Health and global warming

Moral of the story: There are very real health effects to global warming that are rarely discussed in the news.  These should be an important part of the global warming discussion, as well as of the health discussion.  For example, obesity, public transport and climate change are integrally related and should be discussed as such.  We need better organized cities with better transportation, food and clinical care options.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 6/3/2010

Health benefits of potential global warming policy rarely discussed.

In the Washington Post (6/2) "Ezra Klein" column, Kate Sheppard pointed out that "among the many positive outcomes of carbon-reduction policy often ignored when looking at the costs are the health benefits." For instance, "programs to reduce emissions, like providing better public transportation and improving urban planning, could...result in indirect healthcare savings, thanks to lower obesity rates and fewer respiratory and heart problems." Meanwhile, "kidney stones could increase by 30 percent or more in some areas of the US because of dehydration -- a problem that alone could cost the US healthcare system more than $1 billion per year." Such arguments, however, "rarely surface in the climate debate." In fact, "a forthcoming study...found that stories connecting health and global warming made up just five percent of the climate coverage in the New York Times and...the Washington Post."

Hyaluronic acid only works when injected- don't waste your money

Moral of the story: If you want to fix your wrinkles, get some injectable hyaluronic acid, otherwise, don't waste your money on the topical forms.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 6/7/2010

Hyaluronic acid does not eliminate wrinkles when used topically, dermatologist explains.

The Los Angeles Times (6/6, Dawson) reported that "hyaluronic acid, a substance that plumps and softens skin...has been added to products including lip gloss, eye shadows and moisturizers -- and almost everything else in the beauty aisle." The substance, which "is also the key component of several injectable wrinkle fillers," is able to draw "moisture from the air and is said to hold up to 1, 000 times its weight in water." Cosmetic dermatologist Norwell Solish, MD, FRCP (C) pointed out, however, that while hyaluronic acid works well as an injectable dermal filler, "it doesn't eliminate wrinkles" when used topically on the skin.

Physical activity or medical treatment

Moral of the story: Which do we target in health campaigns? Why not both?

Source: BMJ

(1) What's more important in the obesity battle – physical activity or medical treatment?
(Head to Head: Should health policy focus on physical activity rather than obesity?)
Yes: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/340/may25_1/c2603 No: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/340/may25_1/c2602
Experts disagree on bmj.com today about the best way to tackle the obesity crisis. While Professor Louise Baur and colleagues from the Children's Hospital at Westmead and the University of Sydney in Australia acknowledge that "physical inactivity is a major contributor to the global burden of disease," they says that it would be wrong to only focus on this and ignore the problem of obesity.
Baur and colleagues argue that physical inactivity is just one marker and that there is substantial evidence that unhealthy diets low in fibre and high in sugar and large portion size are also responsible for obesity and the diseases associated with it.
However, Dr Richard Weiler, a specialist registrar in sport and exercise medicine at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and general practitioner, and colleagues believe that inadequate cardio-respiratory fitness causes disease more than excess body fat, waist size and body mass index.
Weiler and colleagues maintain that "physical inactivity is one of the greatest health threats facing developed nations today" and they are concerned that 95% of the populations in England and the United States do not meet the recommended guidelines of doing 30 minutes moderate to vigorous physical activity on at least five days a week or equivalent.
They say this is alarming given that physical inactivity rather than obesity per se is an actual cause for many illnesses including obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, mental health problems, high blood pressure and dementia.
Spending huge amounts on treating obesity is not the right way forward, they argue. Weight loss drugs and surgery are risky and the long-term benefits are limited and they certainly do not have the associated health benefits linked to physical activity. They conclude that it is time for health policy and healthcare professionals to focus on fighting physical inactivity, a "chronic disease that has an adult population prevalence of 95%."
Professor Baur, on the other hand, believes that "on its own, improving physical activity will have little impact on reducing overall levels of already established obesity."
She believes that obese people need access to high quality treatment provided by well-trained professionals to deal with their weight and any linked health problems.
In conclusion, Professor Baur and colleagues advocate tackling obesity with a range of strategies, for example, increasing physical activity, improving diet and lifestyles. They say urban planning should be developed to encourage people to use their car less and cycle more and public transport should be made more accessible and affordable.
Contacts:
Louise Baur, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Email: louiseb3@chw.edu.au Richard Weiler, Specialist Registrar in Sport and Exercise Medicine, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK and General Practitioner, Hertfordshire Email: c/- cassie.zachariou@imperial.nhs.uk

