Health – Page 34 – artdiamondblog.com

Same Government that Allows Violence, Prioritizes Taxing Soda

“One vocal opponent of the tax is Courtland Boozé, a City Council member who calls it a hardship on poor people.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 14) Even here at a sweaty Zumba class sponsored by a nonprofit group called Weigh of Life, the city’s proposal for a one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, which is to appear on the November ballot, meets up against the hard realities of residents’ lives.

“What don’t I have?” asked Rita Cerda, a longtime soda devotee, ticking off her ailments, including diabetes, high blood pressure and asthma. She is also overweight.
“I have problems drinking water,” she said. “I don’t like water.”
The proposed tax, a license fee on businesses selling sweetened drinks, would require owners of bodegas, theaters, convenience stores and other outlets to tally ounces sold and, presumably, pass the cost on to customers.
. . .
Courtland Boozé is a City Council member and a vocal opponent of the soda tax. “We are primarily an economically suppressed community,” he said. “It will be a huge hardship.
“I eat sweet potato pie and candied yams,” continued Mr. Boozé, who is from Louisiana. “And what about cupcakes? Are they going to tax those?”
The city’s Chamber of Commerce is also opposed to the tax. A group fighting the tax that includes the beverage industry has begun dropping off “Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes” placards at La Flore de Jalisco Market, a small, cheerful grocery store where soda bottles in dozens of hues match the colorful piñatas hanging from the ceiling.
. . .
Charles Finnie, known as Chuck, a vice president of BMWL, a San Francisco lobbying firm, called the tax “an administrative nightmare for local businesses” that would also put them at a competitive disadvantage, with customers opting for cheaper soda in nearby cities.
. . .
At the RYSE Youth Center, founded 12 years ago after the killing of four high school students, the soda issue seemed both close to the heart and far away.
Kayla Miller, an 18-year-old college freshman, said that if complexion problems from too much sugar would not deter her friends from drinking sodas, neither would a tax.
Shivneel Sen, 14, does not favor the tax but knows how the money should be spent if it passes.
“The police came heck of late,” he said, recalling the recent death of a best friend. “We need more of them.”
Kimberly Aceves, the center’s executive director, says that too often, the burden for making healthy choices falls unfairly on young people. Society may say “go exercise,” she said, “but if the community isn’t safe, how many kids are going to go out running?”
“Soda is bad for you,” Ms. Aceves said. “So is violence.”

For the full story, see:
PATRICIA LEIGH BROWN. “RICHMOND JOURNAL; Plan to Tax Soda Gets a Mixed Reception.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., June 3, 2012): 14.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the article has the date June 2, 2012.)

For Federal Regulators “It’s Easier Not to Approve than to Approve”

“Xavier Lauth, a scientist, working with zebra fish in a lab at the Center for Aquaculture Technologies.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) SAN DIEGO — If Americans ever eat genetically engineered fast-growing salmon, it might be because of a Soviet biologist turned oligarch turned government minister turned fish farming entrepreneur.

That man, Kakha Bendukidze, holds the key to either extinction or survival for AquaBounty Technologies, the American company that is hoping for federal approval of a type of salmon that would be the first genetically engineered animal in the human food supply.
But 20 months since the Food and Drug Administration tentatively concluded that the fish would be safe to eat and for the environment, there has been no approval. And AquaBounty is running out of money.
Mr. Bendukidze, the former economics minister of Georgia and AquaBounty’s largest shareholder, says the company can stay afloat a while longer. But he is skeptical that genetically altered salmon will be approved in the United States in an election year, given the resistance from environmental and consumer groups.
“I understand politically that it’s easier not to approve than to approve,” Mr. Bendukidze said during a recent visit to a newly acquired laboratory in San Diego, where jars of tiny zebra fish for use in genetic engineering experiments are stacked on shelves. While many people would be annoyed by the approval, he said, “There will be no one except some scientists who will be annoyed if it is not approved.”
. . .
(p. B6) Mr. Bendukidze, 56, began his career as a molecular biologist in a research institute outside Moscow, working on genetically engineering viruses for vaccine use. He later started a company selling biology supplies. When parts of the Soviet economy were privatized, he earned a reputation as a corporate raider, building through acquisitions and leading United Heavy Machinery, a large maker of equipment for mining, oil drilling and power generation.
In 2004, Mr. Bendukidze returned to his native Georgia as economics minister under Mikheil Saakashvili, the newly elected president. With a free-market philosophy and a penchant for insulting those who disagreed with him, Mr. Bendukidze earned his share of enemies as he moved to deregulate and privatize the economy.
He still lives in Georgia and now spends his time as chairman of the Free University of Tbilisi, which he founded. He also set up Linnaeus Capital Partners to manage his money. It has increasingly focused on aquaculture, with stakes in companies in Greece, Israel and Britain, in addition to AquaBounty.

