Swine Flu Vaccine: Going To Be A Hit In Vegas

Next week brings the first mass distribution of the eagerly awaited H1N1 swine flu vaccine.  There will be people lining up at clinics, hospitals, and local CVS pharmacies to get the shot or nasal spray that is supposed to protect against this latest, sometimes deadly, variation of the age-old pig flu.

Not sure I’m going to be one of them.  I’m really struggling with justifying the benefits of the vaccination when balanced with the possible side effects.  Although betting on the odds of experiencing adverse reactions is a sucker bet even when compared to Vegas odds,  I don’t have to worry about dropping dead if I go bust on a chancy Blackjack hand.

I’m struggling even more with the decision of whether to get my toddler son vaccinated.

First, everyday we are hearing about more deaths related to the swine flu.  So, it is clearly a growing threat that seems to popping up all over the country.  The latest reports include a startling statistic.  Apparently out of 100 pregnant women who have been diagnosed with H1N1, 28 have died!  That’s over 1 out of every 4.  Scary.

Swine flu vaccination circa 2009

Let’s talk about this new vaccination that would have supposedly protected those women from ever contracting the disease.  But, I’m getting ahead of myself. Before we can talk about the 2009 vaccine, we really need to talk about the vaccine that was produced to protect against the last U.S.-based swine flu outbreak.

This was 1976, and a soldier based at Fort Dix in New Jersey had been diagnosed with swine flu. He died within 2-3 days. Within a day or so, another 2-3 soldiers in the same base had been diagnosed as having contracted the pig flu. Mass panic led to the development of a quick vaccine to protect against this particular strain that had infected the soldiers.

Why the mass panic after only one death? Because the health officials that had examined this one case publicly stated that the flu strain contracted by the soldiers in New Jersey was similar to the strain responsible for the 1918 flu pandemic.

You remember the 1918 swine flu pandemic?  It was the outbreak that spread across the globe infecting an estimated 500 million people and killing anywhere between 50 and 100 million individuals worldwide. Can you imagine? A flu outbreak that killed at least 50 million people!

So, in 1976, just mentioning the 1918 outbreak led to a major panic and rush to the nearest clinic to get vaccinated for this latest flu threat.

That photo to the left is a widely publicized picture of then President Gerald Ford receiving the 1976 swine flu vaccination. Off topic: Did nurses really wear hats like that in 1976?

Well, in 1976, the anticipated outbreak never happened.  The soldier in New Jersey was the only death associated with that strain of swine flu.  The other soldiers lived, and no other cases were ever recorded. But let’s talk about the vaccine that was developed.

During the 1976 mass vaccination campaign, 1 in every 100,000 recipients of the vaccine developed Guillain Barré syndrome (GBS), a disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system, often leading to paralysis and death. GBS is a known potential side effect of any influenza (flu) vaccine.

There is no known cure for GBS.

In 1976 roughly 40 million Americans received the vaccine and some 4,000 developed GBS.  Of these 4,000, there were 25 deaths confirmed to have been caused by vaccine-related GBS.

So, in the 1976 Swine Flu Fiasco, as it is commonly referred to, the disease racks up one kill, the cure twenty five.

1976 Body Count:      Swine Flu 1            Swine Flu Vaccine 25

Switch back to 2009.  The CDC is already distributing information that states that when receiving the new flu vaccine “the estimated risk for more serious reactions (e.g. Guillain Barré syndrome) is between 1-10 per million persons vaccinated”.

This is a circumspect way of acknowledging that the risks associated with the new vaccine is about the same as the vaccine produced in 1976.  According to these estimates, as many as 1 in every 100,000 recipients of the vaccine will develop GBS or some other severe adverse reaction.

Once again, there is no known cure cure for GBS.

So, I have to ask myself, how bad will this outbreak really be?  1918 bad (which would be really really bad)? Or 1976 bad (which means pretty much not bad at all)?

