Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
8 Things You Didn’t Know About Dreams
By Sarah Jio,
Everyone dreams—every single night—and yet we tend to know so little about our dreams. Where do they come from? What do they mean? Can we control them and should we try to interpret them? We spoke to the dream experts to bring you nine surprising facts about dreams. Read before snoozing.
1. Dreaming can help you learn.
If you’re studying for a test or trying to learn a new task, you might consider taking a nap or heading to bed early rather than hovering over a textbook an hour longer. Here’s why: When the brain dreams, it helps you learn and solve problems, say researchers at Harvard Medical School. In a study that appeared in a recent issue of Current Biology, researchers report that dreams are the brain’s way of processing, integrating and understanding new information. To improve the quality of your sleep—and your brain’s ability to learn—avoid noise in the bedroom, such as the TV, which may negatively impact the length and quality of dreams.
2. The most common dream? Your spouse is cheating.
If you’ve ever woken up in a cold sweat after dreaming about your husband’s extramarital escapade with your best friend, you’re not alone, says Lauri Quinn Loewenberg, a dream expert, author and media personality. “The most commonly reported dream is the one where your mate is cheating,” she says. Loewenberg conducted a survey of more than 5,000 people, and found that the infidelity dream is the nightmare that haunts most people—sometimes on a recurring basis. It rarely has anything to do with an actual affair, she explains, but rather the common and universal fear of being wronged or left alone.
3. You can have several—even a dozen—dreams in one night.
It’s not just one dream per night, but rather dozens of them, say experts—you just may not remember them all. “We dream every 90 minutes throughout the night, with each cycle of dreaming being longer than the previous,” explains Loewenberg. “The first dream of the night is about 5 minutes long and the last dream you have before awakening can be 45 minutes to an hour long.” It is estimated that most people have more than 100,000 dreams in a lifetime.
4. You can linger in a dream after waking.
Have you ever woken up from such a beautiful, perfect dream that you wished you could go back to sleep to soak it all up (you know, the dream about George Clooney?)? You can! Just lie still—don’t move a muscle—and you can remain in a semi-dreamlike state for a few minutes. “The best way to remember your dreams is to simply stay put when you wake up,” says Loewenberg. “Remain in the position you woke up in, because that is the position you were dreaming in. When you move your body, you disconnect yourself from the dream you were just in seconds ago.”
5. Even bizarre dreams can be interpreted.
While it can be hard to believe that an oddball dream about your mother, a circus and a snowstorm can have any bearing on real life, there may be symbolism and potential meaning to be mined in every dream—you just have to look for it, says Harvard-trained psychotherapist Jeffrey Sumber. "The meaning of our dreams oftentimes relates to things we are needing to understand about ourselves and the world around us,” he says. Instead of shrugging off strange dreams, think about how they make you feel. “We tend to dismiss these dreams due to the strange components, yet it is the feeling we have in these dreams that matters most,” he explains. “Sometimes the circus and the snowstorm are just fillers that allow us to process the range of emotions we feel about our mother and give us the necessary distraction so we can actually experience that spectrum of emotion.”
6. Recurring dreams may be your mind’s way of telling you something.
Do you have the same nightmare over and over again? Loewenberg suggests looking for underlying messages in recurring dreams so that you can rid yourself of them. For example, a common recurring nightmare people have involves losing or cracking their teeth. For this dream, she recommends that people think about what your teeth and your mouth represent. “To the dreaming mind, your teeth, as well as any part of your mouth, are symbolic of your words,” she says. “Paying attention to your teeth dreams helps you to monitor and improve the way you communicate.”
7. You can control your dreams.
The premise of the new movie Inception is that people can take the reins of their dreams and make them what they want them to be. But it may not just be a Hollywood fantasy. According to the results of a new survey of 3,000 people, dream control, or “lucid dreaming” may be a real thing. In fact, 64.9 percent of participants reported being aware they were dreaming within a dream, and 34 percent said they can sometimes control what happens in their dreams. Taking charge of the content of your dreams isn’t a skill everyone has, but it can be developed, says Kelly Bulkeley, PhD, a dream researcher and visiting scholar at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkley, California. The technique is particularly useful for people who suffer from recurring nightmares, he says. Dr. Bulkeley suggests giving yourself a pep talk of sorts before you go to sleep by saying: “If I have that dream again, I’m going to try to remember that’s it’s only a dream, and be aware of that.” When you learn to be aware that you are dreaming—within a dream—you not only have the power to steer yourself away from the monster and into the arms of Brad Pitt, for instance, but you train your mind to avoid nightmares in the first place. “Lucid dreaming enhances your ability to learn from the dream state,” says Dr. Bulkeley.
8. You don’t have to be asleep to dream.
Turns out, you can dream at your desk at work, in the car, even at your kid’s soccer game. Wakeful dreaming—not to be confused with daydreaming—is real and somewhat easy to do, says Dr. Bulkeley; it just involves tapping into your active imagination. The first step is to think about a recent dream you had (preferably a good one!). “Find a quiet contemplative place and bring a dream that you remember back into your waking awareness and let it unfold,” he says. “Let the dream re-energize.” Wakeful dreaming can be used as a relaxation tool, but Dr. Bulkeley says it can also help your mind process a puzzling dream. “It creates a more fluid interaction between unconscious parts of the mind and wakeful parts of the mind,” he says.
Source:health.yahoo.net
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
McDonald's, KFC cash receipts bad for health
The next time you collect your cash receipt from fast-food outlets or groceries, be careful - a new study claims the receipts contain high levels of the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol A.The study by Environmental Working Group found the plastic component BPA on 40 per cent of receipts from McDonald’s, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, Wal-Mart, Safeway and other businesses.
Animal tests have shown that BPA can induce abnormal reproductive system development, diminished intellectual capacity and behavioural abnormalities.
It can set the stage for other serious conditions, such as reproductive system cancer, obesity, diabetes, early puberty, resistance to chemotherapy, asthma and cardiovascular system disorders.
"Consumers are being exposed to BPA at the point of sale once they’re handed a receipt," AOL News quoted senior scientist Dr. Anila Jacob as saying.
Piling up in purses month after month, these receipts could easily contaminate fingers, which then can result in oral or dermal exposure, the physician explained.
The Zurich Official Food Control Authority reported that BPA from register receipts can "enter the skin to such a depth that it can no longer be washed off."
The find is especially crucial for cans for processed food, baby bottles and infant formula.
And not just consumers, millions of people who staff cash registers and bag groceries at tens of thousands of retailers across the country are also at a high risk.
The risk from handling BPA-laden receipts can be significant, Jacob said, and added that eliminating exposure to this ubiquitous yet toxic substance should remain the first priority of U.S. lawmakers.
Source:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Students' low-tech device may save lives
by
We already know that we need to eat plenty of leafy greens to stay healthy, but who knew that a salad spinner itself could help save lives?
As we learn from EurekAlert, Rice University undergraduates Lila Kerr and Lauren Theis were presented with an assignment in their Introduction to Bioengineering and World Health class. As Theis explains:
"We were essentially told we need to find a way to diagnose anemia without power, without it being very costly and with a portable device."
In a solution short on cost but long on ingenuity, the duo modified a basic, everyday salad spinner into an easy to use and transport centrifuge that successfully separates blood to allow diagnosis of anemia with no electricity. The device costs about $30, can process 30 individual 15 microliter blood samples at a time, and can separate blood into its component red cells and plasma in about 20 minutes.
