Health & Wellness
The distinctive ability of mothers to identify the cries of their offspring is widely evident in nature, where it is critical to the survival of these offspring. In humans, we are aware that the distinctive ability of mothers to recognize and respond to the smiles and cries of their babies plays an important role in the psychological, cognitive, and social development of these babies. We have had a very limited understanding of how the maternal brain accomplishes these amazing feats, but a new study published in the February 15th issue of Biological Psychiatry now provides some new insight.
In a couple where one of the partners is diagnosed with cancer, women are more consistently and severely distressed than men, regardless of whether they are the person with the disease or the healthy partner. The results of a research paper appearing in the Psychological Bulletin report that when a couple is faced with coping with a diagnosis of cancer, gender plays a greater role than who the patient is.
For more than twenty-years, researchers have accumulated anecdotal and statistical evidence that has been inconclusive and even contradictory as to who carries the greater psychological burden in a couple struggling with the diagnosis of cancer, the patient or the spouse" The researchers from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and the University Medical Center Groningen, in the Netherlands, conducted the exhaustive study that analyzed the findings of 43 studies from around the world that assessed distress in couples coping with cancer.
Some 120,000 Russian orphans were adopted both in Russia and abroad in 2007, a 6.4% increase from 2006, an official with Russia's Science and Education Ministry said on Friday.
"A significant growth in the amount of children adopted was seen in more than 40% of Russian regions," said Alina Levitskaya, the director of the ministry's department for education, higher education and social protection.
|©Du Bin / The New York Times
|The Changzhou SPL plant, which is west of Shanghai, supplied much of the active ingredient for the blood thinner heparin.
Amid indications that more people may have died or been harmed after being given a brand of the blood thinner heparin, U.S. federal drug regulators said Thursday that they had found "potential deficiencies" at a Chinese plant that supplied much of the active ingredient for the drug.
The government has taken one step closer to realizing its dream of forcing people to get flu shots. Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices used to "recommend" that children from 6 months to five years get flu shots, it now recommends
that all "children" from ages 6 months to 18 years old get them. In short time, this will become mandatory, as will all other medicinal "recommendations" of the State. The states are already doing this
Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00 CST
Henna adorns Indian women's hands, rose oil is massaged into the skin of Moroccan ladies, and we American chicks swear by dousing our hair in vinegar to keep it shiny. As an American living in Paris for the past five years, I had grown acutely aware of my attachment to my own homespun beauty rituals, but I didn't realize just how profoundly they influenced my worldview until recently, while watching a film.
Ready to sand and refinish wood floors in your mid-20th century house? Do you assume your old house is "safe" from toxic chemicals because they've had time to "gas out"? Confident your old hard wood floors are ecologically sound and couldn't possibly pose a health risk? Think again.
A new study
published in the journal Environmental Health
reveals older wood floor finishes in some homes from the l950s and l960s may be an overlooked source of exposure to the cancer-causing environmental pollutants known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
After the stock market bubble burst, the New York Times asked: "Where were the analysts? Why didn't they warn us?"
To be perfectly honest, this was a somewhat disingenuous question. As experienced financial journalists understood all too well, the analysts plugging the high-flying issues of the 1990s were employed by Wall Street firms raking in billions as investors bet their nest eggs on one hot stock after another. It really wasn't in their employers' interest for analysts to tell us that their products were wildly over-priced. When a small investor wades into the financial world, there are two words he needs to keep in mind: "caveat emptor."
But physicians, I firmly believe, are different from the folks employed by Merrill Lynch. (I don't mean to knock people who work at ML. I am simply saying that they have a very different job description.) When consulting with your doctor, you should not have to be wary. You are not a customer; you are a patient. And your physician is a professional who has pledged to put your interests ahead of his or her own.
This brings me to the question I ask in my headline: during the many years of the Cholesterol Con - where were the doctors? When everyone from the makers of Mazola Corn Oil to the Popes of Cardiology assured us that virtually anyone could ward off heart disease by lowering their cholesterol, why didn't more of our doctors raise an eyebrow and warn us : "Actually, that's not what the research shows"?
Vietnam is bracing for a nationwide avian influenza outbreak in March, after the virus has spread to seven provinces and killed three people, health officials said Wednesday. "If the anti-bird flu measures are not taken seriously, the human infection situation could become as bad as in 2005 and the outbreak in poultry could expand nationwide in March," said Deputy Agriculture Minister Bui Ba Bong.
Bruce E. LevineAlterNet
Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:37 CST
Bias in drug studies may mask the mind's role in overcoming depression.
While millions of people swear by Prozac, Zoloft, and other antidepressants, do they work any better than a placebo or no treatment at all?
Answering that question would be much easier if: (1) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed all drug study findings without requiring a Freedom of Information Act request, (2) drug studies with negative results were routinely published in medical journals, (3) the FDA did not rely on drug company studies employing biased research designs, (4) FDA advisory panels did not include advisers financially connected to drug companies and (5) the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) did not fund drug studies by researchers who have financial relationships with drug companies.