Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Health In Your Hands - Your Plan for Natural Scoliosis Prevention and Treatment
Scoliosis, is a widespread condition in the world. According to available statistics, the spinal disorder, that leads to an curvature of the spine, strikes nearly two to three percent of all adolescents and becomes noticeable between the age of 10 and 15, when an adolescent is very image conscious.
Nearly, one in 10 Singaporeans suffers from lumbar scoliosis, according to a recent study conducted by a team of spine surgeons led by Professor Wong Hee Kit, chairman of the Orthopedics and Hand & Reconstructive Microsurgery Cluster at the National University Health System (NUHS). Worse, the study also revealed that the condition is 1.6 times more prevalent in women and that it occurs twice more often in Chinese and Malays than in Indians.
Conventional scoliosis treatment involves braces that patients have to wear passively through the day; while surgical procedures carry significant, other risks. My book in contrast draws heavily upon my own experiences as a Chiropractor and Nutritionist, and how I have helped hundreds of scoliosis patients with nothing more elaborate than a highly customized nutritional plan and a structured exercise/stretch program that I’ve explained at length with illustrations in this book.
Among other things, the book explains in simple, layman's language the anatomy and functioning of of the human spine and its relationship to food and exercise. The book is based is painstaking research collected over years of practice with scoliosis patients of all demographics. Testimonials of some of these patients are also appended in the book.
It's my firm conviction that this book will prove a valuable informational resource to the parents, who have children afflicted with scoliosis, as well as adults who suffer from the condition.
Scoliosis, is a widespread condition in the world. According to available statistics, the spinal disorder, that leads to an curvature of the spine, strikes nearly two to three percent of all adolescents and becomes noticeable between the age of 10 and 15, when an adolescent is very image conscious.
Nearly, one in 10 Singaporeans suffers from lumbar scoliosis, according to a recent study conducted by a team of spine surgeons led by Professor Wong Hee Kit, chairman of the Orthopedics and Hand & Reconstructive Microsurgery Cluster at the National University Health System (NUHS). Worse, the study also revealed that the condition is 1.6 times more prevalent in women and that it occurs twice more often in Chinese and Malays than in Indians.
Conventional scoliosis treatment involves braces that patients have to wear passively through the day; while surgical procedures carry significant, other risks. My book in contrast draws heavily upon my own experiences as a Chiropractor and Nutritionist, and how I have helped hundreds of scoliosis patients with nothing more elaborate than a highly customized nutritional plan and a structured exercise/stretch program that I’ve explained at length with illustrations in this book.
Among other things, the book explains in simple, layman's language the anatomy and functioning of of the human spine and its relationship to food and exercise. The book is based is painstaking research collected over years of practice with scoliosis patients of all demographics. Testimonials of some of these patients are also appended in the book.
It's my firm conviction that this book will prove a valuable informational resource to the parents, who have children afflicted with scoliosis, as well as adults who suffer from the condition.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Quality of Life for Cats with Diabetes
Niessen S, Powney S, Guitian J et al: Evaluation of a quality-of-life tool for cats with diabetes mellitus, J Vet Intern Med 24:1098, 2010.
Clinically, treatment success for feline diabetes is defined as obtaining close to normal serial blood glucose concentrations along with improving fructosamine levels, in conjunction with the resolution of key clinical signs of diabetes mellitus (polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia, and weight loss). Evaluating treatment success often does not include recording the psychological and social effects of the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) and the complex daily treatment regimen on quality of life (QoL) of both cat and owner, as well as the perceptions of the disorder and its management by the owner. The objective of this study was to design, validate, and apply a diabetic pet and owner-centered, individualized measure of impact of DM (DIAQoL-pet). Two hundred twenty-one owners of diabetic cats were surveyed to complete the DIAQoL-pet tool. Discussions and pilot surveys lead to the design of 29 specific DM-associated QoL questions. Evaluating the top 10 items with the most negative impact proved the importance of recording the impact of treatment on the owner’s life in addition to the animal’s QoL. Nine of the top 10 items were more associated with the owner’s QoL than the cat’s QoL. One discrepancy noted was between the perceived high impact of worrying about hypoglycemia and the perceived lower impact of hypoglycemia actually occurring. The authors concluded the DIAQoL-pet was able to reliably quantify diabetes-dependent QoL of diabetic cats and their owners plus identified specific areas impacted by DM and its treatment. [VT]
Related articles:
Rucinsky R, Cook A, Haley S et al: AAHA diabetes management guidelines, J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 46:215, 2010.