And I have to ask myself, just in case, do I spin the roulette wheel, get the vaccination, and hope that neither I nor my son land on black?

What about you? Will you be rushing to get in line for the long awaited swine flu shot?

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Bananas, Broccoli, And Gummy Bears

Whole Foods

Sprouts

Fresh Market

These are the names of some our local Dallas “health food” stores.  These are the places to go when you’re looking for the best in fresh fruits and vegetables, premium meats, reputable vitamins and supplements, and other healthy foods and accessories.

Fine wines, a wide variety of trail mixes, and bins of raw legumes and grains are also lined up and down the aisles of these emporiums of healthy living.

But over the last several years, I’ve noticed that there are fewer choices when it comes to picking out trail mixes, fresh nuts, and dried fruits.  Where there used to be bin after bin of healthy snacks and ingredients, there is now bin after bin of…

Gummy Bears, sugar frosted corn flakes, malted milk balls, and other blood sugar spiking, teeth rotting, nutrition corrupting tasty treats.

Yes, junk food and candy are slowly pushing out the health foods from our health food stores.

Not a good trend.

But at least it’s one that is being recognized.

John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, was recently interviewed by the Wall Street Journal and said:

“We sell all kinds of candy.  We sell a bunch of junk.”

Well, in defense of Mackey and other health food store management teams, they are just giving the American public what it wants.

Junk food sells.

As recently as a few years ago, sales of healthy, bulk foods such as grains, seeds, nuts, and beans accounted for 15%-20% of a typical Whole Foods store’s revenues.  That percentage has dropped to less than 1%.

Customers used to walk out with bags of beans, oats, and nuts.  Now they’re waddling out with bags of gumdrops, lemon chews, and candy corn.

Fortunately, Whole Foods is taking a proactive approach in trying to get back to their original mission of providing quality, healthy consumables.  They are implementing plans to  include specialty kiosks in stores, where staff will educate consumers about healthy eating.  In addition, the company is developing programs to encourage store personnel to learn more about nutrition and to adopt healthier lifestyles.

But in the end it comes down to us.  Remember that, or one day your local Fresh Market may change it’s name to Candy Land.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Eat Less, Live Longer

It’s fairly well accepted that a healthy diet will increase your chances of living a better life.  Even those people in line at the FatBurger drive-thru have a pretty good idea that what that kid is passing to them in the grease stained bag is not going to earn them any healthy living points.

It turns out that maybe that 3,000 calorie burger, stacked high with cheese, bacon, and mayonnaise, may be slowing you down.  AND speeding you up.

No need for us to rehash the effects of fat laden beef, blood thickening processed cheese, and chock full of cholesterol mayo on the human body.  Over time, this kind of diet will clog us up like a sludge filled crankcase.

But some new studies have shown that it’s not only the makeup of the meal that is unhealthy, but also the calorie count.

A 20 year study involving monkeys and other test animals has shown that if you cut the “normal” caloric intake by 30%, the animals live longer and fend off disease far more effectively than those that maintain a diet at the “recommended” caloric levels.

Scientists have long known that cutting the caloric intake of worms and mice will increase their lifespan, but this 20 years study out of the Wisconsin National Primate Center presents first conclusive evidence the same effects can be attained in primates.

Monkeys provided a nutritious diet at the normal recommended caloric levels were compared to monkeys provided healthy diets at caloric levels 30% below the recommended.  In other words, they ate the same foods but were given portions 30% smaller.  As the monkeys aged, the reduced calorie group showed conclusive evidence of looking healthier, avoiding disease, and maintaining high energy levels as compared to the healthy eating at normal levels group.

Does this carry over to humans?  Early testing says so.  But quite frankly, scientists are having trouble finding human test subjects that are willing to cut their daily caloric intake to 70% of the current daily recommended averages.  Think having to cut out all the fat burgers and other caloric heavy foods and replacing them with lean meat, fruits, grains, and vegetables to get to a normal caloric intake level.

