NIH Offers New Comprehensive Guide to Healthy Sleep - Free Download

The following is provided by National Institutes of Health. I have not had time to read the guide as yet but I thought I should get the word about it out to you. Maybe you have more time to catch up on reading than I do these days!

In today's "24/7" society, many people cut back on sleep to squeeze in more time for work, family obligations, and other activities. But skimping on sleep can be harmful. A comprehensive new handbook from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) explains that sleep is not merely “down time” when the brain shuts off and the body rests.

“Our brains are very active during sleep, and research has shown that adequate sleep is important to our overall health, safety, and performance," notes Michael Twery, PhD, acting director of NHLBI's National Center on Sleep Disorders Research. "Scientists also have a better understanding of how a chronic lack of sleep or an untreated sleep disorder can impair health. Like good nutrition and physical activity, adequate sleep is critical for continued good health.”

“Your Guide to Healthy Sleep” provides the latest science-based information about sleep in an easy-to-understand format. The 60-page handbook describes how and why we sleep, and offers tips for getting adequate sleep, such as sticking to a sleep schedule, relaxing before going to bed, and using daylight or bright light to help you adjust to jet lag and shift work schedules.

Sleep disorders such as insomnia (trouble falling asleep or staying asleep, or unrefreshing sleep), sleep apnea (brief periods of pauses in breathing or shallow breathing while you are sleeping), restless legs syndrome (an almost irresistible urge to move the legs that can make it difficult to fall asleep or stay asleep), and narcolepsy (excessive and overwhelming daytime sleepiness despite adequate nighttime sleep) are also described with information on diagnosis and treatment. In addition, a sample sleep diary helps readers track their sleep-related habits.

Sleep needs vary from person to person, and they change throughout the lifecycle. Newborns sleep between 16 and 18 hours a day, and children in preschool sleep between 10 and 12 hours a day. School-aged children and teens need at least 9 hours of sleep a day. Research suggests that adults – including seniors -- need at least 7 to 8 hours of sleep each day to be well rested and to perform at their best.

Studies have linked sleep to our ability to learn, create memories, and solve problems. Sleep has also been tied to mood. Without enough sleep, a person has trouble focusing, and responding quickly – a potentially dangerous combination, such as when driving. In addition, mounting evidence links a chronic lack of sleep with an increased risk for developing obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and infections.

The quality of sleep is also important. How well rested you are and how well you function the next day depend on your total sleep time and how much of the various stages of sleep you get each night. Yet, each year an estimated 70 million adult Americans have some type of sleep problem.

"Although there are times during the day when we are naturally likely to feel drowsy, in many cases, sleepiness is a sign that something is amiss," adds Twery. "The handbook offers several ideas to help you improve your sleep, but if you feel that you regularly have problems breathing during sleep, wake up unrefreshed after a full night's sleep, or frequently feel very sleepy during the day, you should see your doctor to find out if you could have a sleep disorder."

“Your Guide to Healthy Sleep” can be downloaded free at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/sleep/healthy_sleep.htm. Printed copies are available for $3.50 through the NHLBI website or from the NHLBI Information Center at P.O. Box 30105, Bethesda, MD 20824-0105, or at 301-592-8573 or 240-629-3255 (TTY).

To learn more about healthy sleep and sleep disorders:

National Center on Sleep Disorders Research www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sleep.

Sleep, Sleep Disorders, and Biological Rhythms supplemental curriculum for use in high school biology classes http://osedev.od.nih.gov/supplements/nih3/sleep/default.htm.

Star Sleeper educational materials for children and their caregivers http://starsleep.nhlbi.nih.gov.

Note: National Sleep Awareness Week® is a registered trademark of the National Sleep Foundation.

The National Center on Sleep Disorders Research was established in 1993 through U.S. congressional legislation authorizing support for sleep-related research and educational programs, and the coordination of related activities among the NIH, other federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. NIH annually funds more than $189 million in sleep-related research conducted by researchers in universities and hospitals in the U.S. and abroad. For more information, visit www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sleep.

Part of the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute plans, conducts, and supports research related to the causes, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of heart, blood vessel, lung, and blood diseases; and sleep disorders. The Institute also administers national health education campaigns on women and heart disease, healthy weight for children, and other topics. NHLBI press releases and other materials are available online at: www.nhlbi.nih.gov.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation's Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit http://www.nih.gov.

Remenber, sleep is an essential determinant of your health.

