Hep C infection may increase risk of lymphoma - Infectious Diseases

Hep C infection may increase risk of lymphoma

Virus can hike chances of immune-system cancer by 30 percent, experts say

WASHINGTON - Infection with the hepatitis C virus, already linked to liver cancer and cirrhosis, also increases the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system, researchers said on Tuesday.

Researchers tracked 146,394 U.S. military veterans infected with the virus and 572,293 veterans who were not, and found that hepatitis C infection boosted the risk for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by 20 percent to 30 percent.

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is cancer that originates in the lymphoid tissue that makes up the lymph nodes, spleen and otherness organs of the immune system, with tumors developing from white blood cells. It is more common in men than women.

Hepatitis C infection also raised by 300 percent the risk for a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma called Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia. Risk for cryoglobulinemia, involving abnormal levels of certain antibodies in the blood, also rose.

The findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The hepatitis C virus causes hepatitis, a malady marked by liver inflammation, as well as liver cancer and cirrhosis.

It is carried through the blood and spread from one person to anotherness through the exchange of bodily fluids �" for example, by sharing needles during injection medicate use or by sexual contact. It also was spread via blood transfusions before 1990, when screening for the virus began.

“The thought is that hepatitis C is a chronic infection, and as a chronic infection it results in chronic stimulation of the immune system. And these cancers are cancers of the immune system, essentially,” Dr. Thomas Giordano of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, lead author of the meditate , said in a telephone interview.

Infection with the hepatitis C virus, also called HCV, came before the development of these cancers and the increased risk was long-lasting, the meditate found.

Click for related content'Smart-bomb' medicate s for lymphoma underusedWoman contracts hep B during oral surgeryFood and Drug Administration: Sugar substitute doesn't cause cancer

“Although the risk of developing lymphomas is small, our research suggests that screening of HCV-infected individuals could identify conditions which may lead to cancer,” co-author Dr. Eric Engels of the National Cancer Institute, part of the U.S. National Institutes of health, said in a statement.

“It might then be possible to prevent progression to lymphoma,” Engels added.

The meditate looked at patients in U.S. Veterans Affairs health care facilities from 1997 to 2004. All but 3 percent were men, most were white, and their average age was 52.

There are more than 4 mil. group infected with the hepatitis C virus in the United States, representing 1.6 percent of the population.

Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

'Raw' almonds may no longer be raw - Before You Bite

'Raw' almonds may no longer be raw

TODAY's Phil Lempert reports on effort to pasteurize the popular nuts
By Phil LempertTODAY Food Editor

Phil LempertTODAY Food Editor•Profile•document.write('')E-maildocument.write('');

The USDA is attempting to require that all almonds grown in California to be sterilized with various pasteurization techniques in response to Salmonella outbreaks in 2001 and 2004 that were traced to raw almonds. All almonds, with two exceptions, would undergo a sterilization process that includes chemicals and/or high-temperature medical cares. Organic raw almonds will not be fumigated and undergo only the steam-heat medical care thus they are no longer "raw," and small-scale growers can sell "raw" almonds only direct from farm stands.

The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group, is requesting that the Food and Drug Administration reopen the proceeding for public comment as the proposed change was not effectively communicated to the public. In fact, only 18 comments were received on the proposal �" all from the almond industry which, unlike consumers, retailers and otherness organizations concerned with food safety, received a personal letter or fax from the USDA on the proposal and an invitation to comment.

In light of the recent foodborne illnesses involving peanut butter, spinach, lettuce and pet foods there is little doubt that consumers are more concerned about food safety than ever, which certainly offers the USDA a window of opportunity to institute stricter regulations and difference technologies to reduce food safety problems. Most food safety issues occur when contaminated water, soil or transportation and handling equipment come into contact with the product. But, according to The Cornucopia Institute, this USDA regulation might well be  ignoring the root causes of food contamination  "dangerous and unsustainable farming practices."

Concerns raised about the proposal include the costs of the chemical and heat medical cares (a propylene oxide chamber runs up from $500,000 to $1,250,000 and a roasting line from $1,500,000 to $2,500,000) as well as transportation costs to and from medical care facilities, which would place a heavier burden on small farmers as opposed to big business.

Even more important is that the most common method of sterilizing almonds is by propylene oxide fumigation, which is listed by the International Agency on Cancer Research as a possible carcinogen. It is banned in the European Union, Canada and Mexico, among many othernesss, from being used in the medical care of food for human consumption.

