Facebook Twitter
Facebook Twitter
Home Blog Page 89

Have a Few Laughs.

By
Bernard Chapin
-

I was pleasantly surprised to find this online. I own the five CD set but am glad to be able to share with you one of my favorite comedic sketches–a send up of “Leave it Beaver” on SCTV from when we were but wee shavers.

Get a load of this guy. Crass? Yes.but I’m still laughing. Warning: Language not suitable for work (or home maybe either).

Below are two of my all time favorite comedy clips from Harry Enfield. Both are topical for NewsCream and would be reviled by feminists who are too concrete to comprehend that what follows are simply some supremely righteous jokes. They’re a send up of the once (supposed) traditional view of female sexuality. Here’s Enfield’s biography for my fellow Americans who may well know nothing about him. I didn’t until someone sent me an email containing these links last year. “Henry ‘Harry’ Richard Enfield (born 30 May 1961 in Horsham, West Sussex, England) is an English comedian, actor and writer, as well as working small-time as a director. In 1990 Enfield developed his BBC sketch show, Harry Enfield’s Television Programme, later called Harry Enfield and Chums, with Whitehouse and Kathy Burke. Eschewing the alternative comedy style prevalent at the time, both versions of the show were indebted to early 70s comedians such as Dick Emery and Morecambe and Wise. Enfield and his co-performers created another group of nationally recognised characters for these shows, such as Stan and Pam Herbert, who use the catchphrase “We are considerably richer than yow”, Tim Nice-But-Dim, The Scousers, Smashie and Nicey, Wayne and Waynetta Slob, Annoying Kid Brother, who grew into Kevin the Teenager, and two old-fashioned BBC presenters, Mr Cholmondley-Warner and Grayson.”

Women, Know Your Limits

Women, Keep Your Virtue!

A Rather PC segment from British TV on how PC effects comedy. The “beige” comedienne here is quite good.

U.S. State Department Behind International Child Abduction Scandal

By
Teri Stoddard
-

Karl Hindle has been working tirelessly for five years and spent more than four hundred thousand dollars investigating his daughter’s illegal abduction to the U.S. What he has uncovered is deplorable. The paper trail shows the United States government is in the business of illegal baby snatching and harboring criminals.

Emily would not have suffered the loss of her father for the last five years, or the vision in her right eye, if it weren’t for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA.) And people like Barbara Grieg of the U.S. State Department who see it as an excuse for misandry and a license for lawlessness.

Hindle, a U.K. citizen met and fell in love with American Sheila Fuith while in New York. When she moved to the U.K. in 2001 she hadn’t mentioned the husband and daughters she’d abandoned.

emily-and-dad

Emily was born in the U.K. on March 1, 2002. At 5-months-old Emily was diagnosed with esotropia caused by amblyopia. She needed patching therapy, a patch worn a few hours each day, or she would lose sight in her right eye.

In February 2003 Fuith decided to leave Hindle and return to the U.S. She knew he would object to her taking Emily, so she did what many women in her position have done. She accused him of domestic violence and sexual abuse of children. Thanks to VAWA, she needed only to speak the words.

Fuith was taken in by a battered women’s shelter, and given free legal aid by the U.S. government. With no evidence and no due process, Barbara Grieg authorized the illegal abduction. The U.S. Embassy in London issued a passport for Emily without her father’s signature as required by law. The forged signature was not notarized, and had the wrong date.

After arriving in the U.S. Fuith stopped Emily’s therapy. She then tried to give Emily away in a “baby switch.” She placed Emily with the family of Leslie Merriam, a three time convicted pedophile in Wisconsin. Karl learned of this and contacted local law enforcement.

Fuith needed only to claim Karl was harassing her, and the baby switch wasn’t investigated. A call to Grieg confirmed that Hindle was “dangerous.” Captain Alan Osowski never looked at Fuith’s phone when she told him numbers from “harassing calls from Hindle.” But he wrote he had in his report.

This was just the beginning of Hindle’s harrowing five-year journey to protect his daughter. Fuith has moved Emily dozens of times through several different states. She’s filed over 100 false police reports. And Hindle has received death threats.

Two police investigations in the UK and three in the U.S. cleared Hindle of all allegations. Fuith was found guilty of coaching Emily and making false allegations. Hindle was given court-ordered reunification with Emily.

Hindle said, “Emily met her elder brother (Max) and sister (Elizabeth) for the first time in almost 3 years.as we walked into the resort hotel, Emily asked me ‘Is this my family ?‘”

Max, Emily and Elizabeth Hindle together on vacation

They enjoyed these visits, evidenced by these photographs, until Fuith made another false allegation and disappeared. Emily was then listed as missing and endangered.

Knowing all of this, Grieg didn’t just harbor Fuith all these years. She interfered whenever Hindle needed a visa to attend custody hearings, arranged his improper arrest, imprisonment and deportation by the immigration department, and tried to set him up to be arrested for violence. She had officers hiding in bushes while her cronies harassed Hindle. And all the while, during her many lawless and reprehensible actions, she allowed Emily to go blind.

Fuith is still enjoying VAWA-funded legal representation. Recently there was a conference call between Fuith, Hindle, their attorneys and the State Department. During the call Fuith recanted every allegation she has made against Hindle. Even hearing this, the State Department refused to budge. The reason? The allegations the mother has made.

Sheila Fuith is clearly guilty, yet has not received any punishment. Karl Hindle is completely innocent, yet has not been able to see Emily or get custody. Now the State Department wants to send him back to London to apply for a new visa.

Hindle said recently, “I’ve been here for 5 weeks, yet Emily and I have not seen each other. The judge will not enforce his orders, and the mother maintains visitation must take place in Panama City, 350 miles away. Emily and I last saw each other on May 28th, 2006!” Hindle is now on his way back to the UK without seeing Emily.

Hillary Clinton, Racist Fellow-Traveler

By
Thomas Brewton
-

Secretary of State Clinton’s praise of Margaret Sanger was an endorsement for the doctrine that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.

One of the most horrendous doctrines to emerge from Charles Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis was the eugenics movement, instituted by his cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Today’s birth control and abortion, according to apologists for abortion, are merely eugenics updated.

Eugenicists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, denying God as the creator and designer of the universe, asserted that evolution of species was, according to the Darwinian hypothesis, without design. Unstructured evolution among humans, however, could result in mongrelization of the human race, they said. Eugenics thus may be described as Darwinian evolution in a hurry.

In the eugenics hypothesis, it was the socialist intellectual planners’ duty (while perfecting human nature and society, as well as harmonizing the economy) to weed out “undesirable” types of human beings. Readers will recognize this arrogance and arbitrary presumption of power in today’s EPA pretensions to control what automobiles we are permitted to own, how our homes must be designed, heated, and cooled, as well as the foods we will be allowed to eat.

Perhaps the most notorious literary work on eugenics published in the United States was Madison Grant’s 1916 The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a prominent New York City resident whose bequest led to founding of the Bronx Zoo. In his book, Grant identified the northern European, nordic races as the key races in humanity’s development.

