Years ago people didn’t eat genetically modified foods, they didn’t take antibiotics for every little cough they got and they weren’t obese. What happened? Americans in particular seem to be getting sicker and taking medicine earlier than the rest of the world. Maybe that’s why cancer, heart disease and diabetes thrive in our nation. We put so many medicines in our body when it’s not necessary. Recently voting began a panel assembled by the Food and Drug Administration over recommendations on pulling some acetaminophen drugs like Tylenol and Nyquil from stores.

The panel began voting on the issue in an effort to reduce the risk of serious liver injury that is associated with acetaminophen. One option the panel is considering other than pulling the drugs from store shelves entirely, it to reduce the recommended dosages of the drugs.  A 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report estimated that acetaminophen is main contributor to about 1,600 acute liver failures every year.

When reflecting on this news on Tylenol and combining it with the recent reports of Zicam’s negative side effects, it raises questions about whether polluting our bodies with all these prescription and over-the-counter drugs really helps our health in the long run? Maybe going natural and not taking medicine is the real secret to health and longevity.

        

The food and beverage industries may actually begin to support measures in Washington to limit the sale of junk food in school vending machines.  While this move may seem surprising, it actually makes sense.  For a company like coca-cola, that probably has over half the drinks in school vending machines, they have divisions in their company that would benefit from a shift to healthier items.  If schools started to sell more of their Dasani water than Coca-Cola, Coca-Cola could care less.  The food and beverage industries also do not want the stigma as "promoters of childhood obesity," one of the biggest health concerns our nation faces.  An official of the American Beverage Association stated: “We recognize that childhood obesity is a complex problem that willtake comprehensive solutions. And our industry is stepping up to do our part."  Many states are looking to fight childhood obesity and have already set rules on what foods can be sold at schools.  The food and beverage industries support a national measure rather than state by state rules that could each be different.  And of course, not everyone is on board with making American children more healthy.  The National School Boards Association argues that what children are fed in schools should be a decision left to local communities.  How can people argue with making kids more healthy?  The food and beverage industries, long-time fighters against limiting junk foods in schools, finally agree its time to try to do something about child obesity.  Yet, of course, someone has a problem with it.  Are people really that power hungry? They cannot agree to a measure that limits junk food in schools because they want to be in charge.  They are scared their community could lose revenue as kids are getting fatter and fatter. It's sickening really.  I am all for the rights of local communities, but I think the National School Boards Association needs to look at what it is fighting against.  It is fighting against a reform that is trying to make American kids more healthy.  That is just stupid.


Article contributed by www.healthplanone.com

        

Despite the fact that H1N1 swine flu, other is now officially considered a global pandemic, is it really as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be? I think not. Even when the swine flu was declared to be a pandemic it got relatively little news coverage. Now, local news reports about the virus are also decreasing despite the fact that cases are still appearing. This doesn’t mean that people are no longer that worried about swine flu, because if they were the news stations would be reporting on it.  

The H1N1 virus is really no bigger of a deal than the regular flu. According to the World Health Organization swine flu has only killed 263 people out of the 59,814 people who are affected by it. Compared to the 36,000 deaths the regular flu virus kills each year (in the United States alone), this number is small. Given the recent statistics, you only have a .4% chance of dying from the swine flu! Meanwhile, 36,000 people a year die from the regular influenza and you have a 25% chance of dying from cancer. 

Sure it’s possible that swine flu may get a little more common and deadly when the weather gets colder and people are confined to staying indoors. However, by that time a vaccine will likely already be developed and we won’t have to worry about it at all. As it is, vaccines have already been made by Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis AG, French company Sanofi-Aventis and American company Protein Sciences. So do we really need to worry about the swine flu? No more than we worry about the regular flu.

