It would be interesting to see a study that compares the level of fear people experience when shown the word cancer and when shown the word terrorist.

Both words are pretty charged to the point that people REact – perhaps irrationally so – to them.

An interesting point – at least with cancer is – it’s at least partially a lifestyle disease. Yet people won’t change their lifestyle choices.

Enough rambling…

There’s an article in SF Gate today with regards to an editorial published in The New England Journal of Medicine about Gardasil.
A couple of UCSF doctors are warning against widespread use. Reason: there’s simply not enough data. Data to prove it’s safe. Data to prove it works.

Dr Karen McCune, Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at UCSF:

“At this stage, the vaccination can still be considered experimental. To be discussing mandatory vaccination when the main clinical trials are still ongoing seems extremely premature. We’re feeling like the enthusiasm is driving policy rather than data.”

Also at issue is the fact that Gardasil acts on 2 strains of HPV that are associated with cervical cancer. There are 13 additional strains.

Dr McCune is concerned about the possibility that some or all of the additional 13 strains “may fill a ‘niche’ left if the two more common strains are wiped out entirely”

I know cancer is a scary word.
If you’re standing on a train track with a train hurling at you, it’s wise to REact.
If you’re considering a pharmaceutical product, it’s wise to consider the RISKS as well as the credibility of the promise… and ACT accordingly.

The article concludes with:

“But while many doctors agree that there are still questions about the vaccine, they note that there is no question that Gardasil is effective at stopping the most common cancer-causing HPV strains. And because the vaccine is most effective before a woman has had sex, it’s important that girls get vaccinated as soon as possible, even if some doubts remain, some doctors say.”

(emphasis added)

I don’t understand. Shouldn’t the DOUBT be resolved first? After all, the results will be yours to keep whether you like them or not. Merck won’t take them back. Ask the families of people who died from the “results” of Vioxx.

Related posts:

1. Back to the Gardasil thing
2. Politicians drinking the Gardasil kool-aid
3. Texas requires HPV vaccine for 11 year olds

30 million American kids are overweight – that’s 1 in 3.
In another 3 years (2010) if the trend holds – it will be 1 in 2.

With all these overweight kids, we’re now seeing a proliferation of adult diseases in kids too young to get a driver’s license – heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, sleep apnea.
Kids experiencing these lifestyle diseases 40-50 years earlier than their parents generation. And they’re being treated with made for adults pharmaceuticals, replete with side effects.

Here’s a few scary factoids:

A Harvard study found kids 10-15 years old who watched 5 hours of TV a day had a 500% (5 times) greater liklihood of being overweight than kids who watched 2 hours or less.

Every hour a day of TV correlates to 6 pounds of increased weight.

Another study found that kids over 15 who ate fast food 2 or more times a week gained 10 pounds.

For each sugar laden drink consumed by middle school kids a day, there was a 60% increase in the risk of obesity.

Looks like an extinction plan.

Related posts:

1. Belly fat and heart disease
2. This is your heart on ADHD drugs
3. The inflammation theory of heart disease

I was watching CNN House Call this morning. One of the stories was about prescribing Adderall to overweight kids.
Adderall is an amphetamine approved for ADHD prescribing.

According to Wikipedia, the active ingredients are:
1/4 Dextroamphetamine Saccharate
1/4 Dextroamphetamine Sulfate
1/4 dl-amphetamine Aspartate (racemic amphetamine)
1/4 dl-amphetamin Sulfate (racemic amphetamine)

One of the side effects of Adderall is decreased appetite. Thus some docs are prescribing it for the “side effect” rather than the “effect”. This is what they call “off label” prescribing.
(other side effects include: sleep difficulty, headaches, aggression, abnormal thoughts/behaviors, mania, growth suppression).