For the full story, see:
ANDREW POLLACK. “An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon.” The New York Times (Tues., May 22, 2012): B1 & B6.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the article has the date May 21, 2012.)

“Kakha Bendukidze acquired the lab after agreeing to give AquaBounty more cash.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Rats, Motivated by Cheese, and Stimulated by Electricity and Chemicals, Grow Neurons and Walk Again

“After several weeks of neurorehabilitation, previously paralyzed rats initiated a walking gait and soon began sprinting, climbing stairs and avoiding obstacles.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A13) Rats with a spinal cord injury that left their hind legs completely paralyzed learned to walk again on their own after an intensive training course that included electrical stimulation of the brain and the spine, scientists reported on Thursday.
. . .
The report, published online on Thursday in the journal Science, provides a striking demonstration of what until recently few scientists thought possible: complete rehabilitation after a disabling blow to the spinal cord. After weeks of training, many of the rats could walk as well as before the injury, and some could run.
. . .
The rats then began a daily regimen. Outfitted with tiny vests, held upright on their back legs but left to bear their full weight, the rats tried to move toward a piece of cheese that beckoned nearby. They lurched forward like furry paratroopers, unsteady on their feet after a hard landing.
The scientists provided stimulation in three places: electrically, in the motor area of the brain and in the spinal cord below the injury, and chemically, infusing the wound area with drugs thought to promote growth.
And growth is what they got. After two to three weeks of 30-minute daily sessions, the rats began to take their first voluntary steps. After six weeks, all of the rats could walk on their own, and some could run and climb stairs.
. . .
In effect, . . . , the training forces the brain to recruit what is left of the neural system to get the job done. Neurons sprout like seedlings on a Chia Pet when they are seeking new connections, and the scientists found increases of 300 percent and more in projections in the brain stem and around the injury — evidence that the nervous system was remapping its connections.

For the full story, see:
BENEDICT CAREY. “In Rat Experiment, New Hope for Spine Injuries.” The New York Times (Fri., June 1, 2012): A13.
(Note: online version of the story is dated May 31, 2012.)

Global Warming Would Reduce Deaths from Flu

(p. 4) According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this January was the fourth warmest in the documented history of weather in the contiguous United States.
. . .
. . . , our warm winter may have one unforeseen and felicitous consequence: a drastic reduction in the incidence of influenza.
. . .
This year’s flu season, . . . , didn’t officially begin until late last month. And while a true number is difficult to reach — not every sick person is tested, for instance, and the cause of a death in the hospital can be clouded by co-morbidities — it is likely that no more than a few hundred people in America, and possibly far fewer, have died of the flu this winter. Indeed, by any measurement, the statistics are historic and heartening. For every individual who has been hospitalized this season, 22 people were hospitalized in the 2010-11 flu season. Even more strikingly, 122 children died of flu last season and 348 during the flu outbreak of 2009-10 — while this time around that number is 3.

For the full commentary, see:

CHARLES FINCH. “OPINION; The Best Part About Global Warming.” The New York Times (Tues., March 4, 2012): 4.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review is dated March 2, 2012.)

