This morning I was in the gym, half-watching CNN as I did my usual exercises. Mathew Chance, a senior international correspondent based in Moscow, recapped the horrific scene involving explosions at two metro stations at the peak of rush hour. Chance reported that the bombers were both women. Most of the other facts surrounding the tragedy remain uncertain, he said. John Roberts, one of the CNN hosts, asked about any claims of responsibility for the terrorist attacks. “Well, in fact, we had some information earlier today,” Chance responded. “…there had been a claim of responsibility…But that information appears to be incorrect.“
|
|||||
 |
 What the authors tried to do was analyze trends in breast cancer mortality in relation to mammography’s availability in distinct regions of Denmark over several decades. Using Poisson regression, a form of statistical analysis, they looked for a correlation and found none. They concluded that they couldn’t detect a benefit of screening mammograms among Danish women who might benefit (see below). Here’s what I think are the two most serious flaws in this observational study: See more Another Erroneous Report on Breast Cancer Screening by Mammography The program promises to continue “its look deep inside the complicated heart and soul of a functioning addict, a loving wife, mother, and a first-class nurse.” I’m curious but must admit that last year I watched only part of one episode and didn’t return…The program promises to continue “its look deep inside the complicated heart and soul of a functioning addict, a loving wife, mother, and a first-class nurse.” I’m curious but must admit that last year I watched only part of one episode and didn’t return…Today she beckons half-smiling, an aura of pills and syringes above and syringes above her head. Maybe she’s happy about … See more A New Nurse Jackie in Preview  Am I pro– or con– colonoscopy for routine screening, you might wonder. Well, that depends. Am I pro– or con– famous singers and other celebrities extolling the benefits of particular medical interventions? Well, that depends, too. But I’m sure I prefer “Puff the Magic Dragon.” Also “Leaving on a Jet Plane” fills me with imperfect memories of 6th grade. See more Peter Sings Colonoscopy Why I’m enthusiastic — I anticipate that within just a few years, cancer patients might take “medication cocktails” for their tumors, much in the way people living with HIV use drug combinations to fend off infection. Cancer will, in many circumstances now deemed incurable, be managed instead as a chronic disease. If patients can take a drug without a catheter, it might be less costly – there’s no nurse to hire, no catheter to purchase and insert and there’s no billing for an infusion per se. And there’s less cost to the patient in terms of hassle and some untoward effects of IV treatment. With oral drugs (capsules, pills or tablets — anything taken by mouth) there’s no need to go to the doctor’s office or medical center every week or every other week… I first heard about STI-571 (Gleevec, a targeted cancer therapy) from a cab driver in New Orleans in 1999. “Some of the doctors told me there’s a new cure for leukemia,” he mentioned. We were stuck in traffic somewhere between the airport and the now-unforgettable convention center. His prior fare, a group of physicians in town for the American Society of Hematology’s annual meeting, spoke highly of a promising new treatment. It seemed as if he wanted my opinion, to know if it were true. Indeed, Dr. Brian Druker gave a landmark plenary presentation on the effectiveness of STI-571 in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) at the conference. I was aware of the study findings. “Yes,” I said. “There is a new drug for leukemia.” Since then, oncologists’ enthusiasm for targeted therapies – medications designed to fight cancer directly and specifically – has largely held. But the public’s enthusiasm is less apparent. Perhaps that’s because many people are unaware of these new drugs’ potential, or they’re put off by their hefty price tags.  A new report from the “Make our Food Safe” project, based at Georgetown University, makes clear that food-borne illnesses – from bacteria, parasites and a few viruses — are ever-present and costly. The study, authored by Robert Scharff and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, finds that food-borne illnesses tally nearly $152 billion per year. This huge sum includes some subjectively-measured expenses like pain, suffering and missed work. Even without those, the toll registers above $100 billion – it’s a big sum, either way. The main culprits are See more The High Cost of Food-Borne Illness, and Some Steps To Avoid These in Your Home MedlinePlus, a virtual superstore of medical information, is one of the most frequented health-related websites worldwide. The site, co-sponsored by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, is comprehensive and, with some exceptions (see below) relatively free of commercial bias. I find it a useful starting point for almost any health-related search… See more MedlinePlus, Now More Than Ever |
||||
|
Copyright © 2012 Medical Lessons - All Rights Reserved |
|||||