July 10 2009

Hello everyone..... I decided to CHILL OUT TODAY and not go to a show that was being held in NJ!!! I have two very BUSY weeks coming up... w/ tanning, make-up, hair, etc....

Here is some GREAT SHOES... in NYC!!!

http://www.johnashford.ws

Prebiotic vs Probiotic

Colette,Every and I mean EVERY diet needs to have some probiotic foods in it. Probiotic foods are live foods. Foods like yogurt that have active cultures. Did you know that almost every traditional diet has some "live" foods in it.The Russians have a favorite of mine, Kefir. For some reason Kefir just makes you feel good when you drink it and now with flavors like pomegranate or raspberry it is great. It is a milk based product and tastes like yogurt but is loaded with beneficial bacteria. My favorite brand is lifeway.The Germans have Sauerkraut which was originally fermented cabbage that had beneficial lactobacilli. The Koreans have Kimchi which is also fermented cabbage.The Japanese have several, one of which is natto, which is aprobiotic powerhouse. It is fermented soybeans. It has awful smell but I kind of like it. My Japanese friends say I am the only non-Japanese person they have ever seen eat it!!The point is that every healthy diet should include a live foodto balance the beneficial bacteria of the digestive system.So what is a PREbiotic?Miracle Noodles act a prebiotic. This means that by slowing downdigestion, it allows for the multiplication of the beneficial bacteria you eat. Are you starting to see why we call these Miracle Noodles?Regards,Jonathan CarpP.S. Ok, so have you gotten all the way to Lesson # 5 without even trying our noodles. You can get the 10 pack right now and be going prebiotic.
Visit us at :
The Miracle Noodle Website
Go buy some kefir at the store!! You will thank us, kids love it too!!

July 2009

PITTSBURGH (June 30) -- The doctor had barely pulled away the needle when a blister appeared on Tracey Berg-Fulton's abdomen: An experimental shot was revving up the 24-year-old's immune system — part of a bold quest to create a vaccine-like therapy for diabetes.
"If we're right, that is what's going to stop Type 1 diabetes," said Dr. David Finegold as he watched the blisters appear — one to match each of four shots — with intense satisfaction.
It's a big "if." The research is in its infancy, a first-step experiment to be sure the vaccine approach is safe before researchers at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh test their real target — kids newly diagnosed with this deadliest form of diabetes.


Keith Srakocic, AP
Dr. David Finegold administers a vaccine-like injection into patient Tracey Berg-Fulton's abdomen, as part of an experimental therapy for Type 1 diabetes. The blisters forming at the four injection sites are a good sign for the test.
It's also part of a big shift: Scientists increasingly hope to control Type 1 diabetes by curbing the rogue immune cells that cause it, before patients become completely dependent on daily insulin injections to survive.

"Treating at onset in children is the best chance we have," said Pittsburgh immunologist Dr. Massimo Trucco, whose novel vaccine — made from patients' own blood — is among a handful of possible immune therapies being tested around the country.
About 3 million Americans have Type 1 diabetes, where the body mistakenly attacks and destroys cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, the hormone crucial to converting blood sugar to energy. It's different from the far more common Type 2 diabetes that is usually linked to obesity, where the body produces insulin but gradually loses the ability to use it properly. Type 2 patients have more treatment options, including diet and exercise.
To stay alive, Type 1 patients must rigorously inject insulin, or wear a pump that infuses it.
"It bothers me all the people who say, 'Can't you just exercise and get rid of it?'" said Berg-Fulton of Millvale, Pa., who was diagnosed just before her 10th birthday. "Type 2 gets all the attention. This is Type 1 — we die from this."
Hence the new push for immune therapy. Preserve enough precious insulin-producing cells before irreversible damage is done and maybe patients would need far less insulin, perhaps only occasional injections like when they splurge on ice cream.
But how? A "therapeutic vaccine" must shut down T cells that are the immune system's attack dogs, racing out to tackle infections or other invaders — but only the faulty ones that erroneously attack a Type 1 diabetic's own pancreas. Body-wide immune suppression would leave patients vulnerable to other illnesses.
Drug companies are biologically engineering antibodies to disarm those T cells. Two competing teams — MacroGenics Inc. and Eli Lilly, and Tolerx Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline — have advanced tests under way. Also, an experimental drug made from a kind of bone marrow stem cell might tamp down overly aggressive T cells.
Rather than a drug, Trucco's government-funded strategy: He blocks the 911 call that different white blood cells send to direct T cells to the pancreas. They're called dendritic cells, and altering three communication molecules on their surface basically confuses and paralyzes the T cells. In mice and monkeys, the reprogrammed cells ended the vicious cycle of a pancreas attack that in turn attracts more T cells to attack again.
Now to try it in people.
"It's a neat concept," said Dr. Jay Skyler of the University of Miami, who heads a consortium of diabetes specialists that is closely watching Trucco's experiment. "It has a whole lot of potential."
Exploring all the different immune-altering methods is important because combinations may be needed, said Dr. Richard Insel of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Maybe a quick hit on T cells like antibodies might offer, followed by some gentler cell-based vaccines to keep them in check. But "these are early days," he cautioned.
"I'm getting poked for science," joked Berg-Fulton as Finegold, an endocrinologist and geneticist at Children's, readied her shots last week.
Back in April, Berg-Fulton donated her own blood so researchers could filter out immature dendritic cells and reprogram them. Reinject them just inside the skin over the pancreas — no deeper than a pinprick — and Trucco's animal experiments show the cells somehow find their way back to that organ to start working.
That might be too much poking for children; Trucco also is developing a more drug-like way to alter dendritic cells without removing them first.
For now, Berg-Fulton is part of a safety test, one of 15 adult diabetics being injected to make sure there are no unexpected side effects before researchers test if reprogrammed cells might really protect children's pancreas cells. Even if the vaccine ultimately works, she's had diabetes too long to benefit, Finegold carefully explained when she volunteered.
"I'd be lying to say I'm not a little disappointed" at that, Berg-Fulton told him. Think long-term, Finegold responded. If doctors one day learn to restore insulin production, they'll need to keep the faulty immune system from just destroying it again.

