The original version of this blog is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Immigration Watch, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Eye on Britain, Recipes, Tongue Tied and Australian Politics. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archives of this site


A major cause of increasing obesity is certainly the campaign against it -- as dieting usually makes people FATTER. If there were any sincerity to the obesity warriors, they would ban all diet advertising and otherwise shut up about it. Re-authorizing now-banned school playground activities and school outings would help too. But it is so much easier to blame obesity on the evil "multinationals" than it is to blame it on your own restrictions on the natural activities of kids

NOTE: "No trial has ever demonstrated benefits from reducing dietary saturated fat".

A brief summary of the last 50 years' of research into diet: Everything you can possibly eat or drink is both bad and good for you

"Let me have men about me that are fat... Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look ... such men are dangerous." -- Shakespeare


What fast food does to girls

****************************************************************************************



12 February, 2012

Facebook is GOOD for you: Social networks relax the heart rate and trigger 'a natural high'

Another nasty one for "Baroness" Greenfield

Websites like Facebook may actually be good for you, according to the latest psychological study on users. Researchers found using social networks can spark a natural high leading to a relaxed heart rate and lower levels of stress and tension.

While it seems like a solitary activity, the interaction with others via these networks has a positive effect on body and mind, said joint American and Italian research.

And that buzz could explain the massive success of social networking in general and Facebook in particular.

University researchers in Milan wired up 30 students aged 19-25, monitoring the reactions of their brain, blood pressure, skin conductance, pupil dilation and heart rate. These readings show levels of arousal, excitement, stress and relaxation said the study for online journal Cyberpsychology, Behaviour and Social Networking.

The students were then given three minute exercises - either looking at panoramic landscapes, a short time on Facebook or a complicated mathematical task.

Not surprisingly the first made the students the most relaxed and the maths test made them the most stressed.

But the Facebook time threw up a whole new set of unexpected results that were neither stressed out or over relaxed. Instead they found it brought out reactions suggesting the person had found high levels of attractiveness and arousal.

The research was conducted jointly by the Auxologico Italian Institute, the Catholic University, both in Milan, and the famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It found: 'The success of social networking sites might be associated with a specific positive affective state experienced by users when they use their account.'

SOURCE





Facebook can produce "natural highs" in users - study. Social website "makes users more healthy, joyful"

Another report of the study above

USING Facebook is like attending an online party, mental-health experts say.

Until now the popular social-networking site has been blamed for all manner of ills - bullying, depression and antisocial behaviour. But scientists have now discovered it can also produce "natural highs" in many users, lowering levels of anxiety and stress.

The so-called buzz created by the site could help explain the massive success of social networking, and of Facebook in particular, according to a new study for online journal Cyberpsychology, Behaviour and Social Networking.

The Italian study monitored 30 regular Facebook users' physical reactions, such as their pupil dilation, blood flow and breathing, while they were on the site and concluded it made them more healthy, "joyful" and "intellectually aroused".

Melbourne psychologist Dr Simon Crisp said using Facebook provided an interesting social challenge for its users. "It is like an online party, and the more it gets closer to that type of interaction, the greater the engagement is likely to be and therefore the greater the enjoyment for people," Dr Crisp said.

With 845 million people using Facebook regularly, it is little wonder more people are joining the party.

Rowville's Lynn Bain, 46, spends about eight hours a day on Facebook catching up with friends and family. "If you post something, usually you will get a response quickly and usually it is a positive response," she said.

Social networking is also a constant companion for the stay-at-home mum while her husband is at work and her two sons are at university. "It is someone to talk to because I am home alone. It makes me feel good knowing that there is someone there to talk to," Ms Bain said.

Science has proven happiness is a mouse-click away.

SOURCE



11 February, 2012

The ever-broadening definition of mental illness

What's next? Will religion be declared a mental illness? How about climate skepticism? American psychiatrists would be at home in the old Soviet Union

Childhood shyness could be reclassified as a mental disorder under controversial new guidelines, warn experts. They also fear that depression after bereavement and behaviour now seen as eccentric or unconventional will also become ‘medicalised’. Internet addiction and gambling might also become forms of illness.

The threat comes in the form of proposed changes to a U.S. manual of mental disorders, viewed as a bible by some in the field.

Although the changes to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders would not directly affect clinical practice here – where doctors tend to use different guidelines – experts say it would eventually influence thinking.

Millions of people, including Britons, could be given a psychiatric diagnosis which could ruin their lives, warn psychiatrists and psychologists here.

The DSM5 changes are also opposed by many experts in the U.S., some of whom claim they reflect efforts by drug companies to sell more products.

Simon Wessely, of the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London, said: ‘We need to be very careful before further broadening the boundaries of illness and disorder.

‘Back in 1840 the census of the United States included just one category for mental disorder. ‘By 1917 the American Psychiatric Association recognised 59, rising to 128 in 1959, 227 in 1980, and 347 in the last revision. Do we really need all these labels?

‘Probably not. And there is a real danger that shyness will become social phobia, bookish kids labelled as Asperger’s and so on.’

Peter Kinderman, head of the Institute of Psychology, University of Liverpool, said: ‘It will exacerbate problems that result from trying to fit a medical, diagnostic, system to problems that just don’t fit nicely into those boxes.

‘It will pathologise a range of problems which should never be thought of as mental illnesses. Many who are shy, bereaved, eccentric, or have unconventional romantic lives will suddenly find themselves labelled as “mentally ill”. ‘This isn’t valid, isn’t true, isn’t humane.’

Paraphilic Coercive Disorder – becoming aroused by sexual coercion – is one condition proposed for inclusion in DSM5. Professor Kinderman said there was a danger that rapists diagnosed with it would use it as an excuse.

He added that there were ‘huge concerns’ about the changes, which are opposed by the British Psychological Society.

Other experts say the guidelines will straitjacket clinicians into ‘ticking boxes’ that lead to a prescribed diagnosis. Dr Felicity Callard, of King’s College, warned: ‘People’s lives can be altered profoundly – and sometimes ruinously – by being given a psychiatric diagnosis.’

Among the U.S. psychiatrists against the changes is Allen Frances, of Duke University, North Carolina. He warned: ‘DSM5 will radically and recklessly expand the boundaries of psychiatry. Many millions will receive inaccurate diagnosis and inappropriate treatment.’

David Elkins, of Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, said individuals could be ‘labelled with a mental disorder for life and many will be treated with powerful psychiatric drugs’.

Defenders of the American Psychiatric Association guidelines say they will make diagnosis more accurate and scientific.

SOURCE





Skin cancer drug 'clears Alzheimer's protein from the mouse brain'

A promising start

A skin cancer drug could prove to be a precious weapon in the fight against Alzheimer’s. In tests, bexarotene rapidly improved brain health, memory and behaviour of mice genetically engineered to develop the disease.

Researchers described the effect as unprecedented and ‘tremendously exciting’. But others cautioned against raising hopes, pointing out that what works in laboratory mice doesn’t always work in humans.

The researchers, from Cape Western Reserve University in the U.S., used bexarotene to break down amyloid, the toxic protein that clogs the brain of Alzheimer’s patients. Within just six hours of giving the drug to the mice, levels of one type of amyloid fell by a quarter, according to the study detailed in the journal Science.

Levels of another form halved in three days. Memory and behaviour also rapidly improved with treated mice eagerly building nests – an instinct lost by the poorly animals.

Researcher Daniel Wesson said: ‘The results of this study, showing the preservation of behaviour across a wide spectrum, are tremendously exciting and suggest great promise.’

However, Professor Derek Hill, of University College London, warned: ‘Demonstrating that potential drugs for Alzheimer’s are safe and effective takes many years, and requires trials on thousands of patients.’

Dr Anne Corbett, of the Alzheimer’s Society, said: ‘This exciting study could be the beginning of a journey towards a potential new way to treat Alzheimer’s disease.’

She added that focusing on existing drugs rather than trying to invent new ones should speed the development of treatments.

There is currently no cure for Alzheimer’s disease.

SOURCE



10 February, 2012

Nanoparticle scare could lead to skin cancer

"Nanoparticles" are the latest hysteria among health freaks

SUNLOVERS may be raising their risk of skin cancer by avoiding sunscreen due to unfounded fears over nanoparticles, according to a federal government study. One in four Australians who had heard stories about the risks of nanoparticle-based sunscreens felt it was safer to use no sunscreen at all, the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) study found.

The findings, released at the International Conference on Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in Perth, were based on an online poll of 1000 people last month.

According to the poll, one in three Australians had heard or read stories about the risks of using sunscreens with nanoparticles in them. Of these, 13 per cent were concerned or confused enough about the issue that they would be less likely to use any sunscreen - whether or not it contained nanoparticles.

The study also found one in five respondents would go out of their way to avoid using sunscreens with nanoparticles in them, while three in five wanted more information before deciding.

Australia has one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, according to Cancer Council Australia, with more than 1700 people dying and 440,000 receiving medical treatment each year.

According to DIISRTE, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration has previously stated that "the current weight of evidence suggests titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles do not reach viable skin cells, rather, they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer layer of the skin".