Popularity of Article Banks

Wow, it seems quite amazing that the two article directories I submitted an article to have grown, and so differently. Perhaps you saw my waffle (actually, it's woffle arond here...) when I posted my article to two sites. There's nothing special about that of course, except that the sites just happened to be brand new when I posted so I saw their "birth".

Well, backing up a little, one was brand new and the other was being re-launched after languishing in a state of abandonment in my care (or lack of care I guess). Yes, I refer to the site I have followed here for many months, HealthArticleBank.com. I never did get around to sorting out the server and software mess there so I ended up passing it on. So HealthArticleBank is now under new management and is fully operational.

It is actually being nurtured back to life by Arthur Banks, who calls himself Art Banks, so I'd say with a name like that he feels honor bound to make the sites work. Just to make my point, there are two sites, each calling themselves a bank, of sorts, "article banks" in fact, hence the irony of Art's name.

The other site is MarketingArticleBank.com and it started at the same time my old site was resurrected by Art. I'm pleased to see them both working, but admit to just a little sadness that my old health related site is far, far slower out of the blocks.

Knowing of the birth and resurrection (respectively) of course, I managed to submit the very first article into both sites. That was as recently as late February or early March. Today, March 23 rd, the HealthArticleBank site has 14 articles while the MarketingArticleBank site has 912. Yes, that's almost a full 900 difference!

I am in awe of the development rate Art has achieved at the latter site and impressed to see that my old health site remains fully functioning. I know Art has plenty of ideas for site development and I certainly wish him well with the ventures.

There seems little doubt that publishing articles is a valid and useful way to get a message out, across cyberspace. Now, if I could just find some more time...

Oh Hell...Now it's the Canadians

We have seen what is probably an historic change of mind by the UK bureaucrats, oh sorry, um... "authorities," when the Australian Minister for Tourism managed to persuade them to reverse an earlier decision to ban the Aussie Tourism commercial which included the evidently offensive word "bloody".

It seems it is no longer offensive. Strange how quickly sensibilities toughen isn't it. Anyway, good sense prevailed in the end and the add can now get some air time on British TV and give the poor interent servers a rest!

However, now it's the Canadians' turn. Evidently they have no problem with "bloody" but can't handle the word "hell." Simply amazing.

I have always thought very highly of the Canadians. They do seem a sensible, civilized and thoroughly decent bunch. I was mightily impressed by their portrayal in Michael, what's his name's, (is it Green?) documentary on guns (was it Bowling for Columbine? ...bit hazy on the details here).

However, I didn't realize that their society required such astonishing censorship to maintain their self-image. Can they not speak of hell? Must it never pass their lips or be heard by Canadian children or "families"?

What exactly are they in denial about here anyway? Is it the place, the concept, the sound of the word, the association with evil - what renders it a forbidden four-letter word? I just don't get it.

So on this isssue my dear Canadians, where the bloody hell are you? Don't let's get caught up in academic diatribes about cross cultural misunderstandings and subtleties. That would be serious overkill. Like the Brits, I think the Canadians have grossly overreacted, making themselves look rather silly in the process.

I hope the Canadians can deal with their repressions and suppressions and see a way to air the commercial in full, unaltered. And then, come see us in Australia ... you'll find we're an open, friendly and welcoming bunch, broad minded and tolerant. You may even find we're a lot like you :)

Health "Expert" Displays Bias and Ignorance on ABC News

The headline read "Katz Recommends a Balanced Diet" and the lead paragraph in the March 21, 2006 story stated what is rapidly becoming well known - vitamins are big business. They are indeed, since Americans spend $7 billion a year on them. It may be true for many that they do this "in hopes of warding off colds, cancer and other diseases" but this fails to do justice to the far broader and deeper reasoning behind many people's consumption of supplements, even just vitamins.

Many people do actually use vitamin supplements quite intelligently, sometimes following professional advice, sometimes as the result of their own nutrition or health research. Of course, it is too much to claim or even hope that everyone uses them so well, the truth is that most people are less well informed and tend to take vitamins in ways that not only fail to provide much help but may actually do some harm.

Let's not get carried away on this point however, it is wise to keep it in perspective. Before any medical prescriber, naturopathic or orthodox, dares to criticize vitamin supplement consumers and proclaims vitamins dangerous, let them take a close look at the damage to health (even significant loss of life) attributable every day to pharmaceutical drugs. Before they attack the use and users of vitamins let them deal with the abuse perpetrated by drug companies and those who market their wares - yes, the very prescribers themselves.

