2005

"Indications: (partial list) Asthma, Cancer, Chickenpox, Cholera, Depression, Diarrhea, Flu, Headache, Herpes, Nervousness, Paralysis, Ringworm, Sciatica, Toothache, Ulcers, Warts."

--from The Handbook of Medical Herbs, second edition; J.A. Duke (CRC Press, 2002), p. 579

Must be pretty good stuff if it's being promoted for us against all those ills, right? Or perhaps you're wondering: "Hmm -- if this one herb can treat all of that (and more) why would anyone ever be sick?" Or, if you?re a bit skeptical, "maybe it doesn't really work all that well, but at least it's an herb and can't do any harm, right?"

The herb in question is poison ivy. And there are sixty-nine other conditions it is useful in treating, if you believe what the herbalists tell you. Celery has seventy-eight indications. Echinacea has ninety. Pussy Willow has seventeen, including loneliness and hemorrhoids. Rice has forty-six, including thirst, breast cancer, and tuberculosis.

Perhaps I'm jaded, but I don't really believe that poison ivy will help my insomnia any more than celery will help my asthma. In fact, browsing through the hundreds of herbs in this book, I couldn't find any disease that wasn't treatable by an herb. The logical conclusion, apparently, is that no one has to die of anything, given the right combination of herbs.

In all seriousness, though, some plants and herbs are useful. Drug companies have been conducting natural products research for decades. This involves searching the natural world for crude isolates (from plants, marine life, or microorganisms) and painstakingly purifying and testing the derived compounds against a variety of diseases. Many modern drugs have been discovered in this manner, including some for heart disease, pain, infection, and cancer. A San Francisco-based startup called Shaman Pharmaceuticals was founded in 1989 to search rain forests and speak to indigenous people about plants they used, trying to exploit this knowledge to invent new therapies. Nice idea -- but then again, they filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

The main difference between herbal therapies (those that are useful) and modern drugs is that herbs contain complex mixtures of dozens (or even hundreds) of chemicals, with the active substance, if there is one, typically being one minor component. Sometimes there can be several active components. The other components are either irrelevant or perhaps harmful.

And harmful is not that unusual. There are plenty of toxic herbs -- ephedra, mistletoe, and nightshade being a few examples. These contain poisonous chemicals that can damage your liver, kidneys, and central nervous systems. Modern natural-product-derived drugs are usually the single active component, without all the other stuff.

The mistake people make is to assume that there is no harm in using herbs, since they are natural and have been used for years. I've written at length about the lack of correlation between natural and safe. As for the historical argument, I don't buy it. Mercury was once used as a laxative. Now, if some gets spilled in a lab, the Hazmat team shows up in spacesuits. People used to be pretty sure that the sun went around the earth. Cats and dogs were killed en masse in London in the 1600s because people thought they were spreading the plague. All this did was make things worse, since the disease was actually being spread by fleas living on rats, which, in the absence of the cats, proliferated even faster. Slavery used to be considered OK. So was disco. Just because something was done in the past doesn't make it a good idea in the present.

Like them or not, modern drugs go through a tortuous approval process, where safety and efficacy need to be demonstrated, first in animals, then in large numbers of people. The system isn't perfect, but it works most of the time. There is no such requirement for most herbal remedies, so in effect, if you use herbal remedies you are the laboratory animal unwittingly participating in a poorly run toxicity study involving something that may or may not have any benefit.

Given the absence of legal controls, consumer ignorance, and the huge amount of money to be made, you might expect a bit of fraud here. And you would not be disappointed. The worst of it takes the herbal safety myth and extends the idea one step further. Unscrupulous manufacturers attach the "herbal" label even to the names of known drugs and then sell them as if they were some improved, natural, and safe alternative to the real drug. This is nothing more than a modern version of selling snake oil.

Not Always an Altermative

The premise that there exist plant-based (and thus safer) versions of known drugs is a fairy tale, one the Brothers Grimm themselves might consider dark and twisted. Let me be clear about this: if you see a bottle labeled "Herbal XYZ," you can bet that it means one of the following: (1) an herbal preparation that allegedly has medicinal properties similar to XYZ (but is not XYZ) or (2) something that has no use but has real XYZ added to it. Here are some examples of each.

