New push would make state’s research center second largest in U.S.
8 ways to reduce your risk of breast cancer
More women have healthy breast removed
Today Show: Breast cancer coverage
The smartest cancer advice you’ve ever heard
Quiz: Are you at risk for breast cancer
Duggar joy: Parents of 18 now grandparents of 1
The many faces of Duggar
‘Humbled’ Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
No big flash from NASA’s moon crash
UCLA student's throat slashed in chemistry lab
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Top Rwandan genocide suspect arrested
10 ways Monty Python changed comedy
Health care reform: Saving American lives
Physicists win Nobel for high-tech wonders
Pot legalization gains momentum in California
Most viewed on msnbc.com
‘Humbled’ Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
Duggar joy: Parents of 18 now grandparents of 1
UCLA student's throat slashed in chemistry lab
No big flash from NASA’s moon crash
Stay sane (and soar!) during hard times
Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 3:01 p.m. ET, Fri., Oct . 2, 2009
AUSTIN, Texas - Texas gave birth to the modern oil industry, invented the handheld calculator and sent man to the moon. But can the Lone Star State cure cancer?
Texas is ready to try by investing $3 billion over the next decade in cancer research and prevention, which would make the state the gatekeeper of the second largest pot of cancer research dollars in the country, behind only the National Cancer Institute.
“I don’t know anyone that would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with what they’re trying to do,” said Robert Urban, executive director of the Koch Institute for Innovative Cancer Research at MIT.
That gee-whiz impression is what Texas leaders sought in 2007, when the state created the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas through an ambitious bond measure approved by voters. Lance Armstrong, champion cyclist and cancer survivor, sold the plan to voters, and Gov. Rick Perry said he dreamed of a day “we talk about cancer the same way we talk about polio.”
Texas is now putting out the call to scientists: Come and get the money.
Institute leaders say the money will fund drug developments, gamble on high-risk research turned away elsewhere and attract big-name scientists to Texas. Creating the first statewide clinical trial network, which could give cancer patients more access to experimental drugs, also is being discussed.
But so much money on the table — particularly in the hands of a state that’s new to funding cancer research — has some researchers worried that politics and backroom deals will play a role in deciding who gets what. The agency will invest upward of $260 million a year on cancer research and $30 million in preventive services such as early detection screenings.
A sagging economy also makes some skittish about whether the state will follow through with funding for an entire decade.
“That $3 billion isn’t in the bank,” said Dr. Tyler Curiel, executive director of the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “What if the money isn’t going to be there in the future?”
Curiel is among the hundreds of researchers who began writing applications last month for a slice of the $450 million Texas will hand out over the first two years. The first grants are expected to be awarded by spring.
The state also is hoping to lure more top scientists to Texas with $2 million offers for salary and research and is prepared to offer even more for “superstars.”
But once the money is doled out, the agency cautions, don’t expect any overnight miracles.
“(We’re) not going to bring new drugs to market during the first two years. Nor during the first four years,” said Dr. Alfred Gilman, the institute’s chief scientific officer. “It will take a good deal of time.”
No other state comes close to the amount of cancer research dollars Texas has pledged. California voters in 2004 approved a $3 billion plan for a stem cell research agency, which opponents tied up in court for two years over the ethics of creating and destroying embryos from which the cells could be harvested.
Massachusetts in 2008 passed a $1 billion, 10-year initiative to fund life sciences research, but some have wondered about the viability of that big-ticket endeavor given the state’s economic woes.
Texas, meanwhile, is doling out cancer research dollars at a time when funds nationwide have been flat or drying up. The National Cancer Institute handed out $3.14 billion in so-called extramural grants in fiscal year 2008, a slight drop from 2007 and down from $3.25 billion in 2005. The federal stimulus bill gave the NCI an additional $1.26 billion in grant money, but researchers say it’s still not enough.
Texas already is no slouch when it comes to fighting cancer. The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston is one of the top cancer research sites in the country, and the state is home to headquarters of Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Lance Armstrong Foundation.
Dr. Patrick Reynolds, director of the cancer center at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, returned to Texas last year after working at the University of Southern California. He said there was frustration among researchers in California with the state spending billions on stem cell research but nothing to help cancer patients in the short term.
He expects other researchers to flock to Texas.
“I think what people are saying is that (Texas) really cares,” Reynolds said. “And by golly, now we got some more resources to do something.”
But the new institute has been pinched by the economic slowdown. State lawmakers did not fully fund it for the first two years, leaving $150 million on the table. Institute officials believe the agency may be able to recoup that money down the road, Executive Director Bill Gimson said.
Also in msnbc.com Health
Her breast cancer, his feelings of guilt
Docs: Get a jab or find a new job
Pill makes women pick ‘dad’ not ‘cad’ | Poll for the ladies
Abused then denied care: 8 states allow practice
Only half of Americans want swine flu shots
State Rep. Garnet Coleman voted for the initiative, but the Houston Democrat was disappointed that no more than 10 percent of the money is earmarked for preventive services that have a more immediate impact.
Gimson said he could not imagine a scenario in which drug companies would be awarded the money, but Coleman is worried that Big Pharma could still find a way to take advantage of state dollars. He also worried about the institute’s transparency when it comes to where the money will be spent.
Institute leaders say the agency’s ethics standards will avoid any conflicts of interest and ensure that the awards will be merit-based. The agency will use out-of-state peer review groups composed of doctors and scientists to review the grant applications.
“The people have given us a lot of money,” said James Mansour, chairman of the institute’s oversight committee. “It’s incumbent on us to spend the money and spend it properly.”
Comment
My Mom died of lung cancer, thru 4 courses of chemotherapy and over a 18-month period. It was not a pretty way to go, although to this day I admire the calmness and peacefulness with which she faced it. I hope I can be as courageous if I have to face it too.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Antibodies found that prevent HIV from causing severe AIDS
Antibodies found that prevent HIV from causing severe AIDS
Source: Los Angeles Times | September 4, 2009
RELATED
Californians Survive Latest Wildfire
NYC: The Distance One Will Go to Keep a Job
Jobless Rate at 26-Year High
Sons of Immigrants to U.S. Have High Obesity Levels, Report Finds
Defense Department is financing study that will pair dogs with troops suffering PTSD
After nearly two decades of futile searching for a vaccine against the AIDS virus, researchers are reporting the tantalizing discovery of antibodies that can prevent the virus from multiplying in the body and producing severe disease.
They do not have a vaccine yet, but they may well have a road map toward the production of one.
A team based at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla reports today in the journal Science that they have isolated two so-called broadly neutralizing antibodies that can block the action of many strains of HIV, the virus responsible for AIDS.
Crucial to the discovery is the fact that the antibodies target a portion of HIV that researchers had not considered in their search for a vaccine. Moreover, the target is a relatively stable portion of the virus that does not participate in the extensive mutations that have made HIV able to escape from antiviral drugs and previous experimental vaccines.
"This is opening up a whole new area of science," said Dr. Seth F. Berkley, president and chief executive of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which funded and coordinated the research.
At least 33 million people worldwide are infected with HIV, and at least 25 million have died from AIDS, according to the World Health Organization. Two large trials of experimental vaccines have failed -- the most recent, in 2007, because the vaccine apparently made people more susceptible to infection.
To find the neutralizing antibodies, researchers collected blood samples from more than 1,800 people in Thailand, Australia and Africa who had been infected with HIV for at least three years without the infection proceeding to severe disease. Such individuals are most likely to produce antibodies that interfere with the replication of the virus.
Researchers at Monogram Biosciences in South San Francisco studied the samples most resistant to infection, then a team from Theraclone Sciences in Seattle isolated the antibodies responsible for the resistance.
They ultimately isolated two antibodies, called PG9 and PG16, from one African patient. The antibodies were able to block the activity of about three-quarters of the 162 separate strains of HIV they tested it against.
Immunologist Dennis Burton of Scripps and his colleagues then showed that the antibodies bind to regions of two proteins on the surface of the virus, called gp120 and gp41, that help the virus invade cells. These regions had never before been considered as targets for vaccines.
Researchers still have a long way to go to produce a vaccine, however.
The antibodies themselves could potentially be used as a treatment for infected patients who develop severe disease.
But the long-term hope is to find molecules, either synthetic or natural, that can stimulate the body to produce the broadly neutralizing antibodies. Such molecules could potentially be the basis for a successful vaccine.
thomas.maugh@latimes.com
Source: Los Angeles Times | September 4, 2009
RELATED
Californians Survive Latest Wildfire
NYC: The Distance One Will Go to Keep a Job
Jobless Rate at 26-Year High
Sons of Immigrants to U.S. Have High Obesity Levels, Report Finds
Defense Department is financing study that will pair dogs with troops suffering PTSD
After nearly two decades of futile searching for a vaccine against the AIDS virus, researchers are reporting the tantalizing discovery of antibodies that can prevent the virus from multiplying in the body and producing severe disease.
They do not have a vaccine yet, but they may well have a road map toward the production of one.
A team based at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla reports today in the journal Science that they have isolated two so-called broadly neutralizing antibodies that can block the action of many strains of HIV, the virus responsible for AIDS.
Crucial to the discovery is the fact that the antibodies target a portion of HIV that researchers had not considered in their search for a vaccine. Moreover, the target is a relatively stable portion of the virus that does not participate in the extensive mutations that have made HIV able to escape from antiviral drugs and previous experimental vaccines.
"This is opening up a whole new area of science," said Dr. Seth F. Berkley, president and chief executive of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which funded and coordinated the research.
At least 33 million people worldwide are infected with HIV, and at least 25 million have died from AIDS, according to the World Health Organization. Two large trials of experimental vaccines have failed -- the most recent, in 2007, because the vaccine apparently made people more susceptible to infection.
To find the neutralizing antibodies, researchers collected blood samples from more than 1,800 people in Thailand, Australia and Africa who had been infected with HIV for at least three years without the infection proceeding to severe disease. Such individuals are most likely to produce antibodies that interfere with the replication of the virus.
Researchers at Monogram Biosciences in South San Francisco studied the samples most resistant to infection, then a team from Theraclone Sciences in Seattle isolated the antibodies responsible for the resistance.
They ultimately isolated two antibodies, called PG9 and PG16, from one African patient. The antibodies were able to block the activity of about three-quarters of the 162 separate strains of HIV they tested it against.
Immunologist Dennis Burton of Scripps and his colleagues then showed that the antibodies bind to regions of two proteins on the surface of the virus, called gp120 and gp41, that help the virus invade cells. These regions had never before been considered as targets for vaccines.
Researchers still have a long way to go to produce a vaccine, however.
The antibodies themselves could potentially be used as a treatment for infected patients who develop severe disease.
But the long-term hope is to find molecules, either synthetic or natural, that can stimulate the body to produce the broadly neutralizing antibodies. Such molecules could potentially be the basis for a successful vaccine.
thomas.maugh@latimes.com
Feds to Collect Millions of DNA Profiles Yearly, Stay Out if You Can
Feds to Collect Millions of DNA Profiles Yearly, Stay Out if You Can
By Ryan Singel May 12, 2008 | 5:15 pm | Categories: Uncategorized
The feds will soon be collecting about one million DNA samples a year under a new program that lets federal agents collect cheek swabs from citizens merely arrested for any federal crime or from any non-citizen detained by federal agents — including visitors to the country who have visas.
The intent is build a massive database of DNA samples (.pdf) that police can use to catch rapists and murderers, but even the innocent should fear being in the database, due to the vagaries of how cold case DNA searches can easily pinpoint an innocent person.
