Latest news with #NationalInstitutesforHealth
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Kentucky bourbon raking in money doesn't mean we can ignore alcohol's risks
Brian Edwards' op-ed ('Kentucky's bourbon business is vital to our economy. Don't let DC dry it up") seems wrongheaded. If there is a near-prohibition lobby as he claims, I, too, would disagree and think them Menken's Puritans. While I will make the argument for consumption here, doing so on economic grounds for a substance that the National Institutes for Health estimates costs the nation $249 billion and results in 178,000 annual deaths according to the Center for Disease Control seems antithetical. To start, the science is clear: 'We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn't matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker's health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is … the less you drink, the safer it is' (Dr. Carina Ferreira-Borges, World Health Organization, 2022). Further, the purported health benefits of alcohol use have been repudiated. From JAMA ('Association of Habitual Alcohol Intake With Risk of Cardiovascular Disease', March 2022): 'Observational studies have repeatedly demonstrated a lower risk of cardiovascular disease with light to moderate alcohol intake compared with either abstinence or heavy consumption, suggesting J- or U-shaped epidemiologic associations. However, the observed cardiac benefits of alcohol have been hypothesized to be the product of residual confounding (variables) because of favorable lifestyle, socioeconomic and behavioral factors that tend to coincide with modest alcohol intake.' In sum, there is no safe use and no cardiovascular benefit of alcohol. Opinion: COVID isn't over. RFK Jr.'s vaccine recommendation is a terrible choice. However, there is evidence of human use of alcohol from 900,000 years ago, and alcohol is a well-established part of life in America. The National Academies notes that many alcohol-containing beverages provide flavors and sensations that people enjoy, and the effect on how we act and respond in social situations are two of several reasons for widespread alcohol use in our culture. Concerning responsible drinking, the data are split. The United States Census Bureau estimates that there are 258.3 million adult Americans. The National Institutes for Health estimates that 63% use alcohol at least on occasion, or 177 million Americans imbibe. Among these, the Centers for Disease Control estimates 29.6% of young adults and over 10% of seniors binge drink by consuming toxic amounts in one sitting. The CDC estimates that there are, separately, 15 million heavy drinkers who drink beyond moderation every week. The NIH estimates that there are 54 million Americans who need treatment for Substance Use Disorder. Let's use some rough, back of the envelope math, allowing that the groups defined above overlap, let us say that we have at least 100 million Americans who drink responsibly but very many who do not. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) defines moderate drinking as two drinks per day and seven per week for men and one drink per day and four a week for women (alcohol is on the whole metabolized differently by gender). A standard drink is 12 ounces of beer at 5% alcohol by volume (ABV), 5 ounces of wine at 12% ABV, or 1.5 ounces of spirits at 40% ABV. Opinion: Share Parkland's present, shape its future at Courier Journal mobile newsroom Concerning risk, it is also true that Americans take similar and more severe risks than alcohol use on a regular basis. For instance, Driving Test America estimates that in 2021 Americans drove cars and light trucks 3 trillion miles. These drivers are guided by rules of the road and formal laws that guide their driving behavior, and the manufacture of automobiles is very regulated for safety purposes. Nonetheless, there were 6.1 million vehicular crashes, resulting in 1.7 million injuries and 39.3 thousand deaths in 2021. This analogy falls apart at some point, as all do, but the point is made that alcohol use is not the only widely popular, risk-taking behavior in America. Applause to Mr. Edwards for contributing to the public debate. We would agree about a near-prohibition agenda if, as he says, such exists. America and most of Europe have tried prohibition. We know how that ends. Further, regulating the amount of consumption would be a regulatory nightmare. However, holding up the economic benefit as a reason to ignore the science is not the way to go. Better for the alcoholic beverage industry to recognize and promote responsible use and take those steps within their ken to reduce heavy and binge drinking. A market of 100 million American adults should suffice. For the nation as a whole, increasing access to treatment would be a far better use of our time and treasure. Agree or disagree? Submit a letter to the editor. Gene Gilchrist is the chief executive officer for Stay Clean, a cloud-based addiction treatment and recovery community. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky shouldn't ignore alcohol's health risks for profit | Opinion
The Irish Sun
28-05-2025
- Health
- The Irish Sun
Warning as common over-the-counter drug taken by millions globally is ‘linked to cancer'
A COMMON over-the counter medication that's been available for decades and is taken by millions worldwide has been singled out for its possible cancer risk. Phenazopyridine, typically sold under brand names like Pyridium or Safrel and generally available over-the-counter in pharmacies and some supermarkets, is used to relieve symptoms caused by 2 Phenazopyridine has been linked to liver and bowel tumours in animal studies Credit: Getty It works by numbing the lining of the urinary tract, decreasing burning, irritation and discomfort. But over the years, experts have warned the drug could cause cancer based on early evidence from animal studies. After a study published in 2021, the National Institutes for Health (NIH) warned dietary exposure to phenazopyridine caused tumours in two rodent species in two different tissue sites. Benign and malignant liver tumours were found in female mice, while benign and malignant bowel tumours were discovered in both sexes. Read more on UTIs It was noted while animal studies don't prove a direct link between human cancer and exposure to phenazopyridine, it is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen". Phenazopyridine is available over the counter in the UK, but also by prescription in higher strengths. Potential side effects include chest tightness, dizziness, More severe adverse reactions may include seizures, trouble breathing, and unusual bleeding or bruising. Most read in Health Rita Jew, president of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, said personally she wouldn't advise taking phenazopyridine. She