Thursday, September 23, 2010

Clinton Says Give Democrats More Time

Breaking from Newsmax.com

NEW YORK — Bill Clinton asked the American people Wednesday to give the Democrats two more years to dig the country out of the economic hole he blamed on the Republicans — and then, if the Democrats fail, "throw us all out."

The former president said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Democrats can still pull the November midterm elections out of the fire if they go on the offensive.

Editor's Notes:
Top Doctors Share Secrets to Surviving Cancer
10 Prescription Drugs That Don't Work

The Democrats won "a lot of exceedingly marginal seats" in the last two elections and have to assume they will lose some of them this year, but "whether these elections will be a big setback for the Democrats is yet to be determined," he said.
"If the Democrats can make this a choice, not a referendum, they can win," Clinton said. "If it's a referendum on anger, apathy, laced with amnesia, they're going to have a problem."

He urged Democrats to start countering GOP claims with facts and statistics demonstrating what President Barack Obama's administration has done to avert a more severe downturn and what Republican promises to roll back key legislation would mean for voters.

"I think the Democrats ought to stand up and say ... 'You gave them eight years to dig this hole, and to double the debt of the country, and not to produce any jobs, and then to have a financial collapse and all this calamity. At least give us four to dig out of it,'" Clinton said.

"If we're wrong, throw us all out. But don't bring back the people that dug the hole."

Clinton spoke in a lengthy telephone conversation from the Clinton Global Initiative, a conference that brings together leaders from government, business and philanthropy who make financial commitments to reduce poverty and disease around the world. Obama and his wife, Michelle, are expected to address the closing session on Thursday.

Democrats are facing a wave of voter anger over the struggling economy, and the Republicans appear poised to gain seats and possibly control of the House, and pick up seats in the Senate, too. That could position them to block virtually any Obama initiatives in the next two years.

In the next five weeks, Clinton said, the Democrats need to answer the two key GOP arguments — that they should be thrown out because they haven't reversed the fallout from the global financial crisis, and that the Obama administration is spending too much and trying to turn the U.S. into "some big European-style social democratic bureaucracy."

Clinton said it is important for Democrats to tell voters that "we didn't get out of the hole, but we have stopped digging." The U.S. has recovered 70 percent of the income growth it lost in the 2008 global financial meltdown, he said. In contrast, Germany has recovered 60 percent, Japan 50 percent and Britain 30 percent.

"We got into this mess because there was too much risk and too little oversight," Clinton said. The Republicans want to repeal the Obama administration's financial oversight legislation "and let the interest groups go back to basically gambling not only with their future but ours."

He said Democrats need to make the case that the $800 billion stimulus package provided a modest tax cut for many people and enabled state and local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers and health care workers.

"I think we ought to defend the stimulus," Clinton said. "The hole was $3 trillion. Two-thirds of the stimulus was not designed to get us out of the hole. It was designed to help us tread water so we didn't drown."

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Stem Cell Research: Science, Not Politics

Read More: Barack Obama , Dickey-Wicker , Fdr , Nih , Stem Cell Research , Stem Cells , Politics News

Speech delivered in Washington, DC on September 21, 2010:

Good evening. It is an honor to be speaking to all of you this evening. I'd like to thank John Walker, our Chairman and Tom Okarma, who heads our Government Relations Committee to the Board. And of course I need to acknowledge the hard work of Michael Werner and Morrie Ruffin. I also want to thank Congressman Mike Castle for his steadfast support of stem cell research.

On October 31, 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt dedicated the Campus of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, just a few miles from here. That day, knowing we were moving toward a world war, he said:

The total defense, which this Nation seeks, involves a great deal more than building airplanes, ships, guns and bombs. We cannot be a strong Nation unless we are a healthy Nation. And so we must recruit not only men and materials but also knowledge and science in the service of national strength.

FDR understood the role that science would play in the future of a strong and healthy United States and he was clear that medical breakthroughs were as important to our nation as guns and missiles.

Never has that been more apparent in our history than today. In some ways FDR's vision became a reality. Americans are living longer than at any time in our history......but there's a difference between living a long life that's productive and healthy--and one filled with illness, disease and disability. FDR was saying that the government had a responsibility to do what it could to use the tools of medical research to help its citizens to live healthy and productive lives.

