Recently in Health Category

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - People should throw away cantaloupes from a Honduran manufacturer believed to be linked to a salmonella outbreak, the government said Saturday.

The Food and Drug Administration issued the alert for the melons from Agropecuaria Montelibano. Grocers are advised to remove from their stock any cantaloupes from this company. People should check with stores to see if recently purchased cantaloupes came from Honduras.

So far, 50 people have become sickened in 16 states and nine have become ill in Canada after eating the cantaloupes. No deaths have been reported, although 14 people have been hospitalized, the FDA said.

The government also is seeking to detain all cantaloupes shipped to the United States by Agropecuaria Montelibano.

States where folks have become ill are Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

Unless you're not paying attention, the over-expansion of SCHIP has little to do with children and more to do with the gradual implementation of socialized medicine. If the Democrats fail to provide President Bush with a veto-proof bill, they'll need a replacement to further their desire for increased socialism. If they succeed, they'll need another target to exploit. Where will that target come from? Win or lose, SCHIP will soon be difficult, if not impossible, target for further expansion - at least the short term. The next target might be a perennial favorite - veterans.

Friday's New York Times offers an unsigned editorial giving us a heads up on what might be next on their agenda:

Although many Americans believe that the nation’s veterans have ready access to health care, that is far from the case. A new study by researchers at the Harvard Medical School has found that millions of veterans and their dependents have no access to care in veterans’ hospitals and clinics and no health insurance to pay for care elsewhere. Their plight represents yet another failure of our disjointed health care system to provide coverage for all Americans.

The new study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, estimated that in 2004 nearly 1.8 million veterans were uninsured and unable to get care in veterans’ facilities. An additional 3.8 million members of their households faced the same predicament. All told, this group made up roughly 12 percent of the huge population of uninsured Americans.

First, the study (which can be found here) is very specific that the numbers are for those who don't qualify for VA medical care in the first place. Yet the Times neglects to mention it, leading the uninformed to believe that we have soldiers maimed in combat going without medical care.

The VA provides medical care to those with service-related illness and veterans who are demonstrably poor. All other veterans used to be able to seek care on a space-available basis - these are known as "group 8", and are defined as follows by the VA:

Group 8: All other non service-connected veterans and zero percent, non-compensable service-connected veterans who agree to pay co-pays.

Note that families are not included in the definition.

Group 8 veterans were seen less frequently in VA hospitals as the draw down during the 90's reduced the number of facilities while increasing the number of veterans, and the VA stopped enrolling Group 8 vets in 2003.

Even the number of uninsured veterans isn't necessarily the tragedy that the Times wishes you to believe. The study, although newly published, is itself not new. One of the authors, Stephanie J. Woolhandler, testified before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs back in June of this year. She admitted to the true nature of these uninsured vets:

Only about half of the 1.8 million uninsured veterans are classified Priority 8, Woolhandler said. The rest may technically be eligible for some VA care but live too far from its facilities for it to be a real option, she said.

In other words, even if they were eligible they likely wouldn't be getting VA health care, due to lack of either capacity or proximity.

We're also provided some insight in to the Ms. Woolhandler's motivations as well:

Woolhandler is a well-known advocate of guaranteeing access to health care for all Americans through a government-run national health insurance program.

Also, the study includes this graph showing that veterans have a measurably lower uninsured rate than the general population, and rate of increase in number of uninsured correlates to that of the general population as well:

Match the graph to the alarmist Bush bashing in the author's press release:

“Since President Bush took office the number of uninsured vets has skyrocketed, and he’s cut eligibility, barring hundreds of thousands of veterans from care. This administration has put troops in harm’s way overseas and abandoned them and their families once they got home,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, co-author of the study and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. “We need a solution that works for veterans, their families, and all Americans - single payer national health insurance.”

While the version of the study published in the American Journal of Public Health doesn't have an overly-large agenda-driven bent, this version of it does, as its conclusion illustrates:

We believe that only a single payer national health insurance system can affordably cover all Americans – including veterans.

The NYT finishes this disingenuous editorial with this:

An even better solution would be some form of universal health coverage for all Americans. Then even veterans who live far from a V.A. facility, and a host of dependents who are not now eligible, could get the care they need.

