Nestlé Challenges Drugs Industry

FT.com / Companies / Food & Beverage - Nestlé to take on drugs industry:

The Financial Times reports;

Nestlé is challenging the global drugs industry with plans to invest 500m Swiss Francs ($510m) over the next decade to support the creation of a standalone health science business to tackle obesity and chronic disease.

The Swiss food group, which announced the move on Monday, appointed Luis Cantarell, one of its most experienced executives, to “pioneer a new industry between food and pharma” that will develop products to combat diabetes, heart problems and Alzheimer’s.

Yvonne Bishop-Weston Nutritionist , London said today "This comes as no surprise to me, it was long overdue and only a matter of time before someone like Nestle spotted a new awareness about the link between nutrition, food, mood and optimal health and started taking on the Pharmaceutical Industry."

"The acid test will be whether Nestle actually come up with a nutritionists dream, some genuinely healthy nutritious products or just more highly processed, nutrient depleted, refined food with an added functional food nutritional ingredient" warned the nutritionist.

Continue reading →

What You Are Not Hearing About GMO Franken-Fish

Are Genetically Engineered Foods (Including Salmon) More Allergenic?

By Kiera Butler | Mon Sep. 27, 2010 

ScienceDaily (2010-09-25) -- An expert comments on potential FDA approval of the first genetically engineered animal for use as food.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100925105209.htm

---

You've probably heard that the FDA is considering whether to approve the first-ever genetically-engineered fish [1]. Developed by a Massachusetts-based company called AquaBounty Technologies [2], this new supersalmon is basically an Atlantic salmon with genes from Chinook salmon and a fish called the ocean pout [3]. In theory, this could be a good thing: The new genes allow the fish, called AquAdvantage, to grow twice as fast [4] as regular salmon, meaning more salmon for everyone, and less stress on wild stocks.
But a number of consumer, health, and environmental groups say that neither AquaBounty Technologies nor the FDA has enough evidence to ensure the public that the fish—which wouldn't have to be labeled as genetically engineered (GE) on supermarket shelves—is safe for people or the planet. Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen called the company's food safety tests "woefully incomplete [5]," and the group pointed out that the FDA approval panel is mostly comprised of GE cheerleaders [6], with no fish ecologists or allergists. Why's an allergist important? Because the company's own tests suggest that the new salmon could be much more allergenic than regular salmon.
In order to understand the allergy tests, a bit of backstory on how AquAdvantage salmon are made [7] is necessary. First, genetic engineers create a "diploid" fish, meaning like people, it has two sets of chromosomes. Then, to make the final market product, they add genetic material from other fish and breed a new salmon with three sets of chromosomes—a "triploid" female that can't reproduce. AquaBounty researchers compared the allergenicity—or potential to cause an allergic reaction—of a control group of salmon to both the genetically engineered diploids and triploids. They found (PDF [8], see page 102) that the diploid salmon were 40 percent more allergenic than the control, while the triploid group was 19 percent more allergenic.
AquaBounty says that the triploids' allergenicity level wasn't statistically significant, and although the diploids' level is significant, it doesn't matter because only triploids will be sold. But Hansen of the Consumers Union finds a few problems with this argument. For starters, the test wasn't double blind, meaning the researchers knew which fish were part of which test group. Second, the sample size of triploid fish was tiny—only six fish in all. Third, although AquaBounty is going to try to turn all its market-bound fish into triploid sterile females, the process isn't perfect, and some 5 percent could end up as the more allergenic diploid. Especially scary when you consider that unlike the triploids, the diploids aren't sterile. So if they escaped, they could breed with wild salmon.
The FDA simply doesn't have enough information to determine whether AquaBounty's salmon are likely to cause more allergic reactions than their non-GE counterparts. But there is good reason to be concerned about the potential allergenicity of all GE foods, says Margaret Mellon, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientsts. "You have this technology that allows you to essentially move proteins around from food to food," she says. "You can move a highly allergenic protein into a new food, and no one will know to avoid the new food."
Indeed, a 1996 study [9] published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that people who were allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to soy beans that had been implanted with a Brazil nut protein. There is also some evidence that even proteins don't usually cause allergies can become allergenic when they are moved to a new food. A 2005 Australian study [10] found that mice who were fed peas containing a typically non-allergenic protein from kidney beans experienced allergic reactions.
Another worry is that potentially allergenic GE crops might "escape" into foods. In the late '90s, the pharmaceutical giant Aventis introduced StarLink, a genetically engineered variety of corn. StarLink was approved for sale in the US, but only for non-food uses, since it contained a potentially allergenic protein. But then, traces of it started turning up in food (most famously, Taco Bell taco shells [11]), and 28 people claimed they had suffered allergic reactions to foods containing StarLink. Although the CDC later found no medical evidence [12] that any of those people had an allergy to the corn, an EPA advisory panel acknowledged that the CDC's tests did "not eliminate StarLink...protein as a potential cause of allergic symptoms."
The bottom line: It's not that genetically engineered foods are inherently more allergenic than traditional foods, but transfering genes does make it more likely that allergens might pop up in unexpected places. "There can be a lot of unintended side effects when you do genetic modification, which means you have to test very carefully," says Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the watchdog group Food and Water Watch [13]. "In the case of salmon, one test on six fish just seems very insufficient for something that will open the floodgates to other GE meat and fish."

