Seven Myths About Breast Cancer

With all the effort being put into breast cancer awareness, there are bound to be myths and misconceptions about the nature of breast cancer and how it affects people.

Here is a list of seven such myths:

1. Myth: A lump in the breast always means cancer.
2. Myth: Mammograms may cause cancer to spread.
3. Myth: There’s no history of breast cancer in my family, so I won’t get it.
4. Myth: Having a mastectomy is the best way to cure breast cancer and prevent it from coming back.
5. Myth: Young women are just as likely to get breast cancer as older women.
6. Myth: Breast cancer is fatal.
7. Myth: Men don’t get breast cancer.

For every one of these myths is a truth, but you will have to go check out the source to get those answers.

Remember, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

• Source

Anger, Insurance Companies, & MIT

There are many sad tales appearing on the internet which present people who are angry because they feel mistreated by their insurance company. Those personal anecdotes are designed to raise an individual’s ire and natural desire to do something about it. The reader may notice that conveniently attached to such stories are mentions of a solution to the problem: healthcare reform as being debated into law by Congress.

The setup seems almost too easy. David, the little man (or woman, or child, or family) gets beaten on by a Goliath (big insurance company) who treats them as mere numbers in a soulless quest for ever increasing profit, only to have Congress and others swoop in to save the day. Someone should create a comic book about that story because it would be entertaining – and fictional.

Yes, we are cynical and skeptical at heart and are willing to wager that many of our readers who come across such saccharine tales of heartache also immediately think “what are they selling?“. Being cynical and skeptical to a degree one notch below annoying is a trait commonly found in scientists because it is an important part of the scientific process. Not all of you are like that (yet), so for those of you who are new to all this, buckle up and hang on for an interesting ride.

Why would insurance companies do silly things, like deny coverage to an unusually heavy baby, if the bad publicity is so damaging to their reputation?

The answer is because insurance companies use statistical tables to make decisions, and anyone caught at the tail end will have a rough time. Here is the most interesting quote from the story of baby Alex Lange:

The frustrated parents said their child was the odd infant out in a cruel numbers game. A chart by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used by insurers puts Alex in the 99th percentile for weight and height for babies his age.

The BMI chart is an example of flawed statistics being used, but it is also not entirely inaccurate for a population wide assessment. In general, someone who has a BMI above 30 is far more likely to be unhealthy than to be an athlete. The problem is for those in the middle, in between normal and obese, who are merely considered overweight.

One flaw in the system is that while most people in the obese range are unhealthy, the same cannot be said for those in the overweight range. Pay close attention the next time you are at the park or the gym to those chunky guys who can outrun you. In fact, someone with low body fat who is athletic in that range between casual Frisbee player and professional athlete can often be classified as overweight.

Insurance companies can get away with using the BMI to classify people into broad categories, which then affects their premiums or if they are eligible for insurance at all because the government continues to use it, even though it is flawed. According to the CDC:

BMI is a fairly reliable indicator of body fatness for most people.

If the BMI chart is based on an illogical formula concocted over 200 years ago and can only give a general assessment of obesity in a population while failing on an individual level, why is it still in use by the government?

The answer is because government loves to create problems for which it is the solution. Pay close attention to what is happening here because this is a pattern that repeats over and over again.

First, the CDC called more than one million people between 2006 and 2008 and collected their information. The fact that the data are suspect because people routinely lie about their height and weight should be obvious even to a non-scientist. Second, after the data was gathered and processed, a conclusion was reached:

Experts believe there are several reasons for the differences. People with lower incomes often have less access to medical care, exercise facilities and more expensive, healthier food. In many places, minorities are disproportionately poor.

“Poverty is a very strong driver of obesity,” said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity

The differences being referred to are the differences between the African-American communities and other communities in terms of obesity. We already know the reason for those differences, and it is the reason the BMI chart is racist. So, where does that conclusion lead to?

The only way to deal with our “obesity epidemic” is to address the “poverty epidemic” — of course, as measured by yet another government psuedo-science statistic called the “poverty line”. And how do we deal with that? You guessed it, create more entitlement programs, programs to be run by the very same government that is funding the study, a study based on a statistical measure that is meaningless, where the statistics are unreliable and unverifiable but all point to the same convenient conclusion — the government needs more of your money.

And the media will now happily play along, running b-roll footage of some fat dude at Disney shoving ice cream in his pie hole or a fat mother and her fat kids waddling along through Frontierland, their butts bouncing up and down, as they stroll through the theme park in too-tight shorts and too-short t-shirts.

Laugh if you want but this is the same government that wants to ration your health care. Guess what? Fat people move to the back of the line under such a government-run health care system. Still laughing?

Although baby Alex Lange’s story inspires outrage, it is the insurance company taking all the heat, rather than the government. If the government banned the use of the BMI chart because of its flaws the insurance companies would be forced to evaluate everyone on an individual basis leading to fairer premiums. Individualized healthcare is one result of a market based system because a fair market needs to distinguish between a healthy 200 lb. person and a 200 lb. couch potato. Currently, they are both considered equally risky to insure and such a system does not foster individual responsibility.

People are even angrier today according to newspapers because a report which concluded that the healthcare reform bill recently approved by the senate finance committee would end up costing everyone more money is false – at least according to certain members of Congress and economist from MIT.

After an insurance industry report said that premiums would rise sharply with the passage of comprehensive health care legislation, Jon Gruber, a health care economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he evaluated the report Monday at the request of Senate Democrats and found it deeply flawed.

Coming from a prestigious academic institution does not guarantee that Jon Gruber is telling the truth but it does lend him a lot of credibility, so he will be taken seriously. We are skeptics and our site is geared towards teaching non-scientists, so how can a non-expert determine if someone with fancy credentials is telling the truth when what they are saying goes against logic and common sense?

In this instance the answer is amazingly simple.

Mr. Gruber, who helped Massachusetts with its effort to provide universal health insurance coverage, said that the industry report failed to take into account administrative overhead costs that he said will “fall enormously” once insurance polices are sold through new government-regulated marketplaces, or exchanges.

We need to examine the situation in Massachusetts since they implemented universal health insurance in a way very similar to the proposals in the Baucus bill. Depending on how the situation turned out, it will either serve as a model for the current bills in Congress or a dire warning against them and will establish the reader establish Mr. Gruber’s real level of credibility.

The Wall Street Journal talks about the situation in Massachusetts (and other states, so go read the whole thing):

Guaranteed issue alone, the argument goes, results in slightly more expensive premiums, which drives healthier individuals out of the risk pool, which in turn further drives up premiums. The end result is that many healthy people opt out, leaving a small pool of sick individuals with very high premiums. An individual mandate, however, would spread those premium costs across a larger, healthier population, thus keeping premium costs down.

The experience of Massachusetts, which implemented an individual mandate in 2007, suggests otherwise. Health-insurance premiums in the Bay State have risen significantly faster than the national average, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health foundation. At an average of $13,788, the state’s family plans are now the nation’s most expensive. Meanwhile, insurance companies are planning additional double-digit hikes, “prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers” according to the Boston Globe.

