Try Prevention for a Change of Pace

 It amazes me that with all these campaigns raising money for "cures" that so far so little is focused on prevention.  Its my guess that if we focused on prevention - in the true sense of public health - we'd gain major health improvements.

from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN  60-Second Science -  April 23, 2010

Public Health: Try the Prevent Defense

Prevention of infectious diseases in specific regions may be a better strategy than trying to develop a cure. Karen Hopkin reports

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That’s more than a folksy aphorism when it comes to infectious diseases. Because according to a report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, it’s more cost effective to reduce the cases of a disease in hard-hit areas than to struggle to find a cure. [Robert Dunn et al., http://bit.ly/90xLbM]

The trick, say the scientists, is identifying the populations most at risk. To figure out where disease-prevention dollars would be best spent, the scientists crunched the numbers. They looked at the diversity of disease-causing organisms and at the number of victims in regions all around the world. And they examined a variety of variables, from climate conditions to the money spent on health care.

Their finding, perhaps not surprisingly, is that the places where infections are most rampant are those with the largest populations and the worst disease-control measures. The good news is: the data show that efforts to control these scourges do work. So where eradication has failed, prevention can help.

The scientists note that reducing illness in heavily populated, poor areas also lowers the chance of a disease spreading to uninfected regions. Just as it’s in your best interest to keep your neighbor’s house from going up in flames.

The Anti-Vitamin Train Keeps Rolling Along

UPDATE: Feb 09 -
AP writer LINDSEY TANNER has the inevitable position of meeting with my disdain over here story "Huge study boosts disappointment on multivitamins".
Her writing in my estimation is about the same low caliber as Carla Johnson another AP health writer who had worked at Spokane's Spokesman-Review.
Of course I don't look at these stories from the job oriented perspective of Johnson and Tanner; I look at them in a critical manner relevant to the factors that are known about the need for and effectiveness of using vitamin supplements.
It is unfortunate that AP fosters mainstream propaganda, rather than actually engaging in discovering whether or not the studies were good examples of junk science.
In this situation the studies were poorly designed, the schedule and dose of vitamins was not close to making a dent in the side of a Studebaker or Packard.

It will be a far sight better when we can get back to media stories with less or no bias, and until then we have ProPublica.org to help us keep on track, along with our own investigative efforts to substantiate fact.

You'll find many other posts here at Natural Health News discussing the benefits of vitamins for health and bogus studies via the search window.
-----------------------------------------------
Personally I would like to see one of the investigators that do studies to show that vitamins are not helpful for health be required to do in-depth research on the vitamins prior to being funded. Maybe when the money train slows down they will approach their "research" from a different state of mind.

Double blind studies are a joke, and most serious researchers know this, but few will really say this is fact. All studies are affected by what is called the Rosenthal factor which has proven that all studies are altered in outcome by the mind-set of the lead investigator. A sharp skewer of data if I ever heard of one.

Vitamin E is an extremely effective anti-inflammatory vitamin and it helps oxygen (cancer doesn't like oxygen)cross the alveolar membrane in the lungs. Vitamin E also helps protect you from hair loss when undergoing standard medical cancer dictates. It also happens to have the effect of protecting you from colon cancer. And there are many more benefits, but it depends on the daily dose and the proper type of vitamin E supplement. (Not the synthetic or cheap stuff, but this seems to be what is relied on in most studies of late.)

Again, vitamin C reigns as one of the most beneficial vitamins for cancer prevention and treatment if you read the science that is found in nutrition journals or other journals that are "less aligned with maintaining the status quo".

Yet, while we see more and more anti-vitamin reports like this one -

Taking vitamin C or E does not reduce the risk of prostate cancers - or other forms of the disease, two large US studies suggest.

We also see some that seem to have a better insight on vitamin efficacy.

Vitamin E Shows Possible Promise In Easing Chronic Inflammation

ScienceDaily (2008-12-08) -- With up to half of a person's body mass consisting of skeletal muscle, chronic inflammation of those muscles -- which include those found in the limbs -- can result in significant physical impairment. Researchers have found that vitamin E shows promise in easing inflammation. ... > read full article

Just maybe the improved anti-inflammatory response is from the oxygen. And don't we already know that oxygen being a free radical scavenger, might just scavenge those cancer cells out from where they don't belong?

