New Blog Home

I moved to Wordpress, please visit me at brokenhealth.wordpress.com

Doctors try to silence negative reviews from patients

By Jacqui Cheng

Like other business owners, doctors are finding themselves chafed by negative reviews of their services online. Because of this, at least 2,000 doctors have begun using waivers that pressure patients not to post comments online, which they then use to try and have comments removed from review sites. Not all sites are amused by this development, though.

Like donut shop owners, city councilmen, and smalltown gossip victims, doctors aren't terribly fond of patients leaving negative comments of them all over the Internet. They, however, aren't taking the lawsuit route—at least not yet. Instead, doctors are asking patients to sign agreements that bar them from posting comments on everything from review sites to blogs, and then attempting to have the reviews removed if they break the gag order.

In fact, these doctors are going so far as enlisting the help of monitoring companies that watch for negative posts attempting to in check. One such company is (appropriately) called Medical Justice, founded by North Carolina neurosurgeon Dr. Jeffrey Segal, whose entire business is built upon pushing patient waivers to doctors and then hunting out their commenting indiscretions online.

Segal advises the 2,000 or so doctors who employ his services to request that all patients sign the waiver. If someone refuses, he says the doctor should suggest going somewhere else, though Segal claims he has not heard of a case where a doctor has turned away a longtime patient.

What's the point of all this, though? Customers are "hungry for good information," Segal told the Associated Press, but that's apparently not what they're getting when reading sites like RateMDs.com or random blog posts about doctors. These "are little more than tabloid journalism without much interest in constructively improving practices," he says, and could potentially damage a physician's practice.

For their part, some sites that allow patients to review doctors are refusing to be bullied into taking down reviews, even if the reviewer in question has signed a waiver. "They're basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment rights, and I really find that repulsive," RateMDs cofounder John Swapceinsk told the AP. In fact, Swapceinsk is taking things a step further by putting up a Wall of Shame list of doctors who use patient waivers so that everyone can know who is engaging in these tactics.

Considering the upswing in review sites like Yelp and AngiesList, the public is growing accustomed to getting information like this from the Internet. Not every patient is going to offer a fair and balanced view of a doctor visit (just like not every Yelp reviewer has any idea what they're talking about when they trash your favorite restaurant), but people should be to speak openly about their experiences.

Review sites will only continue to increase in popularity—though potential customers should always take what they read online with a grain of salt. Instead of fighting the trend, doctors need to embrace the new reality and maybe even use the reviews as an opportunity to improve themselves.

The Beautiful truth

The cure for cancer. For years I believe the modified crops, chemical alteration of crops, and heavily processed foods could be the cause of cancer. There are other countries (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina that I know) that claim to have 80% success on curing cancer, with alternative or natural methods. Now comes this documentary. It is worth to try it, after all, convntional medicine still can't cure cancer.
http://www.thebeautifultruthmovie.com/

Arrogant, Abusive and Disruptive -- and a Doctor

By LAURIE TARKAN

It was the middle of the night, and Laura Silverthorn, a nurse at a hospital in Washington, knew her patient was in danger.

The boy had a shunt in his brain to drain fluid, but he was vomiting and had an extreme headache, two signs that the shunt was blocked and fluid was building up. When she paged the on-call resident, who was asleep in the hospital, he told her not to worry.

After a second page, Ms. Silverthorn said, “he became arrogant and said, ‘You don’t know what to look for — you’re not a doctor.’ ”

He ignored her third page, and after another harrowing hour she called the attending physician at home. The child was rushed into surgery.

“He could have died or had serious brain injury,” Ms. Silverthorn said, “but I was treated like a pest for calling in the middle of the night.”

Her experience is borne out by surveys of hospital staff members, who blame badly behaved doctors for low morale, stress and high turnover. (Ms. Silverthorn said she had been brought to tears so many times that she was trying to start her own business and leave nursing.)

Recent studies suggest that such behavior contributes to medical mistakes, preventable complications and even death.

“It is the health care equivalent of road rage,” said Dr. Peter B. Angood, chief patient safety officer at the Joint Commission, the nation’s leading independent hospital accreditation agency.

