Daily Diagnosis
Vitamin D-receptor polymorphism may increase melanoma risk, research suggests.
HealthDay (9/22, Preidt) reported that a paper appearing in the Nov. 1 issue of Cancer suggests that there is a "possible link between melanoma and a gene involved in vitamin D metabolism," which "has been identified by Italian researchers." Previous studies have shown "that vitamin D has significant protective effects against the development of cancer, because it regulates cells growth, cell differentiation, and cell death." There is "also evidence that sun exposure, which triggers the body to produce vitamin D, can have anti-cancer effects." HealthDay explained that "Vitamin D works by binding to a receptor in cells," and researchers at the University of Padova chose to focus on that process.
They conducted "meta-analyses of existing studies" that examined a "higher risk of developing melanoma (as well as all other cancer types), depending upon gene polymorphisms," Medscape (9/22, Mulcahy) added. Initially, they looked at seven studies that "addressed the issue of" vitamin D-receptor (VDR) gene "polymorphisms and cancer risk," but "dropped one because the data overlapped with data from another study." In the end, the six "studies provided a total of 2,152 cases and 2,410 controls." The investigators discovered that "only Bsml was significantly associated with the risk of developing melanoma," while the "other polymorphisms of the VDR gene that were studied -- FokI, TaqI, EcoRV, and Cdx2 -- were not."
In fact, "individuals with the BsmI polymorphism had a 30 percent increase in the odds ratio for melanoma," MedPage Today (9/22, Bankhead) reported. The researchers also said that "their findings are consistent indirectly with the hypothesis that the BsmI polymorphism alters interaction between 1,25[OH]2D3 and the vitamin D receptor, thereby reducing 1,25[OH]2D3 levels or activity and increasing vulnerability to melanoma." They did concede, however, "that there is no current evidence of a functional effect of the polymorphism on vitamin D metabolism or the vitamin D receptor." Still, the "current evidence is in favor of the association between one [vitamin D receptor] gene polymorphism and the risk of melanoma development, although further work will be necessary to validate the risk identified in the current meta-analysis," the investigators concluded.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Will Results of Presidential Elections Chart a New Course for the Nation’s Health Care System
Will Results of Presidential Elections Chart a New Course for the Nation’s Health Care System
With the presidential election just months away, voters are homing in on what Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are saying about the issues that impact voters’ lives. Key among their concerns is health care. In fact, the Kaiser Foundation recently reported that, “when it comes to the relative importance of different issues in deciding their vote, health care was one of the top five issues chosen by voters in three of the last four presidential elections” and is likely to be an important factor in this election as well. During the primary season, likely voters ranked health care third in order of importance behind the economy and the war in Iraq.
In the midst of clear evidence that health care matters to the electorate, how do the candidates of the two major parties propose to repair what many consider to be a “broken” health care system. Both Senators McCain and Obama propose expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is designed to provide low-cost health insurance for children and families. In addition to assuring the children are covered, what else are the candidates putting on the table?
The Obama PlanSenator Obama proposes a national health program that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health care similar to that available to federal employees. Subsidies would be available to help with the cost of premiums for those that need assistance. Moreover, there are plans to make available a National Health Insurance Exchange to reform the private insurance market. The premise is that any American could enroll in private plans that would be required to provide comprehensive benefits, to issue every applicant a policy, and to charge fair and stable premiums. In addition to SCHIP, Senator Obama proposes to expand Medicaid and require employers to make “meaningful” contributions to the health coverage of their employees. His plan also places great emphasis on reducing costs and moving toward a public health model. For details on Senator Obama’s proposed health plan, visit his website.
The McCain PlanSenator McCain’s plan has a basic premise to provide affordable health care without a mandate, thereby reducing regulations and government intervention and increasing individual responsibility. The Senator thinks that there should be an expansion of community health centers; tax incentives for low-income Americans to be able to afford health care coverage; expansion of health care online; reform of medical malpractice; and more availability of health savings accounts. Senator McCain advocates for employers to continue to provide health care coverage to employees or increase salaries so that they might purchase individual coverage. In addition, his proposal calls for federal subsidies for high-risk health insurance pools to help those who cannot obtain private coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions or lack of any previous health coverage. For details on Senator McCain’s proposed health plan, visit his website.
