There’s overwhelming concern for health in this day and age of pollution and toxins. A great number of companies have taken its cue from the market and introduced a variety of health and nutrition related products including pills, drinks, energy bars and so many more. And, with the discovery of wonder ingredients, a lot of these products would contain the same ingredients and sport similar names super-something vs something plus.

All these pulling at your leg to make a buy from all possible media newspaper coupons, flyers, bus stop ads, world wide web pop-ups. It has gotten challenging to determine which ones are truly beneficial healthwise and which ones are not.

A good way to stay safe is to look for FDA approved medicines and food products. The US Food and Drug Administration or the FDA is a government agency operating under the US Department of Health and Human Services. Its primary responsibility is to make sure that all medicines and food products are safe to use and are accurately labeled.

Every product that goes into the market has to go through FDA’s rigorous product testing and review to get an FDA approval stamp. FDA approved medicines and food products are safer and more reliable. Getting duped by false claims is avoided when going for medicines and food products that are FDA approved.

When you’re looking for health products to use, look or FDA approved medicines and food products. The FDA stamp of approval, even though it does not guarantee efficacy, will tell you that you can safely use the particular product. As far as dietary supplements, however, are concerned an FDA approval is not required. These supplements are basically regulated by the FDA in the food category instead of in the drugs category.

The FDA can take action against manufacturers of dietary supplements that are proven to be unsafe. These manufacturers are generally allowed to make declarations as to the health benefits of their products but they cannot claim to be able to cure or prevent certain diseases. The FDA requires that a disclaimer on the products curative properties be printed on their labels.

Nutritional supplements, while not categorized in FDA approved medicines and food products, can also come with an FDA stamp. The FDA approval stamp will let you know that the supplement is safe to take and isn’t known to cause adverse effect. These supplements are supposedly nutritionally helpful for you since it replaces the nutrients lost in either the processing of the food we eat or in the normal chemical processes of our bodies.

With all the chemical additives to food nowadays, our food is not nearly as nutritious as they were during the time of our forefathers. Thus, the need to supplement is more evident now than ever. They key is in choosing the right kinds of supplements that does not endanger your health in any way.

The abundance of health and nutrition products in the market need not be a mind boggler for anyone. Everyone has different health and nutritional needs. Stick to the basic guidelines of eating healthy, living healthy, and exercising regularly. Make sure you only take in FDA approved medicines and food products, and supplements that are recommended by your doctor. By staying away from fads and products that claim to provide benefits that are too good to be true, you are sure to stay healthy now and in the years to come.

About the Author

If you are looking for a certified on the internet pharmacy or an on the internet pharmacy no prescription with a wide selection of medicine look no further.

Article Source: Content for Reprint

[Source : Full text health articles - Content for Reprint]

Many people in the US watched a telethon carried on all three major TV networks meant to raise money for cancer research. The telethon was sponsored by StandUp2Cancer.org, a not-for-profit organization apparently run by a number of Hollywood celebrities, whose mission is to sponsor cancer research.

On the Schwitzer Health News blog, this post raised some questions about the purpose of the organization, and in particular noted that its “heroes” included GlaxoSmithKline and Amgen.

On perusal of the organization’s poorly organized and not very functional web-site, I found a listing of the membership of its Scientific Advisory Committee, who will determine who gets research money from the organization. The committee included many notable scientists, but I also noted that it included four people who worked full-time for pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies:

• Julian Adams, Chief Scientific Officer, Infinity Pharmaceuticals Inc
• Richard B Gaynor, Vice President, Cancer Research and Clinical Investigation, Eli Lilly and Company
• Cecil B Pickett, President, Research and Development, Biogen Idec
• Laura K Shawver, Chief Executive Officer, Phenomix Corp

In addition, the board member biographies disclosed other members with financial ties to other such corporations:

• Philip A Sharp, Institute Professor, David H Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology also “co-founded Biogen (now Biogen Idec), Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, an early-stage therapeutics company and Magen Biosciences Inc., a biotechnology company developing agents to promote the health of human skin.”
• Vicki L Sato, Professor of Management Practice, Harvard Business School, also is the retired President of Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and a current business advisor to Atlas Ventures “and other enterprises in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry.” She’s also a current member of the boards of directors of Bristol Myers Squibb, PerkinElmer Corporation, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.