---

Source URL: http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/09/genetically-engineered-salmon-allergies

Links:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/business/energy-environment/21salmon.html
[2] http://www.aquabounty.com/
[3] http://www.stripersonline.com/ubb547/image_uploads6/oceanpout2.jpg
[4] http://www.aquabounty.com/products/aquadvantage-295.aspx
[5] http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_food_safety/016893.html
[6] http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-20-why-is-the-fda-about-to-rubber-stamp-ge-salmon/
[7] http://www.alternet.org/food/148156/the_creepy_science_behind_genetically_engineered_%22frankenfish%22_about_to_enter_our_food_supply_unlabeled/
[8] http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224762.pdf
[9] http://www.contentnejmorg.zuom.info/cgi/content/full/334/11/688
[10] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8347
[11] http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/23/business/kraft-recalls-taco-shells-with-bioengineered-corn.html
[12] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/14/business/us-finds-no-allergies-to-altered-corn.html
[13] http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/fish/seafood/stop-frankenfish/

Continue reading →

What You Are Not Hearing About GMO Franken-Fish

Are Genetically Engineered Foods (Including Salmon) More Allergenic?

By Kiera Butler | Mon Sep. 27, 2010 

ScienceDaily (2010-09-25) -- An expert comments on potential FDA approval of the first genetically engineered animal for use as food.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100925105209.htm

---

You've probably heard that the FDA is considering whether to approve the first-ever genetically-engineered fish [1]. Developed by a Massachusetts-based company called AquaBounty Technologies [2], this new supersalmon is basically an Atlantic salmon with genes from Chinook salmon and a fish called the ocean pout [3]. In theory, this could be a good thing: The new genes allow the fish, called AquAdvantage, to grow twice as fast [4] as regular salmon, meaning more salmon for everyone, and less stress on wild stocks.
But a number of consumer, health, and environmental groups say that neither AquaBounty Technologies nor the FDA has enough evidence to ensure the public that the fish—which wouldn't have to be labeled as genetically engineered (GE) on supermarket shelves—is safe for people or the planet. Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen called the company's food safety tests "woefully incomplete [5]," and the group pointed out that the FDA approval panel is mostly comprised of GE cheerleaders [6], with no fish ecologists or allergists. Why's an allergist important? Because the company's own tests suggest that the new salmon could be much more allergenic than regular salmon.
In order to understand the allergy tests, a bit of backstory on how AquAdvantage salmon are made [7] is necessary. First, genetic engineers create a "diploid" fish, meaning like people, it has two sets of chromosomes. Then, to make the final market product, they add genetic material from other fish and breed a new salmon with three sets of chromosomes—a "triploid" female that can't reproduce. AquaBounty researchers compared the allergenicity—or potential to cause an allergic reaction—of a control group of salmon to both the genetically engineered diploids and triploids. They found (PDF [8], see page 102) that the diploid salmon were 40 percent more allergenic than the control, while the triploid group was 19 percent more allergenic.
AquaBounty says that the triploids' allergenicity level wasn't statistically significant, and although the diploids' level is significant, it doesn't matter because only triploids will be sold. But Hansen of the Consumers Union finds a few problems with this argument. For starters, the test wasn't double blind, meaning the researchers knew which fish were part of which test group. Second, the sample size of triploid fish was tiny—only six fish in all. Third, although AquaBounty is going to try to turn all its market-bound fish into triploid sterile females, the process isn't perfect, and some 5 percent could end up as the more allergenic diploid. Especially scary when you consider that unlike the triploids, the diploids aren't sterile. So if they escaped, they could breed with wild salmon.
The FDA simply doesn't have enough information to determine whether AquaBounty's salmon are likely to cause more allergic reactions than their non-GE counterparts. But there is good reason to be concerned about the potential allergenicity of all GE foods, says Margaret Mellon, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientsts. "You have this technology that allows you to essentially move proteins around from food to food," she says. "You can move a highly allergenic protein into a new food, and no one will know to avoid the new food."
Indeed, a 1996 study [9] published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that people who were allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to soy beans that had been implanted with a Brazil nut protein. There is also some evidence that even proteins don't usually cause allergies can become allergenic when they are moved to a new food. A 2005 Australian study [10] found that mice who were fed peas containing a typically non-allergenic protein from kidney beans experienced allergic reactions.
Another worry is that potentially allergenic GE crops might "escape" into foods. In the late '90s, the pharmaceutical giant Aventis introduced StarLink, a genetically engineered variety of corn. StarLink was approved for sale in the US, but only for non-food uses, since it contained a potentially allergenic protein. But then, traces of it started turning up in food (most famously, Taco Bell taco shells [11]), and 28 people claimed they had suffered allergic reactions to foods containing StarLink. Although the CDC later found no medical evidence [12] that any of those people had an allergy to the corn, an EPA advisory panel acknowledged that the CDC's tests did "not eliminate StarLink...protein as a potential cause of allergic symptoms."
The bottom line: It's not that genetically engineered foods are inherently more allergenic than traditional foods, but transfering genes does make it more likely that allergens might pop up in unexpected places. "There can be a lot of unintended side effects when you do genetic modification, which means you have to test very carefully," says Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the watchdog group Food and Water Watch [13]. "In the case of salmon, one test on six fish just seems very insufficient for something that will open the floodgates to other GE meat and fish."

