Bottom Line Secrets."In a three-year study of the effect of massage on more than 1,000 cancer patients -- the largest study to date of massage used for cancer patients -- patients rated their symptoms immediately before and after a single treatment of massage therapy.
Result: Anxiety declined by 52%... pain by 40%... fatigue by 41%... depression by 31%... and nausea by 21%. Massage was as effective as standard drug therapy for these symptoms.
Helpful: Insurance companies are more likely to pay for massage therapy if a doctor writes a referral to a certified therapist or if treatment is part of a hospital in-patient therapy.
To locate a massage therapist in your area, contact the American Massage Therapy Association, 877-905-2700, or visit www.amtamassage.org
Our inside source: Barrie R. Cassileth, PhD, chief, Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York City."
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
For sale: US academic integrity, by Ibrahim Warde
For sale: US academic integrity, by Ibrahim Warde: "CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON THE CAMPUS
For sale: US academic integrity
Private enterprise is much taken with education, especially the universities. In the United States the race to get hold of academic disciplines that bring in the money has already increased conflicts of interest between research and business. Under cover of a "marketplace of ideas," the logic of the market could turn academics into entrepreneurs and endanger the unity of our universities.
By Ibrahim Warde
In November 1998 the University of California at Berkeley signed a controversial agreement with Novartis, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant and producer of genetically engineered crops. In exchange for $25m to its Department of Plant and Microbial Biology (DPMB), the university would grant the firm first right to negotiate licenses on about one-third of the department's discoveries (including the results of research funded by state and federal sources). Novartis would also be represented on two out of five seats in the department's research committee, which determines how the money is spent.
About half of the faculty members of the College of Natural Resources, of which the DPMB is a part, expressed concern that the deal would erode Berkeley's commitment to 'public good research', and 60% feared it would impede the free exchange of ideas among scientists (1). California state senator Tom Hayden declared that the deal 'raises significant questions of whether biotechnology research primarily serves the interests of corporations and marginalises potential academic critics at the expense of free inquiry and unfettered research'.
Yet, by and large, the deal represents the new model of cooperation between corporations and universities. Since California's Proposition 13, which froze property tax and started a widesand started a widespread "tax revolt" in 1978, state funding for education has started to decline. Changes were afoot at the federal level, too. In 1980 the US Congress, concerned about declining productivity and rising competition from Japan, passed the Bayh-Dole act, which for the first time allowed universities to patent the results of federally funded research. Subsequent legislation further encouraged corporations to fund academic research - through tax breaks among other things - and universities to licence their inventions to corporations.
With the end of the cold war, universities suffered more public cuts. Thus in 1987 Berkeley, which was once funded almost entirely by the state of California, saw the share of public funding fall to 50% of its overall budget, and to 34% in 1999. Buildings erected in the 1990s, such as the one housing the business school, were financed exclusively by private donations. The Haas family (heirs to jeans makers Levi Strauss) was its most generous benefactor, and saw to it that the school bore its name. A number of major corporations endowed faculty positions. Even the dean holds the position of "Bank of America dean". The state-of-the-art building of the Haas School of Business is plastered with corporate logos and all its rooms - and even the tables and chairs - are adorned with plaques commemorating their donor - a company, an alumnus or a graduating class."
For sale: US academic integrity
Private enterprise is much taken with education, especially the universities. In the United States the race to get hold of academic disciplines that bring in the money has already increased conflicts of interest between research and business. Under cover of a "marketplace of ideas," the logic of the market could turn academics into entrepreneurs and endanger the unity of our universities.
By Ibrahim Warde
In November 1998 the University of California at Berkeley signed a controversial agreement with Novartis, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant and producer of genetically engineered crops. In exchange for $25m to its Department of Plant and Microbial Biology (DPMB), the university would grant the firm first right to negotiate licenses on about one-third of the department's discoveries (including the results of research funded by state and federal sources). Novartis would also be represented on two out of five seats in the department's research committee, which determines how the money is spent.
About half of the faculty members of the College of Natural Resources, of which the DPMB is a part, expressed concern that the deal would erode Berkeley's commitment to 'public good research', and 60% feared it would impede the free exchange of ideas among scientists (1). California state senator Tom Hayden declared that the deal 'raises significant questions of whether biotechnology research primarily serves the interests of corporations and marginalises potential academic critics at the expense of free inquiry and unfettered research'.
