Moving For Just 15 Minutes a Day Can Save Your Life
August 16th, 2011
NaturalNews.com
By: S.L. Baker
Imagine a Big Pharma prescription that will slash your risk of dying by 14 percent and give you at least an extra three years of life. How much you would be willing to pay for it? Many people would find a way to take this disease-preventing pill, no matter what the cost. Although there is no such drug, there is a free non-chemical prescription that can provide you with the amazing health benefits described above. There’s just one catch: you have to take responsibility for your health and get moving for 15 minutes a day.
That’s the dramatic conclusion of a study just published in the online version of The Lancet . Dr. Chi-Pang Wen of the National Health Research Institutes in Taiwan and China Medical University Hospital, and Dr. Jackson Pui Man Wai of the National Taiwan Sport University, headed a research team that investigated a large range of physical activity levels to see just how much exercise produces important health benefits. Previous research has come up with unclear results about whether exercising less than 150 minutes a week can help you live longer.
The new study involved over 400,000 Taiwanese people who participated in standard medical screening in Taiwan between 1996 and 2008, with an average follow-up of 8 years. Based on how much the research subjects said they exercised each week, the study participants were placed into one of five categories of exercise: virtually no exercise (inactive), or low, medium, high, or very high physical activity. Next, the scientists calculated hazard ratios (HR), a statistical measurement used to figure out the odds of an event occurring within a group at a particular time, to see what the risk of death was for every group that was active compared with the inactive group. Then the research team calculated life expectancy for each research participant group.
The results? Compared with individuals in the inactive group, those who were active had dramatic health benefits. Even the research participants in the low activity group who only exercised for an average of 92 minutes per week (about 15 minutes a day) had a 14 percent reduced risk of all-cause mortality, a 10 percent reduced risk of dying from any type of cancer and, on average, a three year longer life expectancy.
What’s more, every additional 15 minutes of exercise each day beyond the minimum amount reduced death from all causes by another four percent and reduced death from cancer by another by one percent. These benefits were found across all age groups and among both men and women. The benefits were even applicable to the people with risks for cardiovascular disease. On the other hand, those in the inactive group who had a 17 percent increased risk of mortality compared with individuals in the low exercise group.
“In Taiwan, if inactive individuals engage in low-volume daily exercise, one in six deaths from all causes could be prevented,” the scientists said in a statement to the media. “If the minimum amount of exercise we suggest is adhered to, mortality from heart disease, diabetes, and cancer could be reduced. This low volume of physical activity could play a central part in the global war against non-communicable diseases, reducing medical costs and health disparities.”
In commentary about the study, Dr. Anil Nigam and Dr. Martin Juneau of the Montreal Heart Institute and Universite de Montreal in Quebec, Canada stated: “The knowledge that as little as 15 minutes per day of exercise on most days of the week can substantially reduce an individual’s risk of dying could encourage many more individuals to incorporate a small amount of physical activity into their busy lives. Governments and health professionals both have major roles to play to spread this good news story and convince people of the importance of being at least minimally active.”
Click here for the full report from Natural News
Risperdal Drug Maker Faces $1B in Lawsuits, Yet Mother Charged For Refusing Use On Child
August 16, 2011 by Andrew
Filed under Government
August 16th, 2011
Natural News
By: Monica G. Young
What irony. Detroit mother, Maryanne Godboldo, was just charged with child neglect for refusing to obey a Child Protective Services order to give her daughter Risperdal, a powerful psychoactive drug. Meanwhile federal and multiple state prosecutors are suing Johnson & Johnson for deceptively marketing the drug – including mismarketing its use on children – and hiding dangerous adverse effects. J&J now faces a potential $1 billion in damages.
Having earlier observed the drug’s dreadful effects on her child, Maryanne was correctly pursuing holistic treatment for the child instead when the legal battle began. The jury’s ruling, now handed down against the mother, is not only a travesty of justice, but a reflection of psychopharma’s vast propaganda machine.
Fortunately not everyone is fooled. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has been investigating J&J for years in regards Risperdal – its sales practices, pay-offs to doctors to promote the drug, and failures to disclose harmful effects. The pharma giant has now tentatively agreed to settle a misdemeanor criminal charge, however the DOJ and US attorney’s office are pursuing additional criminal actions.
