See page 19 for my article "Preventing Weekend Injuries"
http://livingstoncounty.mi.newsmemory.com/default.php?pSetup=livingstoncounty_life
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Livingston County Press and Argus Wellness Edition Published Article
See page 19 for my article "Preventing Weekend Injuries"
http://livingstoncounty.mi.newsmemory.com/default.php?pSetup=livingstoncounty_life
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
MMR, chicken pox: higher seizure risk with combo vaccine
MMR, chicken pox: higher seizure risk with combo vaccine
Posted by Tiffany O'Callaghan Monday, June 28, 2010 at 4:42 pm
New research published in the journal Pediatrics finds that giving children the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and chicken pox vaccines in two separate shots reduces the risk for febrile seizures, or fever-related convulsions that are not associated with conditions such as epilepsy. The analysis was based on data for 459,000 children between 1 and 2 years old.
Researchers found that children given the two vaccines in one combination shot had twice the risk for febrile seizures compared with those who were given the two vaccines separately. But, as Katherine Hobson points out for the Wall Street Journal health blog, the risk for seizures still remains very low — the combination shot was associated with one additional seizure per 2,300 doses.
The total risk for seizure with either vaccine is less than 1 in 1,000 and febrile seizures are not indicative of more serious conditions involving seizures, such as epilepsy, but they can certainly be terrifying for parents. Based on preliminary data from this research, which was conducted by investigators at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, last year the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended either the joint or separate vaccines for children between the ages of 1 and 4, but stated that if parents don't prefer one option to the other, pediatricians should give the vaccines separately.
Read more: http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2010/06/28/mmr-chicken-pox-higher-seizure-risk-with-combo-vaccine/#ixzz0sH5pyzFw
Posted by Tiffany O'Callaghan Monday, June 28, 2010 at 4:42 pm
New research published in the journal Pediatrics finds that giving children the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and chicken pox vaccines in two separate shots reduces the risk for febrile seizures, or fever-related convulsions that are not associated with conditions such as epilepsy. The analysis was based on data for 459,000 children between 1 and 2 years old.
Researchers found that children given the two vaccines in one combination shot had twice the risk for febrile seizures compared with those who were given the two vaccines separately. But, as Katherine Hobson points out for the Wall Street Journal health blog, the risk for seizures still remains very low — the combination shot was associated with one additional seizure per 2,300 doses.
The total risk for seizure with either vaccine is less than 1 in 1,000 and febrile seizures are not indicative of more serious conditions involving seizures, such as epilepsy, but they can certainly be terrifying for parents. Based on preliminary data from this research, which was conducted by investigators at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, last year the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended either the joint or separate vaccines for children between the ages of 1 and 4, but stated that if parents don't prefer one option to the other, pediatricians should give the vaccines separately.
Read more: http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2010/06/28/mmr-chicken-pox-higher-seizure-risk-with-combo-vaccine/#ixzz0sH5pyzFw
MMR, chicken pox: higher seizure risk with combo vaccine
MMR, chicken pox: higher seizure risk with combo vaccine
Posted by Tiffany O'Callaghan Monday, June 28, 2010 at 4:42 pm
New research published in the journal Pediatrics finds that giving children the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and chicken pox vaccines in two separate shots reduces the risk for febrile seizures, or fever-related convulsions that are not associated with conditions such as epilepsy. The analysis was based on data for 459,000 children between 1 and 2 years old.
Researchers found that children given the two vaccines in one combination shot had twice the risk for febrile seizures compared with those who were given the two vaccines separately. But, as Katherine Hobson points out for the Wall Street Journal health blog, the risk for seizures still remains very low — the combination shot was associated with one additional seizure per 2,300 doses.
The total risk for seizure with either vaccine is less than 1 in 1,000 and febrile seizures are not indicative of more serious conditions involving seizures, such as epilepsy, but they can certainly be terrifying for parents. Based on preliminary data from this research, which was conducted by investigators at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, last year the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended either the joint or separate vaccines for children between the ages of 1 and 4, but stated that if parents don't prefer one option to the other, pediatricians should give the vaccines separately.
Read more: http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2010/06/28/mmr-chicken-pox-higher-seizure-risk-with-combo-vaccine/#ixzz0sH5pyzFw
Posted by Tiffany O'Callaghan Monday, June 28, 2010 at 4:42 pm
New research published in the journal Pediatrics finds that giving children the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and chicken pox vaccines in two separate shots reduces the risk for febrile seizures, or fever-related convulsions that are not associated with conditions such as epilepsy. The analysis was based on data for 459,000 children between 1 and 2 years old.
Researchers found that children given the two vaccines in one combination shot had twice the risk for febrile seizures compared with those who were given the two vaccines separately. But, as Katherine Hobson points out for the Wall Street Journal health blog, the risk for seizures still remains very low — the combination shot was associated with one additional seizure per 2,300 doses.
The total risk for seizure with either vaccine is less than 1 in 1,000 and febrile seizures are not indicative of more serious conditions involving seizures, such as epilepsy, but they can certainly be terrifying for parents. Based on preliminary data from this research, which was conducted by investigators at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, last year the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended either the joint or separate vaccines for children between the ages of 1 and 4, but stated that if parents don't prefer one option to the other, pediatricians should give the vaccines separately.