More on cat health: Winn Feline Foundation Library
Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Clinically, treatment success for feline diabetes is defined as obtaining close to normal serial blood glucose concentrations along with improving fructosamine levels, in conjunction with the resolution of key clinical signs of diabetes mellitus (polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia, and weight loss). Evaluating treatment success often does not include recording the psychological and social effects of the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) and the complex daily treatment regimen on quality of life (QoL) of both cat and owner, as well as the perceptions of the disorder and its management by the owner. The objective of this study was to design, validate, and apply a diabetic pet and owner-centered, individualized measure of impact of DM (DIAQoL-pet). Two hundred twenty-one owners of diabetic cats were surveyed to complete the DIAQoL-pet tool. Discussions and pilot surveys lead to the design of 29 specific DM-associated QoL questions. Evaluating the top 10 items with the most negative impact proved the importance of recording the impact of treatment on the owner’s life in addition to the animal’s QoL. Nine of the top 10 items were more associated with the owner’s QoL than the cat’s QoL. One discrepancy noted was between the perceived high impact of worrying about hypoglycemia and the perceived lower impact of hypoglycemia actually occurring. The authors concluded the DIAQoL-pet was able to reliably quantify diabetes-dependent QoL of diabetic cats and their owners plus identified specific areas impacted by DM and its treatment. [VT]
Related articles:
Rucinsky R, Cook A, Haley S et al: AAHA diabetes management guidelines, J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 46:215, 2010.
More on cat health: Winn Feline Foundation Library
Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Niessen S, Powney S, Guitian J et al: Evaluation of a quality-of-life tool for cats with diabetes mellitus, J Vet Intern Med 24:1098, 2010.
Clinically, treatment success for feline diabetes is defined as obtaining close to normal serial blood glucose concentrations along with improving fructosamine levels, in conjunction with the resolution of key clinical signs of diabetes mellitus (polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia, and weight loss). Evaluating treatment success often does not include recording the psychological and social effects of the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) and the complex daily treatment regimen on quality of life (QoL) of both cat and owner, as well as the perceptions of the disorder and its management by the owner. The objective of this study was to design, validate, and apply a diabetic pet and owner-centered, individualized measure of impact of DM (DIAQoL-pet). Two hundred twenty-one owners of diabetic cats were surveyed to complete the DIAQoL-pet tool. Discussions and pilot surveys lead to the design of 29 specific DM-associated QoL questions. Evaluating the top 10 items with the most negative impact proved the importance of recording the impact of treatment on the owner’s life in addition to the animal’s QoL. Nine of the top 10 items were more associated with the owner’s QoL than the cat’s QoL. One discrepancy noted was between the perceived high impact of worrying about hypoglycemia and the perceived lower impact of hypoglycemia actually occurring. The authors concluded the DIAQoL-pet was able to reliably quantify diabetes-dependent QoL of diabetic cats and their owners plus identified specific areas impacted by DM and its treatment. [VT]
Related articles:
Rucinsky R, Cook A, Haley S et al: AAHA diabetes management guidelines, J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 46:215, 2010.
More on cat health: Winn Feline Foundation Library
Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Read More
Clinically, treatment success for feline diabetes is defined as obtaining close to normal serial blood glucose concentrations along with improving fructosamine levels, in conjunction with the resolution of key clinical signs of diabetes mellitus (polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia, and weight loss). Evaluating treatment success often does not include recording the psychological and social effects of the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) and the complex daily treatment regimen on quality of life (QoL) of both cat and owner, as well as the perceptions of the disorder and its management by the owner. The objective of this study was to design, validate, and apply a diabetic pet and owner-centered, individualized measure of impact of DM (DIAQoL-pet). Two hundred twenty-one owners of diabetic cats were surveyed to complete the DIAQoL-pet tool. Discussions and pilot surveys lead to the design of 29 specific DM-associated QoL questions. Evaluating the top 10 items with the most negative impact proved the importance of recording the impact of treatment on the owner’s life in addition to the animal’s QoL. Nine of the top 10 items were more associated with the owner’s QoL than the cat’s QoL. One discrepancy noted was between the perceived high impact of worrying about hypoglycemia and the perceived lower impact of hypoglycemia actually occurring. The authors concluded the DIAQoL-pet was able to reliably quantify diabetes-dependent QoL of diabetic cats and their owners plus identified specific areas impacted by DM and its treatment. [VT]
Related articles:
Rucinsky R, Cook A, Haley S et al: AAHA diabetes management guidelines, J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 46:215, 2010.
More on cat health: Winn Feline Foundation Library
Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Monday, November 15, 2010
Vitamin D Deficit Doubles Risk of Stroke in Whites, but Not in Blacks, Study Finds
Low levels of vitamin D, the essential nutrient obtained from milk, fortified cereals and exposure to sunlight, doubles the risk of stroke in whites, but not in blacks, according to a new report by researchers at Johns Hopkins.Stroke is the nation's third leading cause of death, killing more than 140,000 Americans annually and temporarily or permanently disabling over half a million when there is a loss of blood flow to the brain.
Researchers say their findings, to be presented Nov. 15 at the American Heart Association's (AHA) annual Scientific Sessions in Chicago, back up evidence from earlier work at Johns Hopkins linking vitamin D deficiency to higher rates of death, heart disease and peripheral artery disease in adults.
The Hopkins team says its results fail to explain why African Americans, who are more likely to be vitamin D deficient due to their darker skin pigmentation's ability to block the sun's rays, also suffer from higher rates of stroke. Of the 176 study participants known to have died from stroke within a 14-year period, 116 were white and 60 were black. Still, African Americans had a 65 percent greater likelihood of suffering such a severe bleeding in or interruption of blood flow to the brain than whites, when age, other risk factors for stroke, and vitamin D deficiency were factored into their analysis.