        

Massachusetts was once considered the model for the nation for universal health care.  The state is considered prominent in our nation and its experiment with universal health care was hoped to be the model upon which our nation would rely.Well, hopefully not anymore. Essentially, the state simply did not have enough money to pay for the insurance subsidies for all of its residents.  The state was forced to make $15 million in cuts to the Commonwealth Care Plan, the 2006 plan which subsidized premiums for needy residents in the state.  The states' lower revenues and the growing number of citizens who lost their jobs and health insurance caused the state to not have enough money to pay for insurance subsidies for needy residents under the current plan.  The biggest cut to the plan includes the fact that low-income residents who are eligible for full subsidies under the program, but who don’t choose a health plan, will no longer be automatically enrolled.  Also, the state’s poorest residents will no longer get dental coverage through the plan. In all, the cuts are expected to trim 12% from the budget for the program, which covers 177,000 people and was projected to grow to 212,000 next year.  The state's treasurer, Tim Cahill, stated: "It’s a warning for the federal government as it looks to do something similar. I’m not saying we can’t afford any of it, but it certainly doesn’t appear that we can afford all of it.” If Massachusetts, a relatively small and wealthy state is having serious issues affording all aspects of a universal health care system for their state, what gives the federal government any sort of confidence a universal health care plan will work for the entire country? The failure of Massachusetts is troubling to say the least.

        

A new study has demonstrated a link between teens and young adults who are overweight/obese being more likely to develop pancreatic cancer later in life. The study was recently published in The Journal of the American Medical Association and compared the self-reported weight of 841 pancreatic cancer patients and 754 healthy people from a University of Texas hospital beginning at age 14. They found:

1. Patients who had been overweight from age 14-39 were 67% more likely to get pancreatic cancer.
2. Patients who were obese from ages 20-49 were about 2.5 times more likely to be pancreatic cancer patients.
3. Pancreatic cancer began 2 to 6 years earlier in patients who were overweight or obese from age 20-49.
4. Among pancreatic cancer patients, people who were overweight or obese in the year before their diagnosis had a worse survival rate, regardless of the stage of their tumor or whether they had surgery to remove it.

What these findings show are that the teen and young adult years are the most important to determining a person's future risk. Not that if you're healthy and thin as a youngster you can let yourself go in middle-age, but the more obese you are at a younger age the more problems you're likely to have with cancer in adulthood.

I think this study brings to light an important issue parents need to see: tell your kid to PUT DOWN THE FORK, step away from the TV and go outside and play. The present culture of parents who feel guilty about being at work so they let their kids do/eat whatever they want is absurd. Parents need to realize that by allowing their kid to eat Twinkies rather than broccoli they're sentencing their kids to a lifetime of weight-struggles and in some cases high risk for cancer. Wii does not count as exercise. Be a responsible parent and tell your kid to run around a little rather than making excuses for their pudginess. Fat kids = fat adults = unhealthy cancer patient adults. Do your child a favor, be a parent, and introduce them to vegetables and cardiovascular activity for once.

        