St. Johns' Wort has been used for centuries (especially in Europe) for treatment of mood disorders, including depression. In the 1990s, some companies started selling it as "Herbal Prozac." This enabled people to delude themselves into believing they weren't really taking a drug, since it was something natural. But the active ingredients in the herb are chemicals called hypericin and hyperformin. And guess what? They are drugs. As such, they have side effects, including gastrointestinal disturbances, allergic reactions, fatigue, dizziness, confusion, dry mouth, and photosensitivity. The plant extract also contains small amounts of dozens of other chemicals, including some found in gasoline (source: PDR for Herbal Medicines, second edition, p. 719).

This isn't to say that the herb doesn't work. A 1999 German clinical trial compared the herb to Prozac and found similar efficacy, but it took forty times the dose for the herb to achieve the Prozac result. This brings up a few questions herbal users might want to ask. What dose are you taking? Is there a correct dose? How much of the active ingredient is actually in each capsule? What else is in there? Is the herb more or less effective or toxic than the pharmaceutical product? Are there interactions with other drugs? Do you want to take something that has not been approved by the FDA? And, perhaps most important, should you really be treating yourself for a disease as serious as depression?

Similarly, after fenfluramine (the fen in the diet aid fen-phen) was withdrawn in 1997, something called "Herbal Fen-Phen" quickly popped up. Safe and effective substitute? I think not. The stuff was actually a Chinese herb called Ma Huang or ephedra (for the FDA warning see: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00832.html). Last April, the FDA banned ephedra-containing diet aids after more than 16,000 adverse events and deaths were reported. It is ironic that the active ingredient in ephedra is ephedrine, a little-used decongestant and appetite suppressant that is actually rather dangerous. It causes a number of undesired effects, including insomnia, restlessness, irritability, headache, nausea, vomiting, rapid heartbeat, and increased blood pressure.

A different use of "herbal substitutes" involves outright fraud. Here, herbs (or any substance, really) that do little or nothing are actually spiked with the genuine drug. A couple of examples: A group from the University of Toronto (Urology Times, June 1, 2004) recently analyzed a number of "herbal" erectile dysfunction treatments with delightfully understated names such as "Stamina Rx" and "Super X." And guess what? Some of these contained the active ingredients from Viagra and Cialis. If you happen to take these with certain medical conditions, or along with nitroglycerin, you could die. Likewise, in the late 1990s, a number of "natural" psoriasis creams (one of which was Dead Sea Extracts) were found to contain the same potent steroid that the users were trying to avoid in the first place. Without the steroid, the creams were useless. Same idea, same scam.

That one can buy serious drugs (completely unregulated) under the guise of herbal treatments or "food supplements" points out the inadequacy of our current supplement laws. There is an obvious disconnect between science, law, and common sense, with American consumers being the ultimate target.

Dr. Bloom, who resides in Nyack, NY, is an organic chemist and writes regularly for HealthFactsAndFears.com.  He has worked in the pharmaceutical industry for about twenty years.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
Posted: Friday, August 5, 2005

EDITORIAL
Publication Date: August 5, 2005

Last week Senator Bill Frist made headlines with his apparent turnabout in favor of federal funding for research using embryonic stem cells (ESC) -- a break with the policy of President Bush. Almost all proponents of ESC (potentially far more flexible and thus conducive someday to far more treatments than adult stem cells) saw this as terrific news, while opponents -- including a full spectrum of religious groups and social conservatives -- characterized Frist as a traitor.  But Frist may not have changed enough to keep him from stifling ESC after all. 

True, Frist says he now supports legislation that would allow the use of federal funds for research using "leftover" fertilized eggs from in vitro fertilization procedures. Four years ago, President Bush approved federal funding for such research -- but limited it to the seventy-eight embryonic stem cell lines created before an arbitrarily chosen date: August 2001. The limitations of this restriction quickly became apparent: as of today, only twenty-two of these lines have proven to be useful for research.