The government plans to join civil lawsuits filed by company whistleblowers, aiming to recover millions of dollars paid for prescriptions via government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Already multimillions in fines have been levied against J&J for this powerful antipsychotic which is widely prescribed not only for schizophrenia but mood and anxiety disorders, dementia and other unapproved uses.
In June, a South Carolina judge demanded the company pay $327 million to the state for deceptively marketing Risperdal and concealing its dangers. The judge called J&J’s practices “detestable.” Last October, a Louisiana jury ordered the company to ante up $257.7 million for misleading claims about the drug’s safety.
Recently, Massachusetts Attorney General joined the fight, filing a lawsuit against J&J for illegal marketing and failing to disclose “an increased risk of death” connected with the drug.
In Texas the Attorney General Office has joined forces with whistleblowers, with a jury trial scheduled for this fall. This lawsuit alleges that Janssen, J&J’s pharmaceutical division, intentionally marketed Risperdal for use on children even though it was only approved for adult schizophrenia. The suit also involves a company scheme to boost prescriptions by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to “experts” to evaluate and recommend the drug state-wide and nationally. Awarded damages are anticipated to be much larger than in South Carolina or Louisiana. Texas has paid more than $500 million for the drug since it was first brought to the market.
Attorneys general in about 40 other states have shown interest in suing the company.
Users speak out – beware of this drug!
Risperdal’s documented “side effects” include huge weight gain, diabetes, lethargy, muscular tics, breast development in males, and many more.
Below are just a few sample statements made online by individuals from their experience with this so-called “medication” (the root word of medicate means “to heal”):
“Basically I lost the drive for everything. Total shut down to my outgoing personality. Massive weight gain.”
“Tardive dyskinesia [involuntary movement disorder], diabetes, gained 100 pounds in the first year, was a zombie… I was put on this nightmare drug when I was six. I was forced to take it against my will, and it ruined my life… This is a horrible, HORRIBLE drug, and should be banned.”
“Apathy, not talking, just staring, sleeping constantly, tongue movements, loss of sexual function. This is a very BAD DRUG…a mental straight jacket. DO NOT put children on this drug!!! It’s poison.”
“I gained weight, became very tired, and of course that just led them to put me on antidepressant medications…. I have been on it since fifth grade and hardly knew what was happening to me.”
“My son has gained over 100 pounds… He was an excellent student, received a doctorate and now cannot even remember what he studied. He sleeps all day and cannot work a job. His quality of life is nil. His mouth twitches and he has no control over it… It is like taking a dose of legalized poison every day. This is a LIFE WASTED AND RUINED, a brilliant mind destroyed and tortured. As a mother, it rips out my heart every day.”
Yet per Johnson & Johnson annual reports, global Risperdal sales from 1994-2010 totaled nearly $29 billion.
Click here for the full report from Natural News
Children Who Take Antibiotics More Prone to Contracting ‘Superbugs’
August 16th, 2011
NaturalNews.com
By: Jonathan Benson
A group of Canadian researchers has found a link between taking antibiotics and a higher likelihood of harboring deadly “superbugs” like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which kills tens of thousands of people every year. Published in the journal Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, the breakthrough study found that children who take at least one antibiotic are three times as likely to develop MRSA than children who take no antibiotics, while children who take four or more antibiotics are 18 times more likely to develop MRSA.
It is commonly believed that superbugs are found only in dirty, drug-ridden hospitals, where patients end up contracting it from contaminated surfaces and surgical instruments. But according to the study, community-acquired MRSA, which means it is contracted outside the hospital setting in the general public, is becoming a major health problem, and one that appears clearly linked to overuse of antibiotics.
For their study, a research team from McGill University in Montreal examined antibiotic prescription data from over 400 doctors’ offices across the UK. Since studies had previously observed in adults a link between antibiotics and superbugs, the team this time focused primarily on children who were diagnosed with MRSA between 1994 and 1997.
