Archive for the ‘Health News’ Category

Montana Bill Would Legalize Roadkill Dining

Friday, February 22nd, 2013

BY LIZ NEPORENT
http://abcnews.go.com/

By passing a bill last week that allows motorists to eat their roadkill, the Montana House of Representatives may be on their way to legalizing the ultimate drive-through experience.

State Rep. Steve Lavin originally introduced the bill into Montana’s House to allow “game animals, fur-bearing animals, migratory game birds and upland game birds” who have been killed by a car to be harvested for food.

“This includes deer, elk, moose and antelope, the animals with the most meat,” said Lavin.

Lavin said that in his “day job” as a state trooper he sees a ton of animals hit on Montana’s roadways that could potentially be repurposed to provide meat for people in need. State troopers already alert food banks to viable bumper banquets. This bill would simply make the practice legal.

If passed, Lavin said the law would explicitly exclude species such as big horn sheep and bear over concerns there would be profiteering from horns, claws and other body parts collectors covet. He added that it certainly wouldn’t apply to situations like “finding a dead squirrel in the middle of the road” either.

Collisions between vehicles and animals are a serious problem in rural states like Montana. In 2011, the last year statistics were available, the Montana Department of Transportation reported a little over 1,900 wild animal–vehicle crashes. Considering nearly 7,000 carcasses were collected from the side of road that same year, it seems likely that many such accidents go unreported.

It’s worth noting that Montana is not the first state to pass this type of law. Colorado, Illinois and Indiana are among states that currently allow motorists the privilege of salvaging roadkill under certain circumstances.

It’s legal in Georgia too, a fact depicted on the reality show, “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” In an early episode “Mama June” Shannon explained how police notify her whenever a deer who has met an unfortunate end is found by the side of the road. She then goes on to extol the virtues of dining on deer that die by the wheel – though she has stressed in interviews that the family does not consume possum or raccoon.

“Darleen”, as Honey Boo Boo lovingly referred to the family’s fender feast, may be delicious – but how safe is it to partake?

“The risk is relative depending on the condition of the animal and how it was killed,” said Benjamin Chapman, a food safety specialist with North Carolina State University. “In roadkill if you happen upon the animal, you don’t know its condition, which makes it riskier than eating regulated food or an animal you’ve hunted.”

Even before you put fork to antler, there are safety concerns. Just hauling a carcass away can expose you to all sorts of pathogens that can make you sick, Chapman warned.

Lavin said he had never eaten roadkill himself but had no misgivings about offering the run-over meat to those who can use it — though for safety’s sake, he advised anyone pondering these “meals under wheels” to take air temperature and the length of time the animal has been lying on the road into consideration.

“It’s like any other meat – if you leave it outside the refrigerator for a couple of hours, you aren’t going to want to eat it,” he said.

Should you decide that flattened moose is what’s for dinner, Chapman advised using a meat thermometer and cooking large game to a temperature of at least 160 degrees Fahrenheit. When dressing the carcass, keep it away from other foods, scrub work surfaces with bleach afterward, and wash hands thoroughly.


Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Surfing the internet for long periods of time can cause withdrawal syptoms ‘similar to people on a comedown from ecstasy’

Tuesday, February 19th, 2013

By Daily Mail Reporter
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Using the internet for hours on end can result in withdrawal symptoms similar to the ‘comedown’ experienced by drug users, scientists warned yesterday.

Researchers found spending excessive periods of time surfing the internet left people in ‘negative moods’.

And, like drug addicts, when heavy internet users go back on the web their negative moods lift.

The research was carried out on 60 volunteers with an average age of 25 at Swansea University’s College of Human and Health Sciences.

Scientists say the results could mean society is in for some ‘nasty surprises’ if internet use increases as expected.

Professor Phil Reed, from the university’s psychology department, said: ‘Our results show that around half of the young people we studied spend so much time on the net that it has negative consequences for the rest of their lives.

‘When people come offline, they suffer increased negative mood – just like people coming off illegal drugs like ecstasy.

‘These initial results, and related studies of brain function, suggest that there are some nasty surprises lurking on the net for people’s wellbeing.’

The study, published in the international journal Plus One, is the first of its kind into the immediate negative psychological impacts of internet use.

First, the volunteers were given a series of psychological tests to find out their level of addiction to the internet, their mood, their anxiety level and whether they were depressed.

They were told to browse the internet for 15 minutes, then they were tested again for mood and levels of anxiety.

The study concluded: ‘The negative impact of excessive internet use can be seen across a wide range of aspects of the addict’s life. Internet addiction was associated with long-standing depression, impulsive non-conformity, and autism traits.’

Using the internet had a ‘striking’ impact on the positive mood of those who were addicted to the web, and their comedown was far more pronounced than those who used it less often, the research noted.

And these withdrawal symptoms may promote a vicious cycle. It said: ‘The immediate negative impact of exposure to the internet on the mood of internet addicts may contribute to increased usage by those individuals attempting to reduce their low mood by re-engaging rapidly in internet use.’


Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Merck Study Pushes Antidepressant Use with Vaccines

Friday, February 15th, 2013

Melissa Melton
GCN Live.com
February 15, 2013

Sign, sign, everywhere a vaccine sign…

A new study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases actually claims taking antidepressants will increase vaccine effectiveness.

The two-year study compared immune responses in 40 elderly participants with major depressive disorder to 52 control subjects in regard to Merck’s Zostavax, the herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine. According to an Infectious Diseases Society of America press release:

“Depressed patients not being treated with antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) had lower cell-mediated immunity to the varicella-zoster virus—and were less able to respond to the shingles vaccine—compared with patients who were not depressed or who were depressed but were receiving treatment with antidepressants, the researchers found.”

The implications here are much more frightening, as the press release continued:

“The possible connection, however, is potentially significant: If antidepressants increase the efficacy of the shingles vaccine in those who are depressed, such treatment may have a similar effect on the immune response of depressed patients to other important vaccines, such those against influenza.”

So, let’s get this straight: it isn’t the ineffectual vaccines themselves we should be concerned with, it’s the fact that, if we get depressed, we all need to take antidepressant medications in order to make our vaccines work better?

As it stands, America consumes more psychotropic drugs than any other country in the world, a fact surely not missed by pharmaceutical companies. In fact, antidepressants were recently named the nation’s number one prescription for adults aged 18-44.

Big Pharma giant Merck & Co. is currently responsible for the production of nine vaccines, including the ‘live vaccine’ Zostavax for shingles. But what’s more, while the mainstream media is readily reporting that untreated depression is hurting vaccine efficacy in the study’s wake, many forgot to mention that, of the 20 authors listed on this study, four of them work for guess who?

Merck.

How Shingles Became So Prevalent

Adverts on pharmacy signs everywhere urge people to get their shingles shot right away, but this vaccine wasn’t even around until 2006. Why develop such a vaccine? Were incidences of shingles really all that common?

Both chickenpox and shingles are caused by related viruses. New York Times bestselling author and licensed physician and surgeon Dr. Joseph Mercola has written extensively on the connection between the widespread release of the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine and the 90 percent increase in reported shingles cases in the five years following it. As chickenpox is nature’s way of protecting people from contracting shingles, with so many kids walking around with weakened chickenpox strains due to vaccination, adults were no longer receiving the booster immunities the live, wild virus real chickenpox provided.

Dr. Mercola fears a shingles epidemic is now underway in America:

“All evidence points to the fact that we have traded a relatively mild illness (chickenpox), which does NOT involve complications for 99.9 percent of healthy children, for a more serious illness in our elderly (shingles) that has the potential for compromising the health of an entire population.”

The catch? Not only does shingles result in five times more hospitalizations and three times as many deaths as chickenpox, but shingles is much more costly to treat. The shingles vaccine is pricey as well at over $200 a jab. While expensive, according to the National Vaccine Information Center, the shingles shot is only 51 percent effective.

The icing on this high-priced cake?

Both the chickenpox vaccine Varivax that preceded this shingles epidemic and the shingles vaccine Zostavax that was created to accommodate it were developed by none other than guess who?

Merck.

Where’s the Logic in Ineffective Vaccine = Take Antidepressants?

So, one vaccine was created and mass released, a medically expensive and dangerous health epidemic ensued, another (more expensive) vaccine was then developed to fight that, and now we have a study explaining that to make that vaccine effective, we need to take more pharmaceuticals (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors aka SSRIs, specifically)?

Sadly, it was not much of a surprise to learn four of the authors on this new “study” claiming depressed people need to take antidepressants to make their vaccines work came from the same company who manufactured said vaccine. Merck has a history of paying medical journals to advance the company’s agenda.

During a personal injury lawsuit over Merck’s multi-billion-dollar painkiller Vioxx, The New York Times reported a Merck affiliate sponsored eight issues of a medical journal between 2002 and 2005 to reprint favorable Merck articles while hiding under the guise of being an independent, peer-reviewed publication. The Legal Examiner also reported, “An April 2008 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) article reveals how Merck compensated ghostwriters, who were not doctors, to create articles for professional journals that have the potential to influence doctors and popularize drugs prescribed to the public.”

Not only does this current journal article state that antidepressants make vaccines more effective, but these people actually claim antidepressants are good for this purpose even if they don’t help the person with their depression!

SSRI drugs come with a barrage of horrible potential side effects, including fatigue, nausea, headaches, erectile dysfunction, decreased sexual desire, diarrhea, confusion, hallucinations, anxiety, agitation, mood swings, impulse-control disorder, paranoia, psychosis and hostility, not to mention the FDA requires a black box warning on antidepressants for possible increased suicidal tendencies.