Read more: http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2010/06/28/mmr-chicken-pox-higher-seizure-risk-with-combo-vaccine/#ixzz0sH5pyzFw
U.S. studies conflict on Glaxo diabetes drug risk
U.S. studies conflict on Glaxo diabetes drug risk
By Lisa Richwine – Mon Jun 28, 6:25 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Two studies reported serious heart risks with GlaxoSmithKline Plc's diabetes pill Avandia while a third contradicted those findings, adding to a debate over whether the drug should stay on the market.
The conflicting results were released on Monday, two weeks before an advisory panel meets to sort through a vast amount of data and help decide Avandia's future. The medicine was Glaxo's second-biggest drug but is much smaller after a safety controversy erupted three years ago.
One analysis of 56 clinical trials found Avandia increased the chances of a heart attack by 28 percent to 39 percent, researchers at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio said in an update to a 2007 study that sparked debate about the drug.
Dr. Steven Nissen, the lead author and an outspoken Avandia critic, said the results from more than 35,000 patients gave a more complete picture that reinforced his earlier concerns.
"A drug that increases the risk of heart attack by a third or more in diabetics represents a huge public health burden," Nissen, the Cleveland Clinic's head of cardiology, said in an interview. He said the drug should come off the market.
U.S. Democratic Representative Rosa DeLauro said the newly published data along with earlier findings "appear to confirm that Avandia is dangerous and should be pulled from the market.
But a study released at an American Diabetes Association meeting in Orlando, Florida, found diabetics taking Avandia were 28 percent less likely to die or have a heart attack or stroke compared with people who did not take a drug in the same class.
The National Institutes of Health-funded analysis looked at a clinical trial of more than 2,300 diabetics with heart disease. Glaxo provided some funding.
KEEPING OPTIONS
The lead researcher, Sheryl Kelsey of the University of Pittsburgh, said Avandia appears safe in high-risk diabetics whose other risk factors, such as smoking and high blood pressure, are under control.
Kelsey said many of her colleagues support keeping Avandia available. "There are people who want to have the choice of diabetes drugs be broad, and Avandia should be an option," she said.
Glaxo shares fell 0.9 percent to close at $34.30 on the New York Stock Exchange. The third study which showed benefits from Avandia was released after U.S. markets closed.
In another study released on Monday, government researchers said an analysis of more than 227,000 U.S. Medicare patients found Avandia was more dangerous to the heart than a rival pill, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd's Actos.
Those findings, reported earlier this month by Reuters and others, were published online by the Journal of the American Medical Association. The lead researcher is Food and Drug Administration reviewer David Graham, who has argued for years that Avandia is too risky.
Top FDA officials have disagreed and Glaxo has vigorously defended the drug, known generically as rosiglitazone.
In February, the FDA said it was again reviewing Avandia's risks. The new studies are "important contributions to the discussion of Avandia's safety," FDA Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein said in an interview.
The agency and the advisory panel that meets in July will consider those findings plus others, including FDA analyses not yet made public, he said.
The panel could urge keeping the drug on the market with a warning, or it could suggest prescribing limits or a ban on future sales. The FDA usually follows panel recommendations.
The FDA, which approved Avandia 11 years ago, will "review all the available evidence," Sharfstein said.
In the meantime, the agency has advised patients to continue using Avandia as directed. The current FDA-approved warning on Avandia says heart attack data are "inconclusive."
Avandia's use fell sharply after Nissen's first study, but it remains widely prescribed with sales of $1.2 billion globally in 2009. For drug giant Glaxo, it is now a small product. U.S. sales for 2009 -- $663 million -- made up 1.5 percent of the company's $44.25 billion in total sales.
DAMAGE DONE
The new studies could further depress use, but "the damage has really been done," Morningstar analyst Damien Conover said. The bigger concern for Glaxo is liability lawsuits if the drug comes off the market, which Conover said was unlikely.
"It's hard for me to see anything incrementally that's come out since the FDA has already taken a look at this issue" to lead to a withdrawal, Conover said.
Capitol Street analyst Ipsita Smolinski estimated a 30 percent to 40 percent chance the FDA panel would urge severe limits or withdrawal, depending on who sits on the committee.
Glaxo said six randomized clinical trials, the gold standard for medical studies, showed Avandia did not increase the overall risk of heart attack, stroke or death.
The studies from Nissen and Graham are among the largest for Avandia, but they rely on a combination of multiple trials or past Medicare claims. Such studies are considered less reliable than randomized clinical trials.
In a commentary discussing Graham's findings, Dr. David Juurlink of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto argued for erring on the side of public safety.
"Accumulating concerns about (Avandia) make it difficult to advance a cogent argument why, exactly, a patient might want to receive the drug," Juurlink wrote.
Many of the 23 million U.S. diabetics take medicines to lower blood sugar. The goal is to prevent disease complications such as blindness, amputations and heart disease, the leading killer of people with diabetes.
But critics say Avandia seems to contribute to heart damage. Nissen's study, published by the Archives of Internal Medicine, estimated one more heart attack would occur for every 37 to 52 people who took the drug for five years.