Among 297 children who tested positive for MRSA, 53 percent of them had been prescribed an antibiotic between 30 and 180 days prior to their diagnosis. Only 14 percent of children who visited the same doctors, but that did not have MRSA, had taken any antibiotics at all. After adjusting for various outside factors, the team determined a three-fold and eighteen-fold increased risk of contracting a superbug when taking either one, or four or more, antibiotics, respectively.
“This is an intriguing observation that we expect will generate some research into the mechanism of MRSA development,” said Samy Suissa, lead author of the study. “Parents should freely discuss with their physician if they feel that antibiotics may be overprescribed.”
Click here for the full report from Natural News
Major Drug Research Company Faked Thousands of Documents to Get Drugs Approved, FDA Says No Big Deal
August 16th, 2011
Natural News
By: Ethan A. Huff
It is truly astounding to witness the utter corruption that takes place — and practically in plain sight — within the pharmaceutical drug industry. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that drug firm Cetero Research, for many years knowingly forged thousands of clinical trial documents for drug companies in order for them to gain drug approval. The FDA’s response to this, though is that this massive corruption is basically no big deal.
It is no secret, of course, that the FDA routinely works in illicit tandem with drug companies to get dangerous drugs on the market in exchange for cash. One example of this includes the Lexapro scandal in which the FDA approved this dangerous antidepressant drug for children at the same time as federal and state governments were suing Forest Laboratories, maker of the drug, for pushing it on children.
The FDA’s own scientists have even publicly indicted the agency for censoring truthful scientific data, intimidating and unfairly targeting supplement companies, and using the drug approval system to extort cash from drug companies in exchange for its rubber stamp of approval.
The entire racket between the FDA and Big Pharma is mind-bogglingly extensive, and it is even seen in the FDA’s recent announcement “against” Cetero. While it initially appears that the FDA is upset at Cetero for lying via its clinical trial documents, the agency’s solution is to tell the drug companies to go back and redo them themselves.
FDA not interested in truly regulating drug industry, tells it to go regulate itself
In the FDA’s recent announcement concerning Cetero, the agency declared that both an internal company investigation and a third-party audit revealed “significant instances of misconduct and violations” in conducting clinical trials. Between April 2005 and June 2009, there were at least 1,900 instances of fraud and falsified studies, and each one of these instances was falsely used to prove that a drug was safe before it went on the market.
“The pattern of misconduct was serious enough to raise concerns about the integrity of the data Cetero generated during the five-year time frame,” said the FDA, noting that drug companies may have to go back and perform new safety studies.
But the real kicker is that the FDA also stated that this is not really that big of a deal. Millions of people’s lives are on the line as potentially fatal drugs were approved with false data — but according to the FDA, nobody should be concerned. In fact, the FDA has known for years that Cetero has been falsifying data, and the agency has done absolutely nothing about it.
FDA does not even know which companies used Cetero’s corrupt services
One would assume that the nation’s food and drug regulatory agency would at least have saved records of which drug companies used Cetero for their early clinical trials. Such information is standard on any drug application, right? Apparently not. The FDA actually has no idea which drug companies used Cetero’s services, and it is now asking drug companies to search their records and determine whether or not they contracted with Cetero.
Even a cursory analysis of this whole approach shows how utterly foolish it actually is. Does the FDA really think the drug companies that used Cetero, are going to willingly participate in this? Of course not. It would mean the companies would have to go back and redo their clinical trials if they fess up.
These are important questions that should be asked:
- Why does the FDA itself not have records of the research companies used for the drugs that it approves?
- Why is the FDA apparently unconcerned about the safety of these drugs, considering they were approved using falsified data?
- Why is the FDA not attempting to hold Cetero accountable for its actions, other than to make an announcement about them?
Despite the nonchalant way in which the mainstream media is reporting on this issue, what Cetero has done is nothing short of high-profile crime. By falsifying drug trial data, Cetero has willingly put millions of people’s lives at risk. The only right thing to do is immediately shut down the company and order a full investigation. All parties involved must be held accountable, including those at the FDA that may have been complicit as well.
