Sleeping Pills: They're Killers

Bad news for seekers of sleep-help: Sleeping pills increase the risk of death, and the risk of developing cancer. A new study discloses that regular users of sleeping pills are four more times likely to die than people who don't take them, not a good thing considering 5-10% of the U.S. adult population is said to be taking pharmaceutical sleep aids.

Sleeping pills that were linked to these risks included benzodiazepines such as temazepam or Xanax; non-benzodiazepines such as Ambien (zolpidem), Lunesta (eszopiclone) and Sonata (zaleplon); barbiturates; and sedative antihistamines. 

According to the study, which looked at over 10,500 people, people who were prescribed up to 18 doses of sleeping pills a year were 3.6 times more likely to die than their counterparts who were prescribed none. And those prescribed between 18-132 doses were more than four times as likely to die. People  taking more than 132 doses a year had five times the risk of dying compared to those prescribed none. This was true regardless of age, but risks were highest among those individuals aged 18 to 55. Dang!

To add insult to injury, those people taking the highest doses of sleeping pills had the highest risk of developing cancers, including those of the esophagus, white blood cells, lung, colon and prostate. Although many potential explanations exist for the increases in cancers, preexisting health conditions was not one of them, leading one to conclude that the association to sleeping pills is meaningful.

Saying that, causation was not found in this study, only that there was an association between taking sleeping pills and increased cancers and death. In other words, it is not definite that the cancers and deaths were caused by the sleeping pills themselves. Equally likely is that people on the verge of either illness or death might have a disrupted enough sleep to warrant help. In fact, sleep problems are often the first to appear in medical or psychological conditions.

Dr. Daniel Kripke of the Scripps Clinic Viterbi Family Sleep Center, in La Jolla, CA and lead author of the study feels pretty strongly about the results, "For the particular sleeping pills studied, I do not see any time I would prescribe them."

Other doctors disagree. For example, one Dr. Victor Fornari, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Zucker Hillside Hospital of the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System in Manhasset, N.Y. says,

"These are safe and effective medications when prescribed by a physician as part of a comprehensive treatment plan. Don't stop taking these medications if you feel that you need them and are taking them with a doctor's prescription, but be mindful that they shouldn't be taken frivolously and there are alternatives such as avoiding napping, getting proper exercise, eliminating caffeine and doing other the kinds of things that improve sleep hygiene." 

Good points and good advice from both doctors. Here's the bottom line: Sleeping pills, like all drugs, have their usefulness. Chronic use, however, is a problem. If you need sleep aids to fall asleep most nights, then something else is going on. And let's not forget how habit forming these drugs can be--the more you take, the more you gotta take, an so on.

If you are having problems sleeping, do what the good doctor Forni suggests: exercise, eat well, reduce caffeine, avoid naps...but most importantly, keep a rhythm. Nothing in my books leads to sleep disorders faster than an erratic sleep schedule. Do yourself a favor, focus on good sleep patterns and get the rest you need for healthy mind and body. And stay away from the sleeping pills--they're killers.

New Warning on Statins

Well, well, well...didn't I just say so? Looks like statins--those mega-popular cholesterol lowering drugs pushed by every general practitioner in existence--are getting new safety warnings about risks of memory loss and elevated blood sugar. You don't say? Why yes, looks like the ol' magic-bullet is being knocked down a notch or two, and with good reason.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports that it's making labeling changes to the statin drugs--like Lipitor, Crestor, and Zocor--that will warn of memory loss and confusion reported among certain patients taking statins. Although the feds reassure us that the brain effects are not permanent--apparently going away with discontinuation of the drug--still they find it best to label the drugs to warn us of the potential for waking up in Niagara Falls with no recollection of how we got there. Doh!

Further, the updated labels will also mention elevated levels of blood sugar, associated with diabetes, that have been reported in some patients taking statins. Wait...early onset Alzheimer's-like symptoms and diabetes?! Wow, get some right away...thanks doc. Yes, although the increased risk is small, an increasing number of studies is showing it's there nonetheless.