"Higher numbers for hypertension and diabetes definitely explain some of the excess risk for stroke in blacks compared to whites, but not this much risk," says study co-lead investigator and preventive cardiologist Erin Michos, M.D., M.H.S., an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and its Heart and Vascular Institute. "Something else is surely behind this problem. However, don't blame vitamin D deficits for the higher number of strokes in blacks."
Nearly 8,000 initially healthy men and women of both races were involved in the latest analysis, part of a larger, ongoing national health survey, in which the researchers compared the risk of death from stroke between those with the lowest blood levels of vitamin D to those with higher amounts. Among them, 6.6 percent of whites and 32.3 percent of blacks had severely low blood levels of vitamin D, which the experts say is less than 15 nanograms per milliliter.
"It may be that blacks have adapted over the generations to vitamin D deficiency, so we are not going to see any compounding effects with stroke," says Michos, who notes that African Americans have adapted elsewhere to low levels of the bone-strengthening vitamin, with fewer incidents of bone fracture and greater overall bone density than seen in Caucasians.
"In blacks, we may not need to raise vitamin D levels to the same level as in whites to minimize their risk of stroke" says Michos, who emphasizes that clinical trials are needed to verify that supplements actually do prevent heart attacks and stroke. In her practice, she says, she monitors her patients' levels of the key nutrient as part of routine blood work while also testing for other known risk factors for heart disease and stroke, including blood pressure, glucose and lipid levels.
Michos cautions that the number of fatal strokes recorded in blacks may not have been statistically sufficient to find a relationship with vitamin D deficits. And she points out that the study only assessed information on deaths from stroke, not the more common "brain incidents" of stroke, which are usually non-fatal, or even mini-strokes, whose symptoms typically dissipate in a day or so. She says the team's next steps will be to evaluate cognitive brain function as well as non-fatal and transient strokes and any possible tie-ins to nutrient deficiency.
Besides helping to keep bones healthy, vitamin D plays an essential role in preventing abnormal cell growth, and in bolstering the body's immune system. The hormone-like nutrient also controls blood levels of calcium and phosphorus, essential chemicals in the body. Shortages of vitamin D have also been tied to increased rates of breast cancer and depression in the elderly.
Michos recommends that people maintain good vitamin D levels by eating diets rich in such fish as salmon and tuna, consuming vitamin-D fortified dairy products, and taking vitamin D supplements. She also promotes brief exposure daily to the sun's vitamin D-producing ultraviolet light. And to those concerned about the cancer risks linked to too much time spent in the sun, she says as little as 10 to 15 minutes of daily exposure is enough during the summer months.
If vitamin supplements are used, Michos says that daily doses between 1,000 and 2,000 international units are generally safe and beneficial for most people, but that people with the severe vitamin D deficits may need higher doses under close supervision by their physician to avoid possible risk of toxicity.
The U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) previously suggested that an adequate daily intake of vitamin D is between 200 and 600 international units. However, Michos argues that this may be woefully inadequate for most people to raise their vitamin D blood levels to a healthy 30 nanograms per milliliter. The IOM has set up an expert panel to review its vitamin D guidelines, with new recommendations expected by the end of the year. Previous results from the same nationwide survey showed that 41 percent of men and 53 percent of women have unhealthy amounts of vitamin D, with nutrient levels below 28 nanograms per milliliter.
Funding for this study was provided by the American College of Cardiology and the P.J. Schafer Cardiovascular Research Fund.
Low levels of vitamin D, the essential nutrient obtained from milk, fortified cereals and exposure to sunlight, doubles the risk of stroke in whites, but not in blacks, according to a new report by researchers at Johns Hopkins.Stroke is the nation's third leading cause of death, killing more than 140,000 Americans annually and temporarily or permanently disabling over half a million when there is a loss of blood flow to the brain.
Researchers say their findings, to be presented Nov. 15 at the American Heart Association's (AHA) annual Scientific Sessions in Chicago, back up evidence from earlier work at Johns Hopkins linking vitamin D deficiency to higher rates of death, heart disease and peripheral artery disease in adults.
The Hopkins team says its results fail to explain why African Americans, who are more likely to be vitamin D deficient due to their darker skin pigmentation's ability to block the sun's rays, also suffer from higher rates of stroke. Of the 176 study participants known to have died from stroke within a 14-year period, 116 were white and 60 were black. Still, African Americans had a 65 percent greater likelihood of suffering such a severe bleeding in or interruption of blood flow to the brain than whites, when age, other risk factors for stroke, and vitamin D deficiency were factored into their analysis.
"Higher numbers for hypertension and diabetes definitely explain some of the excess risk for stroke in blacks compared to whites, but not this much risk," says study co-lead investigator and preventive cardiologist Erin Michos, M.D., M.H.S., an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and its Heart and Vascular Institute. "Something else is surely behind this problem. However, don't blame vitamin D deficits for the higher number of strokes in blacks."
Nearly 8,000 initially healthy men and women of both races were involved in the latest analysis, part of a larger, ongoing national health survey, in which the researchers compared the risk of death from stroke between those with the lowest blood levels of vitamin D to those with higher amounts. Among them, 6.6 percent of whites and 32.3 percent of blacks had severely low blood levels of vitamin D, which the experts say is less than 15 nanograms per milliliter.