Libertarian Law Professor Defends Free Choice in Health Care

“Randy E. Barnett has argued against the health care law.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) WASHINGTON — When Congress passed legislation requiring nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance, Randy E. Barnett, a passionate libertarian who teaches law at Georgetown, argued that the bill was unconstitutional.
. . .
. . . over the past two years, through his prolific writings, speaking engagements and television appearances, Professor Barnett has helped drive the question of the health care law’s constitutionality from the fringes of academia into the mainstream of American legal debate and right onto the agenda of the United States Supreme Court.
. . .
. . . the challenge championed by Professor Barnett: that Congress’s power to set rules for commerce does not extend to regulating “inactivity,” like choosing not to be insured.
. . .
(p. A14) He is a fierce advocate of economic freedom who is accustomed to being a legal underdog. In 2004, in his first (and, he says, probably his last) appearance before the Supreme Court, he argued that Congress could not criminalize the production of home-grown marijuana for personal medical use. There again, critics said he would lose 8 to 1. He did lose, but took satisfaction in the actual vote, 6 to 3.
. . .
Professor Barnett’s work on the health care law fits into a much broader intellectual project, his defense of economic freedom. He has long argued that the Supreme Court went too far in upholding New Deal economic laws — a position that concerns his liberal critics.
Even a close friend and fellow Georgetown law professor, Lawrence B. Solum, says that Professor Barnett is aware of the “big divide between his views and the views of lots of other people,” and that his political philosophy is “much more radical” than his legal argument in the health care case. Professor Barnett, for his part, insists that if the health law is struck down, it will not “threaten the foundation of the New Deal.” But, he allowed, it would be “a huge symbolic victory for limited government.”

For the full story, see:
SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and CHARLIE SAVAGE. “Libertarian’s Pet Cause Reaches Supreme Court.” The New York Times (Tues., March 27, 2012): A1 & A14.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story is dated March 26, 2012 and has the title “Vindication for Challenger of Health Care Law.”)

Quantum Computers May Revolutionize Nanotechnology and Drug Design

“Scott Aaronson.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT commentary quoted and cited below.

(p. D5) When people hear that I work on quantum computing — one of the most radical proposals for the future of computation — their first question is usually, “So when can I expect a working quantum computer on my desk?” Often they bring up breathless news reports about commercial quantum computers right around the corner. After I explain the strained relationship between those reports and reality, they ask: “Then when? In 10 years? Twenty?”

Unfortunately, this is sort of like asking Charles Babbage, who drew up the first blueprints for a general-purpose computer in the 1830s, whether his contraption would be hitting store shelves by the 1840s or the 1850s. Could Babbage have foreseen the specific technologies — the vacuum tube and transistor — that would make his vision a reality more than a century later? Today’s quantum computing researchers are in a similar bind. They have a compelling blueprint for a new type of computer, one that could, in seconds, solve certain problems that would probably take eons for today’s fastest supercomputers. But some of the required construction materials don’t yet exist.
. . .
While code-breaking understandably grabs the headlines, it’s the more humdrum application of quantum computers — simulating quantum physics and chemistry — that has the potential to revolutionize fields from nanotechnology to drug design.
. . .
Like fusion power, practical quantum computers are a tantalizing possibility that the 21st century may or may not bring — depending on the jagged course not only of science and technology, but of politics and economics.

For the full commentary, see:
SCOTT AARONSON. “ESSAY; Quantum Computing Promises New Insights, Not Just Supermachines.” The New York Times (Tues., December 6, 2011): D5.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary is dated December 5, 2011.)

Purging Senescent Cells Makes Mice More Youthful and Vigorous

“CELL SUICIDE. A subdermal fat layer, middle, in a mouse purged of senescent cells. These mice can run much longer and have larger fat deposits.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. D3) Until recently, few people gave much thought to senescent cells. They are cells that linger in the body even after they have lost the ability to divide.