SOURCE






Revolutionary putty could heal bone fractures in days rather than months, claim scientists

This is brilliant news if it lives up to its initial promise

Anyone who has broken a bone knows how long and arduous the recovery period can be. Now scientists say they have created a revolutionary 'putty' that can put the healing process into super-drive.

Scientists from the University of Georgia Regenerative Bioscience Center used adult stem cells to produce a protein involved in bone healing and generation. They then incorporated them into a gel, combining the healing properties into something they labelled 'fracture putty.'

Working with Dr John Peroni from the UGA College of Veterinary Medicine the team used a stabilising device and inserted putty into fractures in rats. Video of the healed animals at two weeks shows the rats running around and standing on their hind legs with no evidence of injury. The RBC researchers are testing the material in pigs and sheep, too.

'The small-animal work has progressed, and we are making good progress in large animals,' study leader Dr Steve Stice said.

The researchers hope the putty will revolutionise fracture treatment for injured soldiers. 'Complex fractures are a major cause of amputation of limbs for U.S. military men and women,' Dr Stice said. 'For many young soldiers, their mental health becomes a real issue when they are confined to a bed for three to six months after an injury. 'This discovery may allow them to be up and moving as fast as days afterward.'

However, more animal trials will need to before it can be tested on humans.

'The next step is to show that we can rapidly and consistently heal fractures in a large animal,' Dr Peroni said, 'then to convert it to clinical cases in the UGA clinics where clinicians treat animals with complex fractures all the time.'

Between 2009 and 2011 the group were awarded $1.4million from the U.S Department of Defense for testing the putty in sheep. This year, they revealed bone can be generated in the animals in less than four weeks.

However, the scientists may have to find new funding as the Department of Defense may cut the grant for biomedical work.

The team said they aren't the only group working on a faster fix for broken bones. 'Our approach is biological with the putty,' Dr Stice said.

'Other groups are looking at polymers and engineering approaches like implants and replacements which may eventually be combined with our approach. We are looking at other applications, too, using this gel, or putty, to improve spinal fusion outcomes.'

One of the best hopes for the fracture putty is in possible facial cranial replacements, an injury often seen on the battlefield.

The project ends in mid-2012. 'By then we are to deliver the system to the DOD,' Dr Stice said.

SOURCE



9 February, 2012

Aspirin 'not to blame' for stomach bleeding - that's due to a bug, say scientists

This is a rather exciting challenge to some long-accepted wisdom

Thousands of patients are unable to take daily aspirin to prevent heart attack and stroke, because of the risk of stomach bleeding. Instead, they have to be given more expensive and sometimes less effective treatments.

But, now, scientists have identified what they think is the real cause of stomach bleeding linked to aspirin — a common stomach bug. This new theory could transform the way many people with cardiovascular disease are treated.

It also opens up the possibility that otherwise healthy people, who are currently advised not to take a daily aspirin, because of the risk of bleeding, might be able to take it safely for its cancer-preventing benefits.

Low-dose daily aspirin is a lifesaver, helping to prevent blood clots in the arteries supplying the heart and brain.

It is also prescribed for problems such as atrial fibrillation, a common condition that causes an irregular heartbeat, as this can also lead to the formation of blood clots. More recently, the drug has also been linked to a lower risk of cancers.

However, it does carry the risk of abdominal pain and stomach bleeds, and for this reason many patients are advised not to take it.

This risk was thought to be due to aspirin directly irritating the stomach lining and causing an ulcer. Now researchers from Nottingham University believe that helicobacter pylori bacterium (H. pylori), a common stomach bug, may in fact be responsible for the ulcers — and that aspirin merely exacerbates them.

The scientists think treating this problem at the source by eliminating the bacteria would leave more people able to tolerate aspirin, and so reduce their risk of heart attack and stroke.

One in four people is infected with H.pylori at some point, and though many people show no symptoms, it is thought to be the principal cause of stomach ulcers: about three in 20 people infected with it develop a stomach ulcer.

Now research has also linked the bacterium to bleeding from aspirin. In a study by Nottingham University, 60 per cent of patients who suffered internal bleeding while taking low-dose aspirin tested positive for the bacterium (H.pylori is detected using a breath test).

As the researchers explained: ‘Our hypothesis is that H.pylori causes the ulcer, and aspirin, by thinning the blood, makes it bleed. 'If the bacterium is eradicated, the patient will not get an ulcer and therefore there is no increased bleeding risk with aspirin.’

Now a new trial of 40,000 UK patients will investigate this. Doctors at five universities across the UK — Oxford, Durham, Southampton, Birmingham and Nottingham — will carry out the trial, the Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial, starting next month and ending in March 2016.

In the study, patients aged 60 and over who are taking low-dose aspirin will first be given the breath test for the H.pylori bacterium.

Those found to be infected will receive a one-week course of eradication drug treatment of strong antibiotics, or a placebo treatment.

Commenting on the study, Dr Jonathan Lyne, a consultant cardiologist who practises in London and at the Mater Private Hospital in Dublin, said: ‘Aspirin is a cornerstone of treatment in almost all patients with vascular disease.

‘Concern in using this drug in those with a history of stomach ulceration and bleeding has always led to consideration of not using it in these patients, or using alternative drugs that may be more expensive and potentially not as effective.

‘Furthermore, the potential cost savings in preventing hospital admissions, investigations and treatments related to ulcers and bleeding caused by aspirin and H.pylori would be welcome not just to patients but to the NHS as a whole.’

SOURCE





Zinc supplements 'can triple the survival chances of young children with pneumonia'

These kids probably had a very poor diet in many ways. It should not be assumed that people on normal Western diets would benefit from taking zinc. Overdoses could well lead to side-effects

Zinc supplements can triple the survival chances of young children with pneumonia who are deficient in the mineral, a study has found. Taking zinc had a dramatic effect on death rates - even though it did not shorten the time severely ill children took to recover.

The metal is found in shellfish, meat, egg yolks and seeds and supports a wide range of functions in the body and is vital to the immune system.

However, many people are deficient in the mineral, both in rich and poor countries.

The new research, involving young children aged six months to five years, was conducted in Uganda where zinc deficiency is rife.

Scientists studied 352 children with severe pneumonia who were all being treated with antibiotics.

Half the children were given additional therapy in the form of 10 milligram or 20 milligram zinc supplements, depending on age.

The researchers found no difference between the two groups in the time it took to recover from infection. But the risk of dying was very different. Just 4 per cent of children taking zinc died compared with 12 per cent of those not taking zinc.

For children infected with the Aids virus, HIV, the supplements had a really dramatic impact. In this group, an extra 26 out of every 100 children had their lives saved by zinc.

Study leader Professor James Tumwine, from Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda, said: 'Zinc is known to bolster the immune system and zinc deficiency is rife all over the developed, and developing, world.

'In Uganda, where this study was performed, zinc deficiency in some areas can be as high as 70 per cent. 'We would only need to give 13 of these children with pneumonia zinc on top of their antibiotics to save one life. This equates to about four US dollars (£2.50) - a small price to pay.'

The findings are published in the online journal BMC Medicine.

The researchers pointed out that the HIV-infected children suffered a double disadvantage. Their immune systems were compromised both by HIV infection and zinc deficiency.

Taking zinc supplements was thought to give a big boost to the immune systems. Yet the scientists were unable to explain why the mineral failed to speed up recovery time.

They wrote: 'What is clear is that we have unearthed a very interesting, yet contradictory phenomenon, that seems to be related to HIV infection and severe zinc deficiency. It calls for further studies on the interaction among HIV, zinc and severe pneumonia.'

SOURCE



8 February, 2012

Playing in the sun ‘reduces risk of eczema and food allergies in children’ (?)

This sounds plausible at first sight but I have some reservations. Is it true that Southern Australia gets less sun? They certainly get less sun in winter but make up with longer days in summer. In the warm North summer and winter days are more even.

Though it is true that sunlight is more direct and hence less filtered by the atmosphere in the tropics. And about a third of Australia is tropical. There are no large cities in the tropics, however.

The writers have absolutely no proof that vitamin D is the intervening factor. It's just their theory. A much more obvious North/South difference than insolation is warmth. The North is undoubtedly much warmer, whether or not it has more sunny days. I would think that a theory linking greater warmth to less autoimmune disease should not be too hard to devise. People do after all often move to warmer climates for the sake of their health generally. The exodus from NYC to Boca Raton is a case in point.

Playing in the sunshine reduces the risk of children developing eczema and food allergies, researchers claim. Those living in areas with lower levels of sunlight are at greater risk of developing food allergies and the skin condition, compared to those in areas with higher UV.

Scientists used data from analysis of Australian children and how rates of food allergies, eczema and asthma varied throughout the country.

On average children in the south of the country were twice as likely to develop eczema as those in the north. There was also a link between latitude and allergies to peanuts and eggs.

Sunlight is important because it provides the fuel to create vitamin D in the skin.