However, in the real world, the FDA’s solution is to tell the fox to go back and guard the hen house a little bit better, while simultaneously reassuring the world that the fox itself is safe and would never hurt anybody. In fact, the agency is actually alleging that all approved drugs — even those that were approved with falsified Cetero data — are perfectly safe and “unlikely to be affected” by this massive criminal cover up.
So there you have it. While it is absolutely insane to make such a claim, the FDA has done just that, and it expects the world to take it seriously. The FDA’s logic is essentially no different than, say, an amusement park claiming that all of its roller coasters are safe, even after it was determined by multiple investigations that the manufacturer of the coasters had lied about the quality of the materials used, and that the pieces may not actually hold together.
The question remains, would you ride those roller coasters, or have the nerve to tell other people to ride those roller coasters? The FDA did.
Click here for the full report from Natural News
Proof That The FDA’s Assault On Raw Milk Has Nothing To Do With Consumer Safety
August 16th, 2011
Natural News
By: Mike Adams
An astonishing two-thirds of all fresh chicken meat sold in grocery stores today is contaminated with salmonella. Diet soda is laced with aspartame, a chemical sweetener made from the feces of genetically engineered bacteria. “Natural” corn chips are made from genetically modified corn plants linked to widespread infertility when consumed by mammals.
Processed meats are laced with cancer-causing sodium nitrite and everything from soups to salad dressings is “enhanced” with the chemical excitotoxin known as MSG which promotes obesity.
Throughout the food industry, blueberries are faked using artificial colors, corn syrup and antifreeze liquids used to winterize vehicles. Milk fats are artificial modified through the process of homogenization, which makes them dangerous for human health.
The high fructose corn syrup used to sweeten sodas causes diabetes and is often contaminated with mercury. Chicken McNuggets are made with a chemical used in silly putty and the soy protein used in most protein bars is extracted using an explosive chemical called hexane.
The FDA says nothing about all this. Instead, the agency wants you to believe that the real danger in the food supply is found exclusively in raw dairy products which contain no additives or synthetic chemicals, by the way.
Yep: All the toxic chemicals and highly processed ingredients that cause cancer, diabetes, heart disease and nutritional deficiencies are all perfectly good for your health, the FDA says… because they’re dead!
OMG it’s alive!
Only LIVING foods, you see, pose a health risk according to the FDA. An FDA spokesperson was recently quoted in the NY Times claiming that raw milk causes children to become “paraplegics.” (Seriously, I’m not making this up.) Meanwhile, the FDA remains utterly silent on the far more alarming fact that children’s hot dogs are laced with cancer-causing sodium nitrite which causes a 300% increase in the risk of brain tumors.
The FDA, you see, has absolutely no concern whatsoever about truly dangerous foods. Almost any chemical in the food supply is fine with the FDA as long as it’s not actually alive.
If you’re a conventional foods manufacturer in the USA, you can quite literally dump huge quantities of cancer-causing chemicals directly into the food and the FDA won’t blink an eye. A little more cancer, after all, boosts the profits of the drug companies and the entire cancer industry, and that has been the FDA’s mission all along: To promote the financial interests of the drug companies which prey on sickness and disease.
In fact, much of the food being sold today that the FDA considered “safe” is actually made out of non-food synthetic chemicals or radically modified molecules that used to be food but are now closer to plastics. Partially-hydrogenated oils, for example, are a lot closer to plastic (which is a solid at room temperature) than oil (which is a liquid). That’s the whole point of hydrogenation: To make oils solid at room temperature. Care to guess what this does when those same hydrogenated fats are circulating around your bloodstream? Yep, they remain as solids there, too, sludging up your blood, clogging arteries and raising your blood pressure.
But the FDA has no problem with all that. Food companies can commit what is essentially mass genocide through the use of toxic food additives, and the FDA remains completely silent, with its hands over its eyes pretending to see nothing.
Meanwhile, people are dying every single day from preventable diseases caused by toxic food ingredients, dead foods, processed foods and pasteurized food products. The FDA, in openly allowing this to take place, is criminally negligent in the deaths of literally millions of people — far dwarfing the number of Jews murdered by the Nazi regime.
