50 years of a sometimes bitter pill – BBC News

Posted on by

Sydney Morning Herald
50 years of a sometimes bitter pill
BBC News
"The irony is that these women are provided a medication that enables freedom from reproductive worries, but these same women are not provided information ...
As the pill turns 50, its legacy is debatedNorwich Bulletin
As the Pill turns 50, the little agent of modernity still arouses troubleGlobe and Mail
America's favorite birth control method turns 50The Associated Press
CNN -WCSH-TV -USA Today
all 644 news articles »

May 12 debut of medical school’s new home – Stanford Medical Center Report

Posted on by

Stanford Medical Center Report
May 12 debut of medical school's new home
Stanford Medical Center Report
The medical school's new headquarters, the Li Ka Shing Center for Learning and Knowledge, opens its doors for a sneak peek on May 12 from 10 am to 3 pm The ...
Building to promote high-tech learning — with comfortStanford Medical Center Report
5 questions: Pizzo on priorities of Li Ka Shing CenterStanford Medical Center Report
Olmsted's vision for campus advanced by latest designStanford Medical Center Report

all 4 news articles »

We Rock Hosting, Not Boats

Posted on by

Katie SolanIf you’re a regular blog reader, you might know that The Planet gets incredibly pumped about a little thing called the Dragon Boat Festival each spring. If you’re wondering what the heck a dragon boat is, you’re not alone.

Two years ago, The Planet headquarters competed in our first dragon boat festival, fielding two teams – one of senior-level managers, another with, well, the rest of us. It’s probably no surprise that the younger, more agile non-manager team took the race.

This year, we tried something a little different – entering one team from headquarters and one team from Dallas in the Houston race. No strangers to dragon-boating themselves, the Dallas office would prove to be tough competition, fresh off their Corporate Division victory in the 2009 DFW Dragon Boat Festival.

It was a pretty hot day for the competition on Saturday, climbing up to 87 with a humidity index in the 90s … And no, it wasn’t raining. That’s Houston for you.

We started early, gathering at the race site at 8 a.m. The first win of the day was erecting our 10×20 pop-up tent. It took about 30 minutes of trial and error, with many a misplaced part. Knowing I could not add any value, I looked on encouragingly while clutching my cup of coffee. When the guys were finally victorious, the raising of the tent was met with cheers and applause.

Houston Dragon Boat 2010
The Planet tent in all its glory.

And so the day began. The Houston team was the Hosting Rockstars, with the clever tagline of “We rock hosting, not boats.” (Our own creative genius Kevin Hazard came up with that one.) We decorated our tent with all types of rock paraphernalia: Props included blow-up microphones, rocking foam fingers and guitar-shaped sunglasses.

Houston Dragon Boat 2010
The Planet “ground crew” rocking out.

The Houston team competed in one of the first races of the day, and we got off to a rocky start, posting a time of 1:28 in the 250-meter race. Yikes. Dallas raced after us with a time of 1:22. For a little perspective, a team of local competitive dragon boaters, the Houston Heat, posted a time of 1:10. Our head-to-head match-up was next, and I’ll let you see how it turned out (Houston: Boat 2, Dallas: Boat 3):

Ah, the bitterness of defeat. Even though it was a close race and we improved our time significantly, it just wasn’t enough to beat the battle-tested Dallas. Even our bedazzled bandanas and cool shirts couldn’t save us.

Houston Dragon Boat 2010
But we looked good, no?

For the record, Houston matched Dallas’ Heat 1 time of 1:22 in the head-to-head competition. They inched us out with an even better time of 1:20.

Houston Dragon Boat 2010
Dallas pulling ahead of Houston for the win. Doug Erwin cheering us on.

The competition will continue, as the Houston team travels up to Dallas on May 16 for the DFW Dragon Boat Festival. Will Dallas demoralize us again? Or will the Houston underdogs prevail? Stay tuned …

Check out our flickr stream for more photos from race day.

-Katie

StumbleUpon
Twitter
DZone
Digg
del.icio.us
Technorati

Prostate cancer therapy can increase risk of heart disease and death

Posted on by

A new report published in the American Cancer Society journal, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, and in the American Heart Association journal, Circulation, reveals that androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), a type of prostate cancer treatment (http://www.dreddyclinic.com/findinformation/cc/prostatecancer.htm), can increase heart risk factors and possibly lead to heart attack (http://www.dreddyclinic.com/findinformation/hh/heartattack.htm) or cardiac death.

A writing group of experts from the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Urological Association, and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology published their findings that indicate that ADT leads to increased fat mass, increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, the "bad" form of cholesterol, and blood sugar abnormalities. Read more...

Ayurstate for Prostate Care

Wagtail with a difference

Posted on by
Stunning - the Wagtail on Staple (Mark Breaks)
On show feeding on Staple (Mark Breaks)
On view - the Wagtail in view (Mark Breaks)

Friday 7th May comments:
For the birders who read the blog, they'll know we always come up with something interesting every now and then on the islands and yesterday was no different. As the winds switched to the east early morning, the pulses quickened as the potential for something to drop in increased -after all we stick four miles out into the North Sea! And so it proved.
A small number of migrants arrived including Sedge Warbler and Whitethroat but something caught the eye - a Wagtail with a difference. The bird, with a distinctive call, showed well on Brownsman before moving to nearby Staple Island where it lingered for the rest of the day. Initially identified as a 'Grey-headed' Wagtail (a race of Yellow Wagtail), the Brownsman boys were on the case as Jason and Mark gathered evidence (and photos) and this bird may prove to be something very different indeed.
The complex 'wagtail group' will have us researching and scratching our heads for sometime to come as discussion on its true identity will run long into the night - it may even prove to be an integrate yet, so watch this space and comments from birders would be most welcome. However its time to burn the midnight oil....