So they featured one kid and his family – a “success story”. It was a dinner table scene and what was the kid drinking… diet Dr. Pepper.
Now, what’s in diet soda… primarily Aspartame (some brands are switching to Splenda).
What is Aspartame (Nutra Sweet)? L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine.
(Some of the side effects are: headaches, brain tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma)

Aspartic acid – which is an amino acid – is also known as aspartate.
Now I’m not a chemistry whiz. And I haven’t dug deep. But I was tickled by the dl-amphetamine Aspartate ingredient in Adderall and the L-aspartic acid in aspartame.
I’m not sure if there is a functional difference between the two.

What I do know is that aspartame is an excitotoxin. To put it simply – it’s not good for your brain.
If you notice the side effects of both Aspartame and Adderall, you’ll see there are brain issues.

Additionally, artificial sweeteners tend to make you crave more sweet stuff and mess with your brains ability to signal satiety. (I’ve posted on this a few times).

Just a thought… rather than putting the overweight kid on a strong drug, clean up his diet.

Related posts:

1. ADHD drugs – all that and more
2. This is your heart on ADHD drugs
3. Artificially sweet

Michael Pollan wrote an interesting article in Time about some research done by Adam Drewnowski from University of Washington.

His question – is wealth the most reliable predictor of obesity in America?
Throughout history peasants were always bone thin and the aristocrats a bit more “fluffy”

Off to the supermarket he went with his imaginary dollar.
He discovered he could get more calories for his dollar in the middle aisles as compared to the perimeter… 1,200 calories of potato chips compared to 250 calories of carrots. 875 calories of soda compared to 170 calories of OJ.

Hence, you will notice – and I don’t have the stats – lower income folks have a higher obesity rate than upper income folks.

And here’s something else about those foods in the middle aisles…
There are 5 crops that receive about $25 billion of subsidies a year:
Corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton.
In addition to the unpronounceable ingredients, what you’ll find in those middle aisle products is a lot of sugar (derived from corn – high fructose corn syrup) and a lot of fat (derived from soy). And of course they generally strip the wheat leaving it nutrient lite.

So, how much would a bunch of carrots cost if they received subsidies?

Your tax dollars… cheapening your food and your health.

Related posts:

1. Are you spending your tax dollars to GAIN weight?
2. Consumer satisfaction with health insurance plans
3. Politicians drinking the Gardasil kool-aid

Merisant, manufacturer of Equal (that would be the blue packet) is suing Splenda (that would be the yellow packet) manufacturer McNeil Nutritionals. They’re suing for $176 million or so.

Charging big decrease in their sales since Splenda entered the market. Ok, technically they’re charging that the Splenda slogan “made from sugar so it taste like sugar” is misleading. They’re only looking out for you

Symantics? Wellllll…
Splenda is sucralose.
They start with a sugar molocule and chlorinate and chemically alter it to produce “fructo-galactose”. Such a thing does not appear in nature and you cannot break it down and digest it.

Since it’s a “food” – well that’s how it’s technically classified, it does not go through that same kind of testing a drug would go through.

Chlorinated molecules are carcinogenic. They aren’t digested but instead accumulate in your fat cells.

There has been a swarm of “symptoms” associated with Splenda. There’s also quite a bit of politics with it.

Now McNeil claims that it does not say it is made WITH sugar so how can ANY consumer (I believe they don’t distinguish between literate or not, PhD in chemistry or not) interpret made FROM sugar so it tastes LIKE sugar as actually being in any way related to sugar.

Corporate jostling aside –
Sugar creates inflammation in your body which leads to nothing good.
Artificial sweeteners completely mess with your satiety brain signals… you’re not “satiated”, you keep eating…

Splenda controls nearly 60% of the sweetener market. Is it beeter or worse than the competitors? They’re all chemical toxins. I don’t see a point in arguing over which toxin is worse. Avoid them all.

Want to know more about Splenda…
Sucralose Toxicity Info Center

Related posts:

1. Splendid… nope, not really
2. Artificially sweet
3. More on sugar – sucrose versus fructose