"Sally Centrifuge," as the innovation has been dubbed by its creators, is undergoing a series of field tests this summer in places that will benefit from the availability of effective but low-tech solutions and adaptations. As part of Rice University's Beyond Traditional Borders (BTB), a global health initiative focused primarily on developing countries, Kerr and Theis are traveling along with their device to Ecuador, Swaziland and Malawi, where rural clinics will provide real-world testing of the surprising diagnostic tool.
In rural, under-served and impoverished parts of the world, a positive diagnosis for anemia is a critically important clue when looking for other health problems such as malnutrition, or serious chronic infectious diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. Until now, blood samples taken in the field would have to be sent to a distant location complete with expensive laboratory centrifuges and electricity, while patients would be left waiting for the results — a lapse in time that can be deadly. Being able to diagnose the condition in real time with "Sally Centrifuge" would allow appropriate treatment to begin before before an illness progresses and a patient's condition deteriorates too drastically.
Maria Oden, engineering professor and co-adviser to the team, reflects on how successfully the two young women approached the assignment by providing something that may literally save lives as it is brought to bear on pressing health challenges in rural and economically under-developed regions of the world:
"The students really did an amazing job of taking very simple, low-cost materials and creating a device their research shows correlates nicely with hematocrit levels in the blood. Many of the patients seen in developing world clinics are anemic, and it's a severe health problem. Being able to diagnose it with no power, with a device that's extremely lightweight, is very valuable."
Source:http://shine.yahoo.com
Salad Spinner Centrifuge: A Cheap, Ingenious Health Care Tool
We already know that we need to eat plenty of leafy greens to stay healthy, but who knew that a salad spinner itself could help save lives?As we learn from EurekAlert, Rice University undergraduates Lila Kerr and Lauren Theis were presented with an assignment in their Introduction to Bioengineering and World Health class. As Theis explains:
"We were essentially told we need to find a way to diagnose anemia without power, without it being very costly and with a portable device."
In a solution short on cost but long on ingenuity, the duo modified a basic, everyday salad spinner into an easy to use and transport centrifuge that successfully separates blood to allow diagnosis of anemia with no electricity. The device costs about $30, can process 30 individual 15 microliter blood samples at a time, and can separate blood into its component red cells and plasma in about 20 minutes.
"Sally Centrifuge," as the innovation has been dubbed by its creators, is undergoing a series of field tests this summer in places that will benefit from the availability of effective but low-tech solutions and adaptations. As part of Rice University's Beyond Traditional Borders (BTB), a global health initiative focused primarily on developing countries, Kerr and Theis are traveling along with their device to Ecuador, Swaziland and Malawi, where rural clinics will provide real-world testing of the surprising diagnostic tool.
In rural, under-served and impoverished parts of the world, a positive diagnosis for anemia is a critically important clue when looking for other health problems such as malnutrition, or serious chronic infectious diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. Until now, blood samples taken in the field would have to be sent to a distant location complete with expensive laboratory centrifuges and electricity, while patients would be left waiting for the results — a lapse in time that can be deadly. Being able to diagnose the condition in real time with "Sally Centrifuge" would allow appropriate treatment to begin before before an illness progresses and a patient's condition deteriorates too drastically.
Maria Oden, engineering professor and co-adviser to the team, reflects on how successfully the two young women approached the assignment by providing something that may literally save lives as it is brought to bear on pressing health challenges in rural and economically under-developed regions of the world:
"The students really did an amazing job of taking very simple, low-cost materials and creating a device their research shows correlates nicely with hematocrit levels in the blood. Many of the patients seen in developing world clinics are anemic, and it's a severe health problem. Being able to diagnose it with no power, with a device that's extremely lightweight, is very valuable."
Source:http://shine.yahoo.com
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Drug for Sexual Desire Disorder Opposed by Panel
By DUFF WILSON
A federal advisory panel on Friday unanimously voted against recommending approving a drug to treat female sexual desire disorder, but it encouraged the company to continue its research.
That vote by the panel, an adviser to the Food and Drug Administration, followed an F.D.A. staff report earlier this week that also recommended against approval. Such advisory votes do not always influence the F.D.A.’s final decision on a drug, but often they do.
The panel, the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, voted against a new drug application by Boehringer Ingelheim, a German pharmaceutical company. Dr. Julia V. Johnson, the panel’s chairwoman, said that the drug’s impact was “not robust enough to justify the risks,” which include dizziness, nausea and fatigue, particularly with long-term daily use.
But Dr. Johnson, head of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, encouraged Boehringer to perform more research. The drug, originally intended as an antidepressant, was meant to elevate sexual desire in premenopausal women who are distressed by diminished libidos.
Another panel member, Dr. Kathleen Hoeger, a reproductive endocrinologist with the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that the research was “incredibly important” but that more work was required to improve long-term safety.
The Boehringer drug, flibanserin, affects brain chemicals, like dopamine and serotonin, thought to be involved with sexual drive.
The F.D.A. staff found that it had effectively increased the number of sexually satisfying events reported by more than 1,000 women with depressed libido, increasing those events by a statistically significant 0.8 per month in randomized, placebo-controlled experiments.
But the staff found the drug had not been proved to increase women’s desire — a crucial element of the diagnosis, which involves low or no sexual interest to the point of distress in otherwise healthy people.
The diagnosis, called hypoactive sexual desire disorder, is itself controversial. In the last month Boehringer has mounted a publicity campaign promoting the disorder, in advance of F.D.A. decision-making.
Dr. Anita H. Clayton, a Boehringer consultant and psychiatry professor at the University of Virginia, said the desire disorder affected 6 to 10 percent of premenopausal women, although that estimate was challenged by several speakers at the advisory committee hearing.
Boehringer will continue its research on the drug, a company official said after the vote.
“We are disappointed with the advisory committee’s recommendations and will work with the F.D.A. to address questions raised,” Dr. Christopher Corsico, Boehringer’s United States medical director, said in a statement.
Earlier this week, the company said it was also working in other countries to gain approval for the drug. Lara Crissey, a spokeswoman, wrote in an e-mail message, “We are in discussions with various regulatory agencies worldwide.”
The panel’s 11-to-0 vote was the second time in six years that an F.D.A. advisory panel had unanimously opposed a drug maker’s attempt to treat the female sexual dysfunction. There is no approved drug for the condition.
Various hormonal therapies have been tried.
The F.D.A. rejected a proposed testosterone patch from Procter & Gamble in 2004. That product was approved in Europe in 2006 for use by women who suffered low libido after removal of their uterus and ovaries, after all other forms of sex therapy failed. The product, Intrinsa, has been widely used by women in England who are not surgically menopausal.
BioSante Pharmaceuticals of Illinois plans to seek F.D.A. approval next year for a testosterone product called LibiGel, its spokesman, Alan Zachary, said Friday.
Some doctors already prescribe hormone therapies in so-called off-label uses. Over 4 million testosterone prescriptions were written for women’s sexual dysfunctions in 2009, although it has not been approved by the F.D.A. for that, said Stephen M. Simes, BioSante’s president.
Sheryl A. Kingsberg, a psychologist, Case Western Reserve University medical professor and prominent industry consultant, said widespread off-label use of hormonal drugs indicated a pent-up demand for pharmaceutical help for women.
