Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (4193)	2/3/2008 8:14:50 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The same government that says our diet should be based on grains, plant derived fats (wheteher in normal rancid state, hydrogenated or in trans fat form), foods that have not been part of humans (or our immediate ancestors), the government that subsidises sugar tobocco, says it is ok to irradiate foods, geneticaly modify foods, allows these foods to be sold without proper labels? How about the government that not only allows cloning of animals, it allows product from cloned animals to be sold without being labeled as such? The government that approved mercury - the most poisonous substance - to be used as a preservative for vaccines given to humans in infancy - the most volnurable period of life? The same government that still allows mercury to be used in tooth fillings, slowly poisoning ever person who has them? And how about the latest: Government promoting use of fluorecsent and compact fluorescent lights that high mercury content. As far as government vs. insurance industry promoting "healthy lifestyles", at least the insurance industry knows its limitations, and does not step outside of being a middlemen. That's why I ranked the insurance industry as second from the bottom and government at the bottom as far as making a positive impact. Careful Joe, the folks here want the government to "approve" everything... no regulation at all. Frankly, in almost all the above actions, the government was following the recommendations of the medical community.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (4193)	2/7/2008 4:15:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Diabetes Study Partially Halted After Deaths By GINA KOLATA Published: February 7, 2008 For decades, researchers believed that if people with diabetes lowered their blood sugar to normal levels, they would no longer be at high risk of dying from heart disease. But a major federal study of more than 10,000 middle-aged and older people with Type 2 diabetes has found that lowering blood sugar actually increased their risk of death, researchers reported Wednesday. The researchers announced that they were abruptly halting that part of the study, whose surprising results call into question how the disease, which affects 21 million Americans, should be managed. The study’s investigators emphasized that patients should still consult with their doctors before considering changing their medications. Among the study participants who were randomly assigned to get their blood sugar levels to nearly normal, there were 54 more deaths than in the group whose levels were less rigidly controlled. The patients were in the study for an average of four years when investigators called a halt to the intensive blood sugar lowering and put all of them on the less intense regimen. The results do not mean blood sugar is meaningless. Lowered blood sugar can protect against kidney disease, blindness and amputations, but the findings inject an element of uncertainty into what has been dogma — that the lower the blood sugar the better and that lowering blood sugar levels to normal saves lives. Medical experts were stunned. “It’s confusing and disturbing that this happened,” said Dr. James Dove, president of the American College of Cardiology. “For 50 years, we’ve talked about getting blood sugar very low. Everything in the literature would suggest this is the right thing to do,” he added... nytimes.com