The FDA = Food and Death Administration
So don’t fall for the naive idea that the FDA is somehow interested in actual food safety. Get real! The FDA openly and arrogantly allows the American people to be poisoned en masse by the mainstream food supply being shipped and sold in grocery stores across American right now. What the FDA really doesn’t want happening is people waking up to the truth that raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. Because if that happened, people might start to question all the other dead, processed foods they’re eating, too.
And that might lead to a mass nutritional awakening and a revolution that would ultimately result in the arrest and prosecution of FDA tyrants — the very same people who have been criminally negligent in allowing the mass poisoning of the American people for all these years, you see. That’s what we really need: An armed Justice Department raid on the FDA! Put FDA commissioner Hamburg in shackles and parade her through the streets where all the tens of millions of people who have been damaged or maimed by toxic food ingredients can finally seek justice for the harm caused them by the FDA and the gang of unindicted criminals who run it.
That day is coming, by the way. Justice will arrive and those tyrants in government who have masterminded the mass poisoning of the American people will be held accountable for their crimes. The People will not forget, and the truth simply cannot be suppressed any longer. Thanks to the Rawesome Foods raid, it is now totally obvious to everyone that the FDA is waging a war of terrorism against the American people, and that this is a rogue agency which simply cannot be negotiated with.
Because here at NaturalNews, we do not negotiate with terrorists.
Click here for the full report from Natural News
Stewart: Why Is The Media Ignoring Ron Paul?
August 16, 2011 by Andrew
Filed under Government
August 16th, 2011
The Raw Story
By: Andrew Jones
Jon Stewart certainly didn’t gasp for satire straws when displaying his feelings on the Ames Straw Poll and the Republican Presidential candidates.
Monday night on the Daily Show, host Stewart analyzed the results from the poll that saw Michelle Bachmann get a boost in the nomination race, Tim Pawlenty drop out of the race, Rick Perry enter the race, and Ron Paul treated by the media like he isn’t even in the race.
The Minnesota Congresswoman’s victory was the first focus for the comedian on the night. “Bachmann wins, the ‘I’s’, or the crazy eyes, have it,” Stewart said. He then went on to snooze on his desk after playing a Pawlenty soundbite on ABC’s This Week indicating his withdrawal from the race.
Texas governor Perry was next on Stewart’s list, showing a news media montage highlighting the similarities between Perry and another former chief executive of the Lone Star State, George W. Bush. “No, he is not George Bush on steroids,” he said. “Rick Perry is what happens when Lex Luthor distilled down George Bush’s esue in the laboratory, and crossed it with gun power, and semon, from the finest thoroughbred in Lubbock, and then strapped that concoction on to a nuclear missile, and shot it into a F—ing sun, and then waited, waited, until one day on the anniversary of the Alamo, a solar fair, yadda, yadda, Rick Perry.”
Stewart finally turned to the news media’s overlooking of Ron Paul. Outlets like MSNBC and Fox have been giving more attention to people who not only finished behind him in Ames, but also are behind in various polls, while virtually ignoring the Texas Congressman. “This pretending Ron Paul thing has been going on for weeks, ” he said.
“How did libertarian Ron Paul become the 13 floor in an hotel?”
Click here for the full report from The Raw Story
Lose Weight and Improve Heart Health Naturally by Walking
August 16th, 2011
NaturalNews.com
By: Shona Botes
Many people these days think they have to follow the latest fad diet in order to lose a lot of weight in a hurry. The hard truth is that there is actually no fast fix for weight loss. It is a gradual process that involves a will to change one’s lifestyle and habits. Walking is one of the safest, most effective forms of exercise that will assist with successful weight loss and future weight, health and heart maintenance.
Not only does walking benefit those wanting to lose weight, it also helps to improve heart health. This is because it is able to lower the low-density lipoprotein (LDL or otherwise known as bad) cholesterol and raise the high-density lipoprotein (HDL or good) cholesterol levels in the blood. Studies have shown that those, who walk for an average of 30 to 60 minutes per day, have an almost 40% less chance of developing heart disease and cancer.