Graham's analysis, done with researchers at the FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, found a 27 percent higher stroke risk for Avandia over Actos, a 25 percent greater risk of heart failure and a 14 percent higher chance of dying.
"In older Americans with diabetes, taking Avandia is detrimental to your health" and patients "are far better off taking (Actos)," Graham said in an interview.
Both Graham and Nissen have been asked to speak to the FDA panel, Sharfstein said.
Diabetics have many alternatives as 12 classes of drugs are approved to lower blood sugar, Nissen said. They include older generic drugs such as metformin and newer medicines such as Merck & Co Inc's Januvia and AstraZeneca Plc and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co's Onglyza.
(Reporting by Lisa Richwine, Susan Heavey, Maggie Fox and Julie Steenhuysen; editing by Lisa Von Ahn and Matthew Lewis)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100628/hl_nm/us_glaxosmithkline_avandia
By Lisa Richwine – Mon Jun 28, 6:25 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Two studies reported serious heart risks with GlaxoSmithKline Plc's diabetes pill Avandia while a third contradicted those findings, adding to a debate over whether the drug should stay on the market.
The conflicting results were released on Monday, two weeks before an advisory panel meets to sort through a vast amount of data and help decide Avandia's future. The medicine was Glaxo's second-biggest drug but is much smaller after a safety controversy erupted three years ago.
One analysis of 56 clinical trials found Avandia increased the chances of a heart attack by 28 percent to 39 percent, researchers at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio said in an update to a 2007 study that sparked debate about the drug.
Dr. Steven Nissen, the lead author and an outspoken Avandia critic, said the results from more than 35,000 patients gave a more complete picture that reinforced his earlier concerns.
"A drug that increases the risk of heart attack by a third or more in diabetics represents a huge public health burden," Nissen, the Cleveland Clinic's head of cardiology, said in an interview. He said the drug should come off the market.
U.S. Democratic Representative Rosa DeLauro said the newly published data along with earlier findings "appear to confirm that Avandia is dangerous and should be pulled from the market.
But a study released at an American Diabetes Association meeting in Orlando, Florida, found diabetics taking Avandia were 28 percent less likely to die or have a heart attack or stroke compared with people who did not take a drug in the same class.
The National Institutes of Health-funded analysis looked at a clinical trial of more than 2,300 diabetics with heart disease. Glaxo provided some funding.
KEEPING OPTIONS
The lead researcher, Sheryl Kelsey of the University of Pittsburgh, said Avandia appears safe in high-risk diabetics whose other risk factors, such as smoking and high blood pressure, are under control.
Kelsey said many of her colleagues support keeping Avandia available. "There are people who want to have the choice of diabetes drugs be broad, and Avandia should be an option," she said.
Glaxo shares fell 0.9 percent to close at $34.30 on the New York Stock Exchange. The third study which showed benefits from Avandia was released after U.S. markets closed.
In another study released on Monday, government researchers said an analysis of more than 227,000 U.S. Medicare patients found Avandia was more dangerous to the heart than a rival pill, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd's Actos.
Those findings, reported earlier this month by Reuters and others, were published online by the Journal of the American Medical Association. The lead researcher is Food and Drug Administration reviewer David Graham, who has argued for years that Avandia is too risky.
Top FDA officials have disagreed and Glaxo has vigorously defended the drug, known generically as rosiglitazone.
In February, the FDA said it was again reviewing Avandia's risks. The new studies are "important contributions to the discussion of Avandia's safety," FDA Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein said in an interview.
The agency and the advisory panel that meets in July will consider those findings plus others, including FDA analyses not yet made public, he said.
The panel could urge keeping the drug on the market with a warning, or it could suggest prescribing limits or a ban on future sales. The FDA usually follows panel recommendations.
The FDA, which approved Avandia 11 years ago, will "review all the available evidence," Sharfstein said.
In the meantime, the agency has advised patients to continue using Avandia as directed. The current FDA-approved warning on Avandia says heart attack data are "inconclusive."
Avandia's use fell sharply after Nissen's first study, but it remains widely prescribed with sales of $1.2 billion globally in 2009. For drug giant Glaxo, it is now a small product. U.S. sales for 2009 -- $663 million -- made up 1.5 percent of the company's $44.25 billion in total sales.
DAMAGE DONE
The new studies could further depress use, but "the damage has really been done," Morningstar analyst Damien Conover said. The bigger concern for Glaxo is liability lawsuits if the drug comes off the market, which Conover said was unlikely.
"It's hard for me to see anything incrementally that's come out since the FDA has already taken a look at this issue" to lead to a withdrawal, Conover said.
Capitol Street analyst Ipsita Smolinski estimated a 30 percent to 40 percent chance the FDA panel would urge severe limits or withdrawal, depending on who sits on the committee.
Glaxo said six randomized clinical trials, the gold standard for medical studies, showed Avandia did not increase the overall risk of heart attack, stroke or death.
The studies from Nissen and Graham are among the largest for Avandia, but they rely on a combination of multiple trials or past Medicare claims. Such studies are considered less reliable than randomized clinical trials.
In a commentary discussing Graham's findings, Dr. David Juurlink of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto argued for erring on the side of public safety.
"Accumulating concerns about (Avandia) make it difficult to advance a cogent argument why, exactly, a patient might want to receive the drug," Juurlink wrote.