Thanks to an amendment in the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 that was sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), the feds now have the authority to immediately take DNA from any arrestee or ‘detained’ non-citizen and immediately upload it to the FBI’s CODIS database. That database is currently fed by federal law enforcement agencies and all 50 states, a few of which collect and upload DNA samples from people arrested, but not convicted of a crime.
DNA profiles are composed of 13 genetic markers that are meant not to reveal genetic makeup or disease. Like fingerprints, DNA are very powerful and scientifically sound evidence, when used to connect a known suspect to evidence found at the scene of the crime. Jurors are easily persuaded to accept the DNA link for someone who had already been suspected of a crime scene when told the odds against a false identification are 1 in millions or billions.
But DNA is far less certain when you compare one sample against all of the profiles in the database typically known as one-to-many. In that case the chances that a match between a DNA sample — especially an incomplete one — and a person in a DNA database could nab an innocent person has different math. Very different math.
So if you have a probability of 1 in 1.1 million chance of people having a certain sequence of DNA markers and you have a database of 550,000 people, you have a 50% chance of making a match. That’s great, if you know that the perpetrator is in that database. But what it also means is that as you start testing DNA profiles against more and more people, the chances that you will match an innocent person to a DNA profile from a crime scene gets higher.
A recent L.A. Times story about a cold case prosecution of a 1972 rape and murder in California, where 30 years later, police matched a DNA sample from the scene to that of a convicted rapist in its 338,000 profile strong DNA database. Given the number of markers that were used there was a one in three chance that some profile in the database would match. In this case, it matched John Puckett, who lived in the same city.
The jury however, wasn’t told about the probability that someone in the database would match against the profile (The L.A. Times story erroneously says that there was a 1/3 chance that someone innocent would be fingered in such a search. If one knew for a fact that every person in the database were innocent, then there was a 1 in 3 chance that an innocent person would get fingered, but in Puckett’s case, one simply knows that there was a one in three chance someone in the California criminal database would be fingered.)
And that’s a problem when the government starts collecting millions of DNA samples, sticking them in a massive database and finding ‘cold hits.’
Imagine the innocent man facing down a jury of his peers, hoping that they understand something about statistics.
The Justice Department is taking comments on the proposed DNA rules until Monday, May 19.
Posted by: Mike O'Brien | 05/12/08 | 6:24 pm
Ryan,
Thanks for the heads up. I sent in a comment to ask for better protection against false positives.
Mike
Posted by: david b | 05/12/08 | 7:14 pm
..well it used to be that you fled europe and came to the new world for a chance at freedom. Looks like we’re about to reverse that trend. ..more and more security, more and mor monitoring. Its really not worth it. ..but we do it anyway.
Enjoy life without your big brother.. your kids wont have the same luxuries of privacy and freedom that we have. They will be very secure within the silicon curtain.
Posted by: David Gunnells | 05/12/08 | 10:52 pm
It’s good to see there are a few more days to add comments. Thanks for the link.
Want some ideas on what to say?
1) DNA matching is not a 1 in a million science, as portrayed in movies and CSI. With a growing database, the already low odds drop even further.
2) Innocent people do not belong in a criminal database.
3) DNA contains sensitive medical information about a person and is not the same thing as a fingerprint (which, ironically, are often misidentified).
4) Allowing 3rd parties to collect DNA will introduce even more errors and increase the chance for abuse of sensitive, private genetic information.
Please add your comments so this proposal will not go through as is.
Posted by: v | 05/13/08 | 12:50 am
Well, if you identify someone based on 13 markers, than you can subsequently confirm / exclude them based on a bigger marker set. The 13 markers can be used just to narrow down on the suspect. Puckett’s DNA was in a state database after he was convicted of the rapes at knifepoint of three other women in the years following the 1972 killing that yo mentioned above.
Posted by: Staying in Blighty | 05/13/08 | 2:38 am
Well, that’s one more reason for me not to visit the USA (you know they’ll “check” as many people as possible as being “terror suspects”).
Posted by: exoteric | 05/13/08 | 5:12 am
@David Gunnells
I think the point of this article is that even whilst DNA is a 1-in-a-million science, it would need to be a 1-in-6 billion science in order to have approximately one match per person on the planet. Of course, probabilities tell us that you would need a much, much lower probability of a false positive occurring for it to be “reliable”.
Posted by: C. F. R. | 05/13/08 | 10:29 am
The Feds keep trying to be like the East German Stasi and always end up looking like the Keystone Cops they can’t even handle finger prints right, how can they handle DNA? Maybe the reason they fail is because their best agent ever was a transsexual, pedophile lying freak named J. Edgar Hoover? Who knows? Sincerely, C.F.R.
Posted by: Kim | 05/13/08 | 8:16 pm
Comrade Chertoff of Homeland Security hired Marcus Wolf (ex-head of the communist east German Stasi — now dead and burning in hell– along with communist Russian ex-KGB head Yevgeni Primakov) to set up our new fangled police state. Surprised?
Posted by: Art | 05/13/08 | 8:37 pm
Considering how many people play the lottery, I’d have absolutely no confidence in “a jury of my peers” deciding my innocence or guilt.
I mean, just look at the hit TV show “Deal or No Deal”, so many people actually think there is a winning strategy to that, or mistake it for the Monty Hall problem.
Posted by: JJ | 05/13/08 | 9:35 pm
don’t flee to the UK!
..well it used to be that you fled europe and came to the new world for a chance at freedom. Looks like we’re about to reverse that trend. ..more and more security, more and mor monitoring. Its really not worth it. ..but we do it anyway.
Posted by: Josie Wales | 05/13/08 | 11:40 pm
That freak of a man named J.Edgar Hoover would privately laugh to his comrades about the innocent people being convicted and sent to prison on his faulty finger print idea.
This is provable, and he is or was a known thug of a man.
Now, DNA is 100% accurate.
Anyone that tells you it is usually works for the US Government or the Government controlled media.
DNA evidence, from my studies, show about a 78% accuracy rate.
If you live in Europe, please stay there and fear America and its policy and fiat currency.
This is the new “German Stazi”.
Posted by: DU | 05/14/08 | 5:00 am
WWQD?
I wonder “What Would Quantrill Do”?
Can I see any of my heros or mentors accepting this type of tyrrany? Robert E Lee? Nathan Bedford Forrest? Alexander Hamilton Stevens? Watson Jennings Bryant? Thomas Jefferson? Benjamin Franklin? How about Jesus Christ? I think he would take an assault weapon and run them out of the roadblock…….
Posted by: karkat | 05/14/08 | 11:17 am
This whole thing would be laughable, if it wasn’t so sad. The Supreme Court has already struck down Violence Against Women Act. Applicable in the several states of the union.
UNITED STATES v. MORRISON et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit
No. 99-5. Argued January 11, 2000–Decided May 15, 20001
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/99%2D5.html
Here’s an excerpt from the decision;
<<<<<
Posted by: C. F. R. | 05/14/08 | 3:58 pm
OK, The FBI, DIA, NSA, OSI, NCIS, CID, State Dept. Intel all have Usama Bin Laden’s DNA is this helping them
Posted by: meggie | 06/1/08 | 11:23 am
DNA can be a great thing in some instances. We recently had a DNA sample of a male in our surname group trying to match because our surname is unique, taken when the immigrant came to this country. We got a 25/25 match but the person is absolutely not connected to our group. SO YOU SEE WHAT CAN HAPPEN. Interperting DNA is very complicated and this type of data base is a threat to innocent people more than a help
Comment
I have always thought DNA evidence to be 100% accurate. Maybe it isnt. maybe the initial test can be used as a screening device, since it only measures 13 factors. If the 13 factors match, then the more complete testing should be done. I admit I dont understand all the statistics but it does seem to me that the larger the database the more possibility of finding a match. Once a match is found further testing could confirm the match, or not. Put it together with fingerprints and other evidence to see if a case can be made.
By Ryan Singel May 12, 2008 | 5:15 pm | Categories: Uncategorized
The feds will soon be collecting about one million DNA samples a year under a new program that lets federal agents collect cheek swabs from citizens merely arrested for any federal crime or from any non-citizen detained by federal agents — including visitors to the country who have visas.
The intent is build a massive database of DNA samples (.pdf) that police can use to catch rapists and murderers, but even the innocent should fear being in the database, due to the vagaries of how cold case DNA searches can easily pinpoint an innocent person.
Thanks to an amendment in the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 that was sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), the feds now have the authority to immediately take DNA from any arrestee or ‘detained’ non-citizen and immediately upload it to the FBI’s CODIS database. That database is currently fed by federal law enforcement agencies and all 50 states, a few of which collect and upload DNA samples from people arrested, but not convicted of a crime.
DNA profiles are composed of 13 genetic markers that are meant not to reveal genetic makeup or disease. Like fingerprints, DNA are very powerful and scientifically sound evidence, when used to connect a known suspect to evidence found at the scene of the crime. Jurors are easily persuaded to accept the DNA link for someone who had already been suspected of a crime scene when told the odds against a false identification are 1 in millions or billions.
But DNA is far less certain when you compare one sample against all of the profiles in the database typically known as one-to-many. In that case the chances that a match between a DNA sample — especially an incomplete one — and a person in a DNA database could nab an innocent person has different math. Very different math.
So if you have a probability of 1 in 1.1 million chance of people having a certain sequence of DNA markers and you have a database of 550,000 people, you have a 50% chance of making a match. That’s great, if you know that the perpetrator is in that database. But what it also means is that as you start testing DNA profiles against more and more people, the chances that you will match an innocent person to a DNA profile from a crime scene gets higher.
A recent L.A. Times story about a cold case prosecution of a 1972 rape and murder in California, where 30 years later, police matched a DNA sample from the scene to that of a convicted rapist in its 338,000 profile strong DNA database. Given the number of markers that were used there was a one in three chance that some profile in the database would match. In this case, it matched John Puckett, who lived in the same city.
The jury however, wasn’t told about the probability that someone in the database would match against the profile (The L.A. Times story erroneously says that there was a 1/3 chance that someone innocent would be fingered in such a search. If one knew for a fact that every person in the database were innocent, then there was a 1 in 3 chance that an innocent person would get fingered, but in Puckett’s case, one simply knows that there was a one in three chance someone in the California criminal database would be fingered.)
And that’s a problem when the government starts collecting millions of DNA samples, sticking them in a massive database and finding ‘cold hits.’
Imagine the innocent man facing down a jury of his peers, hoping that they understand something about statistics.
The Justice Department is taking comments on the proposed DNA rules until Monday, May 19.
Posted by: Mike O'Brien | 05/12/08 | 6:24 pm
Ryan,
Thanks for the heads up. I sent in a comment to ask for better protection against false positives.
Mike
Posted by: david b | 05/12/08 | 7:14 pm
..well it used to be that you fled europe and came to the new world for a chance at freedom. Looks like we’re about to reverse that trend. ..more and more security, more and mor monitoring. Its really not worth it. ..but we do it anyway.
Enjoy life without your big brother.. your kids wont have the same luxuries of privacy and freedom that we have. They will be very secure within the silicon curtain.
Posted by: David Gunnells | 05/12/08 | 10:52 pm
It’s good to see there are a few more days to add comments. Thanks for the link.
Want some ideas on what to say?
1) DNA matching is not a 1 in a million science, as portrayed in movies and CSI. With a growing database, the already low odds drop even further.
2) Innocent people do not belong in a criminal database.
3) DNA contains sensitive medical information about a person and is not the same thing as a fingerprint (which, ironically, are often misidentified).