"It may be that blacks have adapted over the generations to vitamin D deficiency, so we are not going to see any compounding effects with stroke," says Michos, who notes that African Americans have adapted elsewhere to low levels of the bone-strengthening vitamin, with fewer incidents of bone fracture and greater overall bone density than seen in Caucasians.
"In blacks, we may not need to raise vitamin D levels to the same level as in whites to minimize their risk of stroke" says Michos, who emphasizes that clinical trials are needed to verify that supplements actually do prevent heart attacks and stroke. In her practice, she says, she monitors her patients' levels of the key nutrient as part of routine blood work while also testing for other known risk factors for heart disease and stroke, including blood pressure, glucose and lipid levels.
Michos cautions that the number of fatal strokes recorded in blacks may not have been statistically sufficient to find a relationship with vitamin D deficits. And she points out that the study only assessed information on deaths from stroke, not the more common "brain incidents" of stroke, which are usually non-fatal, or even mini-strokes, whose symptoms typically dissipate in a day or so. She says the team's next steps will be to evaluate cognitive brain function as well as non-fatal and transient strokes and any possible tie-ins to nutrient deficiency.
Besides helping to keep bones healthy, vitamin D plays an essential role in preventing abnormal cell growth, and in bolstering the body's immune system. The hormone-like nutrient also controls blood levels of calcium and phosphorus, essential chemicals in the body. Shortages of vitamin D have also been tied to increased rates of breast cancer and depression in the elderly.
Michos recommends that people maintain good vitamin D levels by eating diets rich in such fish as salmon and tuna, consuming vitamin-D fortified dairy products, and taking vitamin D supplements. She also promotes brief exposure daily to the sun's vitamin D-producing ultraviolet light. And to those concerned about the cancer risks linked to too much time spent in the sun, she says as little as 10 to 15 minutes of daily exposure is enough during the summer months.
If vitamin supplements are used, Michos says that daily doses between 1,000 and 2,000 international units are generally safe and beneficial for most people, but that people with the severe vitamin D deficits may need higher doses under close supervision by their physician to avoid possible risk of toxicity.
The U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) previously suggested that an adequate daily intake of vitamin D is between 200 and 600 international units. However, Michos argues that this may be woefully inadequate for most people to raise their vitamin D blood levels to a healthy 30 nanograms per milliliter. The IOM has set up an expert panel to review its vitamin D guidelines, with new recommendations expected by the end of the year. Previous results from the same nationwide survey showed that 41 percent of men and 53 percent of women have unhealthy amounts of vitamin D, with nutrient levels below 28 nanograms per milliliter.
Funding for this study was provided by the American College of Cardiology and the P.J. Schafer Cardiovascular Research Fund.
Chemicals in Fast Food Wrappers Show Up in Human Blood
TORONTO, Ontario, Canada - Chemicals used to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags are migrating into food, being ingested by people and showing up as contaminants in blood, according to new research at the University of Toronto. The contaminants are perfluoroalkyls, stable, synthetic chemicals that repel oil, grease, and water. They are used in surface protection products such as carpet and clothing treatments and coating for paper and cardboard packaging.
Earlier research by University of Toronto environmental chemists Scott Mabury and Jessica D'eon, established in 2007 that the wrappers are a source of these chemicals in human blood. Their new study shows that perfluorinated chemicals can migrate from wrappers into food.
The specific chemicals studied are polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters, or PAPs, breakdown products of the perfluorinated carboxylic acids, or PFCAs, which are used in coating the food wrappers.
"We suspected that a major source of human PFCA exposure may be the consumption and metabolism of polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters, or PAPs," said D'eon, a graduate student in the University of Toronto's Department of Chemistry.
"PAPs are applied as greaseproofing agents to paper food contact packaging such as fast food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags," she explained.
In their latest study, D'eon and Mabury exposed rats to PAPs either orally or by injection and monitored for a three-week period to track the concentrations of the PAPs and PFCA metabolites in their blood.
The researchers used the PAP concentrations previously observed in human blood together with the PAP and PFCA concentrations observed in the rats to calculate human exposure to the chemical perflurooctanoic acid, PFOA.
"In this study we clearly demonstrate that the current use of PAPs in food contact applications does result in human exposure to PFCAs, including PFOA," said Mabury, the lead researcher and a professor in the university's Department of Chemistry.
Elevated levels of PFOA in blood have been associated with changes in sex hormones and cholesterol, according to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances. Exposure to PFOA also has resulted in early death and delayed development in mice and rat pups, the agency says.
Rats that ingested PFOA for a long time developed tumors. However, based on differences between rats and humans, scientists have not determined for certain whether this could also occur in humans, the agency says.
"We found the concentrations of PFOA from PAP metabolism to be significant and concluded that the metabolism of PAPs could be a major source of human exposure to PFOA, as well as other PFCAs," said Mabury.
"This discovery is important because we would like to control human chemical exposure, but this is only possible if we understand the source of this exposure," Mabury said.
"In addition," he said, "some try to locate the blame for human exposure on environmental contamination that resulted from past chemical use rather than the chemicals that are currently in production."