Newspapers around the country, including the New York Times, editorialized in praise of Senator Frist, saying that the Senator "deserved credit" and that his reversal was "very welcome." Even with Frist's change of heart, the passage of legislation to approve federal funding of ESC is still not certain, but nearly everyone hearing of the Frist move was either (a) very encouraged, envisioning the United States finally getting into the race to derive life-saving therapies using embryonic in addition to adult stem cells, or (b) very discouraged, proclaiming that even normally "pro-life" politicians are now succumbing to surging popular support for all forms of stem cell research.

The reality is more complicated that this dichotomy of reaction suggests. Much more complicated.

The problem, one which may in the long run be a devastating blow to U.S. scientists who want to advance stem cell research, is one of public confusion, incomplete information, and just plain ignorance about what stem cell research is, and what techniques are involved.

Members of the scientific community are partly to blame for this sorry state affairs and now run the risk of the public rejecting this line of research and the potential life-saving therapies it may produce -- all because the public may now feel "out of the loop" on what this research is really all about.

The primary problem here is that American consumers have been led to believe that if only President Bush -- or a Congress overruling him -- would allow federal funding for research on fertilized eggs from fertility clinics (ones which would otherwise be discarded), then we would be well on our way to cures for Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and a whole host of other maladies.

If you believe that making available the 400,000 fertilized eggs now in the freezers of medical facilities around the country will give researchers what they need to forge ahead with new breakthrough technologies, then of course you would applaud Senator Frist's announcement. And you would ask for no more.

But the well-guarded secret is that access to these few hundred thousand embryos, while it may assist researchers temporarily, is only part of what is needed to keep America in competition with other nations seeking stem-cell based therapies.

What American stem cell scientists need is what is granted to scientists in countries around the world: federal funding for research that involves what is technically known as "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT). This process involves removing the genetic material (the nucleus) from a donated human egg, replacing it with genetic material from a living person -- a nucleus from a donor's cell -- and stimulating the egg to develop. The result is equivalent to a human embryo -- but one which was not created through the fusion of an ovum and sperm. Nonetheless, the resulting product is a "blastocyst," which if implanted in a womb might develop into a baby -- who would have the same genetic profile as the donor.

That brings us to the word "cloning."

Indeed, SCNT is another term -- albeit a less charged one -- for the term "therapeutic cloning." The difference between therapeutic cloning and what is known as "reproductive cloning" lies not in methodology but in intent. Reproductive cloning is performed with the intention of creating a fully-formed organism, a clone like the sheep Dolly. But blastocysts created for therapeutic cloning, as in the example above, are not intended to be implanted in a uterus. In fact, they are never allowed to develop for more than five days. Instead, these blastocysts are seen as sources of cells with the unique potential to form any cell type in the human body. It is these cells that scientists hope to understand well enough to guide their formation into neurons that could treat Parkinson disease, insulin cells that could cure diabetes, and more.

By his "turnabout," Senator Frist implies no more than that he would approve federal funding for research on already-existing embryos from fertility clinics. Not only did he fail to endorse SCNT, but there is reason to suspect that any Senate legislation he and his colleagues might vote for would have a provision specifically prohibiting federal funding for "any form of cloning."

If this happens, advocates of stem cell research will find themselves in a "one step forward, fifty steps back" scenario. The leftover IVF embryos will provide some research potential -- but the real promise for advancing new therapies lies with SCNT using donated eggs. The tragedy here is that there has been so much emphasis on freeing up fertility clinic embryos for research with federal dollars that if this happens, an overwhelming majority of Americans will think we are home free. Scientists subsequently announcing "No, this is not sufficient" will not be well-received and will anger those who wish to prevent the creation of research embryos of any type, who often use the argument "We must not create life to destroy life."

Scientific advocates for embryonic stem cell research must step up to the plate and do a better job of educating the public, specifically:

--explaining what techniques are involved in such research

--comparing and contrasting the results of reproductive cloning with those of nuclear cell transfer (therapeutic cloning)

--repeatedly explaining that at all times researchers are motivated by a respect for human life. 

Creating embryos through nuclear transfer is not a pointless technological stunt. The efforts underway are intended to save human lives and prevent human suffering.

We are at a critical time in shaping the future of stem cell research. Keep an eye on the Senate. If Sen. Frist signs onto legislation that permits federal funding of research on fertility clinic embryos but the bill includes a rejection of funding for the cutting-edge research of nuclear transfer, then that great "turnaround" that got the headlines last week will turn out to be an ominous mirage.