Arizona Libertarian Republican for State Senate needs Help with Petition Signatures

Posted on by

From Eric Dondero:

Craig Smith is a Libertarian Republican running for State Senate in Arizona's 25th Senate district. The district stretches from the New Mexico border to the outskirts of Yuma County, and includes a small portion of Pima County.

Smith is a retired U.S. Army Master Sargent with a Masters Degree in Public Administration.
He was born in Nogales, AZ, he's described as "a gringo that speaks Spanish."

He's the former Director of Community Development in Bisbee. He's been married 41 years and currently serves on the Huachuca City town council.

According to David Morgan, Smith's Campaign Manager, and a member of the Libertarian Party of Arizona:

Craig is a libertarian-Republican. A true believer in smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom. He believes in the rule of law, not personal whims, but he's aware that laws are sometimes poorly crafted and unevenly applied.

When Craig Smith takes the Oath of Office swearing to uphold the Constitutions of both the United States and Arizona he means it.

Reached by Libertarian Republican, Morgan said that they have already collected 100 signatures. He also informed LR that they have a number of volunteers, but that they needed more help to get the number needed to qualify.

Smith has taken the somewhat unusual step of refusing public money for his campaign:

I choose not to participate in Arizona Clean Election Public Financing as a matter of principle. Although it is tempting to get $35,000 of "free" public money to run my campaign, it is just morally wrong.

If you'd like to help defray costs of the petition drive or make a contribution please visit:

electcraigsmith.com

Libertarian Republican Leon Drolet makes Time Magazine – Marijuana Legalization issue

Posted on by

From Eric Dondero:

My old friend and political ally Leon Drolet is quoted in Time Magazine on-line, in the article "Detroiters Ponder Marijuana Legalization."

Former state Rep. Leon Drolet of Macomb Township calls himself "a very proud Libertarian Republican" who favors legalization."We all make decisions about our health, whether it's drinking alcohol or having a slice of cake. There's lots of things people choose to do because they feel, in some way, it enhances their quality of life," he said.

Leon is a former three-term State Representative from Macomb County (he was term-limited). He is a two-time attendee of Republican Liberty Caucus national conventions. He is a longtime close friend of the Libertarian Party of Michigan. (In 2008 Leon actually won a large-screen television set in a raffle at a meeting of the Macomb Libertarians.) He also volunteered as a campaign worker for two weeks in Congressman Ron Paul's first campaign in Texas in 1996.

He is now running for an open seat for the Michigan State Senate. Ironically, he is challenging two of his best friends for the seat, libertarian-leaning conservative former State Rep. Jack Brandenburg of St. Clair Shores, and Rep. Kim Meltzer who Drolet actually recruited to take his seat in the legislature after he was term-limited out.

UK Libertarian Party urged support for Minor Parties, including Independence

Posted on by

From Eric Dondero:

There's an interesting post-election analysis this morning from a UK Libertarian Janina Davison-Forder in The Economic Voice. Davison-Forder breaks some remarkable news about Libertarian support for minor parties, in her lengthy piece, "A hung Parliament."

From The Economic Voice:

It is tomorrow morning – the words of Alistair Stewart, this morning. Well would you believe I have lasted this long. I shall be sending ITV a bill for the pack of Proplus and 3 litres of energy drinks I have consumed over the course of the night.

Well at least I can say that I had voted TORY! If nothing else there I was placing the most positive cross I have ever seen upon a piece of paper next to that little Tory tree that I am so glad exists. Although Britain, I am sad to say, that we placed our votes in vain, as we may as well have not bothered! As so many others seemed to on May the 6th!

All through the run up to the elections we saw UKIP and BNP trying their hardest to get ahead. Although despite their efforts and the added support of the Libertarian party urging us all to favour the two above the main parties, they did not see much success. Had the Libertarians had enough numbers to provide a Libertarian candidate for each constituency then I truly believe they would see a good few votes. These would probably come from all those undecided voters who in the end didn’t bother. A few seats filled with Libertarians would not have been a bad thing. Especially as we face five years of rules and regulations (or in case of banks lack of) imposed upon us by both Labour and the LibDems and no doubt, a far bigger presence of the red tape stuck to Britain by the EU. I am sure Clegg would not hesitate to allow his European friends access to all and in doing so allowing himself a bigger bank balance!

Libertarian leader Sean Gabb, a friend of the UK Libertarian Alliance founder Chris Tame, and the group's current Executive Director explained in Free Life Commentary:

The purpose of voting UKIP is mostly to put pressure on a Conservative leadership that understands no other argument than measuring the haemorrhage of its core vote. Indeed, it shows no sign of having understood that argument.

Gabb in his piece "The Conservative Hidden Agenda?" tells of a secret meeting he had over coffee with a top Conservative Party official, who urged him to rally Libertarians in support of the Tories. But he ultimately bulked over the suggestion, citing a similar effort made in the 1980s by Tory leaders to Tame and the Libertarians, with nothing to show for it.

Photo of UK Libertarian Alliance Director Sean Gabb while at a free market conference in Turkey.

Nine Questions, Nine Answers.