Professor Kingsberg said Friday that she was disappointed in the F.D.A. advisory vote because Boehringer’s product would have been the first one on the market for younger women with the sexual desire disorder, treating them without hormones.
“I certainly hope Boehringer doesn’t give up,” she said in a phone interview. “Flibanserin showed an awful lot of promise. I’m going to have some very, very disappointed patients if there’s nothing for them.”
But Amy Allina, program director for the National Women’s Health Network, an advocacy group, said: “For some it may turn out that there is a drug that provides effective treatment. But this drug is not it.”
Source:http://www.nytimes.com
A federal advisory panel on Friday unanimously voted against recommending approving a drug to treat female sexual desire disorder, but it encouraged the company to continue its research.
That vote by the panel, an adviser to the Food and Drug Administration, followed an F.D.A. staff report earlier this week that also recommended against approval. Such advisory votes do not always influence the F.D.A.’s final decision on a drug, but often they do.
The panel, the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, voted against a new drug application by Boehringer Ingelheim, a German pharmaceutical company. Dr. Julia V. Johnson, the panel’s chairwoman, said that the drug’s impact was “not robust enough to justify the risks,” which include dizziness, nausea and fatigue, particularly with long-term daily use.
But Dr. Johnson, head of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, encouraged Boehringer to perform more research. The drug, originally intended as an antidepressant, was meant to elevate sexual desire in premenopausal women who are distressed by diminished libidos.
Another panel member, Dr. Kathleen Hoeger, a reproductive endocrinologist with the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that the research was “incredibly important” but that more work was required to improve long-term safety.
The Boehringer drug, flibanserin, affects brain chemicals, like dopamine and serotonin, thought to be involved with sexual drive.
The F.D.A. staff found that it had effectively increased the number of sexually satisfying events reported by more than 1,000 women with depressed libido, increasing those events by a statistically significant 0.8 per month in randomized, placebo-controlled experiments.
But the staff found the drug had not been proved to increase women’s desire — a crucial element of the diagnosis, which involves low or no sexual interest to the point of distress in otherwise healthy people.
The diagnosis, called hypoactive sexual desire disorder, is itself controversial. In the last month Boehringer has mounted a publicity campaign promoting the disorder, in advance of F.D.A. decision-making.
Dr. Anita H. Clayton, a Boehringer consultant and psychiatry professor at the University of Virginia, said the desire disorder affected 6 to 10 percent of premenopausal women, although that estimate was challenged by several speakers at the advisory committee hearing.
Boehringer will continue its research on the drug, a company official said after the vote.
“We are disappointed with the advisory committee’s recommendations and will work with the F.D.A. to address questions raised,” Dr. Christopher Corsico, Boehringer’s United States medical director, said in a statement.
Earlier this week, the company said it was also working in other countries to gain approval for the drug. Lara Crissey, a spokeswoman, wrote in an e-mail message, “We are in discussions with various regulatory agencies worldwide.”
The panel’s 11-to-0 vote was the second time in six years that an F.D.A. advisory panel had unanimously opposed a drug maker’s attempt to treat the female sexual dysfunction. There is no approved drug for the condition.
Various hormonal therapies have been tried.
The F.D.A. rejected a proposed testosterone patch from Procter & Gamble in 2004. That product was approved in Europe in 2006 for use by women who suffered low libido after removal of their uterus and ovaries, after all other forms of sex therapy failed. The product, Intrinsa, has been widely used by women in England who are not surgically menopausal.
BioSante Pharmaceuticals of Illinois plans to seek F.D.A. approval next year for a testosterone product called LibiGel, its spokesman, Alan Zachary, said Friday.
Some doctors already prescribe hormone therapies in so-called off-label uses. Over 4 million testosterone prescriptions were written for women’s sexual dysfunctions in 2009, although it has not been approved by the F.D.A. for that, said Stephen M. Simes, BioSante’s president.
Sheryl A. Kingsberg, a psychologist, Case Western Reserve University medical professor and prominent industry consultant, said widespread off-label use of hormonal drugs indicated a pent-up demand for pharmaceutical help for women.
Professor Kingsberg said Friday that she was disappointed in the F.D.A. advisory vote because Boehringer’s product would have been the first one on the market for younger women with the sexual desire disorder, treating them without hormones.
“I certainly hope Boehringer doesn’t give up,” she said in a phone interview. “Flibanserin showed an awful lot of promise. I’m going to have some very, very disappointed patients if there’s nothing for them.”
But Amy Allina, program director for the National Women’s Health Network, an advocacy group, said: “For some it may turn out that there is a drug that provides effective treatment. But this drug is not it.”
Source:http://www.nytimes.com
Monday, June 14, 2010
5 Summer Skin Problems—Solved
by RealBeauty.com,The summer brings a lot of good things: Italian ices, 8 p.m. sun sets and more outdoor time. And doesn't the sun feel really good on your skin—and even better once you can get to an air-conditioned area? Thing is, it also brings a slew of beauty problems that are special to the hot-weather season. Check out the top five skin-related summer bummers, then see the other 28 here. Tell us: What's the one beauty issue you can't stand to deal with in the summer?
Your Face Is an Oil Slick
Since humidity boosts oil production, oilier skin will benefit from swiping on a toner twice a day. A weekly clay mask will draw out impurities, but be careful using these as they can also be drying to your skin.
Try The Body Shop Seaweed Iconic Clay Mask, $22; thebodyshop-usa.com
Your Arms and Legs Look Like Chicken Skin
If you're seeing little red bumps on your skin, you're most likely suffering from keratosis pilaris — bumpy chicken skin that normally crops up on the backs of your upper arms. Try using a lotion with alpha- or beta-hydroxy acids to dissolve the bumps, but do not try to scrub them off with a loofah, as this could worsen your condition.
You're Prone to Ingrown Hairs
To avoid unsightly razor burn, hydrate thirsty skin with a shave cream rich in essential oils, or forgo the blade altogether and use a shea-butter-infused depilating cream. New spray-on formulas mean hands stay clean, but apply more than you think you need to and stand on a towel to keep bathroom tiles slip-free. For a quick fix on the go, toss a mini electric shaver in your beach bag — great for showerless fuzz-busting — but remember to lube up afterward (those metal teeth are moisture-killers).
Try Nair 3-in-1 Formula Exfoliator, $7.99; drugstore.com
Shaving and rubbing against rough fabrics create friction, and that leads to inflammation and brown or grayish patches, says Jeanine Downie, a New Jersey dermatologist. Brighten up with a lotion that contains hydroquinone (a good one: Ambi Fade Cream, $5; walgreens.com). Also, use a new razor every three shaves (dull ones irritate your pits).
Your Sunscreen Makes You Break Out
"Usually acne caused by sunscreens is not from the chemicals that provide the sun protection, but secondary to the vehicle in the sunscreen," says NYC-based dermatologist Eric Schweiger. "Try to find oil-free or non-comedogenic sunscreens."
Try Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Liquid Sunblock, $11.99; target.com
Source:http://shine.yahoo.com
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Gates Foundation gives $1.5 bln for women's health
.jpg)
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pledged $1.5 billion on Monday in a joint push with the United Nations to improve the health of women and children, while launching a lobbying effort to get governments and other non-profit groups on board.
The program aims to cut across the "silos" of health initiatives focused on one thing -- AIDS, for example, or nutrition -- and get broader initiatives into place.