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is President of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005

ARTICLES
Publication Date: December 15, 2005

1. Focus your efforts on things that matter; inform yourself about possible risks.

The American Council on Science and Health (http://www.acsh.org) is dedicated to helping you set rational priorities for a healthy and long life. While it is tempting to focus our anxiety on mysterious threats that lie largely beyond our own control, such as a possible terrorist attack (see ACSH's terrorism preparedness report at http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.228/pub_detail.asp ), the truth is that when it comes to achieving long life and good health, we largely determine our own fate, through routine, everyday decisions.

One new health threat on the horizon that we would do well to avoid panicking about is avian flu, or "bird flu." Although the strain of influenza that has passed from birds to humans (mostly in Southeast Asia) seems quite virulent, thus far it has not demonstrated the ability to pass from one person to another?which would have to happen in order for a true pandemic to occur. Currently, individuals should be alert to news about this possible pandemic but should understand that the risk is still theoretical.

As we get ready to start a new year, instead of brooding over worst-case scenarios, a more effective plan would be to improve important health-related aspects of our lifestyles?by quitting smoking (or, better, not starting in the first place), engaging in regular exercise, and taking advantage of technology that protects us against health and safety hazards, such as bicycle helmets and appropriate immunizations. To make the best health choices, resolve to sift carefully through the health advice that surrounds us, and focus your efforts on the things that really matter.

2. Don't smoke.

If you don't smoke, don't start. If you do smoke, resolve to quit this year. Half of all adults who once smoked cigarettes have kicked the habit. You can, too. For more information on quitting, see ACSH's booklet Kicking Butts in the Twenty-First Century at http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.220/pub_detail.asp .

Unfortunately, while many adults are trying to kick the habit, many teens are getting hooked. Over 20 percent of high school student are current smokers, and will be prone to all the negative health consequences of the habit.(1) ACSH's teen-friendly site on the facts about smoking can be accessed at: http://thescooponsmoking.org/ .

This is our major New Year's resolution because cigarette smoking is the number one cause of preventable deaths in this country. Between 1997 and 2001, smoking was responsible for 438,000 deaths in the U.S. each year and more than $50 billion in medical expenditures. One in every five deaths in the United States is smoking-related, and half of all lifelong smokers die of a smoking-related disease.(2)

So don't let another year go up in smoke. Start the New Year smoke-free.

3. Achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Eat a balanced diet and handle foods safely.

Over half of Americans are overweight, and about a third are obese (meaning that they have a Body Mass Index of 30 or more).(3) The proportion of the population that is overweight has been increasing rapidly in the U.S. for the past 20 years in both the adult and the pediatric population.(4) Excess weight is associated with increased risks of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, arthritis, gallbladder disease, and some types of cancer.(5) Obesity is hard to treat once established: prevention is a better route to take. To help reduce excess weight and to maintain a healthy weight, experts recommend that Americans eat a balanced diet, moderate total calorie intake and portion sizes, and exercise regularly.(6)

The keys to good nutrition are variety, moderation, and balance. There are no "good" or "bad" foods?but there certainly are "good" and "bad" diets.

In addition, many people worry too much about hypothetical hazards from traces of pesticides or other chemical residues in food while paying too little attention to more important food-related risks. For an informative look at the "carcinogenic" chemicals naturally present in food, see ACSH's Holiday Dinner Menu at: http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.103/pub_detail.asp .

One of the most important food-related risks is contamination by microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, and some parasites). Diseases caused by microorganisms in food cause an estimated 5,000 deaths, 325,000 serious illnesses, and 76 million cases of gastrointestinal illness in the U.S. each year.(7)

Be aware that foodborne illness can be contracted from any type of food: fruits and vegetables, as well as meat and poultry products can carry disease-causing microbes. keep foods safe, follow the four principles of the President's National Food Safety Initiative: 1) Clean: Wash hands and surfaces often. 2) Separate: Don't cross-contaminate. 3) Cook: Cook to proper temperatures. 4) Chill: Refrigerate promptly.(8)

For more information, read ACSH's booklet on food safety, Eating Safely: Avoiding Foodborne Illness at: http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.317/pub_detail.asp .