Posted on by
This is not an easy blog to write.  Doctors Novella and Gorski want the entries to be formal, academic, referenced, with a minimum of snark.
For the most part I comply. But sometimes. Sometimes. It is hard, so hard, to not spiral into sarcastic diatribes over the writings that pass for information on the interwebs. I wish, sometimes, that I could be an irascible computer as well.
What brings on this particular bit of angst is a bit of whimsy on the Internet called “9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims.”  by David Mihalovic, ND. Mr. Mihalovic identifies himself as “a naturopathic medical doctor who specializes in vaccine research.” However, just where the research is published is uncertain as his name yields no publications on pubmed.  BTW. I am a beer researcher.
The nine questions show up frequently on the interwebs, similar to questions on is to ask when you want to stump an evolutionist.  Like the supposed stumpers for evolution, the vaccine questions are grounded in either misinformation or laziness. Let’s go through them one at a time.
1. Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
One trial? It took me 55 seconds to find 20211953, and that includes time to boot the browser and mis-spell the search terms.  Vaccine efficacy randomized placebo control trial gives 416 pubmed results; add safety to the search term, you 126 returns. The are easily more than one.  Of course, to find them you have to look.
Of course, I am a highly educated adult who constantly searches the web for medical information.  For hoots and giggles, I asked my 12 year old son, whose passions are basketball and filming comedy videos, to find me a reference that met the same criteria and I timed him.
22 seconds to find Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine in Cuba from the NEJM.
12 yo one,  Mihalovic 0.  Served.
As long as we are on the topic, since he evidently place great store in science, could Mihalovic please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of naturopathy?  I would be happy at this point to know you could do a pubmed search corruptly just to make me look the fool.
2. Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
Long term is vague. What is long term?  Smallpox disappeared in 1976 thanks to the vaccine.  I have not seem a case of smallpox in my medical career, which now on it’s 31st year. No reported long term toxicities and the eradication of smallpox seems to me reasonable evidence for long term effectiveness.
No vaccine is 100% in efficacy, and whether  infected naturally or by way of a vaccine, immunity wanes with time.  In  earlier times  people would be have their immunity boosted by exposure to disease and maintain their antibody levels.  It is not the initial infection that leads to better immunity from natural infections, as posited by some antivaccine people, but the the fact that people were constantly re-exposed to wild type disease.
It is interesting what is happening with shingles.  Everyone used to get chickenpox as a child, and then, as they raised their kids and grand kids, got re-exposed to the virus and boost their immunity. Currently, due to the chickenpox vaccine and a change in the way way children are raised, older adults are not getting exposed naturally to chickenpox, immunity is waning, and there is an increase in shingles in older adults.  Part of why they need the zoster vaccine.  http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/651078
Clever conspiracy, huh?
Unless exposed to new infection, immunity, as measured by antibody levels directed against the infecting agent, can wane over time. That is to be expected.  The nice thing about the immune system, unlike water, is that it remembers the infection. It is primed so that if exposed again at a later date, it can almost instantly produce large amounts of antibody to nip an infection in the bud. So rather than prevent infection, in some people far removed in time from the vaccine, may instead have a shorter, less severe illness and be infectious not as long, thereby decreasing spread.
There is a nice review in the NEJM 1798383 on duration of immunity (first search in pubmed using duration of immunity vaccine, results in 17 seconds, including correcting typos.  Seriously, just how hard is it to find this information?  As would be expected, it depends on the disease and the vaccine (live better than killed). They estimated the half life for the varicella zoster virus immunity at 50 years, 200 years for measles and mumps, and 11 years for tetanus.  If you peruse the references, you can find other studies that show variable but sustained response to vaccines,  for example 90% maintain immunity to smallpox up to 75 years after vaccination. 12925846
Long term safety was more difficult, 5 years was the limit of time I could find safety studies, for the Hepatits B.  j med virol  65 2001Most vaccine toxicities are found in the first week after the inoculation and the studies follow most patients for a year.  Probably would not cut it as long term for Mihalovic.
BTW, could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of naturopathy?
3.  Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?
Smallpox? Smallpox? Smallpox? Anyone? Smallpox? Buehler? Buehler?
Again I get back to the whole binary, black and white approach that characterizes many with whom we cross medical swords.  The decrease in infectious diseases has been multifactorial, due to improved nutrition, improved hygienic (lets hear it for the flush toilet) and understanding the epidemiology of diseases.  Knowing how a disease is spread has always been critical in decreasing its spread.  Note that none, none, none of the interventions that have decreased the spread of infections in the last 200 years or so have come from alt med tradition.
The teasing out the effects of vaccines on populations is always fraught with potential controversy. There are always multiple confounders.  The best example of the effects of vaccines was from JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/298/18/2155
“Objective  To compare morbidity and mortality before and after widespread implementation of national vaccine recommendations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases for which recommendations were in place prior to 2005.
Design, Setting, and Participants  For the United States, prevaccine baselines were assessed based on representative historical data from primary sources and were compared to the most recent morbidity (2006) and mortality (2004) data for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella (including congenital rubella syndrome), invasive Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), acute hepatitis B, hepatitis A, varicella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and smallpox.
Main Outcome Measures  Number of cases, deaths, and hospitalizations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases. Estimates of the percent reductions from baseline to recent were made without adjustment for factors that could affect vaccine-preventable disease morbidity, mortality, or reporting.
Results  A greater than 92% decline in cases and a 99% or greater decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by vaccines recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, and tetanus. Endemic transmission of poliovirus and measles and rubella viruses has been eliminated in the United States; smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Declines were 80% or greater for cases and deaths of most vaccine-preventable diseases targeted since 1980 including hepatitis A, acute hepatitis B, Hib, and varicella. Declines in cases and deaths of invasive S pneumoniae were 34% and 25%, respectively.”
Milhalovic,  could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to naturopathy?
4. Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine study?
There is, superficially, some truth in this statement.  Most pharmacokinetics are done prior to the clinical efficacy trials.  That is why there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials. The assumption being that if you exam influenza vaccine pharmacokinetic studies in one group it can be extrapolated to similar populations.  I think that is reasonable. So no, there are no pharmacokinetic studies in the clinical efficacy trials, those were done prior to the efficacy trials.  But it is not hard to find the phase 1 and 2 trials if you are so moved.
Milhalovic, could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of naturopathic nostrums in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any naturopathic nostrum study?  Is this getting old?  There is something to be said for repetition.
5. Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?