A survey of health care workers at 102 nonprofit hospitals from 2004 to 2007 found that 67 percent of respondents said they thought there was a link between disruptive behavior and medical mistakes, and 18 percent said they knew of a mistake that occurred because of an obnoxious doctor. (The author was Dr. Alan Rosenstein, medical director for the West Coast region of VHA Inc., an alliance of nonprofit hospitals.)

Another survey by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a nonprofit organization, found that 40 percent of hospital staff members reported having been so intimidated by a doctor that they did not share their concerns about orders for medication that appeared to be incorrect. As a result, 7 percent said they contributed to a medication error.

There are signs, however, that such abusive behavior is less likely to be tolerated. Physicians and nurses say they have seen less of it in the past 5 or 10 years, though it is still a major problem, and the Joint Commission is requiring hospitals to have a written code of conduct and a process for enforcing it.

Still, every nurse has a story about obnoxious doctors. A few say they have ducked scalpels thrown across the operating room by angry surgeons. More frequently, though, they are belittled, insulted or yelled at — often in front of patients and other staff members — and made to feel like the bottom of the food chain. A third of the nurses in Dr. Rosenstein’s study were aware of a nurse who had left a hospital because of a disruptive physician.

“The job is tough enough without having to prepare yourself psychologically for a call that you know could very well become abusive,” said Diana J. Mason, editor in chief of The American Journal of Nursing.

Laura Sweet, deputy chief of enforcement at the Medical Board of California, described the case of a resident at a University of California hospital who noticed a problem with a fetal monitoring strip on a woman in labor, but didn’t call anyone.

“He was afraid to contact the attending physician, who was notorious for yelling and ridiculing the residents,” Ms. Sweet said. The baby died.

Of course, most doctors do not spew insults or intimidate nurses. “Most people are trying to do the best job they can under a high-pressure situation,” said Dr. Joseph M. Heyman, chairman of the trustees of the American Medical Association.

Dr. William A. Norcross, director of a program at the University of California, San Diego, that offers anger management for physicians, agreed. But he added, “About 3 to 4 percent of doctors are disruptive, but that’s a big number, and they really gum up the works.” Experts say the leading offenders are specialists in high-pressure fields like neurosurgery, orthopedics and cardiology.

In one instance witnessed by Dr. Angood of the Joint Commission, a nurse called a surgeon to come and verify his next surgical patient and to mark the spot where the operation would be done. The harried surgeon yelled at the nurse to get the patient ready herself. When he showed up late to the operating room, he did not realize the surgery site was mismarked and operated on the wrong part.

“The surgeon then berated the entire team for their error and continued to denigrate them to others, when the error was the surgeon’s because he failed to cooperate in the process,” Dr. Angood said.

A hostile environment erodes cooperation and a sense of commitment to high-quality care, Dr. Angood said, and that increases the risk of medical errors.

“When the wrong surgery is done on patients,” he said, “often there is somebody in that operating room who knew the event was going to occur who did not feel empowered enough to speak up about it.”

Dr. Norcross blamed “the brutal training surgeons get, the long hours, being belittled and ‘pimped’ ” — a term for being bombarded with questions to the point of looking stupid. “That whole structure teaches a disruptive behavior,” he said.

Dr. Norcross and other experts said staff members’ understandable reluctance to challenge a physician, especially a popular surgeon who attracts patients to the hospital, created an atmosphere of tolerance and indifference. So did a tendency among doctors to form “old boy” networks and protect one another from criticism.

But things have begun to change. Today, good communication and leadership are two of the six core skills taught in medical schools and residency programs. More nurses are challenging doctors on their inappropriate behavior, and fewer hospitals are tolerating disruptive doctors. “Today they’re getting rid of that doctor or sending them to anger management,” said Dr. Thomas R. Russell, executive director of the American College of Surgeons.

Hospitals have also developed more formal and consistent ways of addressing disruptive behavior, Dr. Rosenstein said. They are also trying to improve relations and mutual respect between doctors and nurses.

At John Muir Health, a nonprofit group of two hospitals in Walnut Creek and Concord, Calif., a committee of physicians, nurses and other staff members was formed to focus on collaboration and communication between disciplines.

“When complaints are submitted, we try to be proactive early to let them know there is not going to be any tolerance for that,” said Dr. Roy Kaplan, John Muir’s medical director for quality.

Some physicians worry that hospital administrators will abuse the stricter codes of conduct by using them to get rid of doctors who speak out against hospital policies. And the Joint Commission rulings have spawned a cottage industry of anger management centers and law firms defending hospitals or physicians.