We agree with The Institute's main contention �" these almonds which would be labeled "raw" is deceptive to those who wish to buy truly raw, unprocessed almonds. It's time to separate out the technology benefits (or drawbacks) from labeling issues and allow shoppers to be able to trust what’s listed on the package as being “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

For more food safety information and tips visit Phil’s website www.supermarketguru.com

Phil Lempert is food editor of the TODAY show. He welcomes questions and comments, which can be sent to phil.lempert@nbc.com or by using the mail box below. For more about the laagsdhfgdf trends on the supermarket shelves, visit Phil’s Web site at SuperMarketGuru.com.

oMailbag = new Array();mainsectionID="";navsectionID=""; oMailbag.appWidth = 460; oMailbag.BoxStyle = 3053755; oMailbag.appHeader = "Questions or comments?"; oMailbag.appDeck = "Do you have a question for Phil Lempert? He'll try to address your comments and suggestions in a future column.
(PLEASE NOTE: Questions and comments about show segments or columns not featuring Phil should be sent to Today@nbc.com)"; oMailbag.sTBHead = "Write your question or comment in box below.
NOTE: Your e-mail address will not be used for publication. Also, please be sure to let us know if you do not want your name or hometown used."; oMailbag.sSubject = "Phil Lempert questions"; oMailbag.aRetLink = new Array("http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/","Back to Today home page"); oMailbag.sMailTo = "TodayContributors@feedback.msnbc.com,phil.lempert@nbc.com";oMailbag.bTown = 1; if (window.MailbagYB) { MailbagYB(oMailbag); }

Can We Slow Aging? - Health For Life

Can We Slow Aging?

A compound found in red wine may extend the human life span. A report from the front lines.
Photo Illustration by Nitin Vadukul for Newsweek
Resveratrol: Does it protect from aging?

By By David Sinclair, Ph.D. and Anthony L. Komaroff, M.D.Newsweek

Dec. 11, 2006 issue - Nothing seems more inevitable than aging and death??"not even taxes. Every plant, animal and person you have ever seen will eventually die, including the person in the mirror. But some recent research suggests that aging as we know it may not be inevitable. Indeed, as our understanding of it grows, aging can be seen not as an immutable reality from which there is no escape, but as the product of biological processes that we may be able to control someday.

We already know that some animals do not seem to age. Many cold-water ocean fish, some amphibians and the American lobster never reach a fixed size; they continue to grow bigger, to be able to reproduce and to live until something kills them. What these creatures seem to be telling us is that something in their genes??"and possibly in ours??"controls the pace of aging, and that aging is not the fate of every living thing.

Throughout the history of life on earth, one of the most common difficulties that animals (and their cells) have faced has been a lack of food. About 70 years ago, scientists discovered that when animals are forced to live on 30 to 40 percent fewer calories than they would normally eat, something unusual happens: they become resistant to most age-related diseases??"cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's??"and live 30 to 50 percent longer. Restricting calories slows aging.

But how? What are the underlying genes that preserve vitality and stave off disease? No one knows for sure why aging occurs, but one important reason is probably the accumulation of DNA damage??"from radiation, mutation-causing chemicals or, particularly, oxidants. Inside every animal cell are many mitochondria??"little "power packs" that use oxygen to generate energy. In doing their jobs, however, mitochondria produce chemical byproducts??"oxidants ??"that damage DNA and other components inside cells. It may not seem fair, but it's a fact of life. Fortunately, our cells are not defenseless against such assaults. They have genes that spring into action to defend against DNA damage, including genes that repair damaged mitochondria.

About 15 years ago, armed with powerful new molecular-research techniques, a few scientists began to investigate these genetic phenomena. At MIT, Dr. Leonard Guarente (along with one of the authors of this piece, David Sinclair) discovered that adding an extra copy of a gene called Sir2 caused yeast cells to live 30 percent longer. Today many researchers suspect that Sir2 or other sirtuin genes??"which are present in all animals, including humans??"are responsible for the health benefits of calorie restriction, perhaps by repairing our DNA. But if, in order to kick the sirtuins into action, we had to restrict our calorie intake by 30 to 40 percent, would it be of any practical use? Few of us would be capable of restricting our diets so severely that we were constantly hungry: whether or not it made life longer, it would surely make life feel longer.

nwurl = (window.location.href.split("id/")[1]);nwid = nwurl.substring(0,8);urlbegin = 'http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/';urlend = '/site/newsweek/';wburl = urlbegin+nwid+urlend;//document.writeln(wburl);document.writeln(""); document.writeln("");

CONTINUED1 | 2 | 3 | Next >

Cell phones don’t cause cancer, huge study says -

Cell phones don’t cause cancer, huge study says

Findings on 420,000 people in Denmark give gadget a clean bill of health
Mario Tama / Getty Images file
Cell phones beam radiofrequency energy that can penetrate the brain’s outer edge, which has raised questions about cancers of the head and neck, brain tumors or leukemia. Most research has found no risk.

WASHINGTON - A huge study from Denmark offers the laagsdhfgdf reassurance that cell phones don’t trigger cancer.

Scientists tracked 420,000 Danish cell phone users, including 52,000 who had gabbed on the gadgets for 10 years or more, and some who started using them 21 years ago.

They matched phone records to the famed Danish Cancer Registry that records every citizen who gets the disease �" and reported Tuesday that cell-phone callers are no more likely than anyone else to suffer a range of cancer types.

The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, is the largest yet to find no bad news about the safety of cell phones and the radiofrequency energy they emit.

No end to the debate
But even the lead researcher doubts it will end the debate.