---

Source URL: http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/09/genetically-engineered-salmon-allergies

Links:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/business/energy-environment/21salmon.html
[2] http://www.aquabounty.com/
[3] http://www.stripersonline.com/ubb547/image_uploads6/oceanpout2.jpg
[4] http://www.aquabounty.com/products/aquadvantage-295.aspx
[5] http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_food_safety/016893.html
[6] http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-20-why-is-the-fda-about-to-rubber-stamp-ge-salmon/
[7] http://www.alternet.org/food/148156/the_creepy_science_behind_genetically_engineered_%22frankenfish%22_about_to_enter_our_food_supply_unlabeled/
[8] http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224762.pdf
[9] http://www.contentnejmorg.zuom.info/cgi/content/full/334/11/688
[10] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8347
[11] http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/23/business/kraft-recalls-taco-shells-with-bioengineered-corn.html
[12] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/14/business/us-finds-no-allergies-to-altered-corn.html
[13] http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/fish/seafood/stop-frankenfish/

Continue reading →

Want To Build Muscle? Focus On The Right Muscle Building Diet

By Robert Harvard

When most people begin muscle building, they typically focus
on the exercises necessary to build muscle and reduce
body fat. However, the bodybuilding diet is the most
important aspect of the entire process. Without a proper
diet, those muscles you've worked so hard to build will be
covered over with a layer of fat, which goes against
everything a bodybuilder tries to do.

A bodybuilding diet isn't difficult to keep up, it just
takes a little discipline and know how. With a few tips and
a lot of self control, you could be well on your way to the
physique you've only dreamed about.

Split Up Your Meals

As we grew up, our parents usually taught us to eat three
meals a day. Those meals were to contain the four food
groups and they were generally large enough to keep us
satiated until the next meal came around. However, the more
you eat in one sitting, the more your body has to work to
digest it. Health experts now tell us to split up our meals
into four to six smaller meals, eaten throughout the day.
This, too, is what the bodybuilding diet entails. By
splitting up your meals into four to six smaller, more
manageable, meals each day, our metabolisms speed up,
enabling us to burn more fat than ever before.

Stay Away From Processed Food

When you begin your bodybuilding diet, you want to refrain
from anything that uses processed flour. Experienced
bodybuilders will tell you to stay to the outside perimeter
of the supermarket, where the dairy, meat, fruit, veggies
and bread are located. They will tell you to stay away from
the inside aisles of the supermarket, where all the chips,
and other processed foods are located. The simplest way to
keep to your bodybuilding diet is to tell yourself to keep
it natural. Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables and stay
away from anything laden with sugar; as this will turn into
fat in the long run.

Water, Water, Water

It can't be said enough. When beginning any bodybuilding
diet, you can't refrain from drinking lots of water. Water
flushes the fat and toxins from our body and also helps us
in fighting disease and illness. After all, we are seventy
percent water so we need to drink plenty of water if we hope
to stay healthy. A good rule is to drink a glass of water
before each meal, during each meal and once between meals.
This will keep you plenty hydrated and that's important,
especially when it comes to your bodybuilding diet.

If you stick to the above tips and work hard, you could
become a bodybuilder in no time. Remember, being a
bodybuilder doesn't just mean having big muscles, it also
means having low body fat. While working out will give you
the muscles you want, it's the bodybuilding diet that will
strip you of that fat so that those muscles, and all your
hard work, will finally be revealed.