August 9, 2001 was another important date in our country's history. It was the day President Bush limited federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research and, in effect, took the opposite position from Franklin Delano Roosevelt--closing, or at least partly closing, the door that Roosevelt had opened so wide to Federal support of medical research. By his action in 2001, President Bush ignited a debate that has continued to rage for the last nine years. Politicians, scientists, religious leaders, ethicists, the American public and of course millions of Americans living with disease and disability have passionately argued all sides of this issue.

The debate has not ended, and will not end, but what those of us committed to the promise of stem cell science know is that the ability of science to proceed unencumbered by politics was severely compromised. The Federal government was saying that values other than those of pure science could determine research and funding priorities. For many stem cell scientists, it felt like, as one of them said, a boxer 'going into the ring with only his left hook but not his right jab' . And for the millions suffering from a debilitating and sometimes fatal disease, the pace of discovery was slowed to a crawl.

What this country truly needed then--as it had since Jamie Thompson and John Gearhart discovered the potential of human embryonic stem cell research in l998--was leadership. Political leadership that understood the difference between politics and science, political leadership that knew, as FDR did, that the act of support for science meant allowing the values of science to take precedence over the issues of politics. I was honored to have been in the East Room of the White House on March 9, 2009 when President Obama signed the Order stating:

Today... we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.

But medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research -- and from a government willing to support that work... When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored.


Those were inspiring words, and despite the fact that there were still limitations to the NIH guidelines, it looked like it was now time to get to work.

And then on August 23rd of this year, all of you know what happened. Just as the door of Federal support had finally begun to open, Federal district Judge Lamberth blocked President Obama's 2009 executive order that expanded embryonic stem cell research, saying it violated a ban on federal money being used to destroy embryos. Research at the NIH was disrupted yet again, and a cold chill went through the scientific community in this country. Francis Collins, director of the NIH, likened the decision to "pouring sand into the engine of discovery." While a temporary stay of this ruling has occurred, we still don't know, long-term, where this will end up if it is left to the courts. And the last thing science needs is a nail-biter. Thrillers belong in the movies, not in the world in which scientists try to plan medical research.

What these recent events have made absolutely clear is that we need unambiguous legislation passed by Congress this year. Stem cell research is the "don't ask, don't tell" of science. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment remains in full force and Congress must find the political will to change it. As most of you know, Dickey-Wicker was created in 1996, two years before the field of human embryonic stem cell research even existed, and it was created to be a deterrent to abortion, not to slow down the most promising medical research of our time. But the opponents of stem cell research, in their determination to block the progress of science, are using the old law to new purposes. It will mean, among other things, that more than 400,000 frozen embryos left over from IVF treatments that could have been used for medical research will instead be discarded as medical waste. Is this what is meant by "pro life"?

Everyone wants cures for diseases and it is time to acknowledge that the tens of millions of living Americans suffering from chronic illness and disabling conditions are more important than cells in a petri dish. The Dickey Wicker Amendment has had the net effect of giving political cover to conservative members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican, and it is time for them to act courageously and stand up for those who cannot. Now is the moment to vote, not for what is politically expedient but for what it right.

We have primed the pump and now we need to establish programs that truly challenge our scientific community to take human embryonic stem cell research to the next level. Let the only limits be those that our scientists place on their own imagination, creativity and perseverance. Let us seize the opportunity for excellence.

The partner for support from federal and state governments is private philanthropy. The role of private philanthropy is to be nimble, to be entrepreneurial, to do the cutting edge and controversial work--to test the concepts that, if they prove successful, can later be scaled up by public support. Historically, private philanthropy has been at the root of almost all of our major medical breakthroughs. But private philanthropy has always operated on the assumption that public support would be waiting in the wings to scale up the most promising work. Now, in the stem cell field, we have no such certainty. We don't know if the NIH will be there for us.

We are working hard to keep up our side of the bargain at The New York Stem Cell Foundation, where our stem cell research laboratory in Upper Manhattan has now become one of the finest such laboratories in the United States, with 20 fulltime researchers deriving stem cell lines and making them available to researchers throughout the country. Because we are private and receive no Federal funds, we are able to continue our work through these frustrating and debilitating cycles of off-again, on-again, off-again NIH support. But most of our collaborators are not so lucky. And there is no satisfaction for us in continuing to work when so many of our colleagues and collaborators cannot, especially since one of NYSCF's core missions is to expand the field. But it is not easy to do that when the climate is so uncertain.

