Monday, March 12, 2012

383 Brain Tumour link to heavy Mobile Phone usage

Brain Tumour link to heavy Mobile Phone usage

(1) Female Sexual Dysfunction - working women too tired for sex?
(2) Drugs giants cashing in by 'inventing' low libido label in women
(3) Female sexual dysfunction 'excuse by drug firms to sell pills'
(4) Mother branded mentally ill after complaint over daughter's treatment
(5) Big Pharma and Agribusiness trying to curtain Herbal medicines in EU
(6) Antibiotics - the mystery ingredient in your Chicken Kiev
(7) Technology may be eating our minds
(8) Brain Tumour link to heavy Mobile Phone usage

(1) Female Sexual Dysfunction - working women too tired for sex?

Female Sexual Dysfunction

Common Sexual Disorders and Causes of Decreased Libido

By Tracee Cornforth, Guide

Updated December 10, 2009

To explore the topic of female sexual dysfunction, I spoke with Robert Taylor Segraves, M.D, Ph.D., and his wife Kathleen Blindt Segraves, Ph.D. ...

Q. What are the most commonly seen sexual problems in women?A. A recent survey (conducted by Laumann and colleagues at the University of Chicago) of American women (ages 18-59) found that the most common sexual problem in women is hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), more commonly referred to as low sex drive or libido (33.4%), followed by difficulty with orgasm (24.1%). Pain during intercourse--which occurs in 14.4% of women--was the only condition to show a relationship to age -- it decreases as women get older.

HSDD is a deficiency or absence of sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity, as defined by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The definition is vague because the APA acknowledges that there can be significant differences in sexual interest levels among women. According to the survey mentioned above, 37% of women think about sex a few times a month and only 33% think about sex 2-3 times a week or more. Happier women seem to think about sex more often than unhappy women. ...

Q. What causes decreased sexual desire in women?A.Low sex drive can be caused by a range of factors, which vary from one individual to the next. Fatigue, the daily responsibilities and multiple roles women often assume, and many possible psychological causes can impact a woman's sexual appetite. It is also known that certain health conditions and medications can affect a woman's sexual desire. Depression and anxiety disorders can interfere with sexual desire, but so can some of the drugs used to treat these conditions. Many antidepressants, in particular Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, also called SSRIs (e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft), have side effects that have a negative impact on women's libidos. Wellbutrin SR is a possible alternative, as it does not seem to cause sexual problems. Serzone, Remeron and Luvox may not cause problems with sexual desire either.

In addition, birth control pills, mood stabilizers, tranquilizers and other medications have been shown to decrease libido. ...

(2) Drugs giants cashing in by 'inventing' low libido label in women

Last updated at 9:06 AM on 1st October 2010

Drug companies have invented the ‘problem’ of low libido in women so that they can sell new drugs, research claims.

The pharmaceutical industry is accused of creating the label of ‘female sexual dysfunction’ to cash in on a market that doesn’t really exist.

And its employees are paying doctors to talk about the condition as a ‘widespread’ disorder which needs diagnosis and treatment, according to researcher Ray Moynihan.

He argues in the British Medical Journal that trials of drugs claiming to increase women’s libido have so far failed to provide evidence of any health benefit.

The claims, highlighted this week in an investigation by the Daily Mail’s Good Health section, come amid increasing concern about the explosion in labels for new medical conditions.

Doctors warn that some of these are ‘non-diseases’ based on diagnoses that treat normal behavioural differences as medical problems.

The definition of female sexual dysfunction (FSD) has been criticised as merely exaggerating women’s dissatisfaction with their partners. ...

However, Dr Sandy Goldbeck-Wood, a specialist in psychosexual medicine, said in a commentary piece in the BMJ that some women have very real difficulties in getting help for sexual problems.

She said: ‘Faced with a woman in tears whose libido has disappeared and who is terrified of losing her partner, a doctor can feel immense pressure to provide an immediate, effective solution.’

Pfizer declined to be interviewed for Mr Moynihan’s book but in a written statement said it had conducted a ‘number of studies over the past 15 years designed to understand the causes and nature of FSD and its impact on women’.

(3) Female sexual dysfunction 'excuse by drug firms to sell pills'

Female sexual dysfunction 'excuse by drug firms to sell pills'

Pharmaceutical firms accused of trying to turn women's loss of desire into a condition treatable with pills

Sarah Boseley, health editor

The Guardian, Friday 1 October 2010

Drug companies are today accused of attempting to turn the loss of sexual desire that some women experience into a medical condition that can be treated by pills.