Moderate drinking of alcohol has often been considered a healthy habit, as it may help reduce the risk of heart disease and other illnesses.  "The French Paradox" is a long-running phenomenon notes that alcohol consumption in conjunction with high intakes of fruit and vegetables can lead to healthy lives.  The French diet is considered to be very high in fat, especially saturated fat, yet the death rate from coronary heart disease (CHD) remains relatively low.  The question here is does alcohol really have a healthy impact on people's lives?  My answer, and I am no scientist or doctor, would be no.  Alcohol, especially in excess, can damage the liver and can lead to lives that are not healthy or satisfying.  Alcohol in moderation, while it does not hurt the body, does not help either.  Maybe certain drinks like wine (which is very popular in France) may help issues associated with heart disease, but the effect is relatively minimal.  Rather, it is the lifestyles people lead that drink in moderation that causes them to live longer and healthier.  “Moderate drinkers tend to be socially advantaged in ways that have nothing to do with their drinking,” a CDC researcher who has studied the issue told the NYT. "They tend to be healthier, wealthier and get better health care."  Why are people who drink moderately more wealthy, healthier, and socially advantaged than those who drink in excess or who do not drink at all?  Well, the answer to the first part of the question seems obvious.  Those who are alcohol dependent do not tend to have good jobs and tend to lead unhealthy lives.  The second part of the question is more tricky.  Those who do not drink at all should be as healthy, wealthy, and socially advantaged.  The fact is, however, alcohol is part of our culture.  In social settings among adults, alcohol is usually always served.  Therefore, those who drink in moderation are probably more socially adept and are used to social situations.  Their social skills probably then help in the work place, and their good jobs can help afford them better health care.  That is really the only solution that I can figure.  I think that alcohol is an important part of our culture in American and in the world, but it is not a cure for diseases.  Although, the answer to this question is still not completely solved.  A Harvard doctor is assigning one half of a 150 person experimental group to drink plain Crystal Light while the other half is going to drink crystal light mixed in with a biit of alcohol.  The doctor will then see if alcohol really does reduce the threat of heart disease.  This is what gets me though about the experiment: is a dash of alcohol considered moderation? If it is then a lot of Americans drink more than "moderation."  My suspicion is that alcohol does not greatly help the reduce of heart diesase, and anyone who recommends someone start drinking to be healthier is making a ludricous claim.

Article contributed by www.healthplanone.com

        

Many people do not support genetic research because the benefits of knowing your own genetic makeup are insignificant. The complexity, lack of important findings and deficiency of scientific developments concerning genomes provide reasons to eliminate spending on research in genetics. 

The human genome is a complex display of 23 chromosomes, billions of DNA base pairs and thousands of genes. It is clinically useless to look through the entire genome for bits of code that may be related to some condition or characteristic. Thus far genes found to be correlated with certain traits only explain a small fraction of the heritable variation in large populations; majority of health conditions like hypertension, diabetes and hypercholesterolemia involve more than a single gene mutation, making them difficult to decode. The complexity of the genome makes genetic testing an insignificant, expensive task with little benefit.

 

Trying to learn about our genomes is especially wasteful economically because we lack the necessary scientific developments to make sense of the genome. The knowledge and machinery necessary to actually decode the significance of the entire genome will likely never exist! As it stands we do not know enough about polygenetic disorders, gene expression and environmental affects on gene expression to properly make use of genetic profiles. It is ridiculous to waste our valuable time and money on uncovering genetic profiles. We should be trying to find a cure for something more important like cancer.

 

The current knowledge we have obtained from the billions spent thus far on genetic research is negligible. For example, a recent study of 6,000 children found that the gene with the largest effect on intelligence accounted for less than one-quarter of an I.Q. point. In another study of 16,000 people, the dozen genes found that most correlate with height only accounted for two percent (or less than an inch) of the variation in height. After all that has already been put into genetic research, we should know more than that! Considering the immense amount of money we spend to fund genetic research and the little knowledge we have gained from it, our money, time and resources could be put to better use in a different field.

        

Do cell phones legitimately increase the chances of brain cancer?  Well, it all depends on who you ask.  This summer, Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, sent a memo to staffers warning them to limit their cell phone use and to use hands-free sets in the wake of "growing evidence that we should reduce exposure" to cell phone radiation. Among the possible consequences: an increased risk of brain cancer. However, five months later, a top official at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) told a congressional panel that published scientific data indicates cell phones are safe.  At a a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Herberman stated: "Long term and frequent use of cell phones which receive and emit radio frequency may be associated with an increased risk of brain tumors," Herberman told lawmakers. "I find the old adage 'better to be safe than sorry' to be very apt to this situation."  While Herberman might be right and his goal certainly means well, the debate is unimportant at this point.  Unless, there is substantial evidence that clearly links cell phone use to brain tumors and cancer, people will not curb their cell phone use. Cell phones are so engrained in our society, that taking them away would cause mayhem.  It has gotten to the point that people have no clue how anyone survived without cell phones.  Currently, the evidence linking cell phones to cancer is vague at best. A cell phone, and a household cordless phone, use a low level of microwave radiation to send and receive their signals.  Microwaves can pentrate tissue and cause it to heat.  Cell phones emit such a small amount of microwave radiation, however, that they cannot be directly linked to cancer and other tumors.  The information is too vague and is not well known, cell phone use will not be curbed.  Herberman may be content being "better safe than sorry" but most Americans are not. Even if someone were to prove that cell phones do increase the risk of cancer, I doubt every American would give up their cellphone.  Hopefully, Herberman is not right and cell phones do not cause cancer.  Otherwise, it would cause a national disaster.