And health-care costs have continued to grow rapidly. According to a Rand Corporation study this year, the growth now exceeds state GDP by 8%. The Boston Globe recently reported that state health-insurance commissioners are now worried that medical spending could push both employers and patients into bankruptcy, and may even threaten the system’s continued existence.

That certainly paints a cheery picture. There is more wonderful news from The Boston Globe:

The state’s major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year, prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers.

Increases will range from 7 to 12 percent, capping a decade of consecutive double-digit premium increases, according to a Globe survey of the state’s top health insurers. Actual rates for 2010 will depend on the size of the employer and the type of coverage, with small businesses and individuals expected to be hit hardest. Overall, premiums are more than twice as high as they were 10 years ago.

The higher insurance costs undermine a key tenet of the state’s landmark health care law passed two years ago, as well as President Obama’s effort to overhaul health care. In addition to mandating insurance for most residents, the Massachusetts bill sought to rein in health care costs.

The failure of the Massachusetts system is far from hidden. Who is Jon Gruber hoping to fool by flashing his academic pedigree? Is the general population reading the news so incapable of examining the issues in any depth such that Mr. Gruber can brag about the wonderful state of universal health insurance in Massachusetts without the rubes bothering to check and see how things actually turned out?

Many newspapers and other outlets reporting on this situation are in favor of universal healthcare becoming law, damn the facts, and so reports on the subject tend to be biased by omission of key details which would entirely change the outcome of the story. The real anger is by citizens who are frustrated at being ignored by their elected officials and maligned by some members of the media.

When a layperson expounds about a subject in a way that it is clear they are out of their depth, we excuse the ignorance or quickly sniff out the agenda. However, we must hang our heads in shame when a fellow scientist abuses their position of trust and respect to mislead the general public. Jonathan Gruber’s motivation for lying is not important, simply because such lying is unacceptable. Studying science is about shedding light on the world’s mysteries, and so we have fulfilled our responsibility by illuminating this situation with sunlight, the best disinfectant.

Exit question: What are you going to do about it?

• Source
• Source
• Source
• Source

Senate Finance Panel Approves Health Bill 14-9: Stupidity, Not Reform

UPDATE: See below, at the end of the article.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Senate finance committee has approved a healthcare reform bill today.

The vote was 14-9, with Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine the only Republican to join the 13 Democrats on the panel. Ms. Snowe indicated earlier in the day that she would support the measure.

The Senate Finance panel, led by Chairman Max Baucus, becomes the last of five congressional panels to act on a health-overhaul bill, and it marks the biggest step forward yet for President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority. The Baucus-proposed 10-year, $829 billion plan would require all Americans to purchase insurance and aims to hold down spiraling medical costs over the long term.

The legislation that passed the other House and Senate committees did so without a single Republican vote.

Unfortunately for Congress, a non-partisan report has come to the conclusion that costs will go up if the proposed legislation is made into law.

On Monday, insurers ratcheted up concerns about the sweeping Finance Commitee bill. A report released Monday by America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, said the Finance bill would impose stiff costs on consumers. Among other things, the report said a family health-insurance policy that costs $12,300 today would increase to $25,900 on average by 2019 under the bill, more than under current law.

The analysis in the report was conducted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, certainly not a slacker, no-name entity without a reputation for accuracy on the line. Even though they did not release the underlying statistical data with the report, it does not take an advanced degree to understand the logical problems inherent in the bill’s design.

PWC is stating the issue politely, to say the least. What is meant by a “weak mandate” is that, in the current version of the Baucus bill, there is no requirement to buy health insurance at all until after 2013, and by 2017 the penalty for failing to buy health insurance still amounts to only about 15% of the cost of the insurance. Now, think about it: if you know that you don’t have to buy health insurance when you are young and healthy, but if you should get sick, or just get older, you can apply for health insurance at any time and it will be illegal for the insurance company to turn you down, what would you do? Obviously, you would defer buying insurance unless and until you get sick. This means that the pool of those who are insured will be lower quality, and the cost therefore higher for everyone who buys insurance. It is as though you could wait until you die, and then your heirs can buy life insurance on you.

This isn’t reform, it is stupidity.

Trying to force everyone to have health insurance in the manner proposed by this bill may technically solve the problem of millions of Americans being uninsured. It is also logically impossible to do so without lowering quality, increasing costs, or both.

Some people are skeptical, so we will present a current example to prove the point. In this case we will examine the healthcare system in Massachusetts.

So let’s look at the closest model we have for this system in the United States:  the state of Massachusetts.  Massachusetts has all the goodies in the Baucus bill:  subsidies, guaranteed issue, community rating, an individual mandate, and employer penalties.  Indeed, the Massachusetts program is probably to the left of where we’re going to end up, on things like empowering the exchanges to negotiate with insurance companies and the size of the penalties for failing to procure insurance, two measures which are supposed to be critical for holding costs down.

Instead, costs have exploded.

Go take a look, they have a few charts up and detailed analysis of the cost increases. This whole sordid affair raises plenty of good questions:

So I’ll turn it around on reformers:  why do you think that we can control costs, given that we couldn’t at the state level?  Massachusetts is a very liberal state, a very rich state, and it started out with a relatively low proportion of its citizenry uninsured.  Proponents of reform often say it has to be done at a national level because states can’t borrow money in downturns, but this doesn’t explain why the spending side is headed through the roof.

Some people would say that Congress is choosing the complicated and expensive way versus the simple and cheap way because the former presents opportunities for graft, unlike the latter. Here is one such simple reform idea:

All we have to do is allow insurance companies to compete nationally instead of state-by-state and eliminate all mandates that limit consumer choice. It has been estimated that these simple reforms–which are not part of any of the Democrats’ “reform” bills, for obvious reasons–would reduce health care costs by one-quarter to one-third. Instead of such common-sense reforms, the Dems are proposing Rube Goldberg measures that will make health care more expensive. Instead of eliminating mandates, their measures, including the Baucus bill, increase them–in effect making cheaper health insurance illegal.Once more: this isn’t reform, it is stupidity.

Thanks to the power of the internet you can now fax senators about the healthcare reform bill and let them know what you think. Now is a great time to let your voice be heard.

It’s important that this blast fax campaign reaches every citizen who is opposed to this irresponsible legislation, especially in the states of MT, IN, AK, CO, PA, ND, NC, SD, AR, FL, PA, VA, MO, UT, IA, NH, ME and OH. Our best chance to stop this government healthcare takeover is to let our legislators know, whether they are home or in Washington, we are watching closely.

The Washington Examiner has an interesting two part op-ed discussing The Truth About The Baucus Bill (Part one, part two):

There is another reason why the CBO’s preliminary analysis should be taken with a grain of salt, though this one wasn’t mentioned in the report. Whatever the content of the Baucus bill once it is voted out of the finance committee, it will disappear into a legislative black hole as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and their key aides do what they did on the economic stimulus package back in February — huddle together behind closed doors to write the final bill, which will then be presented as a fait accompli in the form of a conference report.

Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) clearly shows that the bill being brought forth is strange because there are good ideas for reform being ignored. He also lays to rest the popular misconception that there are no good ideas for healthcare reform being suggested other than what is present in the current bill:

There are many bipartisan ideas that would actually cut health care costs, like medical liability reform, allowing employees to keep their insurance when they switch jobs, standardizing health information technology, and allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines.  In Minnesota, we’ve passed reforms that made price and quality more transparent for patients, moving the health care system towards paying for and achieving better health care outcomes, and empowering patients themselves to help drive down costs.

You can read here how Governor Pawlenty is implementing those ideas for healthcare reform right now in Minnesota. Although we are proud of Governor Pawlenty putting his money where his mouth is on healthcare reform, we are not comfortable with him promoting creationism in public schools.

MR. BROKAW: In the vast scientific community, do you think that Creationism has the same weight as evolution, and at a time in American education when we are in a crisis when it comes to science, that there ought to be parallel tracks for Creationism versus evolution in the teaching?

GOV. PAWLENTY: In the scientific community, it seems like intelligent design is dismissed — not entirely, there are a lot of scientists who would make the case that it is appropriate to be taught and appropriate to be demonstrated, but in terms of the curriculum in the schools in Minnesota, we’ve taken the approach that that’s a local decision. I know Senator Palin — or Governor Palin — has said intelligent design is something that she thinks should be taught along with evolution in the schools, and I think that’s appropriate. My personal view is that’s a local decision —

MR. BROKAW: Given equal weight.

GOV. PAWLENTY: — of the local school board.

MR. BROKAW: And you would recommend it be given equal weight?

GOV. PAWLENTY: We’ve said in Minnesota, in my view, this is a local decision. Intelligent design is something that, in my view, is plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in but, more importantly, from an educational and scientific standpoint, it should be decided by local school boards at the local school district level.

In conclusion, as we have discussed here before at length, there are many very good ideas for healthcare reform which should be given a chance to succeed, especially because mandatory government healthcare runs contrary to American principles of liberty. As always, when it comes to Congress (or any government officials for that matter) judge them based on their actions, not their words. Ok, sometimes by their words.

• Source
• Source
• Source
• Source
• Source
• Source
• Source
• Source

UPDATE: Recent news reports are publicizing claims by MIT economist Jon Gruber that the PWC report is false. Unfortunately, Mr. Gruber is lying. We discuss the issue at length here.

The Power Of Imagination

The placebo effect is well recognized in medical research and is taken into account in legitimate studies.

For the uninitiated, here is a brief rundown of placebos and the placebo effect:

A placebo is a sham medical intervention. In one common placebo procedure, a patient is given an inert sugar pill, told that it may improve his/her condition, but not told that it is in fact inert. Such an intervention may cause the patient to believe the treatment will change his/her condition; and this belief does indeed sometimes have a therapeutic effect, causing the patient’s condition to improve. This phenomenon is known as the placebo effect.

When an inert substance makes a patient better, that effect is called the placebo effect. The phenomenon is related to the perception and expectation which the patient has; if the substance is viewed as helpful, it can heal, but if it is viewed as harmful, it can cause negative effects, which is known as the nocebo effect. Placebo effects are a scientific mystery.

A distinguishing characteristic of legitimate scientific research is having  control group to gauge how much of any positive effect shown is real and how much can be ascribed to the placebo effect.

The study was conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University Medical Center.

For this study, 34 children ages 6 to 15 years old who had been diagnosed with functional abdominal pain by a physician were recruited to participate by pediatric gastroenterologists at UNC Hospitals and Duke University Medical Center. All received standard medical care and 19 were randomized to receive eight weeks of guided imagery treatment. A total of 29 children finished the study; 15 in the guided imagery plus medical treatment group and 14 in the medical treatment alone group.

Randomization also lends credibility to any study’s results since it removes a potential source bias and accusations of stacking the deck to achieve preselected results.

When we then heard that children were able to reduce abdominal pain by up to half through the power of their imagination we were skeptical but not entirely disbelieving. Other studies have shown similar results:

Prior studies have found that behavioral therapy and guided imagery (a treatment method similar to self-hypnosis) are effective, when combined with regular medical care, to reduce pain and improve quality of life. But for many children behavioral therapy is not available because it is costly, takes a lot of time and requires a highly trained therapist.

This study was different because the guided imagery material was prepared for the children to use on their own, independently of therapists.

The guided imagery sessions, developed jointly by van Tilburg, co-investigator Olafur Palsson, Psy.D. and Marsha Turner, the study coordinator, were recorded on CDs and given to children in the study to use at home.

The treatment consisted of a series of four biweekly, 20-minute sessions and shorter 10-minute daily sessions. In session one, for example, the CD directs children to imagine floating on a cloud and relaxing progressively. The session then gives them therapeutic suggestions and imagery for reducing discomfort, such as letting a special shiny object melt into their hand and then placing their hand on their belly, spreading warmth and light from the hand inside the tummy to make a protective barrier inside that prevents anything from irritating the belly.

The results are incredible:

In the group that used guided imagery, the children reported that the CDs were easy and enjoyable to use. In that group, 73.3 percent reported that their abdominal pain was reduced by half or more by the end of the treatment course. Only 26.7 percent in the standard medical care only group achieved the same level of improvement. This increased to 58.3 percent when guided imagery treatment was offered later to the standard medical care only group. In both groups combined, these benefits persisted for six months in 62.5 percent of the children.

The study concluded that guided imagery treatment plus medical care was superior to standard medical care alone for the treatment of functional abdominal pain, and that treatment effects were sustained over a long period.

Video games can have powerful and positive effect in developing and strengthening a child’s mind. Of course, there are plenty of other things to do which can develop a child’s imagination in that mystical land referred to as “not in front of the TV”.

• Source

Happy Columbus Day!

From Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus:

At the end of 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future. Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune and lifeless. Institutions were decaying, well-meaning people were growing cynical or desperate, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through studying the pagan past. . . .

Yet, even as the chroniclers of Nuremberg were correcting their proofs from Koberger’s press, a Spanish caravel named Nina scudded before a winter gale into Lisbon with news of a discovery that was to give old Europe another chance. In a few years we find the mental picture completely changed. Strong monarchs are stamping out privy conspiracy and rebellion; the Church, purged and chastened by the Protestant Reformation, puts her house in order; new ideas flare up throughout Italy, France, Germany and the northern nations; faith in God revives and the human spirit is renewed. The change is complete and startling: “A new envisagement of the world has begun, and men are no longer sighing after the imaginary golden age that lay in the distant past, but speculating as to the golden age that might possibly lie in the oncoming future.”

Christopher Columbus belonged to an age that was past, yet he became the sign and symbol of this new age of hope, glory and accomplishment. His medieval faith impelled him to a modern solution: Expansion.

• Source

Is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Caused By A Virus?

As with many scientific discoveries, there is an interesting back story here.

The story begins with a biologist, Robert Silverman of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, investigating if prostate cancer is caused by a virus.

Actually, the story begins a bit earlier than that. Scientists have known that viruses can cause cancer since the early 20th century.

In 1909 Peyton Rous discovered that a virus could cause sarcomas in chickens. For discovering the Rous Sarcoma Virus, Dr. Rous was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1966. This discovery led directly to the discovery of cellular oncogenes (genes that cause cancer) by Bishop and Varmus, which also was rewarded with a Nobel Prize.