"That is in addition to grants that we already make in vaccines, diarrhea, malaria," Melinda Gates told reporters.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he would try to focus the Group of 20 meeting in Toronto later this month on the subject, adding the goal is to raise $15 billion.
"We may need an additional $45 billion by 2015," Ban said.
Ban and Gates described a comprehensive approach through 2014 to help women deliver babies safely and plan healthy families with access to contraception, while incorporating current vaccination and nutrition programs.
"The women and children are always last in line for health issues," Ban said. "It's just morally unacceptable ... This is a real human rights issue."
Ban said the United Nations would lean on developed nations and non-profits alike.
"We need all of the actors," he said. "Getting strong support from a foundation like Melinda and Bill Gates is a strong political tool for me."
Ban, in Washington for the international Women Deliver conference, said he hoped the United States would provide money and political push.
"I know the current economic situation is quite difficult. But the current economic situation should not give any excuse to pay less attention to this," he said.
POLICY CHANGES
Nor are poorer nations off the hook. Developing countries should devote at least 15 percent of their national budgets to health issues, Ban said.
"They can make policy changes that make an enormous difference to women and children," Gates said. "This is a government issue and it is going to take large-scale government funding to make it work."
She praised the Ethiopian government for opening 15,000 clinics, for instance, and hiring 30,000 visiting health workers.
The foundation, set up by billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates with his wife Melinda, said it would provide initial grants of $94 million for work in India and $60 million for Ethiopia. Some of the first groups funded include the non-profit Save the Children and the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition.
Gates cited recent statistics showing it is possible to make progress.
In April, Dr. Christopher Murray of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington found that deaths of women in and around childbirth have gone down by an average of 35 percent globally.
And last month, the same group found that deaths among children under age 5 fell from 11.9 million in 1990 to 7.7 million in 2010.
World Bank managing director Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said she hoped her institution could work with Gates on the program.
"The reason why I think this could work is this is one area where we do have solutions," she told Reuters at the conference. "We do know what works. Some of it has proven to be quite successful."
Source:http://www.reuters.com
Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests
By Madison Park, CNN
A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.
The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 78 lesbian couples who conceived through sperm donations and assessed their children's well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews.
Funding for the research came from several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups, such as the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association.
Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the author of the study, wrote that the "funding sources played no role in the design or conduct of the study."
"My personal investment is in doing reputable research," said Gartrell. "This is a straightforward statistical analysis. It will stand and it has withstood very rigorous peer review by the people who make the decision whether or not to publish it."
Gay parenting remains a controversial issue, with debates about topics including the children's psychological adjustment, their parents' sexual orientation and adoption restrictions.
Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, a group that supports biblical values, questioned the legitimacy of the findings from a study funded by gay advocacy groups.
"That proves the prejudice and bias of the study," she said. "This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome -- to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household."
Gartrell started the study in 1986. She recruited subjects through announcements in bookstores, lesbian events and newspapers throughout metro Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California, and Washington.
The mothers were interviewed during pregnancy or the insemination process, and additionally when the children were 2, 5, 10 and 17 years old. Those children are now 18 to 23 years old.
They were interviewed four times as they matured and also completed an online questionnaire at age 17, focusing on their psychological adjustment, peer and family relationships and academic progress.
To assess their well-being, Gartrell used the Child Behavior Checklist, a commonly used standard to measure children's behavioral and social problems, such as anxiety, depression, aggressive behavior and social competence.
The answers were coded into a computer and then analyzed. This data was compared with data from children of nonlesbian families.
The results surprised Gartrell.
"I would have anticipated the kids would be doing as well as the normative sample," she said. "I didn't expect better."
Children from lesbian families rated higher in social, academic and total competence. They also showed lower rates in social, rule-breaking, aggressive problem behavior.
The involvement of mothers may be a contributing factor, in addition to the fact that the pregnancies were planned, Gartrell said.
Tell iReport: Growing up with gay parents
The children "didn't arrive by accident," she said. "The mothers were older... they were waiting for an opportunity to have children and age brings maturity and better parenting."
This also could have occurred because "growing up in households with less power assertion and more parental involvement has been shown to be associated with healthier psychological adjustment," Gartrell wrote in the study.
Some of the teenagers reported being stigmatized by peers because of their parents' sexuality. Researchers compared the figures in terms of the psychological adjustment between children who had experienced stigma versus those who did not.
"We found no differences," Gartrell said. "That leads us to asking why and how are young people managing discrimination? That will be the topic of future papers. We'll look into what the ingredients are to allow them to cope despite adversity."
Gartrell studied only lesbian families, because circumstances surrounding gay male families are different. Gay men becoming fathers is newer in comparison with lesbians, because their options have been limited to adoption or surrogacy. Lesbians often conceive through donor insemination.
"This study shows that the 17-year-old adolescents who have been reared by lesbian families are psychologically happy and high functioning," said Gartrell, a Williams distinguished scholar at the UCLA School of Law. Restrictions of child custody and reproductive technologies based on sexual orientation are not justified, she said.
Wright questioned the objectivity of Gartrell's research, saying the author can "cherry pick people who are involved and the info they release."
"In essence, this study claims to purport that children do better when raised by lesbians," she said.
Studies have shown that children thrive having both a mother and a father, Wright said.
"You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," she said. "It just defies common sense and reality."
Source:http://edition.cnn.com
A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.
The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 78 lesbian couples who conceived through sperm donations and assessed their children's well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews.
Funding for the research came from several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups, such as the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association.
"My personal investment is in doing reputable research," said Gartrell. "This is a straightforward statistical analysis. It will stand and it has withstood very rigorous peer review by the people who make the decision whether or not to publish it."
Gay parenting remains a controversial issue, with debates about topics including the children's psychological adjustment, their parents' sexual orientation and adoption restrictions.
Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, a group that supports biblical values, questioned the legitimacy of the findings from a study funded by gay advocacy groups.
"That proves the prejudice and bias of the study," she said. "This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome -- to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household."
Gartrell started the study in 1986. She recruited subjects through announcements in bookstores, lesbian events and newspapers throughout metro Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California, and Washington.
The mothers were interviewed during pregnancy or the insemination process, and additionally when the children were 2, 5, 10 and 17 years old. Those children are now 18 to 23 years old.
They were interviewed four times as they matured and also completed an online questionnaire at age 17, focusing on their psychological adjustment, peer and family relationships and academic progress.
To assess their well-being, Gartrell used the Child Behavior Checklist, a commonly used standard to measure children's behavioral and social problems, such as anxiety, depression, aggressive behavior and social competence.
The answers were coded into a computer and then analyzed. This data was compared with data from children of nonlesbian families.
The results surprised Gartrell.
"I would have anticipated the kids would be doing as well as the normative sample," she said. "I didn't expect better."
Children from lesbian families rated higher in social, academic and total competence. They also showed lower rates in social, rule-breaking, aggressive problem behavior.
The involvement of mothers may be a contributing factor, in addition to the fact that the pregnancies were planned, Gartrell said.
Tell iReport: Growing up with gay parents
The children "didn't arrive by accident," she said. "The mothers were older... they were waiting for an opportunity to have children and age brings maturity and better parenting."
This also could have occurred because "growing up in households with less power assertion and more parental involvement has been shown to be associated with healthier psychological adjustment," Gartrell wrote in the study.
Some of the teenagers reported being stigmatized by peers because of their parents' sexuality. Researchers compared the figures in terms of the psychological adjustment between children who had experienced stigma versus those who did not.