The study is published today in the journal "Environmental Health Perspectives," published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
"We cannot tell whether PAPs are the sole source of human PFOA exposure or even the most important, but we can say unequivocally that PAPs are a source and the evidence from this study suggests this could be significant," Mabury said.
The researchers concluded that due to the long time that PFOA remains in human blood, even low-level PAP exposure could, over time, result in significant exposure to PFOA.
Although humans are exposed directly to PFCAs in food and dust, the University of Toronto researchers said that because of the way the human body processes these chemicals, "PAP exposure should be considered as a significant indirect source of human PFCA contamination."
Regulatory interest in human exposure to PAPs has been growing. Governments in Canada, the United States and Europe have signaled their intentions to begin extensive and longer-term monitoring programs for these chemicals.
Regulators have made three assumptions, said Mabury, releasing the results of his 2007 study. "That the chemicals wouldn't move off paper into food, they wouldn't become available to the body and the body wouldn't process them. They were wrong on all three counts."
TORONTO, Ontario, Canada - Chemicals used to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags are migrating into food, being ingested by people and showing up as contaminants in blood, according to new research at the University of Toronto. The contaminants are perfluoroalkyls, stable, synthetic chemicals that repel oil, grease, and water. They are used in surface protection products such as carpet and clothing treatments and coating for paper and cardboard packaging.
Earlier research by University of Toronto environmental chemists Scott Mabury and Jessica D'eon, established in 2007 that the wrappers are a source of these chemicals in human blood. Their new study shows that perfluorinated chemicals can migrate from wrappers into food.
The specific chemicals studied are polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters, or PAPs, breakdown products of the perfluorinated carboxylic acids, or PFCAs, which are used in coating the food wrappers.
"We suspected that a major source of human PFCA exposure may be the consumption and metabolism of polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters, or PAPs," said D'eon, a graduate student in the University of Toronto's Department of Chemistry.
"PAPs are applied as greaseproofing agents to paper food contact packaging such as fast food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags," she explained.
In their latest study, D'eon and Mabury exposed rats to PAPs either orally or by injection and monitored for a three-week period to track the concentrations of the PAPs and PFCA metabolites in their blood.
The researchers used the PAP concentrations previously observed in human blood together with the PAP and PFCA concentrations observed in the rats to calculate human exposure to the chemical perflurooctanoic acid, PFOA.
"In this study we clearly demonstrate that the current use of PAPs in food contact applications does result in human exposure to PFCAs, including PFOA," said Mabury, the lead researcher and a professor in the university's Department of Chemistry.
Elevated levels of PFOA in blood have been associated with changes in sex hormones and cholesterol, according to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances. Exposure to PFOA also has resulted in early death and delayed development in mice and rat pups, the agency says.
Rats that ingested PFOA for a long time developed tumors. However, based on differences between rats and humans, scientists have not determined for certain whether this could also occur in humans, the agency says.
"We found the concentrations of PFOA from PAP metabolism to be significant and concluded that the metabolism of PAPs could be a major source of human exposure to PFOA, as well as other PFCAs," said Mabury.
"This discovery is important because we would like to control human chemical exposure, but this is only possible if we understand the source of this exposure," Mabury said.
"In addition," he said, "some try to locate the blame for human exposure on environmental contamination that resulted from past chemical use rather than the chemicals that are currently in production."
The study is published today in the journal "Environmental Health Perspectives," published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
"We cannot tell whether PAPs are the sole source of human PFOA exposure or even the most important, but we can say unequivocally that PAPs are a source and the evidence from this study suggests this could be significant," Mabury said.
The researchers concluded that due to the long time that PFOA remains in human blood, even low-level PAP exposure could, over time, result in significant exposure to PFOA.
Although humans are exposed directly to PFCAs in food and dust, the University of Toronto researchers said that because of the way the human body processes these chemicals, "PAP exposure should be considered as a significant indirect source of human PFCA contamination."
Regulatory interest in human exposure to PAPs has been growing. Governments in Canada, the United States and Europe have signaled their intentions to begin extensive and longer-term monitoring programs for these chemicals.
Regulators have made three assumptions, said Mabury, releasing the results of his 2007 study. "That the chemicals wouldn't move off paper into food, they wouldn't become available to the body and the body wouldn't process them. They were wrong on all three counts."
Green tea extracts plus vitamin D may boost bone health
Combining green tea polyphenols and a form of vitamin D called alfacalcidol may boost bone structure and strength, according to a new study in mice. The new research in mice suggests that supplementation with either green tea polyphenols or alfacalcidol (1-alpha-OH-vitamin D3) may reverse damage to bones caused by lipopolysaccharide induced chronic inflammation, while combining the ingredients may sustain bone micro-architecture and strength, according to new findings published in The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry.
According to the authors, led by Dr Chwan-Li Shen from Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, the study also shows that the improvement in bone micro-architecture and quality along with the down-regulation bone TNF-alpha expression mechanism further corroborate the anti-inflammatory role of green tea polyphenols and 1-alpha-OH-vitamin D3 (alfacalcidol) in skeletal health – which may reduce the risk of osteoporosis.