In that same ABC News item mentioned above Dr David Katz, "Good Morning America's" medical contributor and associate professor adjunct in public health practice at Yale University, said "The most consistent finding we are seeing in the research is a lack of any medical benefits." Well, Dr Katz is a klutz. Evidently one can occupy such as post at Yale without understanding the difference between health and medicine. People don't take vitamin supplements for "medical benefits", but for health benefits. Then again, perhaps it was a slip and Katz was really saying he can't see how doctors can benefit from people consuming vitamin supplements.

Katz went on to make another medical faux pas in stating that: "Many people take high doses of vitamins to fight off colds, cancer, heart disease. And over and over again, we've looked for the active ingredient in these vitamins to find out what is working and have been unable to find anything." Fortunately most people can be credited with a better grasp on logic and sound thinking that Katz: failing to find is not the same as not existing. Further, the blindness imposed by the medical paradigm means many medical researchers are fixated on finding "the active ingredient". This illustrates how hopeless is their plight - they are looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. Vitamins, Dr Katz, are active ingredients and they do their work in vivo by enabling a vast array of essential enzyme chains, the complexity of which is plainly beyond your ken.

Katz was reported as saying there is a potential danger to megadoses of popular vitamins and in this he is correct. However he illustrated the point with general references to some very poor studies. He referred to the following and my comments follow each statement quoted.

"Vitamin E, which many people believe protects against heart disease and cancer, has been found to increase risk of heart failure and cancer when people take anything more than 400 IUs a day." Actually vitamin E is probably the most controversial of the well-known vitamins and the evidence that it causes harm is at best very mixed. It probably was overhyped at one time and more care is warranted, so keeping intake below 400 IUs daily is a good idea for most people.

"Vitamin A can cause birth defects in high doses so it's potentially hazardous for women who may become pregnant. A 2002 Harvard study of more than 72,000 nurses showed that high doses of vitamin A led to a higher risk of hip fractures." The famous Harvard nurses study is not one of the better studies from that institution and the connection between vitamin A dosage and hip fracture rates is unconvincing and somewhat imaginative. Vitamin A should certainly not be taken in excess, as important as it is, and this fact is very widely known and promoted by vitamin suppliers and even marketers. Katz is really dredging for data in his scare mongering if he has to resort to this.

"Vitamin C is popular, especially during cold season, but there's no evidence that it prevents colds. It may shorten the duration by a very small amount, but not enough to notice. New studies have found vitamin C, if taken at the same time a patient is getting certain medical treatments, such as chemo for cancer, can interfere with that treatment." Actually the reasonably recent studies on the efficacy of vitamin C in relation to colds has supported its use. Those studies that failed to do so were seriously flawed and of no value. One would expect Katz to be an informed, critical consumer of that research but he appears unable to overcome his bias or agenda. As for the problem with taking vitamin C during chemotherapy, yes, there is certainly an issue here worth careful exploration. Vitamin C does seem to counteract some chemotherapy. Given that chemotherapy is simply the introduction of cell killing toxic chemicals, the vitamin C may be characterized as "trying to help" (if a little personification may be permitted) you by reducing its damage. This raises the whole question of the wisdom of using cytotoxic chemotherapy in the first place, so we'll leave this for another time. What is clear is that, as I have repeatedly said, doctors must ask and people must inform about all supplements and alternative medicines being consumed.

Finally, Dr Katz shows that he is either hopelessly confused and unable to think clearly on the topic or he simply wants to have an each way bet. He says that rather than rely on vitamins one should eat a well-balanced diet rich in vitamins, minerals and other nutrients. Amazingly, he then recommends, in addition, taking a multivitamin!

To learn about nutritional supplements, find multiple published scientific studies, and discover guaranteed ways to improve your health I recommend you spend some time exploring a real health site. I wouldn't waste any more time with ABC News, Good Morning America or Dr David Katz.

US Administration Shows it isn't Trustworthy on GM Foods

There is no doubt that GM foods pose a potentially enormous risk to world food supplies. This is an area where the debate has been hijacked and those who seek to profit from the development have little or no intention of heeding warnings or proceding as slowly or carefully as would be prudent.