Although drugs, from antidepressants to variants of Viagra, have been found ineffective, the companies are charged in an article in the British Medical Journal with inappropriately trying to create a market for pills to treat a condition that is as much psychosocial as biological, and which may need the intervention of a relationship counsellor as much as a doctor.

Ray Moynihan, a journalist and lecturer at the University of Newcastle in Australia, argues in the BMJ that a variety of drug companies have tried to construct a scientific basis for medical treatment for women's loss of libido, running surveys that purport to find that it is widespread and devising ways to diagnose the condition.

Extravagant claims have been made for the numbers of women affected, says Moynihan, who carried out his research for a new book called Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals. ...

(4) Mother branded mentally ill after complaint over daughter's treatment

Mother branded mentally ill after complaint

Date: September 30 2010
Louise Hall

A MOTHER who raised serious concerns about the care of her intellectually disabled daughter at a group home was taken to the Guardianship Tribunal where the state government tried to strip her parental rights.

Documents obtained under freedom of information show disability bureaucrats tried to portray the mother as mentally ill and unfit to make decisions about her daughter, then 19.

The mother, staff at her daughter's special school and her psychiatrist had made complaints that Lifestyle Solutions, the government-funded non-profit organisation that ran the Sutherland Shire group home, was failing to follow treatment plans, had untrained and inexperienced staff, and used psychotropic medication on residents without consent.

''As a parent you're fearful of making complaints and you can see what happened to me once I did,'' the mother said. ''I was viewed as a nuisance and troublemaker because I asked questions about my daughter's care.''

On several occasions her daughter, who has a moderate intellectual disability, extreme anxiety disorder and autistic tendencies, was given such high doses of sedatives that she had difficulty speaking, standing or staying awake.

A psychiatrist, Bruce Chenoweth, reported that she had been ''oversedated'' and told her caseworkers a calm environment, stable routine and increased staffing - not antipsychotic drugs - would help reduce her challenging behaviours.

The head of disability programs at St George and Sutherland Community College, Cathy Lovelock, told the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care she found the home's care ''inappropriate and unprofessional'', adding that, in her 15 years of experience in the sector, she had ''never experienced a service like it''.

After continuing disputes over the best way to manage the girl's behaviour, the department, supported by Lifestyle Solutions, filed an urgent application to the Guardianship Tribunal in March last year, alleging the mother was unfit to make decisions regarding her daughter's medical treatment.

Internal emails show a new behaviour support plan, which included daily doses of sedatives, sleeping medication and banning telephone calls, was commissioned despite caseworkers knowing the mother would not agree to it. Dr Chenoweth was told he could legally increase her dosage once ''a guardian is appointed''.

The tribunal unanimously rejected the application and criticised the department for making ''an unnecessary and probably counterproductive intrusion''.

Following months of lobbying by the opposition spokesman for disability services, Andrew Constance, the chief executive of the department, Jim Moore, has given the family an unreserved apology for the ''actions taken by staff'' from the department.

''Families such as this have lost all confidence in dealing with the current NSW government because of the 'us versus them' mentality that is part of the existing culture,'' Mr Constance said.

The NSW Ombudsman found Lifestyle Solutions, which has received $72 million in state government funding since 2002, had failed to train its staff, who in apparent ''confusion'' began following the unauthorised behaviour support plan.

The family is still to reach agreement with the department about what services will be provided in the future, although the mother will have more say in how any funding will be spent.

The chief executive of Lifestyle Solutions, David Hogg, said the family had received a verbal apology and the group home had been shut down.

He said the organisation had supported the application for a public guardian because of ''the ongoing difficulty in obtaining consent from [the mother]. 'Within the context of a complex and difficult environment, Lifestyle Solutions believes that they provided an appropriate level of care with the resources available.''

The mother said her daughter, who has been living at home for the past 18 months, is stable and happy, although she still refers to the ''nightmare house''.

''I fear for people with disabilities living in supported accommodation who don't have family to keep watch,'' she said.

The mother and daughter in this story want to be identified but the Herald is prohibited from publishing their names or photographs under the Guardianship Act.