I presume the issue is mercury. Maybe aluminum. The latter is not in most vaccines, although as been discussed at length on this blog, the amount of mercury and aluminum found in vaccines is minimal and, at the dosing and formulation, has never been demonstrated to cause neurotoxicity from vaccines.  Of course, I am old school and think there is a dose response, and that a greater amount leads to a greater response.  Most naturopaths receive extensive training in homeopathy, where the less the amount, the greater the response.  So I would presume arguments based on chemistry would have little meaning to an ND, although I would not want my appletini made by a practitioner of homeopathy.
Of course, it is not the ‘neurotoxin’ that is being used to prevent disease, but the antigens of the potential infection. That is assuming that the author of the nine questions does not consider the antigens to be neurotoxins, and to judge from his understanding of disease later in the post, I am notes certain he warrants the benefit of the doubt.
Could you please provide scientific justification as to how applying naturopathy to a human being is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?
6. Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?
Since there is no more mercury in most vaccines, I will assume, for the sake of argument, it is the aluminum.  Risk from aluminum in the H. influenza type b vaccine, where aluminium is used as a adjuvant: zero.
The benefit from the vaccine: “From eight trials, the protective efficacy of the Hib conjugate vaccine was 84% (OR 0.16; 95%CI 0.08-0.30) against invasive Hib disease, 75% (OR 0.25; 95%CI 0.08-0.84) against meningitis, and 69% (OR 0.31; 95%CI 0.10-0.97) against pneumonia. Serious adverse events were rare.” 16491301
Seems a good trade off. No risk from aluminum, significant decrease in morbidity and mortality.
7. Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?
Well, things really get off the rails here.  Vaccines are not injected into the blood stream, they are infected into the soft tissues.   At a simple level, an infection enters to body, the body makes a variety of antibodies to the constituent parts of the infecting organism and next time the patient is exposed, the pre-existing antibody can, if there is a match with new strain, inactivate the new infection.
It doesn’t matter how the antigen is presented to the immune system, the response is the same. Natural influenza, inhaled influenza vaccine, or injected influenza vaccine, the same antibody will be made.
He says later
“All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.”
This is what we call in the trade, gibberish. At least it makes no sense to me.  I will leave to the readers to search, Bible Code style, for truthiness in the above selection.
8. Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?
That is actually a very interesting question. It has nothing to do with why we give vaccines and  I fear our intrepid ND does not have a firm grasp on what he is talking about as he says
“Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!”
Mutating and transforming into other organisms. Sigh.  Either the author is a sloppy writer  (sloppy writing reflects a sloppy mind) or his understanding of microbiology is so profoundly mistaken it boggles the mind that he takes care of patients.  And in Oregon he would allowed by the state to prescribe antibiotics.
If you have a population of viruses and a specific antibody against the virus, then those naturally occurring mutants that are not recognized by the antibody should have a replication advantage.  It is possible that the vaccine can help select for new strains of an infection, but not new organisms.
Vaccines selecting for new mutants has been looked at for the Hepatitis B vaccine, and found not to be a issue 20210630.
In HIV, there is an ongoing interaction between the immune response and the virus driving mutations that escape the immune system and, in some patients leads to a marked increase in HIV replication and a clinical decline decline (9143689). Oh wait, this is a natural infection. That shouldn’t happen.  It is the vaccines that do do this.
There is nothing unique about the vaccine response acting as environmental pressure on the evolution of infections; the response from the natural infections should be the same.  I would wonder, since the response to  a natural infection is broader, with antibodies made to numerous parts of the infection, rather than the few key antibodies provided by the response to the vaccine, whether a natural infection would lead to a faster mutation rate.  As a rule in the microbial world, the more intense the stress, the faster and more varied the mutations.  More antibiotics leads to faster development of resistance in E. coli, not its delay
9. Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?
Dr. Black and White.  Antibody response is not all or nothing, there is a gradient of response between the developed antibody and the site to which it is directed.  A good example is the H1N1 influenza.  People exposed to the strains from the first half f the century had antibody that was partially protective for the 2009 strain.  The reason http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20049332?
“The pandemic influenza virus (2009 H1N1) was recently introduced into the human population. The hemagglutinin (HA) gene of 2009 H1N1 is derived from “classical swine H1N1″ virus, which likely shares a common ancestor with the human H1N1 virus that caused the pandemic in 1918, whose descendant viruses are still circulating in the human population with highly altered antigenicity of HA. However, information on the structural basis to compare the HA antigenicity among 2009 H1N1, the 1918 pandemic, and seasonal human H1N1 viruses has been lacking. By homology modeling of the HA structure, here we show that HAs of 2009 H1N1 and the 1918 pandemic virus share a significant number of amino acid residues in known antigenic sites, suggesting the existence of common epitopes for neutralizing antibodies cross-reactive to both HAs. It was noted that the early human H1N1 viruses isolated in the 1930s-1940s still harbored some of the original epitopes that are also found in 2009 H1N1. Interestingly, while 2009 H1N1 HA lacks the multiple N-glycosylations that have been found to be associated with an antigenic change of the human H1N1 virus during the early epidemic of this virus, 2009 H1N1 HA still retains unique three-codon motifs, some of which became N-glycosylation sites via a single nucleotide mutation in the human H1N1 virus. We thus hypothesize that the 2009 H1N1 HA antigenic sites involving the conserved amino acids will soon be targeted by antibody-mediated selection pressure in humans. Indeed, amino acid substitutions predicted here are occurring in the recent 2009 H1N1 variants. The present study suggests that antibodies elicited by natural infection with the 1918 pandemic or its early descendant viruses play a role in specific immunity against 2009 H1N1, and provides an insight into future likely antigenic changes in the evolutionary process of 2009 H1N1 in the human population.”
Oops.  Not simple.
” over 75% of confirmed cases of novel H1N1 occurred in persons < or = 30 years old, with peak incidence in the age range 10-19 years. Less than 3% of cases occurred in persons over 65, with a gradation in incidence between ages 20 and 60 years.The sequence data indicates that novel H1N1 is most similar to H1N1 viruses that circulated before 1943. Novel H1N1 lacks glycosylation sites on the globular head of hemagglutinin (HA1) near antigenic regions, a pattern shared with the 1918 pandemic strain and H1N1 viruses that circulated until the early 1940s. Later H1N1 viruses progressively added new glycosylation sites likely to shield antigenic epitopes, while T-cell epitopes were relatively unchanged.
CONCLUSIONS: In this evolutionary context, Original Antigenic Sin exposure should produce an immune response increasingly mismatched to novel H1N1 in progressively younger persons. We suggest that it is this mismatch that produces both the gradation in susceptibility and the unusual toxicity”
The better the antibdy fit for the epitope (where the antibody binds) the better the effect, but it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. He would probably ask, what good is half and eye, why have half a wing. Or had a brain.
He finishes
“I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the above questions:
- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped.
- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the question.
- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over again. Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in an open mainstream venue.”
I am neither stumped not defeated.
My response was not unrelated.
My arguments are bases on modern studies that a 12 year old can find in less than a minute.
SBM is an open mainstream venue.
I do feel like I just had a foot race with a sloth; where is the honor in that?
And people wonder why I question the wisdom of allowing naturopaths to function as primary care providers.