"We found no differences," Gartrell said. "That leads us to asking why and how are young people managing discrimination? That will be the topic of future papers. We'll look into what the ingredients are to allow them to cope despite adversity."
Gartrell studied only lesbian families, because circumstances surrounding gay male families are different. Gay men becoming fathers is newer in comparison with lesbians, because their options have been limited to adoption or surrogacy. Lesbians often conceive through donor insemination.
"This study shows that the 17-year-old adolescents who have been reared by lesbian families are psychologically happy and high functioning," said Gartrell, a Williams distinguished scholar at the UCLA School of Law. Restrictions of child custody and reproductive technologies based on sexual orientation are not justified, she said.
Wright questioned the objectivity of Gartrell's research, saying the author can "cherry pick people who are involved and the info they release."
"In essence, this study claims to purport that children do better when raised by lesbians," she said.
Studies have shown that children thrive having both a mother and a father, Wright said.
"You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," she said. "It just defies common sense and reality."
Source:http://edition.cnn.com
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Teen sex: More use rhythm method for birth control
By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer
A growing number of teen girls say they use the rhythm method for birth control, and more teens also think it's OK for an unmarried female to have a baby, according to a government survey released Wednesday.
The report may help explain why the teen pregnancy rate is no longer dropping like it was.
Overall, teenage use of birth control and teen attitudes toward pregnancy have remained about the same since a similar survey was done in 2002.
But there were some notable exceptions in the new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 17 percent of sexually experienced teen girls say they had used the rhythm method — timing their sex to avoid fertile days to prevent getting pregnant. That's up from 11 percent in 2002.
They may have been using another form of birth control at the same time. But the increase is considered worrisome because the rhythm method doesn't work about 25 percent of the time, said Joyce Abma, the report's lead author. She's a social scientist at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
The survey results were based on face-to-face interviews with nearly 2,800 teens ages 15 through 19 at their homes in the years 2006 through 2008. Trained female interviewers asked the questions.
It found that about 42 percent of never-married teens had had sex at least once in their life. Of those teens, 98 percent said they'd used birth control at least once, with condoms being the most common choice. Those findings were about the same as in the 2002 survey.
The increase in the rhythm method may be part of the explanation for recent trends in the teen birth rate. The teen birth rate declined steadily from 1991 through 2005, but rose from 2005 to 2007. It dropped again in 2008, by 2 percent, to about 10 percent of all births.
"We've known the decline in childbearing stalled out. This report kind of fills in the why," said Bill Albert, a spokesman for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
Teen attitudes may be big part of it. Nearly 64 percent of teen boys said it's OK for an unmarried female to have a child, up from 50 percent in 2002. More than 70 percent of teen girls agreed, up from 65 percent, though the female increase was not statistically significant.
The survey was conducted at a time of some highly publicized pregnancies of unmarried teens, including Bristol Palin, the daughter of former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and Jamie Lynn Spears, Britney's kid sister. The 2007 movie "Juno," a happy-ending tale of a teen girl's accidental pregnancy, was popular at the time.
Source:http://news.yahoo.com
Monday, May 31, 2010
Study: 10 minutes of exercise, hour-long effects
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
Ten minutes of brisk exercise triggers metabolic changes that last at least an hour. The unfair news for panting newbies: The more fit you are, the more benefits you just might be getting.
We all know that exercise and a good diet are important for health, protecting against heart disease and diabetes, among other conditions. But what exactly causes the health improvement from working up a sweat or from eating, say, more olive oil than saturated fat? And are some people biologically predisposed to get more benefit than others?
They're among questions that metabolic profiling, a new field called metabolomics, aims to answer in hopes of one day optimizing those benefits — or finding patterns that may signal risk for disease and new ways to treat it.
"We're only beginning to catalog the metabolic variability between people," says Dr. Robert Gerszten of Massachusetts General Hospital, whose team just took a step toward that goal.
The researchers measured biochemical changes in the blood of a variety of people: the healthy middle-aged, some who became short of breath with exertion, and marathon runners.
First, in 70 healthy people put on a treadmill, the team found more than 20 metabolites that change during exercise, naturally produced compounds involved in burning calories and fat and improving blood-sugar control. Some weren't known until now to be involved with exercise. Some revved up during exercise, like those involved in processing fat. Others involved with cellular stress decreased with exercise.
Those are pretty wonky findings, a first step in a complex field. But they back today's health advice that even brief bouts of activity are good.
"Ten minutes of exercise has at least an hour of effects on your body," says Gerszten, who found some of the metabolic changes that began after 10 minutes on the treadmill still were measurable 60 minutes after people cooled down.
Your heart rate rapidly drops back to normal when you quit moving, usually in 10 minutes or so. So finding lingering biochemical changes offers what Gerszten calls "tantalizing evidence" of how exercise may be building up longer-term benefits.
Back to the blood. Thinner people had greater increases in a metabolite named niacinamide, a nutrient byproduct that's involved in blood-sugar control, the team from Mass General and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard reported last week in the journal Science Translational Medicine.
Checking a metabolite of fat breakdown, the team found people who were more fit — as measured by oxygen intake during exercise — appeared to be burning more fat than the less fit, or than people with shortness of breath, a possible symptom of heart disease.
The extremely fit — 25 Boston Marathon runners — had ten-fold increases in that metabolite after the race. Still other differences in metabolites allowed the researchers to tell which runners had finished in under four hours and which weren't as speedy.
"We have a chemical snapshot of what the more fit person looks like. Now we have to see if making someone's metabolism look like that snapshot, whether or not that's going to improve their performance," says Gerszten, whose ultimate goal is better cardiac care.
Don't expect a pill ever to substitute for a workout — the new work shows how complicated the body's response to exercise is, says metabolomics researcher Dr. Debbie Muoio of Duke University Medical Center.
But scientists are hunting nutritional compounds that might help tweak metabolic processes in specific ways. For example, Muoio discovered the muscles of diabetic animals lack enough of a metabolite named carnitine, and that feeding them more improved their control of blood sugar. Now, Muoio is beginning a pilot study in 25 older adults with pre-diabetes to see if carnitine supplements might work similarly in people who lack enough.
Next up: With University of Vermont researchers, she's testing how metabolic changes correlate with health measures in a study of people who alternate between a carefully controlled Mediterranean diet and higher-fat diets.
"The longterm hope is you could use this in making our way toward personalized medicine," Muoio says.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com
Ten minutes of brisk exercise triggers metabolic changes that last at least an hour. The unfair news for panting newbies: The more fit you are, the more benefits you just might be getting.
We all know that exercise and a good diet are important for health, protecting against heart disease and diabetes, among other conditions. But what exactly causes the health improvement from working up a sweat or from eating, say, more olive oil than saturated fat? And are some people biologically predisposed to get more benefit than others?
They're among questions that metabolic profiling, a new field called metabolomics, aims to answer in hopes of one day optimizing those benefits — or finding patterns that may signal risk for disease and new ways to treat it.
"We're only beginning to catalog the metabolic variability between people," says Dr. Robert Gerszten of Massachusetts General Hospital, whose team just took a step toward that goal.
The researchers measured biochemical changes in the blood of a variety of people: the healthy middle-aged, some who became short of breath with exertion, and marathon runners.