told : "There is no need for this drug. " Mum left in excruciating pain and unable to walk after taking just 3 antibiotic pills to treat UTI In the UK, it's estimated that up to 1.7 million women experience chronic UTIs, and a significant number of men and children also suffer. UTIs are usually caused by bacteria from poo entering the urinary tract. The bacteria enters through the tube that carries pee out of the body, known as the urethra. Women are more susceptible due to their shorter urethra, which gives bacteria a shorter path to the bladder. Several factors can Hygiene practices, age, and certain medical conditions also play a role. 2 Phenazopyridine is used to relieve the pain, burning, and discomfort caused by infection or irritation of the urinary tract, but antibiotics is the most common treatment Credit: Getty The most common treatment for UTIs is a short course of antibiotics. Remedies containing a mix of methenamine and sodium salicylate are seen as an alternative to phenazopyridine. New York-based gynecologist Steven Goldstein, who recommends the medication to patients while they're awaiting the results of urine tests, said he was unaware of the cancer links. "It's the first time I'm even hearing about this. I'm totally unaware," he told Bloomberg. The Sun has reached out to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency on phenazopyridine and its safety as a UTI medication. Do you have a UTI and how should you treat it? Symptoms of a urinary tract infection (UTI) may include: pain or a burning sensation when peeing (dysuria) needing to pee more often than usual needing to pee more often than usual during the night (nocturia) needing to pee suddenly or more urgently than usual pee that looks cloudy blood in your pee lower tummy pain or pain in your back, just under the ribs a high temperature, or feeling hot and shivery a very low temperature below 36C Your pee may also be dark or smell. If this is your only symptom, it might be because you've not been drinking enough water. Children with UTIs may also: have a high temperature – your child is feeling hotter than usual if you touch their neck, back or tummy appear generally unwell – babies and young children may be irritable and not feed or eat properly wet the bed or wet themselves be sick If you or your child experiences any of these symptoms, see your GP. If a GP thinks you may have a urinary tract infection (UTI), they may do a urine test, although this is not always needed. A GP may also: offer self-care advice and recommend taking a painkiller give you a prescription for a short course of antibiotics give you a prescription for antibiotics, but suggest you wait for 48 hours before taking them in case your symptoms go away on their own It's important to take all the medicine you're prescribed, even if you start to feel better. If UTIs keep coming back, your GP may: prescribe a different antibiotic or prescribe a low-dose antibiotic to take for up to 6 months prescribe a vaginal cream, gel, tablet, pessary or ring containing oestrogen, if you are in perimenopause or have gone through the menopause prescribe tablets that treat the infection and stop it from coming back refer you to a specialist for further tests and treatments Source: NHS
Scottish Sun
28-05-2025
- Health
- Scottish Sun
Warning as common over-the-counter drug taken by millions globally is ‘linked to cancer'
While the finding has only been demonstrated in animals, some experts say there's 'no need' for the drug DRUG ALERT Warning as common over-the-counter drug taken by millions globally is 'linked to cancer' Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A COMMON over-the counter medication that's been available for decades and is taken by millions worldwide has been singled out for its possible cancer risk. Phenazopyridine, typically sold under brand names like Pyridium or Safrel and generally available over-the-counter in pharmacies and some supermarkets, is used to relieve symptoms caused by urinary tract infections. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 2 Phenazopyridine has been linked to liver and bowel tumours in animal studies Credit: Getty It works by numbing the lining of the urinary tract, decreasing burning, irritation and discomfort. But over the years, experts have warned the drug could cause cancer based on early evidence from animal studies. After a study published in 2021, the National Institutes for Health (NIH) warned dietary exposure to phenazopyridine caused tumours in two rodent species in two different tissue sites. Benign and malignant liver tumours were found in female mice, while benign and malignant bowel tumours were discovered in both sexes. It was noted while animal studies don't prove a direct link between human cancer and exposure to phenazopyridine, it is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen". Phenazopyridine is available over the counter in the UK, but also by prescription in higher strengths. Potential side effects include chest tightness, dizziness, headache, and loss of appetite, according to the Mayo Clinic. More severe adverse reactions may include seizures, trouble breathing, and unusual bleeding or bruising. Rita Jew, president of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, said personally she wouldn't advise taking phenazopyridine. She told Bloomberg: "There is no need for this drug." Mum left in excruciating pain and unable to walk after taking just 3 antibiotic pills to treat UTI In the UK, it's estimated that up to 1.7 million women experience chronic UTIs, and a significant number of men and children also suffer. UTIs are usually caused by bacteria from poo entering the urinary tract. The bacteria enters through the tube that carries pee out of the body, known as the urethra. Women are more susceptible due to their shorter urethra, which gives bacteria a shorter path to the bladder. Several factors can increase your risk of UTIs, including sexual activity, certain birth control methods, and pre-existing conditions. Hygiene practices, age, and certain medical conditions also play a role. 2 Phenazopyridine is used to relieve the pain, burning, and discomfort caused by infection or irritation of the urinary tract, but antibiotics is the most common treatment Credit: Getty The most common treatment for UTIs is a short course of antibiotics. Remedies containing a mix of methenamine and sodium salicylate are seen as an alternative to phenazopyridine. New York-based gynecologist Steven Goldstein, who recommends the medication to patients while they're awaiting the results of urine tests, said he was unaware of the cancer links. "It's the first time I'm even hearing about this. I'm totally unaware," he told Bloomberg. The Sun has reached out to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency on phenazopyridine and its safety as a UTI medication.