Furthermore, a bit of searching the internet revealed other financial ties of the scientific advisory board:

• Philip A Sharp is also, according to his CV, a Member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, 2003- ; Member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Fidelity Biosciences Group, 2004- ; Member of the Board of Advisers, Polaris Venture Partners, 2002- ; Chairman of the Scientific Board (to 2002) and member of the
  Board of Directors of Biogen Idec; Chairman of the Scientific Board and member of the Board of Directors of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; and member of the Scientific Board and member of the Board of Directors of Magen Biosciences.
• Arnold J Levine, Professor, Institute of Advanced Study and Cancer Institute of New Jersey is also a member of boards of directors of Theravance, Applera Corporation and Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc, according to the Theravance web-site.
• Brian J Druker, Professor of Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University Cancer Institute, is also on the scientific advisory board and clinical advisory board of Avalon Pharmaceuticals, per the company web-site; on the clinical oncology advisory board of Ambit Biosciences, according to this news item; and in 2003, disclosed consulting for and receiving honoraria from Novartis, in this article.
• Richard N DuBois, Provost and Executive Vice President, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, also has been a consultant to Pfizer, and received honoraria from Axcan Pharmaceuticals, disclosed in this article; and disclosed consulting for Abbott, Novartis, and Salix in this article.
• Waun Ki Hong, Head, Division of Cancer Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, is a member of the medical oncology advisory panel for Omnitura, according to the company web-site; a member of the medical oncology advisory panel for Genyous, according to the company web-site; on the scientific advisory board of GenVault, according to this news item; and on the scientific advisory board of Agennix, according to this news item.
• William G Kaelin, Professor, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, is also a founder of Imigen Systems, according to this article; a member of the scientific advisory board of Nextech Ventures, according to the company web-site; and a member of the scientific advisory board of Arqule, according to the company web-site.
• Ronald Levy, Chief, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, is also a member of the
  scientific advisory boards of XTL Therapeutics, Therion Incorporated, Coley Pharmaceutical Group Inc., Xcyte Therapeutics, Agensys, Pointilliste, Cell Genesis, and Five Prime, according to his CV; and is also on the scientific advisory board of InNexus Biotechnology, according to this news article.
• Tak W Mak, Chief Scientific Officer, Princess Margaret Hospital, Campbell Family Institute for Breast Cancer Research is also a founder of Agios Pharmaceuticals, according to the company web-site, and on the scientific advisory board of Entremed, according to the company web-site.

The explanation by StandUp4Cancer.org of where the money it raises goes, and why, includes,

SU2C believes that it can benefit the most patients by accelerating the course of cancer research through raising philanthropic dollars and developing one-of-a-kind mechanisms to utilize these funds.

SU2C is committed to transparency and high-quality science in its funding activities and believes that this can be accomplished within the framework of a truly innovative approach to support SU2C-funded research.

However, of 19 people on the board that will control how this research money is spent, 4 were disclosed to work full-time for pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, and two others were disclosed to have ties to such companies. Seven other board members had multiple, undisclosed ties to pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies. Thus, 13 of 19, a clear majority, including the board chair and vice-chair, had multiple and significant financial ties to pharmaceutical and device companies. Most of those ties weren’t disclosed on the organization’s web-site. I did not watch all of the organization’s telethon, but didn’t see anything approaching such disclosure in the part I did watch.

Where is the transparency there?

A major new effort to raise money to do research on the extremely important topic of cancer, supposedly devoted to transparency, should at least make clear what financial ties the people in charge of the effort have to companies that have commercial interests in selling cancer tests and treatments, and stand to benefit from particular research directions. This is even more important when appeals for funding are widely broadcast to an audience which might not be very sophisticated about biomedical and clinical research, and not in an simple position to determine who may be benefited from research that goes in particular directions.

[Source : Health Care Renewal]

In late 2007, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization ADAO found asbestos-tainted toys had reached the shelves of thousands of toy stores across the country. Most notably, the CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit, which was made in China, had been found to contain asbestos in its white and glow powder.

While production of the toy has ceased, an article from The New York Times in April 2008 elaborated on the near forgotten incident. The ADAO has filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court against CBS Corporation, Planet Toys Inc. manufacturers of the CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit and several retailers for their involvement in the sale of the asbestos-tainted toy. Families affected by the contaminated toy should also consider developing litigation for the exposure of “substantial quantities of tremolite asbestos.”