Subsequently, numerous other human cancers have been associated with viral infections. The most important of these is Burkitt’s lymphoma. Burkitt’s lymphoma comes in three varieties: one form is endemic to sub-Saharan Africa and is most likely caused in large part by infection with a virus called Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV, which also causes mono), one form is sporadic (as opposed to endemic), and one form is associated with immunodeficiencies such as AIDS. The endemic form of Burkitt’s lymphoma typically causes a large, painful jaw mass, while the sporadic form more commonly involved the intestines. Interestingly, another name for EBV is Human Herpesvirus-4 (HHV-4). EBV, or HHV-4, also causes nasopharyngeal carcinoma in southeast Asia (and elsewhere). It is clear that there is a real connection between viruses and cancer.

Now back to Robert Silverman, who discovered a new retrovirus called XMRV.

The retrovirus was very similar to MLV, a group of viruses that can cause cancer and neurological and immunological diseases in mice. Silverman found XMRV in a subset of prostate tumours, and more recent research found a stronger correlation between XMRV and aggressive prostate tumours.

We should pause for a moment and explain the difference between a virus and a retrovirus. A virus is a very simple organism – basically a protein shell containing a little DNA. Viruses need to find hosts because they lack the tools to multiply on their own.

Cells also contain DNA, but cells (especially those of complex organisms such as humans) have ridiculous amounts of DNA. Most of the instructions in DNA used by cells on a daily basis are for creating proteins. Since mistakes are most likely to occur proportionally to how often DNA is copied, a system using RNA minimizes copying by only duplicating the specific section of DNA needed to build a specific protein. RNA is slightly different than DNA on a molecular level, so cellular machinery can respond to it but not to DNA. A cell which needs a particular protein manufactured goes through the following (simplified) steps:

1. A portion of DNA is translated into RNA.
2. RNA is sent to the endoplasmic reticulum.
3. The specified protein is built.

A standard virus hijacks the cell’s machinery by inserting DNA, which gets translated into RNA, which is then made into the specified protein; only in that case the protein is the virus.

Retroviruses are more insidious. They contain RNA rather than DNA. When a retrovirus attacks a cell, the RNA gets translated into DNA, which then gets incorporated into the cell’s own genome. Rather than hijacking the cellular machinery for their own nefarious plans, they Borg the cell. From then on, every time the cell multiplies it is bringing the virus along with it. Our genome is littered with scars from ancient battles with retroviruses which may have fundamentally shaped us into what we are today.

Alright, enough with the interruptions already.

Judy Mikovits of the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease in Reno, Nevada, asked Silverman to see if there was a connection to chronic fatigue syndrome.

Mikovits asked Silverman to analyze the blood samples of 101 CFS patients and 218 healthy controls. The authors detected XMRV DNA in the immune cells of 67% of the CFS patients but in only 3.7% of healthy controls. The authors also showed that the virus was able to spread from infected immune cells to cultured prostate cancer cells and that the virus’s DNA sequence was more than 99% similar to the sequence of the virus associated with prostate cancer. The findings were published in Science.

So far, although the results are encouraging, there has only been one pilot study completed. The magic which makes science work is verification and duplication of results.

William Reeves, principal investigator for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s CFS public health research programme, says the findings are “unexpected and surprising” and that it is “almost unheard of to find an association of this magnitude between an infectious agent and a well-defined chronic disease, much less an illness like CFS”.

But Reeves is cautious. “Until the work is independently verified, the report represents a single pilot study,” he says. According to Reeves, the CDC is already trying to replicate these findings. He also notes that CFS is a heterogeneous disease and likely arises from a combination of many factors.

The Wall Street Journal has a heartbreaking example of the suffering caused by CFS:

Ms. Whittemore-Goad says she was a regular school girl, playing sports and involved in school activities, until the age of 10, when she became ill with a monolike virus that she couldn’t shake. She said doctors first told her parents that the illness was psychological, that she had school phobia and was under stress from her parents. “We kept searching for an answer,” says Ms. Whittemore-Goad, who says lymph nodes in her groin were so painful that her brothers and sisters used to have to carry her upstairs. She was diagnosed at age 12 with chronic-fatigue syndrome.

Over the years, doctors have treated her symptoms, like intense headaches and severe pain, but the illness persists. She has had her gallbladder, spleen, and appendix removed because they became infected. She tried an experimental drug that she says gave her relief for years, but she then started experiencing side effects and had to stop taking it. Recently the illness has become worse; she began suffering seizures and can no longer drive.

Go read the whole thing.

If this virus is the cause of CFS, diagnosis and detection can be done with a simple blood test. Antiretroviral therapies designed in the fight against HIV are under investigation as a potential cure. The story is not yet over but we remain hopeful that this breakthrough represents the real deal for sufferers of CFS.

• Source
• Source
• Source
• Source
• Source

Bacon Sniffles: The New, Deadlier H1N1 Swine Flu

The only good thing about getting H1N1 Swine Flu is being able to rest easy knowing that you didn’t contract the much deadlier Bacon Sniffles:

Bacon Sniffles

Fluffy, soft, friendly euphemism for the much nastier, scarier, oh-my-god-we’re-all-going-to-die-lier Human Swine Influenza.

In humans, the symptoms of Bacon Sniffles are similar to those of Human Swine Influenza, namely chills, fever, muscle pains, severe headache, and weakness, but also include irrational panic, currency hoarding, an obsession with constantly updating statistics, and a tendency toward Mad-Max-like scavenging for food, gasoline, and potable water.

Heh.

Uncovering The Link Between Breast Density And Breast Cancer

It has been known for a long time that there is a connection between dense breast tissue and an increased risk of developing breast cancer, but only recently have researchers begun to understand why.

Breast tissue is composed of several different types of cells which create different structures. There is the epithelium, consisting of duct cells and milk glands, the stroma, which is the connective tissue for the epithelial cells, and fat.

The 60 women who participated in the Mayo Clinic study were healthy with no history of breast cancer. Their breast tissue was biopsied to determine the difference in cellular composition between dense and non-dense tissue.

Results are now available from more than half of the participants who donated biopsy tissue. Dr. Ghosh found that areas of density contained much more epithelium (6 percent) and stroma (64 percent) and much less fat (30 percent), compared to non-dense tissue that contained less than 1 percent epithelium, about 20 percent stroma, and almost 80 percent fat. “This shows us that both the epithelium and stroma contribute to density, and suggests that the large difference in stroma content in dense breast tissue may play a significant role in breast cancer risk,” Dr. Ghosh says.

Another study took these results a step further:

In a second study, researchers also found that dense breast tissue has more aromatase enzyme than non-dense tissue. This is significant because aromatase helps convert androgen hormones into estrogen, and estrogen is important in breast cancer development, says that study’s lead investigator, Celine Vachon, Ph.D.

“If aromatase is differentially expressed in dense and non-dense breast tissue, this could provide one mechanism by which density may increase breast cancer risk,” Dr. Vachon says.

The researchers have found some strong links thus far, but they are recruiting more women for a second study to validate their findings.