Many of the 23 million U.S. diabetics take medicines to lower blood sugar. The goal is to prevent disease complications such as blindness, amputations and heart disease, the leading killer of people with diabetes.
But critics say Avandia seems to contribute to heart damage. Nissen's study, published by the Archives of Internal Medicine, estimated one more heart attack would occur for every 37 to 52 people who took the drug for five years.
Graham's analysis, done with researchers at the FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, found a 27 percent higher stroke risk for Avandia over Actos, a 25 percent greater risk of heart failure and a 14 percent higher chance of dying.
"In older Americans with diabetes, taking Avandia is detrimental to your health" and patients "are far better off taking (Actos)," Graham said in an interview.
Both Graham and Nissen have been asked to speak to the FDA panel, Sharfstein said.
Diabetics have many alternatives as 12 classes of drugs are approved to lower blood sugar, Nissen said. They include older generic drugs such as metformin and newer medicines such as Merck & Co Inc's Januvia and AstraZeneca Plc and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co's Onglyza.
(Reporting by Lisa Richwine, Susan Heavey, Maggie Fox and Julie Steenhuysen; editing by Lisa Von Ahn and Matthew Lewis)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100628/hl_nm/us_glaxosmithkline_avandia
Monday, June 21, 2010
Monsanto sues Dairy over advertising
Monsanto sues Oakhurst Dairy over advertising
Submitted by Drew Kaplan on June 18, 2010 – 9:16 pm24 Comments
Share
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Oakhurst Dairy Inc. is being sued by Monsanto Co., which alleges that Oakhurst’s marketing campaign that touts its milk as being free of artificial growth hormones is misleading. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, demands that Oakhurst stop advertising that it doesn’t sell milk from hormone-treated cows. It also asks that the dairy stop putting labels on its milk containers reading “Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones.” Monsanto officials said Oakhurst’s ads and labels are deceptive and disparage Monsanto’s products with the inference that milk from untreated cows is better than milk from hormone-treated cows.
“We believe Oakhurst labels deceive consumers; they’re marketing a perception that one milk product is safer or of higher quality than other milk,” said Jennifer Garrett, director of technical services for Monsanto’s dairy business. “Numerous scientific and regulatory reviews throughout the world demonstrate that that’s unfounded. The milk is the same, and the amount of protein, fats, nutrients, etc. are all the same.”
Oakhurst President Stanley Bennett II said his dairy sells milk without artificial growth hormones because of consumer demands. Oakhurst about five years ago began buying milk only from farms that pledge in writing that they won’t use artificial hormones.
“On principle, it’s also a question of free speech,” Bennett said. “The world seems a little bit discombobulated when somebody attempts to prohibit you from trying to do the right thing.”
Artificial growth hormone is a genetically engineered veterinary drug given to cows to increase milk production. Another name for the drug is recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST.
Many people oppose the use of rBST, believing it is linked to breast cancer and premature puberty in children. But Monsanto and others argue that no such link exists. Canada and the European Union have banned the use of the hormone, but the Food and Drug Administration has approved it for use in the United States.
Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis and is the leading producer of rBST, had revenues of $4.7 billion in 2002. Oakhurst, based in Portland, had sales of $185 million, according to Bennett.
Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles said Monsanto has not filed similar lawsuits against other dairies, but wouldn’t say whether more were planned. Monsanto filed similar suits against two dairies in Illinois about 10 years ago, and both were settled out of court under confidential terms, he said.
The suit against Oakhurst claims unfair competition, unfair business practices and interference with advantageous business relationships.
According to the suit, the business relationships between Monsanto and dairy producers who use the artificial growth hormone have suffered because the farmers will stop using the treatments.
Bennett said his company makes no claims on the science involved with growth hormones. “We’re in the business of marketing milk, not Monsanto’s drugs,” he said.
Earlier this year, Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe rejected a request from Monsanto that Maine abandon its Quality Trademark Seal program that indicates when milk is free of artificial growth hormones.
Monsanto argued that the seal, which was adopted in 1994, misleads consumers into thinking that hormone-free milk is superior to milk using an artificial growth hormone.
http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/06/18/monsanto-sues-oakhurst-dairy-over-advertising/
Submitted by Drew Kaplan on June 18, 2010 – 9:16 pm24 Comments
Share
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Oakhurst Dairy Inc. is being sued by Monsanto Co., which alleges that Oakhurst’s marketing campaign that touts its milk as being free of artificial growth hormones is misleading. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, demands that Oakhurst stop advertising that it doesn’t sell milk from hormone-treated cows. It also asks that the dairy stop putting labels on its milk containers reading “Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones.” Monsanto officials said Oakhurst’s ads and labels are deceptive and disparage Monsanto’s products with the inference that milk from untreated cows is better than milk from hormone-treated cows.
“We believe Oakhurst labels deceive consumers; they’re marketing a perception that one milk product is safer or of higher quality than other milk,” said Jennifer Garrett, director of technical services for Monsanto’s dairy business. “Numerous scientific and regulatory reviews throughout the world demonstrate that that’s unfounded. The milk is the same, and the amount of protein, fats, nutrients, etc. are all the same.”