The ADAO has also continued its testing of other products and found several containing asbestos, including additional childrens toys.

ADAO is an organization that utilizes volunteers, several of whom have either been affected directly by asbestos-related illnesses or have watched friends and family suffer from the diseases, including mesothelioma. The organization funds research that might affect public health, and the group acts as a watchdog for asbestos-tainted products or violations of asbestos policies, which have been set by the Environmental Protection Agency EPA.

What’s Asbestos

Asbestos is considered a human carcinogen by the federal Department of Health and Human Services and is a “naturally occurring, fibrous silicate mineral,” according to the EPA. Microscopic fiber bundles that become airborne create asbestos.

When inhaled, the results can be deadly and severely damage an individuals body through the development of mesothelioma cancer. In addition to mesothelioma, asbestos can cause lung cancer or asbestosis, in which fibrous tissue scars the lungs.

According to the EPA, asbestos was mined for use in:

thermal/acoustic insulator used for fire proofing

roofing and siding shingles made with asbestos cement

textured paint and patching compounds used on wall and ceiling joints

artificial ashes and embers for gas-fired fireplaces

stove-top pads

vinyl floor tiles, flooring and adhesives

asbestos blanket or tape for hot water and steam pipes

oil and coal furnaces

Asbestos-Affected Childrens Toys

Tracing asbestos can be a difficult process because it is often overlooked, especially since it isn’t a common ingredient in manufacturing products anymore, although, it was at one time. The ADAO has been testing thousands of products for the contamination of asbestos in toys as well as regular products. Currently, they have determined several toys to have had trace amounts of asbestos including:

CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit

Ja-Ru Toy Clay found among three varieties of the product

Art Skills Clay Bucket asbestos found in six colors of clay

Additionally, there are lots of other products the ADAO found with asbestos traces that are not directly related to childrens toys, but could still affect a childs health. One of the major concerns is use of talc baby powder on babies, which could contain small amounts of asbestos. Other products that have been found with asbestos contamination, according to the ADAO, include:

Scotch High Performance and All Weather Duct tapes

DAP Crack Shot Spackling Paste

DAP 33 Window Glazing

Gardner Leak Stopper

The organization also found that hair rollers, hot plates, powdered cleansers and small appliances were at risk for adversely affecting public health with asbestos fibers. The organization noted that these products are all being sold at national retail chains including:

Wal-Mart

Costco

Toys “R” Us

Home Depot

Lowes

Macys

Bed Bath & Beyond

CVS

Consumer Affairs, a Web-based consumer news and resource center, issued the following tips to aid parents, relatives and friends with purchasing toys for children, in order to superior protect kids from asbestos exposure. The list includes the following:

Be a vigilant shopper and read all warnings that might include a toy breaking, containing small parts or fire and choking hazards.

Read product reviews that are both done by independent panels and consumers.

Research information on the most recent product recalls.

Inspect toys; any toys that are broken should be thrown away.

Before buying, consider how and where products were assembled.

What to do if Your Child is Exposed to Asbestos

If a child is exposed or even may have potentially been exposed to asbestos containing tremolite, it is imperative that medical assistance is sought immediately. Because of the nature of asbestos-induced conditions, if a child is exposed to asbestos and goes untreated as if everything were fine, they could develop mesothelioma cancer years later, which is why immediate medical care is advisable.

Individuals should also understand that because the exposure of asbestos is considered highly preventable, especially among kids, it might be necessary to develop an asbestos lawsuit to receive compensation for the irreversible damages caused by the exposure of asbestos. Victims should located an experienced mesothelioma attorney to learn more about developing a mesothelioma lawsuit.

About the Author

LegalView offers a wealth of mesothelioma information at http://mesothelioma.legalview.com/. Individuals can also visit http://www.LegalView.com and learn about other legal issues such as truck accident lawsuits or harmful Avandia side effects.

Article Source: Content for Reprint

[Source : Full text health articles - Content for Reprint]

I have a favorite quote about the impossibly complex bureaucratic structure of the American health care system from Oxymorons by JD Kleinke,(1) (which I used in my “Cautionary Tale” article in the European Journal of Internal Medicine[2]):

Tens of thousands of well-meaning people work throughout the health care system, none of whom ever see a patient or deliver any actual medical care. They preside over an infinity of rules, regulations, forms, processes, contract outsourcing, financial brokering, benefit plan tinkering, analytical processes, incompatible data systems, and dead forests of paperwork. Health care administration in America is a tower of Babel that reaches to the moon….