4) Allowing 3rd parties to collect DNA will introduce even more errors and increase the chance for abuse of sensitive, private genetic information.
Please add your comments so this proposal will not go through as is.
Posted by: v | 05/13/08 | 12:50 am
Well, if you identify someone based on 13 markers, than you can subsequently confirm / exclude them based on a bigger marker set. The 13 markers can be used just to narrow down on the suspect. Puckett’s DNA was in a state database after he was convicted of the rapes at knifepoint of three other women in the years following the 1972 killing that yo mentioned above.
Posted by: Staying in Blighty | 05/13/08 | 2:38 am
Well, that’s one more reason for me not to visit the USA (you know they’ll “check” as many people as possible as being “terror suspects”).
Posted by: exoteric | 05/13/08 | 5:12 am
@David Gunnells
I think the point of this article is that even whilst DNA is a 1-in-a-million science, it would need to be a 1-in-6 billion science in order to have approximately one match per person on the planet. Of course, probabilities tell us that you would need a much, much lower probability of a false positive occurring for it to be “reliable”.
Posted by: C. F. R. | 05/13/08 | 10:29 am
The Feds keep trying to be like the East German Stasi and always end up looking like the Keystone Cops they can’t even handle finger prints right, how can they handle DNA? Maybe the reason they fail is because their best agent ever was a transsexual, pedophile lying freak named J. Edgar Hoover? Who knows? Sincerely, C.F.R.
Posted by: Kim | 05/13/08 | 8:16 pm
Comrade Chertoff of Homeland Security hired Marcus Wolf (ex-head of the communist east German Stasi — now dead and burning in hell– along with communist Russian ex-KGB head Yevgeni Primakov) to set up our new fangled police state. Surprised?
Posted by: Art | 05/13/08 | 8:37 pm
Considering how many people play the lottery, I’d have absolutely no confidence in “a jury of my peers” deciding my innocence or guilt.
I mean, just look at the hit TV show “Deal or No Deal”, so many people actually think there is a winning strategy to that, or mistake it for the Monty Hall problem.
Posted by: JJ | 05/13/08 | 9:35 pm
don’t flee to the UK!
..well it used to be that you fled europe and came to the new world for a chance at freedom. Looks like we’re about to reverse that trend. ..more and more security, more and mor monitoring. Its really not worth it. ..but we do it anyway.
Posted by: Josie Wales | 05/13/08 | 11:40 pm
That freak of a man named J.Edgar Hoover would privately laugh to his comrades about the innocent people being convicted and sent to prison on his faulty finger print idea.
This is provable, and he is or was a known thug of a man.
Now, DNA is 100% accurate.
Anyone that tells you it is usually works for the US Government or the Government controlled media.
DNA evidence, from my studies, show about a 78% accuracy rate.
If you live in Europe, please stay there and fear America and its policy and fiat currency.
This is the new “German Stazi”.
Posted by: DU | 05/14/08 | 5:00 am
WWQD?
I wonder “What Would Quantrill Do”?
Can I see any of my heros or mentors accepting this type of tyrrany? Robert E Lee? Nathan Bedford Forrest? Alexander Hamilton Stevens? Watson Jennings Bryant? Thomas Jefferson? Benjamin Franklin? How about Jesus Christ? I think he would take an assault weapon and run them out of the roadblock…….
Posted by: karkat | 05/14/08 | 11:17 am
This whole thing would be laughable, if it wasn’t so sad. The Supreme Court has already struck down Violence Against Women Act. Applicable in the several states of the union.
UNITED STATES v. MORRISON et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit
No. 99-5. Argued January 11, 2000–Decided May 15, 20001
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/99%2D5.html
Here’s an excerpt from the decision;
<<<<<
Posted by: C. F. R. | 05/14/08 | 3:58 pm
OK, The FBI, DIA, NSA, OSI, NCIS, CID, State Dept. Intel all have Usama Bin Laden’s DNA is this helping them
Posted by: meggie | 06/1/08 | 11:23 am
DNA can be a great thing in some instances. We recently had a DNA sample of a male in our surname group trying to match because our surname is unique, taken when the immigrant came to this country. We got a 25/25 match but the person is absolutely not connected to our group. SO YOU SEE WHAT CAN HAPPEN. Interperting DNA is very complicated and this type of data base is a threat to innocent people more than a help
Comment
I have always thought DNA evidence to be 100% accurate. Maybe it isnt. maybe the initial test can be used as a screening device, since it only measures 13 factors. If the 13 factors match, then the more complete testing should be done. I admit I dont understand all the statistics but it does seem to me that the larger the database the more possibility of finding a match. Once a match is found further testing could confirm the match, or not. Put it together with fingerprints and other evidence to see if a case can be made.
ACLU Says Extracting DNA From Suspects Unconstitutional
ACLU Says Extracting DNA From Suspects Unconstitutional
By David Kravets October 7, 2009 | 7:18 pm | Categories: Identification, The Courts, privacy
California’s law requiring the authorities to take a DNA sample from every person arrested on felony accusations was challenged in federal court Wednesday as an unconstitutional privacy breach.
A lawsuit (.pdf), filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two Californians who were arrested and released, seeks to overturn a voter-approved law that became effective this year. Proposition 69 requires detainees to provide a saliva or sometimes a blood sample upon felony arrest. The sample is stored in state and FBI databases, even if the arrested person is never charged or convicted of a crime.
The challenge, if successful, threatens to derail similar laws in other states. According to DNAResource.com, 10 other states have such statutes. They are Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Vermont.
The San Francisco federal case argues Proposition 69 (.pdf) “dramatically expanded the scope of mandatory, suspicionless, and warrantless seizure and testing of DNA in California.” What’s more, the lawsuit cites California Justice Department figures showing that of the 332,000 people arrested for felonies in 2007, 101,000 weren’t convicted of any crime.
The challenge comes as authorities struggle to keep up with the flood of DNA samples collected under the law. Some 53,000 samples from California have yet to enter the state’s database — a backlog comprised, in part, of DNA from people who have not been convicted of a crime. The FBI has about 293,000 more to fill its backlog, according to ProPublica.
Wednesday’s lawsuit does not challenge DNA sampling for convicted felons or for those required under a court order. Rather, the case challenges “the mass, programmatic DNA testing of hundreds of thousands of persons — persons not convicted or who are otherwise not under supervision of the criminal justice system — as to whom the long-recognized constitutional prerequisites to such searches and seizures have been established.”
The ACLU says DNA sampling is different from the compulsory fingerprinting upon arrest that has been standard practice in the U.S. for decades. A fingerprint, for example, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.
What’s more, in California the authorities are allowed to conduct so-called “familial searching.” That is when a genetic sample does not directly match another, so authorities start investigating people with closely matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator.
“Regarding fingerprinting, the U.S. Supreme Court has said for more than 30 years that it is not a search,” Michael Risher, an ACLU attorney on the case, said in a telephone interview. “But DNA, the method of taking it, is an invasion of our body. The more significant the invasion, the more justification the government needs.”
The courts have already upheld DNA sampling of convicted felons based on the theory that the convicted have fewer privacy rights. Still, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that when conducting intrusions of the body during an investigation, the police need so-called “exigent circumstances” or a warrant. That alcohol evaporates in the blood stream is the exigent circumstance to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver.
“Our position is before you take somebody’s genetic information, you need either a warrant or that person needs to be convicted of a felony with all the procedural protections anybody gets when you are charged and tried with a felony,” the ACLU’s Risher said.
So far, the courts have never squarely addressed the constitutionality of the DNA law at issue in this case, according to a congressional study.
The plaintiffs include an Oakland woman whose DNA was taken after she was arrested during a war protest in San Francisco earlier this year. Elizabeth Aida Haskell was never charged.
“Now my genetic information is stored indefinitely in a government database, simply because I was exercising my right to speak out,” she said in a statement.
A California attorney general memo (.pdf) requires the sample be taken at booking or soon thereafter.
The other plaintiff is Reginald Ento, arrested in Sacramento on accusations of being in possession of stolen cameras. A DNA sample was taken without a warrant. He, too, was never charged.
The law in question allows those not convicted of a felony to petition to have their DNA removed from the database. Petitioners don’t become eligible until the statute of limitations runs on the crime for which they were arrested – which is often at least three years. Prosecutors, however, have veto rights to a petition. The lawsuit also says judges have “unreviewable” discretion to deny a petition.
Comment
Sometimes I think the ACLU goes WAY overboard. In the case of the protester being charged, that clearly doesnt warrant a DNA test. In my mind, those charged with violent crimes definitely SHOULD have a DNA test done, along with convicted felons. Its the cases in the grey area, possession of stolen property, etc that the decision gets murky. If DNA helps to convict, or exonerate, those accused of rape, assault, murder, or attempted murder I am in favor. I am not in favor of DNA tests for parking tickets, pot possession, or failing to make child support payments. Possession of large amounts of cocaine, heroin, or even pot are grey areas too, and must be decided on an individual basis.
By David Kravets October 7, 2009 | 7:18 pm | Categories: Identification, The Courts, privacy
California’s law requiring the authorities to take a DNA sample from every person arrested on felony accusations was challenged in federal court Wednesday as an unconstitutional privacy breach.
A lawsuit (.pdf), filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two Californians who were arrested and released, seeks to overturn a voter-approved law that became effective this year. Proposition 69 requires detainees to provide a saliva or sometimes a blood sample upon felony arrest. The sample is stored in state and FBI databases, even if the arrested person is never charged or convicted of a crime.
The challenge, if successful, threatens to derail similar laws in other states. According to DNAResource.com, 10 other states have such statutes. They are Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Vermont.
The San Francisco federal case argues Proposition 69 (.pdf) “dramatically expanded the scope of mandatory, suspicionless, and warrantless seizure and testing of DNA in California.” What’s more, the lawsuit cites California Justice Department figures showing that of the 332,000 people arrested for felonies in 2007, 101,000 weren’t convicted of any crime.
The challenge comes as authorities struggle to keep up with the flood of DNA samples collected under the law. Some 53,000 samples from California have yet to enter the state’s database — a backlog comprised, in part, of DNA from people who have not been convicted of a crime. The FBI has about 293,000 more to fill its backlog, according to ProPublica.
Wednesday’s lawsuit does not challenge DNA sampling for convicted felons or for those required under a court order. Rather, the case challenges “the mass, programmatic DNA testing of hundreds of thousands of persons — persons not convicted or who are otherwise not under supervision of the criminal justice system — as to whom the long-recognized constitutional prerequisites to such searches and seizures have been established.”
The ACLU says DNA sampling is different from the compulsory fingerprinting upon arrest that has been standard practice in the U.S. for decades. A fingerprint, for example, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.
What’s more, in California the authorities are allowed to conduct so-called “familial searching.” That is when a genetic sample does not directly match another, so authorities start investigating people with closely matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator.
“Regarding fingerprinting, the U.S. Supreme Court has said for more than 30 years that it is not a search,” Michael Risher, an ACLU attorney on the case, said in a telephone interview. “But DNA, the method of taking it, is an invasion of our body. The more significant the invasion, the more justification the government needs.”
The courts have already upheld DNA sampling of convicted felons based on the theory that the convicted have fewer privacy rights. Still, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that when conducting intrusions of the body during an investigation, the police need so-called “exigent circumstances” or a warrant. That alcohol evaporates in the blood stream is the exigent circumstance to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver.
“Our position is before you take somebody’s genetic information, you need either a warrant or that person needs to be convicted of a felony with all the procedural protections anybody gets when you are charged and tried with a felony,” the ACLU’s Risher said.