Then cut it by 30% again.

Food for thought.  Or rather, less food for life.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Barack Tells Congress To Get Off Their Pork-Filled Butts

Barack Obama is apparently not happy with the progress, or lack thereof, that his Legislative Glee Club is making on putting together a health care reform proposal. So, in true “Yes, we can!” form, he has decided to roll up his sleeves and write the thing himself. Well, when he gets back from France anyway.

According to the Associated Press: “The White House, backing away from President Barack Obama’s ‘it’s-all-on-the-table’ approach initially advocated, prepared to get louder and more involved in the details of a health care overhaul that officials once were content to leave to Congress, administration officials said Saturday.”

This certainly explains why Obama has backed off on his campaign promise not to tax health care benefits. Remember when he blasted John McCain for even suggesting that taxing employer paid health coverage payments was a viable option? I think his comment was something to the effect that the last thing the American worker needed was increased taxes.  In the interest of getting some form of reform through before what’s left of his political capital washes away in a sea of spending, he’s leaving all the options open.

So, for those who haven’t been keeping up, let’s see where the health care debate is right now. It’s important to understand the plan options that are being thrown around, especially since the President is bound and determined to have a plan finalized and approved by the end of the year. This means he will need to get something rolling on Capitol Hill before Congress goes off to Summer camp.

To review the issues:

Health care costs: Wayyy too high
Health care quality: Wayyy too low
Americans without health care: 46,000,000
Estimated cost to expand health care coverage to include them: $1.2 trillion greenbacks (over a ten year period)

Do we need reform?  Definitely.  I think most people on both sides of the political fence would agree that our health care system is bloated and broken.  The debate rages around the measures that need to be taken to fix it.

The two primary points of contention?

One, should health care coverage be mandatory for all Americans? Why make insurance coverage mandatory?  Why should I care if you have insurance coverage or not?  Because if you don’t have coverage and get hospitalized, you may not be able to pay your medical costs.  You will default on them and they will be passed on to me in the form of taxes and/or an increase in my medical coverage premiums.  So coverage for all reduces costs for all.

Obama was against this during the campaign.  It was a Hillary rallying cry that Barack opposed in favor of a more incremental approach where coverage would first be mandatory for children only.  I believe his opposition was more of a pragmatic “there’s no way we could make this happen immediately” than a disagreement over an ultimate goal.

Well, now he appears to be open to this requirement, which is being promoted by Democratics and some Republicans in both sides of the house, being made a part of the initial bill.  Again remember, goal number one for Obama is to get a health care reform bill passed this year.  Therefore, compromise where necessary.  He does mandate that a “hardship” exclusion be a part of the bill which would exempt certain people unable to afford the cost of coverage.  What constitutes a “hardship” is an open question.

The trick is that to make health care coverage mandatory, alot of work will have to be done to clean up the existing medical system to reduce the waste and inefficencies that have resulted in the upward spiral in treatment costs.  Reduce treatment costs and presumably you reduce the cost of providing coverage for them.

There also would need to be a clear understanding of what mandatory coverage includes?  Presumably some baseline for the minimum accepted coverage levels would be defined.  But again, until there is reform in the medical treatment system that reduces waste and costs, trying to enforce mandatory coverage is putting the cart before the horse.

The other main point of contention in the battle to put a health care reform bill together is whether the bill should include the formation of a government-run public insurer agency.  This agency would serve to, theoretically, provide a low-cost alternative to the private insurance that is typically subsidized by employers.  This would not be a totally new role for the government, as it already does such a *great* job running Medicare and Medicaid.

There are obvious reasons why most Republicans and many of the moderate Democrats are against this.  It’s anti-business.  A government managed health insurer would have the leverage to force doctors, hospitals, big pharma, and other players in the game of medicine, to cut costs.  A good thing, right?  Usually.

But what has happened with Medicare, is that all the government cost cutting has led to a significant reduction in the quality of medical care for those who are covered.