And as for selenium, this has been an effective anti-prostate cancer supplement, used in the correct form (selenomethionine) and in the correct dose for decades.

Without selenium, especially if you live in an area that is known geologically to have low selenium soil like the states bordering Canada, your thyroid won't function properly and low thyroid is clearly involved in immune issues, and may be a factor in cancer or other immune related dis-eases.

And then there is the need for zinc, but that's not a part of the study.

And, to counter the fallacious argument that all you have to do to get good nutrition is to eat a healthy diet, remember that food grown in low selenium soil is not healthy. Nor is that grown under stressful conditions with herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and fluoridated water.

Now you be the judge and I'd suggest you delve a bit deeper before accepting this story.

My observations are that these white coats are just asking the wrong questions.

Diabetes Cost Continues to Rise

Preventing complications of diabetes is a very important issue. Preventing diabetes is much more important. Worker productivity certainly may be a concern but should rank at the bottom of the list.

Prevention would be the focus. Newer drugs should be limited in use and older, less costly yet more effective drugs should be used when at all possible.

Big Ag should be banned from its control at the USDA in regard to food processing and food ingredients that promote the disease.

Aspartame and sucralose should be banned as the FDA does know of the devastation these chemicals pose. High fructose corn syrup should be included as well in the ban.

Natural therapies that are available to help prevent neuropathy are available. Other natural therapies to reduce blood sugar levels should be established as options.

Thorough endocrine evaluations should be offered because diabetes can be associated with low adrenal and low thyroid function.

And the US health care system can do better to improve the low raking it has in regard to improving health of those with chronic disease.

Study puts a total on diabetes cost: $218 billion
By LINDA A. JOHNSON, AP Business Writer
Tue Nov 18, 2008

TRENTON, N.J. – As diabetes is rapidly becoming one of the world's most common diseases, its financial cost is mounting, too, to well over $200 billion a year in the U.S. alone.

A new study, released Tuesday exclusively to The Associated Press, puts the total at $218 billion last year — the first comprehensive estimate of the financial toll diabetes takes, according to Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk A/S, which paid for the study.

That figure includes direct medical care costs, from insulin and pills for controlling patients' blood sugar to amputations and hospitalizations, plus indirect costs such as lost productivity, disability and early retirement.

The study, conducted by the Lewin Group consultants, estimates costs to society for people known to have Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes at $174.4 billion combined, a total previously reported by Novo Nordisk, the world's top producer of insulin and the maker of diabetes pills such as NovoNorm and Prandin. That study was done with the American Diabetes Association.

The new study adds estimates for people who haven't been diagnosed yet ($18 billion), women who develop diabetes temporarily during pregnancy ($636 million) and those on track to develop diabetes, an increasingly common condition called pre-diabetes ($25 billion).

"Diabetes has not seen a decline or even a plateauing, and the death rate from diabetes continues to rise," said Dana Haza, senior director of the National Changing Diabetes Program, an effort Novo Nordisk began in 2005 to improve diabetes care and prevention in the U.S.

"The numbers just keep going higher and higher, and what we want to say is, 'It's time for government and businesses to focus on it,'" said Haza, who believes diabetes will be the country's biggest health problem in the future, worsened by the obesity epidemic.

Novo Nordisk is to present the data Tuesday at a health care conference for corporate executives and then plans to publish a full report in a professional journal. The calculations are based on numbers from sources including databases on treatment of people with commercial insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, federal public health surveys and other sources.

Andrew Webber, president and chief executive of the National Business Coalition on Health, said the study is the first he's seen estimating diabetes costs. He praised its inclusion of indirect costs, which "add up and create such a powerful argument as to why employers need to take this challenge on."

"This study gives a very persuasive argument to employers to invest in a culture of health in their workforce," Webber said, calling the worsening diabetes epidemic "the tsunami that is coming."

Among people known to have diabetes, the new study estimated $10.5 billion in medical costs and $4.4 billion in indirect costs, or a total of $14.9 billion, for people with Type 1 diabetes, which generally begins in youth and can have a genetic link. Nearly 6 percent of the 17.5 million Americans diagnosed with diabetes have Type 1.

