[_vega_]

Precautions should be taken surely, but I wouldn't worry too much, I'm Mexican and I feel people here have been getting too carried away by all the alarming reports, I don't live in Mexico City but supposedly my state is the third one with the most reported influenza cases and so far there hasn't been one death here (although our weather is much warmer and we don't have the same air pollution that Mexico City has), but surely if our medical attention has been able to avoid fatal results here, then I guess the hospitals in the United States should be completely capable to handle the desease without bigger problems, since you have much more resources than us.

Just try to mantain a good personal hygiene, wash your hands, and if you start feeling like you might get a cold, go to your doctor.

[vc318]

^ Definitely.

[sunnykerr]

Exactly.

Precaution is always good with the flu anyway.

[sunnykerr]

Medical Isotopes Running Low Among Hospitals With word that the shutdown of the Chalk River nuclear reactor could be a long one, doctors across Canada are hoarding their dwindling supplies of medical isotopes while preparing for what it will mean for patients when they very shortly run out. Clinics and hospitals in Saskatchewan are already having to postpone bone scans and other tests because of the shortage. The Saskatoon Health Region says it will have to reschedule about 70 "non-urgent" bone scans for people who had appointments between May 25 and May 29. Health regions across British Columbia, meanwhile, say they have agreed to share supplies of isotopes so that emergency cases can be given top priority over elective tests. It's expected that in other parts of the country, tests that require the isotopes will now be prioritized, with only the most vital tests going ahead until the shortage ends. The problem-plagued reactor at Chalk River, Ont., was shut down May 15 after a power outage in parts of eastern Ontario and western Quebec. A heavy water leak was detected the following day. Officials said at first that the reactor would be out of service for more than a month while repair options are considered. But last week, an executive with Atomic Energy of Canada said the shutdown could be even longer. Chalk River's NRU reactor supplies up to half of the world's supply of isotopes used to detect cancer and heart ailments. Because the isotopes needed for the diagnostic tests has a half life of just 66 hours, supply disruptions like this one have a quick impact. The last of the reserve of isotopes was used up over the weekend. Doctors are now scrambling to arrange supply from the world's four other isotope-producing reactors. The Chalk River facility makes a third of the world's supply of medical isotopes, such as molybdenum-99, or Mo-99. The isotope is a small quantity of radioactive material that is mixed with different solutions and injected into patients, where they give off energy that is read by special cameras for use in diagnostic tests. A nuclear medicine scan differs from radiography, ultrasound or other diagnostic tests because it can detect changes in the functions of an organ, not just its physical characteristics. It often identifies abnormalities at very early stages of disease, before other diagnostic tests. The 52-year-old reactor was closed back in November 2007 after the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission discovered insufficient emergency services. The shutdown lasted nearly a month and sparked a crisis in the federal government and a worldwide medical shortage. The NRU is the world's oldest nuclear reactor, as it went online in 1958. France's Areva Group is bidding against Crown-owned AECL and the U.S. firm Westinghouse Electric Co., to build two nuclear reactors in Ontario. The province is expected to award the reactor contract this summer. Areva, meanwhile, has offered to help the federal government through the NRU shutdown. Areva told Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt and Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq its engineers can help AECL repair the reactor, and offered to find European reactors that can make the isotopes. "Areva is ready to provide all the support that you will deem necessary to reduce the health impact of the current isotope shortage," wrote Armand Laferrere, president of Areva Canada. "We will, as requested by you, facilitate contacts with European isotope producers. We are also ready to assist technically in the NRU repairs."

CTV.ca | Medical isotopes running low among hospitals

This is very scary. The shortage two years ago came very close to crippling diagnostic abilities across the world, Canada being one of the biggest medical isotope producers across the world. I seriously hope Harper realizes there's a severe need to build a new infrastructure.

[vc318]

I guess this can be posted here. It is health news, per se:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/ed...baby.html?_r=1

No Einstein in Your Crib? Get a Refund

Parent alert: the Walt Disney Company is now offering refunds for all those “Baby Einstein” videos that did not make children into geniuses.

They may have been a great electronic baby sitter, but the unusual refunds appear to be a tacit admission that they did not increase infant intellect.

“We see it as an acknowledgment by the leading baby video company that baby videos are not educational, and we hope other baby media companies will follow suit by offering refunds,” said Susan Linn, director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which has been pushing the issue for years.

Baby Einstein, founded in 1997, was one of the earliest players in what became a huge electronic media market for babies and toddlers. Acquired by Disney in 2001, the company expanded to a full line of books, toys, flashcards and apparel, along with DVDs including “Baby Mozart,” “Baby Shakespeare” and “Baby Galileo.”

The videos — simple productions featuring music, puppets, bright colors, and not many words — became a staple of baby life: According to a 2003 study, a third of all American babies from 6 months to 2 years old had at least one “Baby Einstein” video.