The health insurance industry, with the backing of the pharm companies, is lobbying really hard against the formation of a government-run public insurer agency.  This is purely in their best interest.  They don’t want to be in competition with the government.  From a cost standpoint, it’s a war they will not win.  Not when the government can strong arm the medical field into cutting costs and even subsidize coverage costs with taxes.  Definitely an unlevel playing field.

Health insurers are fighting back.  They state that “a public plan won’t be needed if reformers successfully expand coverage to the uninsured through mandated insurance and guaranteed issuance of policies, find ways to control medical costs, prohibit exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and provide subsidies to help people afford coverage.”

So, it would appear that due to Obama’s pushing, health care reform is coming.   At this point it really seems to boil down to a race between the existing insurer industry and the government to create a proposal that is palatable to the populace.

I really have little faith that the insurers can band together and create a package that will force them to clean up their own act by reducing costs, expand coverage to the uninsured, and upgrade the quality of care provided.  Especially when they’re up against a current administration and Congress that has shown a willingness, and even an enthusiasm, for throwing buckets and buckets of money at a problem.

We’ll get a public health insurance agency of some type.  And we’ll be paying through the nose for it.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Before You Pop That Vitamin In Your Mouth…

Interesting study results coming out of Germany.

A group of scientists in Hamburg have determined that athletes that take vitamins after a cardio workout may be reversing the primary benefits of their exercise efforts. Specifically, taking in supplemental doses of the antioxidant vitamins C and E soon after an exercise session appears to hamper a critical byproduct of exercise - the body’s natural ability to improve energy regulation.

How?

First a little refresher in body chemistry.

Intense cardio activity enhances the body’s sensitivity to the hormone insulin. This allows the body to more efficiently govern cellular use of sugar as an energy source. In other words, as you are pumping the pedals or cranking on the treadmill, the body adapts to the pace and becomes better at managing sugar levels in the blood to keep the energy flowing.

This ability to manage glucose levels in the blood is one of the more critical functions in the body.  In fact, Type 2 diabetes actually develops when the body becomes less sensitive to insulin levels and thus unable to effectively manage blood sugar levels.

Now, a quick lesson in antioxidants and free radicals.

Antioxidants occur naturally in the body and serve to neutralize the destructive “free radicals” that are responsible for, among other things, the external cellular damage associated with premature aging, sun damage, and muscle tone deterioration. These free radicals are a byproduct of our metabolism and thus are produced in larger quantities during periods of intense exercise when our metabolism is working at accelerated levels.

Antioxidants good, free radicals bad, right? Not entirely.

Turns out that scientists now believe that these oxygen free radicals, in addition to the destructive cellular reactions they generate, also increase the body’s sensitivity to insulin. Again, the more sensitive the body is to insulin levels in the blood, the better it can manage blood sugar - i.e. energy levels. Type 2 diabetes is a disease directly linked with a body that is unable to manage these sugar levels due to a lack of insulin sensitivity.

Antioxidants destroy free radicals. So, free radicals good, antioxidants bad? Nope. It’s all about balance. In a perfect world, an optimally performing body should maintain a healthy balance between free radical and antioxidant levels.

What we are learning, is that taking in antioxidant supplements right after exercise will offset that balance by over-neutralizing the free radicals produced by cardio exertion before they can work to benefit our blood sugar management system.

In addition, by throwing an excess of artificial antioxidants into the body, we are potentially weakening the body’s own ability to naturally produce them. This leads to a weakening of the exercise induced free radical defense system, which depends on naturally produced antioxidants.

Dr Michael Ristow and colleagues from the University of Jena in Germany wrote in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: “We find that antioxidant supplements prevent the induction of molecular regulators of insulin sensitivity and endogenous antioxidant defence by physical exercise.”

Now, I do firmly believe that there is a place for antioxidants in a supplement regimen. Especially as we get older and our body begins to lose the cellular war between antioxidants and the age accelerating free radicals.