4. Exercise regularly?with caution.

Regular exercise will help you control your weight, improve your overall health, and reduce your risk of medical problems such as heart disease and osteoporosis. To get the most benefit, exercise for at least 30-45 minutes three to five times a week.(9)

When you exercise, make sure to take all the safety precautions that are recommended for the activities that you choose. It's especially important always to wear a helmet while cycling or skating. Wearing a bicycle helmet can reduce your risk of head injury by up to 85%.(10) Other safety equipment, such as kneepads and wrist guards, can also reduce your risk of injury.

Although exercise is beneficial for almost everyone, some people need to consult a doctor to find out what level and types of physical activities are safe for them. This precaution is especially important for heart disease patients, people who have a medical condition that might be aggravated by exercise, and people who are taking any type of medication (especially medicines for high blood pressure or heart disease).(11)

5. Separate drinking and driving.

Never drink and drive. Equally important, never ride as a passenger in a car driven by someone who has been drinking alcohol.

Forty percent of all traffic fatalities in the U.S. are alcohol-related.(12) One American is injured in an alcohol-related driving incident every two minutes.(13) Rates of fatal crashes have begun to rise after a decade of decline in alcohol-related crashes. Since 1999, they have increased slightly by 4% to 10% for all age groups except for ages 16 to 17 years,(14) so there's plenty of room for improvement. There are more than 120 million episodes of impaired driving in the U.S. every year.(15) Every one of these episodes puts people's lives at risk.

So if you plan to drink, make safe transportation arrangements. If no designated driver is available, use mass transit or call a taxi.

6. If you drink alcoholic beverages, keep your intake moderate.

Moderate drinking is OK for most adults (those without a family history of problematic drinking, for example). If you're middle-aged or older, it may even benefit your health by reducing your risk of heart disease. What's moderate? For men age 65 and under, the limit is two drinks per day; for men over 65 and women of all ages, it's one drink per day.(16)

Heavy drinking (that is, drinking that goes beyond the limits of moderation) is not healthful. The heavy drinking of alcohol is associated with increased risks of injury, liver disease, heart disease, high blood pressure, and several types of cancer. It's responsible for more than 100,000 deaths in the U.S. each year.(16)

For more information on the health effects of moderate drinking, see ACSH's booklet Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Health at: http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.391/pub_detail.asp .

7. Take your body to the shop for preventive maintenance.

Your car comes equipped with a maintenance schedule. So does your body. Health authorities recommend that all adults and children should have certain types of preventive care?such as screening tests and immunizations?on a regular schedule. The timing of these services depends on your body's "model" and "mileage" (that is, your gender, family history, and age).

Unfortunately, many Americans have fallen way behind on their maintenance schedules. For example, yearly mammograms and breast exams are recommended for women over the age of 40 (if not younger), but over 24% of women in this age group reported not having had these exams for the previous two years.(17) Everyone over the age of 65 should receive a single immunization against pneumococcal pneumonia and an annual flu shot?but more than a third of all Americans in this age group didn't get a flu shot last year, and more than 40% have never received the pneumococcal vaccine.(18) Influenza and pneumonia together killed over 60,000 Americans in 2002 (the 7th leading cause of death that year); appropriate vaccinations could substantially reduce this unnecessary death toll.(19)

If you haven't been taking routine care of your body (or your child's body), resolve to make an appointment with your doctor this year to find out what preventive services are recommended. And then follow up by getting the necessary tests and immunizations.

For more information on children's immunizations see ACSH's booklet Vaccinations: What Parents Need to Know at: http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.411/pub_detail.asp .

8. Protect yourself against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The best ways to protect yourself against AIDS are to:

* Never use a non-sterile needle to inject anything into your body.
* Either abstain from sex or have sex only with an uninfected partner in a mutually monogamous relationship.

If you choose to have multiple sex partners (or your partner does), you can reduce your risk of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases in the following ways:

* Urge all prospective sexual partners to be tested for sexually transmitted infections.
* Use condoms properly and consistently.
* Avoid sexual intercourse with people who engage in high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex or intravenous drug use.