Hitler used the eugenics theory, indeed quoted Madison Grant’s book, to justify his Aryan Master Race theories and the Holocaust. Mr. Grant’s book was introduced in evidence in the Nuremberg Nazi war crimes trial as a defense for one the defendants.

Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a racist and an ardent eugenicist who viewed birth control as simply a way to reduce the fecundity of those she considered undesirables: immigrant Jews, Poles, Hungarians, Italians, and others from central and southern Europe. 

More recently, advocates of birth control have expanded the concept of eugenics to include abortion. Conservatives should be happy, they said, that abortion theoretically reduces the number of children born to single-parent families.

Read Mrs. Clinton Can’t Defend Patron Saint of Planned Parenthood, by Mona Charen.

It’s hard to say whether Hillary Clinton knew the racist history of Margaret Sanger when she accepted her award with fulsome praise for Sanger, who is today better known as a patron saint of sexual promiscuity. Let’s hope that, having been challenged on the matter, Mrs. Clinton will be more restrained in the future.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

https://thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

Global Warming: Has Anyone Noticed that it’s Over?

By
Roger F. Gay
-

The end of civilization as we know it, is not at hand. Dire warnings on climate change issued by Al Gore, based on an extreme set of computer predictions, are a dead issue. So is the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the UN committee that tried to bring credibility to the predictions with claims that its views represent a consensus among scientists on global warming.

The problem with the alleged scientific consensus is that it has always been a half-truth; or less than half, depending on how you calculate. We are in a natural warm period. That’s true, but Gore, and other activists – including the IPCC – stepped over the boundary when giving the impression that scientific consensus supported a list of scary predictions intended to promote political action, as well as the claim that the primary cause of global warming is human pollution, especially in the form of carbon dioxide – CO2. Ice has been melting; but since a warm period is pretty much opposite an ice-age, that is what one would expect. Polar bears are still killing and eating seals, happily I suppose.

In the scientific debate, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the last decade of real temperature data. Reality just hasn’t held with the IPCC predictions. Not only has it not gotten hotter at an increasing rate, as Al Gore’s presentations with absolute certainty predicted, it just hasn’t gotten hotter. CO2 has been increasing but there’s nothing to suggest that it’s a dangerous substance. The evidence actually contradicts the idea that it is a major contributor to warming. There’s more CO2 but it’s not getting hotter. You don’t have cause and effect if you don’t get the predicted effect. The so-called “global warming skeptics” have won. Al Gore and the IPCC are wrong.

Data over the past decade is not in fact, the first to be out of sync with the IPCC models. Scientists have been pointing to cooling periods as well as data inaccuracies, poor analysis, and misrepresentations for years. These scientists simply weren’t counted in Al Gore’s idea of scientific consensus. It’s been understood for decades; in order to matter in the politics of global warming, you had to get on-board. That of course, created a conspiracy rather than getting to the truth.

The IPCC’s credibility has been shattered. The debate can no longer be thought of as involving two groups of well-intentioned scientists with different data, theories, and predictions. If that were so, the IPCC would be admitting the significance of new data and assuring the public that they have no real evidence that the climate future will be as scary as they had previously claimed. That is exactly what scientists have asked them to do (see related article) The IPCC instead claims their predictions have not been proven wrong; they have just not yet been proven right. Nature’s expected behavior has been delayed, according to the IPCC. Why it has been delayed is another scientific mystery awaiting billions more in funding to solve. They’ve given reality another ten years to catch up with their predictions. If we have a very hot summer or two during the next decade – the sort of thing not unknown to human history – one might expect they’ll claim vindication.

And what of Al Gore – self-appointed soothsayer and modern leader of the environmental movement, winner of a Nobel Peace Prize, an Emmy, and other awards for frightening school children with tales of doom? Publicly, he struggles to explain why there are so many determined detractors in discussions of his far-reaching and expensive vision for political action. But, reportedly making millions from his environmental activism, he should be able to contemplate this and other questions in luxury after this swan song of his political career has finally ended.

IPCC Challenged to Recant Global Warming Position

By
Roger F. Gay
-

A group of scientists have challenged the IPCC to admit that there is no evidence that human activity drives climate change. Specifically, they sent a letter this month to the Chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asking those associated with the panel to:

retract support from the current IPCC position and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.

And they issue this challenge: “If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.”

The letter is signed by Hans Schreuder (Analytical Chemist), Piers Corbyn (Astrophysicist ), Dr Don Parkes (Prof. Human Ecology (Ret)), and Svend Hendriksen (1988 Nobel Laureate), and a copy is available at a website operated by the International Climate Science Association. (here)

Evidence presented in the letter goes well beyond putting the “hockey stick” graph, made famous in Al Gore’s movie, in doubt. The hockey stick presented exponentially increasing global temperature in the near future due to uncontrolled increases in CO2 – and got its name from the shape of the graph – an apparently long stable period with an upward increase in CO2 and temperature during the industrial age. The UN panel claimed that human activity was driving what Mr. Gore explained as a certain end to civilization as we know it, if extreme political and economic measures are not taken.

The scientists assembled a graph based on actual measurements and did not find evidence that CO2 was the main driving force behind temperature. In fact, temperature increases and decreases, showing little interest in CO2 level.

Graph below shows CO2 (green line) continues upwards while temperature (the other two lines) fluctuates, dropping recently; offering compelling evidence against the belief that CO2 drives global temperature.

The letter goes on to provide an urgent reason for renouncing the UN panel report.

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food “ maize as biofuel “ has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops.

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

The position taken by the scientists is not out of the ordinary from the steady stream of data, analysis and commentary from the scientific community. So too have economists and others challenged the global warming political agenda, which calls for unprecedented levels of taxation and government control based on the scariest projections of bad science. Nonetheless, the IPCC report provides a basis for international agreements such as the “Kyoto Protocol” agreement, which is an international start on the agenda. Both Democratic Party presidential candidates, as well as John McCain have spoken in favor of global warming related reform.

Climate Prediction Summary (Notes on Global Warming)

By
Jerry Pournelle
-

La Niña is coming. Global temperatures expected to fall. Global temperature has not risen since 1998.

What we know is that in AD 900 to AD 1300 there were dairy farms in Greenland, and the Vikings had colonies. The Inuit were caribou and to a lesser extent cattle herders. It was warm throughout Europe. Growing seasons were longer. We don’t know much about Polar Bears but clearly they survived. We don’t know about the South Pole Glaciers because no one had ever gone there. We do know that Earth abided.

About 1325 it rained a lot and began to get colder. Greenland became uninhabitable if you insisted on being a dairy farmer. The Vikings began to pull out. The Inuit came in, but could not sustain by herding reindeer and began to fish and hunt seals. The Earth grew colder. The Little Ice Age had begun.

By 1776 it was cold enough that cannon could be hauled across the frozen Hudson River to General George Washington on Harlem Heights. The cannon saved his army: Howe, having “won” at Bunker Hill in a Pyrrhic victory, was afraid to close with Washington’s Continentals, and by not eliminating the Patriot Army allowed the American Revolution to continue: but it was cold.

