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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (82197)	7/14/2010 8:15:45 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Early Alzheimer’s Screening May Prolong Time Before Dementia By Elizabeth Lopatto July 12 (Bloomberg) -- Screening people for Alzheimer’s disease and treating them early would add a year to the time they spend in less-severe stages of the malady, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. study found. A research model predicted that if a disease-modifying treatment were available, that could enable patients to live in the community one year longer while decreasing time spent in long-term care by almost 5 months, according to results presented today in Honolulu at the International Conference on Alzheimer’s Disease. Companies such as Johnson & Johnson in New Brunswick, New Jersey, New York-based Pfizer Inc. and Bristol-Myers, and Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly & Co. are attempting to develop treatments that may slow the illness. Existing drugs temporarily ease symptoms; there is no cure. “It would be very important if I were told I had a certain amount of time left to live and I could spend 70 percent of that time in a mild state and 30 percent in a severe state,” said David Budd, a director of health-outcomes research at Bristol- Myers. “Frequently you hear people who have loved ones with Alzheimer’s disease saying, ‘I just want Mom to be Mom.’ There isn’t a tremendous life extension but the balance of better time is significant.” Patients on a hypothetical disease-modifying agent lived 4.2 years in mild states of Alzheimer’s, compared with 3.2 years for patients treated with the current standard of care. Average time in the community was 5.4 years for the disease-modifying drug, compared with 4.4 on the current care. Long-Term Care Increasing the time that patients spend with mild disease cuts the need for costly long-term care, according to the study. The researchers modeled the effects of a disease-modifying drug, and the likelihood of patients’ transitioning in disease from pre-dementia, mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe states was based on data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimagining Initiative. The study abstract didn’t specify how effective the treatment would have to be to get the benefit. Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias will afflict 35.6 million people this year, according to a report from Alzheimer’s Disease International, a London-based federation of Alzheimer associations. The number of sufferers may almost double every 20 years, and total 115.4 million in 2050. To contact the reporter on this story: Elizabeth Lopatto in New York at elopatto@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: July 12, 2010 17:30 EDT

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (82197)	7/15/2010 3:27:09 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 89467

Why President Obama loses by winning By JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI \| 7/15/10 6:13 AM EDT The passage of financial reform, just a couple months after the passage of comprehensive health care, should decisively end the narrative that President Obama represents a Jimmy Carter-style case of naïve hope crushed by the inability to master Washington. Yet the mystery remains: Having moved swiftly toward achieving the very policy objectives he promised voters as a candidate, Obama is still widely perceived as flirting with a failed presidency. Eric Alterman, in a column that drew wide notice, wrote in The Nation that most liberals think the president is a “big disappointment.” House Democrats are in near-insurrection after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated the obvious — that the party has a chance of losing the House under Obama’s watch. And independent voters have turned decisively against the man they helped elect 21 months ago — a trend unlikely to be reversed before November. This is an odd reversal of expectations. When he came into office, the assumption even among some Democrats was that he was a dazzling politician and communicator who might prove too unseasoned at governance to win substantive achievements. The reality is the opposite. You can argue over whether Obama’s achievements are good or bad on the merits. But especially after Thursday’s vote you can’t argue that Obama is not getting things done. To the contrary, he has, as promised, covered the uninsured, tightened regulations, started to wind down the war in Iraq and shifted focus and resources to Afghanistan, injected more competition into the education system and edged closer to a big energy bill. The problem is that he and his West Wing turn out to be not especially good at politics, or communications — in other words, largely ineffective at the very things on which their campaign reputation was built. And the promises he made in two years of campaigning turn out to be much less appealing as actual policies. “I tell you, it’s very frustrating that it’s not breaking through, when you look at these things and their scale,” said a top Obama adviser, who spoke on background to offer a candid take on the state of play. “Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had achieved even one of these? Part of it is because we are divided, even on the left…And part of it is the culture of immediate gratification.” But there are many other reasons for Obama’s woes. Based on interviews with officials in the administration and on Capitol Hill, and with Democratic operatives around town, here are a half-dozen reasons why Obama is perceived as failing to win over the public, even though by most conventional measures he is clearly succeeding: The flight of independents Obama sees himself as a different kind of Democrat, one who transcends ideology but is basically a centrist. By some measures, his self-image fits. His war and anti-terrorism policies are remarkably similar to those advocated by the man he blames for most the country’s problems: George W. Bush. He’s butting heads with the teachers unions by enticing states to quit rewarding teachers on tenure instead of merit. On immigration, he stresses border security instead of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Pages1234 » Back to top Read more: politico.com