This is not an easy blog to write.  Doctors Novella and Gorski want the entries to be formal, academic, referenced, with a minimum of snark.

For the most part I comply. But sometimes. Sometimes. It is hard, so hard,  not to spiral into sarcastic diatribes over the writings that pass for information on the interwebs. How should one respond to profound ignorance and misinformation?  I wish, sometimes, that I could be an irascible computer as well.

What brings on this particular bit of angst is a bit of whimsy on the Internet called “9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims.”  by David Mihalovic, ND. Mr. Mihalovic identifies himself as “a naturopathic medical doctor who specializes in vaccine research.” However, just where the research is published is uncertain as his name yields no publications on Pubmed.  BTW. I specialize in  beer research.  Same credentials.

The nine questions show up frequently on the interwebs, similar to questions on what to ask when you want to stump an evolutionist.  Similar to the supposed stumpers for evolution, the vaccine questions are grounded in misinformation, ignorance or laziness.  Let’s go through them one at a time.

1. Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

One trial? It took me 55 seconds to find  ”Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomised and placebo controlled trial” and that included time to boot the browser and mis-spell the search terms.  ’Vaccine’, ‘efficacy’,  ’randomized’ and  ’placebo control trial’  results in 416 Pubmed references; add ’safety’ to the search terms, you get 126 returns. 416 is easily more than one.  Of course, to find them you have to look.

Of course, I am a highly educated adult who constantly searches the web for medical information.  For hoots and giggles, I asked my 12 year old son, whose passions are basketball and filming comedy videos, to find me a reference that met the same criteria and I timed him.

Twenty two seconds, not including boot time,  to find “Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine in Cuba” from the NEJM.  Can anyone beat my son?

12 yo one,  Mihalovic 0.  Served.

As long as we are on the topic, since he evidently place great store in science, could Mihalovic please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of naturopathy?  I would be happy at this point to know just to know he was able to do a pubmed search correctly just to make me look the fool.

2. Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

Long term is vague. What is long term?  Smallpox disappeared in 1977  thanks to the vaccine.  I have not seem a case of smallpox in my medical career, which now on it’s 31st year. No reported long term toxicities of the smallpox vaccine  and the eradication of smallpox appears to me to represent reasonable evidence for long term safety and effectiveness. But it would.

No vaccine has 100%  efficacy, and whether  infected naturally or by  a vaccine, immunity wanes with time.  In  earlier times, people would have their immunity boosted by exposure to disease and maintain their antibody levels.  It is not the initial infection that leads to better immunity from natural infections, as posited by some antivaccine people, but the the fact that people were constantly re-exposed to wild type disease.

It is interesting what is  occurring with shingles.  Everyone used to get chickenpox as a child, and then, as they raised their kids and grand kids, were re-exposed to the virus and boosted their immunity. Currently, due to the chickenpox vaccine and a change in the  way children are raised, older adults are not getting exposed naturally to chickenpox, immunity is waning, and there is an increase in shingles in older adults.  Part of why they need the zoster vaccine.

Clever conspiracy to increase the use of the zoster vaccine, huh?

Unless exposed to new infection, immunity, as measured by antibody levels directed against the infecting agent, can decline over time. That is to be expected.  The nice thing about the immune system, unlike water, is that it remembers the infection. It is primed so that if exposed again at a later date, it can almost instantly produce large amounts of antibody to nip an infection in the bud. So rather than prevent infection, in some people far removed in time from the vaccine, they may instead have a shorter, less severe illness and be infectious for a shorter period of time, thereby decreasing spread.

There is a nice review in the NEJM on duration of immunity (first search in Pubmed using duration of immunity vaccine, results in 17 seconds, including correcting typos.  Seriously, just how hard is it to find this information?  As would be expected, it depends on the disease and the vaccine (live better than killed). They estimated the half-life for the varicella zoster virus immunity at 50 years, 200 years for measles and mumps, and 11 years for tetanus.  If you peruse the references, you can find other studies that show variable but sustained response to vaccines,  for example 90% maintain immunity to smallpox up to 75 years after vaccination.