Health care is indeed a high priority issue for voters and candidates alike. The issue clearly becomes how to balance costs yet at the same time provide quality, affordable health care to all. If you are interested in comparing the candidates’ proposals, take a look at the following side-by-side summary by the Kaiser Family Foundation: www.health08.org
E-Policy will report in upcoming issues on changes being made to the U.S. health care system and, most importantly, on changes that impact the field of laboratory medicine.
As a Section 501(c)(3) organization, ASCP does not endorse any candidate in any race on the national, state or local front. Although this article focuses on the health care policies of the nominees by the two major parties, it is important to note that many third-party candidates also have positions on health care issues, and their websites can be consulted for further details.
With the presidential election just months away, voters are homing in on what Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are saying about the issues that impact voters’ lives. Key among their concerns is health care. In fact, the Kaiser Foundation recently reported that, “when it comes to the relative importance of different issues in deciding their vote, health care was one of the top five issues chosen by voters in three of the last four presidential elections” and is likely to be an important factor in this election as well. During the primary season, likely voters ranked health care third in order of importance behind the economy and the war in Iraq.
In the midst of clear evidence that health care matters to the electorate, how do the candidates of the two major parties propose to repair what many consider to be a “broken” health care system. Both Senators McCain and Obama propose expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is designed to provide low-cost health insurance for children and families. In addition to assuring the children are covered, what else are the candidates putting on the table?
The Obama PlanSenator Obama proposes a national health program that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health care similar to that available to federal employees. Subsidies would be available to help with the cost of premiums for those that need assistance. Moreover, there are plans to make available a National Health Insurance Exchange to reform the private insurance market. The premise is that any American could enroll in private plans that would be required to provide comprehensive benefits, to issue every applicant a policy, and to charge fair and stable premiums. In addition to SCHIP, Senator Obama proposes to expand Medicaid and require employers to make “meaningful” contributions to the health coverage of their employees. His plan also places great emphasis on reducing costs and moving toward a public health model. For details on Senator Obama’s proposed health plan, visit his website.
The McCain PlanSenator McCain’s plan has a basic premise to provide affordable health care without a mandate, thereby reducing regulations and government intervention and increasing individual responsibility. The Senator thinks that there should be an expansion of community health centers; tax incentives for low-income Americans to be able to afford health care coverage; expansion of health care online; reform of medical malpractice; and more availability of health savings accounts. Senator McCain advocates for employers to continue to provide health care coverage to employees or increase salaries so that they might purchase individual coverage. In addition, his proposal calls for federal subsidies for high-risk health insurance pools to help those who cannot obtain private coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions or lack of any previous health coverage. For details on Senator McCain’s proposed health plan, visit his website.
Health care is indeed a high priority issue for voters and candidates alike. The issue clearly becomes how to balance costs yet at the same time provide quality, affordable health care to all. If you are interested in comparing the candidates’ proposals, take a look at the following side-by-side summary by the Kaiser Family Foundation: www.health08.org
E-Policy will report in upcoming issues on changes being made to the U.S. health care system and, most importantly, on changes that impact the field of laboratory medicine.
As a Section 501(c)(3) organization, ASCP does not endorse any candidate in any race on the national, state or local front. Although this article focuses on the health care policies of the nominees by the two major parties, it is important to note that many third-party candidates also have positions on health care issues, and their websites can be consulted for further details.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Diabetes research news
Scientists Reprogram Adult Cells' Function
Advance Stirs Up Debate on Embryos
» Links to this article
By Rob SteinWashington Post Staff Writer Thursday, August 28, 2008; Page A01
Scientists have transformed one type of fully developed adult cell directly into another inside a living animal, a startling advance that could lead to cures for a variety of illnesses and sidestep the political and ethical quagmires
associated with embryonic stem cell research.
Through a series of painstaking experiments involving mice, the Harvard biologists pinpointed three crucial molecular switches that, when flipped, completely convert a common cell in the pancreas into the more precious insulin-producing ones that diabetics need to survive.
The experiments, detailed online yesterday in the journal Nature, raise the prospect that patients suffering from not only diabetes but also heart disease, strokes and many other ailments could eventually have some of their cells reprogrammed to cure their afflictions without the need for drugs, transplants or other therapies.
"It's kind of an extreme makeover of a cell," said Douglas A. Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, who led the research. "The goal is to create cells that are missing or defective in people. It's very exciting."