Professionals like Ms. Silverthorn, the nurse in Washington, said the change was overdue.

“We go to school, we have a very important job, but there’s no respect,” she said.

She recalled a particularly humiliating moment on Dec. 25, 2006. Working in the pediatric emergency room, she called a drug by its generic name rather than its brand name.

“I was quickly shouted out of the trauma room and humiliated in front of everyone,” she said. But while “everyone knew the doctor was actually the one who didn’t know what he was doing,” she continued, no one said a word.

Sicko and the sad truth

It has been months since I haven't posted. I had several rants with the health system, beginning with my lower back problems. The good news is that finally I've been getting better by exercising and diet.
I had some travel to South America, and again I still get surprised how doctors in other countries CARE about their patients, they are not a number like in the US. Poor countries like Brazil have doctors that will see you within the hour and treat you like a person, unlike my experience with several doctors in Florida.
It is not uncommon that several people die in US Hospitals for medical negligence and little by little the stories are coming out.

Finally I went to watch SICKO and went out so happy and so sad: happy to see I'm not the only one that realizes the sad state of the healthcare system, happy that finally somebody is doing something and sad because everything the movie showed is true, and being the most powerful country in the world we still are being "cheated" when health is on the line.
I hope more and more people realizes that we need to do something, that we are not alone and we CAN do something, I love this country and feel bad to see that a few corrupted people are letting good hardworking americans suffer a bad life and horrible death when they actually could be cured if they only knew...

Wal Mart sells cheap generic for $4!!

I heard the news that WalMart is selling generic for $4. Great news right? Yes, actually they are, but also that means that it really costs VERY LITTLE to produce those drugs, and the ig pharmacy are just getting richer playing with our health. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for pharmacy to make money and use some of that money in research and development, but there are moral conducts that should be followed. An AIDS drug should be free or almost free, against a Botox injection that I agree could be expensive. It's just a matter of morality, not economics.
that's why I still have to get my expensive medicine from Canada or Mexico, and every time I know somebody is going there I try to get them to bring me some.
I suffer from lower back pain, and that is by itself another theme that I have to write about later. Anyway, every time I get sick I got two alternatives: go to the doctor, wait 2 hours (if I can get an appointment the next day) to see the doctor, not able to sit down, walk or move - the only position it doesn't hurt is laying down. After the doctor's visit he recommends pain killers, prescription. I have to get them from the Pharmacy: another two hours.
Second option: get "tribedoce" injections from Mexico - one package with vitamin B-12 plus "diclofenaco" (powerful muscle relaxer) and inject myself; you break open both vials, combine liquids in syringe and inject. Within two hours I can walk again. Cost: $5 usd.
Why I have to do that? Why does my doctor doesn't give me that? Because I am not a patient - I'm a CUSTOMER. I'm no good for him in good health, he needs me to recover slowly so he and the pharmacy make money with me. I'm no good for them, in good health. Even the insurance make money, revving the premiums every year.
more to come