Long term safety was more difficult, 5 years was the limit of time I could find  for safety studies of  Hepatits B.  Most vaccine toxicities are found in the first week or two after the inoculation and the studies follow most patients for a year.  Probably would not cut it as long term for Mihalovic.

BTW, could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of naturopathy?

3.  Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

Smallpox? Smallpox? Smallpox? Anyone? Smallpox? Buehler? Buehler?

Again I get back to the whole binary, black and white approach that characterizes many with whom we cross medical swords.  The decrease in infectious diseases has been multifactorial, due to improved nutrition, improved hygienic (lets hear it for the flush toilet) and understanding the epidemiology of diseases.  Knowing how a disease is spread has always been critical in decreasing its spread.  Note that none, none, none of the interventions that have decreased the spread of infections in the last 200 years or so have come from naturopathic tradition.

The teasing out the effects of vaccines on populations is always fraught with potential controversy. There are always multiple confounders.  The best example of the beneficial effects of vaccines was from JAMA.

“Objective  To compare morbidity and mortality before and after widespread implementation of national vaccine recommendations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases for which recommendations were in place prior to 2005.

Design, Setting, and Participants  For the United States, prevaccine baselines were assessed based on representative historical data from primary sources and were compared to the most recent morbidity (2006) and mortality (2004) data for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella (including congenital rubella syndrome), invasive Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), acute hepatitis B, hepatitis A, varicella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and smallpox.

Main Outcome Measures  Number of cases, deaths, and hospitalizations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases. Estimates of the percent reductions from baseline to recent were made without adjustment for factors that could affect vaccine-preventable disease morbidity, mortality, or reporting.

Results  A greater than 92% decline in cases and a 99% or greater decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by vaccines recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, and tetanus. Endemic transmission of poliovirus and measles and rubella viruses has been eliminated in the United States; smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Declines were 80% or greater for cases and deaths of most vaccine-preventable diseases targeted since 1980 including hepatitis A, acute hepatitis B, Hib, and varicella. Declines in cases and deaths of invasive S pneumoniae were 34% and 25%, respectively.”

Milhalovic,  could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to naturopathy?

4. Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine study?

There is, superficially, some truth in this statement.  Most pharmacokinetics are done prior to the clinical efficacy trials.  That is why there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials. The assumption being that if you exam influenza vaccine pharmacokinetic studies in one group it can be extrapolated to similar populations.  I think that is reasonable. So no, there are no pharmacokinetic studies in the clinical efficacy trials, those were done prior to the efficacy trials.  But it is not hard to find the phase 1 and 2 trials if you are so moved.

Milhalovic, could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of naturopathic nostrums in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any naturopathic nostrum study?

Is this getting old?  There is something to be said for repetition.

5. Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

I presume the issue is mercury. Maybe aluminum. The latter is not in most vaccines, although as been discussed at length on this blog, the amount of mercury and aluminum found in vaccines is minimal and, at the dosing and formulation, has never been demonstrated to cause neurotoxicity from vaccines.  Of course, I am old school and think there is a dose response effect of drugs, and that a greater amount leads to a greater response.  Most naturopaths receive extensive training in homeopathy, where the less the amount, the greater the response.  So I would presume arguments based on chemistry would have little meaning to an ND, although I would not want my appletini made by a practitioner of homeopathy.

Of course, it is not the ‘neurotoxin’ that is being used to prevent disease, but the antigens of the potential infection. That is assuming that the author of the nine questions does not consider the antigens to be neurotoxins, and to judge from his understanding of disease later in the post, I am not so certain he warrants the benefit of the doubt.

Could you please provide scientific justification as to how applying naturopathy to a human being is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

6. Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

Since there is no longer mercury in most vaccines, I will assume, for the sake of argument, he is referring to aluminum.  Risk from aluminum in the H. influenza type b vaccine, where aluminium is used as a adjuvant: zero.

The benefit from the vaccine:

“From eight trials, the protective efficacy of the Hib conjugate vaccine was 84% (OR 0.16; 95%CI 0.08-0.30) against invasive Hib disease, 75% (OR 0.25; 95%CI 0.08-0.84) against meningitis, and 69% (OR 0.31; 95%CI 0.10-0.97) against pneumonia. Serious adverse events were rare.”

Seems a good trade off. No risk from aluminum, significant decrease in morbidity and mortality from disease.

7. Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

Well, things really get off the rails here.  Vaccines are not injected into the blood stream, they are infected into the soft tissues.   At a simple level, an infection enters to body, the body makes a variety of antibodies to the constituent parts of the infecting organism and next time the patient is exposed, the pre-existing antibody can, if there is a match with new strain, inactivate the new infection.

It doesn’t matter how the antigen is presented to the immune system, the response is the same. Natural influenza, inhaled influenza vaccine, or injected influenza vaccine, the same antibody will be made to the proteins.

Mihalovic says later

“All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.”

This is what we call in the trade, gibberish. At least it makes no sense to me.  I will leave to the readers to search, Bible Code style, for truthiness in the above selection.

8. Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

That is actually a very interesting question. It has nothing to do with why we give vaccines and  I fear our intrepid ND does not have a firm grasp on what he is talking about as he says

“Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!”

Mutating and transforming into other organisms. Sigh.  Either the author is a sloppy writer  (sloppy writing (not typos, but logic and word selection) reflects a sloppy mind) or his understanding of microbiology is so profoundly mistaken it boggles the mind that he takes care of patients.  And in Oregon he would allowed by the state to prescribe antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals.

If you have a population of viruses and a specific antibody against the virus, then those naturally occurring mutants that are not recognized by the antibody should have a replication advantage.  It is possible that the vaccine can help select for new strains of an infection, but not new organisms.

