Slashdot Mirror

A different minimally invasive test that is likely to have a larger impact on colon cancer screening in developed countries is described in the latest New England Journal of Medicine

The technique is known as CT colonography and consists of aquiring several hundred CT slices of the abdomen/pelvis then using software to reconstruct the lumen of the colon and fly through it virtual-reality style looking for cancer. The linked study reports that CT colonography in experienced hands is as good as the "gold standard" of colonoscopy, a finding that (if validated in other studies) could mean that hundreds of thousands of people might be able to avoid the scope and get a less invasive CT scan to screen for cancer.

Background Because of a belief that the use of cellular telephones while driving may cause collisions, several countries have restricted their use in motor vehicles, and others are considering such regulations. We used an epidemiologic method, the case-crossover design, to study whether using a cellular telephone while driving increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision.

Methods We studied 699 drivers who had cellular telephones and who were involved in motor vehicle collisions resulting in substantial property damage but no personal injury. Each person's cellular-telephone calls on the day of the collision and during the previous week were analyzed through the use of detailed billing records.

Results A total of 26,798 cellular-telephone calls were made during the 14-month study period. The risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being used (relative risk, 4.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.5). The relative risk was similar for drivers who differed in personal characteristics such as age and driving experience; calls close to the time of the collision were particularly hazardous (relative risk, 4.8 for calls placed within 5 minutes of the collision, as compared with 1.3 for calls placed more than 15 minutes before the collision; P<0.001); and units that allowed the hands to be free (relative risk, 5.9) offered no safety advantage over hand-held units (relative risk, 3.9; P not significant). Thirty-nine percent of the drivers called emergency services after the collision, suggesting that having a cellular telephone may have had advantages in the aftermath of an event.

Conclusions The use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call. Decisions about regulation of such telephones, however, need to take into account the benefits of the technology and the role of individual responsibility.

The placebo effect is great evidence of this.

Maybe. This analysis (might require free registration) came out a couple of years ago and takes a hard look at the clinical proof of the placebo effect. They analyzed 130 other studies and came to this conclusion:

We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects. Although placebos had no significant effects on objective or binary outcomes, they had possible small benefits in studies with continuous subjective outcomes and for the treatment of pain. Outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos.

Whenever I hear the phrase "mind over matter" I think of the phrase "wishful thinking".

Atkins died after falling on ice and hitting his head on his way to work.

the Atkins diet is so restrictive as to be completely unpalatable

You are referring to the Induction phase of the Atkins diet. One needs to stay on on that phase for only two weeks if it seems to be "completely unpalatable." Most people don't find it such since it allows salads and reasonable portions of protein and and fat. (Note: Atkins has you eat only until you are full. He does not have you eat as much as you want. These are two different things for most people.) After the Induction phase, other foods are gradually added back in.

in the long term it is a harmful diet to stay on

There have been no long term studies showing the Atkins Diet is harmful because there have been no long term studies of it. For example, a recent study reported in the May 22, 2003 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that "The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease. Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups. Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets."

A couple of years back, the WHO rated the US health care system as 40th in the world.

A report I heard on CBC radio recently from Harvard University published in the New England Journal of Medicine compared the US and Canadian healthcare systems. You can read the abstract, or Google for the ensuing widespread coverage. The amount that gets spent on administration in the US system is absolutely shocking.

Certainly, type 2 diabetes is a growing epidemic with huge costs for all of us. The best guard against type 2 diabetes is a healthy lifestyle. There was an interesting study a few years ago that used intensive lifestyle modification intervention for people with high risk. Diet and exercise showed big effects on who progressed to type 2 diabetes. Accomplishing such lifestyle changes on a big scale is extremely challenging, though.

After looking, the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study is the one I read about.

As for people who already have type 2 diabetes, I do not know how much such lifestyle interventions can help.

"is this a possible explaination for hermaphrodites? "

No. Most hermaphrodites have DNA for one person - not two distinct cell populations from two separately fertilized eggs.

Actually, yes: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/338/3/ 166, it's just not the *only* explanation.

No, it is not. Like with identical twins (caused by a fissure in the ovum), it is an anomaly. For more information see this page.