About 1825 the world began to warm. The warming trend continued until about 1970, halted, and by the late 1970’s there was concern about upcoming new famines and new ice ages: Global Cooling was the concern of Big Science and the coming doom was big at annual meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

We also know this: if you need to heat the Earth you need to heat the oceans. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas overwhelmed by water vapor: that is, if the air is moist, the CO2 plays little to no part in the “greenhouse effect.” Thus CO2 mostly operates in cold, dry places, such as deserts. It has little effect at all over the oceans.

If I want to heat water, I do not get out my hair dryer and blow hot air across the pot. I heat the pot. If I want to heat oceans, the most effective way would be to blow off a volcano under water. Of course I have no control over those – nor can I predict when they will happen, but one such event can overwhelm all the other factors in my computer models.

Modeling the weather is difficult. Modeling climate is more difficult. Most of the equations cannot be solved and must be evaluated by brute force numerical analysis. This is difficult math and requires very expensive computers. Getting those computers requires grants. Getting those grants requires peer reviewed publications. Getting a positive peer review requires, usually, that you adhere to limits set by the “consensus” position. The consensus today is Global Warming despite the evidence that there is something wrong with the model. The consensus is intolerant of dissent from one side, but tolerated the “hockey stick” with unpublished secret algorithms for years.

And that is our present state, except that the weather observers – those who deal with data – tend to dissent from the Global Warming Consensus. They see trends but not the trends that the modelers see. Moreover, no model – none – can take the initial conditions of ten years ago and arrive at the present, much less track reality over the last hundred years.

Simple Bayesian Analysis says that if you have two mutually exclusive and expensive alternatives, then it is better to spend money reducing uncertainty than in preparing for either of the expensive alternatives. If the Earth is warming we have one course of action; if it be cooling we require another (and of course ice is a far greater danger if it comes). What we ought to be doing is better observations to see what is happening. When we do gather more data we find that the case for man-made Global Warming is not in general supported by the data. Solar output and volcanism are the major drivers of world temperature, and neither is entirely predictable.


Jerry Pournelle is an American Science Fiction writer, essayist and journalist. Visit his website: https://jerrypournelle.com

FEMA Accused of Creating Health Hazard

By
Jim Kouri, CPP
-

In spite of all the talk in both houses of congress about revamping or restructuring the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), there’s a new Hurricane Katrina scandal brewing in Washington.

Several news organizations, including the Cable News Network (CNN), have uncovered irrefutable evidence that mobile-home trailers used to temporarily house thousands of victims of New Orleans’ devastating hurricane, and subsequent flood, were treated with a toxic substance known as formaldehyde.

For example, CNN ran a story on January 29 that accused FEMA of “twisting science” in a report they created for public consumption. The CNN news story cites an investigation being conducted of the trailers by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and that CDC scientists wish to conduct further tests of the formaldehyde-laced trailers.

The CNN report went on to state: “Almost 150,000 households have lived in FEMA trailers at some point since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005. FEMA says about 40,000 families are still living in the travel trailers. Formaldehyde is a preservative used in construction materials like plywood. The Environmental Protection Agency classifies it as a probable human carcinogen, according to the EPA Web site.”

CNN said, “The CDC, did an initial assessment for FEMA that wasn’t intended to address the long-term effects of extended exposure to formaldehyde.” “The original response focused on the acute health effects of formaldehyde exposure – to meet the urgent needs expressed by FEMA in its original request,” said the CDC statement.

“The initial consultation [was] intended to determine effective mitigation measures, and did not discuss long-term health impacts,” a FEMA statement agreed.

“One person [from the CDC] who came to us told us they wouldn’t write the report,” a FEMA spokesperson said. “That person was circumvented and another person at the agency agreed to write a report to say that levels of formaldehyde were safe for a couple of weeks.”

Another cable news organization – MSNBC – ran a story on July 25, 2006 that posed the question “Are FEMA Trailers Toxic Tin Cans,” but apparently there was no reaction to the news that formaldehyde was rampant throughout the makeshift trailer park in New Orleans.

Political strategist Mike Baker asked,”How come CNN reported this and there was no mention of this on Fox News? Is it possible that Fox News is avoiding this in order not to embarrass the Bush administration?”

But then Baker adds that FEMA was a poorly run agency during the Clinton Administration, as well. He points to FEMA’s response to Hurricane Floyd, a storm that devastated the Carolinas in 1995. “It took three weeks for FEMA to actually send help to those people in distress. In fact, Rev. Jesse Jackson complained on CNN that the Clinton Administration disregarded the suffering of thousands of people – black and white,” said Baker.

Political pundit and conservative strategist Rachel Marsden added, “Is it any wonder that poor people – especially African-Americans – have a strong distrust of government officials, especially at the federal level.”

She also finds it appalling that members of congress such as Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Olympia Snow (R-ME) want to take a failing bureaucracy and actually make it bigger. Marsden claims that these liberals wish to create a paramilitary organization that will enter states having an emergency.

“Remember the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? The federal cops entered New Orleans and disarmed law-abiding citizens thereby leaving them vulnerable to looters and thugs. Do we want those kinds of agents working for FEMA?” she asked.

According to CNN report seen on TV, people were complaining of eyes burning, choking, etc. while inside these FEMA trailers, even a CNN reporter said on TV he experienced similar eyes burning while covering the story. Also, neighbors living near FEMA trailer storage area, when the wind blew from these storage areas toward their homes they could smell the formaldehyde, even though they lived blocks away.

CNN also reported that FEMA was selling these trailers to the public at 40 cents on the dollar, and then, after everyone was complaining about the formaldehyde odor, they wound up buying the trailers back.

“Can’t the government do anything right? How much did this blunder cost the taxpayers?” asked pundit Rachel Marsden.

“CNN also mentioned that these trailers, now rotting in storage lots, cost the government over $1.6 Billion,” she said/

In a Sun Herald article Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) claims his state was a “bull’s-eye” for hurricanes. He pointed to a FEMA memorandum that warned agency employees of formaldehyde concerns in 2006.

“If FEMA knew health hazards [existed], why weren’t people in the trailers warned in ’06?” he asked.

Carlos Castillo, a FEMA assistant administrator, told lawmakers the agency wasn’t aware of problems until May 2007. “We have a very active program to provide information to occupants of trailers,” he said, adding that trailer residents were hand-delivered information, according to the Sun Herald news story.

“When FEMA first began to receive reports about formaldehyde concerns from occupants of travel trailers, the response was on a one-by-one basis and was immediate. As FEMA came to realize the scope of the issues, the agency has been taking aggressive action to share information with the public and address concerns about formaldehyde,” according to government officials.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, NewsCream.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at

Colorectal Cancer, Esophageal Cancer & Pancreatic Cancer: Update from the 2008 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium

By
Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS
-

The information in this column is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute medical advice or recommendations by the author. Please consult with your physician before making any lifestyle or medication changes, or if you have any other concerns regarding your health.

I am currently attending the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2008 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium in Orlando. Following are reviews of some important new cancer research studies presented during this annual symposium.