Pill for female sex drive

Moral of the story: a possibly unnecessary an dangerous drug that targets female arousal.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 5/24/2010

FDA advisory committee to consider approving pill designed to boost women's sex lives.
The Washington Post (5/24, Stein) reports, "A panel of federal advisers will soon" consider "endorsing the first pill designed to do for women what Viagra [sildenafil] did for men: boost their sex lives." The drug known as "flibanserin," which was developed by Germany's Boehringer Ingelheim, may become "the first prescription medication to tap what some have estimated could be a $2 billion market in the United States alone." But, "even before the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee meets June 18 to consider the request, the prospect of the drug's approval has triggered debate over whether the medication, like others in the pipeline, represents a long-sought step toward equity for women's health or the latest example of the pharmaceutical industry fabricating a questionable disorder to sell unnecessary -- and potentially dangerous -- drugs."
The creator of a new documentary on "female sexuality" stumbled upon the issue while researching her film, Newsweek (5/23, Kantrowitz, Wingert) reported. Liz Canner "was bewildered by the purported disease" that some refer to as "female sexual dysfunction." Noting that Vivus executives told her that "43 percent of women had this disorder," Canner asked, "How could that be true if I had never heard of it before?" After "a cross-country quest that included visits with scientists, experts in erotica, and individual women," Canner "ultimately concluded that the catch-all female sexual dysfunction is essentially a phony disease made up by pharmaceutical companies."



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Processed meat may be linked to increased risk of heart disease, diabetes

Moral of the story: Processed meat may the real culprit and unprocessed red meat may be less unhealthy than previously thought. maybe.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 5/18/2010

Processed meat may be linked to increased risk of heart disease, diabetes.

The Wall Street Journal (5/18, Winslow) reports that processed meat may be linked to increased risk of heart disease and diabetes, according to a study published online in the journal Circulation.

        The Boston Globe (5/17, Cooney) "White Coat Notes" blog reported that investigators looked at data from "20 studies involving more than 1.2 million participants from 10 countries who were followed for up to 18 years." After "pooling the study results, the researchers found that eating unprocessed red meat was not associated with heart disease or diabetes." However, "people who ate at least one serving a day of processed red meat -- one hot dog or two deli slices -- had a 42 percent higher risk of heart disease and a 19 percent higher risk of diabetes than people who did not eat processed red meat."

Hookahs not safer than cigarettes

Moral of the story: Hookahs may actually be worse than cigarettes in exposing people to more heavy metals and nicotine.  Stay away from both, they are bad.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 5/18/2010

Hookahs, other water pipes mistakenly believed by many to be safer than cigarettes.

The New York Times (5/18, D6, Rabin) reports that after mailing "questionnaires in 2007 and 2008 to 1,208 people ages 18 to 24," researchers in Canada found that "many young people seem to believe that hookahs and other water pipes are safer than cigarettes." According to the authors of the Pediatrics paper, one myth involved young adults thinking that "because the texture is smoother, it is less toxic" and believing that "the water filters out the toxins." But, "that is not at all true," investigator Jennifer O'Loughlin asserted. "In fact, she said, the pipes may expose smokers to higher amounts of nicotine and heavy metals than cigarettes."

New fathers may suffer from depression

Moral of the story: Be aware of this possibility when you have a kid and address the issue if you see it arising.  Depression is a treatable condition and is perfectly normal to have arise with a new kid.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 5/19/2010

New fathers may suffer from depression.

ABC World News (5/18, story 12, 1:15, Sawyer) reported, "We've all become a lot more sensitive to the problems of postpartum depression (PPD) in new moms." Now, however, "it turns out now that...new fathers may be suffering, too."

        USA Today (5/19, Szabo) reports that, according to a study published May 19 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "14% of American men develop depression, either during their partner's pregnancies or in the first year after delivery." In other countries, "approximately 8% of fathers...develop the problem, according to the analysis, which included 43 studies of 28,000 people."

        The study "found that 10.4% of men experienced serious depression at some point between his partner's first trimester and one year after childbirth, more than double the depression rate for men in general," the Los Angeles Times (5/19, Roan) reports. Unfortunately, "paternal depression symptoms are much less likely to be recognized than maternal depression," because men do not become weepy or sad, and instead may display anger, irritability, or detachment from their families.