Despite their ubiquity, and the fact that many babies are transfixed by the videos, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time at all for children under 2.

In 2006, Ms. Linn’s group went to the Federal Trade Commission to complain about the educational claims made by Disney and another company, Brainy Baby. As a result, the companies dropped the word “educational” from their marketing. But the group didn’t think that was enough.

“Disney was never held accountable, and parents were never given any compensation. So we shared our information and research with a team of public health lawyers,” Ms. Linn said.

Last year, lawyers threatened a class-action lawsuit for unfair and deceptive practices unless Disney agreed to refund the full purchase price to all who bought the videos since 2004. “The Walt Disney Company’s entire Baby Einstein marketing regime is based on express and implied claims that their videos are educational and beneficial for early childhood development,” a letter from the lawyers said, calling those claims “false because research shows that television viewing is potentially harmful for very young children.”

The letter cited estimates from The Washington Post and Business Week that Baby Einstein controlled 90 percent of the baby media market, and sold $200 million worth of products annually.

The letter also described studies showing that television exposure at ages 1 through 3 is associated with attention problems at age 7.

In response, the Baby Einstein company will refund $15.99 for up to four “Baby Einstein” DVDs per household, bought between June 5, 2004, and Sept. 5, 2009, and returned to the company.

Lawyers in the matter refused to comment on the settlement.

Last month, Baby Einstein announced the new refunds — or “enhanced consumer satisfaction guarantee” — but made no mention of the lawyers’ demands.

"Fostering parent-child interaction always has and always will come first at The Baby Einstein Company, and we know that there is an ongoing discussion about how that interaction is best promoted,” Susan McLain, vice president and general manager, said in the statement. “We remain committed to providing a wide range of options to help parents create the most engaging and enriching experience for themselves and their babies.”

The founder and president of Brainy Baby, Dennis Fedoruk, said in an e-mail message that he was unaware of Baby Einstein’s refund announcement and could not offer further comment.

An outside public relations representative for Baby Einstein said there was nothing new about the refund offer.

“We’ve had a customer satisfaction guarantee for a long time,” she said, referring a reporter to the company Web site. However, Baby Einstein’s general “money-back” guarantee is only valid for 60 days from purchase and requires a receipt.

In contrast, the current offer, allowing parents to exchange their video for a different title, receive a discount coupon, or get $15.99 each for up to four returned DVDs, requires no receipt, and extends until next March 10.

“When attention got focused on this issue a few years ago, a lot of companies became more cautious about what they claimed,” said Vicky Rideout, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. “But even if the word ‘education’ isn’t there, there’s a clear implication of educational benefits in a lot of the marketing.”

The Baby Einstein Web site, for example, still describes its videos with phrases like “reinforces number recognition using simple patterns” or “introduces circles, ovals, triangles, squares and rectangles.”

“My impression is that parents really believe these videos are good for their children, or at the very least, not really bad for them,” Ms. Rideout said. “To me, the most important thing is reminding parents that getting down on the floor to play with children is the most educational thing they can do.”

No amount of educational television programming or videos is going to make your child smarter. I mean, if it's a toss up between Jerry Springer and Sesame Street for your child then the answer is clear (I hope). The reality is that the best thing you can do for your child is to spend time with them and teach them in that way. The tube shouldn't be the only education your child is getting on a daily basis. But I think the Baby Einstein videos are pretty good. Better than most kid videos out there.

[sunnykerr]

Well, I have no children of my own, so I'm no reference. But there are studies showing that... whatever it is in the TV that forms the image you and I watch when we're watching an image like that... is harmful to toddlers and the like.

I also think a parent is always the best teacher. Of course, that parent has to be willing to be there and teach, which isn't always the case.

[NikNak]

This is true.

[vc318]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) I also think a parent is always the best teacher. Of course, that parent has to be willing to be there and teach, which isn't always the case.

Couldn't agree more.

[sunnykerr]

Than again, my mother was a nurse, so there's a chance my ideas of parental health involvement are skewed.

[NikNak]

Nah. I think you're fine. LOL

[sunnykerr]

Oh, I know that.

Just sets the bar kinda really high for the daughter, you know?

[vc318]

New advice: Skip mammograms in 40s, start at 50 - Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Channel 7 News Fox WSVN-TV

New advice: Skip mammograms in 40s, start at 50

NEW YORK (AP) -- Most women should wait until age 50 to get mammograms and then have one every two years, a government task force said Monday in a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing recommendation of annual screening starting at 40.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

For nearly two decades, the cancer society has been recommending regular mammograms beginning at 40.

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often is harmful, causing too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of surviving the disease.

"The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s," said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies. But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines.

Experts expect the revisions to be hotly debated, and to cause confusion for women and their doctors.

"Our concern is that as a result of that confusion, women may elect not to get screened at all. And that, to me, would be a serious problem," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the cancer society's deputy chief medical officer.