Australia is a particularly good place for this type of study as it spans nearly 3,000 miles from north to south, with a large variation in climate, day length and sun strength.

Dr Nick Osborne, who led the researchers at the European Centre for Environment and Human Health, a joint initiative between Plymouth and Exeter universities, warned: 'This investigation has further underlined the association between food allergies, eczema and where you live.

'We’re now hoping to study these effects at a much finer scale and examine which factors such as temperature, infectious disease or vitamin D are the main drivers of this relationship. 'As always, care has to be taken we are not exposed to too much sunlight, increasing the risk of skin cancer.'

SOURCE






Two glasses of wine a night triples risk of mouth cancer, Government warns

Another rotation of the merrygoround! Wine is both good and bad for you, apparently. No science is cited below so I have my doubts about this latest pronunciamento. Mediterranean people drink a lot of wine and they are usually held up as a good diet example. Do they have runaway rates of oral cancer? I think we would have heard of it if they do

Drinking two large glasses of wine a day triples the risk of developing mouth cancer, a government campaign will warn. Television adverts which start running on Sunday evening will say that drinking "just a little bit more" than recommended daily limits for alcohol increases the risk of serious health problems.

Government advice states that men should drink no more than four units a day and women should have no more than three. A large 250ml glass of wine is classed as three units, as is a pint of continental lager.

The adverts will say that those who regularly drink six units in a day double their chance of high blood pressure and triple the risk of developing mouth cancer.

Mouth cancer is diagnosed in more than 5,000 people a year, leading to about 1,800 deaths, while about 12 million people have high blood pressure, increasing their chances of strokes and heart attacks.

The adverts, run under the Change4Life banner, will encourage drinkers to cut down by having alcohol-free days, not drinking at home before going out, swapping to low or alcohol-free drinks and using smaller glasses.

Mouth cancer, also known as oral cancer, is uncommon, but cases have risen by 20 per cent in the past three decades. It affects twice as many men as women.

High blood pressure is far more common, with about 12 million sufferers in the UK, about 7 million of whom are diagnosed.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said the campaign was being launched "to alert people that it is not just binge drinkers who damage their health".

David Cameron has recently indicated that he might back a minimum alcohol price in England to deter excess consumption, overruling the advice of Mr Lansley, who believes the move would have little impact.

SOURCE



7 February, 2012

Cancer 'slowed by cooked tomatoes' (?)

This is a very preliminary finding from a study in laboratory glassware only

A nutrient in cooked tomatoes has been shown in laboratory studies to slow the growth of - and even kill - prostate cancer cells, scientists said today.

Dr Mridula Chopra and colleagues at the University of Portsmouth tested the effect of the nutrient lycopene on the simple mechanism through which cancer cells hijack a body's healthy blood supply to grow and spread. They found that lycopene, which is what gives tomatoes their red colour, intercepts cancer's ability to make the connections it needs to attach to a healthy blood supply.

The researchers, from the university's School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, are now calling for tests to check if the same reaction occurs in the human body.

Director of the research Dr Chopra said: "This simple chemical reaction was shown to occur at lycopene concentrations that can easily be achieved by eating processed tomatoes."

Lycopene is present in all red fruits and vegetables, but its concentrations are highest in tomatoes and it becomes more readily available and biologically active when it comes from processed tomatoes with a small amount of cooking oil added.

Dr Chopra said: "I stress that our tests were done in test tubes in a laboratory and more testing needs to be carried out to confirm our findings, but the laboratory evidence we have found is clear - it is possible to intercept the simple mechanism some cancer cells use to grow at concentrations that can be achieved by eating sufficient cooked tomatoes."

The research, which is published in the British Journal of Nutrition, was part-funded by Heinz after the food manufacturer asked for more research to follow up earlier studies by the same researchers which showed a significant increase in lycopene levels in blood and semen samples after subjects ate 400g (14oz) of processed tomatoes for two weeks.

Dr Chopra and her colleagues Simone Elgass and Alan Cooper said they had a firm agreement they would publish their results irrespective of the outcome.

Cancer cells can remain dormant for years until their growth is triggered through the secretion of chemicals which initiate the process of linking cancer cells with endothelial cells which act as healthy gatekeeper cells lining blood vessels. This allows the cancer cells to reach out and attach to the blood supply.

In the laboratory experiments, lycopene was shown to disrupt this linking process, without which cancer cells cannot grow.

The researchers explained that all cancer cells use a similar mechanism (angiogenesis) to "feed" upon a healthy blood supply.

They said there was added importance of this mechanism for prostate cancer because lycopene tends to accumulate in prostate tissues.

Dr Chopra said: "The important thing is for sufficient lycopene to reach where it can matter. We know that in case of prostate tissues it gets there. "We have tested this in the labs but we don't yet know if the same action will happen in the body.

"Individuals will vary in how much lycopene their bodies make available to fight cancer cell growth and the ability of lycopene to 'intercept' in this way in the body is likely to vary between tomato products - both processing and cooking with fat have previously been shown to make lycopene more effective biologically.

"The type of tomatoes which offer the most effective lycopene also differs and more tests need to be done to find the best breed of tomato for this purpose."

It was suggested in their previous research that smokers might have to consume more tomatoes than non-smokers to achieve the benefits of lycopene due to the presence of high oxidative stress in smokers.

Eleanor Barrie, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "Some existing cancer drugs target the formation of new blood vessels, but more research is needed to show how they could be used to help cancer patients.

"This small study doesn't directly tell us if lycopene has any effect against cancer, but research like this can help us to understand more about how the chemical affects blood vessel formation."

SOURCE






Ideology marches on: U.S. School lunches to have more vegetables, fruits

The usual faith that they can identify what is healthy food. They can't. Do they know of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of vegetables have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer, for instance? Do they know that the best evidence shows that there is no health advantage in a low fat diet and that a low salt diet is actually dangerous to you? Etc., etc.

The school lunch is poised for a big makeover. The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Wednesday unveiled new nutrition standards that will require schools to add more fruits and vegetables to lunch while gradually reducing the amount of sodium and trans fat. The rules also set calorie limits for the millions of meals served annually through the National School Lunch Program.

The changes, which will be phased in over three years beginning July 1, are the first major revisions the agency has made to the federal lunch program in more than 15 years.

The switch is part of a national focus on childhood obesity and the associated risk of high blood pressure, high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes. While the federal government has tried to make lunches more healthful over the years, an analysis by the USDA shows the meals are still generally high in sodium and saturated fat.

"These are final standards now that make the kind of changes that we attempt to do in our own homes and our own households," said Kevin Concannon, USDA undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services.

One controversial proposal is not in the final rules. The USDA originally wanted to limit starchy vegetables, such as potatoes, to no more than one cup a week. But the agency backed off after potato growers lobbied heavily against it.

The USDA also wanted to require schools to serve a higher minimum of fruits and vegetables. But food-service officials warned the requirement would lead to more wasted food, as many students would just dump it in the trash. In response, the agency lowered the minimum but still requires schools to "offer" a larger portion of fruits and vegetables.

Around the nation and in Arizona, school food-service directors are poring over the new rules.

"We'll be analyzing them and taking a look at the current menu and seeing what we need to change," said Linda Jeffries, a spokeswoman for the Alhambra Elementary School District in central Phoenix, where about 92 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

On Tuesday, second-graders at Westwood Primary School near 23rd Avenue and Camelback Road filed through the lunch line, picked up cartons of milk and grabbed lunch trays with a wheat roll, baked beans, a cookie, a chicken drumstick and a scoop of fruit cocktail.

Exactly how this menu would fare under the new rules isn't clear; Alhambra officials still need to evaluate them. But the fruit cocktail and baked beans may need a makeover. Students got only 1/3 cup of each side dish. Under the new rules, the school would likely need to offer ¾ cup of the beans and ½ cup of fruit. If students wanted a smaller portion, they could take ½ cup of one or the other.

The school also would need to make sure it served a dark green and red or orange vegetables and beans or peas weekly. Other parts of the menu may be fine. For example, the school already serves the fat-free and 1 percent milk that will be required under the new rules.

Some parents say the new rules will restrict choice, and more children will just bring their own lunch to school as a result.

"The kids want variety," said Scott Kelly, who has two boys, ages 7 and 13, in Kyrene Elementary School District.

Food-services officials say that because the changes will be phased in over a couple of years, students may not notice many changes next year.

In addition, the state already has additional nutrition standards for public schools that, in some cases, are stricter than what the federal government requires. For example, the federal guidelines allow schools to serve whole milk; Arizona schools can serve milk with no more than 2 percent fat. The new federal rules will limit milk to fat free or 1 percent fat.

The National School Lunch Program has been around since 1946, but the nutrition requirements have changed over time based on the latest science about diet and health-related risks. Schools that take part get cash and free agricultural commodities, like meat and cheese. In return, lunches must meet federal nutrition requirements, and they must offer free or reduced-price lunches to lower-income families.

While there is no federal mandate that schools must be part of the National School Lunch Program, Arizona law requires district elementary and junior highs to participate. That could change if a bill recently introduced in the Arizona Legislature becomes law. Schools would be able to opt out of the federal program.

Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa, said he sponsored the legislation because state law requires K-8 district schools to take part while excluding charter and high schools. He believes everyone should be treated the same. He also said the new standards could be too onerous, and schools will have no recourse.

Critics of the bill, such as the Arizona Education Association, worry the legislation would result in students not receiving lunch. The state's largest teachers union wants to add language to the bill that would require schools to serve lunch , even if they aren't part of the federal program.

Diane Pratt-Heavner, a spokeswoman for the School Nutrition Association, a Maryland-based group of food-service professionals, said: "These standards will make sure every student has access to healthy meals when they go into the cafeteria."

SOURCE



6 February, 2012

Vitamin D could help combat the effects of aging in eyes

If you are a mouse. Since mice have short lives and we have long ones, studying aging in mice and hoping it will generalize to humans is considerable optimism

Researchers funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) have found that vitamin D reduces the effects of ageing in mouse eyes and improves the vision of older mice significantly. The researchers hope that this might mean that vitamin D supplements could provide a simple and effective way to combat age-related eye diseases, such as macular degeneration (AMD), in people.

The research was carried out by a team from the Institute of Ophthalmology at University College London and is published in the current issue of the journal Neurobiology of Ageing.

Professor Glen Jeffery, who led the work, explains "In the back of the eyes of mammals, like mice and humans, is a layer of tissue called the retina. Cells in the retina detect light as it comes into the eyes and then send messages to the brain, which is how we see. This is a demanding job, and the retina actually requires proportionally more energy than any other tissue in the body, so it has to have a good supply of blood. However, with ageing the high energy demand produces debris and there is progressive inflammation even in normal animals. In humans this can result in a decline of up to 30% in the numbers of light receptive cells in the eye by the time we are 70 and so lead to poorer vision."

The researchers found that when old mice were given vitamin D for just six weeks, inflammation was reduced, the debris partially removed, and tests showed that their vision was improved.

The researchers identified two changes taking place in the eyes of the mice that they think accounted for this improvement. Firstly, the number of potentially damaging cells, called macrophages, were reduced considerably in the eyes of the mice given vitamin D. Macrophages are an important component of our immune systems where they work to fight off infections. However in combating threats to the aged body they can sometimes bring about damage and inflammation. Giving mice vitamin D not only led to reduced numbers of macrophages in the eye, but also triggered the remaining macrophages to change to a different configuration. Rather than damaging the eye the researchers think that in their new configuration macrophages actively worked to reduce inflammation and clear up debris.

The second change the researchers saw in the eyes of mice given vitamin D was a reduction in deposits of a toxic molecule called amyloid beta that accumulates with age. Inflammation and the accumulation of amyloid beta are known to contribute, in humans, to an increased risk of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the largest cause of blindness in people over 50 in the developed world. The researchers think that, based on their findings in mice, giving vitamin D supplements to people who are at risk of AMD might be a simple way of helping to prevent the disease.

Professor Jeffery said "When we gave older mice the vitamin D we found that deposits of amyloid beta were reduced in their eyes and the mice showed an associated improvement of vision. People might have heard of amyloid beta as being linked to Alzheimer's disease and new evidence suggests that vitamin D could have a role in reducing its build up in the brain. So, when we saw this effect in the eyes as well, we immediately wondered where else these deposits might be being reduced."

Professor Jeffery and his team then went on to study some of the blood vessels of their mice. They found that the mice that had been given the vitamin D supplement also had significantly less amyloid beta built up in their blood vessels, including in the aorta.

Professor Jeffery continues "Finding that amyloid deposits were reduced in the blood vessels of mice that had been given vitamin D supplements suggests that vitamin D could be useful in helping to prevent a range of age-related health problems, from deteriorating vision to heart disease."

Professor Jeffery thinks that this link between vitamin D and a range of age-related diseases might be linked to our evolutionary history. For much of human history our ancestors lived in Africa, probably without clothes, and so were exposed to strong sunlight all year round. This would have triggered vitamin D production in the skin. Humans have only moved to less sunny parts of the world and adopted clothing relatively recently and so might not be well adapted to reduced exposure to the sun. Secondly, life expectancy in the developed world has increased greatly over the past few centuries, so reduced exposure to vitamin D is now coupled with exceptionally long lifespan.

Professor Jeffery said "Researchers need to run full clinical trials in humans before we can say confidently that older people should start taking vitamin D supplements, but there is growing evidence that many of us in the Western world are deficient in vitamin D and this could be having significant health implications."

Professor Douglas Kell, BBSRC Chief Executive said "Many people are living to an unprecedented old age in the developed world. All too often though, a long life does not mean a healthy one and the lives of many older people are blighted by ill health as parts of their bodies start to malfunction.

"If we are to have any hope of ensuring that more people can enjoy a healthy, productive retirement then we must learn more about the changes that take place as animals age. This research shows how close study of one part of the body can lead scientists to discover new knowledge that is more widely applicable. By studying the fundamental biology of one organ scientists can begin to draw links between a number of diseases in the hope of developing preventive strategies."

SOURCE






Drinking three cups of tea a day 'can lower your blood pressure'

"Our objective was to assess the effects of regular black tea consumption (3 cups/d) for 6 months on 24-hour ambulatory BP"

But the effect they found was really tiny, possibly due to chance alone in such a small sample. Journal article here

It's good news for the two-thirds of Britons who have a cup of tea every day - enjoying a brew may significantly reduce your blood pressure. Scientists at The University of Western Australia and Unilever discovered that drinking three cups of tea a day lowers systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

However, researchers based their findings on drinking black tea and the effect of drinking tea with milk is not known.

Tea is the world's second-most popular drink, after water. It is full of polyphenols, antioxidants that have been shown to stop cancer cells from growing. Another study from Harvard University found the drink could boost immune function.

Now researchers have found more proof that it keeps the heart healthy. Lead author Research Professor Jonathan Hodgson said: 'There is already mounting evidence that tea is good for your heart health, but this is an important discovery because it demonstrates a link between tea and a major risk factor for heart disease.'

Blood pressure measurement consists of two numbers. The first is the systolic and measures blood pressure when the heart beats, or contracts to push blood through the body. The second number is the diastolic and measures the amount of pressure in between beats, when the heart is at rest.

In the small study, 95 Australian participants aged between 35 and 75 were recruited to drink either three cups of black tea or a placebo with the same flavour and caffeine content, but not derived from tea.

After six months, the researchers found that compared with the placebo group, participants who drank black tea had a lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure of between 2 and 3 mmHg (millimetres of mercury).

The authors believe a 2 to 3mmHg drop in blood pressure across the board would lead to a 10 per cent drop in the number of people with hypertension and heart disease.

Dr Hodgson wrote: 'A large proportion of the general population has blood pressure within the range included in this trial, making results of the trial applicable to individuals at increased risk of hypertension.'

He added that more research is required to better understand how tea may reduce blood pressure, although earlier studies reported a link between tea drinking and the improved health of people's blood vessels.

The study is published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Tracy Parker, Heart Health Dietitian at the British Heart Foundation (BHF), told Mail Online: 'It is important to understand that a cuppa won't cancel out a poor diet or lifestyle. There is evidence that antioxidant properties in tea could provide heart health benefits, but more research is required to better understand how tea may reduce blood pressure.

'In the meantime, cutting down on salt and alcohol, eating more fruit and vegetables, and keeping physically active are all well established ways of lowering your blood pressure.'

SOURCE



5 February, 2012

Sunny break may be alternative to IVF: How the sunshine vitamin can help boost fertility

Amazing. There is absolutely no proof that vitamin D was the key factor in the results below. Darkness has direct mood effects of its own (Google "Seasonal Affective Disorder") regardless of vitamin D and it seems likely that all we see below are mood effects.

I think I might explode one day from sheer disgust at the drivel that constantly gets put out in the name of medical research

Couples trying for a baby should take a sunshine holiday – and not just because it may put them in a more romantic mood. Sunlight boosts fertility in both men and women by increasing their levels of vitamin D, a study has found.

Known as the sunshine vitamin, vitamin D is also key to balancing sex hormones in women and improving sperm count in men, according to researchers.

The findings mean that some couples may be undergoing unnecessary and costly fertility treatment when spending time in the sun could be the answer.

For women, vitamin D helps boost levels of the female sex hormones progesterone and oestrogen by 13 per cent and 21 per cent respectively, regulating menstrual cycles and making conception more likely.

Fathers-to-be increase their fertility by going into the sun, too – because vitamin D is essential for the healthy development of each sperm’s nucleus.

It also increases levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, improving a man’s libido, according to the review of several studies, published this week in the European Journal of Endocrinology.

The vitamin’s effect on both male and female sex hormones may explain why conception rates fall in the winter and peak in the summer in Northern European countries, say the researchers at the Medical University of Graz in Austria.

In their own study of nearly 2,300 men, they also found that levels of testosterone and vitamin D peaked in August and were lowest in March, just after the winter.

