SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: mistermj who wrote (4855)11/16/2006 10:38:50 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087
 
What ever happened to Aging with dignity...

================================================

Updated: 03:03 AM EST

AMA Calls for Regulation of 'Bioidenticals'
Compounds Similar to Human Hormones Touted as Anti-Aging Treatment
By LINDSEY TANNER, AP


Michael Buckner, Getty ImagesActress and fitness guru Suzanne Somers, seen here in Beverly Hills on Oct. 28, promotes bioidentical hormones in a best-selling book.

CHICAGO (Nov. 16) - The American Medical Association has stepped into the controversy over alternative hormone treatments for aging that Suzanne Somers advocates in a hot new book.

The nation's largest doctors' group voted this week to seek stricter Food and Drug Administration oversight and regulation of these so-called "bioidentical" hormone compounds.

Some of the treatments are promoted as alternatives to estrogen and progestin supplements once widely used for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Somers' new book, "Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones" on national best-seller lists, maintains that these treatments also can reverse the aging process and keep people mentally sharp, physically fit and sexually active.

Some doctors who were quoted in "Ageless" say the book overpromises anti-aging benefits from these products and wrote a letter of complaint last month to the book's publisher.

The actress-fitness guru could not immediately be reached for comment, but she has defended the book and was scheduled to square off against her critics Wednesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

Landmark government research linking conventional hormone pills with health risks led many women to quit taking them.

But there's no evidence that bioidenticals are any safer and they may even have other risks, Dr. Robert Vigersky, a member of the Endocrine Society delegation to the AMA, said Wednesday. The society represents doctors who specialize in hormone-related disorders.

"This is a safety issue, there's no question about it," said Dr. Ardis Hoven, an AMA board member.

The products, sometimes called "natural" hormones, are compounds that have the same chemical and molecular structure as hormones that are produced in the human body. They are custom-mixed by special pharmacies according to a doctor's prescription.

Promoters say they are plant-based, but Vigersky said some contain synthetic products and their exact ingredients aren't always known because they are not FDA-approved.

"We think that people are being misled into thinking that they are safer and we're worried that they may be inappropriately prescribed," said Vigersky, an endocrinologist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He said he has no financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that produce hormone pills.

The AMA adopted the new policy at its interim meeting Monday in Las Vegas. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which makes conventional hormone pills, requested similar scrutiny in an FDA petition earlier.

The AMA will urge the FDA to assess the purity of ingredients in the alternative compounds, evaluate any side effects and require manufacturers and compounding pharmacies to report any adverse events.

The doctors group also endorses creation of a registry of adverse events linked to bioidenticals, along with standard patient safety information on the product packaging.

While the custom compounds are not FDA-approved, the agency has regulatory authority over them because they are considered drugs. An FDA spokesman said the agency shares the AMA's concerns about potentially misleading claims and is paying close attention to the issue.

Dr. Erika Schwartz, a New York physician who objects to the wide-ranging claims in Somers' book, nevertheless criticized the AMA for taking the side of the pharmaceutical industry.

Schwartz said that while she shares the AMA's general concerns about safety, there's no evidence that the hormone compounds are not safe.

"I don't believe in overpromising," Schwartz said. "I believe hormones are only part of the anti-aging process. If you want to stay young and healthy, you need to eat right, to exercise, to deal with stress, to sleep," she said. "The hormones are one other option."



To: mistermj who wrote (4855)11/16/2006 4:29:15 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10087
 
They're going to build an atmospheric sheild

=================================================

Scientists Say Pollution May Be Helpful

By CHARLES J. HANLEY
AP Special Correspondent

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate. The reaction here at the U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such "massive and drastic" operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.

The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself "not enthusiastic about it."

"It was meant to startle the policy makers," said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this."

Serious people are taking Crutzen's idea seriously. This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off climate change.

In Nairobi, meanwhile, hundreds of delegates were wrapping up a two-week conference expected to only slowly advance efforts to rein in greenhouse gases blamed for much of the 1-degree rise in global temperatures in the past century.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol requires modest emission cutbacks by industrial countries - but not the United States, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, because it rejected the deal. Talks on what to do after Kyoto expires in 2012 are all but bogged down.

When he published his proposal in the journal Climatic Change in August, Crutzen cited a "grossly disappointing international political response" to warming.

The Dutch climatologist, awarded a 1995 Nobel in chemistry for his work uncovering the threat to Earth's atmospheric ozone layer, suggested that balloons bearing heavy guns be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the stratosphere.

While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.

Tom Wigley, a senior U.S. government climatologist, followed Crutzen's article with a paper of his own on Oct. 20 in the leading U.S. journal Science. Like Crutzen, Wigley cited the precedent of the huge volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.

Pinatubo shot so much sulfurous debris into the stratosphere that it is believed it cooled the Earth by .9 degrees for about a year.

Wigley ran scenarios of stratospheric sulfate injection - on the scale of Pinatubo's estimated 10 million tons of sulfur - through supercomputer models of the climate, and reported that Crutzen's idea would, indeed, seem to work. Even half that amount per year would help, he wrote.

A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain.

Wigley said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels - the main source of greenhouse gases. He said experts must more closely study the feasibility of the idea and its possible effects on stratospheric chemistry.

Nairobi conference participants agreed.

"Yes, by all means, do all the research," Indian climatologist Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the 2,000-scientist U.N. network on climate change, told The Associated Press.

But "if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects," Pachauri said.

Philip Clapp, a veteran campaigner for emissions controls to curb warming, also sounded a nervous note, saying, "We are already engaged in an uncontrolled experiment by injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

But Clapp, president of the U.S. group National Environmental Trust, said, "I certainly don't disagree with the urgency."

In past years scientists have scoffed at the idea of air pollution as a solution for global warming, saying that the kind of sulfate haze that would be needed is deadly to people. Last month, the World Heath Organization said air pollution kills about 2 million people worldwide each year and that reducing large soot-like particles from sulfates in cities could save 300,000 lives annually.

American geophysicist Jonathan Pershing, of Washington's World Resources Institute, is among those wary of unforeseen consequences, but said the idea might be worth considering "if down the road 25 years, it becomes more and more severe because we didn't deal with the problem."

By telephone from Germany, Crutzen said that's what he envisioned: global haze as a component for long-range planning. "The reception on the whole is more positive than I thought," he said.

Pershing added, however, that reaction may hinge on who pushes the idea. "If it's the U.S., it might be perceived as an effort to avoid the problem," he said.

NASA said this weekend's conference will examine "methods to ameliorate the likelihood of progressively rising temperatures over the next decades." Other such U.S. government-sponsored events are scheduled to follow.