“These are initial findings from one of the first attempts to study breast density at the level of healthy tissue. It doesn’t explain everything yet, but is providing really valuable insights,” says Dr. Ghosh, who established the patient resource for both studies.

Drs. Ghosh and Vachon are finishing their analysis of the initial 60 volunteers, and they are also enrolling more participants in order to validate and expand their findings. “No one knows why density increases breast cancer risk, but we are attempting to connect the dots,” Dr. Vachon says.

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

• Source
• Source

Irradiate This Baloney

The New York Times has a lengthy article which begins with the story of Stephanie Smith, who became paralyzed after contracting a deadly E. coli O157:H7 infection, and continues by detailing the flaws in the way ground beef is processed which allows contaminants to spread.

Meat companies and grocers have been barred from selling ground beef tainted by the virulent strain of E. coli known as O157:H7 since 1994, after an outbreak at Jack in the Box restaurants left four children dead. Yet tens of thousands of people are still sickened annually by this pathogen, federal health officials estimate, with hamburger being the biggest culprit. Ground beef has been blamed for 16 outbreaks in the last three years alone, including the one that left Ms. Smith paralyzed from the waist down. This summer, contamination led to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 states.

Since meat preparation is supposed to be under the supervision of federal food safety inspectors, where are the potential sources of contamination?

Federal inspectors based at the plant are supposed to monitor the hide removal, but much can go wrong. Workers slicing away the hide can inadvertently spread feces to the meat, and large clamps that hold the hide during processing sometimes slip and smear the meat with feces, the workers and inspectors say.

Greater Omaha vacuums and washes carcasses with hot water and lactic acid before sending them to the cutting floor. But these safeguards are not foolproof.

“As the trimmings are going down the processing line into combos or boxes, no one is inspecting every single piece,” said one federal inspector who monitored Greater Omaha and requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

The E. coli risk is also present at the gutting station, where intestines are removed, the inspector said

Every five seconds or so, half of a carcass moves into the meat-cutting side of the slaughterhouse, where trimmers said they could keep up with the flow unless they spot any remaining feces.“We would step in and stop the line, and do whatever you do to take it off,” said Esley Adams, a former supervisor who said he was fired this summer after 16 years following a dispute over sick leave. “But that doesn’t mean everything was caught.”

Another problem is that processors do not want to get the individual slaughterhouses in trouble, or they will lose them as a supplier.

The food safety officer at American Foodservice, which grinds 365 million pounds of hamburger a year, said it stopped testing trimmings a decade ago because of resistance from slaughterhouses. “They would not sell to us,” said Timothy P. Biela, the officer. “If I test and it’s positive, I put them in a regulatory situation. One, I have to tell the government, and two, the government will trace it back to them. So we don’t do that.”

Although some processors may not be carrying out enough inspections, the problem is really that the final ground product is what gets inspected in most cases, not the batch of trimmings coming in from any particular supplier. Meat from different suppliers are mixed together. A contaminated batch of ground beef can therefore be traced to a processor, but not to a specific supplier.

The sad part of this whole tale is the conclusion presented by the New York Times reporter:

Dr. Petersen, the U.S.D.A. official, said the department had adopted additional procedures, including enhanced testing at slaughterhouses implicated in outbreaks and better training for investigators.

“We are not standing still when it comes to E. coli,” Dr. Petersen said.

The department has held a series of meetings since the recent outbreaks, soliciting ideas from all quarters. Dr. Samadpour, the laboratory owner, has said that “we can make hamburger safe,” but that in addition to enhanced testing, it will take an aggressive use of measures like meat rinses and safety audits by qualified experts.

At these sessions, Felicia Nestor, a senior policy analyst with the consumer group Food and Water Watch, has urged the government to redouble its effort to track outbreaks back to slaughterhouses. “They are the source of the problem,” Ms. Nestor said.

We find it curious that a major newspaper can publish a lengthy story which is clearly the result of careful research and somehow come to a conclusion which is exactly the same as it would be if Food and Water Watch wrote the entire article. Please note that no other possible solutions to the problems are written about in the article.

As we have previously revealed, the best kind of advocacy pieces masquerading as journalism or science do not commit crimes of commission, rather, they simply omit pertinent data which the average, non-expert reader would otherwise be unaware of.

In this particular case, there are two simple answers which can deal with the problems posed by the article simply and effectively without the need for more government regulation, inspectors, and taxes.

The first answer comes from Reason:

What solution? Irradiation. That is, treating foods with gamma, electron beam or X-ray radiation to kill bacteria that might be found on food before it is offered to the consumer. It is no more dangerous than pasteurization of milk and would prevent tens of thousands of food poisoning episodes if widely adopted.

According to research by the CDC, irradiation works and is safe:

Treating raw meat and poultry with irradiation at the slaughter plant could eliminate bacteria commonly found raw meat and raw poultry, such as E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Campylobacter. These organisms currently cause millions of infections and thousands of hospitalizations in the United States every year. Raw meat irradiation could also eliminate Toxoplasma organisms, which can be responsible for severe eye and congenital infections. Irradiating prepared ready-to-eat meats like hot dogs and deli meats, could eliminate the risk of Listeria from such foods. Irradiation could also eliminate bacteria like Shigella and Salmonella from fresh produce. The potential benefit is also great for those dry foods that might be stored for long times and transported over great distances, such as spices and grains. Animal feeds are often contaminated with bacteria like Salmonella. Irradiation of animal feeds could prevent the spread of Salmonella and other pathogens to livestock through feeds.

Reason’s conclusion is markedly different than the one reached by the New York Times:

Why should Americans be forced to trust their health chiefly to the good will of politically well-connected corporations and a bunch of bureaucrats when applying a simple elegant inexpensive technnology can go a long way toward solving the problem?

The second solution is: get to know your butcher. Go and visit a local butcher shop that makes their ground beef on the spot. It will cost more than the premade patties you can find in major supermarkets because it is made fresh on the spot with higher quality ingredients. As we have found, making friends with the butcher can also help you snag really high quality cuts of meat which are rarely available outside of high end steakhouses.

• Source
• Source
• Source

Eat Your Way To Happiness

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. Have look around, enjoy the show.

Since the lifetime prevalence of mental disorders is lower in Mediterranean countries than in Northern European countries, a study was conducted to see if diet plays a role as a protective factor.

We have covered the Mediterranean diet previously, in the article Take It Or Leave It? The Truth About 8 Mediterranean Diet Staples, which we recommend reading to get up to speed about the particulars of this diet.

The report was published in the October issue of Archives of General Psychiatry. Over 10,000 Spanish people participated in this study. Participants had to fill out a survey detailing their dietary intake. Researchers then translated those details into a level of adherence to the Mediterranean diet using a system of nine components. For example, one such component is maintaining a high ratio of monounsaturated fatty acids to saturated fatty acids in the diet.

After a median (midpoint) of 4.4 years of follow-up, 480 new cases of depression were identified, including 156 in men and 324 in women. Individuals who followed the Mediterranean diet most closely had a greater than 30 percent reduction in the risk of depression than whose who had the lowest Mediterranean diet scores. The association did not change when the results were adjusted for other markers of a healthy lifestyle, including marital status and use of seatbelts.