Women have been found to ovulate less – and their eggs have a reduced chance of implanting in the womb – in the winter months.

The link between sunshine and fertility has also been found in animal studies, the review states. Female rodents kept in total darkness have been found to be less fertile and have more pregnancy complications. In male rats raised with no sunlight, the number of successful matings drops by 73 per cent.

Fertility problems affect one in seven couples in the UK. In four out of ten cases, the difficulty lies with the male partner.
IVF

Scientists found the fertility of men and women increased after spending time in the sun which could mean some couples would not need to resort to IVF to conceive

Although vitamin D can be obtained in small quantities by eating oily fish, eggs and liver, about 80 per cent of the amount the body needs is obtained via a chemical process that happens when the UVB rays in sunlight are absorbed by the skin.

Those living in Britain tend to be particularly prone to having lower levels because there is so much cloud cover, even in summer.

Lead author Dr Elisabeth Lerchbaum stressed that while sunshine appears to improve fertility, it is important couples don’t overdo it because of the risk of skin cancer from over-exposure. She said: ‘People could either spend more time outside in the sun – or they could take vitamin D supplements, which are a safe and cheap way to increase levels.’

Oliver Gillie, director of the Health Research Forum, which is campaigning for better health advice on vitamin D, said: ‘The vast majority of people in this country – around 86 per cent – are getting less than the optimum levels. In Britain almost no vitamin D is generated in the skin during the winter months.

‘I would say to couples hoping to get pregnant to arrange a sunshine holiday, or get into the garden in the summer as often as they can...before you go down the route of expensive IVF treatment.’

The findings are the latest good news about vitamin D. Recent research has found that it may also play a part in reducing cases of sudden infant death syndrome – and also cutting mental health problems in children.

SOURCE





Drinking just one glass of milk a day could boost your brain power

This is VERY low-grade research: Self report questionnaires, probably unvalidated. It could be the old class effect again: Middle class people saw milk drinking as more correct and so said the drank more of it (whether they did or not) and middle class people are healthier anyway

Milk has long been known to help build healthy bones and provide the body with a vitamin and protein boost. But now it’s being hailed as a memory aid after a study found those who regularly have milk – and other dairy products such as yoghurt, cheese and even ice cream – do better in key tests to check their brainpower.

Scientists asked 972 men and women to fill in detailed surveys on their diets, including how often they consumed dairy products, even if only having milk in their tea and coffee.

The subjects, aged 23 to 98, then completed a series of eight rigorous tests to check their concentration, memory and learning abilities.

The study, published in the International Dairy Journal, showed adults who consumed dairy products at least five or six times a week did far better in memory tests compared with those who rarely ate or drank them.

The researchers said: ‘New and emerging brain health benefits are just one more reason to start each day with low-fat or fat-free milk.’

In some of the tests, adults who rarely consumed dairy products were five times more likely to fail compared with those who had them between two and four times a week.

The researchers, from the University of Maine in the U.S., believe certain nutrients in dairy products, such as magnesium, could help to stave off memory loss.

They also suspect dairy foods may help protect against heart disease and high blood pressure, which in turn maintains the brain’s ability to properly function.

Some experts have disputed this, however, claiming dairy products increase the likelihood of heart disease and strokes as they are high in saturated fat.

SOURCE



4 February, 2012

Taking fish oil during pregnancy 'protects babies from eczema'

The great fish oil religion again. This is actually a fairly dishonest piece of work. As you will see from the appended journal article there was NO DIFFERENCE in overall allergy sensitivity at the end of the experiment.

But a bit of data dredging turned up a couple of reactions which looked marginally significant. If they had used the proper experiment-wise error-rate approach to significance testing even those effects would have vanished, however.

Taking fish oils during pregnancy could protect your unborn baby from eczema, scientists say. In tests, children whose mothers took omega 3 supplements were a third less likely to develop the dry skin condition. They were also 50 per cent less likely to develop an intolerance to eggs before their first birthdays.

The Australian scientists believe that omega 3 fatty acids passed on to via the placenta affect the unborn baby’s immune system which protects against eczema.

Researchers at Adelaide University studied 706 pregnant women with a family history of allergies. Half were given fish oil supplements to take three times a day from 21 weeks into the pregnancy until the birth. The others were given vegetable oil.

More research is needed to see if fish oils protect against asthma and hay fever, the British Medical Journal reported.

The Government advises pregnant women not to eat more than four portions of fish a week as high levels of mercury can be dangerous to the baby.

SOURCE

Journal article follows:

BMJ2012;344:e184

Effect of n-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in pregnancy on infants’ allergies in first year of life: randomised controlled trial

By D J Palmer et al.

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether dietary n-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid (LCPUFA) supplementation of pregnant women with a fetus at high risk of allergic disease reduces immunoglobulin E associated eczema or food allergy at 1 year of age.

Design: Follow-up of infants at high hereditary risk of allergic disease in the Docosahexaenoic Acid to Optimise Mother Infant Outcome (DOMInO) randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Adelaide, South Australia.

Participants: 706 infants at high hereditary risk of developing allergic disease whose mothers were participating in the DOMInO trial.

Interventions: The intervention group (n=368) was randomly allocated to receive fish oil capsules (providing 900 mg of n-3 LCPUFA daily) from 21 weeks’ gestation until birth; the control group (n=338) received matched vegetable oil capsules without n-3 LCPUFA.

Main outcome measure: Immunoglobulin E associated allergic disease (eczema or food allergy with sensitisation) at 1 year of age.

Results: No differences were seen in the overall percentage of infants with immunoglobulin E associated allergic disease between the n-3 LCPUFA and control groups (32/368 (9%) v 43/338 (13%); unadjusted relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.05, P=0.08; adjusted relative risk 0.70, 0.45 to 1.09, P=0.12), although the percentage of infants diagnosed as having atopic eczema (that is, eczema with associated sensitisation) was lower in the n-3 LCPUFA group (26/368 (7%) v 39/338 (12%); unadjusted relative risk 0.61, 0.38 to 0.98, P=0.04; adjusted relative risk 0.64, 0.40 to 1.02, P=0.06). Fewer infants were sensitised to egg in the n-3 LCPUFA group (34/368 (9%) v 52/338 (15%); unadjusted relative risk 0.61, 0.40 to 0.91, P=0.02; adjusted relative risk 0.62, 0.41 to 0.93, P=0.02), but no difference between groups in immunoglobulin E associated food allergy was seen.

Conclusion: n-3 LCPUFA supplementation in pregnancy did not reduce the overall incidence of immunoglobulin E associated allergies in the first year of life, although atopic eczema and egg sensitisation were lower. Longer term follow-up is needed to determine if supplementation has an effect on respiratory allergic diseases and aeroallergen sensitisation in childhood.

SOURCE

Drug addiction 'may be hereditary' as siblings have brain abnormality which makes self-control difficult

Drug users hooked on crack cocaine may have inherited their vulnerability to addictive behaviour, scientists claimed yesterday.

Researchers found that drug addicts and their non-addicted siblings share certain features of the brain, meaning it may be hard-wired for addictive behaviour.

Scientists who scanned the brains of 50 pairs of brothers and sisters of whom one was a cocaine addict found that both siblings had brain abnormalities that made self-control more difficult.

The findings increase understanding of why some people with a family history of drug abuse have a higher risk of addiction than others. The study could also help vulnerable people lean how to take control before addictions set in.

However, the work by the University of Cambridge also suggested that although there may be a genetic base for addiction, some people can overcome this predisposition to stay off drugs.

A study in the Lancet medical journal in January said that as many as 200 million people use illicit drugs worldwide each year, with use highest in wealthy countries.

Unhealthy addictions can also range from narcotics and prescription medicines to legal substances like cigarettes and alcohol and lifestyle factors such as over-eating or gambling.

Scientists have noticed brain differences in drug addicts before, but as yet they were not sure whether those differences came before the drug use, or were as a result of it.

Karen Ersche of the Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute at Britain's Cambridge University led a team of researchers who got around this problem by studying pairs of biological siblings - one addicted and one with no history of chronic drug or alcohol abuse - and comparing both siblings' brains to those of other healthy people.

Their results, published in the journal Science, showed that both addict and non-addict siblings shared the same abnormality in the parts of the brain linked to controlling behaviour - regions known as the fronto-striatal systems.

'It has long been known that not everyone who takes drugs becomes addicted, and that people at risk of drug dependence typically have deficits in self-control,' said Ersche.

'Our findings now shed light on why the risk of becoming addicted to drugs is increased in people with a family history:... Parts of their brains underlying self-control abilities work less efficiently.

Paul Keedwell a consultant psychiatrist at Britain's Cardiff University, who was not involved in the research but was encouraged by its findings, said: 'If we could get a handle on what makes unaffected relatives of addicts so resilient we might be able to prevent a lot of addiction from taking hold.'

SOURCE



3 February, 2012

Statins give you diabetes?

The study below is large so the results should be fairly robust. And the effect was fairly large as such effects go. These results may go some way towards explaining the apparent rise in diabetes incidence in recent years. The doctors hand out statins like jellybeans these days.