Vaccines selecting for new mutants has been looked at for the Hepatitis B vaccine, and found not to be a issue.

In HIV, there is an ongoing interaction between the immune response and the virus, driving mutations that escape the immune system and, in some patients leads to a marked increase in HIV replication and a clinical decline decline. Oh wait, this is a natural infection. That shouldn’t happen.  It is the vaccines that do this.

There is nothing unique about the vaccine response acting as environmental pressure on the evolution of infections; the response from the natural infections should be the same.  I would wonder, since the response to  a natural infection is broader, with antibodies made to numerous parts of the infection, rather than the few key antibodies provided by the response to the vaccine, whether a natural infection would lead to a faster mutation rate.  As a rule in the microbial world, the more intense the stress, the faster and more varied the mutations.  More antibiotics leads to faster development of resistance in E. coli, not its delay.

9. Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?

Mr. Black and White.  Antibody response is not all or nothing, there is a gradient of response between the developed antibody and the site to which it is directed.  A good example is the H1N1 influenza.  People exposed to the strains from the first half of the century had antibody that was partially protective for the 2009 strain.  The reason?

“The pandemic influenza virus (2009 H1N1) was recently introduced into the human population. The hemagglutinin (HA) gene of 2009 H1N1 is derived from “classical swine H1N1″ virus, which likely shares a common ancestor with the human H1N1 virus that caused the pandemic in 1918, whose descendant viruses are still circulating in the human population with highly altered antigenicity of HA. However, information on the structural basis to compare the HA antigenicity among 2009 H1N1, the 1918 pandemic, and seasonal human H1N1 viruses has been lacking. By homology modeling of the HA structure, here we show that HAs of 2009 H1N1 and the 1918 pandemic virus share a significant number of amino acid residues in known antigenic sites, suggesting the existence of common epitopes for neutralizing antibodies cross-reactive to both HAs. It was noted that the early human H1N1 viruses isolated in the 1930s-1940s still harbored some of the original epitopes that are also found in 2009 H1N1. Interestingly, while 2009 H1N1 HA lacks the multiple N-glycosylations that have been found to be associated with an antigenic change of the human H1N1 virus during the early epidemic of this virus, 2009 H1N1 HA still retains unique three-codon motifs, some of which became N-glycosylation sites via a single nucleotide mutation in the human H1N1 virus. We thus hypothesize that the 2009 H1N1 HA antigenic sites involving the conserved amino acids will soon be targeted by antibody-mediated selection pressure in humans. Indeed, amino acid substitutions predicted here are occurring in the recent 2009 H1N1 variants. The present study suggests that antibodies elicited by natural infection with the 1918 pandemic or its early descendant viruses play a role in specific immunity against 2009 H1N1, and provides an insight into future likely antigenic changes in the evolutionary process of 2009 H1N1 in the human population.”

Oops.  Not simple.

But the result?

“Over 75% of confirmed cases of novel H1N1 occurred in persons < or = 30 years old, with peak incidence in the age range 10-19 years. Less than 3% of cases occurred in persons over 65, with a gradation in incidence between ages 20 and 60 years.The sequence data indicates that novel H1N1 is most similar to H1N1 viruses that circulated before 1943. Novel H1N1 lacks glycosylation sites on the globular head of hemagglutinin (HA1) near antigenic regions, a pattern shared with the 1918 pandemic strain and H1N1 viruses that circulated until the early 1940s. Later H1N1 viruses progressively added new glycosylation sites likely to shield antigenic epitopes, while T-cell epitopes were relatively unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS: In this evolutionary context, Original Antigenic Sin exposure should produce an immune response increasingly mismatched to novel H1N1 in progressively younger persons. We suggest that it is this mismatch that produces both the gradation in susceptibility and the unusual toxicity”

The better the antibdy fit for the epitope (where the antibody binds) the better the effect, but it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Mihalovic would probably ask, what good is half an eye, why have half a wing, or half a brain?

He finishes,

“I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the above questions:

- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped.

- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the question.

- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over again. Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in an open mainstream venue.”

I am neither stumped not defeated. I know how to search Pubmed for medical information.

My response directed specifically to the questions.

My arguments are based on modern studies that a 12 year old can find in less than a minute, none of which have been disproved once, much less over and over.

SBM is an open mainstream venue.

I do feel like I just had won Jeopardy playing against Prof. R.J. Gumby; where is the honor in that?

And people wonder why I question the wisdom of allowing naturopaths to function as primary care providers.


[Slashdot]
[Digg]
[Reddit]
[del.icio.us]
[Facebook]
[Technorati]
[Google]
[StumbleUpon]

It’s That Blue Planet… No, The Other One…

Posted on by

Seems like we don’t pay much attention to the 7th planet.  We know it’s out there, and it’s blue (but not as blue as Neptune).  We know it’s cold, and a gas giant, and … well … it’s cold, and blue, and it’s the 7th planet…

NASA/JPL, Voyager II 1986 image of Uranus

While it’s not a media star like Jupiter and Saturn, and doesn’t even get the attention Neptune and Pluto receive, Uranus is certainly no slouch when it comes to beauty or mystery.  While the 1986 Voyager II image is wonderful (lovely, startling, mysterious, remote), the Hubble has been showing us some even more breath-taking views of this magnificent giant.  Take a look at this:

This of course shows the rings and moons of Uranus, along with the false coloration to show altitude and atmospheric features.  And speaking of those rings, William Herschel (who discovered Uranus) described a possible ring system around the planet in 1789.  For the next 200 years, nobody else saw the rings around Uranus until 1977, when they were “discovered”.  We have so far counted 13 rings in the Uranian system, and 27 moons.  Quite a complex system.