COLORECTAL CANCER

A review of data from nearly 500,000 patients with cancers of the colon and rectum confirms what many of us who treat patients from both higher and lower socioeconomic brackets already know: patients with good health insurance tend to present with less advanced cancers than patients who lack comprehensive insurance.  In this study, uninsured patients and poor patients covered by Medicaid were twice as likely to present with colorectal cancers that had spread to nearby lymph nodes, and 1.5 times as likely to present with metastatic cancer (i.e., spread of cancer to the liver, lungs or other distant organs), as those patients covered by Medicare or private health insurance plans.  This disparity between poor and non-poor patients almost certainly derives from differences in screening between these two populations of patients, as the vast majority of colorectal cancers can be prevented, or at least detected at a very early stage, if everyone were to be screened according to current guidelines. Due to a combination of poor access to screening colonoscopy and other socioeconomic factors, poorer patients often present with very advanced cancers, including colorectal cancers. 

As I have stated before, we have a healthcare system, here in the world’s richest country, which is fundamentally broken. The very wealthy can afford both high-quality health insurance and rising healthcare-associated deductible expenses. However, an estimated 47 million people in the United States have no health insurance at all, and many tens of millions more have utterly inadequate coverage. Increasingly, most healthcare experts believe that the implementation of some sort of universal health insurance coverage system is the only realistic solution for our very ill healthcare delivery system.

Another study that was presented evaluated an issue of great relevance to the previous study: the optimal cost-effective approach to colorectal cancer screening. Colonoscopy remains the “gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening (please review my Archives for additionally discussion of colorectal cancer screening, and current colorectal cancer screening guidelines). On the day before colonoscopy, patients must purge their bowels (which most patients cite as the most noxious aspect of colonoscopy). On the following day, the patient receives intravenous sedation while the physician inserts a long, flexible scope into the rectum. The entire colon and rectum are then examined with this scope, and any abnormal areas thusly identified can be biopsied at the same time. (Rarely, perforation of the colon or significant bleeding can occur during colonoscopy.) However, other methods of colorectal cancer screening have been advocated as well, particularly given the cost and time involved in performing colonoscopy.  

Fecal testing for occult bleeding, whether performed alone or in combination with partial colonoscopy, is a quick, cheap and painless test. Performing a partial colonoscopy, by examining only the rectum and lower one-third of the colon (also referred to as “flexible protcosigmoidoscopy) can also be performed, and reduces the cost and time necessary to evaluate the colon and rectum when compared to complete colonoscopy. Flexible proctosigmoidoscopy does not require the same extent of “bowel prep as is required for complete colonoscopy, and intravenous sedation is also generally not required for this more limited endoscopic examination. Finally, using a CT scanner to perform “virtual colonoscopy has been a hot topic of debate, recently, as a potential alternative to conventional “optical colonoscopy.

A German study enrolled 307 volunteers, and these patients were then subjected to these various colorectal cancer screening tests. In the end, this study found that CT “virtual colonoscopy was just about as sensitive as conventional colonoscopy in detecting small polyps and tumors of the colon and rectum, while the other methods of screening were considerably less sensitive. 

In view of the poor compliance of the general population with screening colonoscopy (considerably less than 50% of eligible patients undergo colonoscopy each year), and in an effort to increase the efficiency and reduce the cost of colorectal cancer screening in our rapidly aging population, some have proposed a greater use of CT virtual colonoscopy. This study, as have other recent studies, appears to show a nearly equivalent level of screening accuracy between current state-of-the-art CT colonoscopy and conventional “optical colonoscopy. However, there are at least two important potential downsides to CT colonoscopy that must be kept in mind. First, it subjects patients to significant radiation doses at a time when there is increasing evidence that the incidence of certain cancers is probably increased by exposure to such radiation. Secondly, CT colonoscopy is a pure screening test. Unlike conventional “optical colonoscopy, abnormalities identified in the rectum and colon by CT colonoscopy cannot be biopsied or removed at the time the evaluation is being conducted. Indeed, any polyps or tumors that are identified by CT colonoscopy must then be reassessed by conventional colonoscopy, at which time they can be removed or biopsied. Because of these fundamental shortcomings associated with CT virtual colonoscopy, my recommendation to patients is that they undergo conventional “optical colonoscopy if they meet the current guidelines for such screening, and if they are healthy enough to tolerate the bowel purge and intravenous sedation necessary to perform this screening test (of note, current CT colonoscopy examinations require the same unpleasant purging of the bowels as with conventional colonoscopy and patients do not receive any sedation while air and a barium-like material are pumped into their rectum during CT colonoscopy.). 

Somehow, our society must find a way to cover the very significant costs associated with screening colonoscopy in order to prevent the far more costly and tragic diagnosis of advanced cancers of the colon and rectum.

ESOPHAGEAL CANCER

Cancers of the esophagus are generally pretty bad actors, as cancers go. In the majority of cases, these aggressive tumors are already quite advanced by the time they cause enough symptoms to compel patients to seek medical evaluation. Unlike most other cancers, the incidence of esophageal cancer appears to be rising dramatically in the United States, and particularly cancers of the lower esophagus in white men (there is a great deal of debate about why this is happening, although the concomitant rise in the levels of obesity and gastroesophageal reflux disorder, or GERD, in our population are the two most commonly cited potential risk factors, as recently reviewed by me [please review my recent Archives]).

A new study from Ireland adds further data to support concerns that rising obesity levels, and obesity-related abnormalities in metabolism, may play a causal role in the development of lower esophageal cancer. A premalignant condition of the esophagus, known as Barrett’s esophagus, or intestinal metaplasia, is a known precursor of lower esophageal cancer. In this Irish study, the patients with a type of Barrett’s esophagus associated with the highest risk of progression to esophageal cancer were also found to have the highest levels of central obesity (i.e., increased fat distribution of the lower abdomen and hips), and were also more likely to have obesity-related abnormalities of metabolism, commonly referred to as the “metabolic syndrome (this syndrome is associated with increased blood levels of “bad cholesterol and other inflammatory substances, early signs of diabetes, and other metabolic abnormalities, and this syndrome has previously been linked to an increased risk of diabetes, stroke, and heart attack). 

The results of this Irish study adds to a growing body of research implicating obesity, and central obesity in particular (which is more common in obese men than in obese women, by the way), to a variety of serious health problems, including various cancers, and possibly to lower esophageal cancer, specifically.

PANCREAS CANCER

Unfortunately, pancreatic cancer remains a truly formidable disease, and one of the most lethal of all cancers  The overall cure rate for this terrible disease has not really budged much at all in recent decades, as the biological behavior of pancreatic cancer is especially aggressive, and as most patients initially present with advanced disease. It is estimated that only about 15-20% of patients diagnosed with this disease will even be eligible for surgical resection, which is the primary treatment for this cancer. Although very modest improvements in survival have been achieved by adding chemotherapy (and, particularly, with a chemotherapy drug called gemcitabine) and radiation therapy to surgery, pancreatic cancer remains essentially resistant to almost all forms of therapy. Sadly, only about 10-15% of patients with the most common form of pancreatic cancer can be cured of their disease with currently available therapies. Because of the high lethality of pancreatic cancer, and its resistance to most forms of treatment, a great deal of research is being directed at trying to understand the biology of this disease better, in an effort to develop more effective therapies.