The legislation applies despite the fact that their names and an account of their ordeal have been published on the NSW Parliament's website for weeks and, this morning, the mother will give evidence at a parliamentary inquiry into services funded by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care at Parliament House.

"It is in the public interest that [my daughter's] plight be told because it will hopefully assist other families of people with disabilities in NSW who may be faced with a similar desperate situation," the mother said.

(5) Big Pharma and Agribusiness trying to curtain Herbal medicines in EU

Big Pharma Scores Big Win: Medicinal Herbs Will Disappear in EU

It's almost a done deal. We are about to see herbal preparations disappear, and the ability of herbalists to prescribe them will also be lost.

by Heidi Stevenson

12 September 2010

Big Pharma has almost reached the finish line of its decades-long battle to wipe out all competition. As of 1 April 2011—less than eight months from now—virtually all medicinal herbs will become illegal in the European Union. The approach in the United States is a bit different, but it's having the same devastating effect. The people have become nothing more than sinks for whatever swill Big Pharma and Agribusiness choose to send our way, and we have no option but to pay whatever rates they want.

Big Pharma and Agribusiness have almost completed their march to take over every aspect of health, from the food we eat to the way we care for ourselves when we're ill. Have no doubt about it: this takeover will steal what health remains to us.

It Begins Next April Fools Day

In the nastiest April Fool's Joke of all time, the European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products (THMPD) was enacted back on 31 March 2004.(1) It laid down rules and regulations for the use of herbal products that had previously been freely traded.

This directive requires that all herbal preparations must be put through the same kind of procedure as pharmaceuticals. It makes no difference whether a herb has been in common use for thousands of years. The costs for this are far higher than most manufacturers, other than Big Pharma, can bear, with estimates ranging from £80,000 to £120,000 per herb, and with each herb of a compound having to be treated separately.

It matters not that a herb has been used safely and effectively for thousands of years. It will be treated as if it were a drug. Of course, herbs are far from that. They're preparations made from biological sources. They aren't necessarily purified, as that can change their nature and efficacy, just as it can in food. It's a distortion of their nature and the nature of herbalism to treat them like drugs. That, of course, makes no difference in the Big Pharma-ruled edifice of the EU, which has enshrined corporatism in its constitution.

Dr. Robert Verkerk of the Alliance for Natural Health, International (ANH) describes the problem of requiring drug-like compliance on herbal preparations:

Getting a classical herbal medicine from a non-European traditional medicinal culture through the EU registration scheme is akin to putting a square peg into a round hole. The regulatory regime ignores and thus has not been adapted to the specific traditions. Such adaptation is required urgently if the directive is not to discriminate against non-European cultures and consequently violate human rights.(2)

Trade Law

To best understand how this can be happening, one needs to see that trade laws have been at the center of the moves to place all aspects of food and medicine under the control of Big Pharma and Agribusiness. ...

(6) Antibiotics - the mystery ingredient in your Chicken Kiev

This Type of Meat Contains a "Harmless" Ingredient Which Boosts Your Odds of Disease

Posted By Dr. Mercola | September 22 2010

By Dr. Mercola

Few would deny that you simply cannot achieve health without a well-functioning immune system.

Your immune defenses are key in protecting you from all disease, including cancer, toxic poisons, infections, inflammation, and even aging.

Many do not realize that an important part of your immune system actually begins in your gut — long before your blood or bone marrow become involved. In fact, 80 percent of your immune system lies in your gastrointestinal tract, which houses 100 trillion bacteria—about two to three pounds worth of bacteria!

So the expression, “He’s got a lot of guts” has some literal truth to it.

The army of bacteria that occupy the nooks and crannies of your intestine are the “DEFCON 1” of your defense system. There is even evidence that your appendix serves as a virtual military barracks for these critical defenses.

You should have about 85 percent “good” bacteria and 15 percent “bad”, but unfortunately, most people are upside down with that ratio. For this reason, I always recommend a diet rich in cultured or fermented foods, as well as a good quality probiotic supplement to restore your ratio to a healthful balance.  ...

Under the right circumstances, antibiotics are very effective and necessary. That said, I believe they are vastly overused.

About 95 percent of the time, antibiotic prescriptions are totally unnecessary, and can be harmful.

According to Doug Kaufmann, author of The Fungus Link:

“Simply put, antibiotics are poisons that are used to kill ... I contend that poisons that kill small organisms in small doses—organism-specific varieties notwithstanding — can also kill big organisms, when they are taken in big doses. You, my friend, are a big organism.