First, in 70 healthy people put on a treadmill, the team found more than 20 metabolites that change during exercise, naturally produced compounds involved in burning calories and fat and improving blood-sugar control. Some weren't known until now to be involved with exercise. Some revved up during exercise, like those involved in processing fat. Others involved with cellular stress decreased with exercise.
Those are pretty wonky findings, a first step in a complex field. But they back today's health advice that even brief bouts of activity are good.
"Ten minutes of exercise has at least an hour of effects on your body," says Gerszten, who found some of the metabolic changes that began after 10 minutes on the treadmill still were measurable 60 minutes after people cooled down.
Your heart rate rapidly drops back to normal when you quit moving, usually in 10 minutes or so. So finding lingering biochemical changes offers what Gerszten calls "tantalizing evidence" of how exercise may be building up longer-term benefits.
Back to the blood. Thinner people had greater increases in a metabolite named niacinamide, a nutrient byproduct that's involved in blood-sugar control, the team from Mass General and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard reported last week in the journal Science Translational Medicine.
Checking a metabolite of fat breakdown, the team found people who were more fit — as measured by oxygen intake during exercise — appeared to be burning more fat than the less fit, or than people with shortness of breath, a possible symptom of heart disease.
The extremely fit — 25 Boston Marathon runners — had ten-fold increases in that metabolite after the race. Still other differences in metabolites allowed the researchers to tell which runners had finished in under four hours and which weren't as speedy.
"We have a chemical snapshot of what the more fit person looks like. Now we have to see if making someone's metabolism look like that snapshot, whether or not that's going to improve their performance," says Gerszten, whose ultimate goal is better cardiac care.
Don't expect a pill ever to substitute for a workout — the new work shows how complicated the body's response to exercise is, says metabolomics researcher Dr. Debbie Muoio of Duke University Medical Center.
But scientists are hunting nutritional compounds that might help tweak metabolic processes in specific ways. For example, Muoio discovered the muscles of diabetic animals lack enough of a metabolite named carnitine, and that feeding them more improved their control of blood sugar. Now, Muoio is beginning a pilot study in 25 older adults with pre-diabetes to see if carnitine supplements might work similarly in people who lack enough.
Next up: With University of Vermont researchers, she's testing how metabolic changes correlate with health measures in a study of people who alternate between a carefully controlled Mediterranean diet and higher-fat diets.
"The longterm hope is you could use this in making our way toward personalized medicine," Muoio says.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Preventing cervical cancer
By Ojia AdamolekunMay 25, 2010 01:43AM
The cervix is part of a woman's reproductive system located in the pelvis. The cervix is the lower, narrow part of the uterus (womb). It connects the uterus to the vagina. During a menstrual period, blood flows from the uterus through the cervix into the vagina. The vagina leads to the outside of the body.
Cancer begins in cells, the building blocks that make up tissues. Tissues make up the organs of the body. Normal cells grow and divide to form new cells as the body needs them. When normal cells grow old or get damaged, they die, and new cells take their place. Sometimes, this process goes wrong. New cells form when the body does not need them, and old or damaged cells do not die as they should. The buildup of extra cells often forms a mass of tissue called a growth or tumor.
Cancer of the cervix is caused by the human papillomavirus. The prevention of cervical cancer can be broken down into primary, secondary, and tertiary preventions. Cancer of the cervix is most prevalent in women between the ages of 18 - 65.
The primary prevention basically deals with the education of young girls about early sex, protected sex, vesico-vaginal fistula (VVF), HIV, and personal hygiene. These lectures and conferences should be given at different intervals so as to ensure proper understanding. The secondary prevention is basically about the tests that can be done to screen for this cancer. The Pap Smear is the most common of these screenings and should be done once every year for 3 years and if the result is negative, it should be continued once every 3 years.
In many cases, the HPV test is also recommended as a useful addition to the Pap Smear. The tertiary prevention happens only when a Pap Smear is positive. Identification of the cancer at the earliest stages and treatments should begin immediately to prevent further spread of the cancer.
Early detection is also crucial in combating cervical cancer. In the last few years, there have been some phenomenal improvements in screening technology due to the development of low cost DNA tests aimed at detecting the HPV virus.
Research suggests that even if women in developing countries had access to just one screening in their life-time, it could reduce their risk of cervical cancer by a third.
In March 2009, health ministers from African nations, African doctors, and advisors, the World Health Organization, representatives from the pharmaceutical industry, leading international oncologists, and major global cancer organisations and charities met at St. Catherine's College, Oxford, for the ‘Towards Prevention of Cervical Cancer in Africa' conference.
At the end of the meeting, the delegates signed the Oxford Declaration committing, for the first time, to global cooperation to eradicate cervical cancer in Africa.
Courtesy http://www.afrox.org
Source: http://234next.com
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
UK bans doctor who linked autism to vaccine
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer
LONDON – The doctor whose research linking autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella influenced millions of parents to refuse the shot for their children was banned Monday from practicing medicine in his native Britain.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield's 1998 study was discredited — but vaccination rates have never fully recovered and he continues to enjoy a vocal following, helped in the U.S. by endorsements from celebrities like Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy
"That is Andrew Wakefield's legacy," said Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "The hospitalizations and deaths of children from measles who could have easily avoided the disease."
Wakefield's discredited theories had a tremendous impact in the U.S., Offit said, adding: "He gave heft to the notion that vaccines in general cause autism."
In Britain, Wakefield's research led to a huge decline in the number of children receiving the MMR vaccine: from 95 percent in 1995 — enough to prevent measles outbreaks — to 50 percent in parts of London in the early 2000s. Rates have begun to recover, though not enough to prevent outbreaks. In 2006, a 13-year-old boy became the first person to die from measles in Britain in 14 years.
"The false suggestion of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine has done untold damage to the UK vaccination program," said Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. "Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that it is safe."
On Monday, Britain's General Medical Council, which licenses and oversees doctors, found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct and stripped him of the right to practice medicine in the U.K. Wakefield said he plans to appeal the ruling, which takes effect within 28 days.
The council was acting on a finding in January that Wakefield and two other doctors showed a "callous disregard" for the children in their study, published in 1998 in the medical journal Lancet. The medical body said Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them 5 pounds (about $7.20) each and later joked about the incident.
The study has since been widely rejected. From 1998-2004, studies in journals including the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, Pediatrics and BMJ published papers showing no link between autism and the measles vaccine.
Wakefield moved to the U.S. in 2004 and set up an autism research center in Austin, Texas, where he gained a wide following despite being unlicensed as a doctor there and facing skepticism from the medical community. He quit earlier this year.
Offit said he doubted Britain's decision to strip the 53-year-old Wakefield of his medical license would convince many parents that vaccines are safe.
"He's become almost like a Christ-like figure and it doesn't matter that science has proven him wrong," Offit said. "He is a hero for parents who think no one else is listening to them."
Wakefield told The Associated Press Monday's decision was a sad day for British medicine. "None of this alters the fact that vaccines can cause autism," he said.
"These parents are not going away; the children are not going to go away and I most certainly am not going away," he said on NBC's "Today Show."
Wakefield claimed the U.S. government has been settling cases of vaccine-induced autism since 1991.
However, two rulings by a special branch of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in March and last year found no link between vaccines and autism. More than 5,500 claims have been filed by families seeking compensation for children they claim were hurt by the vaccine.
Wakefield has won support from parents suspicious of vaccines, including Hollywood celebrities.
McCarthy, who has an autistic son, issued a statement in February with then boyfriend Carrey asserting Wakefield was "being vilified through a well-orchestrated smear campaign."