How to make full use of (http://medicalalarms.net.nz/) medic
alert is important and you can find the top useful tips of
(http://healthsupplement.co.nz/) vitamin supplements.

Continue reading →

Strong Legs Critical to Health

Strength, Endurance, Balance

NEW: February 2011 -
While traditional Chinese exercise for toning legs requires no weights or exercise equipment, there are many excellent Chinese-style exercises that can tone, firm and strengthen your legs from your thighs to your ankles. SOURCE

Cirque du Soleil
 
NEW: 24 September 2010 -
from Matthew Scott, Chinese Health Exercises

According to traditional Chinese medical wisdom you are only as old as your legs.

Chinese medical wisdom also says if you strengthen your legs you can slow down the affects of aging and stop certain health problems.

Naturally, there are many traditional Chinese exercises to strengthen your legs. These are done using your bodyweight only. Some are so easy anyone can do them, while others you may need to build up to.

The benefits of strong, flexible legs include:

1. Better support for your whole body

2. Better balance

3. Less chance of leg and lower back pain

Traditional Chinese leg exercises do more than this though. They stimulate important energy meridians in your legs and these meridians are linked to certain internal organs like your spleen, liver and kidneys.

Do the exercises and you benefit your legs AND your internal organs.

Exercise in the traditional Chinese sense also includes techniques like self-massage and acupressure. These techniques involve pressing and rubbing specific points and areas on your legs (and other body areas) to improve circulation, stop pain, increase flexibility and more. 

There are two programs on the site showing you on video traditional Chinese exercises for the legs. There is the Long Life Exercise Programfor overall better health and the Knee Exercises Program aimed specifically at the legs.

from January 2010 - Do You Have Strong Legs?

Lower-body strength translates into good balance, flexibility, and endurance.

As you get older, those attributes are key to reducing your risk of falls and injuries -- particularly hip fractures, which often quickly lead to declining health. Up to 20% of hip-fracture patients die within 1 year because of complications from the trauma.

"Having weak thigh muscles is the number one predictor of frailty in old age," says Robert Butler, MD, president of the International Longevity Center USA in New York City.

Here's one of many suggestions to strengthen them, I know this exercise as "wall sitting".

"Target your quads with the "phantom chair" move, says Joan Price, author of The Anytime, Anywhere Exercise Book. Here's how: Stand with back against wall. Slowly walk feet out and slide back down until you're in a seated position, ensuring knees aren't beyond toes and lower back is pressed against wall. Hold until your thighs tell you, Enough! Do this daily, increasing your hold by a few seconds each time."

I do some sort of leg strengthening exercise daily because, as a writer for most of my time, I do a lot of sitting.

One resource I like is http://www.chinese-holistic-health-exercises.com/

And there's more here.

Continue reading →

Strong Legs Critical to Health

Strength, Endurance, Balance

NEW: February 2011 -
While traditional Chinese exercise for toning legs requires no weights or exercise equipment, there are many excellent Chinese-style exercises that can tone, firm and strengthen your legs from your thighs to your ankles. SOURCE

Cirque du Soleil
 
NEW: 24 September 2010 -
from Matthew Scott, Chinese Health Exercises

According to traditional Chinese medical wisdom you are only as old as your legs.

Chinese medical wisdom also says if you strengthen your legs you can slow down the affects of aging and stop certain health problems.

Naturally, there are many traditional Chinese exercises to strengthen your legs. These are done using your bodyweight only. Some are so easy anyone can do them, while others you may need to build up to.

The benefits of strong, flexible legs include:

1. Better support for your whole body

2. Better balance

3. Less chance of leg and lower back pain

Traditional Chinese leg exercises do more than this though. They stimulate important energy meridians in your legs and these meridians are linked to certain internal organs like your spleen, liver and kidneys.

Do the exercises and you benefit your legs AND your internal organs.

Exercise in the traditional Chinese sense also includes techniques like self-massage and acupressure. These techniques involve pressing and rubbing specific points and areas on your legs (and other body areas) to improve circulation, stop pain, increase flexibility and more. 

There are two programs on the site showing you on video traditional Chinese exercises for the legs. There is the Long Life Exercise Programfor overall better health and the Knee Exercises Program aimed specifically at the legs.

from January 2010 - Do You Have Strong Legs?

Lower-body strength translates into good balance, flexibility, and endurance.

As you get older, those attributes are key to reducing your risk of falls and injuries -- particularly hip fractures, which often quickly lead to declining health. Up to 20% of hip-fracture patients die within 1 year because of complications from the trauma.

"Having weak thigh muscles is the number one predictor of frailty in old age," says Robert Butler, MD, president of the International Longevity Center USA in New York City.

Here's one of many suggestions to strengthen them, I know this exercise as "wall sitting".