It seems impossible to keep track of all the administrative, managerial and bureaucratic organizations that now impact health care. All of them, however, seem greatly susceptible to mismanagement, and worse.

Here’s the latest example, from the Baltimore Sun,

A state contractor tampered with Maryland’s cancer registry, a database used by researchers to track the disease’s impact, counting hundreds of patients as having cancer when they did not, according to a legislative audit released yesterday.

The company, Macro International Inc., found in an internal investigation that data were deliberately altered between August 2004 and December of that year. The company fired the employee responsible for the cancer registry. Say officials said that Macro employees apparently overreported the incidence of cancer to ensure that the database met standards set by a national certification association, which closely monitors registries to ensure that states have a complete count of cases.

The misinformation led researchers to send an estimated 400 women letters beginning in 2005 asking them to participate in a cervical cancer study when they didn’t have the disease. About 10 of those women called the state Family Health Administration, part of the state’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene - one of the first indications that the cancer registry was inaccurate.

Guy Garnett, a Macro vice president, declined to comment, citing company policy not to discuss client issues. The company completed the contract term, earning $1.9 million to manage the registry for 18 months through January. The say hired a new vendor, Westat, beginning in February.

In 2003, when Macro submitted the 2001 cancer database to the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, it did not receive certification as required under its contract. Auditors faulted the say bureau for not taking action, such as terminating the contract.

The next year, Macro did receive certification, but the auditors noted that information was later found to be erroneous. Auditors outlined several red flags that were not raised until years later.

First, the state bureau did not review the 2002 data until August 2005, when it found they showed a 90 percent increase in cervical cancer cases and a 70 percent increase in melanoma cases from 1998 to 2002. At the time, auditors stated, Macro couldn’t provide an sufficient explanation for the staggering rise in cancer incidence.

Around the same time, as part of the say health department’s study of breast and cervical cancer diagnosis in Maryland women, about 2,300 patients in the cancer registry were asked to participate in the study. The Family Health Administration later worked with Macro to comb through medical histories, comparing original laboratory reports with data in the cancer registry, and determined that 400 of them didn’t have cancer. The study was suspended.

Then in Might 2006, a former Macro employee informed the say agency that data were deliberately altered. Macro’s investigation found that more than 13 percent of all cases in 2002 showed signs of tampering, according to the audit. Macro concluded that the changes were ‘methodical and were made by one or more persons with broad access to the system,’ the audit said.

I am of course familiar with the concept of a say-wide cancer registry. I must state it did not previously occur to (even) me that says would out-source the operation of such registries, and if so, that they would not bother to supervise the companies entrusted with collecting and analyzing the data.

Macro International Inc, is a for-profit, apparently privately held company. (I cannot find it on the Edgar database.) It boasts that its”mission is to deliver high-quality, research-based solutions to complex problems, integrating objective information with the advisory and implementation tasks needed to improve real world performance.” That wording is so full of buzz words and management/ bureaucratic-speak that I’m not sure what it means. So I cannot accuse Macro International’s performance of violating its own mission. But it certainly violated the values of public health and health care research.

So we have yet another example of how health care activities have been transferred from people and organizations which were supposed to be fulfilling a (in this case, public) health mission, to (in this case, for-profit) organizations which don’t have an overt commitment to the mission, a governance structure designed to fulfill the mission, or effective oversight or regulation to ensure that they fulfill the mission.

So the result was mismanagement, and fabricated data. The latter had direct impact on health care research, and on individual patients.

To take back the future of health care, we’ll have to ensure that health care is carried out by people and organizations pledged to uphold its core values, and working transparently and accountably under explicit and enforceable codes of ethics.

References

1. J.D. Kleinke. Oxymorons: the myth of a US health care system, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2001).