Scientists, whether or not they admit it, are guilty of letting their political views cloud their research all the time.

For example, look at the recent editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine. I quote:

"The editors of the Journal will do our part by seeking out highly meritorious manuscripts that describe research using embryonic stem cells. When treatments derived from this technology emerge, we will publish the papers that describe them. As a physician who has cared for patients who suffered and died from conditions that we are currently unable to treat, I hope that this research can progress rapidly.

"It is reasonable to regulate the technology of somatic-cell nuclear transfer, just as we regulate the use of radioisotopes and recombinant DNA, but it is unreasonable to prohibit research using this technology. No matter what Congress decides, such treatments will be developed somewhere in the world. Physicians and scientists in the United States should be at the center of the action, not on the sidelines. We want to be sure that legislative myopia does not blur scientific insight."

What is this but a blatant effort to shape the political debate over stem cell research? What if a breakthough in adult stem cell research happened--would you trust the NEJM to publish the results?

My apologies in advance if this comes across as mean-spirited - I'm using this to summarize my opinions about Atkins and weight loss in general and make it my sig so I can quit repeating myself.

That said, who said I said that high carb diets are the way to go? High carbs = high calories. People consume too many calories, these days from carbohydrates rather than fat.

Personally, I have been following a diet with a low caloric density, which is essentially what dietitians have been preaching for years. Unfortunately, this message somehow got filtered and warped and we now have Snackwell cookies and "no fat" fruit juice (no fat in my oj? well no shit!). Idiots like Susan Powter even said things like "only the fat you eat becomes fat on your body" (not an exact quote). As you say, Americans are fatter than ever. That is because they eat more calories despite eating less fat. Check out this section in the USDA factbook - you'll note that people are eating less fat but are eating more calories (thanks to eating too much refined grains, for example).

Here is an abstract on the longest (that I have heard of) independent study of the Atkins diet. Note that they are only evaluating his weight loss claims, not the other nonsense he published("fatigue, irritability, depression, trouble concentrating, headaches, insomnia, dizziness, joint and muscle aches, heartburn, colitis, premenstrual syndrome, and water retention and bloating"). When I call bullshit, i'm not just talking about the weight loss. If that statement doesn't make your snake-oil detector go nuts, I have a bridge I want to sell you :D

The conclusion of the study is that, in the long term, the Atkins diet is no better than traditional diet methods (high-carb, low-fat). People lost roughly the same amount of weight after 12 months and both studies had high attrition rates.

In fact, the chief researcher of this study (Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania) is quoted as saying the Atkins diet "gives people a framework to eat fewer calories, since most of the choices in this culture are carbohydrate driven." Basically, it's a low cal diet in disguise.

Also, please save your anecdotes. I lost weight by cutting calories, increasing my BMR through weight training, and lots of exercise, but I certainly can't prove that, least of all to you, because for all you know there were other factors I am mis-reporting or I could be simply lying. For all I know you lost much of the weight by taking a walk every night. Or perhaps you lost 40% muscle mass along with that weight. And perhaps one of us is going to gain all the weight back and then some in the future. My fiance lost 20 pounds eating nothing but animal crackers, fruits, and vegetables, but that's hardly healthy and worth promoting. Show me some long term studies (at least link to the abstracts) or don't bother.

Here is a pretty thorough study:

Comparative Efficacy of Insect Repellents against Mosquito Bites

and here is a table that shows the results: Protection Times of Insect Repellants

Seems Soybean Oil(2%) can protect for 90 minutes, Citronella(10%) for 20 minutes and DEET(24%) for 5 hours.

Here is a pretty thorough study:

Comparative Efficacy of Insect Repellents against Mosquito Bites

and here is a table that shows the results: Protection Times of Insect Repellants

Seems Soybean Oil(2%) can protect for 90 minutes, Citronella(10%) for 20 minutes and DEET(24%) for 5 hours.

Hands-free sets do not make driving while talking on a cell-phone any safer. See this paper from the New England Journal of Medicine for details. Basically, they cross-correlated traffic accident reports with cell phone logs and found that talking on a cell phone while driving quadruples the risk of getting in an accident, regardless of whether or not the phone is hands-free. This increased risk of accident is comparable to the increased risk of accident while driving drunk.