But this latest study does contribute to the increasingly compelling argument that vitamins and supplements can have complex, yet to be discovered, and potentially damaging effects on the body.

Something to remember when you grab that bottle of mega-dose nutritional vitamin or supplement formula.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Build Muscle, Kill Cancer

Reason Number 53545 To Hit The Gym

A team of scientists led by researchers from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden has determined that men who regularly work out with weights are 30-40 percent less likely to die from a cancerous tumor.

The results, which were published in the Cancer Epidemiology journal, were based on a study of 8,677 men aged 20 to 82 over a twenty three year time span. Each volunteer in the study had regular medical check ups that included comprehensive measurements of their muscular strength.

Scientists closely monitored the subjects between the years of 1980 and 2003. One of the metrics they tracked was how many of the volunteers developed cancer and if they subsequently died from the disease.

The results clearly showed that subjects who regularly participated in a resistance training program (that means weights and/or machines) had higher muscle strength levels than those who only performed aerobic exercise (or no exercise at all), and were 30-40 percent more likely to survive a cancer outbreak.

Although the full relationship is unclear, it is evident that maintaining a thicker and more dense (i.e. stronger) musculature will improve the body’s ability to fight and maybe even prevent tumor outbreaks.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Fat Is Not Your Fault? Huh?

We have become the blameless society.  Nothing is ever your fault.

“I didn’t get the job.  But it’s not my fault the interviewer didn’t like me”

“Yes, I hit the tree.  But it’s not my fault the car just drove right off the road”

“I ran a company into the ground.  But it’s not my fault!  Now where’s my bailout money?”

Now we have a new diet plan:

The Fat Is Not Your Fault diet.  No, really.  Check it out here.

The whole premise of the diet plan seems to be that diet and exercise are not the key components of a weight loss plan.  There are “other” factors just as, if not more, important.  Of course you have to buy the plan to find out what those “other” factors are.

The program seems to have been designed by a real doctor, so I’m sure there’s alot of medical “evidence” backing the claims.

What’s next? The Wish Away Obesity diet?

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

FDA Warning Forces Recall of Hydroxycut Diet Products

The FDA’s latest strike against the supplement industry has resulted in the recall of one of the market’s most popular dietary supplements: Hydroxycut.  An FDA warning against its use has led to the product line being recalled.

Why? Well, over the years, tens of millions of doses of Hydroxycut have been taken by consumers. But recently, the FDA has learned that one person has died due to adverse effects thought to be linked to the usage of Hydroxycut. In addition, there have been a few dozen reports of liver-related side effects also thought to be associated with Hydroxycut usage.

The FDA’s rationale behind issuing the warning is that although the risk of side effects appears to be statistically very low, the American consumer should not be exposed to supplements that even have just a remote chance of causing adverse reactions.

Now this sounds very reasonable. At least until you put in the context of how the FDA handles the miracle elixirs the major pharmaceutical companies put out.

The FDA will tolerate no risks of side effects from a supplement. But when it’s a vaccine or some other Big Pharma drug, risks of side effects are deemed acceptable by the FDA. Case in point: the public furor over the COX-2 inhibitor drug Vioxx. Remember the testimony made by Dr. David Graham, an FDA scientist,  during the hearings?

Graham estimated that Vioxx had killed over 60,000 Americans. But still, an FDA panel voted the drug to be “safe”, even after the manufacturer voluntarily pulled it off the shelves.

So, a pharmaceutical that kills 60,000 people is safe. And a supplement that is linked to just one death is unsafe.

The Ephedra Treatment

Hydoxycut is essentially getting the same treatment ephedra did several years ago. Ephedra is a natural and safe traditional Chinese medicine that has been used for over 5,00 years in China as a critical ingredient in a variety of medicinal formulas including key anti-viral vaccines.