9. Check "alternative" practices with your doctor.

More than 40% of Americans use some kind of "alternative" therapy,(20) such as herbal medicine, massage, chiropractic, or aromatherapy. Some people think that all alternative practices are harmless, but this isn't necessarily true?especially for people with special medical concerns. For example, people with Parkinson's disease should never take the herb kava-kava because it can worsen their disease symptoms.(21) People with osteoporosis should not receive chiropractic therapy because the manipulation could cause a fracture.(22) For more information on possible drug-supplement interactions, see ACSH's brochure What's the Story? Drug-Supplement Interaction at: http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.515/pub_detail.asp .

Even if an alternative therapy isn't dangerous in itself, it can hurt you if you use it as a substitute for proper medical care. Most alternatives have not been proven effective, and many don't work at all. If your problem turns out to be serious, you could endanger your health?or even your life?by experimenting with unproven therapies instead of seeing a physician promptly.

If you use alternative therapies, you should let your medical doctor know. However, more than 60% of Americans who use alternative methods don't do this.(23) To find out whether any alternative practices you would like to try are safe for you, resolve that you will always check out these methods with your doctor before you start.

10. Use automobile safety devices every time.

A recent survey showed that 82% of all Americans now buckle up?at this rate, seat belts prevent 15,700 deaths, 350,000 serious injuries, and $67 billion in economic costs associated with traffic injuries and deaths every year.(24) This year, resolve that everyone in your car will be buckled into the proper restraint every time. That means seat belts for adults, booster seats (in the rear seat) for older children, and properly installed safety seats (in the rear seat) for small children and infants.

11. Protect your dental health.

You can help keep your teeth healthy by brushing and flossing, getting regular dental care, using fluoride as recommended by your doctor or dentist, eating balanced meals, and limiting snacks. While most people know this, here's something you may not know: more than two million teeth are knocked out every year, many of them from sports-related injuries.(25) Many of these injuries could have been avoided if the person was wearing a mouth protector. So if you play sports that involve a risk of mouth injury, resolve to wear a mouth guard every time.

12. Install and maintain a working smoke detector.

Smoke detectors save lives. They're your best protection against death or injury in a nighttime fire in your home. But they won't protect you if they're not working. The American Red Cross recommends that you test your smoke detectors once a month, replace the batteries at least once a year, and replace the detectors themselves every ten years. You can also protect your family from fire by planning at least two escape routes from every room in your home and making sure that all family members know how to use them.(26)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use among high school students ?United States, 1991-2003. MMWR. 2004: 53(23);499-502. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5323.pdf .

 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Life Lost, and Productivity Losses?United States, 1997-2001.MMWR 2005:54(25):625-628.  Available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5425a1.htm .

3. Hedley A, Ogden CL, Johnson CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, Flegal KM.  Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity Among U.S. Children, Adolescents, and Adults, 1999-2002.  JAMA 2004; 291: 2847-2850.

4. Ibid.

5. Must A, Spadano J, Coakley EH, Field AE, Colditz G, Dietz WH, The disease burden associated with overweight and obesity. JAMA 1999;282:1523-1529.

6. From a Surgeon General page entitled ?Choose a Healthy Weight for Life.?  Available at www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_advice.htm .

7. From a CDC press release dated Sept. 16, 1999 and titled ?CDC data provides the most complete estimate on foodborne disease in the United States.?  Available at www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r990917.htm .

8. These principles are listed in many government documents. They came from an FSIS "food safety feature" dated July 1999 and titled "Cleanliness Helps Prevent Foodborne Illness." It's available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/cleanliness.htm .

9. The American College of Sports Medicine, available at www.acsm.org/pdf/Guidelines.pdf .

10. According to a Consumer Product Safety Commission press release dated April 21, 1999 and available at www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml99/99099.html .

11. From the American Heart Association?s recommendations on physical activity, available at http://216.185.112.5/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4563 .

12. From the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control's "Quick Facts About Impaired Driving." http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/spotlite/3d.htm

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. References for this statement can be found in ACSH's report on moderate drinking.
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.391/pub_detail.asp

17. From the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion?s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Prevalence Data, 2002. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/Trends/trendchart.asp?qkey=10060&state=US

18. This statistic comes from a Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey in 2002, which asked, "During the past 12 months, have you had a flu shot?" In the age group 65+, 35.1% said no. When asked if they?d received the pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine, 37.0% of people 65 or older said no. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/Trends/TrendData.asp

19. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 53, No. 17, March 7, 2005. Available at tp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/nvsr53_17tableE2002.pdf .