Cardiologists, however, are sticking to their guns, stating that the benefits of statins outweigh the risks. "Patients should not see this as a new danger with the drugs, but as a known abnormality that appears in blood testing and should be discussed with their doctor," said Dr. Kevin Marzo, chief of cardiology at Winthrop-University Hospital in New York. He goes on to say that he doesn't see the new warnings making much of a dent in how (read: how much) the drugs are prescribed.

Okay well this much we can assume, doctor; but let me paint a more complete picture for the generally trusting public. What cardiologists mean when they say "the benefits of statins outweigh the risks" pertains to a certain demographic, in reality a minuscule fraction of the tens of millions that are currently taking the drugs. Remember from a 2008 post on statins, the number needed to treat (NNT) for even one person to receive benefit from statins is 100. So in other words, for every person receiving benefit, 99 do not; or in bigger numbers: 9.9 million of every 10 million people on statins gets NO BENEFIT!

So what they really mean is the best ways to lower heart disease risk are (in descending order):

• Lifestyle modification including exercise, healthy diet, omega 3 fatty acid consumption, healthy vitamin D levels, healthy gut microbiota
• Statins + lifestyle modifications
• Statins
• Doing nothing

What cardiologists assume (and for some people correctly) is that many patients will do nothing. But that's not you, right? No need to assume the risks associated with statins. Do the right things and you won't have to, no matter how much your medical drug dealer pushes.

Low Back Pain Stretches: The QLs

Low back pain comes from many sources--spinal joints, discs, nerves, and of course, chronically tight muscles. One such muscle is the quadratus lumborum (QL); when tight this muscle can mimic the pain of herniated discs or sometimes even kidney pain. Common symptoms are a band of pain going across the back of the lumbar spine, and low back fatigue or tiredness from standing for extended periods.

The quadratus lumborum attaches to the lumbar spine from the pelvic crest to the lower ribs. It is a large, thick muscle in the flank. Quadratus stands for four, which is the number of layers present in the QL muscle. It works as a lateral bender of the lower torso as well as an extender of the low back, along with other functions.

If you are having low back pain, you would be wise to get checked by a sports chiropractor. In the meantime, you can try these stretches. If your QLs are tight, you may get some relief from this basic side bending stretch. In an upcoming post I will show a little more advanced stretch, so that you can take your QLs to the next level. Enjoy.

The Processed Food Digestion Experiment

Interesting study coming out of Massachusetts, where a team of a Harvard gastroenterologist and a New York artist have collaborated to show us what it looks like when the human digestive system breaks down processed food.

M2A capsule

The video below was shot using the mouth-to-anus or M2A capsule, which contains a camera, light-emitting diodes and a transmitter. Using bluetooth technology it transmits images from the GI tract to a receiver pack worn by the subject. The study also took advantage of technology called the Smartpill Capsule that measured pressure, temperature and pH of the GI tract.

The team wanted to see if there were differences between the way the GI tract digests whole foods and processed foods. The whole foods consisted of homemade chicken stock with handmade noodles, hibiscus Gatorade, and pomegranate/cherry juice gummy bears. The processed foods included Top Ramen chicken, blue Gatorade and gummi bears.

The test was first run in June 2011 with one subject eating the whole foods and the other eating processed foods. The test was run a second time in September with the subjects switching the foods they ate. The pills were consumed right before the food. Watch the video to see the results. Fascinating...

Ugly Practice of Sex-Selection Uncovered in UK

Oooooh...somebody's arse is in trouble. Looks like some doctors in Britain might get pinched for approving abortions based on the sex of the unborn child. Heinous! And in the U.K. sex-selective abortion is considered immoral, and it's illegal. Duh!

According to British newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, which claims it has hidden video footage (watch below) of doctors in three different clinics offering to falsify paperwork for women, allowing them to get terminations based on gender. Undercover newspaper reporters accompanied women to nine clinics throughout the country, where doctors in three of those clinics took the bait. The doctors agreed to arrange the terminations even though the woman claimed she did not want the baby due to its sex, the Telegraph disclosed.

Abortions in Britain are allowed only in limited circumstances, including when the pregnancy presents a serious mental or physical health risk to the mother and if there is a high chance the child would have severe disabilities.

