Health Newsletter:September 2008
Related Links:From WebHealth
Contents |
[edit] Survey Shows People Underestimate Lifestyle Factors As Cancer Causes
Roy Morgan Research Company and Gallup International have released an opinion poll study at the recent International Union Against Cancer’s World Cancer Congress in Geneva (August 27 to 31, 2008) that reveals significant differences among low-income countries and high-income countries. Cancer of the liver and other cancers can be caused by alcohol and throat and lung cancer as well as others are caused by carcinogens from cigarette smoking. These are medical facts that have been well established. But the opinion poll showed that there is ignorance and confusion in the public both in poor and wealthy nations. For instance in high-income countries 42% felt that there was no cancer risk from drinking alcohol and 8% were unsure, in low-income countries 15% were of the opinion that alcohol was not a cancer risk and 29% were unable to say. Other differences were that 62% of people in wealthier nations believed that cancer was one of the three top health issues in the country, while only 36% of people in poorer nations believed this. On the other hand with so much information about pollution in the press 76% to 78% of people living in middle and high income countries are of the opinion that this is an important cause of cancer while only 30% believe this in the poorer countries. The reality is that smoking and drinking of alcohol are more important in terms of cancer causation than pollution is. David Hill, president-elect of the International Union Against Cancer, said that these opinion polls reveal data about attitudes and believes previously unknown. This kind of data can be used to formulate programs for cancer prevention so that the public is accurately informed about cancer facts and they learn in rich and poor countries alike that factors like smoking, drinking alcohol and a high body mass index are more significant cancer causes than pollution. Pollution is more difficult to control by the individual, but these life style factors can be modified, and people need to be empowered to make the right choices.
International Union Against Cancer’s World Cancer Congress in Geneva (August 27 to 31, 2008)
[edit] Ayurvedic Medicines Sold On Internet Can Contain Toxic Metals
In the wake of recalls on prescription drugs that showed hazardous side effects, many consumers seek alternatives. Often Ayurvedic medicine is seen as a less hazardous alternative, and medications are ordered on the internet or purchased in stores. There may be the notion that products that are manufactured in the US may be subject to stricter controls than imported items. All these assumptions leave the consumer confused as what to believe or trust. Investigators have tried to shed some more light on Ayurvedic medications. Six hundred and seventy three oral products were identified and random samplings of 230 products were purchased. Under the lead author Robert B. Saper of Boston University School of Medicine a technique called fluorescence spectroscopy was applied to examine the products for the presence of toxic metals. Of 193 products that were tested, 20.7% showed noticeable concentrations of toxic metals. Of those products that showed contamination 21.7% were US made and 19.5% were manufactured in India.The highest concentrations- namely 40.6%-were found in rasa shastra products, as compared to 17.1 % for non-rasa shastra products. The most prevailing contaminants were lead and mercury. Of these contaminated medicines 95% were sold by US websites, and shockingly 75% of the sites claimed “Good Manufacturing Products”. All of the toxic metal levels exceeded standards for acceptable daily intake. Ayurvedic medicines are widely used in India and in other parts of the world. There are previous reports describing lead poisoning caused by these types of medicines. In rasa shastra products herbs are combined with metals such as lead, mercury, iron or zinc. Often mineral gems are also part of the compound. In view of the heavy metal levels the researchers suggest third party testing of the product and government-mandated daily dose limits.
JAMA. 2008;300:915-923
[edit] Listeriosis Outbreak In Canada
A rash of Listeriosis cases in Canada has given rise to more public awareness of this illness. The recent presentation became manifest as a food borne illness, has been traced to one food processing company, and the facility is undergoing a thorough clean-up. Even though Listeriosis can present as a food borne illness, it is quite different from the contamination of foods with E. coli (“hamburger disease”) or food borne illness to salmonella contamination. The onset of illness in hamburger disease occurs rather quickly after the food has been ingested and can lead to a serious illness with kidney failure. Listeriosis, which is caused by the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes has a much longer incubation time, in some cases up to 70 days, and it can take much longer till it is detected. It can present like a febrile gastroenteritis (a stomach flu accompanied by a fever) in people who have a weakened immune system. A less common disease picture shows symptoms that look like influenza, but sometimes there can be shock and malfunction of the kidneys. In early pregnancy the infection with Listeriosis can lead to miscarriage, and late in pregnancy the result may either be stillbirth or sepsis in the newborn. Even if the disease in the pregnant patient is mild, it will be almost always fatal for the child in the womb. If Listeria infection is suspected in the case of gastroenteritis, the laboratory should be notified, so the stool or blood specimens are kept and especially examined for Listeria. Foods that carried the bacterium and caused the illness were sandwich meats and ready made sandwiches. Consumers should inform themselves carefully, which food products were affected by recalls and also check packages for expiry dates.