Uranian ring system with inner moons, Image in public domain

Uranus has an axial tilt like none other in the solar system; it’s almost 98 degrees, making Uranus “lay over” on its side.  Its poles are positioned where its equator should be.  Scientists speculate that the dramatic axial tilt was caused by Uranus being impacted with an Earth-sized protoplanet early in the life of the solar system.

NASA/JPL Uranus/Earth to scale - Uranus showing true color variation

Although Uranus is visible to the unaided eye, just barely, it was not recognized as a planet because it’s so dim and its orbit is so slow.  It was the first planet to be discovered by telescope, March 13, 1781, but William Herschel thought he had discovered a comet or a new star.  It takes Uranus a little over 84 years to complete an orbit.  With the way its axial tilt works, each pole spends about 42  years in either total darkness or total sunlight.  Of course, Uranus only receives a tiny percentage of the sunlight the Earth receives.

NASA/ESA Hubble ST 2005, Uranus, natural color, showing rings and clouds

I’ve barely touched the surface of the mystery and beauty of our 7th planet.  We all knew it was out there, but hopefully we’ll take a longer look at this ancient Greek god of the sky.  It’s certainly worth our awe and our interest.

13 things that saved Apollo 13 | Bad Astronomy

Posted on by

Universe Today logoI waited until the series was complete so you could see all the posts at once: Nancy Atkinson of Universe Today has written a very cool series called 13 Things That Saved Apollo 13 (link goes to #13, which has links to the previous 12). From the team itself to measles to duct tape, this is a pretty interesting look into NASA’s most successful failure, and a great reminder of what NASA accomplished 40 years ago.


NCBI ROFL: Times New Roman may be funnier than Arial, but why does Comic Sans make me want to kill myself? | Discoblog

Posted on by

Emotional and persuasive perception of fonts. "The aim of this study was to explore the latent affective and persuasive meaning attributed to text when appearing in two commonly used fonts. Two satirical readings were selected from the New York Times. These readings (one addressing government issues, the other education policy) were each printed in Times New Roman and Arial fonts of the same size and presented in randomized order to 102 university students, who ranked the readings on a number of adjective descriptors. Analysis showed that satirical readings in Times New Roman were perceived as more funny and angry than those in Arial, the combination of emotional perception which is congruent with the definition of satire. This apparent interaction of font type with emotional qualities of text has implications for marketing, advertising, and the persuasive literature." Photo: flickr/micahdowty Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: How extraverted is honey.bunny77@hotmail.de? Inferring personality from e-mail addresses.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Why Facebook is ruining your marriage.


New Studies Link Too Few ZZZZs to Diabetes Warning Signs, Early Death | 80beats

Posted on by

alarm-clockWe know that skimping on sleep gives many of us heavy eyes and sends us on an early afternoon run for a large coffee (or, for those with an iron stomach who don’t mind ingesting 8,300 percent of our daily value of vitamin B12, an energy drink). But studies out this week outline possibly dire health consequences for depriving ourselves of lengthy slumber.

A small study In the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism says that even a single of night of sleep deprivation can cause the body to show signs of insulin resistance, a warning sign of diabetes. And in the journal Sleep, a long-term study by a different team chillingly suggests that continuously snoozing less than six hours per night can increase your risk for an early death.

First, the insulin study: Esther Donga and colleagues examined nine patients, first after the patients had slept a full eight hours and then again after they’d slept just four. The scientists say that insulin sensitivity was reduced by as much as 25 percent when the patients were sleep deprived.

“Our data indicate that insulin sensitivity is not fixed in healthy (people), but depends on the duration of sleep in the preceding night,” Donga wrote in the study. “In fact it is tempting to speculate that the negative effects of multiple nights of shortened sleep on glucose tolerance can be reproduced, at least in part, by just one sleepless night.” A study by U.S. scientists published last year found that people who slept less than six hours a night were 4.5 times more likely to develop abnormal blood sugar readings in six years compared with those who slept longer [Reuters].

Overeating typically takes the rap for contributing to the ballooning number of people with diabetes. But the scientists speculate that if their findings on insulin resistance in this small subset of people can be extrapolated to most people, then perhaps another unhealthy aspect of this modern life—sleeping too little—could contribute as well.

And then the second study, which deals with early death: British and Italian researchers compiled 16 studies done all over the world in the course of a quarter-century to see if there was a discernible connection between sleeping too little and the risk of dying too soon. They studies they looked at surveyed people about their sleep habits and then tracked when they met their bitter end. In all, more than 1,300,000 people were part of this meta-study.

It found that those who generally slept for less than six hours a night were 12% more likely to experience a premature death over a period of 25 years than those who consistently got six to eight hours’ sleep. Evidence for the link was unequivocal, the researchers concluded [The Guardian].

Some researchers outside the study, though, wondered whether sleep was truly the factor causing early death.

Professor Jim Horne, of the Loughborough Sleep Research Centre, said other factors may be involved rather than sleep per se. “Sleep is just a litmus paper to physical and mental health. Sleep is affected by many diseases and conditions, including depression,” he said [BBC News].

Indeed, the researchers involved with the study concluded the same thing might be at work with their other finding—that not only will too little sleep raise your risk for early death, too much sleep will also up the risk. But, they say, that “too much”—more than 9 hours—might just be a symptom of something else that’s already wrong.

If you’re a DISCOVER fan, check us out on Facebook.

Related Content:
80beats: Lack of ZZZZS Linked To Alzheimer’s in Mice
80beats: Sleep Experiment Shows the “Graveyard” Shift Is Aptly Named
80beats: Rare Genetic Mutation Lets People (And Fruit Flies) Get By with Less Sleep
DISCOVER: 20 Things You Didn’t Know About… Sleep

Image: iStockphoto