People, who need to lower blood pressure or simply to stay fit, can benefit greatly from walking. It helps those suffering from depression and strengthens the immune system. It can assist those suffering from breathing or circulatory problems and can even help prevent the onset of osteoporosis. It has also been shown to lower the risk of having a stroke. Walking can even help those suffering from arthritis and other forms of joint pain. It is also an effective way of maintaining lean muscle.
Walking at a gentle pace of around three miles per hour can burn as many as 263 calories per hour. Increasing the pace to a slightly more brisk four miles per hour can boost that to an amazing 366 calories per hour.
Ensure that you have loose but comfortable clothing to wear while walking, as well as a comfortable pair of walking shoes. It is also important to warm up by gently stretching the muscles before setting out. Cool down after walking by slowing down your pace a few minutes before arriving at your destination and ensure that you finish off with a few gentle stretches after stopping. This will minimize your risk of muscle strain and injury.
If one does a little research, you may find that a few places that you frequent are actually close enough to walk to instead of driving. Not only will your health and waistline thank you for the exercise, but so will the environment.
Click here for the full report from NaturalNews.com
Repressing the Internet, Western-Style
August 16th, 2011
The Wall Street Journal
By: Evegeny Morozov
Did the youthful rioters who roamed the streets of London, Manchester and other British cities expect to see their photos scrutinized by angry Internet users, keen to identify the miscreants? In the immediate aftermath of the riots, many cyber-vigilantes turned to Facebook, Flickr and other social networking sites to study pictures of the violence. Some computer-savvy members even volunteered to automate the process by using software to compare rioters’ faces with faces pictured elsewhere on the Internet.
The rioting youths were not exactly Luddites either. They used BlackBerrys to send their messages, avoiding more visible platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It’s telling that they looted many stores selling fancy electronics. The path is short, it would seem, from “digital natives” to “digital restives.”
Technology has empowered all sides in this skirmish: the rioters, the vigilantes, the government and even the ordinary citizens eager to help. But it has empowered all of them to different degrees. As the British police, armed with the latest facial-recognition technology, go through the footage captured by their numerous closed-circuit TV cameras and study chat transcripts and geolocation data, they are likely to identify many of the culprits.
Authoritarian states are monitoring these developments closely. Chinese state media, for one, blamed the riots on a lack of Chinese-style controls over social media. Such regimes are eager to see what kind of precedents will be set by Western officials as they wrestle with these evolving technologies. They hope for at least partial vindication of their own repressive policies.
Some British politicians quickly called on the BlackBerry maker Research in Motion to suspend its messaging service to avoid an escalation of the riots. On Thursday, Prime Minister David Cameron said that the government should consider blocking access to social media for people who plot violence or disorder.
After the recent massacre in Norway, many European politicians voiced their concern that anonymous anti-immigrant comments on the Web were inciting extremism. They are now debating ways to limit online anonymity.
Does the Internet really need an overhaul of norms, laws and technologies that gives more control to governments? When the Egyptian secret police can purchase Western technology that allows them to eavesdrop on the Skype calls of dissidents, it seems unlikely that American and European intelligence agencies have no means of listening the calls of, say, a loner in Norway.
We tolerate such drastic proposals only because acts of terror briefly deprive us of the ability to think straight. We are also distracted by the universal tendency to imagine technology as a liberating force; it keeps us from noticing that governments already have more power than is healthy.
The domestic challenges posed by the Internet demand a measured, cautious response in the West. Leaders in Beijing, Tehran and elsewhere are awaiting our wrong-headed moves, which would allow them to claim an international license for dealing with their own protests. The yare also looking for tools and strategies that might improve their own digital surveillance.
After violent riots in 2009, Chinese officials had no qualms about cutting off the Xinjiang region’s Internet access for 10 months. Still, they would surely welcome a formal excuse for such drastic measures if the West should decide to take similar measures in dealing with disorder. Likewise, any plan in the U.S. or Europe to engage in online behavioral profiling—trying to identify future terrorists based on their tweets, gaming habits or social networking activity—is likely to boost the already booming data-mining industry. It would not take long for such tools to find their way to repressive states.