"Target your quads with the "phantom chair" move, says Joan Price, author of The Anytime, Anywhere Exercise Book. Here's how: Stand with back against wall. Slowly walk feet out and slide back down until you're in a seated position, ensuring knees aren't beyond toes and lower back is pressed against wall. Hold until your thighs tell you, Enough! Do this daily, increasing your hold by a few seconds each time."

I do some sort of leg strengthening exercise daily because, as a writer for most of my time, I do a lot of sitting.

One resource I like is http://www.chinese-holistic-health-exercises.com/

And there's more here.

Continue reading →

Yes, Mammogram isn't as beneficial as you are told

Yet another new article supports what we have been stating for decades - and what Dr John Gofman and others have proven in excellent research!

THINK! Before You Pink

Mammogram offers modest benefit

Breast cancer screening policy

By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer  Sep 22

LOS ANGELES – Mammograms don't help women over 50 as much as has been believed, new research suggests.
Only a third of the reduced risk of death credited to breast cancer screening is actually deserved — the rest is due to better treatment and greater awareness of the disease, a large study in Norway found.
The research, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, is the latest to show that the benefits of mammography are limited.
"It's not the great lifesaver that people think it is. It's not a magic bullet," said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt who was not involved in the study.
Mandelblatt headed six teams that helped shape the new mammogram guidelines issued last year by an influential government task force. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that women at average risk for breast cancer don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one just every two years starting at 50.
The World Health Organization estimates that mammograms reduce the breast cancer death rate by 25 percent in women over 50. Other groups put the figure at 15 to 23 percent.
The latest study found that while mammograms cut the risk of dying, the benefit was disappointingly low. Women who were screened had a 10 percent lower risk of death from breast cancer, but only a third of that reduction was due to screening itself.
Some 2,500 women would have to be regularly screened over 10 years to save one life from breast cancer, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth Medical School noted in an accompanying editorial.
In the study, scientists were able to tease out the benefits of mammography by studying Norway's breast cancer screening program, which began as a pilot in 1996 and later expanded to the entire country. As part of the national screening program, teams of doctors were set up in every county to treat any breast cancer cases that did occur, whether they were found by mammograms or other ways.
Some 40,000 women with breast cancer were included in the study. Women ages 50 through 69 were offered screening every two years.
Researchers compared the breast cancer death rate in four groups: a screening group of women living in areas where mammograms were offered; a non-screening group in regions that did not have screening; and two comparison groups of women from the decade before the screening program began, from the same counties as the women in the other two groups.
This allowed researchers to separate the effects of mammography from other factors that may have an impact on survival such as improved treatment and increased awareness.
Among women in the screening group, the breast cancer death rate declined by 7.2 deaths per 100,000 people compared with women in the decade before the screening program started. The death rate in the non-screening group fell by 4.8 deaths per 100,000 people compared with its historical counterpart.
That means that mammography reduced mortality by only 2.4 deaths per 100,000 people — a third of the total risk of death.
A second part of the study bore this out: Women over 70, who weren't eligible for screening, had an 8 percent lower risk of dying from breast cancer compared to the previous decade, pointing to the benefit of better care.
The study was funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. It was led by Dr. Mette Kalager of Oslo University Hospital with collaboration from Harvard University and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
More than 1 million women worldwide are diagnosed with breast cancer each year and more than 500,000 die from it. In the United States last year, there were an estimated 194,280 new cases and 40,610 deaths from the disease.
The American Cancer Society has long advocated that women get annual breast cancer screenings starting at 40.
The small benefit of mammograms in the latest study may be because the women weren't followed long enough, suggested Otis Brawley, the cancer society's chief medical officer, in a statement.
"The total body of the science supports the fact that regular mammography is an important part of a woman's preventive health care," Brawley said. "Following the American Cancer Society's guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer improves the chances that breast cancer can be diagnosed at an early stage and treated successfully."

http://www.nejm.org

Some of the 30+ related articles from Natural Health News

Natural Health News: Thermography 90, Mammogram 50

May 21, 2010

"What I didn't know was that I have dense breast tissue and like two-thirds of pre-menopausal women and one quarter of post-menopausal women, I have a much lower chance of having breast cancer detected by a mammogram." ...

Natural Health News: Call For A Differing Viewpoint

Aug 04, 2010

A great boost for the benefits of thermography over breast-cancer-causing mammogram. It is more effective and better for women under 50. Yes! Thermography's accuracy rate is 90% versus mammogram's 50%. It is well past time the ensconced ...

Docs Miss Cancer on Mammogram

Dec 12, 2007

Dec 12, 2007

A new three-state study led by Seattle's Group Health Cooperative shows that even the most skilled radiologists fail to detect 20 percent of breast-cancer cases in diagnostic mammograms — which are done when cancer is suspected and when ...