We are growing the stem cell field now through our post doctoral Fellowship program and our new Investigator Program, both of which train and support young scientists in the pursuit of the most innovative and advanced translational stem cell research. This elite group of researchers is revolutionizing the practice of medicine. We have had 23 post-doctoral fellows in our program since we began in 2006. And this year I am proud to announce that NYSCF is expanding its efforts to cultivate the next generation of stem cell scientist by providing $24.5 million in funding to 17 Investigators to launch their own independent research, train other scientists, and foster innovative high risk / high reward research. But for the NYSCF's Fellowship and Investigators programs to truly succeed we must have a climate in this country that encourages these young men and women to enter this exciting field of science, not one that makes them worry if it is going to be a dead end. We don't want our program to feel like a small safe house in a hostile world. We want it to be the center of a large and healthy scientific community.

Like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the United States must continue to recruit not only men and materials but also knowledge and science in the service of national strength. By doing so we will continue to be the model for the world in judging stem cell research for its scientific merit, and in making science, not politics, the standard we go by--and we will know that we are doing all we can to enable the great discoveries that will be made by all of you in this room today. Tomorrow you are all going to Capitol Hill to educate our elected officials as to why stem cell research is so critical. It is critical to American leadership. It is critical to the economy. It is critical to our great institutions and the scientists who make them great. But it is critical most of all to the tens of millions of Americans who suffer from chronic diseases and disabling conditions, for whom stem cell research symbolizes promise, not politics. I am confident that what we do tomorrow will truly make a difference.

Monday, September 20, 2010

What Diabetes Can Do to Your Body

This content is selected and controlled by WebMD's editorial staff and is funded by Pfizer.
Next Article:

What Diabetes Can Do to Your Body

Simple tricks to help you follow a healthy diet.
The Diabetes Diet: Eating Right
Cut your risk for kidney, eye, heart, and foot damage.
How to Avoid Silent Complications
Risk Checklist
Uncontrolled diabetes can do your body harm. Learn how to avoid complications.
Nerve Pain Relief
Options to relieve stinging, tingling, burning. And how to prevent more damage.
12 Heart Disease Warning Signs
What to watch for and how to protect yourself.
Save Your Feet
Foot care tips to prevent injury, avoid infection, and help healing.
False
Diabetes Complications: What's Your Risk?
Why are people with diabetes at high risk of nerve pain, heart disease, and blindness?
WebMD Feature

By Jeanie Lerche Davis

Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD

Heart attack, stroke, blindness, amputation, kidney failure. When doctors describe these diabetes complications, it may sound melodramatic -- like an overblown worst-case scenario. The truth is, these things can happen when blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol are out of control.

"A lot of people don't really think it will happen to them," says David C. Ziemer, MD, director of the Diabetes Clinic at Grady Hospital in Atlanta. "For a lot of folks, the wake-up comes when they actually have a complication ... a bad infection in the foot. That's a nasty wake-up call."

If you have uncontrolled diabetes, a serious and deep-seated foot infection can mean loss of a toe, foot, or leg -- amputation -- to save your life. Seriously.

How is this possible? Over time, high blood sugar slowly injures the blood vessels, nerves, and organs in your body. The higher your blood sugar is -- and the longer it stays high -- the worse the damage is. Smoking and alcohol ratchet up the damage several more notches.

"Damage is slow and occurs over a period of years -- but it probably begins when blood sugar is at mildly elevated levels," says Ronald Goldberg, MD, associate director of the Diabetes Research Institute at the University of Miami Medical Center. "You may not be diagnosed with diabetes, but the damage has already begun."

The damage from diabetes shows up a bit differently in everyone -- whether it attacks the nerves, eyes, or kidneys, Goldberg tells WebMD. "Genetics probably influence which complications you are more susceptible to."

The problem is, "many people have diabetes a lot longer than they realize," says Ziemer. "Most have diabetes an average of five to seven years before they're diagnosed."

Diabetes Complications: The Risks You Face

As blood vessels, nerves, and organs become damaged, your risk of diabetes complications increases. These are the most serious:

Heart disease, heart attack, heart failure, and stroke risks are doubled. Heart disease and stroke cause at least 65% of deaths from diabetes.

Major eye complications (diabetic retinopathy) are linked to blood vessel problems in the eyes. Diabetes is a leading cause of preventable blindness; cataracts and glaucoma are also common.