The guidelines are for the general population, not those at high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations that would justify having mammograms sooner or more often.

The new advice says:

--Most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms.

--Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. (The task force's previous guidelines had no upper limit and called for exams every year or two.)

--The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. And breast self-exams are of no value.

Medical groups such as the cancer society have been backing off promoting breast self-exams in recent years because of scant evidence of their effectiveness. Decades ago, the practice was so heavily promoted that organizations distributed cards that could be hung in the shower demonstrating the circular motion women should use to feel for lumps in their breasts.

The guidelines and research supporting them were released Monday and are being published in Tuesday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.

"This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.

The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.

That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.

International guidelines also call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, Britain says every three years.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. More than 192,000 new cases and 40,000 deaths from the disease are expected in the U.S. this year.

Mammograms can find cancer early, and two-thirds of women over 40 report having had the test in the previous two years. But how much they cut the risk of dying of the disease, and at what cost in terms of unneeded biopsies, expense and worry, have been debated.

In most women, tumors are slow-growing, and that likelihood increases with age. So there is little risk by extending the time between mammograms, some researchers say. Even for the minority of women with aggressive, fast-growing tumors, annual screening will make little difference in survival odds.

The new guidelines balance these risks and benefits, scientists say.

The probability of dying of breast cancer after age 40 is 3 percent, they calculate. Getting a mammogram every other year from ages 50 to 69 lowers that risk by about 16 percent.

"It's an average of five lives saved per thousand women screened," said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt.

Starting at age 40 would prevent one additional death but also lead to 470 false alarms for every 1,000 women screened. Continuing mammograms through age 79 prevents three additional deaths but raises the number of women treated for breast cancers that would not threaten their lives.

"You save more lives because breast cancer is more common, but you diagnose tumors in women who were destined to die of something else. The overdiagnosis increases in older women," Mandelblatt said.

She led six teams around the world who used federal data on cancer and mammography to develop mathematical models of what would happen if women were screened at different ages and time intervals. Their conclusions helped shape the new guidelines.

Several medical groups say they are sticking to their guidelines that call for routine screening starting at 40.

"Screening isn't perfect. But it's the best thing we have. And it works," said Dr. Carol Lee, a spokeswoman for the American College of Radiology. She suggested that cutting health care costs may have played a role in the decision, but Petitti said the task force does not consider cost or insurance in its review.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has qualms. The organization's Dr. Hal Lawrence said there is still significant benefit to women in their 40s, adding: "We think that women deserve that benefit."

But Dr. Amy Abernethy of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center agreed with the task force's changes.

"Overall, I think it really took courage for them to do this," she said. "It does ask us as doctors to change what we do and how we communicate with patients. That's no small undertaking."

Abernethy, who is 41, said she got her first mammogram the day after her 40th birthday, even though she wasn't convinced it was needed. Now she doesn't plan to have another mammogram until she is 50.

Barbara Brenner, executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action, said the group was "thrilled" with the revisions. The advocacy group doesn't support screening before menopause, and will be changing its suggested interval from yearly to every two years, she said.

Mammograms, like all medical interventions, have risks and benefits, she said.

"Women are entitled to know what they are and to make their best decisions," she said. "These guidelines will help that conversation."

So, this is the best they can do with cancer cases on the rise? Sounds to me like they're just trying to find another way to cut expenses for the insurance companies.

[ceilirose]

You know they need to really cover it for younger women who are at risk. Breast cancer in women in their 20's or 30's is really super aggressive from what I've read.

Seriously - they drill it into our heads that it's important to get a mammogram because it can detect tumors before they can be felt et., etc. If your breasts are dense you can't feel lumps so get that mammogram. LOL - maybe that was too much information.

I don't know - it's hard to know what to believe anymore.

[sunnykerr]

I have to say that I tend to go with the cancer society on this one. If anything, too few women are being proactive about this deadly illness, I don't think this does them any favours.

Maybe if they left it to the doctors...

Because, indeed, coverage should absolutely be extended to young women who are at risk. We know women are getting cancer younger and younger.

[vc318]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) I have to say that I tend to go with the cancer society on this one. If anything, too few women are being proactive about this deadly illness, I don't think this does them any favours.

Exactly. Did I miss that there has been fewer cases of cancer reported lately or something? Every time I read the paper or listen to the news, someone is being diagnosed with cancer. But then I hear supporters about the new findings that this is a good thing because there are so many unnecessary biopsies done and false positives and so forth. I don't know who would want to have cancer instead of just being completely sure and getting a biopsy done. Better to be safe than sorry, right?

Maybe if they left it to the doctors...

You can barely trust them either.

Because, indeed, coverage should absolutely be extended to young women who are at risk. We know women are getting cancer younger and younger.

Maybe Obama will have that added to his healthcare reform.