Yet, by and large, the deal represents the new model of cooperation between corporations and universities. Since California's Proposition 13, which froze property tax and started a widesand started a widespread "tax revolt" in 1978, state funding for education has started to decline. Changes were afoot at the federal level, too. In 1980 the US Congress, concerned about declining productivity and rising competition from Japan, passed the Bayh-Dole act, which for the first time allowed universities to patent the results of federally funded research. Subsequent legislation further encouraged corporations to fund academic research - through tax breaks among other things - and universities to licence their inventions to corporations.
With the end of the cold war, universities suffered more public cuts. Thus in 1987 Berkeley, which was once funded almost entirely by the state of California, saw the share of public funding fall to 50% of its overall budget, and to 34% in 1999. Buildings erected in the 1990s, such as the one housing the business school, were financed exclusively by private donations. The Haas family (heirs to jeans makers Levi Strauss) was its most generous benefactor, and saw to it that the school bore its name. A number of major corporations endowed faculty positions. Even the dean holds the position of "Bank of America dean". The state-of-the-art building of the Haas School of Business is plastered with corporate logos and all its rooms - and even the tables and chairs - are adorned with plaques commemorating their donor - a company, an alumnus or a graduating class."
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Consumer Reports Warns About Benzene Risk In Beverages
Consumer Reports Warns About Benzene Risk In Beverages: "Consumer Reports Warns About Benzene Risk In Beverages
Reported by: 9News
Web produced by: Neil Relyea
First posted: 8/30/2006 11:56:20 PM
You may want to look more closely at the labels in the beverage aisle.
A new report says some ingredients can combine to form a potential cancer causer.
Consumer Reports magazine, tested drinks containing 'sodium benzoate' and 'ascorbic acid,' which is vitamin C.
The magazine says if left out in heat and light, those compounds can create benzene.
Researchers found higher than normal benzene levels in Crystal Light Sunrise; Classic orange; Fanta orange and pineapple sodas; and Sunkist orange soda, after they sat in a warm, bright room. "
Reported by: 9News
Web produced by: Neil Relyea
First posted: 8/30/2006 11:56:20 PM
You may want to look more closely at the labels in the beverage aisle.
A new report says some ingredients can combine to form a potential cancer causer.
Consumer Reports magazine, tested drinks containing 'sodium benzoate' and 'ascorbic acid,' which is vitamin C.
The magazine says if left out in heat and light, those compounds can create benzene.
Researchers found higher than normal benzene levels in Crystal Light Sunrise; Classic orange; Fanta orange and pineapple sodas; and Sunkist orange soda, after they sat in a warm, bright room. "
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Teflon causes cancer. Perfluorooctanoic acid
Q: There have been recent reports that Teflon causes cancer. Should I discard my Teflon pans?
A: Teflon has not been found to cause cancer. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical used in the synthesis of Teflon, has been labeled a "likely carcinogen" by a panel advising the Environmental Protection Agency. But Teflon pans do not emit PFOA when used properly.
Teflon cookware might emit a small amount of PFOA when heated to extreme temperatures -- for example, when a frying pan has been left empty on a heated burner for an extended period. Even then, it has not been established that overheated Teflon produces a dangerous amount of PFOA. Still, it wouldn't be unreasonable to dispose of a Teflon pan that has been left empty on a heated burner.
Approximately 95% of the population has some amount of PFOA in their bloodstream -- but most of this PFOA likely comes from stain- and water-repelling treatments used on carpets and fabrics. Grease-resistant food packaging, such as microwave popcorn bags and cardboard fast-food boxes, also might contain small amounts of PFOA. The fact that PFOA is in our bodies does not mean that we're all going to die from PFOA-related cancers. Individuals who have worked in factories where PFOA is produced, and perhaps some people who live in neighboring areas, seem to have the highest levels of PFOA.
Our inside source: Ronald L. Melnick, PhD, senior toxicologist with National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a division of the National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. He is currently conducting experiments on chemicals related to PFOA.
A: Teflon has not been found to cause cancer. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical used in the synthesis of Teflon, has been labeled a "likely carcinogen" by a panel advising the Environmental Protection Agency. But Teflon pans do not emit PFOA when used properly.