        On the front of its Personal Journal section, the Wall Street Journal (5/19, D1, Wang) reports that reasons for depression in men bear similarities to those for women, and may result from being deprived of sleep and stress between partners.

        Bloomberg News (5/19, Ostrow) reports that depression "may also occur because of changes in perceived role in life, financial stress, isolation from friends and social activities." Paternal "depression was highest in the three to six months following the baby's arrival," possibly "because family leave ends about that time, particularly in the US," the study authors from the Eastern Virginia Medical School theorized.

        According to CNN (5/19, Landau), "depression in fathers has potential negative implications for the family, and for the child's development and behavioral and emotional health," lead author James Paulson, PhD, "said. Paulson's study also found that fathers' depression tended to have an association with mothers' depression -- so when moms were more depressed, so were dads." Still, further research "is needed to determine how the two are related, as one parent's moods have not been proven to cause the other's."

Some advocacy groups concerned about endocrine-disrupting chemicals in sunscreens.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 5/15/2010

Some advocacy groups concerned about endocrine-disrupting chemicals in sunscreens.
The Chicago Tribune (5/13, Deardorff) reported that "there's growing concern by advocacy groups, parents, and some doctors that some of the chemicals in" sunscreens "are endocrine disruptors and may pose risks to children." The Environmental Working Group currently "recommends against using any product containing the ingredient oxybenzone." Dr. Alan Greene, the author of "Raising Baby Green: The Earth-Friendly Guide to Pregnancy, Childbirth and Baby Care," is concerned that "the tests evaluating oxybenzone have been done on healthy adults in the middle of life. 'Permanent changes of puberty happen with one drop of sex hormones,' he said. 'We don't know the impact of kids and babies who get at least three times the concentration as adults.'"


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

No hard evidence supports supplements', vitamins' promise in slowing cognitive decline.

Moral of the story: no supplements known to help cognitive performance

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 4/28/10

No hard evidence supports supplements', vitamins' promise in slowing cognitive decline.
CNN (4/26, Landau) reported, "A seemingly steady stream of new research purports to show supplements' and vitamins' promise in preventing or slowing cognitive decline, but in reality no hard evidence supports taking any of them." But, "at the same time, such supplements have been proved safe, barring drug interactions and other complications, so some doctors recommend trying them anyway." The article discussed claims regarding omega 3 fatty acid fish oils, gingko biloba, and vitamin E for preserving cognition, pointing out that studies have found inconclusive or mixed benefits for each of these supplements.

Computer brain games may not improve cognitive ability.

Moral of the story: Don't waste your money, but if you enjoy them, go for it.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 4/21/2010

Computer brain games may not improve cognitive ability.

USA Today (4/21, Marcus) reports, "Computer brain games may not offer the big mental boost many were hoping for, suggests new research, but brain scientists and brain-game experts don't all agree on the findings." The study was published in Nature and "is the largest of its kind," its authors say. For the study, researchers recruited over "11,000 people between the ages of 18 and 60," who "were split into three groups, including two groups that played different brain-training games that are similar to commercially available games, and a control group that was asked to go online and find answers to questions about topics such as music." According to lead author Adrian Owen, "Participants did get better at games they practiced. The more they trained, the better they got. But there was still no translation to any general improvement in cognitive function."

        The Wall Street Journal (4/21, Naik) reports that companies which produce brain training and fitness games have experienced significant growth in the last few years, in part because of the increase in the number of baby boomers, and because previous research suggested that such games could benefit cognitive abilities. But, this six-week, online experiment has not borne out previous conclusions.

American Heart Association releases guidelines for sugar intake.

Moral of the story: new sugar guidelines are extremely stingy, may be difficult for majority of Americans to follow.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 4/9/2010

American Heart Association releases guidelines for sugar intake.
Julie Deardorff writes in the Chicago Tribune (4/9), "For the first time, Americans now have a benchmark: No more than 25 grams of added sugar a day for women and 37.5 grams for men, according to new guidelines established by the American Heart Association." Still, "it's easy to soar past those limits. Downing just one 12-ounce can of Coca-Cola will give you 39 grams of sugar, exceeding your daily ration. But a lesser-known problem with sugar is that it's hidden in everything from soup to nuts." In addition, "it's lurking in your lunch meat. It enhances bread. And if a low-fat product or frozen dinner tastes good, you may have added sugar to thank."