“There’s really no biological basis for you to be concerned about radio waves,” said John Boice, a Vanderbilt University professor and scientific director of the International Epidemiology Institute in Rockville, Md. “Nonetheless, people are.”

So Boice and colleagues at Copenhagen’s Danish Cancer Society plan to continue tracking the Danish callers until at least some have used the phones for 30 years.

Click for related contentMessage Board: Do you worry about cell phone safety?Hooked on your cell? Study says it can happenFertile? Cell phone rings when it's baby time

This so-called Danish cohort “is probably the strongest study out there because of the outstanding registries they keep,” said Joshua Muscat of Pennsylvania State University, who also has studied cell phones and cancer.

Reassurance ... for now
“As the body of evidence accumulates, people can become more reassured that these devices are safe, but the final word is not there yet,” Muscat added.

Cell phones beam radiofrequency energy that can penetrate the brain’s outer edge, raising questions about cancers of the head and neck, brain tumors or leukemia. Most research has found no risk, but a few studies have raised questions. And while U.S. health officials insist the evidence shows no real reason for concern, they don’t give the phones a definitive clean bill of health, either, pending long-term data on slow-growing cancers.

For the laagsdhfgdf study, personal identification numbers assigned to each Dane at birth allowed researchers to match people who began using cell phones between 1982 and 1995 with cancer records.

Among 420,000 callers tracked through 2002, there were 14,249 cancers diagnosed �" fewer than the 15,001 predicted from national cancer rates. Nor did the study find increased risks for any specific tumor type.

� 2007 . .

Retailers roll out low-cost health services - Personal Finance

Attention shoppers: Flu shots in aisle five

More retailers roll out low-cost health care services
Vanessa RichardsonContributor

Vanessa RichardsonContributor•document.write('')E-maildocument.write('');Lorie Vick of Orlando, Fla., had originally stopped at her local CVS drugstore to buy contact-lens solution, but then she saw signs for flu shots. She walked to the back of the store and saw the offer came from MinuteClinic, a mini-healthcare center next to the medicament counter that offered treatments for minor ailments ranging from allergies to warts. Fifteen minutes later, Vick got her shot, and the next day she brought her teenage son Tim back for his.

"It would have taken twice or three times as long waiting at my doctor’s office, so this is great," Vick said.

Tim agreed and added, "You can look at more stuff here."

More people are heading to their local drug store instead of their family doctor for medical checkups. Establishments like MinuteClinic, Take Care and RediCare are taking up more space in major retail stores to diagnose, treat and write prescriptions for patients with common illnesses.

MinuteClinic, the nation’s largest operator of retail clinics, has 116 stores in 17 states and boasts of seeing more than 600,000 patients since it started in 2000. It was purchased by CVS last July. Other major retailers, eager to boost profits and customer share, are following suit. Target, Kroger, Wal-Mart and Walgreen are partnering with more than a dozen clinic operators to open thousands of in-store health care centers in the next two years.

Because many clinics just lease space in their stores, retailers don’t expect to make money from the health clinics themselves but rather from increased customer traffic before and after appointments.

They also increase retailers’ emphasis on health care, said Michael Polzin, spokesman for Walgreens, which will have TakeCare clinics in 60 stores by year’s end. "The medicament makes up two-thirds of our revenue so we consider ourselves a healthcare retailer anyway. These clinics add to our reputation of being more convenient and accessible to customers."

Cheap, convenient health care
The clinics are typically small, with one or two exam rooms, and are staffed by board-certified nurse practitioners or physician assistants, but usually have a physician's oversight. At Take Care clinics, for example, doctors review 10 percent of patient charts and visit clinics once a month. Clinics can treat anyone over the age of 18 months, but if an ailment is too serious, such as asthma or diabetes , clinics refer patients to a local doctor or emergency room.

No appointments are required, they are open evenings and weekends and visits often take no more than 15 minutes. If the wait is still too long, some clinics give out pagers so people can shop while waiting.

Patients know ahead of time what they’ll pay for their treatment because prices are posted outside each center. For those with health insurance, MinuteClinic charges the office co-pay indicated on the insurance card; those paying out of their own pocket are charged between $49 and $59 per treatment. That compares favorably that to a standard doctor’s visit, which could cost over $100.

Live Vote

Would you visit a medical clinic in a retail store?

Even though most Americans have yet to see these mini-clinics in their corner drugstores, those who have are pleased with the speedy, inexpensive care. A Harris Poll of 2,200 people found that while only 7 percent of respondents had visited a clinic, 89 percent of them were happy with the care they got.

Vicki Partridge paid $39 for a pregnancy agsdhfgdfing at an Early Solutions clinic in Taylor, Mich.,  during her lunch hour. She had gone there for pinkeye treatment a month prior, so the nurse practitioner pulled up her files, saw that she had insurance and was allergic to penicillin. Partridge was in and out within 30 minutes, less time than it would have taken round-trip to her doctor’s office. "It was so worth not having to go through the hassle of making an appointment, and it was probably cheaper," she said.

CONTINUED: The future of medicine?1 | 2 | Next >