Well ain't that a mo-f*&#%-er. Kudos to the Telegraph for uncovering this ugly practice. As the father of two daughters, and a lover of women (and all people for that matter), I hate this practice. Because as far as I understand it, it's usually female babies that are unwanted. Along with sex-selective neonaticide, which is the killing of newborns (most commonly practiced in areas where male children are considered more valuable, especially in parts of People's Republic of China, India, Pakistan, Korea, Taiwan, and the Caucasus), this is one of the most prehistoric remnants of mass cultural ignorance due to educational, political and financial disempowerment of people. When people do not have the educational resources, and/or they live in a caste (sometimes class) system, whereby they see no financial future of a female child, then yes, some are going to take part in aborting females.

In 2005 90 million females were "missing" from the expected population in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan, South Korea and Taiwan alone, and suggested that sex-selective abortion plays a role in this deficit; and India's 2011 census shows a serious decline in the number of girls under the age of seven. Activists believe that 8 million female fetuses may have been aborted between 2001-2011.

Again, I can tell you that I abhor the practices of sex-selective abortion, neonaticide and infanticide (killing of children, which was the preferred method of sex-selectivity before the advent of diagnostic ultrasound). And don't even think the practice won't continue on a different level once genetic engineering technology hits the back alleys. Heck, it probably won't even need to get that seedy, seeing as fancy-schmancy doctors in the U.K. are willing to do it through abortion today. Times might be changing, but some things seem to stay the same.

Easy Ain't Always What it Seems

60 Minutes did a great piece over the weekend on the business of depression--that's right, BIG business--and whether the product that's being sold to America (and the rest of the western world) is actually doing what it's supposed to. Some experts (myself included) believe that the popular (read: highly prescribed) depression drugs--the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)--don't do a whole lot for people that are moderately depressed, and the data seems to back up that notion.

However, antidepressants continue to be some of the most prescribed drugs in the U.S., and most of those people fall in the center of a bell-shaped curve. In other words, most people taking antidepressants probably aren't getting much from them, as Harvard psychologist and researcher, Irving Kirsch articulates in the video. According to his research, many of the studies that show antidepressants not doing much more than placebo have been hidden by the manufacturers who lead the studies.

We call this selective publication, and I've been reporting on this phenomenon within the antidepressant manufacturing industry for over four years. In 2008, research showed that only one third of the studies conducted on SSRI antidepressants ever made its way out to the public. Can you guess which third gets published?

In the 60 Minutes piece below, you'll see Dr. Thomas Laughren, FDA Director of the Division of Psychiatry Products rationalize why it only takes two favorable studies--even if ten come back unfavorable--for a drug to get approval by the FDA. Oddly, he doesn't mention "cha-ching $$$" anywhere in the piece. Hmmm...

Listen, I'm all for big business--a capitalist to the core--but there's something wrong with pushing a drug onto millions of people, including children as young as six years old, when it isn't doing exactly what it's supposed to. And I wouldn't care except there is also evidence that some of the side effects aren't benign, or whether they are permanent. And that's playing with people's lives.

Again, I do not pull the public out of the equation because too many people are looking for an easy way out--and antidepressants sure promise that. Watch the piece below to see why easy ain't always what it seems to be.

Runners Stretch for Knee Pain

So you're a runner and you've got knee pain. Is it on the outer side of the knee? Does it hurt worse on going downhill? Do you hear clicking? You may have iliotibial band frictions syndrome (ITBFS).

ITBS is a painful knee condition that is common in runners, specifically those that run downhill. The iliotibial band (ITB) is the longest tendon in the body. It runs from the pelvis (gluteus maximus and tensor fascia lata specifically) to the fibula (a shin bone). It can get tight, particularly in people that have foot dysfunction (overpronation, for example), and when it does it can snap across the knee joint becoming inflamed.

It is the inflammation of the ITB that is most painful, although a tight tendon can definitely cause discomfort. So if this is you, please start by icing the ITB at the fibular insertion, or on the outer part of the knee. Next, you should probably see a sports chiropractor, who will go in and really release the area with myofascial work, adjust you pelvis, sacrum or lumbar spine (especially if you have associated low back pain--a common occurrence with ITBFS).