So here we have the New York Times using a highly agenda-driven study with politically-motivated conclusions as evidence that we need socialized medicine. In true form, they ignore the parts of the study that conflict with their assertions. Despicably, they're using veterans and their families as their vehicle of choice to advance their socialist agenda. Don't be surprised if this becomes the replacement for SCHIP in the Democrat's march to socialism.

Funny how much they love the troops when it advances their agenda, isn't it?.

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

The left, through their shills in the media, have been enjoying themselves thoroughly over the remarks made by Rush about Michael J. Fox. Here's what they're reporting about the interview had last night with Katie Couric:

NEW YORK (AP) -- In a response to charges by conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox defended his appearance in recent political campaign ads, saying he was neither acting nor off his medication for Parkinson's disease.

On the contrary, he had been overmedicated, the actor said during an interview aired on Thursday's "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric."

"The irony of it is that I was too medicated," Fox told Couric, adding that his jumpy condition as he spoke to her reflected "a dearth of medication -- not by design. I just take it, and it kicks in when it kicks in."

"That's funny -- the notion that you could calculate it for effect," he said. "Would that we could."

The 7 1/2-minute interview with Fox, whose shaking at one point dislodged the microphone clipped to his jacket lapel, aired in two segments taped Thursday afternoon on the "Evening News" set. (Watch fox tell Couric that he doesn't want pity -- :32)

Fox drew some conservative criticism after an ad began running in Missouri during the World Series. It showed Fox visibly shaking while urging fans to vote yes for stem-cell research and Democratic Senate challenger Claire McCaskill -- and no to the Republican incumbent Jim Talent. (Watch the visibly ill Fox make a pitch for McCatskill -- 2:35)

"They say all politics is local, but it's not always the case," Fox says in the 30-second spot. "What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans -- Americans like me."

The Democrats have largely succeeded with the ads - a prominent conservative figure gave them the soundbite they wanted: "either off his medication or acting". And Ann Coulter, despite her ill-chosen words about the 9-11 widows, has been proven right once again about the tactics of the left. The right is villified as cruel and uncaring about the sick and dying in the ads, and in the aftermath, now stand accused of attacking the sick and defenseless messenger.

Were it not for the fact that left's entire argument is built on a lie, it would be perfect. As a result, I predict little effect on the elections. While the ads will sway a few of the gullible, those who already have views that disagree with their premise will just be angered.

In the interview last night, Fox claims to respect the views of those who object to killing human embryos for medical research. But the message in his ads shows that he in fact has none. Indeed, Michael's message is "If you don't vote for the Democrats, I will suffer. If the Republicans win, my blood will be on your hands." How selfish and cynical he is in this galling demagoguery. Rather than tiptoe around Fox's illness (wouldn't want to offend, after all), the true nature of these repugnant ads should be held up as an example of the of why the left is unfit to lead.

To Michael (and the Democrats who you support):

How dare you?

How dare you suggest that my belief that we shouldn't kill the unborn for medical research equates to a desire for you to suffer?

How dare you infer that my belief that all lives are equally important and deserving of our protection equates to a desire for you to die?

Again, how dare you? You and those you campaign for show an ugliness that should have become extinct long ago, along with the medical experiments that were routinely performed on those who couldn't defend themselves in asylums, prisons, and most recently, concentration camps. To those of us who believe that life begins at conception, your side has ressurected that barbaristic and inhumane mindset. Apparently the presence of shiny stainless steel equipment and starched white labcoats makes it all oh-so clinical, emotionless, and acceptable to you. To me, it's same twisted reasoning that defended slavery as natural order because "they aren't really human".

You also claim you want respect and not pity. But if the only way, in your view, for that respect to be shown is to accede to your selfish and barbaristic wants, then you shall not have it. For your small-minded and disrespectful view of my beliefs, and your inability to shed a brutal ethos that should have perished at Dachau, you have earned my pity.