2. Poses RM. A cautionary tale: the dysfunction of the American health care system. Eur J Int Med 2003; 14: 123-130.

[Source : Health Care Renewal]

I’ve a favorite quote about the impossibly complex bureaucratic structure of the American health care system from Oxymorons by JD Kleinke,(1) (which I used in my “Cautionary Tale” article in the European Journal of Internal Medicine[2]):

Tens of thousands of well-meaning people work throughout the health care system, none of whom ever see a patient or deliver any actual medical care. They preside over an infinity of rules, regulations, forms, processes, contract outsourcing, financial brokering, benefit plan tinkering, analytical processes, incompatible data systems, and dead forests of paperwork. Health care administration in America is a tower of Babel that reaches to the moon….

It seems impossible to keep track of all the administrative, managerial and bureaucratic organizations that now impact health care. All of them, however, seem greatly susceptible to mismanagement, and worse.

Here’s the latest example, from the Baltimore Sun,

A say contractor tampered with Maryland’s cancer registry, a database used by researchers to track the disease’s impact, counting hundreds of patients as having cancer when they didn’t, according to a legislative audit released yesterday.

The company, Macro International Inc., found in an internal investigation that data were deliberately modified between August 2004 and December of that year. The company fired the employee responsible for the cancer registry. State officials stated that Macro employees apparently overreported the incidence of cancer to ensure that the database met standards set by a national certification association, which closely monitors registries to ensure that says have a complete count of cases.

The misinformation led researchers to send an estimated 400 women letters beginning in 2005 asking them to participate in a cervical cancer study when they did not have the disease. About 10 of those women called the say Family Health Administration, part of the state’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene - one of the first indications that the cancer registry was inaccurate.

Guy Garnett, a Macro vice president, declined to comment, citing company policy not to discuss client issues. The company completed the contract term, earning $1.9 million to manage the registry for 18 months through January. The say hired a new vendor, Westat, beginning in February.

In 2003, when Macro submitted the 2001 cancer database to the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, it didn’t receive certification as required under its contract. Auditors faulted the say bureau for not taking action, such as terminating the contract.

The next year, Macro did receive certification, but the auditors noted that information was later found to be erroneous. Auditors outlined several red flags that weren’t raised until years later.

First, the state agency did not review the 2002 data until August 2005, when it found they showed a 90 percent increase in cervical cancer cases and a 70 percent increase in melanoma cases from 1998 to 2002. At the time, auditors stated, Macro could not provide an adequate explanation for the staggering rise in cancer incidence.

Around the same time, as part of the say health department’s study of breast and cervical cancer diagnosis in Maryland women, about 2,300 patients in the cancer registry were asked to participate in the study. The Family Health Administration later worked with Macro to comb through medical histories, comparing original laboratory reports with data in the cancer registry, and determined that 400 of them did not have cancer. The study was suspended.

Then in Might 2006, a former Macro employee informed the say agency that data were deliberately altered. Macro’s investigation found that more than 13 percent of all cases in 2002 showed signs of tampering, according to the audit. Macro concluded that the changes were ‘methodical and were made by one or more persons with broad access to the system,’ the audit stated.

I’m of course familiar with the concept of a state-wide cancer registry. I must state it did not previously occur to (even) me that states would out-source the operation of such registries, and if so, that they wouldn’t bother to supervise the companies entrusted with collecting and examining the data.

Macro International Inc, is a for-profit, apparently privately held company. (I cannot find it on the Edgar database.) It boasts that its”mission is to deliver high-quality, research-based solutions to complex problems, integrating objective information with the advisory and implementation tasks needed to improve real world performance.” That wording is so full of buzz words and management/ bureaucratic-speak that I am not sure what it means. So I cannot accuse Macro International’s performance of violating its own mission. But it certainly violated the values of public health and health care research.

So we’ve yet another example of how health care activities have been transferred from people and organizations which were supposed to be fulfilling a (in this case, public) health mission, to (in this case, for-profit) organizations which don’t have an overt commitment to the mission, a governance structure designed to fulfill the mission, or effective oversight or regulation to ensure that they fulfill the mission.

So the result was mismanagement, and fabricated data. The latter had direct impact on health care research, and on individual patients.

To take back the future of health care, we will have to ensure that health care is carried out by people and organizations pledged to uphold its core values, and working transparently and accountably under explicit and enforceable codes of ethics.

References

1. J.D. Kleinke. Oxymorons: the myth of a US health care system, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2001).

2. Poses RM. A cautionary tale: the dysfunction of the American health care system. Eur J Int Med 2003; 14: 123-130.

[Source : Health Care Renewal]