Cancer - explained simply...

Sounds right...

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

If you believe in equal rights, then what do “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.
Thomas Sowell
November 26, 2013
Random Thoughts

I'm getting to this point...

From Forbes:

Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it five times. Most notably, he suspended the employer mandate last summer. This is widely known, but almost no one seems to have grasped its significance.
The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.
By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again.
The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?
The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).
Mr. Obama has not been shy about pointing out his path. He has repeatedly made clear that he intends to act on his own authority. “I have the power and I will use it in defense of the middle class,” he has said. “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress.” There are a number of names for the system Mr. Obama envisions, but representative government is not one of them.
If the President can ignore the laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. Congress can stand by and observe. Perhaps they might applaud or jeer. But in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant. Probably, it will become a kind of rubber-stamp or debating society. There are many such faux congresses in tyrannies throughout history and around the globe.
Mr. Obama has equal contempt for the Supreme Court. In an act of overbearing hubris, he excoriated Supreme Court Justices sitting helplessly before him during the 2010 State of the Union address—Justices who had not expected to be denounced and who were prevented by the occasion from defending themselves. Mr. Obama condemned them for restoring freedom of speech to corporations and unions.
Ignoring two centuries of practice, President Obama made four recess appointments in January 2012, when the Senate was not in recess. Three courts have found that his appointments were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case. If the Supreme Court finds against him, what will Mr. Obama do?
We can get a hint by looking at how other parts of his Administration have dealt with Court decisions they did not like.
The Attorney General’s Office is the branch of government charged with enforcing federal laws. After the Supreme Court struck down the key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Attorney General Holder announced that he would use other provisions of the act to get around the Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court has defined the standard for sexual harassment as “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” behavior to a “reasonable person.” In open defiance of that ruling, the Obama Department of Education has declared a new definition of sexual harassment for colleges, that is, “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct,” even if it is not objectively offensive—thus reinforcing the reign of terror over sex on college campuses. If a young man’s request for a date turns out to be unwelcome, he is guilty of sexual harassment by definition.
The lack of respect for the Supreme Court by the Obama administration is manifest. They feel bound by the Court’s decisions only if they agree with them. If they disagree, it is deuces wild; they will embrace any fiction that nullifies the Court’s decision.
The direction in which Mr. Obama is taking us would make possible the following scenario. A Republican Congress is elected and repeals Obamacare over a Democratic President’s veto. The President refuses to enforce the repeal. The Supreme Court rules that the President’s refusal is unconstitutional. The President denounces that ruling and refuses to be bound by it.
If the President persists in rejecting all authority other than his own, the denouement would depend on the side taken by the Armed Forces. Whatever side that was, our national self-esteem would be unlikely to recover from the blow of finding that we are living in a banana republic.
The shocking fact is that our whole system of representative government depends on it being led by an individual who believes in it; who thinks it is valuable; who believes that a government dedicated to the protection of individual rights is a noble ideal. What if he does not?
Mr. Obama is moving our government away from its traditional system of checks and balances and toward the one-man-rule that dominates third world countries. He has said that he wants a fair country—implying that, as it stands, the United States is not a fair country—an unprecedented calumny committed against a country by its own leader.
What country does he think is more fair than the United States? He has three long years left in which to turn us into a fair country. Where does he intend to take us?
Mr. Obama got his conception of a fair country from his teachers. A fair country is an unfree country because it is regimented to prevent anyone from rising too high. Their ideal is egalitarianism, the notion that no one should be any better, higher, or richer than anyone else. Combined with a dollop of totalitarianism, egalitarianism has replaced communism as the dominant ideal in our most prestigious universities. Mr. Obama and his colleagues are the product of those universities, and they have their marching orders.
The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.
Those who currently hold political office, and who want to keep our system of government, need to act now. Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other actions that Congressmen can and should take—actions that will tell Mr. Obama that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without a fight.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government had been created. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”
We are losing it. If Mr. Obama’s reach for unprecedented power is not stopped, that will be the end. Everyone who values his life and liberty should find some way to say “No!” “Not now!” “Not yet!” “Not ever!”

Kinda like ObamaCare - Bronze! Silver! The GOLD Plan!!!

Amazing that this comes out after the election...