Uncle Javo

A new study finds that drinking tea may reduce the risk of deadly diseases

By Dean Ornish, M.D. Newsweek
Oct. 3, 2006 - I love coffee. I love the way it smells. I love the way it tastes. (Although I'm so sensitive to caffeine, even a cup of coffee makes me talk as fast as Robin Williams might sound if he were on speed?and, hey, do you have to drive so slowly?) But I drink tea now. Most of the time.
Apparently, I'm not alone. Tea is the most widely consumed beverage in the world, other than water. Over 6.6 billion pounds of tea are produced each year.
Why? More and more research is documenting that what we include in our diet is as important as what we exclude. Tea contains a variety?perhaps thousands?of powerful, protective antioxidant substances called polyphenols, especially flavonoids such as catechins, that may help reduce the risk of some of the most common chronic diseases.
For example, a study was published two weeks ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that followed more than 40,000 Japanese men and women over a seven- to eleven-year period. They found that green tea consumption was associated with a reduced mortality due to all causes except cancer.
The more green tea they drank, the lower their risk of dying early. Researchers found that that the overall risk of premature death due to illness was 26-percent lower among those who consumed five or more cups a day compared those who drank less than one cup per day of green tea after seven years of follow-up.
Interestingly, the effects of tea on reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease were not caused only by changes in traditional risk factors such as cholesterol levels or blood pressure. The polyphenols in green tea appear to have powerful antioxidant properties and are scavengers for free radicals that otherwise could damage your cells. These polyphenols may directly and beneficially affect coronary artery blockages (atherosclerosis), dilate your arteries, and also help reduce the formation of blood clots. Green tea also has significant anti-inflammatory effects. Black tea and oolong teas were not found to be quite as protective as green tea.
This is not surprising. Teas are categorized by the level of fermentation: green tea is unfermented (and so retains the original color of the tea leaves), oolong tea is partially fermented, and black tea is fermented (which makes it dark in color). The process of fermentation reduces the protective activity of the flavonoids, which are highest in green tea, intermediate in oolong tea, and lowest in black tea. On the other hand, caffeine is highest in black tea, intermediate in oolong, and lowest in green tea. The caffeine in green tea is also lower than in coffee or cola soft drinks.
Unfortunately, about 77 percent of the tea produced and consumed in the world is black tea, only 21 percent is green tea, and less than 2 percent is oolong tea, according to a recent study in the International Journal of Cardiology. The total concentration of the protective catechins in the blood after drinking green tea is three times higher than after drinking black tea. Still, while green tea is best, all teas have been shown to have health benefits.
While the Japanese researchers did not find that tea reduced the risk of cancer, other studies have. Animal studies have shown that green tea may inhibit cancer formation of the skin, lung, oral cavity, esophagus, stomach, liver, kidney, prostate and other organs. In humans, studies suggest that drinking tea may reduce the risk of digestive cancers. For example, a study of more than 35,000 postmenopausal women in Iowa, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1996, found that those who drank more than two cups per day of tea were 32 percent less likely to have cancers throughout their digestive tract, including reduced cancers of the mouth, esophagus, stomach, colon and rectum. Four or more cups per day of tea lowered the risk of such cancers by 63 percent. Some (but not all) studies with varying degrees of rigor suggest that drinking tea may reduce the risk of early-stage breast, prostate, ovarian and lung cancer. In one study, green-tea extract was found to stimulate prostate cancer cell death. The evidence was strong enough to interest the National Cancer Institute in conducting a phase II study of green-tea extract in men with metastatic prostate cancer, which is now in progress. Other studies indicate that certain catechins in tea may reduce your risk of skin cancer. Animal studies have tended to show more value of tea in preventing cancers than in human studies, perhaps because of the differences in diet, environment and genetics in humans.
In earlier studies, researchers from the Harvard Boston Area Health study showed that men and women who consumed one or more cups per day of green tea in the previous year had a 44 percent lower risk of a heart attack than those who drank no tea.
Other studies indicate that regular drinking of green tea or oolong tea may reduce the risk of developing high blood pressure despite the caffeine, especially when the tea is consumed with meals rather than on an empty stomach. Tea increases your body's production of nitric oxide, which dilates arteries and thereby reduces blood pressure. Green tea catechins have also been reported to have anti-bacterial, anti-viral and anti-fungal activity, especially in early stages of infection. These include some types of salmonella, influenza virus and herpes simplex. Also, green tea consumption has been associated with increased bone density and reduced hip fractures.
Some studies suggest that tea may help regulate your blood sugar and may even reduce the risk of diabetes. Flavonoids may have both insulin-like and insulin-enhancing activities. In Chinese medicine, tea helps to control obesity. A Chinese classical pharmaceutical book called the Bencao Shiyi states, ''Drinking tea for a long time will make one live long to stay in good shape without becoming too fat and too heavy." Tea may help reduce obesity by increasing metabolism, reducing fat absorption, activating enzymes and reducing appetite.
If that's not enough, drinking green tea may reduce your risk of cavities (especially if you don't add sugar to your tea) by inhibiting bacterial growth as well as potentiallyharmful enzymes in your mouth. Also, both green and black teas are natural sources of fluoride, which is why you may find tea as an ingredient in your toothpaste.
While not all studies have proven the health benefits of tea, the preponderance of studies show that tea may have significant health benefits. Clearly, more research needs to be done. However, the potential benefits of tea are so great, the side-effects relatively small (primarily, the effects of drinking caffeine), and the costs so low, I decided not to wait for more conclusive studies to be conducted. Coffee does not have the health benefits of tea. So, about 10 years ago, I switched.
Real men do drink tea, buddy. So do real women. Healthy ones