Treatment checklists may cut hospital deaths

BMJ

(4) Treatment checklists may cut hospital deaths
(Quality Improvement Report: Using care bundles to reduce in-hospital mortality: quantitative survey)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/mar31_3/c1234
Patient deaths at three London hospitals have been cut by almost 15% after introducing treatment checklists (known as care bundles), finds a study published on bmj.com today.
The researchers say their methods could be used to reduce mortality in many other hospitals.
The North West London Hospitals NHS Trust serves a population of about 500,000 at three sites: Northwick Park Hospital, Central Middlesex Hospital and St Mark's Hospital. In 2005 and 2006, the trust was subject to a series of adverse media stories which impacted on staff morale and also on patients' perceptions of care.
So a group of senior clinicians set out to reduce hospital inpatient mortality and thus increase public confidence in the quality of patient care at the trust.
They developed eight care bundles for 13 diagnostic areas with the highest number of deaths at the trust in 2006-7. These included treatments for stroke, heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Care bundles are a collection of treatment checklists based on clinical guidelines that, when combined, improve the effectiveness and safety of patient care.
Adjusted hospital mortality for 2007-8 (the year the care bundles were introduced) was then compared with the previous year using the hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR).
The HMSR is a comparative measure of a hospital's overall mortality. It focuses on a group of diagnoses that account for 80% of all hospital deaths nationally and provides a tool for analysing hospital outcomes over time.
The results show that the overall HSMR of the trust fell from 89.6 in 2006-7 to 71.1 in 2007-8, to become the lowest among acute trusts in England.
In 2007-8, 174 fewer deaths occurred in the trust in the targeted diagnoses, and 255 fewer deaths occurred in the HMSR diagnoses compared to 2006-7. This represents a 14.5% decrease in actual deaths from 2006-7 to 2007-8.
This study demonstrates that it is possible to target care bundles across a wide range of diagnoses in a busy acute hospital trust and that this can be associated with a significant reduction in mortality in the targeted diagnostic areas, conclude the authors. These methods could also be generally applicable, they add.
Contacts: Brian Jarman, Emeritus Professor, Imperial College, London, UK
Email b.jarman@imperial.ac.uk

active surveillance for large numbers of prostate cancer patients

Moral of the story: With prostate screening methods being pretty crummy, people are finally starting to realize that low grade prostate cancer might be better treated (at least at first) simply with a watch and wait protocol. Biopsy and surgery have risks, which may be able to be postponed indefinitely.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 3/29/2010

Major medical organization endorses active surveillance for large numbers of prostate cancer patients.

The Chicago Tribune (3/28, Graham) reported that "for the first time," active surveillance is "being endorsed for large numbers of men by a major medical organization: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an alliance of 21 leading cancer centers across the US." According to "new guidelines," the approach is recommended "for men deemed to have 'very low risk' prostate cancer and a life expectancy of less than 20 years," as well as for those men whose "prostate cancer is considered 'low risk' and" have a "life expectancy" of "less than 10 years." In other words, "almost 40 percent of the 192,000 men diagnosed with prostate cancer each year could qualify for active surveillance under those standards, said Dr. James Mohler," part of the "committee that prepared the guidelines."

        Researchers in Illinois conducting active surveillance studies. The Chicago Tribune (3/28, Graham) reported that last year, NorthShore University Health System began "recruiting men who are at least 60 years old with low-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score of 6 or less) and relatively low PSA scores (less than 10)" to find out which patients "can be managed safely with active surveillance." Adhering to "a slightly different protocol," University of Chicago researchers are also "tracking about 50 men with low-grade, low-risk prostate cancers." Meanwhile, a third trial, in which University of Toronto researchers "examined 453 men undergoing active surveillance over a period of up to 13 years," revealed that "men's risk of dying from prostate cancer during the study was one percent, while their risk of dying from another condition was 16 times as high," according to results "presented last year at meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology."

More hospitals offering therapeutic hypothermia for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest

Moral of the story: Hospitals are finally starting to get on the band wagon for offering hypothermic treatment after a heart attack

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 3/29/2010

More hospitals offering therapeutic hypothermia for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest.