So far, the courts have never squarely addressed the constitutionality of the DNA law at issue in this case, according to a congressional study.
The plaintiffs include an Oakland woman whose DNA was taken after she was arrested during a war protest in San Francisco earlier this year. Elizabeth Aida Haskell was never charged.
“Now my genetic information is stored indefinitely in a government database, simply because I was exercising my right to speak out,” she said in a statement.
A California attorney general memo (.pdf) requires the sample be taken at booking or soon thereafter.
The other plaintiff is Reginald Ento, arrested in Sacramento on accusations of being in possession of stolen cameras. A DNA sample was taken without a warrant. He, too, was never charged.
The law in question allows those not convicted of a felony to petition to have their DNA removed from the database. Petitioners don’t become eligible until the statute of limitations runs on the crime for which they were arrested – which is often at least three years. Prosecutors, however, have veto rights to a petition. The lawsuit also says judges have “unreviewable” discretion to deny a petition.
Comment
Sometimes I think the ACLU goes WAY overboard. In the case of the protester being charged, that clearly doesnt warrant a DNA test. In my mind, those charged with violent crimes definitely SHOULD have a DNA test done, along with convicted felons. Its the cases in the grey area, possession of stolen property, etc that the decision gets murky. If DNA helps to convict, or exonerate, those accused of rape, assault, murder, or attempted murder I am in favor. I am not in favor of DNA tests for parking tickets, pot possession, or failing to make child support payments. Possession of large amounts of cocaine, heroin, or even pot are grey areas too, and must be decided on an individual basis.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Abused women then denied insurance: 8 states allow practice
Abused then denied care: 8 states allow practice
Some insurers say victims of domestic violence are too high risk to cover
Latest health reform headlines
CBO: Finance Panel's Health Bill Pricetag Is $829 Billion Over 10 Years; Provides Coverage To 91% Of U.S. Residents
House Democratic Caucus Considers Larger Medicaid Expansion, Public Option
Party Leaders Handle Key Finance Panel Undecided Votes Differently
While Some Votes Are Still In Play, Other Lawmakers Vie For Audience With Reid
Finance Panel Vote Delayed; Members Await New CBO Estimates
Dose of reality
Do health care reform headlines leave you saying “huh?” Visit msnbc.com's guide to health reform and send us claims you'd like fact-checked.
Health care videos
Health reformers play hardball
Oct. 7: Msnbc's Rachel Maddow reports that Democratic leaders have threatened to revoke committee chairmanships from colleagues who stand in the way of the health reform bill. Newsweek's Howard Fineman joins for further analysis of the rising tensions in Congress.
Baucus bill estimated at $829 billion
Care harder to afford for women
Health care by the numbers
A bad day to oppose health reform
Health care: How a bill becomes a law
As Congress works on an overhaul of health insurance, here's how the process will work.
NBC News
By Jenny Gold
updated 8:55 a.m. ET, Wed., Oct . 7, 2009
In 2006, attorney Jody Neal-Post tried to get health insurance but was rejected because of treatment — counseling and Valium — she received following a domestic-abuse incident. She says the insurer told her that her medical history made her a high risk, more likely to end up in the emergency room or require additional care.
Four years earlier, Neal-Post says, she had been assaulted by her ex-husband in her home in Albuquerque, N.M. According to police records, both she and her ex-spouse were charged in the incident. The charges were later dropped.
She wasn't prepared for the blow from the insurer. "I was just flabbergasted," says Neal-Post, a 52-year-old attorney. During the altercation with her ex-husband, "I was beaten and choked in my living room," she says. "I'm trying to keep my family together and get medical care. And then you make it through, with everyone back on track, and years later, when it's no longer part of your daily life to remember that and you're feeling good, it's back again."
Advocates say it's not uncommon for people who have been abused to be denied insurance on the individual market. While the majority of states have barred insurance companies from using abuse as grounds for denying coverage, eight states and the District of Columbia don't prohibit denying coverage for that reason. And even when states do have a law, it doesn't necessarily prevent carriers from initially rejecting applicants who are victims of violence.
It's unclear how often such rejections take place. But it is clear, experts say, that the fact that they occur at all can have a chilling effect on victims, who may be afraid to tell their doctors about attacks out of concern they'll have trouble getting insurance in the future.
A state vs. federal issue
How victims of domestic abuse are treated by insurers now is emerging as part of the health care overhaul debate. "Think of this, you have survived domestic violence and now you are discriminated in the insurance market because you have a pre-existing medical condition," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told leaders from women's organizations at a press conference Tuesday. "Well, that will all be gone under this legislation," she promised.
But for now, the issue is left to the states.
In some ways, Neal-Post was lucky. Her home state of New Mexico has strict laws prohibiting insurers from denying insurance based on a history of abuse. She's also an attorney with experience representing victims of domestic abuse.
After her fight with her ex-husband, and the coverage denial by the insurer years later, she filed an official complaint with the state's Public Regulatory Commission's insurance division. The commission insisted the insurer reverse its decision, which the company did. But had Neal-Post lived in one of the states that does not offer protection against insurance discrimination for abuse, she might have ended up uninsured.
America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, has supported laws that explicitly prohibit domestic abuse from being a factor in denying insurance. "We have encouraged all states to adopt the legislation," referring to a "model law" developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, says spokesman Robert Zirkelbach.
But Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and the District of Columbia have not yet done so.
How widespread?
There have been no recent surveys to gauge how often victims of domestic abuse are rejected by insurers. An informal 1994 survey conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee staff found that eight of the 16 largest U.S. insurers used domestic violence as a factor in deciding whether to offer insurance coverage and how much to charge.
Follow-up surveys by the insurance commissioners of Pennsylvania and Kansas the next year found that one in four responding insurers reported taking domestic violence into account when determining whether to issue or renew health, accident or life insurance policies.
To get a sense of current conditions, Kaiser Health News contacted the departments of insurance in the states that have not adopted a ban. The majority said they had never heard of the issue, nor had they ever seen a question on an insurance application specifically asking about domestic abuse. None found records of complaints from domestic violence victims who had been denied coverage. And several, including North Carolina's department of insurance, said they had other stop-gap measures in place to prevent the practice.
More from Kaiser Health News
Health reform coverage by Kaiser Health News
'Not looking in the right places'
Nancy Durborow, Health Projects Manager for the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, says she isn't surprised that state departments of insurance haven't heard about the problem. "They don't see it because they're not looking in the right places."
Insurers never directly ask about abuse status on an application, Durborow explains. Instead, they learn about a history of domestic abuse in a myriad of other ways. They might find evidence in an applicant's medical records, such as repeated visits to an emergency room or a doctor's notation about abuse. Insurance agents may find out during an interview with the applicant. Durborow has even heard of cases where insurance agents have visited local courthouses to search for Protection from Abuse Orders, which are public information. Insurers may also see reports of domestic disturbances in a local newspaper.
In most states, insurance companies are not required by law to explain their decisions, so a domestic violence victim may never know why coverage was denied. Neal-Post adds that, because victims of domestic violence often remain silent, they wouldn't necessarily ask the right questions. In her case, she says, "they just made the mistake of doing it to a lawyer. It's flat-out wrong that I had to have professional skills and know-how to get covered."
Fear of denial
Lisa James, director of health for the Family Violence Prevention Fund, a non-profit group that works to prevent domestic violence, says the fear of being denied coverage is almost as menacing as the actual denials. Some women have heard about this type of insurance discrimination, she says, "especially those who have spent time in shelters with others. Women are concerned about keeping their medical information confidential."
In addition, the possibility of being denied insurance could discourage women from leaving an abusive partner. And for a woman with children, she says, the risks are multiplied. "It could be a denial not only for her, but she might also be worried that if she leaves, she won't be able to take her children to the doctor."
But the deterrent effect of these insurance practices don't stop there — they also have been known to plague the doctor-patient relationship. According to James, women may not feel comfortable discussing their difficulties with medical providers for fear that the information could be used against them down the line. She also hears from doctors and nurses who are worried that they may be compromising their patients' ability to get insurance by asking about and documenting abuse.
U.S. losing ground on preventable deaths
Surrounded by doctors, Obama pitches plan
Push starts for national e-health record system
'Glimmer of hope'
James and Durborow both say that enacting a federal law prohibiting the practice would be the best way to protect victims of domestic violence. But, since 1995, numerous measures have been proposed unsuccessfully in both the House and Senate. One such proposal failed in the Senate health committee as recently as 2006.
Durborow, who has been lobbying for a federal law for the past 12 years, says health reform is "the first real glimmer of hope" that a ban on the practice will pass. "For many years they told us that enacting protections would bankrupt the insurance companies, but we've never heard that it's been a problem" she says. "But people are now finally taking on the insurers."
"When you look at statistics on the prevalence of family violence, you can see why some bean counter would think this is certainly a way to save money," adds Neal-Post. "But the consequences are far reaching."
Some insurers say victims of domestic violence are too high risk to cover
Latest health reform headlines
CBO: Finance Panel's Health Bill Pricetag Is $829 Billion Over 10 Years; Provides Coverage To 91% Of U.S. Residents
House Democratic Caucus Considers Larger Medicaid Expansion, Public Option
Party Leaders Handle Key Finance Panel Undecided Votes Differently
While Some Votes Are Still In Play, Other Lawmakers Vie For Audience With Reid
Finance Panel Vote Delayed; Members Await New CBO Estimates
Dose of reality
Do health care reform headlines leave you saying “huh?” Visit msnbc.com's guide to health reform and send us claims you'd like fact-checked.
Health care videos
Health reformers play hardball
Oct. 7: Msnbc's Rachel Maddow reports that Democratic leaders have threatened to revoke committee chairmanships from colleagues who stand in the way of the health reform bill. Newsweek's Howard Fineman joins for further analysis of the rising tensions in Congress.
Baucus bill estimated at $829 billion
Care harder to afford for women
Health care by the numbers
A bad day to oppose health reform
Health care: How a bill becomes a law
As Congress works on an overhaul of health insurance, here's how the process will work.
NBC News
By Jenny Gold
updated 8:55 a.m. ET, Wed., Oct . 7, 2009
In 2006, attorney Jody Neal-Post tried to get health insurance but was rejected because of treatment — counseling and Valium — she received following a domestic-abuse incident. She says the insurer told her that her medical history made her a high risk, more likely to end up in the emergency room or require additional care.
Four years earlier, Neal-Post says, she had been assaulted by her ex-husband in her home in Albuquerque, N.M. According to police records, both she and her ex-spouse were charged in the incident. The charges were later dropped.
She wasn't prepared for the blow from the insurer. "I was just flabbergasted," says Neal-Post, a 52-year-old attorney. During the altercation with her ex-husband, "I was beaten and choked in my living room," she says. "I'm trying to keep my family together and get medical care. And then you make it through, with everyone back on track, and years later, when it's no longer part of your daily life to remember that and you're feeling good, it's back again."
Advocates say it's not uncommon for people who have been abused to be denied insurance on the individual market. While the majority of states have barred insurance companies from using abuse as grounds for denying coverage, eight states and the District of Columbia don't prohibit denying coverage for that reason. And even when states do have a law, it doesn't necessarily prevent carriers from initially rejecting applicants who are victims of violence.
It's unclear how often such rejections take place. But it is clear, experts say, that the fact that they occur at all can have a chilling effect on victims, who may be afraid to tell their doctors about attacks out of concern they'll have trouble getting insurance in the future.