Better to Rethink Mammogram

Nov 17, 2009

As a person with an investigative mine I did look for all of the options and I will continue to support the science behind the dark side of mammogram that no one seems to want you to know. And I will encourage thermography. ...

Continue reading →

Yes, Mammogram isn't as beneficial as you are told

Yet another new article supports what we have been stating for decades - and what Dr John Gofman and others have proven in excellent research!

THINK! Before You Pink

Mammogram offers modest benefit

Breast cancer screening policy

By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer  Sep 22

LOS ANGELES – Mammograms don't help women over 50 as much as has been believed, new research suggests.
Only a third of the reduced risk of death credited to breast cancer screening is actually deserved — the rest is due to better treatment and greater awareness of the disease, a large study in Norway found.
The research, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, is the latest to show that the benefits of mammography are limited.
"It's not the great lifesaver that people think it is. It's not a magic bullet," said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt who was not involved in the study.
Mandelblatt headed six teams that helped shape the new mammogram guidelines issued last year by an influential government task force. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that women at average risk for breast cancer don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one just every two years starting at 50.
The World Health Organization estimates that mammograms reduce the breast cancer death rate by 25 percent in women over 50. Other groups put the figure at 15 to 23 percent.
The latest study found that while mammograms cut the risk of dying, the benefit was disappointingly low. Women who were screened had a 10 percent lower risk of death from breast cancer, but only a third of that reduction was due to screening itself.
Some 2,500 women would have to be regularly screened over 10 years to save one life from breast cancer, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth Medical School noted in an accompanying editorial.
In the study, scientists were able to tease out the benefits of mammography by studying Norway's breast cancer screening program, which began as a pilot in 1996 and later expanded to the entire country. As part of the national screening program, teams of doctors were set up in every county to treat any breast cancer cases that did occur, whether they were found by mammograms or other ways.
Some 40,000 women with breast cancer were included in the study. Women ages 50 through 69 were offered screening every two years.
Researchers compared the breast cancer death rate in four groups: a screening group of women living in areas where mammograms were offered; a non-screening group in regions that did not have screening; and two comparison groups of women from the decade before the screening program began, from the same counties as the women in the other two groups.
This allowed researchers to separate the effects of mammography from other factors that may have an impact on survival such as improved treatment and increased awareness.
Among women in the screening group, the breast cancer death rate declined by 7.2 deaths per 100,000 people compared with women in the decade before the screening program started. The death rate in the non-screening group fell by 4.8 deaths per 100,000 people compared with its historical counterpart.
That means that mammography reduced mortality by only 2.4 deaths per 100,000 people — a third of the total risk of death.
A second part of the study bore this out: Women over 70, who weren't eligible for screening, had an 8 percent lower risk of dying from breast cancer compared to the previous decade, pointing to the benefit of better care.
The study was funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. It was led by Dr. Mette Kalager of Oslo University Hospital with collaboration from Harvard University and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
More than 1 million women worldwide are diagnosed with breast cancer each year and more than 500,000 die from it. In the United States last year, there were an estimated 194,280 new cases and 40,610 deaths from the disease.
The American Cancer Society has long advocated that women get annual breast cancer screenings starting at 40.
The small benefit of mammograms in the latest study may be because the women weren't followed long enough, suggested Otis Brawley, the cancer society's chief medical officer, in a statement.
"The total body of the science supports the fact that regular mammography is an important part of a woman's preventive health care," Brawley said. "Following the American Cancer Society's guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer improves the chances that breast cancer can be diagnosed at an early stage and treated successfully."

http://www.nejm.org

Some of the 30+ related articles from Natural Health News

Natural Health News: Thermography 90, Mammogram 50

May 21, 2010

"What I didn't know was that I have dense breast tissue and like two-thirds of pre-menopausal women and one quarter of post-menopausal women, I have a much lower chance of having breast cancer detected by a mammogram." ...

Natural Health News: Call For A Differing Viewpoint

Aug 04, 2010

A great boost for the benefits of thermography over breast-cancer-causing mammogram. It is more effective and better for women under 50. Yes! Thermography's accuracy rate is 90% versus mammogram's 50%. It is well past time the ensconced ...

Docs Miss Cancer on Mammogram

Dec 12, 2007

Dec 12, 2007

A new three-state study led by Seattle's Group Health Cooperative shows that even the most skilled radiologists fail to detect 20 percent of breast-cancer cases in diagnostic mammograms — which are done when cancer is suspected and when ...

Better to Rethink Mammogram

Nov 17, 2009

As a person with an investigative mine I did look for all of the options and I will continue to support the science behind the dark side of mammogram that no one seems to want you to know. And I will encourage thermography. ...