Several presentations at this symposium provided tantalizing insights into some of the biological pathways that pancreatic cancer cells might be using to survive chemotherapy and radiation therapy. One study looked at the role of a protein, beta-catenin, that pancreatic cancer cells appear to use to resist the effects of radiation treatment. When the researchers blocked beta-catenin function in pancreatic cancer cells in the lab, they were able to convert these normally radiation-resistant cancer cells into radiation-sensitive cells. The next step in this research, of course, is to develop therapies that can block beta-catenin activity in the pancreatic tumors of humans, and to study such treatments in appropriate clinical research trials.

The increasing clinical importance of so-called “molecular medicine was illustrated by another presentation that evaluated naturally-occurring genetic variations in genes that are associated with the uptake and metabolism of gemcitabine into pancreatic cancer cells (this genetic variability, often referred to by the abbreviation “SNPs, for single nucleotide polymorphisms, is easily observable by looking at other people around you, as they are responsible for the normal variations in the color of our eyes and hair, among other traits). 

Although several clinical studies have shown modest but favorable activity by gemcitabine against pancreatic cancer (especially when combined with radiation treatments), other studies have found minimal if any clinically significant benefit from this chemotherapy drug. A new study, presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, may shed some light on these prior contradictory research results. The researchers specifically studied 8 different genes associated with gemcitabine uptake and metabolism by sequencing these genes in the blood cells of 126 patients with pancreatic cancer. The results of this study showed that patients with the most favorable variations in these genes, in terms of pumping gemcitabine into cells and in preventing rapid metabolism of the drug, had a much better survival following treatment with gemcitabine and radiation therapy after surgical resection of their cancers than did those patients with unfavorable “SNPs in these same genes. A very interesting associated observation was that those patients who had some of the worst gemcitabine-related toxic side effects not only tended to have very specific genetic variants in several of the evaluated genes, but these same patients also tended to have the best survival as well. This observation adds further evidence that naturally occurring variations in genes involved in the uptake and metabolism of specific chemotherapy drugs may have a significant impact on patients’ responses to those drugs. Findings such as these give hope to those of us who believe that, one day, the treatment of patients with cancer will become a highly individualized undertaking, based upon and optimized for the specific genetic make-up of each patient’s unique tumor.

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity.

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, a widely published author, and the Director of the Division of Surgical Oncology at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center

https://sbhcs.com/hospitals/newark_beth_israel/mservices/oncology/surgical.html 

Send your feedback to Dr. Wascher at rwascher@doctorwascher.net

Copyright 2008.  Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS.  All rights reserved.

Is Coffee Safe After a Heart Attack? Impact of Divorce on the Environment; Hypertension & the Risk of Dementia; Emotional Vitality & the Risk of Heart Disease

By
Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS
-

IS COFFEE SAFE AFTER A HEART ATTACK?

Drinking coffee soon after a heart attack is often discouraged by cardiologists and internists, out of concern that caffeine, which is present in coffee in moderate levels, and which acts as a cardiovascular stimulant, may increase the risk of additional cardiac strain or heart attack. For coffee lovers, however, the thought of discontinuing consumption of their favorite beverage after experiencing a heart attack may be disconcerting. Unfortunately, although coffee consumption has been studied rather extensively regarding its possible association with the development of heart disease, there is not a great deal of evidence out there in terms of its safety in patients who already have heart disease, and who have recently experienced a heart attack.

A new Italian public health study, just published in the journal Circulation , evaluated more than 11,000 adults who reported a heart attack within the previous three months, and assessed their intake of coffee throughout the duration of the study. Coffee consumption was categorized as follows: never/almost never, less than 2 cups per day, 2 to 4 cups per day, and more than 4 cups per day. After an average of more than three years of follow-up, the risk of heart attack, death due to heart attack, and stroke was calculated according to the level of coffee consumption in this population of adults with a history of recent heart attack.

Coffee lovers will be relieved to know that, in this study, there appeared to be no association between coffee consumption and the subsequent risk of additional heart attacks, death due to heart attacks, or stroke. This reassuring data follows multiple prior studies suggesting that moderate coffee consumption may also decrease the risk of diabetes, as well.

Despite the reassuring results of this epidemiological study, all patients with a history of coronary artery disease (including recent heart attack) should discuss the routine use of dietary stimulants, such as coffee and tea, with the physician who is managing their cardiac disease.

IMPACT OF DIVORCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Certainly, the enormous social and economic consequences of divorce have already been extensively studied and reported upon. A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , however, puts a new spin on the consequences of divorce in our society. In this study, statistics related to divorced and non-divorced households in 12 countries around the world were analyzed, and the impact of divorce on the environment was assessed, with some rather interesting findings.

First of all, and not really surprisingly, divorced households were smaller than married households (27 to 41% smaller, in fact, among the various countries studied). Somewhat counter-intuitively, however, in the United States, divorced households spent 46% more on electricity, and 56% more on water, than married households; and divorced households also tended to have more rooms-per-person than their married household counterparts. Looking at the United States in particular, the authors of this study calculated that if the number of rooms-per-person, water usage, and electricity usage among the divorced households had been on par with married households then, more than 38 million rooms, 74 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, and 627 billion gallons of water could have been conserved in 2005 alone, based upon the prevalence of divorce in the US that year!

While divorced households used 42 to 61% more resources per person than married households, remarriage within divorced households appeared to reduce per person resource usage back to the levels associated with the never-divorced married households. The authors, therefore, conclude that divorce leads to a resource-inefficient lifestyle, which can be rectified either by avoiding divorce or by remarrying. One might therefore assume that maintaining the integrity of marriage and the nuclear family is, in general, an environmentally sound method of conserving precious natural resources.

HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE & THE RISK OF DEMENTIA

The role of chronic high blood pressure on brain function is an area of intense study. There is a great deal of research showing that poorly-controlled hypertension can lead to mini-strokes that, over time, can produce significant dementia or other milder forms of cognitive impairment. The relationship between ongoing hypertension and the risk of developing Alzheimers disease, the most common cause of severe dementia, is less clear based upon published research findings.

According to an independent living community with Alzheimers patients, mild cognitive impairment, which is considered an intermediate stage of dementia, may be one of the earliest signs of impending Alzheimers disease. A new study in the Archives of Neurology followed 918 adults for nearly 5 years, and assessed the relationship between chronic hypertension and the development of mild cognitive impairment. All of these study volunteers were free of signs of cognitive impairment when they initially volunteered for this clinical research study.