A state vs. federal issue
How victims of domestic abuse are treated by insurers now is emerging as part of the health care overhaul debate. "Think of this, you have survived domestic violence and now you are discriminated in the insurance market because you have a pre-existing medical condition," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told leaders from women's organizations at a press conference Tuesday. "Well, that will all be gone under this legislation," she promised.
But for now, the issue is left to the states.
In some ways, Neal-Post was lucky. Her home state of New Mexico has strict laws prohibiting insurers from denying insurance based on a history of abuse. She's also an attorney with experience representing victims of domestic abuse.
After her fight with her ex-husband, and the coverage denial by the insurer years later, she filed an official complaint with the state's Public Regulatory Commission's insurance division. The commission insisted the insurer reverse its decision, which the company did. But had Neal-Post lived in one of the states that does not offer protection against insurance discrimination for abuse, she might have ended up uninsured.
America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, has supported laws that explicitly prohibit domestic abuse from being a factor in denying insurance. "We have encouraged all states to adopt the legislation," referring to a "model law" developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, says spokesman Robert Zirkelbach.
But Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and the District of Columbia have not yet done so.
How widespread?
There have been no recent surveys to gauge how often victims of domestic abuse are rejected by insurers. An informal 1994 survey conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee staff found that eight of the 16 largest U.S. insurers used domestic violence as a factor in deciding whether to offer insurance coverage and how much to charge.
Follow-up surveys by the insurance commissioners of Pennsylvania and Kansas the next year found that one in four responding insurers reported taking domestic violence into account when determining whether to issue or renew health, accident or life insurance policies.
To get a sense of current conditions, Kaiser Health News contacted the departments of insurance in the states that have not adopted a ban. The majority said they had never heard of the issue, nor had they ever seen a question on an insurance application specifically asking about domestic abuse. None found records of complaints from domestic violence victims who had been denied coverage. And several, including North Carolina's department of insurance, said they had other stop-gap measures in place to prevent the practice.
More from Kaiser Health News
Health reform coverage by Kaiser Health News
'Not looking in the right places'
Nancy Durborow, Health Projects Manager for the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, says she isn't surprised that state departments of insurance haven't heard about the problem. "They don't see it because they're not looking in the right places."
Insurers never directly ask about abuse status on an application, Durborow explains. Instead, they learn about a history of domestic abuse in a myriad of other ways. They might find evidence in an applicant's medical records, such as repeated visits to an emergency room or a doctor's notation about abuse. Insurance agents may find out during an interview with the applicant. Durborow has even heard of cases where insurance agents have visited local courthouses to search for Protection from Abuse Orders, which are public information. Insurers may also see reports of domestic disturbances in a local newspaper.
In most states, insurance companies are not required by law to explain their decisions, so a domestic violence victim may never know why coverage was denied. Neal-Post adds that, because victims of domestic violence often remain silent, they wouldn't necessarily ask the right questions. In her case, she says, "they just made the mistake of doing it to a lawyer. It's flat-out wrong that I had to have professional skills and know-how to get covered."
Fear of denial
Lisa James, director of health for the Family Violence Prevention Fund, a non-profit group that works to prevent domestic violence, says the fear of being denied coverage is almost as menacing as the actual denials. Some women have heard about this type of insurance discrimination, she says, "especially those who have spent time in shelters with others. Women are concerned about keeping their medical information confidential."
In addition, the possibility of being denied insurance could discourage women from leaving an abusive partner. And for a woman with children, she says, the risks are multiplied. "It could be a denial not only for her, but she might also be worried that if she leaves, she won't be able to take her children to the doctor."
But the deterrent effect of these insurance practices don't stop there — they also have been known to plague the doctor-patient relationship. According to James, women may not feel comfortable discussing their difficulties with medical providers for fear that the information could be used against them down the line. She also hears from doctors and nurses who are worried that they may be compromising their patients' ability to get insurance by asking about and documenting abuse.
U.S. losing ground on preventable deaths
Surrounded by doctors, Obama pitches plan
Push starts for national e-health record system
'Glimmer of hope'
James and Durborow both say that enacting a federal law prohibiting the practice would be the best way to protect victims of domestic violence. But, since 1995, numerous measures have been proposed unsuccessfully in both the House and Senate. One such proposal failed in the Senate health committee as recently as 2006.
Durborow, who has been lobbying for a federal law for the past 12 years, says health reform is "the first real glimmer of hope" that a ban on the practice will pass. "For many years they told us that enacting protections would bankrupt the insurance companies, but we've never heard that it's been a problem" she says. "But people are now finally taking on the insurers."
"When you look at statistics on the prevalence of family violence, you can see why some bean counter would think this is certainly a way to save money," adds Neal-Post. "But the consequences are far reaching."
Undercover stings expose ‘gun show loophole’
Buyers obtain weapons despite not being able to pass background checks
Jaycee Dugard: A Dateline investigation
A mother’s prayers answered: A kidnapped child rescued after 18 years. But why wasn’t Jaycee Dugard’s alleged kidnapped stopped sooner? NBC’s Keith Morrison reports. Watch “In Plain Sight,” Dateline’s hour-long investigation, here.
Holder: Student beating death 'a wake-up call'
Powerful quake strikes South Pacific
Hot dog! Is 7-foot-long pooch a record holder?
CBO: Health care bill to cost $829 billion
updated 2:29 p.m. ET, Wed., Oct . 7, 2009
NEW YORK - Investigators hired by New York City conducted stings at gun shows in states that have not closed the "gun show loophole" and found some vendors openly selling weapons to buyers who admitted they couldn't pass background checks.
The stings, described in a city report released Wednesday, were conducted at seven gun shows in Tennessee, Ohio and Nevada. Those states are among the many that permit private unlicensed dealers, known as "occasional sellers," to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting background checks.
Gun-control advocates say the loophole makes it easier for criminals to acquire guns and prevents law enforcement from being able to trace those weapons if they are used in crimes.
Nine states, including New York, have passed laws to close the loophole, requiring background checks on at least all handgun purchases at gun shows. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has long campaigned for Congress to close the loophole, and for states to do it on their own if the federal government does not.
Most sellers allegedly broke law
Even in states that haven't closed the loophole, federal law bars "occasional sellers" from selling guns to people they have reason to believe would fail a background check.
This is where the Bloomberg operation says 19 out of 30 sellers broke the law during the investigation, in which undercover buyers wore tiny cameras concealed in baseball hats and purses and audio recorders hidden in wristwatches.
In each purchase, the investigator showed interest in buying a gun, agreed on a price and then indicated that he probably could not pass a background check. Most sellers allowed the purchases anyway, responding in some cases by saying, "I couldn't pass one either," or "I don't care," according to the city's report.
Two assault rifles and 20 semiautomatic handguns were bought this way, the report said.
The 11 dealers who refused sales showed they knew the law.
"Once you say that, I'm kind of obligated not to," said one seller, according to the report. "I think that's what the rules are."
"Fact is, you done told me too much," said another who refused. "I wouldn't sell one to you at all."
The city has no legal authority over the dealers and is using its findings to make a point. A copy of the report is being sent to every member of Congress and the findings will be shared the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
"The gun show loophole is a deadly serious problem, and this undercover operation exposes just how pervasive and serious it is," the mayor said in a statement.
City hires 40 investigators
The undercover operation took place from about May to August and its $1.5 million cost was paid by city taxpayers. The city hired a team of 40 private investigators from an outside firm to make the purchases.
The sting comes three years after Bloomberg's administration conducted a similar operation focusing on illegal straw purchases at gun shops in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia that authorities believe were responsible for selling guns used in crimes in New York City. (A straw purchase is when one person fills out the paperwork and buys the gun for somebody else.)
Bloomberg's administration brought a civil case against 27 gun dealers targeted in its 2006 investigation.
As a result of the suit, 20 dealers are being monitored by a court-appointed special master. One is out of business, two more are expected to be put under monitoring agreements and three were dropped from the suit. A final dealer settled with the city but the terms did not include a monitor.
Investigators in this year's sting also attempted straw purchases at gun shows, and were successful 16 out of 17 times.
The city said it was not planning civil action this time around.
Comment
After the tragedy at Virginia Tech, there can be no reason to not, at least, have a 3-day waiting period so that a background check can be done. Hopefully, the check will weed out the nut cases and crooks. I believe Americans have the right to defend themselves, and arm themselves, but I do not need an automatic weapon to do it. Those who DO feel the need for an automatic weapon should justify their need, and have a much more extensive background check. In my opinion, only the cops and the military need automatic weapons.
Jaycee Dugard: A Dateline investigation
A mother’s prayers answered: A kidnapped child rescued after 18 years. But why wasn’t Jaycee Dugard’s alleged kidnapped stopped sooner? NBC’s Keith Morrison reports. Watch “In Plain Sight,” Dateline’s hour-long investigation, here.
Holder: Student beating death 'a wake-up call'
Powerful quake strikes South Pacific
Hot dog! Is 7-foot-long pooch a record holder?
CBO: Health care bill to cost $829 billion
updated 2:29 p.m. ET, Wed., Oct . 7, 2009
NEW YORK - Investigators hired by New York City conducted stings at gun shows in states that have not closed the "gun show loophole" and found some vendors openly selling weapons to buyers who admitted they couldn't pass background checks.
The stings, described in a city report released Wednesday, were conducted at seven gun shows in Tennessee, Ohio and Nevada. Those states are among the many that permit private unlicensed dealers, known as "occasional sellers," to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting background checks.
Gun-control advocates say the loophole makes it easier for criminals to acquire guns and prevents law enforcement from being able to trace those weapons if they are used in crimes.
Nine states, including New York, have passed laws to close the loophole, requiring background checks on at least all handgun purchases at gun shows. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has long campaigned for Congress to close the loophole, and for states to do it on their own if the federal government does not.
Most sellers allegedly broke law
Even in states that haven't closed the loophole, federal law bars "occasional sellers" from selling guns to people they have reason to believe would fail a background check.
This is where the Bloomberg operation says 19 out of 30 sellers broke the law during the investigation, in which undercover buyers wore tiny cameras concealed in baseball hats and purses and audio recorders hidden in wristwatches.
In each purchase, the investigator showed interest in buying a gun, agreed on a price and then indicated that he probably could not pass a background check. Most sellers allowed the purchases anyway, responding in some cases by saying, "I couldn't pass one either," or "I don't care," according to the city's report.
Two assault rifles and 20 semiautomatic handguns were bought this way, the report said.
The 11 dealers who refused sales showed they knew the law.
"Once you say that, I'm kind of obligated not to," said one seller, according to the report. "I think that's what the rules are."
"Fact is, you done told me too much," said another who refused. "I wouldn't sell one to you at all."
The city has no legal authority over the dealers and is using its findings to make a point. A copy of the report is being sent to every member of Congress and the findings will be shared the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
"The gun show loophole is a deadly serious problem, and this undercover operation exposes just how pervasive and serious it is," the mayor said in a statement.
City hires 40 investigators
The undercover operation took place from about May to August and its $1.5 million cost was paid by city taxpayers. The city hired a team of 40 private investigators from an outside firm to make the purchases.
The sting comes three years after Bloomberg's administration conducted a similar operation focusing on illegal straw purchases at gun shops in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia that authorities believe were responsible for selling guns used in crimes in New York City. (A straw purchase is when one person fills out the paperwork and buys the gun for somebody else.)
Bloomberg's administration brought a civil case against 27 gun dealers targeted in its 2006 investigation.