Then you'll want to stretch. Watch the video below for the best running stretches and IT band home treatment for knee clicking and pain. Do this stretch everyday and watch your ITBS clear right up. You may need orthotics, particularly if this is a chronic and recurring problem, another reason to see your Los Angeles sports chiropractor. Happy stretching.

Dog-Walking Keeps Pregnant Women Fit

Pregnant and looking to keep in shape? Then walk yer dogs, ladies. Yes, Fifi and Fido can keep you moving enough to get in your daily fitness requirements. So says a recent study out of the UK that found that pregnant women that owned dogs were 50% more likely to get the recommended 30 minutes of exercise a day by going for brisk walks.

Researchers at the University of Liverpool looked at over 11,000 pregnant women, and suggested that dog walking may be an important factor in controlling obesity and improving the health of pregnant women overall. While they found no major differences between pet owners and non-pet owners with regard to pregnancy weight, they did note that dog-walkers get more exercise overall. And that's because weight loss or weight maintenance is much more than just a consequence of brisk walking--healthy diet also a major factor.

Adult dog owners have been found to have higher activity levels in general in both the U.S. and Australia, but this is the first time the benefits have been shown in pregnant women. "By not managing their weight and exercise, pregnant women risk unnecessary weight gain, as well as a difficult labor or weight problems for the child in later life," said researcher Dr. Carri Westgarth.

Many women have difficulty losing their pregnancy weight; in fact, I'm sure more than a few can attest to having never regained their pre-pregnancy weight and shape. I believe the secret is in what's done during pregnancy, as well as shortly after giving birth. The more women move while pregnant, the easier it will be to continue after the baby is born.

I also strongly recommend yoga for mamas to be, as I am certain that it help with labor. Working on your flexibility, endurance and pain tolerance with a regular prenatal yoga practice will get you prepared for the big show. Throw in some regular pregnancy massage and you'll be prepped like a champ. Low on the dough? Look for a local massage therapy school--they always need models, and what better than a pregnant mama needing kneading.

So if you are pregnant and you own a pooch--don't relegate all the dog-walking to dad. Take the beast out for at least one brisk walk a day to get in your cardio workout. Throw in a little yoga, and a body rub from time to time, and you'll be ready for the ring on fight-night. Have fun.

Firecracker Face: The Exploding Electronic Cigarette

Smoking is dangerous! No, no, no...not cigarette smoking, electronic cigarette smoking. Reports of one such device blowing up in the face of a man taking a drag from it have come out of Florida.

According to fire officials, a 57-year-old Vietnam vet was toking on the electronic nicotine device when the battery exploded, shooting across the room and catching the contents of a closet on fire. The blast knocked all the man's teeth out. Doh!

The man's wife reports that she was in another part of the house when she heard a loud bang, which she described as sounding like a firecracker, and then a scream. In the aftermath, there was one man going to the burn clinic with a complete tooth demolition, loss of part of his tongue, and burns all over his face, a burned home office with everything in the room altered by the molten debris, including burned carpet, chair cushions, pictures and office equipment. Firefighters found a scorched battery case on a piece of melted carpet, which appears to be one for a cigar-sized device.

North Bay Fire Department spokesperson Joseph Miller said that the best analogy to what the man experienced would be like "trying to hold a bottle rocket in your mouth when it went off." Um...don't try this at home kids.

Apparently the man had been smoking the electronic cigarette for two years while trying to quit. These devices contain rechargeable lithium batteries designed to generate an electric charge when the device is inhaled. The charge sets off vapor in the cigarette tube. The nicotine-filled mist gives the taste and experience of smoking without the smoke. According to the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association, these devices are not recommended as a quit smoking aid but as a 'healthier alternative' to regular cigarettes, which they say contains more toxic chemicals. The industry says it knows of no previous reports of problems with the cigarettes or batteries exploding.