USA Today (3/29, Marcus) reports that since the "American Heart Association issued recommendations and guidelines for inducing mild hypothermia in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest" in 2005, the "number of hospitals offering the treatment has climbed." Nearly "500 of about 5,000 hospitals across the country are doing it," and one expert calls therapeutic hypothermia "one of the most exciting and promising interventions for the treatment of cardiac arrest over the past 50 years." Still, "most proponents of cooling say they're surprised that the therapy hasn't caught on faster."

Moral of the story: Tanning beds are extremely dangerous, particularly early in life.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 3/26/2010

FDA panel agrees on increased restrictions on tanning bed use.

ABC World News (3/25, story 9, 1:20 Muir) reported, "Tonight, there is late word from federal safety officials who are poised to crack down on indoor tanning beds. Twenty-eight million Americans tan indoors every year, and now a panel of experts is so alarmed by the dangers of skin cancer, it's making some pretty bold warnings." ABC senior medical editor Richard Besser, MD, explained that "a panel of experts put together by the Food and Drug Administration...reached broad agreement that there need to be increased restrictions on the use of these tanning beds for everyone under 18."

        The CBS Evening News (3/25, story 7, 0:15, Rodriguez) reported that panel's proposed new restrictions range "from requiring parental consent forms to banning the machines outright."

        But, because tanning beds themselves are not medical devices, the agency can only put restrictions on the lamps the beds use, the Wall Street Journal (3/26, Dooren) reports. In order to do that, the FDA could reclassify the lamps. That would force tanning bed manufacturers to get agency marketing approval of the beds.

        According to the AP (3/26, Perrone), "The FDA has regulated sunlamps for more than 20 years, but a recent report by the World Health Organization tied the devices to skin cancer, prompting a call for tougher rules." In fact, "the WHO analysis showed that" melanoma, "the deadliest form of skin cancer increases 75 percent in people who use tanning beds in their teens and 20s."

Higher percentage of women seeking contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, mostly unnecessary

Moral of the story: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is ONLY beneficial in some estrogen-receptor-negative cancers appearing before the age of 50.  This is otherwise NOT necessary.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 3/9/2010

Higher percentage of women seeking contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

The New York Times (3/8, Parker-Pope) "Well" blog reported, "The percentage of women asking to remove both breasts after a cancer diagnosis has more than doubled in recent years," according to research presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology annual meeting. Data indicate that contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is "more popular among women with the earliest, most curable forms of cancer." But, the current research showed "a slight survival benefit among a small subset of breast cancer patients -- women under 50 with early stage estrogen-receptor-negative tumors."

Oral contraceptives may reduce risk of death from any cause in women.

Moral of the story: Oral contraceptives decrease risk of death

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 3/12/2010, BMJ Press Release 3/12/2010

(4) Contraceptive pill not associated with increased long-term risk of death
(Research: Mortality among contraceptive pill users: cohort evidence from Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/mar11_1/c927
Women in the UK who have ever used the oral contraceptive pill are less likely to die from any cause, including all cancers and heart disease, compared with never users, according to research published on bmj.com today.
The results show a slightly higher risk in women under 45 years old who are current or recent users of the pill. The authors stress that the effects in younger women disappear after about 10 years. Furthermore, the benefits in older women outweigh the smaller excess risks among younger women.
The study continues to find a higher rate of violent or accidental death among oral contraceptive users compared with never users. The authors are unable to explain this persistent finding.
In May 1968, the Royal College of General Practitioners' (RCGP) began the RCGP Oral Contraception Study, one of the world’s largest continuing investigations into the health effects of oral contraceptives.
Early reports from the RCGP study suggested an increased risk of death among oral contraceptive users, mainly due to an excess of strokes or other vascular problems among older women or those who smoked. Although a later report suggested that these effects disappear once the pill is stopped, at the time there were relatively few cases of different types of cancer.
These latest results, led by Professor Philip Hannaford from the University of Aberdeen, relate to the 46,000 recruited women, followed for up to nearly 40 years, creating more than a million woman-years of observation.
The results show that in the longer term, women who used oral contraception had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause, including heart disease and all cancers (notably bowel, uterine body and ovarian cancers) compared with never users.
This equates to 52 fewer deaths per 100,000 woman-years.
Slightly higher rates were found among younger women who had used oral contraception, with 20 more deaths per 100,000 among those younger than 30, and four more deaths per 100,000 among 30-39 year olds.
But by the age of 50, the benefits outweighed these modest risks, with 14 fewer deaths per 100,000 among 40-49 year olds; 86 fewer deaths per 100,000 for 50-59 year olds; 122 fewer deaths per 100,000 for 60-69 year olds; and 308 fewer deaths per 100,000 for 70+ year olds.
Hannaford says: "Many women, especially those who used the first generation of oral contraceptives many years ago, are likely to be reassured by our results. However, our findings might not reflect the experience of women using oral contraceptives today, if currently available preparations have a different risk than earlier products."
The authors conclude that their results, derived from a relatively healthy UK study group, show that "oral contraception is not significantly associated with an increased long-term risk of death . . . indeed a net benefit was apparent." However, they point out that "the balance of risks and benefits may vary globally, depending upon patterns of oral contraception usage and background risk of disease."
Contact:
Philip Hannaford, Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Scotland
Email p.hannaford@abdn.ac.uk