        

On May 9, 2009 President Obama signed an Executive Order lifting ending an 8½-year ban on federal funding for embryonic stem- cell research paving the way for a significant amount of federal funds to flow to science.  Obama stated that his administration would make "scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." Much controversy surrounds this debate as embryonic stem-cells from aborted fetuses are used for research and scientific discovery.  Michael Kinsley of Time stated in 2004: "Some stem-cell enthusiasts think that even antiabortion absolutists can support stem-cell research, since it uses surplus embryos that are doomed anyhow. But that logic would justify Nazi experiments on doomed Jews in the concentration camps. If the microscopic dot is a human being with full human rights, the answer is easy: no stem-cell research."  I do not consider myself a stem-cell enthusiast, but I must say that if abortion is legal in certain states, why would stem cell research even be a controversy?   Why should the valuable embryonic stem-cells from aborted fetuses go to waste when they can be used for crucial research? I understand where pro-life supporters come from: they do not support stem-cell research because they do not support abortion.  But the abortion debate should not decide the stem-cell issue.  The fact is that as long as abortion is legal in America, everyone should support stem-cell research.  How can anyone be morally opposed to a young child with juvenille diabetes maybe becoming cured from embryonic stem-cells? The reasoning Mr. Kinsley points to is faulty because nothing good came out of Nazi tests on doomed Jewish people in concentration camps.  They were doing terrible things to people in an already terrible situation.  However, stem cell research is something postitive that comes out of something negative: abortion.  Even the most staunch pro-choice supporters would not argue that abortion is a good thing. But, as long as it is legal, stem cell research should be supported fully. 

        

After seeing that episode of Private Practice this year where the mother of an autistic child refuses to vaccinate her other son, resulting in his death by whooping cough, I started looking thinking about the vaccine-autism debate. That is, the idea that vaccinations given in quick succession in early childhood disrupt a baby's development and lead to regression into autism. The way that celebrities like Jenny McCarthy talk about this causal relationship, you'd think dozens of definitive studies had proven it. The fact is no causal relationship between vaccines and autism has ever been proven or even researched. Where these celebrities got this idea in their head is beyond me. These people spread false accusations about the danger of vaccines, and they accuse pediatricians of being in cahoots with the vaccine manufacturers. Pediatricians do not accept large grants or small gifts in exchange for support of vaccines. It's false to claim that they make big profits from the sale of vaccines and that they would continue to give vaccines even if they were sown to be dangerous. The fact that these myths have resulted in many parents refusing vaccines for their children is totally ridiculous! When a considerable percent of the population is unvaccinated, the total population loses "herd immunity - protection of the group as a result of there being only a small number of susceptible individuals." In some West cost states, there are areas where 20-35% of children are unvaccinated because of parent refusal. This trend is insanity! If vaccine refusals continue to rise, we will soon see thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths from preventable diseases. Some states like West Virginia have it right, and have passed "no exception" legislation, requiring every child to be vaccinated for public health reasons, regardless of parental refusal. This is the kind of law that needs to pass in every state to prevent a pandemic of preventable diseases like smallpox and causing a public health crisis even bigger than swine flu.