Oakhurst President Stanley Bennett II said his dairy sells milk without artificial growth hormones because of consumer demands. Oakhurst about five years ago began buying milk only from farms that pledge in writing that they won’t use artificial hormones.
“On principle, it’s also a question of free speech,” Bennett said. “The world seems a little bit discombobulated when somebody attempts to prohibit you from trying to do the right thing.”
Artificial growth hormone is a genetically engineered veterinary drug given to cows to increase milk production. Another name for the drug is recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST.
Many people oppose the use of rBST, believing it is linked to breast cancer and premature puberty in children. But Monsanto and others argue that no such link exists. Canada and the European Union have banned the use of the hormone, but the Food and Drug Administration has approved it for use in the United States.
Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis and is the leading producer of rBST, had revenues of $4.7 billion in 2002. Oakhurst, based in Portland, had sales of $185 million, according to Bennett.
Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles said Monsanto has not filed similar lawsuits against other dairies, but wouldn’t say whether more were planned. Monsanto filed similar suits against two dairies in Illinois about 10 years ago, and both were settled out of court under confidential terms, he said.
The suit against Oakhurst claims unfair competition, unfair business practices and interference with advantageous business relationships.
According to the suit, the business relationships between Monsanto and dairy producers who use the artificial growth hormone have suffered because the farmers will stop using the treatments.
Bennett said his company makes no claims on the science involved with growth hormones. “We’re in the business of marketing milk, not Monsanto’s drugs,” he said.
Earlier this year, Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe rejected a request from Monsanto that Maine abandon its Quality Trademark Seal program that indicates when milk is free of artificial growth hormones.
Monsanto argued that the seal, which was adopted in 1994, misleads consumers into thinking that hormone-free milk is superior to milk using an artificial growth hormone.
http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/06/18/monsanto-sues-oakhurst-dairy-over-advertising/
Monday, June 14, 2010
Business Briefs: County chiropractor celebrates grand opening of Hartland office
Business Briefs: County chiropractor celebrates grand opening of Hartland office
June 14, 2010
A Livingston County chiropractor and his staff recently celebrated the grand opening of their new office in Hartland Township.
Members of the Hartland Area Chamber of Commerce also helped Dr. Jeremy Rosner mark the opening of Wellness 4 Life Chiropractic, east of U.S. 23 at 11202 W. M-59.
Rosner grew up in West Bloomfield and practiced as an associate in Port Huron. He now calls Hartland Township home both professionally and personally. He and his wife, Hayley, an attorney, reside in Hartland Township.
Rosner aims to provide gentle chiropractic care for families in a friendly environment. The center also has two massage therapists on staff. Rosner has incorporated state-of-the-art technology including computerized assessment tools and digital X-rays into his care plan for patients.
Hours of operation for the new center are Mondays and Wednesdays from 8 a.m. to noon and 1-6 p.m.; Tuesdays from 1-6 p.m.; Thursdays from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; and Fridays from 8 a.m. to noon and 1-5 p.m. The office is open Saturdays and Sundays by appointment.
For more information, call (810) 632-5252 or see www.wellness4lifechiro.com.
June 14, 2010
A Livingston County chiropractor and his staff recently celebrated the grand opening of their new office in Hartland Township.
Members of the Hartland Area Chamber of Commerce also helped Dr. Jeremy Rosner mark the opening of Wellness 4 Life Chiropractic, east of U.S. 23 at 11202 W. M-59.
Rosner grew up in West Bloomfield and practiced as an associate in Port Huron. He now calls Hartland Township home both professionally and personally. He and his wife, Hayley, an attorney, reside in Hartland Township.
Rosner aims to provide gentle chiropractic care for families in a friendly environment. The center also has two massage therapists on staff. Rosner has incorporated state-of-the-art technology including computerized assessment tools and digital X-rays into his care plan for patients.
Hours of operation for the new center are Mondays and Wednesdays from 8 a.m. to noon and 1-6 p.m.; Tuesdays from 1-6 p.m.; Thursdays from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; and Fridays from 8 a.m. to noon and 1-5 p.m. The office is open Saturdays and Sundays by appointment.
For more information, call (810) 632-5252 or see www.wellness4lifechiro.com.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Tanning Beds Triple Melanoma Risk
Skin Cancer Risk Even Higher for Frequent Users of High-Pressure Tanning Beds
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD
May 27, 2010 -- Regular use of tanning beds triples or even quadruples the risk of developing melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer, new research finds.
The study is the largest of its kind to examine whether indoor tanning causes skin cancer, and it comes as federal regulators are considering new rules designed to limit the use of commercial tanning by teens.
Compared to people who had never used a tanning bed, indoor tanners had a 74% increased risk for melanoma.
People who spent more than 50 hours tanning indoors had a threefold increase in risk, compared to people who never used a tanning bed, after adjusting for known risk factors for the deadly skin cancer.
The risk was four times higher among frequent users of high-pressure tanning beds, which emit mostly UVA radiation.
Researcher DeAnn Lazovich, PhD, of the University of Minnesota says the study was designed to address the limitations of past research, which have allowed the tanning industry to continue to deny that indoor tanning causes skin cancer.
“Our data would suggest that there is no safe tanning device,” she tells WebMD.