Every time you swallow antibiotics, you kill beneficial bacteria in your intestines, upsetting the delicate balance of your intestinal terrain. This can lead to a syndrome called “Leaky Gut Syndrome” whereby your intestinal wall is damaged, interfering with how your body absorbs nutrients and filters out waste and toxins.

Leaky Gut Syndrome can lead to a whole host of illnesses.

However, taking the antibiotics your physician prescribes is not the ONLY way you are getting them. Antibiotics may be the mystery ingredient in your Chicken Kiev and a common and typically vastly underappreciated way in which you can be exposed to them..

Most Antibiotics in the US Used for Farm Animals

As much as 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U. S. are fed to chickens, cattle and hogs — not to treat disease but to make them grow faster. This increases profit margins for livestock producers, but it puts YOUR health at risk.

Animals are fed low doses of antibiotics, killing off some of the animals’ bacteria. Meanwhile, the stronger, more resistant bacteria survive, multiply, and pass on their strength and resistance to future generations.

A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of antibiotics used in this country are given to animals for growth promotion and other non-medical uses. This negligent practice is largely responsible for the potent strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria we are seeing today.

According to a 2009 University of Iowa study, 70 percent of hogs and 64 percent of workers in industrial animal confinements tested positive for the antibiotic resistant strain of MRSA. The study pointed out that, once MRSA is introduced, it could spread broadly to other swine and their caretakers, as well as to their families and friends.

Not only are antibiotics embedded in your meats, but they have made their way into your produce as well.

Antibiotics are being transferred, via the manure used as fertilizer, into your corn, lettuce, potatoes, and other crops.

Eating organically may not entirely alleviate this problem, since organic crops, which cannot be fertilized with synthetic fertilizers, are the ones most often fertilized with manure.

As it stands, manure that contains antibiotics is still allowed under the organic label. So it all depends on where the organic farmer gets his manure from. Some organic crop farmers may be getting their manure from organic cattle farms, but there’s no guarantee that’s taking place.

The only way to find out is to ask the farmer first-hand. Taking all of these factors into consideration, is it any wonder that the ratio of good-bacteria-to-bad is upside down in most people in our society?

Government Agencies Finally Taking a Stand — Sort of ...

The rise of antibiotic-resistance in livestock is so alarming that government officials have finally admitted you can become infected when you eat or simply handle infected meat. In a remarkable move by the current administration, the FDA is proposing to phase out antibiotics used to promote animals’ growth. ...

Denmark took the bull by the horns in a bold maneuver that 17,000 Danish farmers proudly call the “Danish Experiment.”

In 1998, after European studies showed a link between antibiotic-fed livestock and antibiotic-resistant infections in humans, Denmark launched a ban on the use of routine antibiotics in farming. Antibiotics were reserved for animals that were actually sick.

Since the ban, the Danish pork industry has grown by 43 percent, making them one of the top pork exporters in the world.

The rest of Europe followed suit in 2006.

But, not so with the American Pork Industry, which was spooked by the potential increased cost of raising a pig. They calculated that it would cost $5 more for every 100 pounds of pork brought to market without the use of antibiotics, and this $5 was not worth it to Big Porky.

No, $5 was too much to invest for improved public health, safer foods, and fewer drug resistant infections in people.

And it isn’t just the American Pork Industry that lists your health last on its list of priorities.

FDA Picks on Cherries While Drug Manufacturers Get Away With Murder

Since 2009, there have been FOUR bills introduced that would end or severely limit your access to food supplements!

So, at the same time as Big Pharma is resisting the movement to rid the livestock industry of the inappropriate use of antibiotic drugs, some members of Congress are trying to restrict your access to the things that will actually protect your health—vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other natural agents. ...

(7) Technology may be eating our minds

David Binning

The Australian, September 18, 2010

There's widespread concern that our digital lifestyle is damaging our brains, but is it true?

OXFORD University professor Susan Greenfield is worried, very worried. As a leading -- and controversial -- neuroscientist and commentator on society and modern technology, she warns that society is facing the prospect of being robbed of its future Albert Einsteins and Isaac Newtons. Why? Today's brainiacs spend too much time fiddling with their iPhones or updating their Facebook pages.