Medicare's Cheapest Drug Plans in U.S. to Cost 44 Percent More

From Bloomberg: By Kerry Young

Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The cheapest drug insurance policies under Medicare will cost elderly and disabled Americans 44 percent more next year, based on rate quotes published by the government health program.
The average monthly outlay for the least expensive plans will rise to $13.58 from $9.46, according to data compiled by Medicare. Humana Inc., the biggest provider of low-cost drug plans, raised prices as much as fivefold, while Medicare cut its monthly subsidy by 15 percent, to $80 a person, said Peter Ashkenaz, a Medicare agency spokesman.
Americans who are at least 65 and those with disabilities pay monthly premiums for the drug coverage under a U.S. program that started last January. Insurance companies last year charged as little as $1.87 for policies providing discounts on medicines. For next year, the cheapest plan will cost $9.50. Many of the 23 million people in the Medicare drug program pay premiums out of Social Security pensions, averaging $922.70 a month.
``Many people are going to feel that they are victims of a bait-and-switch tactic,'' said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a Washington-based nonprofit group that studies health care, in an Oct. 3 telephone interview. ``There's no question that it will be an extraordinary disappointment.''
Congress created the Medicare drug benefit three years ago to help the elderly buy medicines. The price of almost 200 prescription treatments often used by older people rose 6.3 percent in the 12 months through June, according to AARP, the largest lobbying group for American 50 and older.
The drug plan next year will account for about 12 percent of Medicare's $445 billion budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Medicare pays insurance companies to negotiate bulk discounts on medicines such as Pfizer Inc.'s Lipitor cholesterol drug, which can cost more than $3 a pill.
Wrong Number
An analysis by Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, found that the average monthly payment for all Medicare plans will rise to $29.09 next year from $25.69. The plans include those with enhanced benefits, in which customers accept a higher premium in return for payment of drug costs between $2,400 and $3,850, which aren't covered by Medicare.
The average price is about 21 percent, or $4.09, more than claimed by the Department of Health and Human Services, Waxman's office said. HHS and Medicare officials released next year's prices Sept. 29, saying the average monthly premium would remain unchanged at $24.
``The department's numbers appear to be wrong, and they disguise significant increase in premiums for Medicare drug plans,'' Waxman said in a letter to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt. ``The release of erroneous information about the cost of premiums -- whether deliberate or not --is a disservice to millions of seniors.''
`Incomplete and Misleading'
Medicare said in a statement that its average was derived from a ``straightforward'' analysis of the plans available to consumers.
``The congressman's analysis is incomplete and misleading because it is selective, measuring just one of the plan options beneficiaries can use to get their prescription drugs,'' said Mark McClellan, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in the statement.
McClellan declined through a spokesman to be interviewed on the premium data for this article.
``There really is no low-cost option any longer,'' said Gerard Anderson, a professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, in an Oct. 4 interview.
The minimum prices will more than double in 13 states. People in seven more states and the District of Columbia also will pay more than double next year if they stick with their current plans.
New York
New Yorkers will have to join HIP Health Plan of New York to get the cheapest drug plan for next year at $9.50 a month. Humana, the state's low-cost option this year at $4.10 a month, set $14.80 as its lowest rate in the state next year.
``Most people don't know what is happening yet,'' said Deane Beebe, a spokeswoman for the New York-based Medicare Rights Center, in an Oct. 5 interview.
The biggest jump will take place in the seven states with the lowest 2006 premiums. The minimum monthly cost of the cheapest Humana plan will jump to $10.60 from $1.87 in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming and North and South Dakota.
``I knew it wasn't going to stay that low,'' said Janet Hackleman, manager of Wyoming's State Health Insurance Information Program, in an Oct. 2 interview. ``Everyone is sorry that it had to come up. Now, it's a little more realistic.''
Humana, UnitedHealth
Humana never meant to offer such a bargain price for Medicare drug insurance, said Tom Noland, a spokesman for the Louisville, Kentucky-based company. Humana misjudged what other companies would bid, he said. Humana's offer was so much lower than rivals that it skewed a Medicare benchmark and reduced the cost of the benefit for consumers, he said.
``We did not bid $1.87,'' he said. ``We bid higher than that.'' Medicare cut Humana's prices by $7 a month on average last year and raised them by $4 this year, he said.
WellCare Health Plans Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Inc. introduced more low-cost offerings for next year compared with last year.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kerry Young in Washington kdooley@bloomberg.net