Melanoma, Indoor Tanning Increasing
The American Cancer Society predicted that in 2009, nearly 70,000 Americans would be diagnosed with melanoma and more than 8,500 people would die of the disease.
Melanoma is one of the fastest-growing cancers among whites, increasing by about 2% a year between 1997 and 2006.
During this time, the popularity of indoor tanning exploded, especially among women under age 30. Only a few tanning salons existed in the United States in the early 1980s. Today, by one industry estimate, more than 30 million Americans use commercial tanning beds each year.
Allan Halpern, MD, who is chief of dermatology at New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, says the new study suggests a clear link between the increased popularity of indoor tanning and the rise in melanoma.
“One of the challenges in these studies has been that people who use tanning beds also tend to tan in the sun,” he tells WebMD. “That has allowed the industry to claim that indoor tanning isn’t to blame.”
Also, most previous studies did not distinguish between high-speed machines, which emit some UVB rays, and high-pressure machines, which emit almost exclusively UVA rays.
The latest study included nearly 1,200 melanoma patients and a similar number of age- and gender-matched people in a control group. Using questionnaires and telephone interviews, the researchers determined that 63% of the melanoma patients in the study had used a commercial tanning device at least once, compared to 51% of the people without cancer.
Among the other major findings:
* Melanoma risk increased with exposure, measured by total hours of indoor tanning, the number of individual sessions, or years of exposure.
* The increase in risk was seen for both high-speed and high-pressure machines, suggesting that no type of tanning device could be considered safe.
* Burns from indoor tanning were commonly reported.
* The strongest association was seen for melanomas originating on the trunk, which, in women at least, is an area of the body generally exposed to UV rays only during tanning.
The research showed no specific increase in melanoma risk associated with tanning bed use at a young age, but a clear association was seen for increased exposure over time.
The study appears in the June issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
“Overall exposure was the important thing,” Lazovich says. “Melanoma is the second most common cancer among young women. Young women are particularly vulnerable because they are the most likely to use these devices.”
Tanning Industry Responds
In response to the study, a tanning industry spokesman said the findings are misleading because the researchers did not distinguish between people with major risk factors for melanoma and the general population.
Those risk factors include having very fair skin, having many moles, and having freckles or red hair.
Melanoma patients in the study were five times as likely as non-patients to have very fair skin and nearly 14 times more likely to have many moles.
John Overstreet of the Indoor Tanning Association tells WebMD that the group’s own scientific analysis of the findings suggests that when high-risk groups are removed, indoor tanning may actually lower melanoma risk.
Overstreet also said indoor tanning may protect against cancer by increasing vitamin D, which is produced in the body in response to UV exposure.
Vitamin D researcher Michael Holick, MD, tells WebMD that although indoor tanning may boost vitamin D levels, he does not recommend it.
“I have never advocated tanning,” he says. “What I have said is that people who want to do it using tanning beds to increase their vitamin D in the winter should do it responsibly. That means protecting your face and staying in for 50% of the time recommended for tanning.”
Feds May Soon Restrict Indoor Tanning
Last year, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) weighed in, concluding that indoor tanning does cause melanoma.
In March, an FDA panel met to consider regulatory changes that could restrict access to tanning salons.
Although an outright ban is unlikely, many believe the group will require minors to have their parents' permission if they want to use commercial tanning devices.
Skin Cancer Risk Even Higher for Frequent Users of High-Pressure Tanning Beds
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD
May 27, 2010 -- Regular use of tanning beds triples or even quadruples the risk of developing melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer, new research finds.
The study is the largest of its kind to examine whether indoor tanning causes skin cancer, and it comes as federal regulators are considering new rules designed to limit the use of commercial tanning by teens.
Compared to people who had never used a tanning bed, indoor tanners had a 74% increased risk for melanoma.
People who spent more than 50 hours tanning indoors had a threefold increase in risk, compared to people who never used a tanning bed, after adjusting for known risk factors for the deadly skin cancer.
The risk was four times higher among frequent users of high-pressure tanning beds, which emit mostly UVA radiation.
Researcher DeAnn Lazovich, PhD, of the University of Minnesota says the study was designed to address the limitations of past research, which have allowed the tanning industry to continue to deny that indoor tanning causes skin cancer.
“Our data would suggest that there is no safe tanning device,” she tells WebMD.
Melanoma, Indoor Tanning Increasing
The American Cancer Society predicted that in 2009, nearly 70,000 Americans would be diagnosed with melanoma and more than 8,500 people would die of the disease.
Melanoma is one of the fastest-growing cancers among whites, increasing by about 2% a year between 1997 and 2006.
During this time, the popularity of indoor tanning exploded, especially among women under age 30. Only a few tanning salons existed in the United States in the early 1980s. Today, by one industry estimate, more than 30 million Americans use commercial tanning beds each year.
Allan Halpern, MD, who is chief of dermatology at New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, says the new study suggests a clear link between the increased popularity of indoor tanning and the rise in melanoma.
“One of the challenges in these studies has been that people who use tanning beds also tend to tan in the sun,” he tells WebMD. “That has allowed the industry to claim that indoor tanning isn’t to blame.”