As a result of the suit, 20 dealers are being monitored by a court-appointed special master. One is out of business, two more are expected to be put under monitoring agreements and three were dropped from the suit. A final dealer settled with the city but the terms did not include a monitor.
Investigators in this year's sting also attempted straw purchases at gun shows, and were successful 16 out of 17 times.
The city said it was not planning civil action this time around.
Comment
After the tragedy at Virginia Tech, there can be no reason to not, at least, have a 3-day waiting period so that a background check can be done. Hopefully, the check will weed out the nut cases and crooks. I believe Americans have the right to defend themselves, and arm themselves, but I do not need an automatic weapon to do it. Those who DO feel the need for an automatic weapon should justify their need, and have a much more extensive background check. In my opinion, only the cops and the military need automatic weapons.
12 Reasons to Really Quit Smoking
Never mind cancer or heart disease for a moment. Here are some nonobvious reasons to snub cigarettes.
By Lindsay Lyon, U.S. News & World Report
10 Smokiest U.S. Cities—and 10 Most Smoke-Free, Too
Stop Smoking: Secrets of Successful Quitters
America's Best Cancer Hospitals
We'll spare you the lecture. (Seriously, though. Stamp out that butt and flush the pack, already.) Tobacco use, namely cigarette smoking, is the chief cause of preventable death in the United States. Left unbridled, smoking could kill more than a billion people this century, according to the World Health Organization. That equals the number who would die if a Titanic sank every 24 minutes for the next 100 years, as former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop so starkly put it at a March 2008 press conference.
Still, it may be harder than ever to quit: Three quarters of today's smokers trying to shed the habit are heavily hooked on nicotine, up 32 percent from almost two decades ago, according to research presented at the American College of Chest Physicians' annual meeting last October. So quitting, for most, is not merely a matter of willpower. Nonetheless, the reasons to do so keep amassing—and they're not all about heart disease, lung cancer, or respiratory problems. Here's a few downsides you might not have considered.
1. It fogs the mind. Smoking may cloud the mind, according to accumulating research. A June study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that smoking in middle age is linked to memory problems and to a slide in reasoning abilities, though these risks appeared lessened for those who'd long quit; this is important, the authors wrote, because other research has shown that people with mild cognitive impairment in midlife develop dementia at an accelerated rate. Their report piggybacks on several focused on the older set: A 2007 analysis of 19 prior studies concluded that elderly smokers face a heightened risk of dementia and cognitive decline, compared with lifelong nonsmokers. And in 2004, researchers reported in Neurology that smoking appeared to hasten cognitive decline in dementia-free elderly smokers, bringing it on several times faster than in their nonsmoking peers.
2. It may bring on diabetes. As if we need any more risk factors for diabetes, an analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year found that across 25 prior studies, current smokers have a 44 percent greater chance of developing type 2 diabetes than nonsmokers do, and the risk was strongest for those with the heaviest habit, who clocked 20 or more cigarettes per day. In an accompanying editorial, researchers made a striking estimation: That some 12 percent of all type 2 diabetes cases nationwide might be attributable to smoking.
3. It invites infections. In October, the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices made its first ever recommendation that all smokers ages 19 to 64 be added to a short list of candidates for the pneumococcal vaccine. That's because there are very strong data showing that the risk of infection by pneumonia-causing bacteria is substantially greater for smokers than for nonsmokers, says Pekka Nuorti, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Exactly why is unclear, though there's evidence that smoking may damage the respiratory system's protective mucous membranes, making it easier for infectious organisms to latch on and cause disease, says Nuorti. Other research suggests that smoking may interfere with immunity, compromising people's ability to fight infections, he adds.
Heightened susceptibility to infections, it appears, isn't limited just to those who do the smoking: A May 2008 study in Tobacco Control found that children exposed to secondhand smoke at home during early infancy (especially those born prematurely or with a low birth weight) are more prone to a throng of severe illnesses that may land them in the hospital at some point during childhood. The findings were based on an analysis of more than 7,000 Chinese children from 1997 to 2005.
4. It may stultify a sex life. If men want to hop aboard the Viagra bandwagon, mounting evidence suggests that puffing cigarettes might be just their ticket. Smokers are more apt to experience erectile dysfunction than nonsmokers are, and this risk climbs as the number of cigarettes smoked increases. A study in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2007 tracked more than 7,500 Chinese men with low risk for artherosclerosis, a chief underlying cause of erectile dysfunction, and found that smoking could independently hike a man's chance of wrangling with the sexual condition. Preventing smoking is an "important approach" for cutting the risk of ED, the researchers concluded.
5. It may lead to wrinkles ... everywhere. Not only does smoking contribute to premature facial wrinkles, but a 2007 study in the Archives of Dermatology found that it may also lead to wrinkling of skin that rarely sees the light of day—in areas such as the inner arm and perhaps the buttocks.
6. It may hasten menopause. Women who smoke face an increased risk of infertility, and they may experience natural menopause at a younger age than do nonsmokers, according to the 2004 and the 2001 Surgeon General's Reports, respectively. Further evidence: A 2001 animal study in Nature Genetics found that chemicals in cigarette smoke can hurry menopause by killing off egg cells made by ovaries, thereby dwindling the egg cell reserve. Since the timing of menopause is dictated by the size of a woman's egg cell reserve—which is stocked with about a million eggs at birth and vanishes by menopause—anything that speeds up its loss could logically lead to a much earlier onset of fertility troubles, notes Jonathan Tilly, one of the study's authors and director of the Vincent Center for Reproductive Biology at Massachusetts General Hospital. More worrisome: Women who smoke during pregnancy may be compromising not only their own future fertility but the fertility of their unborn daughters. In studies testing that idea, mice exposed to chemicals in cigarette smoke during gestation were born with shrunken egg reserves. "Even under the best-chance scenario—you're a nonsmoker, you're healthy, you're young, you eat well, you're in shape—human fertility isn't 100 percent," says Tilly. "Anything you can do to make it better is certainly worth your while."
7. It may dull vision. Several studies have found a robust link between smoking and eye disease, specifically age-related macular degeneration, which can permanently blur vision or cause blindness. A 2005 review of 17 studies in the journal Eye reported that active smokers may face two to three times the risk for developing the disease experienced by those who have never smoked.
8. It hurts bones. Smoking weakens the body's scaffolding and is a serious risk factor for osteoporosis, according to the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. It's been shown to fritter away bone density in postmenopausal women and to hike the risk of hip fractures in both sexes, according to the 2004 Surgeon General's Report. (People who endure hip fractures are 12 to 20 percent more likely to die than those who don't, the Report notes, though there are ways osteoporosis sufferers can protect themselves.) Smokers may also experience slower healing of broken bones and wounded tissues than do nonsmokers.
9. It may injure the insides. Sure, cigarettes may be smooth to inhale, but they can rough up the digestive system, leading to heartburn, peptic ulcers and possibly gallstones, according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. What's more, current and former smokers have an elevated risk of developing Crohn's disease, a condition characterized by inflammation in the digestive tract and causing pain and diarrhea, says NIDDK.
10. It may stifle sleep. Feeling groggy despite a night's slumber might be a problem for those who light up: A February study in Chest found that smokers are four times more likely to get nonrestorative sleep than those who don't smoke, and researchers deemed nicotine the likely culprit. They theorized that its stimulant properties deal smokers a double blow, making it difficult to fall asleep and also potentially sending the body into nicotine withdrawal during the night. (Half of the chemical's effect wears off within two hours.) Since inadequate shut-eye can invite health problems, consider forgoing cigarettes for the sake of your sleep.
11. It shaves years—and quality—off life. Men who have never smoked live on average 10 years longer than their peers who smoke heavily, according to an October report in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Moreover, they enjoyed a higher quality of life throughout those extra years, throwing sand in the face of the old smokers' defense that an early death is a small price to pay for a lifetime of pleasure. The study's Finnish authors drew their conclusion after scrutinizing data on more than 1,600 men tracked for nearly 30 years.
12. It's tied to lots of cancers. Not to belabor the point, but tobacco use and smoking have been linked to much more than lung cancer. In September, the CDC released a report estimating that more than 2 million cases of tobacco-related cancers were diagnosed nationwide between 1999 and 2004. Lung and bronchial cancer topped the list, naturally, but other types included stomach, pancreatic, kidney, urinary bladder and cervical cancer. "We knew this was a big problem and a preventable problem," says Sherri Stewart, the epidemiologist at CDC who led the research. "But when you present the hard numbers, you start to see the profoundness of the problem." Her message: To protect your health, do everything you can to quit.
Comment
My old girlfriend smoked 5 packs a day. When i confronted her she said,"I have been smoking for 35 years and it hasnt killed me yet, so I dont think it will hurt me to continue". Its hard to argue with logic like that. She was spending well over $300 a month on cigarettes, out of a $900 disability check. Craziness. A big part of the reason she is my EX-girlfriend.
By Lindsay Lyon, U.S. News & World Report
10 Smokiest U.S. Cities—and 10 Most Smoke-Free, Too
Stop Smoking: Secrets of Successful Quitters
America's Best Cancer Hospitals
We'll spare you the lecture. (Seriously, though. Stamp out that butt and flush the pack, already.) Tobacco use, namely cigarette smoking, is the chief cause of preventable death in the United States. Left unbridled, smoking could kill more than a billion people this century, according to the World Health Organization. That equals the number who would die if a Titanic sank every 24 minutes for the next 100 years, as former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop so starkly put it at a March 2008 press conference.
Still, it may be harder than ever to quit: Three quarters of today's smokers trying to shed the habit are heavily hooked on nicotine, up 32 percent from almost two decades ago, according to research presented at the American College of Chest Physicians' annual meeting last October. So quitting, for most, is not merely a matter of willpower. Nonetheless, the reasons to do so keep amassing—and they're not all about heart disease, lung cancer, or respiratory problems. Here's a few downsides you might not have considered.
1. It fogs the mind. Smoking may cloud the mind, according to accumulating research. A June study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that smoking in middle age is linked to memory problems and to a slide in reasoning abilities, though these risks appeared lessened for those who'd long quit; this is important, the authors wrote, because other research has shown that people with mild cognitive impairment in midlife develop dementia at an accelerated rate. Their report piggybacks on several focused on the older set: A 2007 analysis of 19 prior studies concluded that elderly smokers face a heightened risk of dementia and cognitive decline, compared with lifelong nonsmokers. And in 2004, researchers reported in Neurology that smoking appeared to hasten cognitive decline in dementia-free elderly smokers, bringing it on several times faster than in their nonsmoking peers.
2. It may bring on diabetes. As if we need any more risk factors for diabetes, an analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year found that across 25 prior studies, current smokers have a 44 percent greater chance of developing type 2 diabetes than nonsmokers do, and the risk was strongest for those with the heaviest habit, who clocked 20 or more cigarettes per day. In an accompanying editorial, researchers made a striking estimation: That some 12 percent of all type 2 diabetes cases nationwide might be attributable to smoking.
3. It invites infections. In October, the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices made its first ever recommendation that all smokers ages 19 to 64 be added to a short list of candidates for the pneumococcal vaccine. That's because there are very strong data showing that the risk of infection by pneumonia-causing bacteria is substantially greater for smokers than for nonsmokers, says Pekka Nuorti, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Exactly why is unclear, though there's evidence that smoking may damage the respiratory system's protective mucous membranes, making it easier for infectious organisms to latch on and cause disease, says Nuorti. Other research suggests that smoking may interfere with immunity, compromising people's ability to fight infections, he adds.