Reduced blood flow to nerves and high blood sugar results in nerve pain, burning, numbness (peripheral neuropathy).

Serious leg and foot infections, even gangrene and amputation, are due to poor blood circulation, lack of oxygen and nutrients to tissue, and nerve damage.

Kidney damage (diabetic nephropathy) is a common risk for people with diabetes.

The complications of diabetes are indeed serious -- but they are not inevitable, Ziemer tells WebMD. "Keeping blood sugar under control is the single the most important factor in preventing them. But people have a hard time grasping just how critical that is," he says. "It's hard to get them to tune into it."

Blueberries May Help Improve Insulin Sensitivity

Obese Patients With Prediabetes May Benefit From Drinking Blueberry Smoothies, Study Shows

By Katrina Woznicki

WebMD Health News Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD Sept. 17, 2010 -- Drinking blueberry smoothies helped obese adults who were pre-diabetic improve insulin sensitivity, researchers report.

Sixty-seven percent of people who drank a blueberry smoothie twice a day for six weeks experienced a 10% or greater improvement in their insulin sensitivity, compared with 41% of people in the placebo smoothie group. The study results are published in the October issue of The Journal of Nutrition.

The findings suggest that compounds found in blueberries, which have also been found to improve heart health, may help people with prediabetes by making the body more responsive to insulin. What the biochemical chain reaction or cellular pathways might be remain unclear. But given the challenges of getting people to eat more fruits and vegetables, researchers suggest a smoothie may be a tasty alternative to help people increase their fruit and vegetable intake and boost their health.

Two Blueberry Smoothies a Day

In the study, researchers led by April Stull, an instructor in diabetes and nutrition from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at the Louisiana State University System in Baton Rouge, compared 32 obese adults who had high insulin levels but did not have type 2 diabetes. Fifteen participants were randomly assigned to drink a smoothie containing 22.5 grams of blueberry freeze-dried powder twice a day for six weeks, while the remaining participants drank a placebo smoothie that did not contain blueberries.

Participants were asked to fill out food questionnaires and were also asked to avoid eating or drinking other fruits or wines containing berries and grapes throughout the study.

The participants did not change their physical activity levels and the calorie intakes remained the same between the two groups. Diets were adjusted so that drinking the smoothies did not add to the participants’ daily caloric intake, because the researchers did not want anyone to gain weight as a result of drinking the smoothies.

The researchers also measured the participants’ blood pressure, weight, cholesterol, and C-reactive protein levels at the start and end of the study. C-reactive protein is a biomarker that serves as a red flag for inflammation, which could indicate a risk for developing heart disease. Diabetes is also a major risk factor for heart disease.

Blueberries’ Effect on Prediabetes

Blueberry smoothies did not have an effect on the participants’ overall biomarker profile, meaning that blood pressure and cholesterol levels did not change nor differ between the two groups at the end of the study. The participants did not lose or gain weight during the study, either. But the effect of drinking blueberry smoothies on insulin sensitivity was far more pronounced.

Compounds in blueberries, called anthocyanins, have antioxidant properties, which may contribute to health benefits such as improved insulin sensitivity. Researchers say more studies are needed to determine the biological effect of blueberries

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Six Tricky Relationships Talks You Must Have

Don't just aim to survive a conversation with your partner. Say the right thing and your relationship will be richer, fuller, and more electric than ever.

By Kelly Marages, Men's Health

More on Men's Health

"Survive" Serious Talks with Her
The Perfect Thing to Tell Her Every Time
5 Things You Should Never Say to Her
10 Sexy Statements to Turn Her On
6 Phrases to Get Her Into Bed
[Editor's note: This article contains sexual references.]

The way to a woman's bedroom is through her ears. That's because for me and most women I know, chatting about relationships is as much fun as having them. It starts during kindergarten ("Want to be my boyfriend?") and continues through adolescence ("Do you like him, or do you like him like him?") and adulthood ("Call me after your date, to recap").

To have a rich, full, potentially naked relationship with one of us, you have to participate in this sort of chatter. And that can be a problem. "She's doing something she's done throughout her life and feels good at," says Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., whose book You Just Don't Understand unlocks the mysteries of male-female communication. "He hasn't done much of it, doesn't particularly enjoy it, and feels it's not his game." So you try your best — asking good questions, giving solid answers, and making her laugh. But there are a few difficult conversations that men, try as they might, tend to screw up.