Also, most previous studies did not distinguish between high-speed machines, which emit some UVB rays, and high-pressure machines, which emit almost exclusively UVA rays.
The latest study included nearly 1,200 melanoma patients and a similar number of age- and gender-matched people in a control group. Using questionnaires and telephone interviews, the researchers determined that 63% of the melanoma patients in the study had used a commercial tanning device at least once, compared to 51% of the people without cancer.
Among the other major findings:
* Melanoma risk increased with exposure, measured by total hours of indoor tanning, the number of individual sessions, or years of exposure.
* The increase in risk was seen for both high-speed and high-pressure machines, suggesting that no type of tanning device could be considered safe.
* Burns from indoor tanning were commonly reported.
* The strongest association was seen for melanomas originating on the trunk, which, in women at least, is an area of the body generally exposed to UV rays only during tanning.
The research showed no specific increase in melanoma risk associated with tanning bed use at a young age, but a clear association was seen for increased exposure over time.
The study appears in the June issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
“Overall exposure was the important thing,” Lazovich says. “Melanoma is the second most common cancer among young women. Young women are particularly vulnerable because they are the most likely to use these devices.”
Tanning Industry Responds
In response to the study, a tanning industry spokesman said the findings are misleading because the researchers did not distinguish between people with major risk factors for melanoma and the general population.
Those risk factors include having very fair skin, having many moles, and having freckles or red hair.
Melanoma patients in the study were five times as likely as non-patients to have very fair skin and nearly 14 times more likely to have many moles.
John Overstreet of the Indoor Tanning Association tells WebMD that the group’s own scientific analysis of the findings suggests that when high-risk groups are removed, indoor tanning may actually lower melanoma risk.
Overstreet also said indoor tanning may protect against cancer by increasing vitamin D, which is produced in the body in response to UV exposure.
Vitamin D researcher Michael Holick, MD, tells WebMD that although indoor tanning may boost vitamin D levels, he does not recommend it.
“I have never advocated tanning,” he says. “What I have said is that people who want to do it using tanning beds to increase their vitamin D in the winter should do it responsibly. That means protecting your face and staying in for 50% of the time recommended for tanning.”
Feds May Soon Restrict Indoor Tanning
Last year, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) weighed in, concluding that indoor tanning does cause melanoma.
In March, an FDA panel met to consider regulatory changes that could restrict access to tanning salons.
Although an outright ban is unlikely, many believe the group will require minors to have their parents' permission if they want to use commercial tanning devices.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Headache Prevention
Headache Prevention
Avoiding your headache triggers – including stress, dehydration, and too little sleep -- can help you stay pain-free. You'll soon find that preventing a headache is a lot easier than treating one.
By Diana Rodriguez
Medically reviewed by Pat F. Bass III, MD, MPH
September 14, 2009
When a headache strikes, especially a migraine headache, you might be out of commission for several hours or even days. While there are many effective headache treatment, headache prevention is the place to begin.
Headache Prevention: What You Can Control
There are headache triggers you can control, and those you can’t. Some triggers in the latter category are the weather and, if you’re female, the hormonal fluctuations that occur with menstruation, ovulation, and menopause.
"You're not going to be able to prevent all headaches,” says Mark Green, MD, director of the Headache Center at NewYork–Presbyterian and Columbia University Medical Center. “But you can minimize them with headache trigger management.”
Headache Prevention: Common Triggers
The following are common triggers for headaches and migraines, and many are within your control:
· Stress
· Drinking alcohol, and red wine in particular
· Sensory overload — exposure to lights that are too bright, sounds that are too loud, or smells that are overpowering
· Dehydration — not drinking enough water
· Too much sleep or not enough sleep
· Exercising too rigorously
· Hormonal changes
· Not eating frequently enough
· Smoking
· Straining your eyes reading or sitting at a computer
· A difference in your caffeine intake — just skipping your morning cup for one day can cause a caffeine-withdrawal headache
· Food additives or naturally-occurring substances, including nitrates in processed meats, MSG in fast food and Chinese food, tyramine found in certain aged cheeses and soy-based foods, and the artificial sweetener aspartame
Headache Prevention: Keeping a Diary
Knowing your headache triggers enables you to start your own headache prevention program. Keeping a diary will help you figure out which of the many possible headache triggers affects you personally. In your headache diary, you should record each day:
· All foods you eat
· All beverages you drink
· Medicines you take
· What time you wake up and go to bed
· All exercise and any other physical activities you undertake
Log each headache that you get, what time of day it occurred, and what you did to resolve it. It's also a good idea to track what the weather was like and any hormonal changes, such as when you ovulated and began your period.
After a while, you should begin to see patterns. For instance, do you notice headaches more on weekends when you sleep in? What happens on Mondays, when you have to get to work early? What happens on Friday nights when you drink wine?
This information will help doctors diagnose what's causing your headaches, and what you can do to prevent them. “Every day of the week gives us hints," says Dr. Green.
Headache Prevention: Easy Techniques
Practicing these easy steps will help you avoid many common triggers:
· Maintain good posture, and move around during the day. Make sure your neck isn't remaining stiff and that you're moving it around if you're doing desk work, says Green. Also, take your eyes away from the computer every so often to avoid eyestrain.