Heightened susceptibility to infections, it appears, isn't limited just to those who do the smoking: A May 2008 study in Tobacco Control found that children exposed to secondhand smoke at home during early infancy (especially those born prematurely or with a low birth weight) are more prone to a throng of severe illnesses that may land them in the hospital at some point during childhood. The findings were based on an analysis of more than 7,000 Chinese children from 1997 to 2005.
4. It may stultify a sex life. If men want to hop aboard the Viagra bandwagon, mounting evidence suggests that puffing cigarettes might be just their ticket. Smokers are more apt to experience erectile dysfunction than nonsmokers are, and this risk climbs as the number of cigarettes smoked increases. A study in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2007 tracked more than 7,500 Chinese men with low risk for artherosclerosis, a chief underlying cause of erectile dysfunction, and found that smoking could independently hike a man's chance of wrangling with the sexual condition. Preventing smoking is an "important approach" for cutting the risk of ED, the researchers concluded.
5. It may lead to wrinkles ... everywhere. Not only does smoking contribute to premature facial wrinkles, but a 2007 study in the Archives of Dermatology found that it may also lead to wrinkling of skin that rarely sees the light of day—in areas such as the inner arm and perhaps the buttocks.
6. It may hasten menopause. Women who smoke face an increased risk of infertility, and they may experience natural menopause at a younger age than do nonsmokers, according to the 2004 and the 2001 Surgeon General's Reports, respectively. Further evidence: A 2001 animal study in Nature Genetics found that chemicals in cigarette smoke can hurry menopause by killing off egg cells made by ovaries, thereby dwindling the egg cell reserve. Since the timing of menopause is dictated by the size of a woman's egg cell reserve—which is stocked with about a million eggs at birth and vanishes by menopause—anything that speeds up its loss could logically lead to a much earlier onset of fertility troubles, notes Jonathan Tilly, one of the study's authors and director of the Vincent Center for Reproductive Biology at Massachusetts General Hospital. More worrisome: Women who smoke during pregnancy may be compromising not only their own future fertility but the fertility of their unborn daughters. In studies testing that idea, mice exposed to chemicals in cigarette smoke during gestation were born with shrunken egg reserves. "Even under the best-chance scenario—you're a nonsmoker, you're healthy, you're young, you eat well, you're in shape—human fertility isn't 100 percent," says Tilly. "Anything you can do to make it better is certainly worth your while."
7. It may dull vision. Several studies have found a robust link between smoking and eye disease, specifically age-related macular degeneration, which can permanently blur vision or cause blindness. A 2005 review of 17 studies in the journal Eye reported that active smokers may face two to three times the risk for developing the disease experienced by those who have never smoked.
8. It hurts bones. Smoking weakens the body's scaffolding and is a serious risk factor for osteoporosis, according to the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. It's been shown to fritter away bone density in postmenopausal women and to hike the risk of hip fractures in both sexes, according to the 2004 Surgeon General's Report. (People who endure hip fractures are 12 to 20 percent more likely to die than those who don't, the Report notes, though there are ways osteoporosis sufferers can protect themselves.) Smokers may also experience slower healing of broken bones and wounded tissues than do nonsmokers.
9. It may injure the insides. Sure, cigarettes may be smooth to inhale, but they can rough up the digestive system, leading to heartburn, peptic ulcers and possibly gallstones, according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. What's more, current and former smokers have an elevated risk of developing Crohn's disease, a condition characterized by inflammation in the digestive tract and causing pain and diarrhea, says NIDDK.
10. It may stifle sleep. Feeling groggy despite a night's slumber might be a problem for those who light up: A February study in Chest found that smokers are four times more likely to get nonrestorative sleep than those who don't smoke, and researchers deemed nicotine the likely culprit. They theorized that its stimulant properties deal smokers a double blow, making it difficult to fall asleep and also potentially sending the body into nicotine withdrawal during the night. (Half of the chemical's effect wears off within two hours.) Since inadequate shut-eye can invite health problems, consider forgoing cigarettes for the sake of your sleep.
11. It shaves years—and quality—off life. Men who have never smoked live on average 10 years longer than their peers who smoke heavily, according to an October report in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Moreover, they enjoyed a higher quality of life throughout those extra years, throwing sand in the face of the old smokers' defense that an early death is a small price to pay for a lifetime of pleasure. The study's Finnish authors drew their conclusion after scrutinizing data on more than 1,600 men tracked for nearly 30 years.
12. It's tied to lots of cancers. Not to belabor the point, but tobacco use and smoking have been linked to much more than lung cancer. In September, the CDC released a report estimating that more than 2 million cases of tobacco-related cancers were diagnosed nationwide between 1999 and 2004. Lung and bronchial cancer topped the list, naturally, but other types included stomach, pancreatic, kidney, urinary bladder and cervical cancer. "We knew this was a big problem and a preventable problem," says Sherri Stewart, the epidemiologist at CDC who led the research. "But when you present the hard numbers, you start to see the profoundness of the problem." Her message: To protect your health, do everything you can to quit.
Comment
My old girlfriend smoked 5 packs a day. When i confronted her she said,"I have been smoking for 35 years and it hasnt killed me yet, so I dont think it will hurt me to continue". Its hard to argue with logic like that. She was spending well over $300 a month on cigarettes, out of a $900 disability check. Craziness. A big part of the reason she is my EX-girlfriend.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Tired of snoring? All you need is heat
October 5, 2009 3:07 PM PDT
Tired of snoring? All you need is heat
by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore Font size Print E-mail Share 2 comments Yahoo! Buzz
Scientists find that radiofrequency ablation, a minimally invasive procedure using heat to shrink soft palate tissue, can minimize snoring for years.
(Credit: CC Looking Glass/Flickr If we're honest, most of us are either snorers or sleeping next to one.
On a recent camping trip, I woke up in the middle of the night thinking we had a bear grunting just outside our tent; heart racing, I turned on my head lamp to investigate. Turns out my husband, who rarely snores, sounds like a bear when he does. I tossed and turned for an hour until finally shaking him awake to shut him up.
For couples dealing with this kind of sleep disruption on a regular basis, it's probably not a stretch to say that a minimally invasive treatment that stops or significantly reduces snoring could save relationships.
The procedure, called radiofrequency ablation, or RFA, uses heat to shrink soft palate tissue. Because it is minimally invasive, performed with imaging from X-rays or CT scans, it has become a widespread treatment in the past decade of not only primary snoring (snoring without sleep apnea) but also cancer, cardiac arrhythmia, arthritis, and even varicose veins.
Unlike previously used low-frequency AC or DC, RF current does not directly stimulate nerves or muscle, so does not require general anesthesia. Still, long-term efficacy in primary snorers had yet to be studied thoroughly, according to researchers of a new study.
In a paper presented last weekend at the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's annual meeting in San Diego, researchers studied RFA as a treatment for 60 primary snorers over a three-year period. After two treatments, snoring became less severe, and 76 percent of patients reported satisfaction with the treatment and its effects at a three-year follow-up, according to the study.
Researchers say that primary snoring could be an early predictor for people who later develop obstructive sleep apnea. Unlike apnea, for which there are several surgeries, no widely accepted gold standard treatment has been developed to treat primary snoring.
Long-term research results surrounding radiofrequency surgery on primary snorers have been limited, the researchers say. As a result, this study could guide physicians and patients in choosing effective treatment.
Tired of snoring? All you need is heat
by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore Font size Print E-mail Share 2 comments Yahoo! Buzz
Scientists find that radiofrequency ablation, a minimally invasive procedure using heat to shrink soft palate tissue, can minimize snoring for years.
(Credit: CC Looking Glass/Flickr If we're honest, most of us are either snorers or sleeping next to one.
On a recent camping trip, I woke up in the middle of the night thinking we had a bear grunting just outside our tent; heart racing, I turned on my head lamp to investigate. Turns out my husband, who rarely snores, sounds like a bear when he does. I tossed and turned for an hour until finally shaking him awake to shut him up.
For couples dealing with this kind of sleep disruption on a regular basis, it's probably not a stretch to say that a minimally invasive treatment that stops or significantly reduces snoring could save relationships.
The procedure, called radiofrequency ablation, or RFA, uses heat to shrink soft palate tissue. Because it is minimally invasive, performed with imaging from X-rays or CT scans, it has become a widespread treatment in the past decade of not only primary snoring (snoring without sleep apnea) but also cancer, cardiac arrhythmia, arthritis, and even varicose veins.
Unlike previously used low-frequency AC or DC, RF current does not directly stimulate nerves or muscle, so does not require general anesthesia. Still, long-term efficacy in primary snorers had yet to be studied thoroughly, according to researchers of a new study.
In a paper presented last weekend at the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's annual meeting in San Diego, researchers studied RFA as a treatment for 60 primary snorers over a three-year period. After two treatments, snoring became less severe, and 76 percent of patients reported satisfaction with the treatment and its effects at a three-year follow-up, according to the study.
Researchers say that primary snoring could be an early predictor for people who later develop obstructive sleep apnea. Unlike apnea, for which there are several surgeries, no widely accepted gold standard treatment has been developed to treat primary snoring.
Long-term research results surrounding radiofrequency surgery on primary snorers have been limited, the researchers say. As a result, this study could guide physicians and patients in choosing effective treatment.
Mafia, violent criminals turn to Medicare fraud
Schemes offer big payoff and carry shorter prison time than other offenses
Texas judge OK's gay divorce
Oct. 2: A Dallas, Texas, judge has OK'd the divorce of a gay couple, potentially opening the door for recognition of same-sex marriages in the state. KXAS's Ellen Goldberg reports.
Man arrested after child groping offense
Elizabeth Smart recounts rape ordeal
Attorney: ‘Nothing’ connects Casey to crime scene
Kidnapped woman says captor raped her
Driving lesson ends as crash course in bedroom
‘Cleantech’ could be economy’s next boom
Green roofs offset global warming, study finds
Burger King plans ‘futuristic’ remodel of stores
Obama offers no firm signals on troop increases
Most viewed on msnbc.com
10 ways Monty Python changed comedy
Physicists win Nobel for high-tech wonders
Trustee sues Madoff family for $199 million
Cluster of dinosaur eggs found in India
A town’s love of Indian artifacts backfires
Most viewed on msnbc.com
‘Cleantech’ could be economy’s next boom
Green roofs offset global warming, study finds
Miles Davis’ masterly ‘Kind of Blue’ turns 50
Mafia, violent criminals turn to Medicare fraud
Burger King plans ‘futuristic’ remodel of stores
updated 3:38 p.m. ET, Tues., Oct . 6, 2009
MIAMI - Lured by easier money and shorter prison sentences, Mafia figures and other violent criminals are increasingly moving into Medicare fraud and spilling blood over what was once a white-collar crime.
Around the nation, federal investigators have been threatened, an informant's body was found riddled with bullets, and a woman was discovered dead in a pharmacy under investigation, her throat slit with a piece of broken toilet seat.
For criminals, Medicare schemes offer a greater payoff and carry much shorter prison sentences than offenses such as drug trafficking or robbery.
"We've seen more people that used to be involved in (dealing) drugs are switching over to health care fraud because it's not as dangerous," Miami FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela said.
Medicare scammers typically make their money by billing Medicare for medical equipment and drugs that patients never receive — and never needed. Some pay homeless people on Los Angeles' Skid Row for Medicare or Social Security numbers to use in fake billing invoices. Others intimidate elderly victims to use their Medicare numbers, federal authorities say.