20. Eisenberg DM et al, Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997. JAMA 1998;280:1569-1575.

21. References for this statement can be found in our draft report on supplements and the elderly.

22. From a National Safety Council fact sheet called "Is Alternative Medicine Going Mainstream?" http://www.nsc.org/pubs/fsh/archive/spr99/altmed.htm

23. From the article by Eisenberg cited above.

24. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  September, 2005. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuite
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2005/809932.pdf

25. From an American Dental Association press release entitled "Mouth Protectors: Don't Play Without One." http://www.ada.org/public/topics/mouthguards.asp

26. From the American Red Cross fact sheet "Are You Ready for a Residential Fire?" http://www.redcross.org/services/disaster/0,1082,0_584_,00.html .

Resolutions updated by Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Posted: Tuesday, August 23, 2005

PRESS RELEASE
Publication Date: August 23, 2005

New York, NY -- August 23, 2005 (also: see Updates at bottom).  The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) today petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to eliminate "junk science" from the process by which it determines whether a substance is likely to cause cancer in humans. 

The petition, filed on behalf of ACSH by the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), a public interest law firm, argues that current EPA guidelines violate the Information Quality Act (IQA) -- the law that requires the federal government to ensure the "equality, objectivity, utility, and integrity" of information it dispenses to the public. 

Specifically, EPA routinely declares chemicals "carcinogens" -- implying a likelihood of a health threat to humans -- based solely on the creation of tumors in lab rodents by the administration of superhigh doses irrelevant to ordinary human exposure levels.  Furthermore, effects in a single species may not be applicable to another species (rat tests do not even reliably predict effects in mice, which are closely related to rats, let alone effects in humans), though similar effects in multiple species might be an indicator of a genuine problem. 

As ACSH has explained in its report America's War on "Carcinogens", declaring substances "carcinogens" (when they would more properly be called high-dose rodent carcinogens) is a chief source of health panics, public outcry, activist crusades against chemicals, and waste of resources from unnecessary abatement, cleanup, and product recall/reformulation/replacement. 

EPA recently adopted Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment that provide guidance to agency personnel in making determinations that a substance is either a human carcinogen or is "likely" to be carcinogenic to humans.  The ACSH/WLF petition requests that EPA comply with the IQA by eliminating "junk science" from those Guidelines.  In particular, ACSH and WLF request that EPA eliminate statements that indicate that a substance may properly be labeled a "likely" human carcinogen based solely or primarily on the results of animal studies.  Such statements are scientifically unsound, argues the petition, which notes that the great majority of toxicologists share that assessment. 

The law permits EPA, if it so chooses, to adopt policies that err on the side of caution when faced with genuinely equivocal evidence regarding a substance's carcinogenicity, but the IQA does not permit EPA to distort the scientific evidence in furtherance of such policies.  The petition argues that EPA distorts scientific evidence through its Guidelines' use of "default options," its purported right -- based not on scientific evidence but its regulatory mission to protect human health -- to assume that tumors in lab rodents indicate that much smaller doses can cause cancer in humans.  Erring on the "safe side" in regulatory decisions does not, argues the petition, permit EPA to falsely claim that such regulated substances truly are "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." 

To do so, argues ACSH, is a distortion of both science and law. 

For further information, contact ACSH Associate Director Jeff Stier, Esq., at 212-362-7044 (or Stier[at]acsh.org) or contact WLF Chief Counsel Richard Samp at 202-588-0302.

A copy of the petition can be found on WLF's website at: http://wlf.org/Litigating/casedetail.asp?detail=368

UPDATE: EPA responded after ninety days with a request for sixty more days to formulate their response.

UPDATE #2: EPA responded after the additional sixty days with a request for sixty more days -- now its new self-declared deadline for responding to ACSH's petition is March 21.   

