Life in Canada

Acute-care hospitalizations and Aboriginal identity in Canada, 2001/2002

Health disparities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations in Canada, including differences in life expectancies, have clearly been established. Nothing has been or is planned to stem this disgrace. A variety of sources has been for many months and still is currently used to measure and document these disparities, yet information gaps persist. Because of limited coverage and sample sizes, reliable health information that reflects the diversity in Canada’s Aboriginal population is not always available. I wonder why..?

Hospital discharge records contain information about serious morbidity and include populations not regularly covered by national health surveys. However, Aboriginal identity information about patients is not recorded consistently across the country in hospital administrative data. Convenient or what...!

By assigning 2001 Census data for small geographical areas to hospital discharge records from the 2001/2002 Hospital Morbidity Database, this report provides estimates of morbidity serious enough to require hospitalization. Acute-care hospitalizations of people living in areas with a relatively high percentage of Aboriginal residents are compared with hospitalizations of residents of areas where the percentage of Aboriginal residents is low. Variations by predominant Aboriginal identity in these areas—First Nations, Métis and Inuit populations—are also explored.

Factors that potentially underlie differences in hospitalization rates between residents of high- and low-Aboriginal areas are determined by adjusting for urban/rural residence and area socio-economic characteristics.
Key findings

* Residents of areas with a relatively high percentage of Aboriginal people had significantly higher hospitalization rates, compared with residents of areas where the percentage of Aboriginal people was low.
* Hospitalizations of patients from areas with a high percentage of Aboriginal people had a significantly younger age distribution than did hospitalizations of patients from areas with a low percentage of Aboriginal people.
* The highest hospitalization rates were among residents of areas where the predominant Aboriginal identity was First Nations.
* Hospitalization rates for respiratory diseases, injuries and mental disorders were much higher among residents of areas with a high percentage of Aboriginal people.
* Urban/Rural location and housing conditions had the strongest associations with differences in hospitalization rates between residents of high- and low-Aboriginal areas.

A single dose of radiation during surgery is just as effective as a prolonged course of radiotherapy for breast cancer, a study suggests.

Doctors have tested the technique, which involves a single shot of radiotherapy to a tumor site, in more than 2,000 patients.

It could save the UK £15m a year, the researchers said. Cancer Research UK said The Lancet study could have a "huge impact" for patients.

The researchers also said using the one-stop procedure would be more convenient for patients and cut waiting lists.

Treatment to surgically remove cancerous breast tissue is the starting point of treatment for thousands of women in Britain each year. This is often followed up with weeks of radiotherapy to the whole breast to kill any remaining cancer cells. But with the new technique, doctors use a mobile radiotherapy machine that can be inserted into the breast to target the exact site of the cancer.

Led by a UK team, but carried out in nine countries, the four-year trial in women over 45 showed similar rates of disease recurrence regardless of the treatment used. There were six cases of the disease returning in those who had the new single-dose technique and five cases in those undergoing a prolonged course of radiotherapy. As a bonus the single dose during surgery avoids potential damage to organs such as the heart, lung, and oesophagus, which can occur during radiation to the whole breast, the researchers said.

The frequency of any complications and major toxic effects was similar in the two groups.

University College London Hospitals (UCLH) oncologist Prof Jeffrey Tobias, who enrolled the first patient on the trial at the former Middlesex Hospital in London with oncologist Jayant Vaidya, said: "I think the reason why it works so well is because of the precision of the treatment. It eradicates the very highest risk area - the part of the breast from which the tumour was removed."

Meanwhile, Mr Vaidya, who is also a UCLH oncologist, said the new treatment "could mean that many more women could conserve their breasts".

Josephine Ford, 80, was diagnosed with breast cancer in February 2008 and was successfully treated with this form of treatment three months later.

She said this approach "simplified everything and made the process less traumatic".
She said that it made her life "so much easier" since she "didn't have to come back to the radiotherapy department on a daily basis for five or six weeks".
'Exciting prospect'

While optimistic about the results, the researchers stressed the findings were only applicable to women with a similar type of breast cancer as those in the trial.