Most Medicare schemes are based in cities such as Miami, Los Angeles, Detroit and Houston. And rather than building an elaborate hierarchy like the Mafia or other gangs, many Medicare con artists use common street criminals to recruit patients and doctors, authorities said.
"Building a Medicare fraud scam is far safer than dealing in crack or dealing in stolen cars, and it's far more lucrative," said Lewis Morris, lead attorney at the Department of Health and Human Services' inspector general's office.
A Medicare scammer could easily net at least $25,000 a day while risking a relatively modest 10 years in prison if convicted on a single count. A cocaine dealer could take weeks to make that amount while risking up to life in prison.
It's unclear how many violent crimes are tied to Medicare fraud because most of them are carried out by someone within the hoax who attacks another person taking part in the crime.
'Common criminals'
One Southern California criminal task force has arrested about 50 suspects for Medicare fraud in the last three years.
And 11 members of New York's Bonanno family were indicted in May in a Medicare fraud scheme in South Florida. They were accused of stealing patients' Medicare numbers and using them to submit false claims. Other allegations included identity theft and conspiring to commit murder.
Even criminals with violent records, including a convicted murderer, have been able to obtain Medicare supplier licenses. Applicants with felony records can only be rejected if their convictions are 10 years old or less.
"It's outrageous that those trusted to provide medical care are really nothing but common criminals," said federal prosecutor Kirk Ogrosky, who heads the Medicare Fraud Strike Force across the United States.
Gruesome cases
Guillermo Denis Gonzalez spent 14 years in prison for second-degree murder, but after his 2006 release, records showed he soon bought a business called DG Medical in the Miami suburb of Hialeah and applied to be a Medicare supplier.
Within two months, federal investigators were alerted that the Medicare claims the company were making were fraudulent and suspended its license. By then, the sham company had illegally netted $31,000.
Last month, he pleaded guilty to Medicare fraud and now awaits sentencing. He is also charged in a gruesome killing in May 2008 in which police say he repeatedly stabbed a man with a kitchen knife, crushed his face with a mallet, then cut off the victim's head and dismembered the body before stuffing the parts in trash bins. The killing might be related to Medicare fraud, authorities said.
His attorney, Stephen Kramer, has declined to comment.
Medicare-fraud investigations used to focus mainly on patient records and financial papers, but now the crime scenes are increasingly bloody:
In 2007, authorities found Juana Gonzalez lying in a pool of blood on the floor of her Miami pharmacy. Her cousin was charged with second-degree murder, accused of taking a piece of a broken toilet and slitting Gonzalez's throat. Federal authorities said they were investigating the pharmacy for Medicare fraud and believe the crimes are related.
In 2004, a week after the FBI issued search warrants on more than 50 fraudulent Medicare storefronts in Miami, the body of Ernesto Valdes was found in the back seat of his car, riddled with bullets. Federal authorities said he had information that could have linked players in the $148 million fraud scheme. No one has ever been charged in his slaying.
In 2006, members of a Russian-Armenian organized crime ring were indicted for allegedly bilking Medicare of more than $20 million through a group of medical clinics they ran in the Los Angeles area. The group included Konstantin Grigoryan, a former colonel in the Soviet army, family members and others with past criminal records.
"They don't have the typical structure that we see in Italian mobs. They'll work with whoever can make them money. And if they don't get their way, they won't be ashamed to kidnap somebody, to shoot somebody," said Glendale Police Lt. Steve Davey, who leads the Southern California Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force.
'Nobody saw anything'
The violent crimes are mostly to settle a debt or silence a witness.
"It's in-house. Typically professional hits, generally unsolved. Usually it's just a bullet in the head, nobody saw anything," said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sgt. Stephen Opferman.
The Armenian gangs have also aggressively pursued elderly patients, intimidating them to obtain their Medicare numbers, Opferman said. Police have received reports from family members who feared their grandmother had been abducted, only to learn later that she was picked up in a van and taken to a fake store where her Medicare number was swiped.
The groups have broken into computer banking systems or paid moles to provide key information from court clerk's offices and various government agencies, Davey said.
In Los Angeles, two federal authorities investigating Medicare fraud say colleagues have been threatened and had their cars followed.
Sometimes Medicare fraud turns violent without the involvement of organized crime.
Illinois podiatrist Ronald Mikos was sentenced to death for the 2002 fatal shooting of a patient to keep her from telling a federal grand jury how he defrauded Medicare. He shot the woman six times as she sat in her wheelchair at her home. Her subpoena was found on the floor next to her.
Texas judge OK's gay divorce
Oct. 2: A Dallas, Texas, judge has OK'd the divorce of a gay couple, potentially opening the door for recognition of same-sex marriages in the state. KXAS's Ellen Goldberg reports.
Man arrested after child groping offense
Elizabeth Smart recounts rape ordeal
Attorney: ‘Nothing’ connects Casey to crime scene
Kidnapped woman says captor raped her
Driving lesson ends as crash course in bedroom
‘Cleantech’ could be economy’s next boom
Green roofs offset global warming, study finds
Burger King plans ‘futuristic’ remodel of stores
Obama offers no firm signals on troop increases
Most viewed on msnbc.com
10 ways Monty Python changed comedy
Physicists win Nobel for high-tech wonders
Trustee sues Madoff family for $199 million
Cluster of dinosaur eggs found in India
A town’s love of Indian artifacts backfires
Most viewed on msnbc.com
‘Cleantech’ could be economy’s next boom
Green roofs offset global warming, study finds
Miles Davis’ masterly ‘Kind of Blue’ turns 50
Mafia, violent criminals turn to Medicare fraud
Burger King plans ‘futuristic’ remodel of stores
updated 3:38 p.m. ET, Tues., Oct . 6, 2009
MIAMI - Lured by easier money and shorter prison sentences, Mafia figures and other violent criminals are increasingly moving into Medicare fraud and spilling blood over what was once a white-collar crime.
Around the nation, federal investigators have been threatened, an informant's body was found riddled with bullets, and a woman was discovered dead in a pharmacy under investigation, her throat slit with a piece of broken toilet seat.
For criminals, Medicare schemes offer a greater payoff and carry much shorter prison sentences than offenses such as drug trafficking or robbery.
"We've seen more people that used to be involved in (dealing) drugs are switching over to health care fraud because it's not as dangerous," Miami FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela said.
Medicare scammers typically make their money by billing Medicare for medical equipment and drugs that patients never receive — and never needed. Some pay homeless people on Los Angeles' Skid Row for Medicare or Social Security numbers to use in fake billing invoices. Others intimidate elderly victims to use their Medicare numbers, federal authorities say.
Most Medicare schemes are based in cities such as Miami, Los Angeles, Detroit and Houston. And rather than building an elaborate hierarchy like the Mafia or other gangs, many Medicare con artists use common street criminals to recruit patients and doctors, authorities said.
"Building a Medicare fraud scam is far safer than dealing in crack or dealing in stolen cars, and it's far more lucrative," said Lewis Morris, lead attorney at the Department of Health and Human Services' inspector general's office.
A Medicare scammer could easily net at least $25,000 a day while risking a relatively modest 10 years in prison if convicted on a single count. A cocaine dealer could take weeks to make that amount while risking up to life in prison.
It's unclear how many violent crimes are tied to Medicare fraud because most of them are carried out by someone within the hoax who attacks another person taking part in the crime.
'Common criminals'
One Southern California criminal task force has arrested about 50 suspects for Medicare fraud in the last three years.
And 11 members of New York's Bonanno family were indicted in May in a Medicare fraud scheme in South Florida. They were accused of stealing patients' Medicare numbers and using them to submit false claims. Other allegations included identity theft and conspiring to commit murder.
Even criminals with violent records, including a convicted murderer, have been able to obtain Medicare supplier licenses. Applicants with felony records can only be rejected if their convictions are 10 years old or less.
"It's outrageous that those trusted to provide medical care are really nothing but common criminals," said federal prosecutor Kirk Ogrosky, who heads the Medicare Fraud Strike Force across the United States.
Gruesome cases
Guillermo Denis Gonzalez spent 14 years in prison for second-degree murder, but after his 2006 release, records showed he soon bought a business called DG Medical in the Miami suburb of Hialeah and applied to be a Medicare supplier.
Within two months, federal investigators were alerted that the Medicare claims the company were making were fraudulent and suspended its license. By then, the sham company had illegally netted $31,000.
Last month, he pleaded guilty to Medicare fraud and now awaits sentencing. He is also charged in a gruesome killing in May 2008 in which police say he repeatedly stabbed a man with a kitchen knife, crushed his face with a mallet, then cut off the victim's head and dismembered the body before stuffing the parts in trash bins. The killing might be related to Medicare fraud, authorities said.
His attorney, Stephen Kramer, has declined to comment.
Medicare-fraud investigations used to focus mainly on patient records and financial papers, but now the crime scenes are increasingly bloody:
In 2007, authorities found Juana Gonzalez lying in a pool of blood on the floor of her Miami pharmacy. Her cousin was charged with second-degree murder, accused of taking a piece of a broken toilet and slitting Gonzalez's throat. Federal authorities said they were investigating the pharmacy for Medicare fraud and believe the crimes are related.
In 2004, a week after the FBI issued search warrants on more than 50 fraudulent Medicare storefronts in Miami, the body of Ernesto Valdes was found in the back seat of his car, riddled with bullets. Federal authorities said he had information that could have linked players in the $148 million fraud scheme. No one has ever been charged in his slaying.
In 2006, members of a Russian-Armenian organized crime ring were indicted for allegedly bilking Medicare of more than $20 million through a group of medical clinics they ran in the Los Angeles area. The group included Konstantin Grigoryan, a former colonel in the Soviet army, family members and others with past criminal records.
"They don't have the typical structure that we see in Italian mobs. They'll work with whoever can make them money. And if they don't get their way, they won't be ashamed to kidnap somebody, to shoot somebody," said Glendale Police Lt. Steve Davey, who leads the Southern California Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force.
'Nobody saw anything'
The violent crimes are mostly to settle a debt or silence a witness.
"It's in-house. Typically professional hits, generally unsolved. Usually it's just a bullet in the head, nobody saw anything," said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sgt. Stephen Opferman.
The Armenian gangs have also aggressively pursued elderly patients, intimidating them to obtain their Medicare numbers, Opferman said. Police have received reports from family members who feared their grandmother had been abducted, only to learn later that she was picked up in a van and taken to a fake store where her Medicare number was swiped.
The groups have broken into computer banking systems or paid moles to provide key information from court clerk's offices and various government agencies, Davey said.
In Los Angeles, two federal authorities investigating Medicare fraud say colleagues have been threatened and had their cars followed.
Sometimes Medicare fraud turns violent without the involvement of organized crime.
Illinois podiatrist Ronald Mikos was sentenced to death for the 2002 fatal shooting of a patient to keep her from telling a federal grand jury how he defrauded Medicare. He shot the woman six times as she sat in her wheelchair at her home. Her subpoena was found on the floor next to her.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Shift to GreenGuy 1700 blog
I have shifted my blog to GreenGuy1700 at blogspot, since I cant have over 2000 labels. I am over my limit and cant seem to eliminate the labels without deleting the posts. Due to those technical difficulties that are beyond my control, I will shift over. It was my original intent to post GREEN stuff on GreenGuy1700 and other stuff, including local politics, on the SpringsBlogger site. If anybody can tell me how to delete only the labels(which I hate to do, but Google requires it) I would appreciate it. I attempted to do it via editing but instead wound up deleting the entire post, along with the labels. You would think if they are going to place a limit on labels, they would tell you how to get out of that predicament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)