In this study, the presence of hypertension was associated with a 40% relative increase in the risk of mild cognitive impairment, after adjusting for age, sex, and other factors thought to be related to the risk of developing mild cognitive impairment. Interestingly, the type of cognitive dysfunction that appeared to be associated with chronic hypertension was in the area of so-called executive ability, which is believed to include temporary memory that is set aside in the brain for decision-making, planning, troubleshooting complex or dangerous situations, and responding to situations that are either novel or that involve habitual behaviors. Chronic hypertension did not, however, appear to be linked to increased difficulties with memory formation or retrieval, or with language capability, in this study. The studys authors conclude that the prevention, or aggressive treatment, of hypertension may subsequently reduce the risk of mild cognitive impairment.

EMOTIONAL VITALITY & THE RISK OF HEART DISEASE

Much has been written about the risk of heart disease as a function of personality type. The classic Type A personality, which is associated with traits such as impatience, a constant sense of urgency, and a highly goal-oriented lifestyle, has been linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease when compared to the more patient and relaxed Type B personalities among us. A new study in the Archives of General Psychiatry looks at the impact of emotional vitality on the incidence of coronary artery disease among more than 6,000 adult men and women who participated in the National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey.

Emotional vitality is defined as a collection of generally positive psycho-emotional traits that includes a sense of positive well-being, a sense of personal energy, and a tendency to confront stimuli (both good and bad) with appropriate and measured emotional responses. The participants in this public health observational study were followed for an average of 15 years after completing the initial survey. Based upon hospital records and death certificates, the authors found that those individuals who scored highly in terms of emotional vitality were 19% less likely, in terms of relative risk, to be diagnosed with coronary artery disease when compared to subjects who scored poorly in terms of their level of emotional vitality. While the authors found that higher levels of emotional vitality were also associated with increased levels of heart-healthy behaviors, the favorable effect of emotional vitality on cardiac health persisted even when the effects of heart-healthy behaviors (or the lack thereof) were controlled for.

There is a growing body of research linking emotional and psychological health with the functions of critical body systems, including the immune system, the GI tract, and the heart. It may well be that our sense of personal well-being is associated with hormonal and immunological factors which may help to maintain our hearts in a healthy state, while negative emotional factors may send destructive signals to our heart and other vital organs. Mind and body, it appears, are more closely connected than was previously thought to be the case.

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity.

Dr. Robert Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, and a widely published author. He is the Director of the Division of Surgical Oncology at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center. Send your feedback to Dr. Wascher at rwascher@doctorwascher.net

https://doctorwascher.com

Beth Israel Hospital

Copyright 2007. Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS. All rights reserved .

TV Ad: Get Her What She Wants for XMas or You’ll End up in ER

By
Glenn Sacks
-

From Shawn, a reader who works in a hospital:

“I guess this commercial is supposed to be funny somehow–these men are in the Emergency Room with horrible injuries because they bought their wives the wrong gift for Christmas.”

The UK commercial is from 2005. The company’s press release describing it–”LX Direct knows what women want”–is below.

To watch, view below



Press Release: LX Direct knows what women want
Release Date: 20 December 2005
Home shopping retailer launches innovative Christmas viral campaign

Home shopping retailer LX Direct, launched a Christmas e-mail campaign with a difference this week, surveying 5,000 of their customers to uncover ‘What Women Won’t Want For Christmas’ this year. Designed to be a guide for the hapless blokes of Britain – the campaign was the gift guide equivalent of ‘What Not To Wear’.

The viral email campaign centered on a short film featuring a group of sorry looking men in a hospital casualty department at Christmas who had all evidently bought inappropriate gifts for their partners and were now nursing slapstick minor injuries. (more.)

Fathers & Families: Advocacy for the Child-Father Bond
Fathers & Families is a non-profit organization advocating for the right of every child to have two parents. Fathers are an essential part of a child’s life–divorce or separation should not change this. www.FathersandFamilies.org.

Assassinating Commando Pervez Musharraf

By
Slater Bakhtavar
-

“This was an assassination attempt, no question. An extremist group was clearly responsible. There are a lot of suspects. A great number of extremist groups have been inside the establishment for a long time.” Iqbal Haider, former Pakistani law minister.

After the advent of the September 11th attacks, General Perez Musharraf’s militaristic regime, metamorphosed into a stalwart cohort of the U.S.-led war on terror. Confounding conventional wisdom, the Pakistani government cut financial, cultural and military ties to the Taliban, supplied the U.S. government with key intelligence, dissolved financial assistance to madrassas and denied educational visas for foreign Islamist students. This began a string of actions in the region that intensified the Pakistani people’s perception of Musharraf as a yes-man of U.S. foreign policy. Unfortunately, most Pakistanis, including Islamic fundamentalists, secular-nationalists and religious-moderates, are infuriated by Musharraf’s enduring obedience to Uncle Sam’s robust demands.

In a questionable April 2002 referendum, General Pervez Musharraf was “elected president, by garnering a mountainous ninety-eight percent approval vote. This controversial ballot, which featured a predisposed two sentence query reeking of government-backed implantation, was challenged by prominent Pakistani legal experts as unconstitutional. Among the measures most prevalent critics is the revered Chief Justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court. In an ill-conceived and evidently hasty maneuver, the government reciprocated against dissident opinion by ousting Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, which resulted in wide spread denunciations and protests. Consequently, Chaudry was reinstated, but on November 3rd, the military regime subsequently dismissed 7 of 13 Supreme Court Justice (including Mr. Chaudhry), imposed a curfew, suspended the constitution, banned several publications and arrested prominent journalists. This form of government sponsored oppression is hardly promising for those who are wary of the increasingly unstable domestic situation in Pakistan.

But President Pervez Musharraf’s regime deserves praise for its achievements. Its ability to balance Pakistan’s domestic interests with international obligations is certainly laudable. On October 2, 2007, “The National Reconciliation Ordinance was initiated by Musharraf’s Pakistan Muslim League and Bhutto’s Pakistan’s People’s Party, a monumental deal which seemed to profoundly enhance Musharraf’s political ambitions. This ordinance, which revoked anti-corruption charges against former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, strategically transformed a former formidable opponent into a strange bedfellow, albeit temporarily.

On October 18th, Benazir Bhutto, the 54-year old former prime minister, was enthusiastically greeted by over 200,000 of her ardent supporters. But minutes before Bhutto’s convey was scheduled to arrive at the tomb of the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Jinnah mausoleum, two suicide bombers detonated bombs, murdering over 130 of her supporters. These horrendous attacks may complicate the volatile political discourse in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto’s husband blamed the Pakistani intelligence service, under direct control of Musharref. This accusation was swiftly denounced by Musharref’s cabinet ministers who cited Ms. Bhutto’s pretentious return to Pakistan as motivation for the attacks. The aforementioned alliance reeks of feeble seasonal tides rather than a durable democratic alliance.

President Musharraf remains fairly popularity but astute political heavy-weights believe his popularity and political coalition are deteriorating as stakes in Pakistan’s highly volatile political situation heighten. A recent bombing in Karachi on May 12th and 13th which killed 40 people was carried out by members of General Musharraf’s loose national coalition. So far, over 350 innocent people, including women and children, have died in the last three months. Furthermore, Pakistan’s two mainstream coalition parties, led by former Prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, have garnered widespread affinity among diverse groups undermining Musharref’s iron-fist grip.