Well...what can I say? I guess all things come with their inherent risk. I know a few people that suck on these electronic nicotine dispensers, and I thought it was a stupid thing right off the bat. I'm all for  one kicking a habit--lord knows, I've done my fair share--but I've never been the 'fake anything' kinda guy. No alcohol-free beer, or decaffeinated coffee, or sugarless baked goods. For me it's all or nothing. So I guess I feel that if you are going to smoke...then smoke, dammit. Not that I could have foreseen this, but...

Listen, consider the lengthy history of cigarette smoking as a science experiment, with the latest info on exploding electronic nicotine dispensing devices as the latest data. True, cigarette smoking increases certain health risks, but you're fooling yourself if you think an electronic cigarette is going to lessen that risk (just like the claim some twenty-odd years ago that American Spirits brand was better for you because they used less chemicals...puh-leeze!). In fact, we now know that the risk actually increases.

So if you like your teeth...and your tongue...then just stick to the tried and true. And if you're gonna quit...then just quit, for doggone's sake.

Medical Technology Drives Choice & Cost

It's no secret that I think Obamacare is a bunch of horseshot, and for one simple reason: You don't 'fix' the American medical system by forcing everybody to buy insurance--that is the most overly-simplistic, erroneous notion of the last two centuries. Frankly, nothing is broken with the current system. It is what it is...and at that, it's the best in the world. Political leaders, namely one POTUS, are trying to pass this idea off to a public that does not think often about such matters. But please let me explain, and illustrate, why Obamacare will do nothing for the American medical system other than weaken it.

The first erroneous idea is that medical costs can be significantly curbed. No doubt, the feds can decrease costs by lowering reimbursements to doctors and hospitals (they do it through Medicare all the time). They can also reel-in fraudulent claims that lead to billions of wasted taxpayer dollars every year. But the idea that health care costs can be reduced significantly by preventing the uninsured from using emergency rooms as their primary care misses one major fact: As technology improves, costs go up because everybody--from doctors to patients--wants to take advantage of the newest in health care diagnostics and therapies. And I've got news for you--be prepared for more cutting-edge research and technology in medicine over the coming decades, because the only way it's NOT going to flourish is if the feds try to curb health care costs.

Case in point: A recent study showed that men will opt for the newest, and more costly, treatment for prostate cancer, despite there being scant evidence to its superiority over other treatments. Researchers analyzed the treatment choices over 20,000 men living inside or outside the regional market for Loma Linda University, a hospital in Southern California with a proton beam facility. All men were diagnosed with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2003 and 2006.

They found that patients living near a proton beam facility (only nine in operation in U.S., with eight more in development, according to the National Association for Proton Therapy) were more than five times more likely to receive proton beam therapy than those living outside of the hospital's referral region. This despite there being no evidence showing proton therapy having better outcomes than other forms of prostate cancer treatment, including other forms of radiation, surgery or hormone therapy.

Proton therapy uses a beam of protons to irradiate diseased tissue. The chief advantage is its ability to more precisely localize the radiation dose, thus better targeting of tumor tissue while leaving healthy surrounding tissue intact. The treatment is marketed as having lower impotence and incontinence rates than other radiation treatment options, but, again, there's a lack of evidence to support this, according to Dr. David Aaronson, a urologist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, California, and lead author of the study.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, with more than 240,000 diagnosed cases in the U.S. in 2011. Nine out of 10 of those cases were localized prostate cancer, meaning the cancer hasn't spread outside the prostate gland. Nearly all men diagnosed with localized tumors survive at least five years after diagnosis.

What this study really illustrates is that people will gravitate toward the newest and more advanced therapy when available; and to no small part on the advice of doctors, who will also tend to favor the cutting-edge when making recommendations.

But new technology doesn't come cheap--estimates have proton beam therapy costing twice as much as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, another form of external radiation therapy and about five times more than radioactive seed implants (aka prostate brachytherapy). And according to some in the biz, institutions with proton beam facilities--which have been shown to be more effective in treating tumors of the brain, eye and spine (rare cancers)--often look to pad their numbers by treating prostate cancer (one of most common in men).