But on Nov. 2, in what could be a landmark experiment in the study of aging, researchers at the Mayo Clinic reported that if you purge the body of its senescent cells, the tissues remain youthful and vigorous.
. . .
. . . the startling result is plausible because it ties together an emerging body of knowledge about senescent cells. And it raises the possibility that attacks on the cells might postpone the diseases of aging and let people live out more of their life span in good health.
. . .
The finding was made in a strain of mice that age fast and usually die of heart arrhythmia. So despite their healthier tissues, the mice purged of senescent cells died at the usual age of heart problems. Dr. van Deursen’s team is now testing to see whether normal mice will live longer when purged of senescent cells.
The treatment was started when the normal mice were a year old, and they have now been treated for five months. Next month they will run treadmill tests to see if they are in better shape than a comparison group of untreated mice, Dr. van Deursen said.
The genetic method used to purge mice of senescent cells cannot be used in people. Instead of trying to remove senescent cells from elderly people, Dr. Peeper believes, it may be more effective to identify which of the factors that the senescent cells secrete are the source of their ill effects and to develop drugs that block these factors.
But Dr. van Deursen thinks it would be better to go after the senescent cells themselves. In his view it should be easy enough by trial and error to find chemicals that selectively destroy senescent cells, just like the targeted chemicals now used to treat certain kinds of cancer. And unlike the cancer cells, which proliferate so fast that they soon develop resistance, the senescent cells cannot replicate, so they should be easy targets.
Several companies and individuals have already approached the Mayo Clinic to explore developing such drugs. “They think it’s possible, and they are very enthusiastic,” Dr. van Deursen said. “So I can guarantee that there will be initiatives to find drugs that kill senescent cells and mimic the system that we have developed in the mouse.”
. . .
“If you remove the senescent cells you improve things considerably, but you can’t reverse the process or completely stop the aging because it has other causes,” Dr. van Deursen said. “Personally I think we can slow aging down, and over time we will become more and more successful.

For the full story, see:

NICHOLAS WADE. “In Body’s Shield Against Cancer, a Culprit in Aging May Lurk.” The New York Times (Tues., November 22, 2011): D3.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story is dated November 21, 2011.)

Simple Heuristics Can Work Better than Complex Formulas

(p. C4) Most business people and physicians privately admit that many of their decisions are based on intuition rather than on detailed cost-benefit analysis. In public, of course, it’s different. To stand up in court and say you made a decision based on what your thumb or gut told you is to invite damages. So both business people and doctors go to some lengths to suppress or disguise the role that intuition plays in their work.
Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, thinks that instead they should boast about using heuristics. In articles and books over the past five years, Dr. Gigerenzer has developed the startling claim that intuition makes our decisions not just quicker but better.
. . .
The economist Harry Markowitz won the Nobel prize for designing a complex mathematical formula for picking fund managers. Yet when he retired, he himself, like most people, used a simpler heuristic that generally works better: He divided his retirement funds equally among a number of fund managers.
A few years ago, a Michigan hospital saw that doctors, concerned with liability, were sending too many patients with chest pains straight to the coronary-care unit, where they both cost the hospital more and ran higher risks of infection if they were not suffering a heart attack. The hospital introduced a complex logistical model to sift patients more efficiently, but the doctors hated it and went back to defensive decision-making.
As an alternative, Dr. Gigerenzer and his colleagues came up with a “fast-and-frugal” tree that asked the doctors just three sequential yes-no questions about each patient’s electrocardiographs and other data. Compared with both the complex logistical model and the defensive status quo, this heuristic helped the doctors to send more patients to the coronary-care unit who belonged there and fewer who did not.

For the full commentary, see:
By MATT RIDLEY. “MIND & MATTER; All Hail the Hunch–and Damn the Details.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., December 24, 2011): C4.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

A couple of Gigerenzer’s relevant books are:
Gigerenzer, Gerd. Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. New York: Penguin Books, 2007.
Gigerenzer, Gerd. Rationality for Mortals: How People Cope with Uncertainty. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2008.