Teflon cookware might emit a small amount of PFOA when heated to extreme temperatures -- for example, when a frying pan has been left empty on a heated burner for an extended period. Even then, it has not been established that overheated Teflon produces a dangerous amount of PFOA. Still, it wouldn't be unreasonable to dispose of a Teflon pan that has been left empty on a heated burner.
Approximately 95% of the population has some amount of PFOA in their bloodstream -- but most of this PFOA likely comes from stain- and water-repelling treatments used on carpets and fabrics. Grease-resistant food packaging, such as microwave popcorn bags and cardboard fast-food boxes, also might contain small amounts of PFOA. The fact that PFOA is in our bodies does not mean that we're all going to die from PFOA-related cancers. Individuals who have worked in factories where PFOA is produced, and perhaps some people who live in neighboring areas, seem to have the highest levels of PFOA.
Our inside source: Ronald L. Melnick, PhD, senior toxicologist with National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a division of the National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. He is currently conducting experiments on chemicals related to PFOA.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
FDA WARNING RE: RITALIN AND HEART ATTACK
At my children's school, it seems as if more and more kids are being put on methylphenidate (Ritalin) for so-called behavioral disorders. But in a dramatic reminder that Ritalin and related attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications are potent drugs with dangerous side effects, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel has recommended that they carry a "black box warning" -- the FDA's highest level warning -- that they may increase the risk of death from heart attack and other cardiovascular problems. This advice came after 25 deaths and 54 serious cases of cardiovascular problems among children and adults taking these stimulants (methylphenidate or amphetamines) between 1999 and 2003. Pick your poison, eh?
TOO MANY DRUGS FOR TOO MANY CHILDREN
In recent years, there has been growing concern that too many children are being put on ADHD medications. Once reserved for kids with obvious and major symptoms (hyperactivity, impulsivity and inattention), there seems to have been a kind of trickle-down effect. Now children who would formerly have been considered merely fidgety, impatient or inattentive are being pumped full of powerful drugs.
Is it just my perception or are parents using drugs to medicate behavioral and discipline issues? To learn more about this dilemma, I consulted advisory panel member Steven E. Nissen, MD, interim chairman of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at The Cleveland Clinic and president of the American College of Cardiology. He told me that he hopes the new awareness of the risks will slow down the escalating number of prescriptions for ADHD.
All drugs have side effects, and should be prescribed only when absolutely necessary. This is especially true when it comes to powerful stimulants like Ritalin, which can cause adverse cardiovascular effects including high blood pressure, a racing heart, abnormal heartbeat or stroke.
Often a combination of strategies is best, along with a team approach ensuring that parents, physicians, therapists and teachers are all on the same page.
The bottom line: If you're the parent of a child with behavioral difficulties, rest assured that you're not alone, and there are many helpful treatment options. Don't let yourself be talked into giving your child powerful drugs with powerful side effects until you explore more healthful alternatives.
TOO MANY DRUGS FOR TOO MANY CHILDREN
Is it just my perception or are parents using drugs to medicate behavioral and discipline issues? To learn more about this dilemma, I consulted advisory panel member Steven E. Nissen, MD, interim chairman of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at The Cleveland Clinic and president of the American College of Cardiology. He told me that he hopes the new awareness of the risks will slow down the escalating number of prescriptions for ADHD.
All drugs have side effects, and should be prescribed only when absolutely necessary. This is especially true when it comes to powerful stimulants like Ritalin, which can cause adverse cardiovascular effects including high blood pressure, a racing heart, abnormal heartbeat or stroke.
TRY NONDRUG APPROACHES FIRST
In Dr. Nissen's opinion, while there are still some children who need and benefit from Ritalin, this drug should be prescribed only after other approaches have been exhausted. Be certain that it truly is profound ADHD and not just a child overwhelmed by his/her overscheduled world or in desperate need of parental attention. Psychotherapy, behavior modification, social skills training and nutritional guidance have all met with some degree of success in controlling ADHD symptoms.Often a combination of strategies is best, along with a team approach ensuring that parents, physicians, therapists and teachers are all on the same page.
The bottom line: If you're the parent of a child with behavioral difficulties, rest assured that you're not alone, and there are many helpful treatment options. Don't let yourself be talked into giving your child powerful drugs with powerful side effects until you explore more healthful alternatives.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Integrity of science is in jeopardy
Asking researchers to declare conflicts of interest that might prejudice their work is not enough to safeguard the integrity of science, says Catherine DeAngelis, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Universities should do more to investigate staff who don't disclose relevant financial ties, she says.