· Get the right pillows. "People should be careful to evaluate their pillows. A lot of people should travel with their [home] pillow because we don't often like changes in pillows," says Green.
· Stay consistent. Keep a regular schedule, and don't greatly vary your diet or your waking, sleeping, and exercise routines.
· Get an appropriate amount of sleep. Either too much or too little shuteye can leave your head pounding, so make sure you get a steady eight hours each night.
· Stick to a healthy diet and exercise regimen. Healthy foods and regular exercise help ward off headaches. Never skip meals, and have a small, healthy snack between meals so that you don't get too hungry.
· Drink water. Dehydration can lead to headache, so drink plenty of water throughout the day.
· Manage stress. Stress can build up and cause your head to pound, so find ways to deal with it. Take up a hobby, exercise, try yoga, and do some deep breathing when you feel stress creeping in.
Even if you can't stop every headache from happening, a few simple changes can help you avoid at least a few. Headache prevention is less painful than dealing with a headache, so make changes today to prevent a headache tomorrow.
Finally, Maintaining regular chiropractic care can also help reduce frequency and intensity of headaches.
Avoiding your headache triggers – including stress, dehydration, and too little sleep -- can help you stay pain-free. You'll soon find that preventing a headache is a lot easier than treating one.
By Diana Rodriguez
Medically reviewed by Pat F. Bass III, MD, MPH
September 14, 2009
When a headache strikes, especially a migraine headache, you might be out of commission for several hours or even days. While there are many effective headache treatment, headache prevention is the place to begin.
Headache Prevention: What You Can Control
There are headache triggers you can control, and those you can’t. Some triggers in the latter category are the weather and, if you’re female, the hormonal fluctuations that occur with menstruation, ovulation, and menopause.
"You're not going to be able to prevent all headaches,” says Mark Green, MD, director of the Headache Center at NewYork–Presbyterian and Columbia University Medical Center. “But you can minimize them with headache trigger management.”
Headache Prevention: Common Triggers
The following are common triggers for headaches and migraines, and many are within your control:
· Stress
· Drinking alcohol, and red wine in particular
· Sensory overload — exposure to lights that are too bright, sounds that are too loud, or smells that are overpowering
· Dehydration — not drinking enough water
· Too much sleep or not enough sleep
· Exercising too rigorously
· Hormonal changes
· Not eating frequently enough
· Smoking
· Straining your eyes reading or sitting at a computer
· A difference in your caffeine intake — just skipping your morning cup for one day can cause a caffeine-withdrawal headache
· Food additives or naturally-occurring substances, including nitrates in processed meats, MSG in fast food and Chinese food, tyramine found in certain aged cheeses and soy-based foods, and the artificial sweetener aspartame
Headache Prevention: Keeping a Diary
Knowing your headache triggers enables you to start your own headache prevention program. Keeping a diary will help you figure out which of the many possible headache triggers affects you personally. In your headache diary, you should record each day:
· All foods you eat
· All beverages you drink
· Medicines you take
· What time you wake up and go to bed
· All exercise and any other physical activities you undertake
Log each headache that you get, what time of day it occurred, and what you did to resolve it. It's also a good idea to track what the weather was like and any hormonal changes, such as when you ovulated and began your period.
After a while, you should begin to see patterns. For instance, do you notice headaches more on weekends when you sleep in? What happens on Mondays, when you have to get to work early? What happens on Friday nights when you drink wine?
This information will help doctors diagnose what's causing your headaches, and what you can do to prevent them. “Every day of the week gives us hints," says Dr. Green.
Headache Prevention: Easy Techniques
Practicing these easy steps will help you avoid many common triggers:
· Maintain good posture, and move around during the day. Make sure your neck isn't remaining stiff and that you're moving it around if you're doing desk work, says Green. Also, take your eyes away from the computer every so often to avoid eyestrain.
· Get the right pillows. "People should be careful to evaluate their pillows. A lot of people should travel with their [home] pillow because we don't often like changes in pillows," says Green.
· Stay consistent. Keep a regular schedule, and don't greatly vary your diet or your waking, sleeping, and exercise routines.
· Get an appropriate amount of sleep. Either too much or too little shuteye can leave your head pounding, so make sure you get a steady eight hours each night.
· Stick to a healthy diet and exercise regimen. Healthy foods and regular exercise help ward off headaches. Never skip meals, and have a small, healthy snack between meals so that you don't get too hungry.
· Drink water. Dehydration can lead to headache, so drink plenty of water throughout the day.
· Manage stress. Stress can build up and cause your head to pound, so find ways to deal with it. Take up a hobby, exercise, try yoga, and do some deep breathing when you feel stress creeping in.
Even if you can't stop every headache from happening, a few simple changes can help you avoid at least a few. Headache prevention is less painful than dealing with a headache, so make changes today to prevent a headache tomorrow.
Finally, Maintaining regular chiropractic care can also help reduce frequency and intensity of headaches.
June is Headache Awareness month
June is headache awareness month. If you or a loved one is suffering needless from headaches or are tired of being on medication, we can help. We provide a painless alternative to medication. For more information on how chiropractic can help you with your headaches go to http://www.wellness4lifechiro.com/articles.htm and search "headache". Stop suffering and call us today. 810-632-5252
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