The scale of the study seems to clearly show some correlation between following the Mediterranean diet and better mental health. However, as long time readers are undoubtedly aware, correlation is not causation.

“The specific mechanisms by which a better adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern could help to prevent the occurrence of depression are not well known,” the authors write. Components of the diet may improve blood vessel function, fight inflammation, reduce risk for heart disease and repair oxygen-related cell damage, all of which may decrease the chances of developing depression.

“However, the role of the overall dietary pattern may be more important than the effect of single components. It is plausible that the synergistic combination of a sufficient provision of omega-three fatty acids together with other natural unsaturated fatty acids and antioxidants from olive oil and nuts, flavonoids and other phytochemicals from fruit and other plant foods and large amounts of natural folates and other B vitamins in the overall Mediterranean dietary pattern may exert a fair degree of protection against depression,” the authors write.

There may be a combination of factors at play here. Perhaps living in Spain is less depressing than living in Northern Europe regardless of diet. We need scientists to unravel the specific mechanisms which are responsible for these results. Until then, we can only speculate.

Vitamin D is called the “sunshine vitamin” for a reason, and people in Northern Europe may simply not be getting enough.

Dairy is a good source of Vitamin D, but most people do not eat enough dairy to meet their daily requirements without sun exposure. Aside from the fact that eating so much dairy may be unhealthy and counterproductive, 60% of adults cannot digest lactose.

An important component of the Mediterranean diet is fish, and fish are rich in Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). A recent study determined that feeding infants formula enriched with DHA is worth the cost premium because it can enhance IQ.

• Source
• Source

You Can Digg It!

The 3 Monkeys Guide to Health is now available on Digg. Digg has a voting system which allows members to recommend anything they find interesting. When many people recommend an item, it may become popular enough to get placed on the front page which leads to even more widespread awareness of the item.

We will be submitting the articles we publish to Digg, and we recommend voting on any ones which are of particular interest to you. You need to be a member of Digg to participate in this, but joining is free.

About A Girl

The death of Natalie Morton at 14 years old is a tragic and cautionary tale.

She died within hours of receiving Cervarix, the HPV1 vaccine. Following the rule obeyed by the general public that correlation = causation, a huge outcry blaming the vaccine began making the rounds. This was undoubtedly fueled in part by those groups and individuals dedicated to eliminating vaccines altogether.

The National Health Service in England took a cautionary approach and suspended use of the vaccine until they could complete and investigation. The real medical professionals were betting that a batch of vaccines had become tainted somehow.

So far, 1.4 million doses of the vaccine have been administered.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) received 2,137 reports of suspected side effects of Cervarix between April 14, 2008 and September 23 this year.

The total number of suspected reactions is 4,657.

In total, there were 575 reports relating to side effects at the site of the injection, such as swelling and extreme pain, and another 241 allergic reactions, such as rash, swollen face and swollen lips.

A total of 455 reports were linked to ‘psychogenic effects’ such as nausea, panic attacks and fainting while 955 were other recognised effects like headache and sickness.

A total of 330 reports were suspected reactions not currently recognised, such as palpitations, blurred vision, chest pain and flu-like illness.

The MHRA said on September 23 that the balance of risks and benefits of Cervarix remains positive.

Globally, many vaccine doses have been administered and no deaths are directly related to the vaccine.

Gardasil, an HPV vaccination (though different than the one the girl in England received), has been given to over 7 million girls, yet there have been only 20 deaths after getting the shot… and for almost all of them there is no obvious relation between the shot and the fatality except for timing. In other words, they were tragic coincidences.

The story concludes on the following note:

“The pathologist has confirmed today at the opening of the inquest into the death of Natalie Morton that she died from a large malignant tumor of unknown origin in the heart and lungs,” said Dr Caron Grainger, joint director of public health for the Coventry area where Natalie died.

“There is no indication that the HPV vaccine, which she had received shortly before her death, was a contributing factor to the death, which could have arisen at any point,” Grainger said in a statement.

It was a terrible coincidence of timing. Our deepest condolences go out to her friends and family.

• Source
• Source
• Source

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire

The article we published recently, Smoking Bans Reduce Heart Attacks: Lying By Omission, was posted for discussion on LinkedIn. Since the discussion and comments are only viewable to members of the Cornell network, we cannot address any issues which are being raised directly on LinkedIn.

A member of the network forwarded some of the comments to us and we will address them here. Please take a moment to register and comment on our site if you would like to join in the discussion. We are willing to answer your questions but we have to know the questions exist in the first place.

Since a few commenters made multiple points and because there is overlap on some of the issues raised, we will first post the comments in full and then address the individual points.

Vernon C.:

Do you deny that smoking causes heart and lung disease? Do you deny that we, as a society, pay higher health insurance premiums when there is a higher incidence of disease? Then why is it questionable for society to limit smoking by any method it chooses in order to reduce our costs?

Bonnie F.:

The article is focusing on the smoking issue and the specific way in which scientific data about secondhand smoke has been manipulated to promote indoor smoking bans. The larger point seems to be that letting public officials with pretty fundamentalist agendas get away with lying to the public about the science in order to get laws passed is setting a bad precedent.

Steve K.:

And this makes the public officials different from the ‘I had no idea nicotine was addictive’ Tobacco CEOs in WHAT way? Secondhand smoke is DISGUSTING. I do not CARE what the science says, it is DISGUSTING, and I have absolutely no problem with smoking being banned EVERYWHERE.It is also a public health risk, and if the health issues are not enough for you, look at the fire statistics. The only likely supporters of smoking are people in the tobacco business and firefighters – depending on whose numbers you want to use, tobacco is responsible for 40% to 80% of house fires.. which keeps them employed.

Mark C.:

A implies B, and I believe B, so A must be true. This fallacy is the foundation of public support for bogus science. People like the conclusions so they accept any rationale that comes their way. They really don’t care if the science is bogus, so long as the conclusion is what they want to hear.

But, just because A is bogus, doesn’t mean B is false. Matter of fact it is easier to get bogus A’s accepted when B is true.

Eric S.:

Hi there. Tobacco is a known carcinogen. I would anticipate that, since the smoking bans have only recently gone into effect, it’s a bit soon to be able to trace benefits to reduction in disease from second hand smoke. Are you aware of any studies that measure the reduction in carcinogenic material that occurs by retention/conversion in the smoker’s lungs and blood stream?

Please be careful about charging fraud in the discussion of the health effects of tobacco ingestion (smoke, chew, etc.) when the obscene fraud practiced by the tobacco companies and their allied state representatives has been well documented.

Marc M.:

>>The larger point seems to be that letting public officials with pretty fundamentalist agendas get away with lying to the public about the science in order to get laws passed is setting a bad precedent.<<

I don’t even know where to start with this comment, but let me start by saying I live in Texas, a state well known for folks with fundamentalist agenda’s lying to the public about science to get laws passed, albeit in quite a different manner than you might be thinking. That said, Mark makes an excellent point that notwithstanding the possible misinterpretation of allegedly bogus science (where the general scientific consensus is fairly consistent in favor of anti-smoking activists, however), there is still an extremely strong case in favor of indoor smoking bans on just the yuck factor, amongst other reasons.