That's about to change. Here is your guide to the six trickiest relationship talks. "Each of these, if handled correctly, is a ticket to the next level of intimacy with a woman," promises Les Parrott, Ph.D., the author of Love Talk. In other words, say the right thing and your relationship will be richer, fuller, and more electric than ever. And that's worth talking about.

1. The STD Talk
She asks: "How many women have you slept with?"

You answer: "Thirty-six."

Why that's a mistake: Uh, hello, McFly, she wasn't really asking how many women you've slept with. She was asking if you've ever been tested for sexually transmitted diseases. But now that you've answered truthfully, she'll be sure to hold it against you.

What to say instead: "I'm not really into keeping score, but if you're worried about STDs, I was tested last month" — or whatever the reality is — "and if it'll make you feel better, I'll see my doctor next week." Then go. The more proactive you are, the more comfortable she'll be and the better the sex will be. "The only way you're going to enjoy sex is if you get this talk out of the way," says Logan Levkoff, a sexologist and the author of Third Base Ain't What It Used to Be.

2. The Birth-Control Talk
She asks: "Did you bring a condom?"

You answer: "Why don't you go on the Pill?"

Why that's a mistake: You think you're being honest and direct. She thinks you're being selfish, and isn't that just typical. Anger ensues. Sex doesn't.

What to say instead: "Do you like how sex feels when I'm wearing a condom?" You do have a shot, because most women prefer sex au naturel, too. Take her answer as a jumping-off point to share your preferences. She's not likely to say, "What a great idea. I'll see my gynecologist tomorrow." So be willing to shelve this discussion for a few months — and to try various types of condoms — while she determines whether you're Pillworthy.

3. The Where's-This-Going? Talk
She asks: "Where's this going?"

You answer: "Back off, man trap."

Why that's a mistake: You think she's asking why you haven't proposed. But she's just wondering if you see her in your short-or long-term future. You feel cornered and storm out. She shatters a vase on the wall.

What to say instead: "Can we talk about this on Saturday?" You need to think about where the relationship actually is going. On Saturday, put all your thoughts and concerns on the table, says Janet Surrey, Ph.D., coauthor of We Have to Talk. Don't worry about having all answers. She just wants you to think about the question. The one exception: If you don't want the relationship to go farther, say so. She's prepared for the worst, so she'll take the news pretty well.

4. The Sexual-Desire Talk
She says: "Let's just snuggle tonight."

You answer: "Why don't you ever want to have sex with me?"

Why that's a mistake: Guilt isn't hot. Neither is selfishness. "Don't make it seem like you're only interested in getting what you want, even if you are," says Surrey. If you become frustrated, she'll become frosty.

What to say instead: "How would you like a massage?" She'll know what your motive is, but since you're putting her pleasure first, she's more apt to overlook it. If she still wants only to sleep in your arms, let her. Then initiate sex in the a.m. Her testosterone spikes in the morning, and cuddling increases oxytocin, a hormone that makes her feel more amorous.

5. The Money Talk
She asks: "Do you like my new shoes?"

You answer: "You really need more shoes?"

Why that's a mistake: No, she didn't need another pair of shoes, just like you didn't need an iPhone. But she's modeling them for you now, so get over it.

What to say instead: "They look great on you." Then gently remind her about that trip you're both saving for. "What leads to fighting is not being clear about financial goals," says Sharon Epperson, author of The Big Payoff. If you haven't agreed on what you're saving for yet, take this as a sign you should start. Go over your budget at the start of every month, suggests Epperson. Along with long-term goals, it needs room for pleasure purchases like shoes and iStuff.

6. The Room-To-Breathe Talk
She says: "I need some space."

You answer: "Have a nice life."

Why that's a mistake: When a woman asks for space, she's not dumping you. She just wants a few days to herself. Or ... she's testing you to see how invested you are in the relationship. If you bolt, you fail.

What to say instead: "Take as much space as you need." Chances are she'll clear her head, miss you, and end up calling within a week. During that time, put your thoughts about the relationship — the good and bad, and where you see it going — in a letter. "Writing it will allow you to gather your thoughts and convey to her how you truly feel," says Surrey. Send the letter. She may not come running back to you, but at least you'll have started the conversation.