July 2009

Current Trends in Hormone Therapy

This is the first of a three-part series on Current Trends in Hormone Therapy. Over the next several weeks, you can look forward to receiving information that builds upon this topic.

Part 1: Estrogen Therapy: Changes in Use
In 1995, approximately 38% of postmenopausal women in the United States were taking hormone therapy. At that time, several observational studies had suggested that hormone therapy offered women some protection against coronary heart disease and osteoporosis. A decision analysis published in 1997 concluded that the benefits of hormone therapy outweighed its risks for nearly all women. More recently, the results from 2 large randomized clinical trials, the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) and the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), have demonstrated that the risks associated with hormone therapy outweigh the benefits for women taking continuous estrogen and progestin regimens. The results of these trials prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to require new warning labels for all estrogen products. In addition, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force revised its assessment of hormone therapy to recommend against the routine use of estrogen and progestin for the prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women.

Before the publication of HERS, the use of hormone therapy was increasing at a rate of approximately 1% per quarter. Following the publication of HERS, there was a decrease in use of about 1% per quarter. In contrast, the publication of the WHI was associated with a decline in use of 18% per quarter. Substantial declines in hormone therapy use were seen for most subgroups of women, including women with a previous hysterectomy, women older than 65 years of age, and women from several racial or ethnic groups.

WHI and Updates
The WHI studies were conducted on women aged 50 years or older without menopausal symptoms, most of whom were 10 years or more beyond menopause. In brief, the estrogen-alone study found that compared with placebo, oral estrogen was associated with no difference in risk for heart attack, increased risk of stroke, increased risk of blood clots, an uncertain effect on breast cancer, no differ ence in risk for colorectal cancer and reduced risk of fracture.2,3 In a substudy of women aged ≥65 years, oral estrogen was also associated with no protection against mild cognitive impairment, and an increased risk of dementia.

The estrogen-progestin study found that hormone therapy was associated with increased risks of heart attack, stroke, blood clots, and breast cancer, reduced risk of colorectal cancer, fewer fractures, and, in a substudy in women aged ≥65 years, no protection against mild cognitive impairment and an increased risk of dementia.2-4 Updates to the WHI have tended to confirm the notion that the main study findings cannot always be generalized to the entire population of postmenopausal women. Some analyses have shown possible heart benefits in women aged 50 to 59 or in those starting hormone therapy 5 In the estrogen-alone study, coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores, which are predictive of coronary events, were lower with estrogen treatment versus placebo in women aged 50 to 59 years.6 A combined analysis of the two WHI studies has shown that:

Risk of heart attack may not be increased in women starting hormone therapy <10 years after menopause, but there is increasing risk in those 10 or more years beyond menopause5
Risk of stroke is increased regardless of when therapy is started or number of years from menopause

Risk of death from any cause appeared to be reduced in women who started therapy at age 50 to 59 years. However, this new, combined analysis from the WHI hormone trials does not change the current recommendation that hormone therapy should not be used for prevention of heart attacks. If hormones do not increase risk of heart attack at younger ages–and even if they reduce risk in these age groups–there is no certainty that any benefit will persist with long-term use into older ages