But something even more important is at stake here. To the rest of the world, the efforts of Western nations, and especially the U.S., to promote democracy abroad have often smacked of hypocrisy. How could the West lecture others while struggling to cope with its own internal social contradictions? Other countries could live with this hypocrisy as long as the West held firm in promoting its ideals abroad. But this double game is harder to maintain in the Internet era.
In their concern to stop not just mob violence but commercial crimes like piracy and file-sharing, Western politicians have proposed new tools for examining Web traffic and changes in the basic architecture of the Internet to simplify surveillance. What they fail to see is that such measures can also affect the fate of dissidents in places like China and Iran. Likewise, how European politicians handle online anonymity will influence the policies of sites like Facebook, which, in turn, will affect the political behavior of those who use social media in the Middle East.
Should America and Europe abandon any pretense of even wanting to promote democracy abroad? Or should they try to figure out how to increase the resilience of their political institutions in the face of the Internet? As much as our leaders might congratulate themselves for embracing the revolutionary potential of these new technologies, they have shown little evidence of being able to think about them in a nuanced and principled way.
Click here for the full report from The Wall Street Journal
Study Explains Coffee’s Anti-Cancer Effect
August 16th, 2011
The Raw Story
By: Agence France-Presse
Coffee has been shown to reduce the risk of skin cancer by helping kill off damaged cells that could otherwise turn into tumors, according to a US study published on Monday.
The findings indicate that moderate caffeine drinking, or perhaps even applying coffee to the skin, could be useful in warding off non-melanoma cancer, the most commonly diagnosed of all skin cancers.
Using mice that had been genetically altered to suppress a protein called ATR, researchers showed that the mice were able to fend off cancer even when exposed to ultraviolet light.
Previous studies have suggested that drinking a cup of caffeinated coffee per day has the effect of suppressing ATR and triggering the die-off of cells harmed by UV rays.
The altered mice eventually did develop cancer, but three weeks later than normal mice.
After 19 weeks of ultraviolet light exposure, the engineered mice showed 69 percent fewer tumors and four times fewer invasive tumors than the control group.
However, the protective effects only went so far. After 34 weeks of UV exposure, all the mice developed tumors.
“Eventually, if you treat them long enough, the mice will develop cancer so it is not 100 percent protection forever,” Allan Coffey, one of the study’s authors, told AFP.
“Really, with almost any carcinogen, eventually all the animals will develop tumors.”
Coffey and his team were able to confirm their hypothesis that caffeine — when consumed or applied to the skin — works by inhibiting ATR. Now they say more studies are needed to see how it may work on humans.
“We want to see whether caffeine has an effect in people when you give it topically,” he said.
Skin cancer is the most prevalent cancer in the United States, with more than one million new cases each year, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Non-melanoma types of skin cancer, including basal cell and squamous cell types, are the most commonly diagnosed and are often treatable if detected early.
Click here for the full report from The Raw Story
Study Finds Mean People Earn More Money
August 16th, 2011
The Raw Story
By: Andrew Jones
The phrase “Nice guys finish last” appears to be the case in who gets paid the most.
According to a study by several researches, “agreeable” workers make significantly lower than their less agreeable counterparts, with the gap being wider among men.
The study, titled “Do Nice Guys—and Gals—Really Finish Last?”, used survey data to examine “agreeableness” and found that men who disagreed far greater make 18%- or $9,772 annually- more in salary than those who agree. The salary disparity is far less among women, with disagreeable females making 5% or $1,828 than those who agree more.
Cornell professor Beth A. Livingston, who co-authored the study with Timothy A. Judge of the University of Notre Dame and Charlice Hurst of the University of Western Ontario, told the Wall Street Journal, “Nice guys are getting the shaft.”
“The problem is, many managers often don’t realize they reward disagreeableness,” Livingston added. “You can say this is what you value as a company, but your compensation system may not really reflect that, especially if you leave compensation decisions to individual managers.”
The study contained data from over 20 years from three different surveys, and interviewed 10,000 workers from a wide range of fields. The researchers also included a separate study based on 460 business students asked to be fictional managers and review descriptions of possible employees. That separate study revealed that being nice does not bring professional success, as those viewed as more agreeable were less likely to get the job.
Click here for the full report from The Raw Story