Contrary to reports from the U.S., a recent World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling does not prevent countries from restricting or banning genetically modified (GM) foods. Friends of the Earth International on 28 February 2006 made available online a confidential WTO ruling on the trade dispute on biotech, or GM foods. The 1000-page report, which was distributed earlier in February only to the countries involved in the dispute, was leaked to Friends of the Earth, which published a preliminary analysis in the briefing 'Looking behind the US spin'.

The leaked report reveals that:

• despite claims of victory by the US Administration and the biotechnology industry - widely reported in the media in February 2006- the three countries that started the trade dispute against the European Union (US, Canada and Argentina) failed to win most of their arguments;
• the WTO did not rule on two of the most important questions, namely whether GM foods are effectively the same as non-GM foods and if they are safe.

"The WTO ruling is not a victory for the US administration and the biotech giants. Countries around the world should continue to enforce tough legislation protecting their citizens and the environment from the risks of genetically modified crops," said Juan Lopez, GM Campaign Coordinator of Friends of the Earth International.

According to Friends of the Earth International the WTO is not and should not be the appropriate body to deal with conflicts between trade rules and environmental protection since it ignores the internationally recognised 'Precautionary Principle' and considers only trade principles.

The leaked WTO report argues that:

• Europe's 4-year moratorium on GM Organisms (GMOs) only broke trade rules because it caused "undue delay" in the approval of new GM foods. The WTO dismissed eight other complaints in relation to the moratorium, and did not recommend any further action, since the moratorium ended in 2004.
• There was also an "undue delay" in the EU's approval procedures for over 20 specified biotech products. However, eleven other claims of the complainants related to the product-specific EU measures were dismissed by the WTO Panel.
• National bans by EU member states broke trade rules because the risk assessments used by the countries in question did not comply with the WTO requirements;

"This is the report that the WTO didn't want the public to see. It reveals that the big corporations that stand behind the WTO failed to get the big win they were hoping for. Free trade proponents needed a clear victory in this dispute to be able to push governments in the EU and the developing world to accept genetically modified food. They failed and now is the time to build a consensus that the WTO, with its business-only agenda, is the wrong place to decide on what people eat and how we protect our environment." said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe in Brussels.

Friends of the Earth Europe launched a cyber action (http://www.bite-back.org/objection/our_food.php ) urging the public to call on their Governments to reject the WTO as a forum to decide on environmental trade disputes and to support the right of countries to ban GMOs.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Juan Lopez, Friends of the Earth International GM coordinator, Tel: +34-6-25980582 (Spanish mobile number) Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth Europe GMO expert, Tel: +49 1609 490 1163 (German mobile number) David Waskow, Friends of the Earth US Tel: + 1 202 492 4660
SOURCE: http://www.gmwatch.org

GM foods represent effectively brand new substances introduced either directly to human consumption or to some point lower in the food chain, such as in livestock feeds. What effects these substances will ultimately have is unknown but other departures from natural foods are known to have negative consequences so this is an area worth considerable unbiased study, thought and widespread, informed agreement, not political lies and big-money manoeuvering.

National Health, Wellness and Prevention Congress

So who is actually drawing the wellness and disease prevention map for consumer driven health care? This question is addressed at one of the parallel tracks at the planned National Health, Wellness and Prevention Congress. These talk fests are frequently little more than thinly disguised marketing events but on occasion an individual track or two can prove quite interesting. Perhaps the "Health, Wellness & Prevention Workshop" will be one such track, though I'd feel better about it if they included "Disease" before "Prevention".

"Wellness, prevention, disease management, and fitness professionals must understand the evolving marketplace and help shape how consumers access healthcare information and services" according to the promoters.

Opportunities and risks abound as the healthcare landscape redesigns itself. The traditional provider-centric system is under fire from empowered consumers. New technologies afford consumers direct access to healthcare information. New services and products offer the consumer more choice, convenience and control. Where and what is the "new primary" care? From the workplace, to the hospital, to the fitness center and spa to the retail marketplace, where do consumers go to meet their health, disease state management and wellness needs? Well, these are valid observations and reasonable questions.

The National Health, Wellness and Prevention Congress will be co-located with the Consumer Direct Heatlh Care Congress in San Francisco, CA May 8-10. It may just be quite interesting, or even useful, depending on your situation. If you happen to be in, or can easily enough go to Frisco in early May, you may like to learn more.