And this, dear reader, is the reality of medical care in the western world. What humors me, though, is the second erroneous notion: that universal health care will fix the current 'crisis.' As I have said before, there is no crisis, nothing to be fixed, at least not with regard to how the system currently runs.

We have the greatest medical system in the world here in America, at the forefront of modern technology, and we get to enjoy a pretty decent success rate for the treatment of most modern illnesses. What is a fantasy is that somehow it shouldn't cost money--yeah right. The only way that will change will be to stifle innovation, so that all Americans can get the same shoddy care as they do in Canada (don't even get me started, Canadians--I've personally treated too many Canucks who've come to the U.S. to receive the care they just couldn't for months in their own country).

Obamacare ain't gonna fix nutin' except one man's legacy. And the politicos spreading the myth that every man, woman and child needs to purchase health insurance to lower health care costs is the biggest laugh of the new millennium. The only aspects of health care 'in need' of fixing are the public perceptions--and practices--of health and wellness, and especially the regulation of the insurance industry. But that is another story altogether.

Antibiotics Do Nothing for Sinus Infection

Further support for what I've been saying on this blog for years (and which has been obvious for decades)--a significant percentage of antibiotics prescriptions is unnecessary. According to a recent study, doling out antibiotics for sinus infections improved neither symptoms nor recovery time. And although patients may now have come to expect antibiotics to treat their inflamed, runny noses, doing so is actually leading to a rise in antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, a very dangerous scenario indeed.

The research conducted at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri included 166 adults with moderate, severe or very severe symptoms such as sinuses and nasal discharge that lasted between 7-28 days. Some were given amoxicillin, others placebo, and the results showed that the antibiotics "did not result in a significant difference in symptoms compared to patients who received placebo."

Said lead researcher Jay Piccirillo: "Patients don't get better faster or have fewer symptoms when they get antibiotics. Our results show that antibiotics aren't necessary for a basic sinus infection--most people get better on their own."

Wait, let's hear that again..."most people get better on their own." And again..."most people get better on their own." One more time, "most people get better on their own." How many times do you have to hear it, people?

I have to keep saying it because I am blown away by the number of people still running to their doctor for the cold they just can't shake. A full 20% of all antibiotics prescriptions are for sinus infections (inflammation and thick yellow or green mucus discharge)--the common approach taken by the very large majority of today's western medical doctors. With 37 million Americans diagnosed with sinusitis each year, well...that's a heck of a lot of antibiotics. And how many people actually finish their dose? Well, I don't know the answer to that, but let's just say more than a few people mention to me that they "had some antibiotics lying around." WTF?!

The authors of this latest study have it right, so I'll just finish with their words:

"We feel antibiotics are overused in the primary-care setting. There is a movement afoot, led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to try to improve the judicious use of antibiotics. We hope this study provides scientific evidence that doctors can use with patients to explain that an antibiotic is not likely to help an acute sinus infection."

Werd to that.

Trash Mouth

You know what I've never understood? The appeal of smokeless tobacco to anybody not sitting in a baseball dugout. Chaw, dip, spits, grizz--nasty stuff. So if you're a spitter, here's a post for ya: The American Dental Association wants everyone to know that smokeless tobacco contains at least 28 cancer causing toxins, and they are in the best position to see what it can do to your trap.

Here's a list of oral health problems associated with chewing the chaw:

• Increased risk of oral cancer
• Increased risk of periodontal (gum) disease, possibly causing tooth loss and tooth sensitivity (awesome pictures here).
• Difficulty healing after a dental procedure.
• Limited treatment options for dental care, such as a dental implant.
• Staining of the teeth and tongue, as well as bad breath.
• Reduced ability to taste and smell.

Like I said, I never did get the chewing tobacco thing. I remember tutoring organic chemistry for the Student Learning Center at UC Berkeley, when sitting one day with a Cal football player trying to explain to him the alkene reactions, I couldn't help but being distracted by his repeatedly spitting into a Styrofoam cup. I kept thinking..."That's gross, dude." And I was a cigarette smoker...ha ha ha...Imagine a smoker thinking your habit is disgusting? Smokeless tobacco is definitely on the bottom of the cesspool when it comes to the hierarchy of poisoning yourself (along with methamphetamine use, or sniffing paint).