Bone loss
Chronic inflammation has been associated with progression of bone loss and micro- architecture deterioration through oxidative stress and excessive production of pro-inflammatory molecules such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha).
Various anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory compounds, such as green tea, alfacalcidol, and soy isoflavones have been suggested suppress TNF-alpha expression.
The researchers noted that certain compounds suggested to inhibit inflammation via suppressing TNF-alpha expression, may have therapeutic value in the prevention and treatment of chronic inflammation-induced bone loss.
In particular green tea (Camellia sinensis), has been suggested to have a wide range of effects on animal and human health due to its anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
It has been reported in previous studies to have beneficial effects in various inflammatory conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease, collagen-induced arthritis and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced gingival inflammation.
The new study investigated the effects of green tea polyphenols and alfacalcidol on bone microstructure and strength along with possible mechanisms in rats with chronic inflammation.
Damage reversal
Combining green tea polyphenols and a form of vitamin D called alfacalcidol may boost bone structure and strength, according to a new study in mice. The new research in mice suggests that supplementation with either green tea polyphenols or alfacalcidol (1-alpha-OH-vitamin D3) may reverse damage to bones caused by lipopolysaccharide induced chronic inflammation, while combining the ingredients may sustain bone micro-architecture and strength, according to new findings published in The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry.
According to the authors, led by Dr Chwan-Li Shen from Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, the study also shows that the improvement in bone micro-architecture and quality along with the down-regulation bone TNF-alpha expression mechanism further corroborate the anti-inflammatory role of green tea polyphenols and 1-alpha-OH-vitamin D3 (alfacalcidol) in skeletal health – which may reduce the risk of osteoporosis.
Bone loss
Chronic inflammation has been associated with progression of bone loss and micro- architecture deterioration through oxidative stress and excessive production of pro-inflammatory molecules such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha).
Various anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory compounds, such as green tea, alfacalcidol, and soy isoflavones have been suggested suppress TNF-alpha expression.
The researchers noted that certain compounds suggested to inhibit inflammation via suppressing TNF-alpha expression, may have therapeutic value in the prevention and treatment of chronic inflammation-induced bone loss.
In particular green tea (Camellia sinensis), has been suggested to have a wide range of effects on animal and human health due to its anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
It has been reported in previous studies to have beneficial effects in various inflammatory conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease, collagen-induced arthritis and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced gingival inflammation.
The new study investigated the effects of green tea polyphenols and alfacalcidol on bone microstructure and strength along with possible mechanisms in rats with chronic inflammation.
Damage reversal
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Scan Ban
That’s a pretty disturbing statistic published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. It just adds to the controversy stirring around CT (computed tomography) scan use. A tipping point that led to more investigation of CT scan use was this: General Electric applying for approval of CT scans as tests for colon cancer. It’s a request made because, even though the practice of screening healthy patients with CT scans has become commonplace, many insurers are hesitant to pay for the scans.
The FDA moved to approve GE’s request—until agency scientists had objections. They said that the increased cancer risk from CT scans’ radiation would outweigh any potential benefits. Gastroenterologist and former FDA consultant Julian Nicholas—who trained at Oxford University and the Mayo Clinic—was one of those objecting. He wrote in an e-mail that approval would “expose a number of Americans to a risk of radiation that is unwarranted and may lead to instances of solid organ abdominal cancer.”
That didn’t set too well. Nicholas says, “I was first ignored, then pressured to change my scientific opinion, and when I refused to do that, I was intimidated and ultimately terminated.”
Nicholas wasn’t alone in questioning the safety of CT scans. FDA medical officer Dr. Robert Smith of Yale and Cornell Universities said, “The increased radiation exposure to the population could be substantial and would raise a serious public health/public policy issue.” Smith’s input was dismissed, too.
At present, approval for G.E.’s request is still pending.
The scientists have cause for concern, though. The average American is exposed to seven times more non-therapeutic radiation than in 1980—due largely to the popularity of CT scans which expose patients to as much radiation as 400 chest x-rays. Additionally, the number of CT scans in the U.S. has increased from three million per year in 1980 to 70 million today. Scientists say that this extra radiation exposure kills 14,500 people a year and may be responsible for 29.000 new cases of cancer annually.
More people are paying extra attention to scan usage, too. California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, has signed a bill that requires hospitals and clinics to record radiation doses for CT scans and to report any overdoses to patients and their doctors. Why? Hundreds of patients who underwent brain scans for stroke in 2008 and 2009 were overdosed. For example, in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles alone, 269 patients received up to eight times the radiation expected—overdosing that continued for 18 months before the hospital discovered it. Five other California hospitals had higher than expected radiation doses given to patients.
Likewise, the New York Times reported that excessive radiation doses were given to more than 400 patients, including some at Huntsville Hospital in Alabama, who got up to 13 times the expected amount. Those who received the high doses of radiation reported a variety of symptoms, including hair loss, mental confusion, headaches and memory loss. Those folks also face a higher risk of brain damage and cancer.
Prior studies indicate that up to one-third of CT scans are unnecessary or can be replaced with less risky—and less expensive—tests. Experts believe that 20 million adults and more than one million children are receiving unnecessary CT scans each year.