The work was hailed as a welcome development even by critics of research involving embryonic stem cells, which can be coaxed to become any tissue in the body but are highly controversial because they are obtained by destroying embryos.
"I see no moral problem in this basic technique," said Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a leading opponent of embryonic stems cell research. "This is a 'win-win' situation for medicine and ethics."
Researchers in the field, who have become accustomed to rapid advances, said they, too, were surprised by the advance.
"I'm stunned," said Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass., a developer of stem cell therapies. "It introduces a whole new paradigm for treating disease."
Melton and other researchers cautioned that many years of research lay ahead to prove whether the development would translate into cures.
"It's an important proof of concept," said Lawrence Goldstein, a stem cell researcher at the University of California at San Diego. "But these things always look easier on the blackboard than when you have to do them in actual patients."
Although the experiment involved mice, Melton and other researchers were optimistic that the approach would work in people.
Advance Stirs Up Debate on Embryos
» Links to this article
By Rob SteinWashington Post Staff Writer Thursday, August 28, 2008; Page A01
Scientists have transformed one type of fully developed adult cell directly into another inside a living animal, a startling advance that could lead to cures for a variety of illnesses and sidestep the political and ethical quagmires
associated with embryonic stem cell research.
Through a series of painstaking experiments involving mice, the Harvard biologists pinpointed three crucial molecular switches that, when flipped, completely convert a common cell in the pancreas into the more precious insulin-producing ones that diabetics need to survive.
The experiments, detailed online yesterday in the journal Nature, raise the prospect that patients suffering from not only diabetes but also heart disease, strokes and many other ailments could eventually have some of their cells reprogrammed to cure their afflictions without the need for drugs, transplants or other therapies.
"It's kind of an extreme makeover of a cell," said Douglas A. Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, who led the research. "The goal is to create cells that are missing or defective in people. It's very exciting."
The work was hailed as a welcome development even by critics of research involving embryonic stem cells, which can be coaxed to become any tissue in the body but are highly controversial because they are obtained by destroying embryos.
"I see no moral problem in this basic technique," said Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a leading opponent of embryonic stems cell research. "This is a 'win-win' situation for medicine and ethics."
Researchers in the field, who have become accustomed to rapid advances, said they, too, were surprised by the advance.
"I'm stunned," said Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass., a developer of stem cell therapies. "It introduces a whole new paradigm for treating disease."
Melton and other researchers cautioned that many years of research lay ahead to prove whether the development would translate into cures.
"It's an important proof of concept," said Lawrence Goldstein, a stem cell researcher at the University of California at San Diego. "But these things always look easier on the blackboard than when you have to do them in actual patients."
Although the experiment involved mice, Melton and other researchers were optimistic that the approach would work in people.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
STOP RUSSIAN INVASION OF GEORGIA NOW
KICK Russia out of the Olympics, kick out of G-8
NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
FBI accused of hardball tactics in anthrax case
Looking at the envelope I have my doubts about a lone Anthrax killer, we may never know the answer now that he "committed suicide" which may have been caused by the fact that he was mentally ill rather than an admission of guilt.
Even paranoid people know when they are being harassed and watched. I am sure they were not subtle at all with white vans all over the neighborhood and TV antennae hanging off of them.
Bruce Ivins was he the LONE anthrax deranged scientist that lived a peaceful life in Frederick Maryland and no one noticed that he was delusional paranoid killer?
if this is political science what is?
I have saved some of his work that is freely available for Science and US Army site and he worked with many colleagues and published many papers, and I also have worked in labs like this and the chances of a colleague and co author not noticing "strange behavior" the likes the FBI is describing is not possible. Also other interesting work that Ivins was linked to is Vibreo Cholera and Legionairre's, the bulk of the work in the Anthrax field supposedly working on the Anthrax vaccine, which I was and still would be opposed to under all circumstances, based on my experience in immunology and biochemistry, however, other scientists have been quoted as saying that the Anthrax powder used in the "bioterrorist act" could not have been made in secret by one person at the Frederick MD.
I also have my doubts as the perfect "closure" to this case. As far as I am concerned it is still unsolved, and with the sad suicide of one of the participants in a bioterrorist act already deranged and saw the Feds closing in decided to "spare" his family and co-workers --and
for all we know his co-conspirators as well in this bizarre case in the annals of terrorism in the USA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