The study estimated $105.7 billion in medical costs and $53.8 billion in indirect costs, totaling $159.5 billion, for people with Type 2 diabetes, previously called adult-onset diabetes because of its link to the bigger waistlines and sedentary lifestyles.

The National Changing Diabetes Program, which includes medical partners such as the American Academy of Family Physicians and American Diabetes Association, wants more Americans at risk of diabetes to know their blood sugar level and control it. It also wants the White House to appoint a coordinator for diabetes prevention and education.

Meanwhile, plenty of companies have started their own efforts, said Webber, whose group includes 61 business coalitions with about 7,000 employers and 35 million employees and dependents.

Webber said six of those coalitions are running programs giving participating employees diabetes medicines without a co-pay, six more give doctors extra money for helping patients get their diabetes under control, and one coalition offers both types of programs.

"My guess is we need to do both," to prevent complications and improve worker productivity, Weber said.
___

On the Net: National Changing Diabetes Program, http://www.ncdp.com
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.

Doctors to Quit

To me this is no surprise. It is, in effect, a wake up call to everyone that the health care system in the US is in much worse shape than you've been told.

One problem is the shift that started back in the 1980s toward limits to exactly what is the definition of 'a doctor visit'.

When the managed care model came into vogue patient care really started a down hill slide. I notice things like this more easily than a person who hasn't been in the health care industry, perhaps more so because I've been both a provide and an administrator.

Today you can see your doctor for one issue only. That means if you happen to have a headache and a sore knee you have to make two appointments. This of course increases billable hours and the bottom line. It also fragments care.

If you are in an HMO or similar managed care you might not always get the same doctor so continuity of care is out the window.

Insurance regulations contribute to this. Pharmaceutical control and restrictive licensing issues are factors.

And then there is the factor relating to the inability to provide high quality care to people with chronic health problems, and a focus on prevention and cure.

Perhaps we need to get on a track to lead health care to a system as if people mattered.

Another way of looking at this is to get on a train to education so you can learn what measures you can take to improve your health and increase the use of natural care in your health maintenance options.

Certainly we need to overhaul USDA and FDA controls on health care options. We also need to have a level approach to health care where everyone gets the same basic coverage.

Now everyone in Congress, everyone employed or corporate fat cats will all get the same services.

In the mean time I am going to continue taking my vitamins and other herbs and supplements, in spite of news reports saying otherwise.

This protects my health. It can protect yours too!

Many doctors plan to quit or cut back Tue Nov 18, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Primary care doctors in the United States feel overworked and nearly half plan to either cut back on how many patients they see or quit medicine entirely, according to a survey released on Tuesday.

And 60 percent of 12,000 general practice physicians found they would not recommend medicine as a career.

"The whole thing has spun out of control. I plan to retire early even though I still love seeing patients. The process has just become too burdensome," the Physicians' Foundation, which conducted the survey, quoted one of the doctors as saying.

The survey adds to building evidence that not enough internal medicine or family practice doctors are trained or practicing in the United States, although there are plenty of specialist physicians.

Health care reform is near the top of the list of priorities for both Congress and president-elect Barack Obama, and doctor's groups are lobbying for action to reduce their workload and hold the line on payments for treating Medicare, Medicaid and other patients with federal or state health insurance.

The Physicians' Foundation, founded in 2003 as part of a settlement in an anti-racketeering lawsuit among physicians, medical societies, and insurer Aetna, Inc., mailed surveys to 270,000 primary care doctors and 50,000 practicing specialists.

The 12,000 answers are considered representative of doctors as a whole, the group said, with a margin of error of about 1 percent. It found that 78 percent of those who answered believe there is a shortage of primary care doctors.

More than 90 percent said the time they devote to non-clinical paperwork has increased in the last three years and 63 percent said this has caused them to spend less time with each patient.

Eleven percent said they plan to retire and 13 percent said they plan to seek a job that removes them from active patient care. Twenty percent said they will cut back on patients seen and 10 percent plan to move to part-time work.