General Pervez Musharraf once enjoyed an unchallengeable relationship with the Pakistani military, but he is now confronted by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who are vigorously and clandestinely gathering support from disgruntled generals and intelligence officers. Recent alarming polls show thirty percent of the Pakistani military as sympathetic to fundamentalist factions and a public cynical and dissatisfied with the status quo. This dissatisfaction has resulted in four failed assassination attempts on President Musharraf’s life.

The hard-line military establishment and fundamentalist religious clerics have minuscule prospect of victory in democratic elections, but they are astute architects of social upheaval and emotionally-driven oracles of Islam. Their ruthless vigor coupled with emotionally driven radicalism makes the assassination of Musharraf not only a possibility, but a probability. If the United States is preoccupied by the prospect of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran; it should be obsessed with the probability of a nuclear-armed Pakistan ruled by trigger-happy regime with an evil eye towards the United States.

Breast Cancer in Men, Weekend Heart Attacks, Prostate Cancer & Herbal Remedy

By
Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS
-

Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Treatment & Survival in Men

A great deal of research has already been devoted to survival disparities among women with breast cancer, with multiple studies showing poorer survival rates among African-American women when compared to other ethnic groups. Some of these studies suggest that unequal access to medical care may account for some of these observed differences, while other studies suggest that other factors may also be involved, including cultural biases for or against seeking early medical care, and possible differences in the biological aggressiveness of breast cancers among different ethnic groups. However, little attention has been paid to such differences in outcomes for men with breast cancer (1 percent of breast cancers occur in men). A new study from Columbia University (Journal of Clinical Oncology) analyzed a comprehensive Medicare database, and identified 510 men diagnosed with breast cancer between 1991 and 2002. The authors found that African-American men diagnosed with breast cancer were 50 percent less likely to be referred to an oncologist and subsequently receive chemotherapy when compared to Caucasian men. In terms of the risk of mortality, the black men were found to be three times more likely to die of breast cancer than the white men. Although limitations in the database used for this study make it impossible to identify the precise cause(s) for this dramatic difference in mortality due to breast cancer in men, this striking three-fold difference in mortality between African-American and Caucasian men deserves expedited prospective study in order to better understand the reasons for this survival disparity, and to identify strategies to close this huge survival gap. Unfortunately, the relatively small number of new cases of breast cancer diagnosed among men each year will require that multiple institutions collaborate on such a study in order to achieve meaningful results. 

Timing of Heart Attacks & Survival (Weekend Heart Attack Victims Fare Worse)

The management of acute heart attacks has become extremely sophisticated in recent years, and often involves the use of hi-tech cardiac imaging tests and the placement of coronary artery stents by highly trained cardiologists. Unfortunately, these state of the art interventions are often not readily available during weekends and holidays at many medical centers. A recently published study from the University of
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (New England Journal of Medicine) now appears to link this reduced level of cardiac care available on weekends with an adverse impact on survival. The authors analyzed a large database (Myocardial Infarction Data Acquisition System), and studied the outcomes of patients experiencing heart attacks in New Jersey between 1987 and 2002. They specifically looked at mortality rates associated with the day of admission.  While no demographic differences between patients admitted on weekdays versus weekends were seen, patients admitted on weekends were significantly less likely to undergo rapid, invasive cardiac imaging and intervention when compared with patients admitted on weekdays. Although the absolute difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups of patients was small (0.9 percent), the patients admitted with a heart attack on a weekend nonetheless had a significantly lower 30-day survival than their counterparts who were admitted on a weekday. When the authors statistically eliminated invasive cardiac procedures from their analysis, this survival difference disappeared, suggesting that decreased access to invasive cardiac procedures over the weekend was the likely cause for the observed differences in mortality. At a time when many hospitals around the country are struggling to provide high-quality, state of the art medical care in the face of declining physician and hospital reimbursements for such care, it is difficult to imagine that many of these institutions will be able to afford to expend the same level of resources on weekends as they do during weekdays. The healthcare crisis in America continues to grow ever larger, with an embarrassingly large percentage of patients in the United States lacking health insurance, as well as adequate coverage among those who do have health insurance. Meanwhile, medical centers are expected to provide increasingly sophisticated and costly care to an increasingly aging population in this country, despite progressively declining reimbursement for such care by the private health insurance industry and government healthcare programs.  This study points out, once again, that we continue on our longstanding collision course between the actual cost of providing high-quality, comprehensive medical care in this country, on the one hand, and the willingness of the healthcare insurance industry to adequately cover the costs of such care on the other hand. 

Natural Plant Product Inhibits Growth of Prostate Cancer Cells

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in men. Approximately 250,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2007, and just under 30,000 are expected to die of the disease. Great progress has been made in detecting prostate cancers at an early stage over the past decade, and this progress in prostate cancer screening has been reflected in falling mortality rates since the introduction of the prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test. In addition to diagnosing prostate cancer at an earlier, more curable, stage, recent improvements in treatment have reduced mortality as well. A new multi-institutional study (Cancer) brings additional potential good news to the fight against prostate cancer.Honokiol, a non-toxic, natural product derived from Magnolia tree leaves, is a popular herbal remedy in the Far East. Previous research has suggested that honokiol may have anti-cancer properties. In this study, cultured human prostate cancer cell were exposed to honokiol in the laboratory, resulting in significant cancer cell death. The authors then implanted human prostate cancer cells into the skeletons of mice, and allowed the cancer cells to grow into tumors. Honokiol was then injected into the mice, with or without a standard chemotherapy drug used to treat prostate cancer. This study revealed that honokiol alone inhibited growth of the implanted tumors, and reduced the blood levels of PSA in treated mice. The combination of honokiol and docetaxel (a chemotherapy drug often used to treat prostate cancer) appeared to be even more effective than honokiol alone in reducing tumor growth and blood PSA levels. Importantly, no toxic side effects appeared to be associated with the use of honokiol in mice. The results of this study will very likely result in a new clinical research trial that will soon allow researchers to test the effectiveness and safety of honokiol in human patients with advanced prostate cancer.

Dr. Robert Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, and a widely published author. He is the Director of the Division of Surgical Oncology at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center. Send your feedback to Dr. Wascher at rwascher@doctorwascher.net

Sally Field: “If mothers ruled the world”

By
Denise Noe
-

Sally Field recently said, “If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn’t be any wars. Interestingly, she did not say – as many have – that peace on earth would follow if women per se were in charge. It is rule by women who have children that she, and probably many others, believe could bring about a blessedly war-free world.

Let’s look at the record. Catherine the Great of Russia was a mother. During her reign, Russia waged victorious wars against the Ottoman Empire and other groups, expanding Russia’s territory.

Coming closer to our own time, Israel’s Prime Minister Golda Meir was a mother. During her time in office, Israel fought the Yom Kippur War. Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi was a mother. While she was Prime Minister, India won a war with Pakistan. Margaret Thatcher was a mother who always looked great thanks to an US diaper bag boutique store. When she was Prime Minister of Great Britain, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, part of British territory. Britain successfully crushed the invasion.