CBC News and Cohen & Powderly: Infectious Diseases, 2nd ed. 2004 Mosby
[edit] Runners Live Healthier Lives
It has been known for some time that exercise is healthy for you. But how do runners do on the long-term? This has been investigated in a recent study spanning 21 years from 1984 to 2003 published in the August edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine. 538 members 50 years or older of a nationwide running club were compared to a sample of 423 healthy controls. In the beginning of the study the members (all males) were 50 years or older. Disability levels were assessed with a health questionnaire and classified into a scale from 0 (no disability) to 3 (unable to perform). Death rates were also determined.
The results showed that disability scores were always lower in runners (0.17) than in controls that did not run (0.36), which translated into 39% less disability. In 2003 the death rate was 34% in the controls, but only 15% in the runner group, in other words a 38% better survival of runners compared to the controls. In 2005 a further follow-up showed that the survival curve was still increasing for the runners who had now entered their eighties.
The authors of this study pointed out that length of life, health status and disability status can all be significantly improved with regular moderate exercise such as running. Other studies have suggested this as well, but none has followed this up over such a long period (21 years). Increasing healthy lifestyle behaviors will also reduce health care costs and prevent disabilities from chronic diseases.
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1638-1646
[edit] Flu Shot Not Reducing Risk Of Death
We have all been told over and over that influenza vaccination would reduce mortality risk in the elderly. New research from the University of Alberta published in the September issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine by Dr. Eurich and colleagues is revealing that the facts are different. 700 elderly subjects were matched and half were given the Flu vaccine, the other half were not. The study was controlled and matched for a great number of variables to exclude the “healthy user artifact”, which many previous studies had suffered from. The authors critically analyzed previous similar studies and compared them with their findings. They found that there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of mortality or severity of any Flu that was observed. The previous studies had identified differences, but it was noted that this difference had been due to frailty factors among the non-vaccinated controls and a healthy-user artifact among the vaccinated subjects. Dean Eurich, Ph.D. who is a clinical epidemiologist and assistant professor at the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta, pointed out that vaccination rates in the US have increased from 15% to 65% in the last few years. However, he said that hospital admissions or all cause mortality rates have not decreased in a comparable fashion. In addition, he points out that only 10% of all winter time deaths in the United States are related to influenza. This would make the prediction of a cut of death rates from all causes to 50% very unlikely. In his study Dr. Eurich took health records from 6 hospitals in the Capital Health region in Alberta. 12% of patients had died overall and there had been a medium length of hospital stay of 8 days. When 704 patients with community-acquired pneumonia were analyzed who were 65 or older and who had been admitted during the Flu season, half were vaccinated, the other half was not. It depended now on which model was used to analyze the study: vaccinated subjects were about half as likely to die when compared to the unvaccinated patients, a result that was comparable to previous publications. However adjusting for smoking history, sex, functional lung status, severity of the disease, socioeconomic status, prior pneumococcal vaccinations etc. gave a completely different result. Now there was only a 19% relative risk of death in the vaccinated group, which was not statistically significant. There are three consequences of this study according to Sumit Majumdar, M.D., M.P.H., associate professor in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry at the University of Alberta:
1. For patients: people who have chronic lung diseases such as emphysema (COPD), immune deficiencies, or chronic conditions that make them more susceptible to getting the Flu, should still be vaccinated. Also, health care workers, family and friends of elderly patients who are susceptible to get the Flu should get immunized against influenza. But everybody should also take simple steps like washing hands, avoiding hospitals and contact with sick children during the flu season. Antiviral agents for prevention may be something you should consider; discuss this with your doctor. Keep in mind that the flu vaccine is not as effective as it was made out to be.
2. For vaccine manufacturers: previously, claims of effectiveness have been overinflated. They should consider developing more effective vaccines for the elderly.
3. For policy makers and governments: what has been proven is that hygienic measures such as hand washing and isolation procedures are effective. Also, vaccination of children and health care workers will interrupt the infectious cycle.
From: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/119747.php