Seventy six percent of physicians said they are working at "full capacity" or "overextended and overworked".

Many of the health plans proposed by members of Congress, insurers and employers's groups, as well as Obama's, suggest that electronic medical records would go a long way to saving time and reducing costs.

(Reporting by Maggie Fox; editing by Chris Wilson)
Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited.

U.S. Trails Other Nations in Chronic Illness Care
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) Nov 13 - Chronically ill Americans are more likely to forgo medical care because of high costs or experience medical errors than patients in other affluent countries, according to a study released on Thursday.

The study comparing the experiences of patients in eight nations reflected poorly on the U.S. health care system as President-elect Barack Obama and his allies work on plans to rein in health costs and extend insurance to more people.

The researchers questioned 7,500 adults in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Britain and the United States. Each had at least one of seven chronic conditions: high blood pressure, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, cancer, arthritis and depression.

Dutch patients had the fewest complaints, while the Americans had plenty, according to the study by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based health policy research group.

Fifty-four percent of Americans surveyed said high costs prevented them at some point from getting recommended medical care, filling prescriptions or seeing a doctor when ill. Seven percent of the Dutch cited cost as a barrier to treatment.

In addition, 41 percent of the U.S. patients said they spent more than $1,000 over the past year on out-of-pocket medical costs. That compared to lows of 4 percent in Britain and 5 percent in France.

A third of U.S. patients said they were given the wrong medication or dosage, experienced a medical error, received incorrect test results or faced delays in hearing about test results, more than any of the other countries.

WASTED TIME

Almost half of the U.S. patients said their time had been wasted because of poorly organized care or had received care of little or no value during the past two years. These views were lowest in the Netherlands and Britain.

Only Canadians reported visiting an emergency room at higher rates in the past two years than the Americans.

The Commonwealth Fund's Cathy Schoen, who worked on the study, said the United States spends twice as much on health care as the others, with the current economic woes putting more people at risk of losing employer-provided health insurance.

"Overall, the United States stands out for chronically ill adults reporting the most negative experiences," Schoen said in a conference call with reporters.

"In short, the U.S. patients are telling us about inefficient, unsafe and often wasteful care. The lack of access, combined with poorly coordinated care, is putting these patients at very high health risk and driving up costs of care."

The U.S. Census Bureau has reported that 15 percent of Americans, 45.7 million people, had no public or private health insurance last year.

The study, published in the journal Health Affairs, was the latest to show the U.S. health care system is performing worse than those in comparable countries. Unlike many rich nations, the United States does not have universal health care.

(Editing by Maggie Fox)

Early on use of immune boosting mineral fights cold and flu bug

Just when some researchers are manipulating T cells to try and fight off cancer it seems they over looked the benefit of zinc which is known to improve the function and number of these immune "Kung Fu Fighters".

Zinc lozenges do provide an aid to your boost in vitamin C intake in the cold and flu season. Zinc tends to be difficult to absorb so its best used in lower doses, more frequently. I like the zinc lozenges with vitamin C and Elderberry.

When purchasing lozenges, read the pagkage label carefully to make sure you aren't getting a prodcut containing aspartame, acesulfame K or sucralose.

Zinc helps boost the number and strength of T-Cells, differentiated in the thymus gland.

Remember to use natural lotion to keep the skin on your hands lubricated when using hand sanitizers. Most contain alcohol which is drying to the skin.

The Next Best Thing to a Cure for the Common Cold?
As cold and flu season heats up, good news comes in form of a lozenge. A study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases suggests that taking zinc lozenges at the first sign of a cold could lead to milder symptoms and quicker recovery.

In the study, within 24 hours of contracting a cold, 50 people were given either lozenges containing 13 mg of zinc (in the form of zinc acetate) or a matching placebo to be taken every two to three hours while awake for as long as they had cold symptoms.

People who took the zinc lozenges had cold symptoms for a significantly shorter time than the people taking placebo (four days versus seven days). Compared with the placebo group, the zinc group's coughs, runny noses, and muscle aches lasted significantly less time, and symptoms were significantly less severe. Side effects were mild and similar between both groups.