But they added: "Treatment of patients with breast cancer accounts for about a third of the workload of radiotherapy departments in some parts of the world and contributes substantially to the unacceptable waiting lists seen in many oncology departments worldwide.

"In countries such as the UK where the waiting list for postoperative radiotherapy could rapidly diminish with use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy, we estimate savings of around £15m a year."

Kate Law, director of clinical research at Cancer Research UK, said: "Radiotherapy is already a very effective treatment, so improving that even further is an exciting prospect. "Further follow-up of these women will be needed to confirm whether this strategy not only makes the most of the therapy's power but also minimises any long-term side effects."

MSG (some call it a slow poison - article views are not those of the blogger)

The food additive MSG (Mono-Sodium Glutamate) has been likened to a slow poison. MSG hides behind 25 or more names, such as Natural Flavoring." MSG is even in your favorite coffee from Tim Horton's and Starbucks coffee shops!

I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive
obesity epidemic, and so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research
assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada , and spent years working for the government. He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called The Slow Poisoning of America .

In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies. No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so scientists have to create them. They make these creatures morbidly obese by injecting them with MSG when they are first born.

The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing
rats(and perhaps humans) to become obese. They even have a name for the "MSG-Treated Rats."

When I heard this, I was shocked. I went into my kitchen and checked
the cupboards and the refrigerator. MSG was in everything -- the Campbell's soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavored potato chips, Top Ramen,Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen prepared meals, and Kraft salad dressings, especially the "healthy low-fat" ones..

The items that didn't have MSG marked on the product label had something called "Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein," which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate.

It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff. MSG is hidden under many different names in order to fool those who read the ingredient list, so that they don't catch on. (Other names for MSG are "Accent, "Aginomoto," "Natural Meat Tenderizer," etc.)

But it didn't stop there.

When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants
what menu items contained MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn't use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly provided, sure enough, MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere.

Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Taco Bell, every restaurant -- even
the sit-down eateries like TGIF, Chili's, Applebee's, and Denny's -- use MSG
in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG was in every chicken dish, salad dressing. and gravy. No wonder I loved to eat that coating on the skin -- their secret spice was MSG!

So why is MSG in so many of the foods we eat?
Is it a preservative, or a vitamin?

Not according to my friend John Erb. In his book The Slow Poisoning
of America , he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body.

Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group supporting MSG explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more.

A study of the elderly showed that older people eat more of the foods
that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobbying group says eating more is a benefit to the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us?

"Betcha can't eat [just] one," takes on a whole new meaning where MSG
is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight!

MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their
products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes
people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.

Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an
addictive substance. Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago,MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals,soups, snacks, and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.

The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. But how can they claim it's safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like
these:

"The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of
exercise in obesity." Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT , Ribeiro IA. Res
Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002.

"Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin
release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats." Guimaraes RB,
Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori C, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro. Brain Res Bull. 2002 AUG


'Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously
hypertensive rats: An animal model of multiple risk factors."
Iwase M, Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima.
Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar.

"Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in
suckling period and subsequent development of obesity." Tanaka K, Shimada
M, Nakao K Kusunoki. Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct.

No, the date of that last study was not a typo; it was published in
1978. Both the "medical research community" and "food manufacturers" have known about the side effects of MSG for decades.

Many more of the studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to
diabetes, migraines and headaches, autism, ADHD, and even Alzheimer's.

So what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping this
fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity
epidemic we now see?

Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of
the highest government health officials in Canada . While he was sitting in the government office, the official told him, "Sure, I know how bad MSG is. I wouldn't touch the stuff."

But this top-level government official refuses to tell the public what he knows.

The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing issues
with their advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry may hurt their profit margin.

The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it. Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food additive.

But what can I do about it? I'm just one voice!
What can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while our governments
are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us?

This message is going out to everyone I know in an attempt to tell you
the truth that the corporate-owned politicians and media won't tell you.

The best way you can help to save yourself and your children from this
drug-induced epidemic is to forward this article to everyone. With any
luck, it will circle the globe before politicians can pass the legislation
protecting those who are poisoning us.

The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if big tobacco had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on nicotine?

If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for us and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to the National Library of Medicine at www.pubmed.com. Type in the words "MSG/Obese" and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.