Adipotide Kills Fat Cells in Obese Mice and Monkeys

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A6) A drug that kills a type of fat cell by choking off its blood supply caused significant weight loss in obese monkeys, potentially setting the stage for a new pharmaceutical approach to attacking obesity, according to a study released Wednesday.

After four weeks of treatment, obese monkeys given daily injections of the drug, called adipotide, lost an average of 11% of their body weight. They also had big reductions in waist circumference and body-mass index and, importantly, striking improvement in their ability to process insulin, researchers said. The drug had no effect on weight when given to lean monkeys.
Results of the study, performed at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and published online by the journal Science Translational Medicine, confirmed a 2004 report from the same research team showing marked weight loss in mice treated with the agent.
. . .
The researchers’ 2004 paper showing a 30% weight loss in obese mice drew skepticism. Randy J. Seeley, director of the diabetes and obesity center at the University of Cincinnati, figured destroying white fat cells would make animals–and people–sick. But his own lab eventually replicated the mouse study, using rats instead, and now he is intrigued.
“This is really new stuff,” Dr. Seeley said of the latest results. “There’s no way to know if this will become a therapy or not, but at least it opens up a new way to think about therapies, and we have not had a lot of those.” He isn’t involved with the research.

For the full story, see:
RON WINSLOW. “Drug Offers Hope in Obesity Fight; Treatment Targeting Fat Cells Caused Significant Weight Loss in Monkeys; Human Trials to Begin Soon.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., November 10, 2011): A6.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the last two sentences quoted above appeared in the online, but not the print, version of the article.)

“One of the monkeys used in the study. Obese monkeys lost an average of 11% of their body weight after four weeks of treatment.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited above.

Creative Destruction Helps Us Be Well

WSJ review quoted and cited below.

Dr. Eric Topol’s credible and thought-provoking comments on the over-use of stents appeared in entries in this blog in August 2006 and in December 2006.

(p. A15) “The U.S. government has been preoccupied with health care ‘reform,’ but this refers to improving access and insurance coverage and has little or nothing to do with innovation,” even though, as Dr. Topol notes, adopting new approaches would improve care and lower costs. . . .
. . .
“The Creative Destruction of Medicine”–an allusion to economist Joseph Schumpeter’s description of “creative destruction” as an engine of business innovation–is a venture capitalist’s delight, describing dozens of medical technologies that show great promise. The book also provides colorful anecdotes about Dr. Topol’s own sampling of these products, as both a doctor and stand-in patient.
. . .
. . . , full adoption of the new tools will require the Food and Drug Administration to alter the way it evaluates products. The FDA, he says, should allow the testing of drugs on patients who are selected for their prospect of deriving a benefit. Right now, the FDA usually requires drugs to be tested in a scattershot fashion on large populations. With drugs being tested on cancer patients, he notes, the “FDA insists on a body count to be able to quantify how much and how long the new drug improves survival”–even though diagnostic markers can sometimes reveal in advance which patients are unlikely to gain a benefit.
Dr. Topol worries that doctors will resist technologies that empower patients because the tools will also diminish the doctors’ gatekeeper role. The American Medical Association, for example, battled firms that provide genetic information directly to patients. “This arrangement ultimately appears untenable,” the author writes, “and eventually there will need to be full democratization of DNA for medicine to be transformed.”

For the full review, see:
SCOTT GOTTLIEB. “BOOKSHELF; Digital Doctoring; It’s hard to fake sleep to avoid your spouse’s bedtime chatter when a ‘Zeo clock’ is displaying your real-time brain waves.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., February 3, 2012): A15.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the title “BOOKSHELF; Digital Doctoring; The digital revolution can spur unprecedented advances in the medical sciences, argues Eric Topol in “The Creative Destruction of Medicine”.”)

The book under review is:
Topol, Eric. The Creative Destruction of Medicine: How the Digital Revolution Will Create Better Health Care. New York: Basic Books, 2012.