The common cold may be caused by more than 200 different viruses, with rhinoviruses leading the pack. The average adult experiences two to four colds per year, while children may suffer as many as ten. The viruses are spread in the droplets of coughs and sneezes and can be passed from person to person by handling objects such as telephones, door knobs, and toys that an infected person has touched.

Runny nose, sore throat, body aches, cough, congestion, sneezing, and low-grade fever are some of the uncomfortable symptoms that herald a cold's onset, and these may last for a couple of weeks. Until now, there wasn't much to do for a cold besides getting plenty of rest, drinking plenty of fluids, and gargling with salt water. The American College of Chest Physicians discourages use of cough suppressants or expectorants and cautions that these medications shouldn’t be used by anyone younger than 14 years old.

Some studies have suggested that zinc might help relieve cold symptoms, but the evidence hasn't been conclusive. On these promising new results, the authors proposed "that the beneficial clinical effects seen in the zinc group were due to the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects of zinc." The zinc acetate used in new study is easily released in the mouth in a cherry-flavored lozenge.

When dealing with colds, prevention is still the best medicine. Remember to wash hands frequently and use and dispose of tissues promptly. When washing isn't possible, try a natural hand sanitizer.

(J Infect Dis 2008;197:795–802)

simple, inexpensive ways to beat cold and flu
The common cold can be one of the most fatiguing features of winter, often lasting weeks. The flu is another situation that can move from a viral to a debilitating infection, often more serious and may be accompanied by a high fever, body aches, and chills. Here are some good ways to help you shorten the life of a cold or flu:

Stay hydrated—Noncaffeinated drinks, including water and low-sugar juices, may help loosen and clear out mucus, soothe a sore throat, and replace fluid loss due to a fever or runny nose. Warm liquids, like herbal teas or soups, not only hydrate but their heat may also help fight off the infection and relieve congestion.

Take it easy—Lie down, stay warm, and sleep if you feel tired. This keeps all the body's energy available for combating the virus. If you have trouble relaxing, dim the lights, watch your favorite movie, or take a bath (add a few drops of lemon and or eucalyptus pure essential oil and you'll add virus fighting foes).

Don’t dry out—Because the cold and flu thrive in cold, dry environments, you can help boot out the virus infection by staying warm and raising humidity levels. Also, at very low levels of humidity, the nose mucus dries up and isn’t able to defend as well against harmful viruses and bacteria. Try using a nasal mist to keep your nose mucus moist. Or try this comforting stand-by: warm your hands and put your face over the rising steam as you sip your herbal tea.

portions courtesy DSIB

Scientists turbo-charge immune cells to fight cancerSun Nov 2, 2008
PARIS (AFP) – Scientists in the United States have created super-charged immune cells that helped beat back cancer tumours in half of a small group of patients tested, according to a study released Sunday.

Adding an artificial receptor to T-lymphocytes immune cells boosted their ability to fight a deadly form of cancer called neuroblastoma, the researchers reported.

Neuroblastoma attacks the nervous system. While fairly rare, it accounts for seven percent of all childhood cancers, and 15 percent of non-adult cancer deaths.

In two-thirds of cases, it is not diagnosed until it has already spread to other parts of the body.

In their natural state, T-lymphocytes do not survive very long and lack the molecules that would target cancer cells in tumours.

To overcome this double deficiency, a team of researchers led by Malcolm Brenner at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas first selected immune cells naturally stimulated by a common but harmless virus called Epstein-Barr.

They then modified these cells to express a receptor keyed to specific proteins found in human neuroblastoma cells.

"In effect, the T-lymphocytes trampoline off the virus and onto the tumor," said Brenner.

In tests on 11 neuroblastoma patients aged three to 10, the re-engineered immune cells -- stimulated by the Epstein-Barr virus -- lasted for as long as 18 months, the study reported.

In five cases, tumours regressed and in a sixth the disease receded completely.

"For the first time, we started to see tumour responses," Brenner said. "We have one complete remission and others who have had stable disease for more than a year."

In future research, Brenner and his team plan to add receptors for other cancers to see if they get the same cancer-fighting effect, he said.

The study was published online in the Nature Publishing Group's journal Nature Medicine.