CT scans aren’t the only sources of excessive radiation, though. For example, mammograms emit radiation, too, that exposes the heart and breast tissue to dangerous ionizing radiation that directly causes DNA damage, which can lead to increased cancer risk. Dr. John Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75% percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to ionizing radiation—from mammography, x-rays and other medical or dental sources. Other means of mammography for those who choose to have it include thermography technologies (using no radiation) or even digital mammography (using a smaller dose of radiation).
When it comes to CT scans (and other radiation), here’s something to think about. The New England Journal of Medicine found that survivors of the 1945 atomic bombs faced significant increases in lifetime cancer risk, but they also found that the levels of radiation the atomic bomb survivors were exposed to by the bombings is equivalent to receiving only two or three CT scans.
No wonder there’s a growing scan ban.
The FDA moved to approve GE’s request—until agency scientists had objections. They said that the increased cancer risk from CT scans’ radiation would outweigh any potential benefits. Gastroenterologist and former FDA consultant Julian Nicholas—who trained at Oxford University and the Mayo Clinic—was one of those objecting. He wrote in an e-mail that approval would “expose a number of Americans to a risk of radiation that is unwarranted and may lead to instances of solid organ abdominal cancer.”
That didn’t set too well. Nicholas says, “I was first ignored, then pressured to change my scientific opinion, and when I refused to do that, I was intimidated and ultimately terminated.”
Nicholas wasn’t alone in questioning the safety of CT scans. FDA medical officer Dr. Robert Smith of Yale and Cornell Universities said, “The increased radiation exposure to the population could be substantial and would raise a serious public health/public policy issue.” Smith’s input was dismissed, too.
At present, approval for G.E.’s request is still pending.
The scientists have cause for concern, though. The average American is exposed to seven times more non-therapeutic radiation than in 1980—due largely to the popularity of CT scans which expose patients to as much radiation as 400 chest x-rays. Additionally, the number of CT scans in the U.S. has increased from three million per year in 1980 to 70 million today. Scientists say that this extra radiation exposure kills 14,500 people a year and may be responsible for 29.000 new cases of cancer annually.
More people are paying extra attention to scan usage, too. California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, has signed a bill that requires hospitals and clinics to record radiation doses for CT scans and to report any overdoses to patients and their doctors. Why? Hundreds of patients who underwent brain scans for stroke in 2008 and 2009 were overdosed. For example, in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles alone, 269 patients received up to eight times the radiation expected—overdosing that continued for 18 months before the hospital discovered it. Five other California hospitals had higher than expected radiation doses given to patients.
Likewise, the New York Times reported that excessive radiation doses were given to more than 400 patients, including some at Huntsville Hospital in Alabama, who got up to 13 times the expected amount. Those who received the high doses of radiation reported a variety of symptoms, including hair loss, mental confusion, headaches and memory loss. Those folks also face a higher risk of brain damage and cancer.
Prior studies indicate that up to one-third of CT scans are unnecessary or can be replaced with less risky—and less expensive—tests. Experts believe that 20 million adults and more than one million children are receiving unnecessary CT scans each year.
CT scans aren’t the only sources of excessive radiation, though. For example, mammograms emit radiation, too, that exposes the heart and breast tissue to dangerous ionizing radiation that directly causes DNA damage, which can lead to increased cancer risk. Dr. John Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75% percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to ionizing radiation—from mammography, x-rays and other medical or dental sources. Other means of mammography for those who choose to have it include thermography technologies (using no radiation) or even digital mammography (using a smaller dose of radiation).
When it comes to CT scans (and other radiation), here’s something to think about. The New England Journal of Medicine found that survivors of the 1945 atomic bombs faced significant increases in lifetime cancer risk, but they also found that the levels of radiation the atomic bomb survivors were exposed to by the bombings is equivalent to receiving only two or three CT scans.
No wonder there’s a growing scan ban.
That’s a pretty disturbing statistic published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. It just adds to the controversy stirring around CT (computed tomography) scan use. A tipping point that led to more investigation of CT scan use was this: General Electric applying for approval of CT scans as tests for colon cancer. It’s a request made because, even though the practice of screening healthy patients with CT scans has become commonplace, many insurers are hesitant to pay for the scans.
The FDA moved to approve GE’s request—until agency scientists had objections. They said that the increased cancer risk from CT scans’ radiation would outweigh any potential benefits. Gastroenterologist and former FDA consultant Julian Nicholas—who trained at Oxford University and the Mayo Clinic—was one of those objecting. He wrote in an e-mail that approval would “expose a number of Americans to a risk of radiation that is unwarranted and may lead to instances of solid organ abdominal cancer.”
That didn’t set too well. Nicholas says, “I was first ignored, then pressured to change my scientific opinion, and when I refused to do that, I was intimidated and ultimately terminated.”
Nicholas wasn’t alone in questioning the safety of CT scans. FDA medical officer Dr. Robert Smith of Yale and Cornell Universities said, “The increased radiation exposure to the population could be substantial and would raise a serious public health/public policy issue.” Smith’s input was dismissed, too.
At present, approval for G.E.’s request is still pending.