For more information see: http://www.NHWPC.com or http://www.cdhcc.com or call (804) 266-7422

Concerns Allayed About Vitamin C For Cancer Treatment

Scientists from the RECNAC II project announced on March 13 that they have published findings that verify the safety of high dose intravenous vitamin C. In this study, published in the Puerto Rico Health Sciences Journal, vol. 24 (4): 269-276, a phase one clinical trial with 24 terminal cancer patients receiving between ten and sixty grams of sodium ascorbate daily for eight weeks, adverse effects were reportedly minor. "The results presented in this manuscript should allay fears about the safety of 'mega-dose' vitamin C," said Dr. Joseph Casciari, co-author of the manuscript.

This research comes on the heels of independent studies demonstrating efficacy of high dose vitamin C against tumor cells in experimental tumor models. Moreover, recently published case studies suggest that high dose intravenous vitamin C can be an effective clinical modality against cancer (RECNAC II, March 2000, and National Institutes of Health (NIH), September 2005).

Intravenous vitamin C therapy has been a cornerstone of research at The Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning International (CIHFI), http://www.brightspot.org . Dr. Michael J. Gonzalez, RECNAC II Director, stated, "This is our second publication involving human subjects showing the safety and utility of intravenous vitamin C. We are very happy with the results. We envision the use of vitamin C as part of the conventional treatment of cancer in the near future. This historic study brings Dr. Hugh Riordan's ideas and research to a full circle; it validates his work for the past thirty years."

The study was funded by the Lincoln Family Foundation and conducted collaboratively by the University of Nebraska, The University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus, and The Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning International in Wichita, KS (CIHFI). CIHFI, a non-profit 501 (c) (3) organization, was founded by Hugh Riordan, M.D., in 1975 and has four divisions: clinical, research, education, and laboratory.

Every year at least 1.4 million cases of cancer will be diagnosed. Many current cancer therapies, including chemotherapy and radiation, can cause undesirable side effects and complications. "The Hippocratic Oath that expresses the idea to 'first, do no harm' is not only a part of our treatment plan for patients, but also drives our research projects," stated Ron Hunninghake, M.D., Chief Medical Officer.

SOURCE Bio-Communications Research Institute

Good to see some sense from a study for a change. This is quite good news for many people, especially anyone considering cancer treatment options.

What the bloody hell is wrong with the Brits?

Goodness me, what a provocative headline!

Do you know what all the fuss is about? It turns out that a very good video advertisement made for Tourism Australia to be shown in the UK to promote tourism has offended the British. Or, offended their regulators, to be more precise.

What a hoot hey? How fantastic! We've offended the poor Brits by sending them one of their own favourite phrases. And it's said we're a weird mob!

I honestly don't think the add is in any way offensive. It manages to showcase Australia effectively as a great holiday destination. If you're in need of a great destination, then come on down.

I recommend you take a look at the offending video online and judge for yourself. You can find it at Australia.com. Be warned though, the shock that's caused this grave international incident is the very last phrase uttered.

It certainly has caused a stirr. It's all a bit of a giggle really, at the British regulator's expense. However, their intransigence on the issue has prompted the Australian Minister for Tourism to fly to the U.K. to see if they might be persuaded to reconsider. Otherwise, it will be very much at the expense of the Aussie tourism industry.

The added publicity caused by the ban has resulted in a huge increase in the number of hits on the website mentioned above, so you may find it loads a bit slowly. Do persist though, it's well worth it.

Well, I hope blogger.com doesn't follow the Brits and ban this post !!

Advances in Asthma Research

Several advances in understanding asthma were presented on March 4th at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) in Miami Beach. Here are some highlights.

Role of vitamin D during pregnancy

Pregnant women who have a higher intake of vitamin D may decrease the risk for asthma in their offspring during early childhood, according to new research presented by Carlos Camargo Jr., MD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, and colleagues

The study noted vitamin D deficiency and asthma are common in the northeastern part of the United States and although vitamin D is important for the immune system, its affect on asthma was unknown.

Information was gathered from Project Viva participants and tracked how much vitamin D mothers had during pregnancy, and found that an increase in vitamin D was associated with a lower childhood risk of wheezing or doctor- diagnosed asthma. The study noted follow-up would be needed to see if the lower risk continued as the children grew older.

Maternal asthma is a risk factor for prematurity and low birth weight

Maternal asthma is a risk factor for prematurity and low birth weight, according to new research presented by Joel J. Liem, MD, and colleagues from the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, who used information from the Manitoba Health Services Insurance Plan, a health care and prescription database which has records of every child born in the province of Manitoba, and that of their mothers, to conduct the research. Mothers diagnosed with asthma between 1990-1995 or at least one prescription of asthma medication in 1995 were studied.