UPDATE #3: EPA eventually decided that the Information Quality Act doesn't apply to its policy statements.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
Posted: Friday, April 1, 2005

ARTICLES
Publication Date: April 1, 2005

In the two weeks leading up to Terri Schiavo's death, I followed the coverage of the political and legal machinations proposed to keep her alive.  Ms. Schiavo was the forty-one year-old woman who was in a persistent vegetative state for the last fifteen years following heart failure resulting from a severe eating disorder.  The disorder triggered life-threateningly low levels of potassium, causing her heart to stop temporarily, depriving her brain of oxygen and causing permanent damage.

The emphasis on my cable station of choice (FoxNews) was on the importance of preserving life--at any cost.  Life indeed is precious.  We should be doing everything to prevent unnecessary and premature loss of human life.  The question is this: was 24/7 network coverage of one severely impaired woman the way to discourage unnecessary human death and suffering?  If indeed the TV networks want to reduce human suffering and keep Americans alive and functioning as long as possible (that is, prevent premature death, as it might be argued media were doing by focusing on Schiavo's parents' effort to have her feeding tube re-instated), are there not broader messages the media should send?

For example, there has been scant coverage of the underlying reason Terri was in a vegetative state.  Fifteen years ago, when she was in her mid-20s, Terri apparently had a health problem common among young women: bulimia.  She apparently had fought severe weight problems all her life and was limiting her food intake--and vomiting/purging--to control her caloric absorption.  She sought medical help when her menstrual periods ceased--and it was clear that her eating disorder was negatively affecting her physiological functioning.  Ultimately, the depletion of potassium had the expected effect on her heart: it stopped.  The rest is history.

Thus in the round-the-clock concern about saving a human life, why was there not any expressed concern about others--particularly young women--who might now be about to suffer Terri's fate?  In the course of a hundred hours of non-stop coverage dedicated to saving Terri's life by mandating the re-insertion of her feeding tube, how many other lives could have been saved if even 20% of those hours had focused on eating disorders (the likely victims, the deadly consequences, the existing remedies and treatments)?

Terri Schiavo was but one person.  Yet as a nation, we are committed to the value of all lives.  What about the other estimated one million (yes 1,000,0000) Americans who die prematurely each year from preventable causes?  These are people who "die before their time" because of risk factors such as cigarette smoking, for example?  Cigarettes account for one half of the one million premature deaths.  Where is the 24/7 news coverage, the fretting on FoxNews, the candle-light vigils? 

Why were President Bush, Governor Bush, Senator Frist, and various members of Congress exclusively concerned about preventing what they deemed the premature death of one person--who according to the vast majority of medical authorities was in an irreversible vegetative state--when a) thousands of families each day agree to "let go" of a loved one who cannot be saved (or make other personal life-and-death decisions) and b) there is so much information that could be communicated to Americans on how to prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths each year?

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Home > Health Issues >

Radiation Saves Lives of Breast Cancer Patients, Study Shows
?Women shouldn?t fear radiation therapy ? they should welcome its benefits?

Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005

PRESS RELEASE
Publication Date: December 15, 2005

NEW YORK, NY -- December 15, 2005.  Radiation therapy for breast cancer patients following lumpectomy saves lives and should be used more often, despite the fears of many women about radiation.  So says the American Council on Science and Health, reacting to a study in the December 17, 2005 issue of the British medical journal the Lancet.
Women are often fearful of radiation's potential side effects, but the new Lancet study by Sir Richard Peto and colleagues at Oxford, re-examining studies of some 42,000 women, shows that the benefits outweigh the risks.  The practice of "watchful waiting" after
lumpectomies may be ill-advised.
"This new Lancet study erases any doubt about the value of radiation after lumpectomy," says American Council on Science and Health president Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, hailing the findings.  "Women shouldn?t fear radiation therapy -- they should welcome its benefits."  Some 25% of women forgo radiation therapy after lumpectomies, but it now seems likely that many of those individuals should receive radiation.
The American Council on Science and health is a non-profit consumer education group, advised by over 300 doctors and scientists, that works to put health risks and benefits in perspective.
Contact: Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president, American Council on Science and Health (http://ACSH.org): Whelan@acsh.org 212-362-7044 x237

See also: Whelan's op-ed on the topic: http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.674/news_detail.asp

View the original article here

Peliculas Online