June 17th, 2009 by Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe, M.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion
2 Comments »
Cell phones are their feature are an ever growing topic in today’s families. It used to be that the hot button issue was whether to get the phone. Now, we have to deal with all the features: texting, Internet, camera…to name the tip of the iceberg!
Clearly we’re becoming a more mobile society with our cell phones taking over features previously reserved for our computers. A recent Nielsen Wire report confirms this observation showing that in Q1 of 2009 21% of cell phone owners used their phones to search the Internet, up from 16% in Q4 of 2008.
At the moment, digital plans are pricey so it’s easy to lock our kids out of their cell phone Internet access. However, not too long ago we said the same exact thing about texting and now we have affordable unlimited texting plans.
Given the impulsivity of tweens and teens and how difficult it is for us to help kids with appropriate Internet use on computers, do we want to open the door to having them have access to the Internet on cell phones? Once data plans become more affordable, should we let them have cell phone internet access?
Perhaps it would be easier to answer if asked slightly differently. How are our teens and tweens doing with the digital cell phone freedom they have right now? Given the rise of extreme texting and sexting, I’d say not so great. Before we open the door to new issues and digital freedoms they are not ready for, we have to help them more with the freedoms they already have – and are clearly struggling with. Plus, as parents, we are still sorting out the issues with the digital uses of technology our kids are currently using. Let’s sort those out first before we give the green light to other mobile freedoms that will certainly be more complex and harder to control.
If all goes well, data plans will remain unaffordable for a while longer so we won’t have to cross another digital bridge none of us are ready for.
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Gwenn Is In*
June 17th, 2009 by admin in Better Health Network, Health Tips
No Comments »
I have had several people recently ask me about whether eating foods from soy is harmful. Some have asked because they have a thyroid problem and heard that soy interferes with their synthroid, others are worried about breast cancer, and most recently I guess some negative press has been writing about men and soy. Let me try to set the record straight.
What is soy?
All soy foods come from soybeans. Soy has a high protein content as well as carbs, fiber, vitamins, minerals, and some healthy fats. Soy is an excellent source of plant-based protein because it is known as a “complete protein” meaning it contains all of the essential amino acids. Whole soy is best, meaning it has been minimally processed and you are getting the naturally occurring nutrients found in the soybean. Foods that contain whole soy are edamame, soynuts, and surprisingly a bar called SOYJOY. Tofu and soymilk are also great sources of soy.
Health Benefits/Dispelling Myths
Numerous health benefits of soy have been very well documented in literature. In addition, many myths about soy have been dismissed with research studies.
Heart health: Soy is cholesterol free, low in saturated fat, and contains healthy fats. Some evidence also shows that it helps to lower LDL, or “bad” cholesterol.
Breast cancer: A high soy intake during puberty has been shown to reduce breast cancer risk, but consuming it as an adult has not been linked to lowering risk. Some animal studies have connected soy isoflavones with breast cancer growth, but no data on humans has supported this. In fact, some studies show a favorable impact on breast cancer outcomes with soy. Check with your physician before taking a soy isoflavone supplement. The American Cancer Society suggests that up to 3 servings of soyfoods per day is safe for a breast cancer survivor.
Bone health: Soybeans and calcium-fortified soyfoods are good choices because of the soy isoflavones as well as calcium and Vitamin K which can help bone mineralization.
Menopause: Over 50 studies have examined whether soy can relieve hot flashes in menopause and the consensus is that it may for many women but it depends on hot many hot flashes you get and how much soy isoflavone is taken.
Reproduction: No human data shows that consuming soy causes abnormal testosterone or estrogen levels. Several studies found no affect on sperm or semen when consuming soy isoflavones.
Thyroid: A comprehensive review of literature concluded that soy does not adversely affect thyroid function. Researchers recommended that thyroid function be reassessed if there is a large increase or decrease in soy intake, but normal day-to-day variations are unlikely to affect normal thyroid function.