Now add those side effects to the potential side effects of the shingles vaccine — headache, joint and muscle pain, fever, abnormally swollen glands, a shingles-like rash and hypersensitivity reactions including life-threatening anaphylaxis (shock).

Sounds like fun.

Antidepressant Adjuvants, Anyone?

So what now? Are pharmaceutical companies going to start adding antidepressants to vaccine shots to ensure better efficacy?

Wouldn’t be much of a stretch from what is already being considered. Scientists have recently been discussing other “designer” adjuvants including toxins, bacterial DNA and genetically engineered e. Coli bacteria to boost vaccine effectiveness as well. One such promising candidate is a cholera toxin.

Just last month, Natural News reported that a Freedom of Information Act request brought to light 30 years of secret British government documents showing vaccine schedules to be a totally contrived hoax based on covering up bad data on vaccine ineffectiveness to gain public compliance.

Apparently if you are depressed and your vaccines don’t work, there’s no need to worry; a study with a grand total of 40 elderly people taking antidepressants suggests you should be too.

(In other related news, Merck has just been slammed with a new $39 million lawsuit for consumer fraud and deceptive marketing practices…)

CDC: Young People Account for Half of All New Sexually Transmitted Infections

Thursday, February 14th, 2013

By Susan Jones
http://cnsnews.com/news/

(CNSNews.com) – After years of sex education in the nation’s public schools, a new report indicates that many young people are not listening or learning how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.

The report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are more than 19.7 million new sexually transmitted infections in the United States each year, and young people ages 15-24 account for half of them.

Among those young people, the CDC found that 51 percent of the new infections occur in young women and 49 percent in young men.

“Because STIs are preventable, significant reductions in new infections are not only possible, they are urgently needed,” the CDC said.

CDC’s analysis included eight common sexually transmitted infections: chlamydia, gonorrhea, hepatitis B virus (HBV), herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, and trichomoniasis.

Some of those infections can cause serious health problems if not diagnosed and treated early.

And aside from the health implications, the new STIs cost nearly $16 billion in direct medical costs, the CDC reported.

Because some STIs – especially HIV – require lifelong treatment and care, they are by far the costliest. In addition, HPV is particularly costly due to the expense of treating HPV-related cancers. However, the annual cost of curable STIs is also significant ($742 million). Among these, chlamydia is most common and therefore the most costly, the report said.

“Abstaining from sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, and consistently and correctly using condoms are all effective STI prevention strategies,” the CDC said.

Other findings:

– Four of the STIs included in the analysis are easily treated and cured if diagnosed early: chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and trichomoniasis. However, many of those infections go undetected because they often have no symptoms. CDC noted that undiagnosed and untreated chlamydia or gonorrhea can put a woman at increased risk of chronic pelvic pain, life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, and can also increase a woman’s chance of infertility.

– CDC estimates that HPV accounts for the majority of newly acquired STIs. While the vast majority (90 percent) of HPV infections will go away on their own within two years and cause no harm, some of these infections will linger and potentially lead to serious disease, including cervical cancer.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reported that as of March 2012:

– 21 states and the District of Columbia require public schools to teach sex education (including HIV education).
– 33 states and the District of Columbia require students receive instruction about HIV/AIDS.
– 18 states require sex education curricula to be medically accurate and/or age appropriate.


Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Genetically Modified Salmon May Surface Soon In The Marketplace

Tuesday, February 12th, 2013

Reporting Marissa Bailey
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/

(CBS) — Everyone is encouraged to eat salmon because of its health benefits, but a change could be coming that makes some people uncomfortable.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration may soon approve a genetically modified salmon.

CBS 2’s Marissa Bailey reports.

The salmon we buy in the future could be genetically modified to be bigger and grow faster.

The producer, AquaBounty, says the larger salmon have genes from a chinook and the eel-like ocean pout. The FDA is expected to approve the new form of salmon, saying it’s as safe as other fish.

“It probably would not be labeled and so people would have no idea at the store whether they were getting engineered fish or not,” says Dr. Michael Hanson of Consumers Union.

The FDA requires labeling in some cases, such as soybeans. Corn has been bioengineered for years and corn or corn products are never labeled.

Salmon would be the first bioengineered animal for our dinner table. That is why critics say the FDA should require labeling so that consumers know exactly what they’re eating.

The FDA supports voluntary labeling, but would consumers even buy fish labeled as bioengineered?

“Our research and the research of others show that if a product has that label consumers are less likely to buy it,” says William Hallman of the Rutgers University Food Policy Institute.

Consumers Bailey polled seemed wary. But supporters say the modified fish has its advantages and could result in more cheaply priced food.

“We can produce twice as many fish per unit at a time,” William Muir of Purdue says. “It’s just as nutritious and just as good as regular salmon.”

Critics have raised concerns that the new fish could cause allergic reactions in some people. Others worry that if the fish escaped from farms they could destroy the wild salmon populations.

A decision by the FDA on whether to approve the fish is expected soon.


Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.