But, you can’t get ephedra in the United States anymore. The FDA banned it. It is now illegal to sell or prescribe ephedra-based medicine or dietary supplements. This is solely because a limited number of people took well over the recommended dosages and experienced ill effects, even death in a few cases. Large amounts of ephedra can put a strain on the cardiovasular system which can lead to heart incidents.

But too much of anything that interacts with the body can potentially lead to adverse reactions. Too much aspirin. Too much cough syrup. Even too much fruit juice.

Most people will follow dosage instructions on prescription medicine. A somewhat fewer number of people will adhere to dosage instructions on supplements - especially weight loss supplements where people will adopt the “if one works, two must be twice as effective” approach.

I have no issue with the FDA recalling dangerous substances, whether they be medicines or dietary supplements. I just think they need to apply the same standards across the board. But instead, Big Pharma’s pet agency will continue to target supplement companies while allowing risky and potentially toxic pharmaceuticals to line the shelves of your local pharmacy.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

FDA: “Who Let The Dogs Out?”

Our favorite government agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has been busy.  After enduring well deserved abuse over the handling of the peanut and pistachio contamination incidents earlier this year, the agency seems to have adopted a more aggressive approach in dealing with food ingredient storehouses and the FDA’s favorite whipping boy, the supplement industry.

On May 7, the FDA sent Federal Marshalls to raid a warehouse in Memphis, Tennessee owned by food producer American Mercantile.  They seized $1.5 million in food ingredients, including cornstarch, orange peels, licorice powder, sarsaparilla, and salt.  In a news release, the agency claimed that after repeated notices, American Mercantile had not treated a rampant insect and rodent infestation problem within the warehouse.

American Merc didn’t clean up their mess, so the FDA swept in and hauled off the tainted food. To quote the FDA news release, “The FDA will not tolerate a company’s failure to adequately control and prevent filth in its facility…the FDA is prepared to use whatever legal means are necessary and appropriate to keep potentially contaminated products out of the marketplace.”

“The food and supplements industry can expect a lot more of this,” says Loren Israelsen, executive director of the supplements trade group United Natural Products Alliance, told the publication. “This is the new FDA, so wake up everybody.”

New FDA? Not exactly.

Big Pharma’s bulldogs have a history of going after supplement makers.

Tomorrow:

Big Pharma Sicks The FDA On A High Profile “Weight Loss” Pill

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Science And Scary Sounds

Our research dollars at work.

Evolutionary psychologist (that’s a specialty?) John Neuhoff and his colleagues at The College of Wooster in Ohio are in the midst of a study on “looming” sounds.  The study consists of individuals in a test environment listening to a tone as it moves towards them.  They are instructed to push a button when they think the sound has moved to a point directly in front of them.

Turns out nearly all participants push the button too early.  Neuhoff and his team have interpreted this to mean that humans have adapted to anticipate danger and thus react to the location of the sound before it actually reaches them.

So, get the theory?

Test subject is sitting there.  Uh, oh.  There’s a scary tone moving towards him.  But he’s not supposed to push the button until the tone is right in front of him.  But it’s such a scary tone.  It’s moving closer.  It’s right there!  He pushes the button.

Turns out the sound was still some distance from the subject.

Hey, this is science!

Now, here’s the interesting part of the study.

Neuhoff and his team correlated button push response times with the fitness level of the subjects.  Turns out that physically fit men allow the sound to get closer before pushing the button, while fitness challenged men push the button much sooner while the sound is still some distance away.  This expands the previous body of work around “looming” sounds that found that women routinely respond to “looming” sounds sooner than their typically larger, stronger male counterparts.

So, the study’s conclusion is basically that wimps react to dangerous noises differently than jocks.  Presumably they react sooner due to their need for more time to get away, while the jocks just say “bring it on”.

Mark your calendars.  Neuhoff will be presenting these results in a talk titled “Strength and cardiovascular fitness predict time-to-arrival perception of looming sounds” to be presented at the 157th Acoustical Society of America Meeting to be held May 18-22 in Portland, Ore.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Next Page »