Deccan Herald
01-05-2025
- Health
- Deccan Herald
US to develop universal vaccines to target multiple virus strains
The project, announced by the HHS and the National Institutes for Health, represents a shift in funding from Covid-19 projects to study more viruses, the WSJ reported.
Atlantic
14-04-2025
- Business
- Atlantic
Trump Is Running Economic Development In Reverse
The markets are going haywire, and consumer confidence is nosediving. You might be wondering why the Trump administration decided to burn down the healthy economy it inherited. Is it pure incompetence? Or is there a plan? The answer to both questions appears to be yes. The incompetence is undeniable. But the administration does have a plan, or at least a vision, for what will spring up from the ashes. The trouble is that the long-term economic program is even worse than the short-term one. The clearest picture of the new America that is meant to arise after the crash was provided by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in an interview last week with Tucker Carlson. Bessent acknowledged some short-term discomfort—the stock market plunged as he spoke—but in the service of something grand. 'On one side, the president is reordering trade,' he said. 'On the other side, we are shedding excess labor in the federal government and bringing down federal borrowings. And then on the other side of that, we will have the labor we need for new manufacturing.' Elon Musk shared the same idea on X: 'We need to shift people from low to negative productivity jobs in government to high productivity jobs in manufacturing (as well as mining and refining of materials).' Think of the plan as a classic economic-development strategy, but run backwards. Jerusalem Demsas: There's no coming back from Trump's tariff disaster The typical pattern for economic development involves moving a nation's economy up the value chain. A poor country develops export markets by specializing in low-wage manufacturing. Eventually, these industries develop higher levels of sophistication, adding more intellectual value—first they build toasters and cameras, then cars, then robots. These industries generate tax revenue that can support better schools and other forms of public investment, feeding back into the developmental cycle. That's how the 'Asian tigers' (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) enjoyed rapid economic growth over the past two generations, and it's the pattern other developing countries are hoping to follow. Donald Trump is basically running this play in reverse. The tariffs, while putatively intended to promote industrialization, have the more direct impact of directing American production back into industrial inputs. Trump has raised tariffs on metals, which makes building things more expensive but creates an incentive to reshore the production of steel and aluminum. This moves the industrial economy down the value chain, rather than up, which only makes sense if the objective is to have an economy with more guys wearing hard hats. Meanwhile, Trump is laying waste to basic scientific research. The administration has frozen or canceled billions of dollars in funds to the National Institutes for Health, slashed National Science Foundation grants, and canceled or threatened to cancel billions of dollars in research funding to elite universities (putatively in response to their handling of anti-Semitism). This has had a catastrophic effect on a wide array of high-tech fields. A group of medical-innovation investors took the immense risk of putting their names on a letter to the administration warning that the research cuts 'are an assault on the foundation of biomedical and technological progress.' The cuts to the bureaucracy imposed by the Department of Government Efficiency have likewise targeted the government's most specialized experts, whose work maintains the economy's place at the technological frontier. Trump and Musk are slashing staff at the Food and Drug Administration, a regulatory body that allows new drugs to enter the market, and are reportedly planning to fire half of the Energy Department's loan officers, who are needed to approve nuclear facilities. The combination of tariffs and the mass cancellation of research funding threatens to lay waste to the tech and biomedical sectors with devastating precision, almost as if an enemy combatant had targeted key plants with a fleet of bombers. These industries are the envy of the world. What sense is there in driving them offshore? Phillips Payson O'Brien: Trump's trade war handed China a strategic advantage The logic, as it were, is a rose-tinted view of the American past to which the administration wishes to return. In his interview with Carlson, Bessent brought up campaign stops with Trump where he communed with the working class: 'There are the union workers, the steelworkers. They've got on their hats. They've got on their vests. They're there with their children. It was very moving.' Some of Trump's conservative-media supporters, who inhabit the same information space as the president and his advisers, have expressed versions of this same nostalgia. The Fox News host David Asman delivered a soliloquy about his father, who, he said, earned $3,500 a year in 1954 and had a three-bedroom home and a stay-at-home wife. Trump, Asman argued, would bring back those times of plenty. The economy was growing rapidly in the '50s, but Americans back then did not have higher incomes than we do today. They were, in fact, much poorer. When Trump says he will make American great again, implying a return to the past, we should take him seriously. In economic terms, that is literally what he has set out to do.