There were 13,980 children born in 1995, with 10.4% of the mothers suffering from maternal asthma. The research showed that mothers who suffered from asthma were more likely (2.77 times on average) to have a baby born at less than 28 weeks gestation, and 3.04 times more likely to have a baby born at less than 32 weeks gestation than a non asthmatic mother.

Early life exposure to maternal stress associated with asthma

Exposure to maternal stress early in life can lead to the development of asthma, according to research presented by Anita L. Kozyrskyj, PhD, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, and colleagues, who used Manitoba's health care database records to determine which children had developed asthma by 7 years old on the basis of health care visits for asthma or prescriptions for asthma prescription drugs. Maternal stress was defined as physician visits for depression and anxiety, or antidepressant prescriptions.

Analyses of the children took place at 1, 4, and 7 years of age. Of the 13,980 children born in Manitoba in 1995, 19% were exposed to maternal stress during the first year of life. This exposure to stress increased the likelihood of asthma, according to the study. Eleven percent of the children were re-exposed to maternal stress by age 7 and 8% were re-exposed at age 4 and 7 years. Re-exposure to maternal stress by age 7 increased the likelihood of asthma, and the risk increased with repeated exposure to maternal stress, concluded the study.

Measuring children's asthma medication adherence continues to be difficult

Accurately recording if children take their asthma medication is an ongoing challenge, according to a new study presented by Bruce Bender, MD, National Jewish Medical and Research Center, Denver, CO, and colleagues who used 3 different methods to observe adherence over 4 months in 131 asthmatic children requiring daily medication. One in 4 children used less than 25% of their medication, and 58% used less than half. Each of the 3 ways to measure if the children were taking their medications produced different challenges and errors, according to the study.

The study concluded that poor medication adherence in this study group establishes once again that non-adherence remains a major barrier to successful treatment, and also added there isn't a definitive way to measure adherence.

Intermittent asthma accounts for a substantial portion of asthma-related emergency department visits

Patients with intermittent asthma account for a substantial portion of asthma-related emergency department visits, according to findings presented by Robert T. Hsu, MD, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, and colleagues who analyzed pharmacy and diagnostic coding records from 202 adults ages 19 to 85 that were treated for asthma in the emergency department from April-July 2002.

Subjects were classified by asthma severity based on 2001- 2002 pharmacy records and emergency department visits for asthma. The study concluded that of 180 total visits for asthma, 48% occurred in patients with intermittent asthma (less than 4 asthma prescriptions in the past year). In addition, when the sub-group was analyzed, 40% of the patients needed no medications and 36% of the patients had required neither controller nor reliever medications in the year before the emergency department visit.

The AAAAI is the largest professional medical specialty organization in the United States representing allergists, asthma specialists, clinical immunologists, allied health professionals and others with special interest in the research and treatment of allergic disease.

Allergy/immunology specialists are pediatric or internal medicine physicians who have elected an additional two years of training to become specialized in the treatment of asthma, allergy and immunologic disease. Established in 1943, the AAAAI has more than 6,300 members in the United States, Canada and 60 other countries. The AAAAI serves as an advocate for the public by providing educational information through its Web site http://www.aaaai.org/ , and its Physician Referral and Information Line at (800) 822-2762.

Kids Use Alternative Medicine - Regular Doctors Still Don't Communicate Well

Two studies published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood highlight two significant observations. The first is that quite large numbers of children are consumers of complementary or alternative medicine (CAM). The second highlights the perennial issue of communication between doctors and their patients.

Indeed both studies found that parents and their children were unlikely to discuss CAM use with their doctors. It is true that communication is the responsibility of all parties concerned but it seems reasonable that prime responsibility rests with the professional whose performance competency is contingent on truely successful communication.

One study explored the use of CAM by children seen at pediatric hospitals in Cardiff , Wales, U.K. and Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dr. Colin V. E. Powell, from University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff and his associates interviewed approximately 500 children and their parents attending a major specialist hospital in Cardiff and also in Melbourne. They found CAM was used by 41 per cent of patients in Cardiff and 51 per cent in Melbourne.

Powell and his team found that Cardiff patients were less likely to use specific medicinal CAM, such as vitamins and minerals, herbs, or naturopathy, as well as non-medicinal CAM, such as chiropractic and therapeutic massage. Significantly, only about one third of patients or their parents reported CAM use to their doctors.