If you currently use smokeless tobacco, then...yuck! Hey it's your health, your life, and your choice...but well, shoot, maybe you'd be interested in needle sharing, or unprotected sex with a $10 hooker. Same thing, dude.

French for Fen-Phen

France in the health news again as a second major scandal to hit the country in the last few months has surfaced. This one having to do with a widely prescribed lipid lowering medication called Mediator, which is now being implicated in the deaths of 1,300 and the hospitalization of over 3,000. According to a spokesperson for National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm), the numbers may be even higher than that.

Mediator, known pharmacologically as benfluorex, was originally licensed to combat hyperlipidemia and control blood sugar in type 2 diabetics. But because the drug also acted as an appetite suppressant, it was routinely given to people just wanting to lose weight.

As a result, between 1,000-2,000 are thought to have died from using the drug, which is structurally similar to fenfluramine, the dangerous half of the popular weight loss combo, Fen-phen. If you don't remember, in the 1990s fenfluaramine was found to damage heart valves and lead to pulmonary hypertension--definitely not worth the weight loss--and as a result it was pulled off the market in 1997.

Same thing happened to Mediator in 2009, when it was pulled off the European market. The drug was also shown to damage heart valves and cause pulmonary hypertension. To make matters worse, the drug's manufacturer is being probed on suspicion of dishonest practices and deception. You don't say? Yes, according to France's national health insurance system, a whopping 303,000 patients used Mediator in 2006 alone, with 145 million sold before the drug was pulled. Woowee!

Well, looks like the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on shady drug manufacturing practices or stupidity. Not knowing all the details yet, I am guessing the makers of Mediator knew of the dangers to the public, and kept quiet--bad, bad, bad drug dealers. And as for the people looking for a magic bullet...well, what can I say that I haven't said before? No free lunch, folks--so I guess it's 1,300 dead to learn a lesson. Just wondering when the next American lesson will come. I guess we'll just have to wait and see...statins.

Peer Influence Strongest in Teams

Listen up parents: Sports participation may keep your adolescent child from smoking.

Listen up parents: Sports participation may lead your  adolescent child to smoke...especially your daughter.

Huh?

That's right--both are conclusions of a recent study on peer influence conducted out of the University of Southern California. According to the research, middle-school children involved in organized sports were less likely to smoke than their peers. Nice. However, if their teammates smoked, then preteens were more likely to do the same, and the results were more pronounced among girls. Talk about smelling like team spirit.

Researchers questioned 1,260 sixth through eighth graders about their smoking behavior. The children were middle class, lived in urban areas and ethnically diverse.

The researchers concluded that peer leaders, especially in athletics, could help influence kids to avoid the stinky habit.

"Current guidelines recommend the use of peer leaders selected within the class to implement such programs," said Kayo Fujimoto, the study leader. "The findings of this study suggest that peer-led interactive programs should be expanded to include sports teams as well."

No doubt individuals of a group are going to influence one another--it's called group cohesiveness. And no group more cohesive than the athletic team.

It really does make sense, then, to address health issues with both girls and boys as a team. If you can get through to one, you might just be getting through to all. But I am certain it's best to start teaching 'em young, and to not be too obtrusive about it. Anything pushed to hard on the adult end is bound to stir curiosity. Listen, if my parents and teachers said it was bad, then it was good as far as I was concerned.

A better approach is to teach children about various health risks--like smoking, boozing, or sex (especially unprotected)--by just giving them the facts, without added emotion. This is smokers lung, girls; and this here is the result of a drunk driving accident; and over here we've got syphilis...and so on. Trust that kids will come to their own conclusions, and believe me, if a few on the team get it, then they probably all will.

But mostly it starts in the home, folks. If you smoke, your kid will probably smoke too. If you drink soda, your kid will probably drink soda. And on and on...

Remember, there's no I in team, dammit. So teaching the kids, especially peer groups, about healthy habits, without shoving it down their throats, will likely get through the best. Good work, team.