We the public do not want to be rats in one giant experiment, and we do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese,lethargic, addicted sheep, feeding the food industry's bottom line while waiting for the heart transplant, the diabetic-induced amputation, blindness, or other obesity-induced, life-threatening disorders.

With your help we can put an end to this poison.
Do your part in sending this message out by word of mouth, e-mail, or by
distribution of this printout to your friends all over the world and stop
this "Slow Poisoning of Mankind" by the packaged food industry.

Blowing the whistle on MSG is our responsibility, so get the word out.

The blogger does not endorse this article in any way.

5 Vitamin Truths and Lies

Once upon a time, perhaps you believed in the tooth fairy. You counted on the stability of housing prices and depended on bankers to be, well, dependable. And you figured that taking vitamins was good for you. Oh, it's painful when another myth gets shattered. Recent research suggests that a daily multi is a waste of money for most people—and there's growing evidence that some other old standbys may even hurt your health. Here's what you need to know. Make you own mind - GET MORE FACTS of your own

My Personal Comments
Hurray for an article that begins to unravel the hood-winking of the public. God made our bodies to need FOOD. Vitamins came FROM fruits and Vegetables! We need MORE of them not just a PART of them! I want all the 1,000s of phyto nutrients and vitamins working IN my body in synergy...the ONLY way to get that is through whole food or a whole food supplement...juiced and dried in concentrated form! Fearfully and WONDERFULLY made...and the perfect food created for our wonderful amazing bodies!

For more information on Vitamins go here...
and here for Mineral supplements ...
and finally here for a video explanation

Myth: A multivitamin can make up for a bad diet:
An insurance policy in a pill? If only it were so.

Last year, researchers published new findings from the Women's Health Initiative, a long-term study of more than 160,000 midlife women. The data showed that multivitamin-takers are no healthier than those who don't pop the pills, at least when it comes to the big diseases—cancer, heart disease, stroke. "Even women with poor diets weren't helped by taking a multivitamin," says study author Marian Neuhouser, PhD, in the cancer prevention program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in Seattle.

Vitamin supplements came into vogue in the early 1900s, when it was difficult or impossible for most people to get a wide variety of fresh fruits and vegetables year-round. Back then, vitamin-deficiency diseases weren't unheard-of: the bowed legs and deformed ribs of rickets (caused by a severe shortage of vitamin D) or the skin problems and mental confusion of pellagra (caused by a lack of the B vitamin niacin). But these days, you're extremely unlikely to be seriously deficient if you eat an average American diet, if only because many packaged foods are vitamin-enriched. Sure, most of us could do with a couple more daily servings of produce, but a multi doesn't do a good job at substituting for those. "Multivitamins have maybe two dozen ingredients—but plants have hundreds of other useful compounds," Neuhouser says. "If you just take a multivitamin, you're missing lots of compounds that may be providing benefits."

That said, there is one group that probably ought to keep taking a multi-vitamin: women of reproductive age. The supplement is insurance in case of pregnancy. A woman who gets adequate amounts of the B vitamin folate is much less likely to have a baby with a birth defect affecting the spinal cord. Since the spinal cord starts to develop extremely early—before a woman may know she's pregnant—the safest course is for her to take 400 micrograms of folic acid (the synthetic form of folate) daily. And a multi is an easy way to get it.

Myth: Vitamin C is a cold fighter
In the 1970s, Nobel laureate Linus Pauling popularized the idea that vitamin C could prevent colds. Today, drugstores are full of vitamin C–based remedies.
Studies say: Buyer, beware.

In 2007, researchers analyzed a raft of studies going back several decades and involving more than 11,000 subjects to arrive at a disappointing conclusion: Vitamin C didn't ward off colds, except among marathoners, skiers, and soldiers on subarctic exercises.

Of course, prevention isn't the only game in town. Can the vitamin cut the length of colds? Yes and no. Taking the vitamin daily does seem to reduce the time you'll spend sniffling—but not enough to notice. Adults typically have cold symptoms for 12 days a year; a daily pill could cut that to 11 days. Kids might go from 28 days of runny noses to 24 per year. The researchers conclude that minor reductions like these don't justify the expense and bother of year-round pill-popping (taking C only after symptoms crop up doesn't help).