Good for the Planet
Soy is environmentally friendly. The amount of fossil fuel to process soybeans is estimated to be 6-20 times less than that used to produce meat.
Bottom line
Soy foods can be part of a healthy diet for men and women. Eating 2-3 servings per day of soy foods is safe and very healthy. Soy contains important protein, amino acids, fiber, calcium, potassium, zinc, iron, and folic acid.
For more information:
www.soyconnection.com
www.soyjoy.com
This post, Is Soy Safe?, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Brian Westphal.
June 17th, 2009 by Peter Lipson, M.D. in Better Health Network, Quackery Exposed
No Comments »
It might seem a bit undemocratic, but science, like medicine or dentistry, is a profession. One doesn’t become a scientist by fiat but by education and training. I am not a scientist. I apply science. My colleague Dr. Gorski is a scientist (as well as physician). He understands in a way that I never will the practical process of science—funding, experimental design, statistics. While I can read and understand scientific studies in my field, I cannot design and run them (but I probably could in a limited way with some additional training). Even reading and understanding journal articles is difficult, and actually takes training (which can be terribly boring, but I sometimes teach it anyway).
So when I read a newspaper article about science or medicine, I usually end up disappointed—sometimes with the science, and sometimes with the reporting. A recent newspaper article made me weep for both. Local newspapers serve an important role in covering news in smaller communities, and are often jumping off points for young, talented journalists. Or sometimes, not so much.
The article was in the Darien (CT) Times. The headline reads, in part, “surveys refute national Lyme disease findings.” Epidemiologic studies, such as surveys, are very tricky. They require a firm grounding in statistics, among other things. You must know what kind of question to ask, how many people to ask, how to choose these people, etc, etc, etc. So what institution conducted this groundbreaking survey on Lyme disease?
Actually, they are quoting the famous work of one Kent Haydock, chairman of the Deer Management Committee. But I’m sure he outlined his methods carefully. Or not.
Haydock conducted:
[T]wo surveys — which polled 41 Darien households after a showing of the Lyme Disease film, Under Our Skin, at the Darien Library last month… . In the 41 households that completed the questionnaire, 47 total Lyme disease cases were reported. In 64 percent of those cases, the patient had relapses after an initial Lyme treatment, which required additional treatment for a chronic or long-term conditions.
So, Haydock showed the agitprop chronic Lyme advocacy film Under Our Skin to local families, presumably not selected at random, and then asked them if they had signs of Lyme disease and if it was ruining their lives. Not surprisingly, the answers to both questions were “yes” a remarkably high percentage of the time.
His conclusion: the surveys “show that Lyme not only exists in great numbers, but also in debilitating, chronic and long-term cases.”
This is not epidemiology. This is not science. This is an uninformed opinion dressed up with meaningless numbers. If you get together a group of people who are interested in Lyme disease, show them a propaganda film, and query them about it, the only thing you’ve “measured” is your ability to count people who come to a movie and hold a certain belief. If there were any valid conclusions to be drawn (and with these numbers, there probably aren’t) it’s that many people in this small group think they have Lyme disease—and even that’s over-reaching.
It’s bad enough that the deer commissioner did this. But arguably, it’s much worse that the reporter and editor published it. The only thing this accomplishes is fanning the fears of the readers.
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
June 17th, 2009 by AlanDappenMD in Primary Care Wednesdays
1 Comment »
There was an old lady who swallowed a pill
I know why she swallowed a pill.
To keep her alive.
There was old lady who mailed in her Rx
with wiggles and scribbles written on it.
She mailed the Rx to fill the pills.
I know why she swallowed the pill.
To keep her alive.
I know an old lady who ran out of pills, had no pill to swallow
How absurd she was left to wallow.
She’d mailed the Rx with wiggles and scribbles written on it.
She mailed the Rx to fill the pills
I know why she swallowed the pills,
To keep her alive.