"It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers," the actors said.
McCarthy, whose best-seller "Louder Than Words" details her search for treatments for her son Evan, wrote the foreword for a new book by Wakefield about autism and vaccines.
In Monday's ruling, the medical council said Wakefield abused his position as a doctor and "brought the medical profession into disrepute."
At the time of his study, Wakefield was working as a gastroenterologist at London's Royal Free Hospital and did not have approval for the research. The study suggested autistic children had a bowel disease and raised the possibility of a link between autism and vaccines. He had also been paid to advise lawyers representing parents who believed their children had been hurt by the MMR vaccine.
Ten of the study's authors later renounced its conclusions and it was retracted by the Lancet in February.
At least a dozen British medical associations, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust have issued statements verifying the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.
This verdict is not about (the measles) vaccine," said Adam Finn, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol Medical School. "We all now know that the vaccine is remarkably safe and enormously effective... We badly need to put this right for the sake of our own children and children worldwide."
Source: http://news.yahoo.com
LONDON – The doctor whose research linking autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella influenced millions of parents to refuse the shot for their children was banned Monday from practicing medicine in his native Britain.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield's 1998 study was discredited — but vaccination rates have never fully recovered and he continues to enjoy a vocal following, helped in the U.S. by endorsements from celebrities like Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy
AP – FILE - In this photo taken on July 17, 2007 file photo, Dr Andrew Wakefield in London.
Wakefield was the first researcher to publish a peer-reviewed study suggesting a connection between autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. Legions of parents abandoned the vaccine, leading to a resurgence of measles in Western countries where it had been mostly stamped out. There are outbreaks across Europe every year and sporadic outbreaks in the U.S."That is Andrew Wakefield's legacy," said Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "The hospitalizations and deaths of children from measles who could have easily avoided the disease."
Wakefield's discredited theories had a tremendous impact in the U.S., Offit said, adding: "He gave heft to the notion that vaccines in general cause autism."
In Britain, Wakefield's research led to a huge decline in the number of children receiving the MMR vaccine: from 95 percent in 1995 — enough to prevent measles outbreaks — to 50 percent in parts of London in the early 2000s. Rates have begun to recover, though not enough to prevent outbreaks. In 2006, a 13-year-old boy became the first person to die from measles in Britain in 14 years.
"The false suggestion of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine has done untold damage to the UK vaccination program," said Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. "Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that it is safe."
On Monday, Britain's General Medical Council, which licenses and oversees doctors, found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct and stripped him of the right to practice medicine in the U.K. Wakefield said he plans to appeal the ruling, which takes effect within 28 days.
The council was acting on a finding in January that Wakefield and two other doctors showed a "callous disregard" for the children in their study, published in 1998 in the medical journal Lancet. The medical body said Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them 5 pounds (about $7.20) each and later joked about the incident.
The study has since been widely rejected. From 1998-2004, studies in journals including the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, Pediatrics and BMJ published papers showing no link between autism and the measles vaccine.
Wakefield moved to the U.S. in 2004 and set up an autism research center in Austin, Texas, where he gained a wide following despite being unlicensed as a doctor there and facing skepticism from the medical community. He quit earlier this year.
Offit said he doubted Britain's decision to strip the 53-year-old Wakefield of his medical license would convince many parents that vaccines are safe.
"He's become almost like a Christ-like figure and it doesn't matter that science has proven him wrong," Offit said. "He is a hero for parents who think no one else is listening to them."
Wakefield told The Associated Press Monday's decision was a sad day for British medicine. "None of this alters the fact that vaccines can cause autism," he said.
"These parents are not going away; the children are not going to go away and I most certainly am not going away," he said on NBC's "Today Show."
Wakefield claimed the U.S. government has been settling cases of vaccine-induced autism since 1991.
However, two rulings by a special branch of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in March and last year found no link between vaccines and autism. More than 5,500 claims have been filed by families seeking compensation for children they claim were hurt by the vaccine.
Wakefield has won support from parents suspicious of vaccines, including Hollywood celebrities.
McCarthy, who has an autistic son, issued a statement in February with then boyfriend Carrey asserting Wakefield was "being vilified through a well-orchestrated smear campaign."
"It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers," the actors said.
McCarthy, whose best-seller "Louder Than Words" details her search for treatments for her son Evan, wrote the foreword for a new book by Wakefield about autism and vaccines.
In Monday's ruling, the medical council said Wakefield abused his position as a doctor and "brought the medical profession into disrepute."
At the time of his study, Wakefield was working as a gastroenterologist at London's Royal Free Hospital and did not have approval for the research. The study suggested autistic children had a bowel disease and raised the possibility of a link between autism and vaccines. He had also been paid to advise lawyers representing parents who believed their children had been hurt by the MMR vaccine.
Ten of the study's authors later renounced its conclusions and it was retracted by the Lancet in February.
At least a dozen British medical associations, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust have issued statements verifying the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.
This verdict is not about (the measles) vaccine," said Adam Finn, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol Medical School. "We all now know that the vaccine is remarkably safe and enormously effective... We badly need to put this right for the sake of our own children and children worldwide."
Source: http://news.yahoo.com
Friday, May 21, 2010
UC Berkeley plan to test freshmen DNA criticized
By MARCUS WOHLSEN, Associated Press Writer
A plan by the University of California, Berkeley to voluntarily test the DNA of incoming freshman has come under fire from critics who said the school was pushing an unproven technology on impressionable students.
The university has said it will send test kits to 5,500 new students to analyze genes that help control the body's responses to alcohol, dairy products and folic acid.
The voluntary tests are intended to spur conversation about the growing field of personal genomics, not predict the likelihood of disease, university officials said Thursday.
"We thought that this would be a more engaging vehicle for discussion than having them read a book or an article," said Mark Schlissel, dean of biology at UC Berkeley.
Critics, however, worry that students could get the idea the school approves of widely available direct-to-consumer gene-testing kits that claim to predict the risk of future health problems, said Jesse Reynolds, a policy analyst at the Center for Genetics and Society, a bioethics think thank.
Students might think, "Berkeley gave it to us. It must be good. UC Berkeley would never be giving its incoming students anything bad or controversial," Reynolds said.
One such kit was set to go on sale at Walgreen's pharmacies last week. However, the chain changed its mind after federal regulators said the kit's manufacturer never submitted the product to the Food and Drug Administration for review, a requirement for medical devices.
University officials said they were careful to choose genes for testing that were not related to serious health issues.
"We wanted to pick genes in which the variants were very easy to understand, not threatening, and probably reveal information students have about themselves already," said Jasper Rine, a UC Berkeley genetics professor who is spearheading the testing program.
The program's organizers said it was important to get students talking about the issues because genetic testing would likely become an everyday part of medicine in coming decades.
A key concern about many direct-to-consumer genetic tests is their reliance on studies that use statistics to determine how likely a particular gene variation is to be connected to a specific disease.
Many such studies are preliminary, but public health officials worry that without proper counseling, consumers are likely to take their test results as definitive.
Schlissel said the science behind the tests being given to students was well-grounded in years of research. In addition, students arriving in the fall will be able to attend a presentation of the overall results for the entire incoming class and learn what the results mean.
All DNA will be collected privately, officials said. Students will use a barcode that only they have to locate their individual results, and the university said all DNA will be incinerated after the analysis is completed.