A different study by Dr. L. J. McCann from University College London and Dr. S. J. Newell from St. James's University Hospital in Leeds found that children with chronic diseases were three times more likely to use CAM than healthy children. The researchers interviewed parents of 25 children with cerebral palsy, 25 with inflammatory bowel disease, 25 with cancer, and 25 healthy "controls" regarding CAM use.

They found that children with chronic illnesses were significantly more likely to use CAM than their healthy counterparts -- 40 per cent versus 12 per cent. The sick children were also more likely to use complementary medications (21 per cent versus 4 per cent) -- primarily Echinacea, and herbal and Chinese remedies. They also observed that 55 per cent of parents whose children were using CAM had not discussed the issue with their doctor.

Alexa Ranking Update for 6 March 2006

Well I finally have something to add to this ongoing tracking report. It turns out that the Blogger people have begun to tackle the spam problem in a more aggressive way. Aggressive, I hasten to point out, in the best possible way.

They have developed a blogger scanning algorithm that detects patterns in blog posts that tend to be associated with blog spam. That's a jolly good idea in my opinion. It is very good news that they are taking the battle right up to the spammers.

Actually, I recall being critical of them on this very point quite some time ago when I suggested that Google had mixed motives when it comes to spammers who promote Adsense. I expect they have been trying to come up with suitable spammer blocking approaches all along. After all, not all spammers promote Adsense.

Anyhow, Woffling On was flagged by the new anti-spam algorithm as a blog that portrayed spam attributes. I was shocked until I read the Blogger explanation. Then I understood what had happened. It is these regular tracking updates that had caused the problem.

Evidently the scanning algorithm found these updates as boring as I do! To the algorithm they are just repetitive posts of the same links to sites. In truth, they could easily be seen as just that. I felt quite uncomfortable, as though I had been doing something naughty.

However, there is a reason for these regular posts, as anyone silly enough (sorry ;-0) to read them knows. I am tracking the rise and fall of my little empire of health sites. It is rather repetitive and they do indeed always point to the same sites, naturally. So, what am I to do?

As it turns out, I requested a review by Blogger - by a human reviewer that is - and waited to see what would happen. Would I be labelled a spammer? It was entirely possible I thought, and though I would have felt it was totally untrue, I would have at least known that it was these updates that had been my undoing.

Fortunately, the review happened quite quickly and I was deemed acceptable. The poor reviewer who had to read my posts! So I have been "whitelisted" and am not required to enter a special text code to make every post (not that this would have bothered me since I do already log in manually to make every post anyway). It is indeed reassuring to know that I'm doing nothing wrong in posting the Alexa ranking saga.

However, this does seem like a good point to at least pause. After this update today I will cut the posts back to, say, monthly, or something like that. I can always post an immediate update if there are any major ranking changes.

So here we go, an update for today and probably the last one for March.

www.The-Health-Gazette.com moved up from: 84,307 to: 81,071 (59,117)

www.Healthy-Vitamin-Choice.com moved up from: 135,008 to: 132,428 (75,943)

www.Herb-Health-Guide.com moved up from: 143,626 to: 141,589 (78,462)

www.Education4Skills.com moved up from: 156,504 to: 151,269 (150,120)

www.HealthProductsSite.com moved up from: 149,290 to: 146,656 (105,672)

www.HealthArticleBank.com moved up from: 212,731 to: 170,208*

* indicates a new highest high
( ) indicates highest high to date

Well, at least I am pausing with a positive update. Stay well...

Planning For Food Safety - FDA Being Constructive

Well this makes twice in quick succession that the FDA has come out with something I can support for a change. It may seem a tad bureaucratic, but it is actually quite practical, especially given the nature of the modern world. Now they have joined forces with a virtual alphabet salad to help produce a "Model Food Emergency Response Plan". Yes, really...

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in cooperation with the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced the availability of a model Food Emergency Response Plan Template. The goal of the response plan is to enhance the protection of the nation's agricultural industry and food security through prevention, detection, response, and recovery.

The template provides states with a guide to develop either a stand-alone emergency response plan for responding to a food-related emergency or an addendum to an existing all-hazard state emergency response plan. Useful planning tools include documents previously developed in cooperation with the DHS - national planning scenarios, target capabilities, and uniform task lists.