Given the pervasive side-effects of statins, it seems likely that the statins did cause the increase in diabetes observed but it must be noted that we are again here dealing with correlational data -- which is not capable of supporting causal inferences by itself

Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(2):144-152.

Statin Use and Risk of Diabetes Mellitus in Postmenopausal Women in the Women's Health Initiative

By Annie L. Culver et al.

Abstract

Background: This study investigates whether the incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with statin use among postmenopausal women participating in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI).

Methods: The WHI recruited 161 808 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years at 40 clinical centers across the United States from 1993 to 1998 with ongoing follow-up. The current analysis includes data through 2005. Statin use was captured at enrollment and year 3. Incident DM status was determined annually from enrollment. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of DM by statin use, with adjustments for propensity score and other potential confounding factors. Subgroup analyses by race/ethnicity, obesity status, and age group were conducted to uncover effect modification.

Results: This investigation included 153 840 women without DM and no missing data at baseline. At baseline, 7.04% reported taking statin medication. There were 10 242 incident cases of self-reported DM over 1 004 466 person-years of follow-up. Statin use at baseline was associated with an increased risk of DM (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.61-1.83). This association remained after adjusting for other potential confounders (multivariate-adjusted HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.38-1.59) and was observed for all types of statin medications. Subset analyses evaluating the association of self-reported DM with longitudinal measures of statin use in 125 575 women confirmed these findings.

Conclusions: Statin medication use in postmenopausal women is associated with an increased risk for DM. This may be a medication class effect. Further study by statin type and dose may reveal varying risk levels for new-onset DM in this population.

SOURCE

Now it's sugar fanaticism

Sugar 'is toxic and must be regulated just like cigarettes', claim some scientists. A common food suddenly morphs into a poison!

Lustig has long been quite obsessed by fructose but it seems that he is now down on all sugars. I guess that's because a good answer to his anti-fructose campaign is that all sugars contain it. There's a more balanced article here, though it is more respectful of epidemiology than it should be

Sugar is a poison and its sale should be as tightly regulated as cigarettes and alcohol, scientists say. They warn that sugary foods and drinks are responsible for illnesses including obesity, heart disease, cancer and liver problems.

And they claim it contributes to 35million deaths a year worldwide and is so dangerous it should be controlled through taxation and legislation.

In an article entitled The Toxic Truth About Sugar, published in the journal Nature, the scientists add: ‘A little is not a problem but a lot kills – slowly.’

The U.S. authors warn obesity is now a bigger problem than malnourishment across the world, and that sugar not only makes people fat but also changes the body’s metabolism, raises blood pressure, throws hormones off balance and harms the liver.

The damage done mirrors the effects of drinking too much alcohol – which the scientists point out is made from distilling sugar.

The authors, led by Robert Lustig, a childhood obesity expert at California University, say that, like alcohol, sugar is widely available, toxic, easily abused and harmful to society.

They say teaching children about diet and exercise is unlikely to be effective and instead the answer lies in taxes and restricting availability.

The study recommends using taxation to double the price of fizzy drinks, restricting their sale to those over 17 or 18, and tightening regulations covering school vending machines and snack bars.

Dr Laura Schmidt, also of California University, said: ‘We’re not talking about prohibition. We’re not advocating a major imposition of the government into people’s lives. ‘What we want is actually to increase people’s choices by making foods that aren’t loaded with sugar comparatively easier and cheaper to get.’

The article also reveals that consumption of sugar has tripled in the past 50 years and that there are now more obese people than malnourished ones across the world.

It concludes that responsibility lies with the food companies, saying that while they may resist change, shifts in policy are possible if the pressure is great enough. Examples include the ban on smoking in public places and the fitting of airbags in cars.

The article ends: ‘These simple measures are taken for granted as tools for our public health and well-being. It’s time to turn our attention to sugar.’

However, other scientists have described the essay as ‘puritanical’, saying sugar is only toxic when eaten in unrealistic amounts.

Barbara Gallani, of the Food and Drink Federation, which represents the UK food and drink industry, said that while urgent action was needed to beat heart and other diseases, it was wrong to focus on sugar alone. She added: ‘The causes of these diseases are multi-factorial and demonising food components does not help consumers to build a realistic approach to their diet.

‘The key to good health is a balanced and varied diet in a lifestyle that includes plenty of physical activity.’

SOURCE



2 February, 2012

Complementary medicine courses in universities: how I beat the varsity quacks

The teaching of complementary medicine has no place in British universities, says David Colquhoun. David Colquhoun is professor of pharmacology at University College London

What would you think if your child went off to university to be taught that amethyst crystals “emit high yin energy”? Or that cancer can be cured by squirting coffee up the fundament? What if they were told in a lecture that the heart is not, as medical science has believed for centuries, a pump for circulating blood around the body but instead “the governor of our rational thought and behaviour”? Well, you’d probably want your tuition fees back for a start.

For more than a decade, “facts” such as these have been peddled by more than a dozen fully accredited, state-funded British universities: the above examples come from the University of Westminster and Edinburgh Napier University. Indeed, since the mid-1990s, such ideas have been presented and taught as if they were real medicine.

The teaching of “complementary” (that is, non-evidence-based) medicine is something about which scientists and rationalist campaign groups have been raising havoc for years. It may seem harmless and even a welcome alternative to traditional perspectives. But teaching people that homoeopathy is evidence-based when it isn’t, and encouraging students to distrust the scientific method, not only runs counter to reason, but can be dangerous.

“Complementary” medics can cause harm by persuading patients to shun medicines that can cure or alleviate their condition. In extreme cases – such as the prescription of herbal remedies for potentially fatal diseases such as Aids – it can kill. Steve Jobs, for example, might still be alive if he had not initially decided to treat his pancreatic cancer via diet, rather than radiotherapy.

As a senior scientist in one of Britain’s biggest and most respected universities, I was bemused when I first learnt of the existence of these bizarre courses. After all, we are beset by a plethora of regulatory agencies that are meant to put a stop to worthless degrees. Moreover, these bodies are supposed to guarantee that students are paying for accredited academic courses, not ones that professional scientists would dismiss as teaching ''magic’’.

The sad fact is that none of these regulators did anything to stop the infiltration of the mainstream. The Quality Assurance Agency has ticked its boxes and rubber-stamped these dubious courses. The Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority has allowed the misleading labelling of quack medicines. Trading Standards has been useless. The Department of Health has vacillated, and will not allow Nice (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence) to investigate, despite many requests to do so. Parliament has been unhelpful (perhaps not surprising, when one MP, David Tredinnick, got into trouble for buying astrology software on expenses).

The only organisation that has done anything sensible is the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which has said – for example – that advertisements placed by homeopaths cannot name particular diseases that they purport to treat. The ASA also reprimanded Boots for misleading claims on its homoeopathic “remedies”.

The true villains of the piece, however, are the vice-chancellors, who must take responsibility for what is taught at their university. In 2008, I wrote to the then vice-chancellor of the University of Wales, Marc Clement. I asked him, as a physicist, what his opinion was of this statement: “Implosion researchers have found that if water is put through a spiral, its field changes, and it then appears to have a potent, restorative effect on cells.”

This was written by the course leader for an MSc in “Nutrition” run by the Northern College of Acupuncture, but validated by the University of Wales. The validation committee did not appear to have noticed it. And Prof Clement did not reply to my request for an opinion about the wonders of “spiralised water”. The consequence of this, and hundreds of other “validations” conducted by the University of Wales, was that it was abolished, thanks to Welsh education minister Leighton Andrews. Yet action was only taken after the scandal was flagged up first by bloggers, and then in two programmes by BBC Wales. There is, surely, something very wrong when academic standards have to be maintained by online amateurs and local broadcasters.

What is encouraging, however, is that the tide appears to have turned. At the beginning of 2007, 16 universities offered 45 BSc degrees in make-believe medicine. There were even five degrees in homoeopathy (the medicine that contains no medicine). Now there are none. Likewise, degrees in naturopathy, reflexology and aromatherapy have all vanished from Britain’s universities. “Nutritional therapy” has almost gone, too.

This is especially good news, since the people who deal sensibly with nutrition are called dieticians. Anyone can be a self-styled “nutritionist”: the terms “nutritional therapy” or “nutritional medicine” usually refer to an individual who claims to be able to cure almost anything by diet, but whose aim is to sell you expensive and unnecessary – or even harmful – supplements. This practice was exposed in a recent investigation by Which? magazine, in which 14 out of 15 consultations were deemed “fails” and six out of 15 gave dangerous advice.

There are two obvious reasons for this welcome return to sanity. One is that the Freedom of Information Act allows anyone to find out what’s being taught to students. Universities have fought tooth and nail to hide the information, but they were overruled by the Information Commissioner, who decided that taxpayers should be able to see how their money was spent. The internet has also been a factor: vice-chancellors don’t like it when Googling their names produces references to “yin energy”.

