Sex makes your brain grow Globe and Mail,
POSTED AT 9:21 PM EST, Thursday, January 2 2002 " Mating triggers the development of new neurons in the smell centre of the brain, a finding researchers hope will provide clues on how to trick other parts of the vital organ to repair themselves after injuries caused by strokes or head traumas.
The possibility hinges on the discovery that a naturally occurring hormone called prolactin - production of which surges after sex and during pregnancy - prompts stem cells in the brain to produce new neurons in the brain's olfactory bulb.
"The importance of it, beyond the basic biology of stem cells, is the fact that prolactin may be an important neurogenic molecule that may have significant potential for generating new brain cells," said Samuel Weiss, an expert in neurological stem cell biology in the University of Calgary's faculty of medicine...." [Sex releases prolactin? Who knew... - JC]
Friday, January 03, 2003
Breastfeeding cuts pain for babiesBBC NEWS | Health | 3/1/2003
"Breastfeeding is the best form of pain relief for babies being given medical treatment, researchers have found.
They looked at how babies coped with the pain of having blood taken from a vein, a procedure called venepuncture.
Drugs are rarely used to help babies with the pain of this and other procedures because of concern over their effectiveness and possible side effects...."
"Breastfeeding is the best form of pain relief for babies being given medical treatment, researchers have found.
They looked at how babies coped with the pain of having blood taken from a vein, a procedure called venepuncture.
Drugs are rarely used to help babies with the pain of this and other procedures because of concern over their effectiveness and possible side effects...."
Saturday, December 28, 2002
AN ANALYSIS OF THE INACURRATE INFORMATION ABOUT HIV-POSITIVE WOMEN AND BREASTFEEDING DAVID CROWE
December 14, 2002
By David Crowe
"Breastfeeding by HIV-positive women has been frowned upon for a long time. In fact, in at least one case, it has been declared illegal for an HIV-positive woman. This view is based on inaccurate information, and it seems likely that breastfeeding is the best thing that HIV-positive mothers could possibly do for their babies, just as is the case for all other mothers.
It only took two anecdotal cases for the CDC to warn against HIV-positive mothers breastfeeding, but it was a meta-analysis published by Dunn et al in Lancet in 1992 that was the beginning of the end for choice in feeding practices. This study concluded that breastfeeding posed a 14% excess risk of HIV transmission. Since then, breastfeeding has been difficult for women in poor countries, and a huge amount of effort by WHO, Unicef and others has gone into studying and implementing replacement feeding (i.e. formula) by mothers in poor countries.
Dunn believed that the HIV status of breastfed children was a combination of HIV transmission in the womb (in utero transmission) and through breastmilk. He therefore, searched for data sets that compared the HIV transmission frequency of formula fed and breastfed babies. He found six, from Zaire, Miami, France, Switzerland, Australia as well as a pan-European study. He subtracted the HIV transmission frequency of the formula fed babies (which he believed could only be due to in utero transmission) from the frequency in breastfed babies for each study. His 14% figure was a weighted average of the difference in each study.
This is very clever but, like all meta-analyses (those that use the output of other researchers as their raw material) it is subject to the GIGO principle (Garbage In ? Garbage Out). And, in the case of the studies used by Dunn, there are enough holes to drive trucks full of formula through (and many have been)." [RedFlagsWeekly.com is well known for its thorough criticism of health care establishment issues, and this essay on breastfeeding and HIV is no exception - JC]
December 14, 2002
By David Crowe
"Breastfeeding by HIV-positive women has been frowned upon for a long time. In fact, in at least one case, it has been declared illegal for an HIV-positive woman. This view is based on inaccurate information, and it seems likely that breastfeeding is the best thing that HIV-positive mothers could possibly do for their babies, just as is the case for all other mothers.
It only took two anecdotal cases for the CDC to warn against HIV-positive mothers breastfeeding, but it was a meta-analysis published by Dunn et al in Lancet in 1992 that was the beginning of the end for choice in feeding practices. This study concluded that breastfeeding posed a 14% excess risk of HIV transmission. Since then, breastfeeding has been difficult for women in poor countries, and a huge amount of effort by WHO, Unicef and others has gone into studying and implementing replacement feeding (i.e. formula) by mothers in poor countries.
Dunn believed that the HIV status of breastfed children was a combination of HIV transmission in the womb (in utero transmission) and through breastmilk. He therefore, searched for data sets that compared the HIV transmission frequency of formula fed and breastfed babies. He found six, from Zaire, Miami, France, Switzerland, Australia as well as a pan-European study. He subtracted the HIV transmission frequency of the formula fed babies (which he believed could only be due to in utero transmission) from the frequency in breastfed babies for each study. His 14% figure was a weighted average of the difference in each study.
This is very clever but, like all meta-analyses (those that use the output of other researchers as their raw material) it is subject to the GIGO principle (Garbage In ? Garbage Out). And, in the case of the studies used by Dunn, there are enough holes to drive trucks full of formula through (and many have been)." [RedFlagsWeekly.com is well known for its thorough criticism of health care establishment issues, and this essay on breastfeeding and HIV is no exception - JC]
Tuesday, December 24, 2002
Nestle makes PR blunder in Ethiopia - Japan's Leading International News Network Japan Today Japan News - News,
Fred Brigland
Tuesday, December 24, 2002 at 09:30 JST
[Nestle's efforts to recover $6.3B from Ethopia are called a major PR blunder in this article, which also adresses Nestle's controversial third-world infant formula marketing practices. - jc]
Fred Brigland
Tuesday, December 24, 2002 at 09:30 JST
[Nestle's efforts to recover $6.3B from Ethopia are called a major PR blunder in this article, which also adresses Nestle's controversial third-world infant formula marketing practices. - jc]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)