Democrats challenge EPA pesticide rule

(AP) -- Three Democrats in Congress have added their names to a lawsuit seeking to end any pesticide testing on children by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Hilda Solis, both of California, said Thursday they have joined a lawsuit against EPA by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The group is suing EPA to end pesticide testing on pregnant women and infants. The lawmakers say a new rule from EPA fails to implement the ban required by Congress last year to protect vulnerable people from harmful pesticide testing. They contend the rule prohibits the use of data collected from pesticide testing on pregnant women and children but allows the testing to continue. "Pregnant women, infants and children have been and likely still will be used as human guinea pigs in pesticide testing," Nelson said. "It must be stopped." EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said the agency always works to ensure the health and safety of the most vulnerable populations, including pregnant women and children. Congress in July 2005 imposed a one-year moratorium on testing pesticides on humans and gave EPA six months to issue a new rule to prevent testing on pregnant women and children. That occurred after Boxer and Nelson demanded that EPA cancel an industry-backed pesticide study on the families of 60 children in Duval County, Fla. They had been due to receive children's clothes, a camcorder and $970 for participating.

EPA in January for the first time established criteria for tests by pesticide makers on human subjects and said it would not approve any new such testing involving pregnant women and children. Wood said Thursday, however, that in rare cases EPA would accept pesticide test data involving pregnant women and children, but only if that data indicated that a more stringent health standard is needed to further restrict use of the pesticide. NRDC then sued EPA over the new rule for what the group called "unethical, illegal human pesticide testing." In a friend-of-the-court brief, Nelson, Boxer and Solis urged a federal appeals court to order EPA to create a new rule that complies with Congress's intent to ban testing on pregnant women, infants and children. --- On the Net: EPA: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

New device helps patients to grow back own teeth

From "the postman" by RACHEL WILLIAMS

SCIENTISTS have created a device that can make human teeth grow back.
The tiny ultrasound machine fits into a patient's mouth on a braces bracket or a removable plastic crown, where it gently massages gums and stimulates dental growth from the root.
It is wireless and is controlled by a pocket-sized remote carried by the user.
The team at the University of Alberta in Canada hope the low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) system, which is smaller than a pea, will be available to the public within two years.
It is currently being designed to help repair fractured or diseased teeth, but in the future could help sports players or children who have a tooth knocked out. And eventually the same technology could even be used to grow bones, raising the possibility that people could make themselves taller.
Dr Tarak El-Bialy, one of the lead researchers, said the tool meant broken roots could now be fixed.
"And because we can regrow the tooth root, a patient could have his own tooth rather than foreign objects in his mouth," he said.
The system needs to be activated for 20 minutes a day for four weeks for noticeable results.

Synthetic molecule causes cancer cells to self-destruct

From Eurekalert:
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Scientists have found a way to trick cancer cells into committing suicide. The novel technique potentially offers an effective method of providing personalized anti-cancer therapy. Most living cells contain a protein called procaspase-3, which, when activated, changes into the executioner enzyme caspase-3 and initiates programmed cell death, called apoptosis. In cancer cells, however, the signaling pathway to procaspase-3 is broken. As a result, cancer cells escape destruction and grow into tumors.
"We have identified a small, synthetic compound that directly activates procaspase-3 and induces apoptosis," said Paul J. Hergenrother, a professor of chemistry at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and corresponding author of a paper to be posted online this week ahead of regular publication by the journal Nature Chemical Biology. "By bypassing the broken pathway, we can use the cells' own machinery to destroy themselves."
To find the compound, called procaspase activating compound one (PAC-1), Hergenrother, with colleagues at the U. of I., Seoul National University, and the National Center for Toxicological Research, screened more than 20,000 structurally diverse compounds for the ability to change procaspase-3 into caspase-3.
The researchers tested the compound's efficacy in cell cultures and in three mouse models of cancer. The testing was performed in collaboration with William Helferich, a professor of food science and human nutrition at the U. of I., and Myung-Haing Cho at Seoul National University. The researchers also showed that PAC-1 killed cancer cells in 23 tumors obtained from a local hospital.
Cell death was correlated with the level of procaspase-3 present in the cells, with more procaspase-3 resulting in cell death at lower concentrations of PAC-1.
"This is the first in what could be a host of organic compounds with the ability to directly activate executioner enzymes," said Hergenrother, who is also an affiliate of the Institute for Genomic Biology at the U. of I. "The potential effectiveness of compounds such as PAC-1 could be predicted in advance, and patients could be selected for treatment based on the amount of procaspase-3 found in their tumor cells."
Such personalized medicine strategies are preferential to therapies that rely on general cytotoxins, the researchers say, and could be the future of anti-cancer therapy.