Oh, and about the flap with Rush - his statements have been argued completely elsewhere, I feel no need to go into them at length. For what it's worth, though, I disagree with Captain Ed, who appears to feel that Rush's remarks were appropriate. Instead, I fall on the side that feels Rush erred in his phrasing. He nearly got it right - then he backed off, fearing what the reaction would be. I wish he had been more bold instead.

Most mothers don't get enough sleep

They needed a study for this? The lovely TB is eight years ahead of science on this one. They also discovered tired moms are less happy - who knew?

TB found this while surfing yesterday evening:

‘Dateline’ hidden cameras investigate cleanliness of America’s top 10 fast food chains

Fast food: It’s served fast and you eat it fast, maybe too fast to notice the restaurant is a little dirty. The fact is that no one has ever done a national survey looking at the cleanliness of fast food chains — until now. Recently, we took our Dateline cameras undercover for the first-ever investigation of whether America’s top 10 fast food chains are clean and safe. How did your favorite restaurant do?

This is one of the few areas that I think require more regulation and oversight. More frequent unannounced inspections combined with genuinely painful sanctions for frequent violators would help.

I was also shocked to learn that not all states require food handler's training and licensure. While I have no data (I'm still looking), I suspect that states that do have fewer problems.

Hopefully this won't survive the House:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. customs and border security agents would be banned from seizing prescription drugs that Americans import from Canada under a measure passed by the Senate on Tuesday.

The Senate voted 68-32 in favor of the provision, with supporters saying the federal government should stay out of the way of Americans seeking cheaper medicines in Canada for personal use. Many Americans import prescription drugs from abroad even though the practice is illegal.

I understand the emotional side to the argument. But Canada isn't the answer to drug costs. And ordering law enforcement to ignore the law is just plain stupid.

If this survives, expect Canada to crack down from their side. "Cheap" drugs will be no more available than before, and we'll have busloads of seniors going to Canada not for drugs, but for their court dates.

Via Reuters/Yahoo:

Study finds breast feeding wards off bed-wetting

Now if they can figure out what drives bet-wetting boobs to start blogs...

Via AP/Yahoo:

CORVALLIS, Ore. - A main ingredient in beer may help prevent prostate cancer and enlargement, according to a new study. But researchers say don't rush out to stock the refrigerator because the ingredient is present in such small amounts that a person would have to drink more than 17 beers to benefit.

I know a few people for whom 17 beers in one day is no real hurdle. Of course, you'd need that much beer to wash down 47 grilled cheese sandwiches in one meal. Me, I don't drink very often and have a very low tolerance, but if it's for my health, I'm willing to learn.

So if I have a prescription, does that keep the bartender from cutting me off? And when is my insurance company going to add beer to the formulary (since it's now a preventative medicine)? I should be able to purchase 510 beers (1 month's supply) for my usual co-pay of $5.00 (or $15.00 for better brands).

Update (12 June 06, 9pm EST) Of course, some may risk cancer due to fears of cirrhosis of the liver - may I suggest Irish coffee?

I guess one of us was due sooner or later.

After all, TB and I are both in our forties, and genetics dealt neither of us the best health hand we could have drawn. But TB won today's race. She got the first root canal between us.

That's why the light blogging today - she was in the chair for almost two hours. Knowing she was in good hands, I took the youngest daughter out to lunch. We went to a local Mexican place and she was thrilled to have lunch with Daddy without the rest of the family to compete with for attention.

TB is doing just fine, and just went upstairs to take a welcome nap. Me, I'm trying to find a copy of Unfinished Sweet by Alice Cooper to play for her. I already have the lyrics - ahh, there it is...:

Candy everywhere , got chocolate in my hair
Aching to get me
Stickly sweet suckers in the Halloween air
Aching to get me
Saint Vitus dance on my morals tonight
Aching to get me
Aching to get me, get me oh ...
Take it to the doc, I guess he ought to know
La, la, la, da
Which ones can stay , which one gotta go
He looks in my mouth and then he starts to gloat
He says me teeth are O.K.
But my gums got to go
Oh oh ...
I come off the gas but I'm still seeing spies
Aching to get me
I can see them all through a glassy pair of eyes
Aching to get me
De Sade's gonna live in my mouth tonight
La, da, da, da, da
And the rotten tooth fairy is satisfied
La, da, da, da, da
Aching to get me, get me oh ...