JAMA and The New England Journal of Medicine both require authors to disclose links that could influence a study. Yet several researchers have failed to do so in work published in JAMA this year. In one case, when JAMA rejected a study because the authors refused to obtain an independent analysis of the data, the work was simply published in a different journal.
Even when researchers declare financial ties, readers still don't know how much the conflict has skewed the results, says Daylian Cain, a moral psychologist at Harvard University. Disclosure could even tempt researchers to exaggerate findings, in order to counter anticipated scepticism from readers, he says.
JAMA and The New England Journal of Medicine both require authors to disclose links that could influence a study. Yet several researchers have failed to do so in work published in JAMA this year. In one case, when JAMA rejected a study because the authors refused to obtain an independent analysis of the data, the work was simply published in a different journal.
Even when researchers declare financial ties, readers still don't know how much the conflict has skewed the results, says Daylian Cain, a moral psychologist at Harvard University. Disclosure could even tempt researchers to exaggerate findings, in order to counter anticipated scepticism from readers, he says.
Monday, July 31, 2006
The awakening of the public and the coming overthrow of evil
The awakening of the public and the coming overthrow of evil: "Many people recognize what's really happening in the world of health and medicine today: Increasing disease, unabated disease mongering, corporate exploitation of the people, environmental destruction, a decline in honest health journalism, skyrocketing health care costs, tens of millions of uninsured people and continued assaults on health freedom by the FDA and conventional medicine. These are just a few of the many challenges that concern the lucid, thinking people who now populate Internet blogs, chat rooms and websites. But along with these shared concerns, there is also emerging a consensus that our shared future does not have to follow the pattern of our recent past.
Together, we can create positive change, and it all starts from the day-to-day grind of observing what's happening in the world, applying some critical thinking, and sharing our thoughts, ideas, concerns and solutions with others. Each day that I have an opportunity to engage in this work, I feel deeply honored. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to humbly serve in this important role of taking part in a global paradigm shift that may yet allow us to find true freedom, health and prosperity. I also invite you to join this effort in any way that you are able: To become a blogger, a writer or a video commentator so that your voice may be heard and your ideas may encourage others to find their own voice"
As Albert Einstein famously said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
A time for real change is approachingThere is hope, however, to be found in a new mode of thinking that's now beginning to take shape across the "awakened" members of the Internet community. It's a recognition that exciting changes are now possible, and that the forces of evil that have been acting upon us for so long -- destroying our health, our environment and our freedom -- are poised to be overthrown.
We are all living it what may soon be viewed as a time of the most significant and rapid changes in recent human history. They will not be without difficulty, however, so be prepared for changes that may far exceed what you, or your parents, or even your grandparents ever witnessed.
Most importantly, stay engaged in the conversation. Stay informed. Independent news websites and blogs are now the only remaining sources of accurate information about what's really happening today. There are far too many to name, but I've listed a short selection of my favorites in the right column at www.NewsTarget.com
Be active in what's happening. Teach yourself to stay alert and be a critical thinker. Question what you are told, especially by those in positions of authority or apparent power. The bigger the organization from which any message emerges, the more likely it is to be corrupted by an ulterior motive (profit, public complacency, etc.) Trust the smaller, independent organizations like PR Watch, Commercial Alert, the Organic Consumers Association, the Government Accountability Project and others.
What you do is your own business, but if you want to be engaged in real solutions, turn off your television. Disconnect from cable and reconnect to books and informative Internet sites. Buy organic produce and avoid processed foods. Stop spending money on products made by unethical corporations. (Vote with your dollars.) Demand accountability from your elected officials and representatives (including Judges). Learn how to grow your own food, even if just a little. Get out of the city from time to time and reconnect with nature on a regular basis. Supplement with nutrients that enhance mental acuity, intelligence and presence of mind (I highly recommend supplements from the Life Extension Foundation at www.LEF.org). Practice a little yoga, Tai-Chi or Pilates. Train your body and your mind to be healthy and alert.
These are the things that make you a participant in life, rather than a spectator. These are a few of the things that ultimately help set you free. Stay alert, because you won't want to miss what's coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)