And it is interesting that the 3 Monkeys also repeat the mantra about the alleged economic catastrophe that would occur with indoor smoking bans, which has repeatedly been show to be bogus (including in several places here in Texas!).

And Steve, firefighters are never in favor of things that actually start fires. I wold rather take my training and sit on my rear in the fire station than make a fire – fires are tragedies in terms of both potential for lives lost AND for the loss of personal history and memories when it is damaged by smoke, water and fire.

Steve K.:

Re: Fire prevention – what I was trying to convey is that I have never heard of a fire department advocating a ban on indoor or unenclosed flame sources. (maybe someone has done so, but I have not heard of it) There must be commerical fire suppression systems that could be installed over gas stoves. Beyond that, ban all unenclosed flame sources, and if a fire is found to have been started by an unenclosed flame source, send the person responsible a bill for the full cost of fighting the fire.
Fires started by cigarettes are NOT accidents, they are acts of stupidity. Why should firefighters have to risk their lives to put out such fires? How many fewer firefighters would a community need if cigarettes were simply banned?

Marc M.:

Steve, you were on the hill about the same time (OK, a few years earlier, but not much) as I was – don’t you remember the ban of candles in campus residence halls? And that was back in the 80’s.

Gas stoves are relatively contained flames and there are codes which govern the installation of such objects – only in commercial occupancies are there rules requiring fire suppression systems. These codes are promulgated for fire prevention reasons and supported by the fire service through the NFPA and other organizations.

Re: fires started by cigarettes – the problem with a fire is that you don’t always know what caused the fire before you put it out – often you don’t know what started it. They get put out, then we determine cause. But there would probably be little decrease in the number of firefighters required because staffing and deployment patterns are governed by time and distance more than by actual numbers of events. Plus, most fire departments now are actually EMS delivery system that provide fire suppression as an ancillary service, so decreases in numbers would impact those services more than the fire suppression services.

And no doubt fires caused by cigarettes are acts of stupidity (or drunkenness, actually, but that may be the same thing).

Here is a distillation of the points raised above, and the answers:

• Tobacco smoking is a major cause of house fires and indoor smoking even at home should be banned.

Factually incorrect. According to the CDC and the NFPA, cooking fires are the number one cause (40%) of house fires. However, it is worth noting that although under 12% of fires (4% of fires originate in the living room, family room, or den; 8% in the bedroom) can be attributed to smoking, it is responsible for more (25%) of the fatalities.

It seems likely that many of the people who were involved in fatal fires with smoking as a cause were impaired by alcohol at the time. By logical extension, we should advocate a ban on drinking alcohol at home. We are sure an intrepid researcher can unearth a strong connection between drinking at home and all sorts of preventable physical and property damage.

We pay for the fire department through taxes and we are required by law to have fire insurance. On on unrelated note, health insurance should be like fire insurance – covering catastrophes, not routine medical expenses.

• Big Tobacco lied about the extent of the dangers associated with their products, therefore claiming that there is fraud involved in research supporting indoor smoking bans is probably a lie supported by Big Tobacco.

Even if Big Tobacco were directly funding research showing how data is being manipulated to support indoor smoking bans, it in no way changes the fact that data is being manipulated. Aside from the lack of direct funding from Big Tobacco, those sources arguing for an examination of the underlying research have been proven right by the original research.

The primary justification for curtailing the freedom of businesses to choose to allow their customers to smoke indoors and for customers to choose to support such businesses is based on the health risks posed to the employees by the secondhand smoke. According to the Surgeon General’s report the actual correlation between secondhand smoke (aka ETS, Environmental Tobacco Smoke) and things like cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, and arrhythmic heart failure or coronary arrest mortality is low enough to be attributable to statistical noise.

Here’s a bit of perspective: the highest risk ratio is for cardiovascular disease, at 1.25. The risk ratio of dying from a traffic accident (for women) on Friday the 13th is 1.38 according to research published in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Therefore it is safe to bet that traffic will be light on November 13th, 2009 because all our female readers will have opted to take the bus or train to work instead.

• Many people simply find tobacco “yucky” and therefore it should be banned anywhere it may come into contact with others. Also, smoking is really bad for you.
  

Smoking tobacco is bad for you and there is no great controversy in saying so. However, it is not the issue we are dealing with here. To reiterate: the issue is that the science shows no ill effects from secondhand smoke, therefore the justification for banning smoking indoors in the name of protecting employees is nonexistent.

The “yucky” argument is flat out childish and sophomoric. Try to defend against it when used as an argument against something you like, which other people abhor.

• People making out on TV is “yucky” and against my religious values, therefore it should be banned from being broadcast.

There is no law forcing anyone to own a television, watch particular shows, or derive spiritual sustenance from it. Turn it off, change the channel, or don’t buy a TV in the first place since broadcasters are providing their audience with what they want. You can affect change by not being part of the audience.

• Small dog breeds are ankle biting terrorists and should be banned. They are a menace to everyone with ankles, and creating something called a “dog” which can get its butt whooped by a 10 lb. house cat is an affront to the basic dignity afforded to every living creature.

No law forces anyone to buy a small dog or hang out at the dog park. In the rare instance you are bitten by one, call the police and file a report.

Now we would like you to imagine that an individual with such a view was in a position of power – say as mayor of Big Major City – and used some shady statistics to justify banning certain breeds of small dogs. Due to the importance of Big Major City, many other cities followed suit and banned those breeds as well. Then a report is issued citing selected cities in which banning those small dogs improved quality of life. In fact, the report is so positive that the mayor of Big Major City and others begin pushing to expand on the success of the original ban by extending it to include all dogs.

All that, because some nutter thinks dogs are “yucky”.

• The reports indicating an economic decline after smoking bans were put into effect are false and misleading.

We came across research which clearly showed an economic decline as a result of indoor smoking bans. To argue otherwise you must show a flaw in the research or provide some other source of data to back up that claim.

Absent a smoking ban, how can someone who finds secondhand smoke “yucky” go about creating change? By choosing with whom you do business. Whether it is a restaurant, bar, or bowling alley, by choosing to direct your business to places with a smoke free environment your actions are causing them to be more successful and thereby encouraging more of that type of business.

The fact that many nightlife places were environments which encouraged smoking shows that the majority of people voted with their hard earned money to keep those places thriving. It means that many of the people who participated in nightlife either liked having a cigarette with their drink or did not mind that others did. To argue that bars and clubs did not suffer economically after smoking bans were put into effect is to ignore the huge support they were receiving from locals and to ignore that people respond to incentives. Furthermore, if only a small percentage of nightlife participants are non-smokers and/or cannot tolerate secondhand smoke, where are all the extra people coming from to replace the smokers who choose to stay at home?

Freedom is what is at stake here. Smoking is dangerous and bad for you, but so are many other things. The indoor smoking bans in effect are the result of the minority imposing their views and beliefs on the majority by lying. The economics show that the majority of the public impacted by ban were against it.

Exit question: If the indoor smoking ban cannot be justified based on science, are supporters of the ban essentially guilty of “we’re just trying to do what’s best for you” paternalism? If that is true, what can citizens do to prevent something like this from happening in the future?