Oral contraceptives may reduce risk of death from any cause in women.

Bloomberg News (3/12, Cortez) reports that, according to findings published in the British Medical Journal, women who use oral contraceptives "were less likely to die of heart disease, cancer, or a range of other medical ailments." In fact, "women who took the pill were 12 percent less likely to die from any cause during the study." The study also showed that "the risk of death was slightly higher in women under age 45 who were current or recent users, though it abated after 10 years." Data indicated that "overall, there were 52 fewer deaths than expected for every 100,000 women taking the pill each year."

        MedPage Today (3/11, Fiore) reports that researchers "found lower rates of death from circulatory disease, ischemic heart disease, and other disease among women who'd used birth control pills," as well as "all cancers." Notably, "women on the pill did have higher rates of violent deaths," but "the researcher said they had no explanation for this association."

New reports suggest many Americans are being overtreated

Moral of the story: Americans are overtreated and this is both dangerous and costly.  People need to understand that more expensive and more intesive care is NOT better care.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 3/15/2010

New reports suggest many Americans are being overtreated.

The AP (3/13, Tanner) reported, "A spate of recent reports suggests that many Americans are being overtreated." Research appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine "suggested that too many patients are getting angiograms...who don't really need them; and specialists convened by the National Institutes of Health said doctors are too often demanding repeat cesarean deliveries for pregnant women after a first C-section." Meanwhile, "the American Cancer Society cast more doubt on routine PSA tests for prostate cancer" as "experts dispute how much routine cancer screening saves lives." Still, "Not all doctors and advocacy groups agree with the criticism of screening. Many argue that it can improve survival chances and that saving even a few lives is worth the cost of routinely testing tens of thousands of people."

Moral of the story: Vaccines are GOOD. get vaccinated.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 3/15/2010

US court rules thimerosal does not cause autism.

The New York Times (3/13, A11, McNeil) reported, "In a further blow to the antivaccine movement, three judges ruled Friday in three separate cases that thimerosal, a preservative containing mercury, does not cause autism." The rulings "are the second step in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding begun in 2002 in the United States Court of Federal Claims," which "combines the cases of 5,000 families with autistic children seeking compensation from the federal vaccine injury fund." The fund pays "families of children hurt by vaccines," but it "has never accepted that vaccines cause autism."

        The Los Angeles Times (3/13, Maugh, Zajac) reported, "The cases that three judges, called special masters, chose to rule on as test cases were considered among the strongest, so the outlook appears grim for others making the same claim." In one case, Special Master Denise K. Vowell wrote that "petitioners propose effects from mercury in [vaccines] that do not resemble mercury's known effects in the brain, either behaviorally or at the cellular level."

        "The cases had been divided into three theories about a vaccine-autism relationship for the court to consider," the AP (3/13, Schmid) reported. The court previously "rejected a theory that thimerasol can cause autism when combined with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine," and "a theory that certain vaccines alone cause autism." But, Friday's "ruling doesn't necessarily mean an end to the dispute...with appeals to other courts available."

Moral of the story: Donating a kidney is safe for the donor and obviously of huge benefit to the recipient. Donate today.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 3/16/2010

Long-term health risk for kidney donors appears to be low.

The New York Times (3/16, Rabin) reports in "Vital Signs" that "having only one kidney does not appear to affect the long-term survival of live kidney donors, and the risk of dying from the surgery itself is very low, according to" a study published March 10 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. In a study of 80,347 US adult kidney donors "followed for an average of 6.3 years" whose "survival was compared with a group of 9,364" matched, healthy controls, researchers found that "live kidney donors were no more likely to die than the comparison group."