But a more positive explanation may be that we seem at last to be emerging from the age of what we can call the “endarkenment”. People are less willing to believe things that aren’t true – whether it’s the presence of WMD in Iraq, the effectiveness of bankers’ derivatives, or the power of homoeopathy. They are also less willing to pay for them. The huge rise in tuition fees will cost the taxpayer money (through the loan scheme), but at least it may put the last nail in the coffin of quackery. Vice-chancellors seem remarkably insensitive to the contents of what’s taught, but they care a great deal about the money.

In terms of the remaining degrees, the courses that are predominantly in Chinese medicine and acupuncture. Chinese remedies are almost completely untested, and they are frequently contaminated and dangerous. They also contribute to the slaughter of rhinos, tigers and bears.

Acupuncture is more interesting. There is no doubt that it has had, in the past, greater acceptance by the medical establishment than other forms of alternative medicine. One welcome consequence is that there has been a lot more research into this practice than others. However, almost all of it points to the conclusion that it is no more than a theatrical placebo.

If you get yourself poked with needles, and the next day you feel better, there are two possible reasons. One is that you are experiencing a placebo effect. The other is the “get better anyway” effect or, in scientific parlance, “regression to the mean”. Acupuncture might sit at the respectable end of the fruitloopery spectrum, but I believe it has no place in a university, other than as a good example of how easy it is to fool yourself.

Over the past few years, bloggers and campaigners have made an enormous contribution to the resurgence of rational thinking. It is a shame that the official bodies that are supposed to protect us from the snake-oil salesmen have not done such a good job.

SOURCE






Club drug ketamine 'could offer almost instant remedy for severe depression'

It's a dangerous drug but if the alternative is suicide, it would be a great help

A prescription drug that is also used as a powerful horse tranquiliser could offer an almost instant remedy for people suffering from depression, say scientists.

Doctors at Ben Taub General hospital in Houston, Texas, are testing the effect of ketamine on patients with a severe form of the condition.

The Class C drug, which is illegal to possess or sell, can cause a loss of feeling in the body and paralysis of the muscles sometimes giving users a feeling of being separated from reality. It is popular with clubbers because of its hallucinogenic effects.

However, mental health researchers were alerted to reports that the drug could also make depression 'vanish' almost instantly. Current anti-depressants take at least a few weeks to kick-in, leaving a dangerous period when many patients feel suicidal. Ketamine could therefore be used to bridge that gap.

Scientists at the Neuro Psychiatric Center attached to the Ben Taub General are giving trial patients one infusion of either ketamine or a normal sedative and comparing the results.

One trial patient, mother-of-three Heather Merrill, believes she had been administered with the ketamine. She told National Public Radio (npr.org) in the U.S that 24-hours after her treatment: 'It was almost immediate, the sense of calmness and relaxation.

'No more fogginess. No more heaviness. I feel like I'm a clean slate right now. I want to go home and see friends or, you know, go to the grocery store and cook the family dinner.'

Dr Asim Shah, director of the mood disorder programme in Ben Taub, added: 'She looks like a person who is genuinely happy, whereas before the study, she looked very down, very withdrawn, almost tearful.'

Researchers said the consistent patient reactions have made it hard to prevent doctors and patients from working out who has been given the drug, and who has had the placebo.

If the trial proves successful the researchers will then administer the drug three times a week to patients to test the long-term effects.

Ketamine can cause serious bladder problems and there are suggestions it could make some existing mental health problems worse and cause heart problems.

The scientists are hoping patients in the second trial will experience a radical mood boost that will last for a few months. They are also looking at developing a pill form of the intravenous infusion.

If all studies prove successful it will be at least two years before the drug is approved for use.

SOURCE



1 February, 2012

Fried food heart risk 'a myth'

This study is a step forward into reality but the claim that it applies only to foods cooked in vegetable oils is only an assumption. They have no evidence for it.

And any mention of the Mediterranean diet always amuses me. I think of all the nonagenarians tottering around Australia who have lived almost all of their lives eating various forms of red meat fried in dripping (rendered down beef fat). That does not count as evidence, apparently

It is a "myth" that regularly eating fried foods causes heart attacks, researchers have found, as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil. They say there is mounting research that it is the type of oil used, and whether or not it has been used before, that really matters.

The latest study, published in the British Medical Journal, found no association between the frequency of fried food consumption in Spain - where olive and sunflower oils are mostly used - and the incidence of serious heart disease.

However, the British Heart Foundation warned Britons not to "reach for the frying pan" yet, pointing out that the Mediterranean diet as a whole was healthier than ours.

Spanish researchers followed more than 40,000 people, two-thirds of whom were women, from the mid 1990s to 2004.

At the outset they asked them how often they ate fried foods, either at home or while out. They then looked to see whether eating fried foods regularly increased the likelihood of falling ill from having coronary heart disease, such as a heart attack or angina requiring surgery.

Dividing participants into four groups, from lowest fried food intake to highest, they found no significant difference in heart disease.

There were 606 incidents linked to heart disease in total, but they were split relatively evenly between the four groups.

The authors concluded: "In a Mediterranean country where olive and sunflower oils are the most commonly used fats for frying, and where large amounts of fried foods are consumed both at and away from home, no association was observed between fried food consumption and the risk of coronary heart disease or death."

Commenting on the findings in the BMJ, Professor Michael Leitzmann of the University of Regensburg in Germany said two other studies - one from Costa Rica and another by an international team - had also failed to find strong evidence of a link. He said: "Taken together, the myth that frying food is generally bad for the heart is not supported by available evidence.

"However, this does not mean that frequent meals of fish and chips will have no health consequences."

Fried food did contain more calories, he said, while it had also been linked to high blood pressure and obesity.

The authors of the Spanish study noted that the findings could only really be extrapolated to other Mediterranean countries with similar diets, whose people tended to fry 'fresh' with olive and sunflower oil.

Fried foods from modern American-style takeaways were different, they argued, because these tended to have been cooked in re-used oils, higher in transfats. In addition, such takeaways tended to contain much more salt, known to increase blood pressure and heart disease risk.

However, more and more people in Britain are now frying with olive oil or sunflower oil. Britain now consumes around 28 million litres of olive oil a year - double that sold a decade ago.

Half British households now use it regularly in some way, although not necessarily for frying, compared to a third 10 years ago.

Victoria Taylor, senior heart health dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, said: "Before we all reach for the frying pan it's important to remember that this was a study of a Mediterranean diet, rather than British fish and chips.

"Our diet in the UK will differ from Spain, so we cannot say that this result would be the same for us too.

"Participants in this study used unsaturated fats such as olive and sunflower oil to fry their food.

"We currently recommend swapping saturated fats like butter, lard or palm oil for unsaturated fats as a way of keeping your cholesterol down and this study gives further cause to make that switch.

"Regardless of the cooking methods used, consuming foods with high fat content means a high calorie intake. This can lead to weight gain and obesity, which is a risk factor for heart disease.

"A well-balanced diet, with plenty of fruit and veg and only a small amount of high fat foods, is best for a healthy heart."

SOURCE





Active brain may ward of Alzheimer's

This is still all correlational but it may be a straw in the wind

A LIFETIME of daily intellectual stimulation could help prevent the formation of plaques that are the hallmark of Alzheimer's disease.

Although previous research has suggested that engaging in mentally demanding activities - such as reading, writing and playing games - may help stave off the disease, a new study identifies the biological target at play.

The study, led by researchers at the University of California, says the discovery could guide future research into effective prevention strategies.

"Rather than simply providing resistance to Alzheimer's, brain-stimulating activities may affect a primary pathological process in the disease," said principal investigator Dr William Jagust of UC Berkeley's Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute.

"This suggests that cognitive therapies could have significant disease-modifying treatment benefits if applied early enough, before symptoms appear," he said.

In the first study of its kind, researchers used brain scans to examine the amount of beta amyloid deposits in the brains of healthy seniors with no signs of dementia.

Beta amyloid - the protein fibres folded into tangled plaques that accumulate in the brain - is the top suspect in the pathology of Alzheimer's disease.

But the buildup of amyloid can also be influenced by genes and aging.

People who reported doing daily brainy activities from age six onward had very low levels of amyloid plaque - on par with an average person in their early 20s. Those who never or rarely engaged in these activities had higher plaque levels.

"This is the first time cognitive activity level has been related to amyloid buildup in the brain," said study scientist Susan Landau of the Neuroscience Institute.

Amyloid is believed to start accumulating many years before symptoms appear - so by the time patients have memory problems, there is little that can be done. Scientists hope to intervene sooner, so it's important to identify whether lifestyle factors might help.

The study was published in the January 23 issue of the Archives of Neurology.