I know an old lady who swallowed her pride
Wouldn’t have cried, she had too much pride.
She called Express Scripts to explain she had nothing to swallow.
She’d mailed the Rx with wiggles and scribbles written on it.
She mailed the Rx to fill the pills.
I know why she swallowed the pills .
To keep her alive.
There was an old lady who swallowed a whopper
“Your Rx was rescinded by your doctor.”
Imagine that, he canceled the order
With wiggles and scribbles written on it!”
She’d mailed the Rx to fill the pills.
I know why she swallowed the pills.
To keep her alive.
I know an old lady who swallowed frustration calling her doctor
She must be off her rocker to call her doctor.
She asked him to swallow his pride she knew he had nothing to hide.
To call Express Scripts about the Rx with wiggles and scribbles written on it.
She’d mailed the Rx to fill the pills.
He fully understood why she needed to swallow the pills.
To keep her alive.
I know the doctor who spent half a day
I dunno why there was such a delay
But a recorded voice during the stall
Said “Faxing an order might get you home before nightfall.”
He wrote another Rx with wiggles and scribbles written on it.
He again faxed the Rx to fill the pills
Saying she had to swallow the pills.
To keep her alive.
I know the old doctor who got back a fax
Saying, “Sorry Charlie. We’re sending this back.”
This medicine doesn’t need “Authorization. “
Just resubmit the Rx with wiggles and scribbles written on it.
What a nightmare to be trapped in midair
And so the doc did, with exclamation points!!!! written on it.
But the old lady never did get those pills,
Finally had to buy them herself.
To keep her alive.
Afterwards, from the above true story:
Generic cost to buy a 90 day supply of the medicine: $ 30
Insurance CEO payment: $30
Local pharmacy payment: $30
Cost of hospitalization without meds: $40,000
Cost to doctor for another “check-up” with his mental health “Provider”: $200
Number of hours of lost human productivity for this case alone: 10
Estimated average annual cost of lost productivity per/ primary care physician managing nonsense: $64,859
Physicians who smile and put up with it: 98%
The gaggle administrators, interfering in the doctor patient relationship: Priceless!
Until next week, I remain yours in primary care,
Alan Dappen MD
June 16th, 2009 by MotherJonesRN in Better Health Network, Opinion
3 Comments »
Do you remember this person? She is a bedside nurse. She walks up and down hospital hallways in her white nursing shoes all day long while caring for her patients. She is trained for active duty. I’m asking you this question because nursing researchers have had an epiphany. They believe that they have discovered something new in the field of bedside nursing.
Over the years I’ve observed that the more degrees and letters that a lot of academic nurses get behind their name, the more out of touch they become with bedside nursing. This came to light once again when I attended a mandatory inservice at work. I was told that we were going to talk about an innovative concept that was going to revolutionize patient care and the nursing profession. Imagine my surprise when the speaker talked about hourly rounds. Did you know that nursing researchers have discovered that patients are happiest when their nurses spend time with them at the bedside every hour, and anticipate their needs? Wow, what a concept. Academic nurses living in the ivory tower of higher learning have discovered through years of painstaking research that patients also want nurses to answer their call light promptly when they need help getting to the bathroom. Holy cow! Hourly rounds decreases the amount of time patients spend using their call lights, decreases injuries due to patient falls, and increases patient satisfaction while they are in the hospital.
Did I miss something? I remember learning all this stuff years ago when I was attending a lowly diploma nursing program. We were always walking up and down the halls in our nursing shoes. No one conducted studies on how to make patients happy back then. A little common sense goes a long ways. The formula to good patient care starts with clean bed sheets and a filled water pitcher, and ends with a connection to your patient. That’s not new. That’s nursing.
*This blog post was originally published at Nurse Ratched's Place*
Cell phones are their feature are an ever growing topic in today’s families. It used to be that the hot button issue was whether to get the phone. Now, we have to deal with all the features: texting, Internet, camera…to name the tip of the iceberg!