The difference between talking on a cell phone and talking with a passenger is that the passenger is aware of the driving situation and can halt the conversation and/or call the driver's attention to the road in case of emergency.

Talking on a phone has been proven to be no more distracting than talking to a passenger.

There's a report on it in the New England Journal of Medicine (1998). It's not a capsule of plutonium or anything, it's a radioactive iodine. I didn't believe it myself until I saw the kind of treatment he was undergoing.

~Phillip

I believe that you are mistaken about a causal connection between the use of antibiotics in animals and antibiotic resistance as a result in infections in people. Please see New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 345 (Oct 18, 2001). There are mutliple articles and an editorial on this topic. I would have provided a link to the articles, but I think full-text access is limited to subscribers. Their home page is here.

There was a study a few weeks ago suggesting that endotoxin, found in the cell walls of bacteria, has a direct negative correlation with allergies and asthma.

The really interesting thing about your scenario is that the increased risk of getting in an accident while talking on a cell phone is comparable to the increased risk of getting in an accident while driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit. See this study published in the New England Journal of Medicine for details.

I took it as a serious lesson. Before, I had "kept the talking/driving to a minimum." Now I won't EVER talk while I drive. Do cell phones make people stupid? No, but it's most certainly a distraction, "hands-free" or not, and those little details that slip one's preoccupied mind are often the most important ones.

Amsterdam Avenue and 93rd Street on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, a lazy summer midday. Young woman in belly shirt, standing at the southwest corner, steps off sidewalk to cross against the light. A massive truck, speeding, turns the corner, just narrowly averting squishing her like a bug. Young woman doesn't flinch or even seem to notice; she's yapping on her cell phone like it was the most important conversation in the world.

How about next time, you cite an honest-to-God academic publication instead of your quasi-academic British pseudoscience.

I've spent the last two days watching you to argue about evolution verses creation. It is interesting (and quite normal) to see that both of you are being selective and 'vague' in your arguments.

What I see is that AC agrees that there is natural selection and genetic mutations, but that these mutations never lead to an increase in genetic information. S/he also then implies that the world is very young, giving a list of false and/or disproven arguments to back him up.

I see Ash being convinced that evolution happens, but having little idea about how to argue for it. He states that there is selection, genetic mutation and that these mutations can lead to new genes, complexity, information, and beneficial changes to existing genes.

What Ash is missing is references to real evidence.
Ash, links are not that hard, see.

I have seen Ash try to present parts of the scientific theory of evolution, though it is obvious he doesn't know enough about it to counter AC's arguments.

What I have not seen is AC give any of a scientific theory of creation. S/he refers to young earth, but does not seem to realise that every argument listed has been proven false.

Why don't you post as a user, AC? It would make it so much easier to follow.

I was a little disappointed the article didn't mention some of these more positive uses of the technology. There are some online journals that have gone one step further and granted free access to a list of third world countries (people who could really use the free information). There are some pretty high profile sites in there, too, like the BMJ Specialist Journals, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences. I tried to find some press releases for those journals, but came up empty handed.

In fact, I am on a couple of projects funded by the NSF, and they really encourage people to spin off commercial projects. They think that it makes it easier to convince congress that they are doing good things.

Check this out to see how the scientific community is reacting.

Unfortunately, this study seems to indicated that it is the act of taking the telephone call that adds risk to driving - hands-free phones didn't significantly reduce the risk.

YS

I've never really understood this argument that availability leads to fewer people being killed. The logical extension of this argument in the light of Columbine would seem to be (as Charlton Heston I think pointed out) that arming teachers and schoolchildren would be a good idea. Surely even the most hardened NRA people must believe this is a obscence idea?

Anyway to rebut your specific argument that firearms are 'useful for self-defense' you should read the summary of this study in the NEJM (one of the world's leading medical journals). Keeping a firearm "in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.".

Call me naive, but IMHO a device that makes you 2.7 times more likely to be killed by a friend or family member isn't something I would like to consider as 'useful for self defense'.