Why Health Insurance Should Be Like Fire Insurance

Steven Perlstein has a good article in The Washington Post explaining some of the problems with health insurance as it exists today.

There is a part of health insurance that is meant to protect us from unpredictable or unavoidable “catastrophes,” such as getting cancer or having a heart attack. But there is also a part of health insurance that covers fairly predictable and routine medical expenses — the annual physical, a kid’s ear infection or a colonoscopy for a 55-year-old. In those cases, health insurance is not so much protection from catastrophe as it is a mechanism to “prepay” what is likely to be the bill for your own care.

Simply giving people more insurance without addressing the fundamental issues in the existing system is precisely the reason we feel Congress is not serious about reforming healthcare.

Here are a few other interesting points he discusses:

Then there are those who are demanding that Medicare pay more to doctors and hospitals in areas with high medical costs. In reality, this is nothing more than requiring the rest of us to subsidize the inefficient lifestyles and cost structures in rural communities and big cities.

Those who want to prohibit insurance companies from charging higher premiums to people who smoke, drink heavily, abuse drugs or have unhealthy diets apparently take the position that these behaviors should be subsidized by those who take better care of their health.

And those who rail against limits to end-of-life care are effectively saying that patients willing to follow the best medical evidence about what works and what is cost-effective should be required to subsidize those who don’t.

In a free country, people have the right to decide what to buy, where to live, what to eat and drink, and how much medical care to buy. They’re even free to negotiate for health benefits instead of wage increases. What they don’t have is the right to expect that everyone else should pay for their choices through higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums.

People respond to incentives. If regular, planned treatment continues to get covered by insurance (like using insurance to pay for groceries) then prices will remain high, unevenly distributed and opaque. If there is no penalty for making poor choices, then poor choices will abound.

Go read the whole thing.

Over a year ago Bill Whittle wrote an excellent essay which explains why government healthcare (especially in guise of the “public option”) is a terrible blow against freedom.

There’s a scene in Bowling For Columbine where Michael Moore interviews a typically decent and friendly Canadian as he emerges from a health clinic. The poor fellow had, as I recall, some serious injury, and Mssr. Moore wanted to know what it had cost him for treatment.

The man couldn’t reply. They hadn’t charged him. This took Michael Moore’s carefully rehearsed breath away! No charge? You mean, you got that medical attention for free?

That’s right, eh.

Cut to beatific look on directors face, as if he had just been handed a clean plate at a Shoney’s Breakfast Bar.

Folks, Canadians are great people. They are not a stupid people. So can we not, please, not ever again, call this Free Health Care? It is Pre-paid Health Care. That Canadian fellow paid for that treatment every week, for the past twenty years. It was taken out of every paycheck he made. He paid for that medical care, and much, much more. He paid for it whether he needed it or not. And he not only paid for the doctor, he paid for the bureaucrats and administrators in the National Health Service or whatever it’s called. It was not free. It was paid for. Whether he needed it or not. When he has fully recovered, years from now, he will still be paying for it. Every week, from every check. That car or vacation he couldn’t afford, got eaten up by health care he paid for but did not need.

So the question is, who better decides what kind of health care you and your family need: you, or Hillary Clinton? I understand that not all poor people can afford health insurance. Again, being a decent sort of fellow beneath my strikingly handsome exterior, I don’t mind paying a little extra for Medicare for people who need help. I can even live with my insurance rates being higher to cover the cost of caring for the uninsured at the Emergency Room.

But! What I most assuredly DO NOT need is for someone taking my money to give me a health care system I do not need or want. As my all-time idol P.J. O’Rourke once said, if you think health care is expensive now, just wait till you see what it costs when it’s free.

This is a great example of the seduction of the state, because “Free Health Care” sounds like a great deal. It’s Caring! It’s Healthy! And it’s Free!

It’s not free. And not only do I object to being told what I need and don’t need, I also object to the idea that some dim-witted Student Council dork thinks he knows what’s better for me than I do.

P.J. Again: if you think that Public is an altar to worship at, put the word “public” in front of these words and tell me how you feel: Restroom. Swimming pool. Transportation. Here’s another: Take the words Decision, Officer, Appointment, and then add the word “political” to the front end and watch them drop in value.

So, look around. Look at how people feel about government, and ask yourself, does this or that person think of themselves as an adult or as a helpless child? Freedom is not for children. Freedom means responsibility. It means making tough decisions yourself. Freedom is not government. Almost all government is the enemy of freedom; the bigger the government, the more powerful the enemy.

This is an excerpt from a longer essay which makes several other worthwhile points, so go read the whole thing.

• Source
• Source

Cancer Surgery Breakthrough: Electrosurgery + Mass Spectrometry = Real Time Tumor Identification

If you have never heard of electrosurgery before, here is some background information:

Electrosurgery is the application of a high-frequency electric current to biological tissue as a means to cut, coagulate, desiccate, or fulgurate tissue. […] Its benefits include the ability to make precise cuts with limited blood loss. Electrosurgical devices are frequently used during surgical operations helping to prevent blood loss in hospital operating rooms or in outpatient procedures.

In electrosurgical procedures, the tissue is heated by an electric current. Although electrical devices may be used for the cauterization of tissue in some applications, electrosurgery is usually used to refer to a quite different method than electrocautery. The latter uses heat conduction from a probe heated by a direct current (much in the manner of a soldering iron), whereas electrosurgery uses alternating current to directly heat the tissue itself.

The main reason surgeons use electrosurgical tools is to minimize blood loss. A team of German and Hungarian researchers decided to adapt one such electroscalpel by attaching a pump to suck up tiny particles of tissue which get vaporized during cutting.

In electrosurgery, tissue is locally exposed to high-frequency electrical current in order to guide a cut, remove tissue, or halt bleeding. The tissue being treated becomes very hot and is partially vaporized. The electrical current also generates electrically charged molecules during the vaporization. The team of scientists from the University of Giessen, the Budapest firm Massprom, Semmelweis University, and the National Research Institute for Radiobiology and Radiohygiene, also in Budapest, made use of this process for their new method called rapid evaporation ionization mass spectrometry, or REIMS. They equipped an electrosurgical instrument with a special pump that sucks the vaporized cell components up through a tube and introduces the charged molecules into a mass spectrometer.

Once it was shown that obtaining the tissue was feasible, they were fortunate to discover that the different types of tissue are rapidly and easily distinguished by a mass spectrometer.

It turns out that mainly lipids, the components of cell membranes, are registered by the mass spectrometer. “Different tissue types demonstrate characteristic differences in their lipid composition,” explains Takáts. “Tumor tissue also differs from healthy tissue.” The scientists were able to develop a special algorithm to unambiguously identify and differentiate between types of tissue.

“Tissue analysis with REIMS, including data analysis, requires only fractions of a second,” according to Takáts. “During an operation, the surgeon thus received virtually real-time information about the nature of the tissue as he was cutting it.” This opens new vistas for cancer surgery in particular: the method helps to precisely localize the tumor during surgery and to delimit it from the surrounding healthy tissue. REIMS also provides information about whether the carcinoma is in an early or advanced stage.

We hope this technique becomes widely available as soon as possible.

• Source