"FDA remains vigilant in its mission to protect our country's food supply and continues to maintain collaborative partnerships with our federal and state partners by planning for, monitoring and reacting to any potential threats," said Dr. Robert E. Brackett, Director of FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. "By collaborating more closely with our partners involved in food safety and security, we will better leverage all of the available resources to be better prepared for any food emergency
incident."

Because a food emergency could occur at any point from farm to fork, including pre-harvest production, processing, and distribution, states can use the template to develop useful plans to manage a food emergency. In addition, states can establish a uniform structure and content that will result in response plans that are similar in structure, scope, and response operations among all states.

A food-related emergency involves the unintentional or deliberate contamination, threatened or actual, of food that impacts or may impact human health. A food emergency response plan does not apply to food incidents routinely handled by local or state health departments.

The response plan includes the following:

• Concept of Operations - establishes the framework for actions (i.e., specific functions of a response) that will take place during an incident response.

• Activation Levels - establish activation levels that provide decision makers with definitions of various degrees of an emergency.

• Principal Parties - identification of all agencies, organizations and individuals (principal parties) needed to carry out the response.

• Roles and Responsibilities for State, Federal, Tribal, and local agencies and the private sector.

The response plan was developed through a federal-state cooperative agreement and in consultation with a consortium of stakeholders. Federal representatives included USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). State representatives included the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), and the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO).

The Food Emergency Response Plan Template is available on the NASDA web site as a PDF document.

Something Useful from the FDA on Fruits and Vegetables

To minimize microbial food safety hazards common to the processing of most fresh-cut fruits and vegetables sold to consumers in a ready-to-eat form, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today published a draft guidance document for producers of fresh-cut produce entitled "Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables."

"Fresh cut produce is the fastest growing sector of the fresh produce industry. This document should help to improve safety by providing clearer guidance on how to reduce health hazards that are potentially introduced during the production process," said Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach.

Processing produce into fresh-cut produce increases the risk of bacterial contamination and growth by breaking the natural exterior barrier of the produce by peeling, slicing, coring, trimming, or mashing with or without washing or other treatment before being packaged for consumption. Examples of fresh-cut products are shredded lettuce, sliced tomatoes, salad mixes (raw vegetable salads), peeled baby carrots, broccoli florets, cauliflower florets, cut celery stalks, shredded cabbage, cut melons, sliced pineapple, and sectioned grapefruit.

This draft guidance discusses the production and harvesting of fresh produce and provides recommendations for fresh-cut processing in several areas-- (1) personnel health and hygiene, (2) training, (3) building and equipment, (4) sanitation operations, and (5) fresh-cut produce production and processing controls from product specification to packaging, storage and transport. The final chapters provide recommendations on recordkeeping and on recalls and tracebacks. The guide complements FDA's Current Good Manufacturing Practices regulations by providing specific guidance on the processing of fresh-cut produce.

In the draft guidance, FDA recommends that processors encourage the adoption of safe practices by their partners throughout the supply chain, including produce growers, packers, distributors, transporters, importers, exporters, retailers, food service operators, and consumers, to ensure that the processor's efforts will be enhanced. These practices include:

*Establishing a company policy that employees report any active case of illness to supervisors before beginning work and training;
*Training supervisors to recognize typical signs/symptoms of infectious disease; maintain the proper first aid to protect and cover any wound; and not allow an employee to work with any aspect of fresh or fresh-cut produce, processing equipment or tools until the wound has healed and/or the infectious disease has been treated.

The guidance also recommends that fresh-cut processors consider a preventive control program such as the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system to build safety into the processing operations for fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. HACCP is a prevention-based food safety system designed to prevent, eliminate, or reduce to acceptable levels the microbial, chemical, and physical hazards associated with food production.

FDA believes awareness of the common risk factors discussed in this guidance and implementation of preventive controls determined by a firm to be appropriate to its individual operations will enhance the safety of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables.

Consumers can reduce their risk of illness from fresh-cut produce by following safe handling practices such as refrigerating the product after purchase; using only clean hands, utensils or dishes in preparing the product; and discarding the product when the "use by" date has expired. More information on safe handling practices of produce can be found at
http://portal.fightbac.org/pfse/toolsyoucanuse/phec/.

Written comments on the draft guidance may be submitted up to 60 days from the date it is published. Comments should be sent to FDA's Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, Md. 20852.

The draft guidance is accessible on the FDA Website at:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/guidance.html.

It's good to see something positive and useful from the FDA for a change.