There was a lot of toothiness in 1973. Bring back memories for any of you?

Or at least that's what this study found:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Go ahead and have that second cup of coffee -- or third, or fourth. A study published on Monday shows heavy, long-term coffee drinking does not raise the risk of heart disease for most people.

The study, which followed 128,000 men and women for as long as 20 years, showed that drinking filtered coffee -- not espresso or French-style brews -- did not raise the risk of heart disease.

That's good enough for me - I'm taking the family to Starbucks for dinner tonight.

"We believe this study clearly shows there is no association between filtered coffee consumption and coronary heart disease," said Esther Lopez-Garcia, an instructor in the School of Medicine at the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid in Spain, who worked on the study.

"This lack of effect is good news, because coffee is one of the most widely consumed beverages in the world."

We're not going to tell you who commissioned the study, but you'd recognize him if you saw him...

But if it is, I'll accept the risk - I won't be frightened into giving up my beloved barbecue:

Barbecue meats linked with prostate cancer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A compound formed when meat is charred at high temperatures -- as in barbecue -- encourages the growth of prostate cancer in rats, researchers reported on Sunday.

Their study, presented at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, may help explain the link between eating meat and a higher risk of prostate cancer.

It also fits in with other studies suggesting that cooking meat until it chars might cause cancer.

The compound, called PhIP, is formed when meat is cooked at very high temperatures, Dr. Angelo De Marzo and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reported.

How fortunate we are to live in a time where science can tell us that virtually everything we eat, drink, or breath is bad for us. Not this time, pals. I'm keeping my barbecue, risks be damned!

Mmmm - that gives me ideas for tonight's dinner...

MONDAY, Jan. 23 (HealthDay News) -- Compounds in black currants may help protect against Alzheimer's disease, according to a study in the current issue of Chemistry & Industry magazine.

Here's the list of states that the unions are lobbying to enact legislation similar to the "Fair Share" bill recently passed in Maryland:

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin

The first push was to be in Wisconsin, but the measure was killed by the state assembly:

Assembly Bill 860 would have required companies with more than 10,000 employees in Wisconsin to pay 80-percent of its workers' health care costs. If not, then the company has to reimburse the state when those workers hop on to the state-funded Badger Care program.

Sound familiar? Unlike Maryland, the Governor supports AB 860:

A highlight from Tuesday night's State of the State speech was Governor Jim Doyle's wish that retailer Wal-Mart take employee health care off the shoulders of taxpayers. "Badger Care is intended to help working families, not multi-billion dollar corproations," he said.

I guess he's so blinded by hate for eeeevil business that he forgot that those multi-billion dollar corporations hire working families, eh?

Doyle's office said more than 1,200 Wal-Mart employees are on the state's taxpayer funded Badger Care program, costing the state $2.7 million a year.

But they're not working families, right, Doyle?

If you live in one of the above states, keep an eye out. And if you're looking for a job, the twenty states not listed are soon to have a boom.

Photo by Miss Yasmina

Via Reuters/Yahoo:

Dark chocolate may cut heart disease risk: study

LONDON (Reuters) - A few squares of dark chocolate every day might cut the risk of serious heart disease by helping to stave off the hardening of arteries, according to a study published on Tuesday.

Researchers from University Hospital in Zurich studied 20 male smokers, who are at greater risk of hardening arteries characteristic of coronary heart disease, to see the effects of dark and white chocolate on arterial blood flow.

The group, who were asked to abstain from eating foods rich in antioxidants for 24 hours, were given 40 grams (2 ounces) of chocolate to eat.

After two hours, ultrasound scans revealed that dark chocolate -- made up of 74 percent cocoa solids -- significantly improved the smoothness of arterial flow, whilst white chocolate, with four percent cocoa, had no effect, the study published in Heart magazine said.

The researchers, who said further studies were needed, suggested that the possible benefits arose from the antioxidants in dark chocolate.

"Only a small daily treat of dark chocolate may substantially increase the amount of antioxidant intake and beneficially affect vascular health," they said.

Sheesh. Like I needed an excuse....