Continue reading →

HIPAA: Privacy Still at Risk

Most people have been led to believe that HIPAA is to protect your information, especially your health information.  That has never been the case and here is an item that calls this to your attention, even though we have been reporting on this for many years.

It is important to note that the HIPAA privacy rule permits public-health workers to use and disclose individually identifiable health data without patients' authorization. This is a major loophole that allows patients’ personal health information to be shared with many others—without their consent.  (See 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subpart E—Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; section 164.512 “Uses and disclosures for which an authorization or opportunity to agree or object is not required.”)

Further, the information below should be an eye opener. 

Proposed Changes to Privacy Rule Won’t Ensure Privacy

The federal government once again is modifying the HIPAA privacy rule.  This time around it’s modifying the rule to incorporate legal requirements in the economic stimulus law passed in 2009.   But since that law doesnot require consent before health information is shared for most purposes (including treatment, payment, and health-care operations), the modifications will fail to truly protect health privacy rights.  IHF first reported on this in March 2009: http://forhealthfreedom.org/Newsletter/March2009.html#Article2  

IHF noted that while the stimulus law aimed to prohibit the sale of electronic health records, the exceptions are so broad that it fails to meet its purported objective.  In fact, the stimulus law actually permits the selling of Americans’ electronic health records for public-health and research purposes—without patients’ consent.  The stimulus law also limits insurers’ access to health data, but only if patients pay out-of-pocket and forgo insurance reimbursement. 

Additionally, the stimulus law expanded the number of people authorized to access patients’ personal health information without patients’ consent.  Previously HHS estimated that about 600,000 covered entities (and their employees) would have access to patients’ data for many purposes.  However, the stimulus law added some 1.5 million “business associates” who can legally access patients’ health records—without patients’ consent.  Now over 2 million health-related organizations and their business partners will have legal access to patients’ health data without consent in many circumstances (see table below).  

Number of Health-Care Entities and Business Associates With Access to

Patients’ Health Information under HIPAA Privacy Rule

Health-Care Entity	Number
Business Associates* (conduct business on behalf of entities listed below)	1,500,000
Office of MDs, DOs, Mental Health Practitioners, Dentists, PT, OT, ST, Audiologists	419,286
Durable Medical Equipment Suppliers	107,567
Pharmacies	88,396
Nursing Facilities**	34,400
Home Health Service Covered Entities	15,329
Outpatient Care Centers***	13,962
Medical Diagnostic, and Imaging Service Covered Entities	7,879
Other Ambulatory Care Service Covered Entities (Ambulance and Other)	5,879
Hospitals (General Medical and Surgical, Psychiatric, Substance Abuse, Other Specialty)	4,060
Third Party Administrators Working on Behalf of Covered Health Plans	3,522
Health Insurance Carriers	1,045
Total Entities and Business Associates	2,201,325
* According to HHS, examples of business associates include third-party administrators or pharmacy benefit managers for health plans, claims processing or billing companies, transcription companies, and persons who perform legal, actuarial, accounting, management, or administrative services for covered entities and who require access to protected health information.  ** Includes nursing care facilities, residential mental retardation facilities, residential mental health and substance abuse facilities, community care facilities for the elderly, and continuing care retirement communities.  *** Includes family planning centers, outpatient mental health and drug abuse centers, other outpatient health centers, HMO medical centers, kidney dialysis centers, freestanding ambulatory surgical and emergency centers,  and all other outpatient care centers. Source: “Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act,” RIN: 0991–AB57, Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 134, July 14, 2010 (see pages 40872, 40906, 40907, 40911).

Thus, the stimulus law expanded the number of people who can access patients’ health information but stillfailed to give patients the final say in who may—and may not—see their most personal health records. Rather than tinkering around the edges modifying the weak HIPAA privacy rule (as required by the stimulus law), it’s time to call on Congress to change the law to ensure that patient consent is required before personal health information is shared for any purpose, including public health. 

What’s more, although the stimulus law doesn’t give patients the right to control the electronic flow of their health information, it does require the secretary of HHS to post a list of breaches of “unsecured protected” (HHS’s term!) health information affecting 500 or more individuals.  The breaches are posted here:http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachnotificationrule/breachtool.html 

Sources:

• “HHS Releases Proposed HIPAA Rule Extending Mandate to Business Associates,” Kendra Casey Plank, BNA’s Health Care Policy Report, July 12, 2010.
• “Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act,” RIN: 0991–AB57, Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 134, July 14, 2010.

