Thursday, December 29, 2005

Panel deals fresh blow to S. Korean clone work

Panel deals fresh blow to S. Korean clone work

Stem Cells are such an important topic, that researchers are willing to falsify their findings. The cloning of embryo's is so that the stem cells produced won't be rejected by the body's own immune system. Why not stimulate the body to produce it's own stem cells? Check out this Glyconutrients and Stem Cells

Acupuncture For Your Pets

What a great idea - Acupuncture for your Pets - some with great results. Here's the story.

Acupuncture For Your Pets

Pets need nutritional supplements, too! Just like the food we eat - their food lacks the nutrients that was evident even just a couple of decades ago. Manufactured food is full of carbohydrates, that they weren't intended to eat. Most household pets are carnivore's. A diet as close to natural as possible is best, do your research, before making changes. And - supplement. What we consider to be normal aging diseases are nothing more than lack of nutrition, compounded over time, with both humans and animals. (Though made more complicated by enviornmental toxins and food additives, hormones and pesticides and herbicides. But even with such trash as that, good nutrition and quality supplements will help.)

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - AIDS expert has theory on vaccine's delay - Dec 25, 2005

Not only is the AIDS vaccine held up because they want to make money on the drugs first (see link to news article below), but it is totally unnecessary when nutrition - which comes from the earth can nurture us and provide our bodies what they need to maintain and regenerate good health. Very kind and thoughtful of "mother nature" wasn't it? She provided everything we need to sustain and maintain good health and a prosperous life.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Exercise: A Key to Youthfulness

We have blogged research on this very thing. It is so important to move... the body was designed to do just that. Move!

If you haven't your health, you haven't anything. Ask anyone who's sick.

Statistically we might be older when we reach that final breath, but we are not living longer. We are dying longer. Chronic diseases, chrones, arthritis, fibro mialgia, are things that restrict our activities. Ask someone who is sick, it is like death without dying.

Of course some may disagree with me - especially those who espouse the religions that believe suffering is somehow noble. Especially when there are currently answers for almost everything - and its not necessarily your doctor who has them all.

Christopher Crowley's book "Younger Next Year" is extols the virtues of exercise as an anti-aging therapy.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

FDA considers experimenting on healthy kids - Children's Health -

FDA considers experimenting on healthy kids - Children's Health -

Any Parent who would allow the FDA to give their child a drug that we know can cause brain damage for $570 is either ignorant and needs to be educated or plain doesn't love their children. Why not just let them main line crystal meth or snort a little cocaine? Same thing, only smaller dose. People have to speak up in order to protect our kids. This is insanity!

Before you get defensive, read a little on the history of the FDA and understand that they are not set up specifically to protect you, but to protect the interests of their corporate links. Yes there's good folks there, and yes there's some things that come out of it that are good. But they will sway to either public opinion or the almighty buck. You need to be personally responsible and don't just blindly trust. Do you homework on all drugs that enter your body before you take the toxic substance. Don't be afraid to ask your doctor questions.


FDA considers experimenting on healthy kids!!!
Study hopes to better understand ADHD in children
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:43 p.m. ET Sept. 3, 2004
WASHINGTON - Is it ethical in the name of science to give a healthy child as young as 9 a controlled substance? That?s the dilemma facing the Food and Drug Administration?s Pediatric Ethics subcommittee at its first-ever meeting on Sept. 10.

The research, proposed by the National Institute of Mental Health, includes Healthy Children among 9- to 18-year-olds who would receive a single 10 mg. dose of dextroamphetamine. (Adderall (amphetamine/dextroamphetamine)
The hoped-for payoff for research: A better understanding of how healthy brains work differently from those of children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. DOES THE WORD "GUINEA PIG" MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?????

The payoff for families: $570.

Characterized by inattentiveness, overactivity and impulsiveness, ADHD affects up to 5 percent of schoolchildren. The disorder continues in roughly 60 percent of those youths as they age, although experts say the disorder is underdiagnosed in adults.

Dextroamphetamine, the active ingredient in such drugs as Dexedrine and Adderall, is prescribed commonly to increase attention span and calm restlessness. Doses vary with children?s needs, with daily doses as little as 5 mg. or as much as 30 mg.

Judith L. Rapoport, chief of child psychology at NIMH, within the National Institutes of Health, conducted a similar trial 20 years ago. The same stimulant was given to children at a higher dose. Researchers looked only at how the stimulant changed children?s behavior as they performed tasks. The stimulant improved attention span in the children, regardless of whether they had ADHD.

The new trial would add magnetic resonance images to map potential differences in brain activation patterns.

Risk vs. scientific gain
While Rapoport?s trial is little different from the earlier one, review boards that balance risk vs. scientific gain have changed dramatically in 20 years.

Indeed, an NIH review panel met twice and was unable to reach a consensus whether risk to healthy volunteers would be too high in the new study. They kicked the sensitive matter over the FDA?s new pediatrics ethics subcommittee.

The study would involve 14 children with ADHD, 14 healthy children, 12 pairs of identical twins and 12 pairs of fraternal twins. As the children completed specified tasks, their brain activity would be captured by MRIs.

Comparing twins ? one with ADHD, the other normal ? helps researchers tease out genetic explanations of differences in response to treatment.

In September 2003, an NIMH panel that reviewed the proposal?s scientific merit called the program an excellent submission. The panel noted that it would be the first ADHD study to compare twins, which has been useful in past studies on schizophrenia.

The panel that considers a safety of human subjects, however, was troubled by the youngest tested children?s age and the potential for coercion because each participant would be paid $570 for the 11-hour study.

The major stumbling block was determined to be the risk of giving a class 2 controlled substance to healthy children, which some fretted might breed future substance abuse.

Children in the 1980 NIH trial had no increased risk of drug abuse in the five years after the trial ended, researchers say in the study protocol.

Healthy kids face some risks
The most common side effects among healthy children given a single dose of the stimulant in past experiments was temporary insomnia and poor appetite. One brain-damaged child exposed to the medication suffered hallucinations.

Many ethicists expect the FDA subcommittee to use a primary litmus test: Does taking the stimulant pose more than a minimal increase to risks that healthy children face in everyday life?

Pearl O?Rourke, who oversees human research affairs, interviewed the heads of six review boards at Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's Hospital.

?Five said they would not approve this study. And all five said, ?But we wish we could,?? O?Rourke said during a March 3 NIH discussion.

O?Rourke acknowledged that the review boards struggle with murky federal regulations, tightening case law, financing agencies that prefer pediatric studies and the threat of negative media coverage.

?I live in dread fear of what?s going to be on the front page of the paper,? she told the audience. ?So, when I heard this, three things hit my mind: Kids, ohmigod! Psychiatric disease. And a class 2 drug.?

The FDA panel could simply approve the plan if it should find it carried great scientific weight, said Dr. Douglas Diekema, director of medical ethics at Children?s Hospital in Seattle.

New Jersey attorney Alan C. Milstein said that would be the wrong call.

Milstein, who represented the family of an 18-year-old whose death in 1999 spurred greater federal oversight of gene therapy trials, pointed to a recent Maryland Supreme Court ruling. The court held that exposing healthy children to higher-than-minimum risk in a medical study is unethical.

?They can?t do this study. It doesn?t take a genius to figure out why they can?t do it,? Milstein said. ?I can?t believe that anybody is going to say it?s ethical to do this. It?s not even a close call.?

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.