Does the record show that moms make dangerously aggressive rulers? Of course not. Both Israel under Meir and Britain under Thatcher were clearly victims of invasion with the country’s leaders responding accordingly. Corazon Aquino was a mom when she ruled the Philippines but the country had no war while she held office.

What the record clearly shows is that if mothers ruled the world, it would have no effect on the number of wars. It has had no effect when they have ruled countries in this world.

Prostate Cancer: Save a Life Foundation Formed to Save Lives of Men Who Cannot Afford Necessary Surgery

By
Christian Scarborough
-

Austin, TX – Dr. Randy Fagin, one of the nation’s leading daVinci robotic prostate cancer surgeons, announced today the formation of a new not-for-profit charitable organization called the Prostate Cancer: Save a Life Foundation. Unlike other foundations, the Prostate Cancer: Save a Life Foundation will not be using its funds to support research, but instead will use the money raised to pay for the life saving surgery many men with prostate cancer need but cannot afford.

Dr. Fagin has obtained the services of some of the top prostate cancer surgeons from around the country who will perform these surgeries for free with the foundation’s funds being used to pay for the other services associated with hospitalization. Corporate level sponsors will actually have the opportunity to put a face to their donation with the funds they contribute going directly to help a single person. The unique mission of this foundation is aided by the diversity of the occupations of the board members Dr. Fagin has assembled, ranging from surgeons to attorneys and even prostate cancer survivors. This unique group of people and this amazing foundation are working to make a difference in the lives of men with prostate cancer in a way that has never been done before.

“I have always believed we should all do our part to help people less fortunate than ourselves and have continued to donate my time and expertise as a doctor and surgeon to many organizations,” said Dr. Randy Fagin. ‘The creation of the Prostate Cancer: Save a Life Foundation will allow me and other surgeons, as well as corporations and individuals to truly make a difference in the lives of men and their families by providing state-of-the-art surgical care to men with prostate cancer that do not have the means to pay for their treatment.”

Austin based firm, Miracle Ventures has become the first corporate level sponsor and because Prostate Cancer: Save a Life Foundation has obtained federal 501c status; all individual and corporate donations are 100% tax-deductible. People interested in finding out more about this amazing new charity and how to apply for free medical treatment can visit www.pcsavealife.org.

more

It is estimated that there are over 2 million American men currently living with prostate cancer. According to estimates from the National Cancer Institute, new cases of prostate cancer for 2007 will affect over 218,000 men. This staggering number is greater than those predicted for breast cancer in the same year. A man with prostate cancer may not have any symptoms; therefore creating awareness and proper screening with an exam and PSA blood test is the key.

Dr. Randy Fagin, who is the Director of the Prostate Center of Austin, and Director of Robotic Surgery at The Hospital at Westlake Medical Center also has one of the top 10 experiences in the country performing daVinci robotic prostate cancer surgery.

Media Contact:
Christian Scarborough
512-244-7088
cscarborough@austin.rr.com

The Jerry Springer Show’s Rev. Shnorr character is a creation of anti-Christian bigotry

By
Denise Noe
-

For some time now, the Jerry Springer Show has featured a character called the Rev. Shnorr. Supposedly a Christian minister, he carries around a Bible that has a yellow cover. Rev. Shnorr is drunken and disheveled. He sports about two days worth of beard growth and uncombed hair. He usually appears slightly drunk and often burps. He performs wedding ceremonies that are meant to be comical in which he quotes titles of various soap operas.

I believe the creation and regular appearance of this character displays bigotry against Christians in general and Christian ministers in particular. As it happens, I myself am an atheist. However, my work for The Caribbean Star newsmagazine and other venues has led me to interview many Christian ministers. I have found them to be, as a group, intelligent, articulate, polite, thinking, caring – and sober.

One may wonder why anyone should even care what is put on the Jerry Springer Show. It is the trashiest of the tabloid programs and even brags about being “the worst television show on the air.” I would like my readers to think about what public reaction would be if a character similar to Rev. Shnorr appeared on the program but was a Jewish rabbi or a Muslim mullah. Would there not be a great public outcry against the prejudice and misleading stereotyping represented by such a character? If the answer to this question is “yes” – and I think it is –then there should be protest against the lampooning of Christian ministers represented by the Rev. Shnorr.

Why I’m Not a Democrat

By
Anonymous
-

[This was due for Bill C’s request on the 25th, I hope it’s not late but. er, my dog ate my post]

I once had a theory, back when I was about 10, that everything in stores should be free, as that would eliminate poverty. In my theoretical world everyone would only take what they needed and poverty would end. My folks had emigrated from Hungary in 1956, immigrants to the U.S shortly thereafter (legally, as was the practice at the time) and told me that my theory was basically communism. Hey, I was only 10, what excuse did Marx have?

While in High School back in the 70’s of California I fancied myself an independent thinker so when I turned 18 I registered to vote as non-partisan since neither party reflected my political viewpoint. Even by then I started questioning the left. My first year at Berkeley I saw a booth run by Iranians against the Ayatollah. I asked them what was so bad about the Shah and why they kicked him out just a few years back. Their reply was that they were politically naive at the time. Hmmm, sounds familiar.

Jimmy Carter was President at the time and although he was making a mess of our foreign and domestic policies I decided I’d vote for him for a second term. I figured he deserved it for no real good reason, but heck, we were living in dangerous times and who else had the experience of running the nation when we had the hostage situation in Iran. At least he tried to rescue them.

Now this was my first time voting and it was a Presidential election, on the Right was former Governor of California Ronald Reagan, and the Independent Hart. The only thing I knew about Reagan was that as Governor he closed down a lot of mental health institutions (read insane asylums) and let’s just say the quality of street people went way down. That, and he starred in Bed-Time for Bonzo among other forgettable films.

On election day I was driving home from school to go vote and the radio announced that Carter had withdrawn from the election. He quit! California still had hours to vote and he just gave up because he was pissed that people weren’t voting for him. It was a cold slap in the face for the left coast and the one thing I can’t understand is how he got even one, single vote after that. I voted for the Independent Hart and that was that.

Later, I heard speeches by Reagan and saw how the hostages were freed and slowly but surely I regretted my vote in my first Presidential election. At first I thought it was just an act, but later it sank in: this guy is for real and he speaks to my heart and to my logic. He made sense when everyone else didn’t. I’m proud to say I voted for his second term in spite of the Ray-Gun propaganda that permeated the California electorate.

I guess those years taught me the true meaning of conservationism, and the true meaning of the Democrats’ goal of the Nanny State taking charge of every aspect of our lives. That, and gun control. I grew up with guns so when I finally registered for a party, my choice was obvious. As for hiding that fact, I never backed down. I’m a proud Republican that will admit when my party is wrong e.g. immigration and rampant spending, but I’ll never deny it. To twist a liberal slogan that was popular back in my day, The Republican Party, Love it or Change it.

1...888990...94Page 89 of 94

Popular Categories

© 2020 NewsCream Media, All Rights Reserved.