The scientists have cause for concern, though. The average American is exposed to seven times more non-therapeutic radiation than in 1980—due largely to the popularity of CT scans which expose patients to as much radiation as 400 chest x-rays. Additionally, the number of CT scans in the U.S. has increased from three million per year in 1980 to 70 million today. Scientists say that this extra radiation exposure kills 14,500 people a year and may be responsible for 29.000 new cases of cancer annually.
More people are paying extra attention to scan usage, too. California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, has signed a bill that requires hospitals and clinics to record radiation doses for CT scans and to report any overdoses to patients and their doctors. Why? Hundreds of patients who underwent brain scans for stroke in 2008 and 2009 were overdosed. For example, in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles alone, 269 patients received up to eight times the radiation expected—overdosing that continued for 18 months before the hospital discovered it. Five other California hospitals had higher than expected radiation doses given to patients.
Likewise, the New York Times reported that excessive radiation doses were given to more than 400 patients, including some at Huntsville Hospital in Alabama, who got up to 13 times the expected amount. Those who received the high doses of radiation reported a variety of symptoms, including hair loss, mental confusion, headaches and memory loss. Those folks also face a higher risk of brain damage and cancer.
Prior studies indicate that up to one-third of CT scans are unnecessary or can be replaced with less risky—and less expensive—tests. Experts believe that 20 million adults and more than one million children are receiving unnecessary CT scans each year.
CT scans aren’t the only sources of excessive radiation, though. For example, mammograms emit radiation, too, that exposes the heart and breast tissue to dangerous ionizing radiation that directly causes DNA damage, which can lead to increased cancer risk. Dr. John Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75% percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to ionizing radiation—from mammography, x-rays and other medical or dental sources. Other means of mammography for those who choose to have it include thermography technologies (using no radiation) or even digital mammography (using a smaller dose of radiation).
When it comes to CT scans (and other radiation), here’s something to think about. The New England Journal of Medicine found that survivors of the 1945 atomic bombs faced significant increases in lifetime cancer risk, but they also found that the levels of radiation the atomic bomb survivors were exposed to by the bombings is equivalent to receiving only two or three CT scans.
No wonder there’s a growing scan ban.
Read More
The FDA moved to approve GE’s request—until agency scientists had objections. They said that the increased cancer risk from CT scans’ radiation would outweigh any potential benefits. Gastroenterologist and former FDA consultant Julian Nicholas—who trained at Oxford University and the Mayo Clinic—was one of those objecting. He wrote in an e-mail that approval would “expose a number of Americans to a risk of radiation that is unwarranted and may lead to instances of solid organ abdominal cancer.”
That didn’t set too well. Nicholas says, “I was first ignored, then pressured to change my scientific opinion, and when I refused to do that, I was intimidated and ultimately terminated.”
Nicholas wasn’t alone in questioning the safety of CT scans. FDA medical officer Dr. Robert Smith of Yale and Cornell Universities said, “The increased radiation exposure to the population could be substantial and would raise a serious public health/public policy issue.” Smith’s input was dismissed, too.
At present, approval for G.E.’s request is still pending.
The scientists have cause for concern, though. The average American is exposed to seven times more non-therapeutic radiation than in 1980—due largely to the popularity of CT scans which expose patients to as much radiation as 400 chest x-rays. Additionally, the number of CT scans in the U.S. has increased from three million per year in 1980 to 70 million today. Scientists say that this extra radiation exposure kills 14,500 people a year and may be responsible for 29.000 new cases of cancer annually.
More people are paying extra attention to scan usage, too. California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, has signed a bill that requires hospitals and clinics to record radiation doses for CT scans and to report any overdoses to patients and their doctors. Why? Hundreds of patients who underwent brain scans for stroke in 2008 and 2009 were overdosed. For example, in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles alone, 269 patients received up to eight times the radiation expected—overdosing that continued for 18 months before the hospital discovered it. Five other California hospitals had higher than expected radiation doses given to patients.
Likewise, the New York Times reported that excessive radiation doses were given to more than 400 patients, including some at Huntsville Hospital in Alabama, who got up to 13 times the expected amount. Those who received the high doses of radiation reported a variety of symptoms, including hair loss, mental confusion, headaches and memory loss. Those folks also face a higher risk of brain damage and cancer.
Prior studies indicate that up to one-third of CT scans are unnecessary or can be replaced with less risky—and less expensive—tests. Experts believe that 20 million adults and more than one million children are receiving unnecessary CT scans each year.
CT scans aren’t the only sources of excessive radiation, though. For example, mammograms emit radiation, too, that exposes the heart and breast tissue to dangerous ionizing radiation that directly causes DNA damage, which can lead to increased cancer risk. Dr. John Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75% percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to ionizing radiation—from mammography, x-rays and other medical or dental sources. Other means of mammography for those who choose to have it include thermography technologies (using no radiation) or even digital mammography (using a smaller dose of radiation).
When it comes to CT scans (and other radiation), here’s something to think about. The New England Journal of Medicine found that survivors of the 1945 atomic bombs faced significant increases in lifetime cancer risk, but they also found that the levels of radiation the atomic bomb survivors were exposed to by the bombings is equivalent to receiving only two or three CT scans.
No wonder there’s a growing scan ban.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)