Students also will be able to compete to win one of four much more comprehensive personal gene scans from 23andMe Inc., a Google-backed company that has been at the center of the debate over direct-to-consumer genetic testing.
Dr. Muin J. Khoury, director of the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the value of the tests to students will depend on how well the results are presented and discussed.
The test for a gene related to how quickly a person absorbs alcohol could easily lead new college students to get the wrong idea, he said.
"I just worry about 18-year-old kids saying, oh, I'm a fast metabolizer, I can drink a lot of alcohol, it won't affect me."
Still, said Khoury, "if it's packaged well, it could be a great experience."
Source: http://news.yahoo.com
A plan by the University of California, Berkeley to voluntarily test the DNA of incoming freshman has come under fire from critics who said the school was pushing an unproven technology on impressionable students.
The university has said it will send test kits to 5,500 new students to analyze genes that help control the body's responses to alcohol, dairy products and folic acid.
The voluntary tests are intended to spur conversation about the growing field of personal genomics, not predict the likelihood of disease, university officials said Thursday.
"We thought that this would be a more engaging vehicle for discussion than having them read a book or an article," said Mark Schlissel, dean of biology at UC Berkeley.
Critics, however, worry that students could get the idea the school approves of widely available direct-to-consumer gene-testing kits that claim to predict the risk of future health problems, said Jesse Reynolds, a policy analyst at the Center for Genetics and Society, a bioethics think thank.
Students might think, "Berkeley gave it to us. It must be good. UC Berkeley would never be giving its incoming students anything bad or controversial," Reynolds said.
One such kit was set to go on sale at Walgreen's pharmacies last week. However, the chain changed its mind after federal regulators said the kit's manufacturer never submitted the product to the Food and Drug Administration for review, a requirement for medical devices.
University officials said they were careful to choose genes for testing that were not related to serious health issues.
"We wanted to pick genes in which the variants were very easy to understand, not threatening, and probably reveal information students have about themselves already," said Jasper Rine, a UC Berkeley genetics professor who is spearheading the testing program.
The program's organizers said it was important to get students talking about the issues because genetic testing would likely become an everyday part of medicine in coming decades.
A key concern about many direct-to-consumer genetic tests is their reliance on studies that use statistics to determine how likely a particular gene variation is to be connected to a specific disease.
Many such studies are preliminary, but public health officials worry that without proper counseling, consumers are likely to take their test results as definitive.
Schlissel said the science behind the tests being given to students was well-grounded in years of research. In addition, students arriving in the fall will be able to attend a presentation of the overall results for the entire incoming class and learn what the results mean.
All DNA will be collected privately, officials said. Students will use a barcode that only they have to locate their individual results, and the university said all DNA will be incinerated after the analysis is completed.
Students also will be able to compete to win one of four much more comprehensive personal gene scans from 23andMe Inc., a Google-backed company that has been at the center of the debate over direct-to-consumer genetic testing.
Dr. Muin J. Khoury, director of the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the value of the tests to students will depend on how well the results are presented and discussed.
The test for a gene related to how quickly a person absorbs alcohol could easily lead new college students to get the wrong idea, he said.
"I just worry about 18-year-old kids saying, oh, I'm a fast metabolizer, I can drink a lot of alcohol, it won't affect me."
Still, said Khoury, "if it's packaged well, it could be a great experience."
Source: http://news.yahoo.com
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Smallpox demise linked to spread of HIV infection
The worldwide eradication of smallpox may, inadvertently, have helped spread HIV infection, scientists believe.
Experts say the vaccine used to wipe out smallpox offered some protection against the Aids virus and, now it is no longer used, HIV has flourished.
The US investigators said trials indicated the smallpox jab interferes with how well HIV multiplies.
But they say in the journal BMC Immunology it is too early to recommend smallpox vaccine for fighting HIV.
"However, all of these have been either disproved or do not sufficiently explain the behaviour of the HIV pandemic."
Dr Weinstein and his colleagues believe immunisation against smallpox may go some way to explain the recent rises in HIV prevalence.
Smallpox immunisation was gradually withdrawn from the 1950s to the 1970s, following the worldwide eradication of the disease, and HIV has been spreading exponentially since then, they say.
Now, only scientists and medical professionals working with smallpox are vaccinated.
To test if the events may be linked, the researchers looked at the white blood cells taken from people recently immunised against smallpox and tested how they responded to HIV.
They found significantly lower replication rates of HIV in blood cells from vaccinated individuals, compared with those from unvaccinated controls.
The smallpox vaccine appeared to cut HIV replication five-fold.
Immune boost
The researchers believe vaccination may offer some protection against HIV by producing long-term alterations in the immune system, possibly including the expression of a receptor called CCR5 on the surface of white blood cells, which is exploited by the smallpox virus and HIV.
Jason Warriner, clinical director for the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "It's impossible to say whether the withdrawal of the smallpox vaccine contributed to the initial explosion of HIV cases worldwide, but it is a plausible explanation.
"This is an interesting piece of research, and not just as a history lesson. Anything that gives us greater understanding of how the virus replicates is another step on the road towards a vaccine and, one day, a cure.
"Further studies into the role receptor cells play are needed, and even then any discoveries are likely to be just one part of the solution.
"Until we find a way to eradicate the virus from the body, the focus should remain on stopping it being passed on in the first place."
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk
Experts say the vaccine used to wipe out smallpox offered some protection against the Aids virus and, now it is no longer used, HIV has flourished.
The US investigators said trials indicated the smallpox jab interferes with how well HIV multiplies.
But they say in the journal BMC Immunology it is too early to recommend smallpox vaccine for fighting HIV.
By 1980 smallpox had been eradicated
Lead researcher Dr Raymond Weinstein, from Virginia's George Mason University, said: "There have been several proposed explanations for the rapid spread of HIV in Africa, including wars, the reuse of unsterilised needles and the contamination of early batches of polio vaccine."However, all of these have been either disproved or do not sufficiently explain the behaviour of the HIV pandemic."
Dr Weinstein and his colleagues believe immunisation against smallpox may go some way to explain the recent rises in HIV prevalence.
Smallpox immunisation was gradually withdrawn from the 1950s to the 1970s, following the worldwide eradication of the disease, and HIV has been spreading exponentially since then, they say.
Now, only scientists and medical professionals working with smallpox are vaccinated.
To test if the events may be linked, the researchers looked at the white blood cells taken from people recently immunised against smallpox and tested how they responded to HIV.
They found significantly lower replication rates of HIV in blood cells from vaccinated individuals, compared with those from unvaccinated controls.
The smallpox vaccine appeared to cut HIV replication five-fold.
Immune boost
The researchers believe vaccination may offer some protection against HIV by producing long-term alterations in the immune system, possibly including the expression of a receptor called CCR5 on the surface of white blood cells, which is exploited by the smallpox virus and HIV.
Jason Warriner, clinical director for the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "It's impossible to say whether the withdrawal of the smallpox vaccine contributed to the initial explosion of HIV cases worldwide, but it is a plausible explanation.
"This is an interesting piece of research, and not just as a history lesson. Anything that gives us greater understanding of how the virus replicates is another step on the road towards a vaccine and, one day, a cure.
"Further studies into the role receptor cells play are needed, and even then any discoveries are likely to be just one part of the solution.
"Until we find a way to eradicate the virus from the body, the focus should remain on stopping it being passed on in the first place."
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)