Greenfield -- a regular visitor to Australia and former South Australian Thinker in Residence -- has written several books on the subject. She speaks widely, arguing that future generations are at risk of everything from desocialisation and autism to damaged cognitive functions such as the ability to think deeply and even read.

"Everyone knows that the human brain is sensitive to the environment," she tells Weekend Health. "Therefore, if the environment is now unprecedented and different, how can the brain stay the same?"

But what's the hard evidence that today's swarms of computers and gadgets, incessantly bleeping and buzzing with communication and information, are causing what Greenfield calls "mind change"?

While it makes intuitive sense to agree with her assumption that the pervasiveness of digital technology in modern society must be having some sort of effect on us, there is in fact little clear evidence to prove it's true.

Or so says Rodney Croft, professor in the University of Wollongong's department of psychology. He's one of Australia's leading researchers studying the effects on the brain of radio frequency exposure from mobile phones and other sources.

He points out that, as reported last May in The Australian, the largest study into the effects of mobile phones on the brain failed to show any direct link between mobile phone usage and brain tumours. The Interphone study was conducted across 12 years and in 13 countries, including Australia, and involved more than 20,000 people.

Which isn't to say there are absolutely no effects. Critics of the Interphone report, such as Australian neurosurgeons Charlie Teo and Vini Khurana, claim the conclusion that there's little cause for concern is misleading.

"Despite the study's methodological limitations that biased it towards finding nothing, the heaviest [mobile] users were found to be at significantly high risk of glioma," they say.

Glioma is a common brain cancer. While the study found no increased risk of cancer overall, those in the top 10 per cent of phone use were up to 40 per cent likelier to develop glioma.

Further, studies have found that when people are exposed to mobile phones in their sleep, there's a discernible increase in alpha wave activity during the first non-REM period when the brain is known to engage in so-called memory consolidation. However, the levels of alpha wave activity detected are roughly 1 per cent of those that normally occur when we simply open our eyes, assuredly a safe activity. ...

(8) Brain Tumour link to heavy Mobile Phone usage

Industry study shows brain tumour link to heavy mobile phone usage

Adam Cresswell

The Australian

May 17, 2010  12:13PM   

A LONG-awaited international study of the health risks of mobile phones has linked extended mobile phone use to an increased risk of developing brain tumours.

The 10-year Interphone study, the world's biggest study of the health effects of mobile phones, found while there was no increased risk of cancer overall, those in the top 10 per cent of phone use are up to 40 per cent more likely to develop glioma, a common type of brain cancer.

Just 30 minutes of mobile talk time daily was enough to put participants into the top 10 per cent category in the study, carried out in 13 countries, including Australia, and involving more than 5000 brain cancer patients worldwide.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, which conducted the study and has repeatedly delayed its publication, summarised the findings by saying there were "suggestions of an increased risk of glioma, and much less so meningioma, in the highest decile (10 per cent) of cumulative call time, in subjects who reported phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour".

It added "biases and errors limit the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn . . . and prevent a causal interpretation".

But the finding - reported by British newspapers yesterday ahead of its official scheduled release this week - has nevertheless ignited controversy among cancer experts, neurologists and other scientists.

Australian neurosurgeons Charlie Teo and Vini Khurana said last night the findings were a concern. "Despite the study's methodological limitations that biased it towards finding nothing, the heaviest users were found to be at significantly higher risk of glioma, which is consistent with our message," Drs Teo and Khurana told The Australian.

"This (finding) does concern us, but it's also an impetus to do two things: the mobile phone industry has to supply the actual hours logged, and we need to track brain tumour incidence in Australia."

Other experts sought to reassure the public over the findings. IARC director Christopher Wild said an increased risk of brain cancer was "not established from the data from Interphone".

"However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited," Dr Wild said.

Although modern mobile phones have greatly reduced emissions the authors said phone use now was "much more prevalent and it is not unusual for young people to use mobile phones for an hour or more a day".

Industry group the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association also emphasised the study found no increased risk overall, and its conclusion was "in line with the weight of scientific opinion, which has found no substantiated scientific evidence of any adverse health effects".

The study's authors said there was "reasonable doubt" about the credibility of some patients' estimates of their phone use, which in 38 cases amounted to over five hours per day, and 12 hours or more per day in 10 cases. People with cancer were much more likely to report these very high usage rates than other study participants without cancer who were included as controls.

No comments:

Post a Comment