“How the Economic Stimulus Law Affects Your Health Privacy Rights,” Health Freedom Watch newsletter published by the Institute for Health Freedom, March 2009:http://forhealthfreedom.org/Newsletter/March2009.html#Article2

Continue reading →

HIPAA: Privacy Still at Risk

Most people have been led to believe that HIPAA is to protect your information, especially your health information.  That has never been the case and here is an item that calls this to your attention, even though we have been reporting on this for many years.

It is important to note that the HIPAA privacy rule permits public-health workers to use and disclose individually identifiable health data without patients' authorization. This is a major loophole that allows patients’ personal health information to be shared with many others—without their consent.  (See 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subpart E—Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; section 164.512 “Uses and disclosures for which an authorization or opportunity to agree or object is not required.”)

Further, the information below should be an eye opener. 

Proposed Changes to Privacy Rule Won’t Ensure Privacy

The federal government once again is modifying the HIPAA privacy rule.  This time around it’s modifying the rule to incorporate legal requirements in the economic stimulus law passed in 2009.   But since that law doesnot require consent before health information is shared for most purposes (including treatment, payment, and health-care operations), the modifications will fail to truly protect health privacy rights.  IHF first reported on this in March 2009: http://forhealthfreedom.org/Newsletter/March2009.html#Article2  

IHF noted that while the stimulus law aimed to prohibit the sale of electronic health records, the exceptions are so broad that it fails to meet its purported objective.  In fact, the stimulus law actually permits the selling of Americans’ electronic health records for public-health and research purposes—without patients’ consent.  The stimulus law also limits insurers’ access to health data, but only if patients pay out-of-pocket and forgo insurance reimbursement. 

Additionally, the stimulus law expanded the number of people authorized to access patients’ personal health information without patients’ consent.  Previously HHS estimated that about 600,000 covered entities (and their employees) would have access to patients’ data for many purposes.  However, the stimulus law added some 1.5 million “business associates” who can legally access patients’ health records—without patients’ consent.  Now over 2 million health-related organizations and their business partners will have legal access to patients’ health data without consent in many circumstances (see table below).  

Number of Health-Care Entities and Business Associates With Access to

Patients’ Health Information under HIPAA Privacy Rule

Health-Care Entity	Number
Business Associates* (conduct business on behalf of entities listed below)	1,500,000
Office of MDs, DOs, Mental Health Practitioners, Dentists, PT, OT, ST, Audiologists	419,286
Durable Medical Equipment Suppliers	107,567
Pharmacies	88,396
Nursing Facilities**	34,400
Home Health Service Covered Entities	15,329
Outpatient Care Centers***	13,962
Medical Diagnostic, and Imaging Service Covered Entities	7,879
Other Ambulatory Care Service Covered Entities (Ambulance and Other)	5,879
Hospitals (General Medical and Surgical, Psychiatric, Substance Abuse, Other Specialty)	4,060
Third Party Administrators Working on Behalf of Covered Health Plans	3,522
Health Insurance Carriers	1,045
Total Entities and Business Associates	2,201,325
* According to HHS, examples of business associates include third-party administrators or pharmacy benefit managers for health plans, claims processing or billing companies, transcription companies, and persons who perform legal, actuarial, accounting, management, or administrative services for covered entities and who require access to protected health information.  ** Includes nursing care facilities, residential mental retardation facilities, residential mental health and substance abuse facilities, community care facilities for the elderly, and continuing care retirement communities.  *** Includes family planning centers, outpatient mental health and drug abuse centers, other outpatient health centers, HMO medical centers, kidney dialysis centers, freestanding ambulatory surgical and emergency centers,  and all other outpatient care centers. Source: “Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act,” RIN: 0991–AB57, Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 134, July 14, 2010 (see pages 40872, 40906, 40907, 40911).

Thus, the stimulus law expanded the number of people who can access patients’ health information but stillfailed to give patients the final say in who may—and may not—see their most personal health records. Rather than tinkering around the edges modifying the weak HIPAA privacy rule (as required by the stimulus law), it’s time to call on Congress to change the law to ensure that patient consent is required before personal health information is shared for any purpose, including public health. 

What’s more, although the stimulus law doesn’t give patients the right to control the electronic flow of their health information, it does require the secretary of HHS to post a list of breaches of “unsecured protected” (HHS’s term!) health information affecting 500 or more individuals.  The breaches are posted here:http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachnotificationrule/breachtool.html 

Sources:

• “HHS Releases Proposed HIPAA Rule Extending Mandate to Business Associates,” Kendra Casey Plank, BNA’s Health Care Policy Report, July 12, 2010.
• “Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act,” RIN: 0991–AB57, Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 134, July 14, 2010.

“How the Economic Stimulus Law Affects Your Health Privacy Rights,” Health Freedom Watch newsletter published by the Institute for Health Freedom, March 2009:http://forhealthfreedom.org/Newsletter/March2009.html#Article2

Continue reading →