SOURCE






SITE MOTTO: "Epidemiology is mostly bunk"

Where it is not bunk is when it shows that some treatment or influence has no effect on lifespan or disease incidence. It is as convincing as disproof as it is unconvincing as proof. Think about it. As Einstein said: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Epidemiological studies are useful for hypothesis-generating or for hypothesis-testing of theories already examined in experimental work but they do not enable causative inferences by themselves

The standard of reasoning that one commonly finds in epidemiological journal articles is akin to the following false syllogism:
Chairs have legs
You have legs
So therefore you are a chair


SALT -- SALT -- SALT

1). A good example of an epidemiological disproof concerns the dreaded salt (NaCl). We are constantly told that we eat too much salt for good health and must cut back our consumption of it. Yet there is one nation that consumes huge amounts of salt. So do they all die young there? Quite the reverse: Japan has the world's highest concentration of centenarians. Taste Japan's favourite sauce -- soy sauce -- if you want to understand Japanese salt consumption. It's almost solid salt.

2). We need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. So the conventional wisdom is not only wrong. It is positively harmful

3). Table salt is a major source of iodine, which is why salt is normally "iodized" by official decree. Cutting back salt consumption runs the risk of iodine deficiency, with its huge adverse health impacts -- goiter, mental retardation etc. GIVE YOUR BABY PLENTY OF SALTY FOODS -- unless you want to turn it into a cretin

4). Our blood has roughly the same concentration of salt as sea-water so claims that the body cannot handle high levels of salt were always absurd

5). The latest academic study shows that LOW salt in your blood is most likely to lead to heart attacks. See JAMA. 2011;305(17):1777-1785


PEANUTS: There is a vaccination against peanut allergy -- peanuts themselves. Give peanut products (e.g. peanut butter -- or the original "Bamba" if you have Israeli contacts) to your baby as soon as it begins to take solid foods and that should immunize it for life. See here and here (scroll down). It's also possible (though as yet unexamined) that a mother who eats peanuts while she is lactating may confer some protection on her baby


THE SIDE-EFFECT MANIA. If a drug is shown to have troublesome side-effects, there are always calls for it to be banned or not authorized for use in the first place. But that is insane. ALL drugs have side effects. Even aspirin causes stomach bleeding, for instance -- and paracetamol (acetaminophen) can wreck your liver. If a drug has no side effects, it will have no main effects either. If you want a side-effect-free drug, take a homeopathic remedy. They're just water.


Although I am an atheist, I have never wavered from my view that the New Testament is the best guide to living and I still enjoy reading it. Here is what the apostle Paul says about vegetarians: "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth." (Romans 14: 2.3). What perfect advice! That is real tolerance: Very different from the dogmatism of the food freaks. Interesting that vegetarianism is such an old compulsion, though.


Even if we concede that getting fat shortens your life, what right has anybody got to question someone's decision to accept that tradeoff for themselves? Such a decision could be just one version of the old idea that it is best to have a short life but a merry one. Even the Bible is supportive of that thinking. See Ecclesiastes 8:15 and Isaiah 22: 13. To deny the right to make such a personal decision is plainly Fascistic.


Fatties actually SAVE the taxpayer money


IQ: Political correctness makes IQ generally unmentionable so it is rarely controlled for in epidemiological studies. This is extremely regrettable as it tends to vitiate findings that do not control for it. When it is examined, it is routinely found to have pervasive effects. We read, for instance, that "The mother's IQ was more highly predictive of breastfeeding status than were her race, education, age, poverty status, smoking, the home environment, or the child's birth weight or birth order". So political correctness can render otherwise interesting findings moot


That hallowed fish oil is strongly linked to increased incidence of colon cancer


"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact" -- Charles Darwin


"Most men die of their remedies, not of their diseases", said Moliere. That may no longer be true but there is still a lot of false medical "wisdom" around that does harm to various degrees. And showing its falsity is rarely the problem. The problem is getting people -- medical researchers in particular -- to abandon their preconceptions


Bertrand Russell could have been talking about today's conventional dietary "wisdom" when he said: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”


Eating lots of fruit and vegetables is NOT beneficial


The challenge, as John Maynard Keynes knew, "lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones".


"Obesity" is 77% genetic. So trying to make fatties slim is punishing them for the way they were born. That sort of thing is furiously condemned in relation to homosexuals so why is it OK for fatties?


****************

Some more problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize dietary fat. But Eskimos living on their traditional diet eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. At any given age they in fact have an exceptionally LOW incidence of cardiovascular disease. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

11). A major cause of increasing obesity is certainly the campaign against it -- as dieting usually makes people FATTER. If there were any sincerity to the obesity warriors, they would ban all diet advertising and otherwise shut up about it. Re-authorizing now-banned school playground activities and school outings would help too. But it is so much easier to blame obesity on the evil "multinationals" than it is to blame it on your own restrictions on the natural activities of kids

12. Fascism: "What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum. What a fine fellow!

*********************


Trans fats: For one summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and the evidence of lasting harm from them is dubious. By taking extreme groups in trans fats intake, some weak association with coronary heart disease has at times been shown in some sub-populations but extreme group studies are inherently at risk of confounding with other factors and are intrinsically of little interest to the average person.


The "antioxidant" religion: The experimental evidence is that antioxidants SHORTEN your life, if anything. Studies here and here and here and here and here and here and here, for instance. That they are of benefit is a great theory but it is one that has been coshed by reality plenty of times.


PASSIVE SMOKING is unpleasant but does you no harm. See here and here and here and here and here and here and here


The medical consensus is often wrong. The best known wrongheaded medical orthodoxy is that stomach ulcers could not be caused by bacteria because the stomach is so acidic. Disproof of that view first appeared in 1875 (Yes. 1875) but the falsity of the view was not widely recognized until 1990. Only heroic efforts finally overturned the consensus and led to a cure for stomach ulcers. See here and here and here.


Contrary to the usual assertions, some big studies show that fat women get LESS breast cancer. See also here and here


NOTE: "No trial has ever demonstrated benefits from reducing dietary saturated fat".


Huge ($400 million) clinical trial shows that a low fat diet is useless . See also here and here


Dieticians are just modern-day witch-doctors. There is no undergirding in double-blind studies for their usual recommendations


The fragility of current medical wisdom: Would you believe that even Old Testament wisdom can sometimes trump medical wisdom? Note this quote: "Spiess discussed Swedish research on cardiac patients that compared Jehovah's Witnesses who refused blood transfusions to patients with similar disease progression during open-heart surgery. The research found those who refused transfusions had noticeably better survival rates.


Relying on the popular wisdom can certainly hurt you personally: "The scientific consensus of a quarter-century ago turned into the arthritic nightmare of today."


Medical wisdom can in fact fly in the face of the known facts. How often do we hear reverent praise for the Mediterranean diet? Yet both Australians and Japanese live longer than Greeks and Italians, despite having very different diets. The traditional Australian diet is in fact about as opposite to the Mediterranean diet as you can get. The reverence for the Mediterranean diet can only be understood therefore as some sort of Anglo-Saxon cultural cringe. It is quite brainless. Why are not the Australian and Japanese diets extolled if health is the matter at issue?


Since many of my posts here make severe criticisms of medical research, I should perhaps point out that I am also a severe critic of much research in my own field of psychology. See here and here


This is NOT an "alternative medicine" site. Perhaps the only (weak) excuse for the poorly substantiated claims that often appear in the medical literature is the even poorer level of substantiation offered in the "alternative" literature.


I used to teach social statistics in a major Australian university and I find medical statistics pretty obfuscatory. They seem uniformly designed to make mountains out of molehills. Many times in the academic literature I have excoriated my colleagues in psychology and sociology for going ga-ga over very weak correlations but what I find in the medical literature makes the findings in the social sciences look positively muscular. In fact, medical findings are almost never reported as correlations -- because to do so would exhibit how laughably trivial they generally are. If (say) 3 individuals in a thousand in a control group had some sort of an adverse outcome versus 4 out of a thousand in a group undergoing some treatment, the difference will be published in the medical literature with great excitement and intimations of its importance. In fact, of course, such small differences are almost certainly random noise and are in any rational calculus unimportant. And statistical significance is little help in determining the importance of a finding. Statistical significance simply tells you that the result was unlikely to be an effect of small sample size. But a statistically significant difference could have been due to any number of other randomly-present factors.


Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology: below:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.


The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of the prevailing health "wisdom" of today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."


The Federal Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition says (p. 384): "the threshold for concluding that an agent was more likely than not the cause of an individual's disease is a relative risk greater than 2.0." Very few of the studies criticized on this blog meet that criterion.


Improbable events do happen at random -- as mathematician John Brignell notes rather tartly:
"Consider, instead, my experiences in the village pub swindle. It is based on the weekly bonus ball in the National Lottery. It so happens that my birth date is 13, so that is the number I always choose. With a few occasional absences abroad I have paid my pound every week for a year and a half, but have never won. Some of my neighbours win frequently; one in three consecutive weeks. Furthermore, I always put in a pound for my wife for her birth date, which is 11. She has never won either. The probability of neither of these numbers coming up in that period is less than 5%, which for an epidemiologist is significant enough to publish a paper.


Kids are not shy anymore. They are "autistic". Autism is a real problem but the rise in its incidence seems likely to be the product of overdiagnosis -- the now common tendency to medicalize almost all problems.


One of the great pleasures in life is the first mouthful of cold beer on a hot day -- and the food Puritans can stick that wherever they like