Americans deserve real healthcare reform

I found this article from Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) about the need for healthcare reform, I quote:

In our country, we have more than 45 million uninsured, including 8 million children, and countless others are underinsured. Despite these facts, and despite the failures in the healthcare system that have affected so many American families, Congress has been in a political stalemate on healthcare reform for decades. Our inability to come to an agreement on this issue leaves hardworking American families in a continual struggle to provide themselves and their family members with medical care.
I recently had a woman call my office who works for a small business that does not offer health insurance. She could not find individual coverage due to a preexisting condition. So when a medical emergency forced her to spend eight days in the hospital, she had to pay the cost herself.
She now needs major surgery, but doesn?t know how she will pay for it on her income. Like many working Americans, she doesn?t have health insurance, and because of her medical conditions she can?t find or afford insurance in the individual market.

Our system doesn't care for an individual's good being, just for the money that can be madeout of his/her misery. Granted, I'm not trying to imply that a socialist or communist regime do better, but if we take care of our individuals, they can work better and perform to help the economy.

Link to the full article:

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/051006/ss_feingold.html

Cuba has better healthcare than the US

In his article, Blake fleetwood talks about something is well known in other countries but the US:
Healthcare and general practice in Cuba is better and more effective thantthe US. Lots of people from Europe and Latin America go to Cuba for treatments that cannot be done in their countries or are not effective.Cuban medicine has been for decades on the forefront treatment of several diseases that in other countries are mildly treated...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/cuba-has-better-medical-c_b_19664.html

My experience with other countries healthcare culture

A few months ago I had to travel to Mexico to visit my mother, and acquired Salmonellosis, from some food I consumed. I began to feel dizzy and got feverish, by the afternoon I was in bed with high fever. A doctor was called and within 35 minutes she arrived (notice the home visit) in a city where traffic is impossible. The doctor was nice, helpful, she explained the symptoms and possible causes, and what the medicine would do with timeframe.
When she left, the bill was $15 USD, and my mom went to the pharmacy to get the medicine. The pharmacy bill was $35 USD, including potent antibiotics, a fever depressant, and pills to replenish the intestinal flora that the antibiotics killed.
Three hours after I get the medicine my I already feel well, and I was completely recovered. The doctor didn't asked for a follow up appointment, and just told us to call her anytime (even at night) to her beeper for any emergency. Now that's what I call REAL attention to the Hippocrates Oath. She wasn't there for the money, just want me to get well, and move on. I wish there was more doctors like her in the US, that would really care for their patients instead of just try to make money out of your misery.
Any comments are very welcome.

Health system is broken in America...

The past month I have been thinking a lot about the health system, on how every day personal interests are over YOUR health, and how the system is been designed to leech out of your sickness.

As a worker and family man, I'm concerned about the weel being of my family, and having lived in other countries, i can see that our health system is designed to get the most money out of the sick.
The common example I give to my friends is when i have back pain. I really feel bad, hurts to walk, sit or just move, and want to go to the doctor to get some poweful medicine. First to get an appointment always takes from two to three weeks, and that's if you don't have to see a primary doctor for a referral first. Then you go to the Doctor's office, wait for at least an hour, and he sees you, gives you little explanation, but measures you, make some tests to justify what he is going to charge.
Then he finally prescribes some medicine. It may sound good because is prescription, right? Most of the ones I have got are "Voltaren" 10 mg or 20mg, very mild if you consider there are 50 & 100 mg versions of the same.
So far I spent two weeks of pain plus $20 of doctor's visit and $15 for the medicine, if i have a $200 per paycheck insurance coverage (my wife, kid and me).
So making numbers I spend monthly $400 IF I don't go to the doctor, or $450 If I get a mild sickness.