Myth: Vitamin pills can prevent heart disease
Talk about exciting ideas—the notion that vitamin supplements might help lower the toll of some of our most damaging chronic diseases turned a sleepy area of research into a sizzling-hot one. These high hopes came in part from the observation that vitamin-takers were less likely to develop heart disease. Even at the time, researchers knew the finding might just reflect what's called the healthy user effect—meaning that vitamin devotees are more likely to exercise, eat right, and resist the temptations of tobacco and other bad habits. But it was also possible that antioxidant vitamins like C, E, and beta-carotene could prevent heart disease by reducing the buildup of artery-clogging plaque. B vitamins were promising, too, because folate, B6, and B12 help break down the amino acid homocysteine—and high levels of homocysteine have been linked to heart disease.

Unfortunately, none of those hopes have panned out.

An analysis of seven vitamin E trials concluded that it didn't cut the risk of stroke or of death from heart disease. The study also scrutinized eight beta-carotene studies and determined that, rather than prevent heart disease, those supplements produced a slight increase in the risk of death. Other big studies have shown vitamin C failing to deliver. As for B vitamins, research shows that yes, these do cut homocysteine levels …but no, that doesn't make a dent in heart danger.

Don't take these pills, the American Heart Association says. Instead, the AHA offers some familiar advice: Eat a varied diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

Myth: Taking vitamins can protect against cancer
Researchers know that unstable molecules called free radicals can damage your cells' DNA, upping the risk of cancer. They also know that antioxidants can stabilize free radicals, theoretically making them much less dangerous. So why not take some extra antioxidants to protect yourself against cancer? Because research so far has shown no good comes from popping such pills.

A number of studies have tried and failed to find a benefit, like a recent one that randomly assigned 5,442 women to take either a placebo or a B-vitamin combo. Over the course of more than seven years, all the women experienced similar rates of cancers and cancer deaths. In Neuhouser's enormous multivitamin study, that pill didn't offer any protection against cancer either. Nor did C, E, or beta-carotene in research done at Harvard Medical School.

Myth: Hey, it can't hurt
The old thinking went something like this—sure, vitamin pills might not help you, but they can't hurt either. However, a series of large-scale studies has turned this thinking on its head, says Demetrius Albanes, MD, a nutritional epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute.

The shift started with a big study of beta-carotene pills. It was meant to test whether the antioxidant could prevent lung cancer, but researchers instead detected surprising increases in lung cancer and deaths among male smokers who took the supplement. No one knew what to make of the result at first, but further studies have shown it wasn't a fluke—there's a real possibility that in some circumstances, antioxidant pills could actually promote cancer (in women as well as in men). Other studies have raised concerns that taking high doses of folic acid could raise the risk of colon cancer. Still others suggest a connection between high doses of some vitamins and heart disease.

Vitamins are safe when you get them in food, but in pill form, they can act more like a drug, Albanes says—with the potential for unexpected and sometimes dangerous effects.

Truth: A pill that's worth taking
As studies have eroded the hopes placed in most vitamin supplements, one pill is looking better and better. Research suggests that vitamin D protects against a long list of ills: Men with adequate levels of D have about half the risk of heart attack as men who are deficient. And getting enough D appears to lower the risk of at least half a dozen cancers; indeed, epidemiologist Cedric Garland, MD, at the University of California, San Diego, believes that if Americans got sufficient amounts of vitamin D, 50,000 cases of colorectal cancer could be prevented each year.

But many—perhaps fall short, according to research by epidemiologist Adit Ginde, MD, at the University of Colorado, Denver. Vitamin D is the sunshine vitamin: You make it when sunlight hits your skin. Yet thanks to sunscreen and workaholic (or TV-aholic) habits, most people don't make enough.

How much do you need? The Institute of Medicine is reassessing that right now; most experts expect a big boost from the current levels (200 to 600 IU daily). It's safe to take 1,000 IU per day, says Ginde. "We think most people need at least that much."

So here's the Reader's Digest Version of the truth about vitamins: Eat right, and supplement with vitamin D. That's a no-brainer coupled with a great bet—and that's no lie.

From April 2010 Readers Digest