The report states that several regions of data gathered for the Department of Labor were...FAKED.  And not just "Oh - we couldn't get enough people, so we continued the trend" but "We got this number because it was a good number!"

This has created two major problems:

  • The fake data boosted unemployment from 8.1% to 7.8% in one month - the same month that there was widespread conjecture about an incumbent President never being re-elected with unemployment rates above 8%, and
  • Vital government statistics that the world, Federal Government, State governments, businesses, banks, The Fed, the IMF are... FAKE.
If you want to ruin a country's reputation, you do this kind of political manipulation (for favor of the ruling party). Think China or Venezuela.

Now, government statistics are suspect, and no one - with any certainty - can truly tell which way the economy is going.

This is truly banana republic stuff here...

Romney Was Right

ya think?

FUD is the code word today.

FUD is the code word today. 

If you want to mess with a plan, change it. Often. Randomly. Chase squirrels. Give speeches

If you are a business, you must always have a plan (or you fail).  While being flexible must be part of the plan, governments are not businesses, and their plans are usually law. 

To change a law you have a process and in a republic you need to follow that process or else you are no longer a republic.

The insurance industry is highly regulated BY LAW.  Changing those laws by fiat not only damages the republic, but instills FUD into an industry that they are regulating.
Bad for business, bad for the republic.

I don't enjoy thinking that Mr. Obama is bad for the republic and for business, but he is acting more like DEAR LEADER than most want to acknowledge.,_uncertainty_and_doubt

Thank You Veterans

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Written by John McCrae on May 3, 1915

Read more:

I blame the Angels!


Sports fans may be more prone to gorging on food--and putting on the pounds--after their team loses, according to a study.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "powerless fans may also find themselves losing self-control after a loss, including the ability to say no to a giant plate of nachos."
The publication cites a study by "Yann Cornil and Pierre Chandon of the European business school" that found that "saturated-fat consumption spikes by 16% for fans after the loss of a beloved NFL team. After a victory, fat consumption goes down by 9%, and overall calorie consumption by 5%."
That study was published "online in August in Psychological Science, looked at intake data from American households in 2004 and 2005 during the NFL season":
"There's research showing that when something good happens to your life, you're more future-oriented," says Mr. Cornil, who studies the link between consumer behavior and obesity. "So if you have good news and you feel good about yourself, you want to keep feeling good about yourself, you have an increased motivation to follow your diet, exercise, to go to the gym." Feeling bad elevates short-term goals like scrambling for comfort food."

Exciting Reading...

Addition of thalidomide to melphalan and prednisone treatment prolongs survival in multiple myeloma - a retrospective population based study of 1162 patientsLund J, Uttervall K, Liwing J, Gahrton G, Alici E, Aschan J, Holmberg E, Nahi H; European Journal of Haematology (Oct 2013)

The combination of melphalan and prednisone (MP) has been the standard treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). Since the introduction of novel agents, the clinical outcome in MM has improved. Several prospective studies with thalidomide combined with MP (MPT) compared to MP have been performed, most of them showing that MPT gives a better response rate and median overall survival (OS). Among 1843 MM patients admitted to 15 Swedish centres, we selected all patients treated with MP and MPT in 1(st) , 2(nd) , 3(rd) or 4(th) line of therapy, in total 888 patients treated with MP and 274 with MPT. Patients were evaluated for response rate, OS and TTNT. Multivariate Cox model analysis was made to adjust for different criteria at time for MM-diagnosis. The median OS from beginning of 1(st) line of treatment was 2.2/4.2 years after MP/MPT respectively, and in 2(nd) , 3(rd) and 4(th) line of treatment 1.8/2.9, 1.4/1.6 and 1.1/1.9 years (P<0 .0001="" 0.003="" 0.235="" 0.45-0.84="" 0.55="" 0.61="" 0.74="" 1="" 2="" a="" after="" all="" and="" article="" better="" both="" by="" ci:="" compared="" copyright.="" death="" for="" gave="" group="" in="" is="" line.="" line="" mp="" mpt="" nd="" of="" only.="" overall="" p="" protected="" rate="" relative="" reserved.="" rights="" risk="" significantly="" st="" survival="" the="" therapy="" this="" to="" treatment="" vs.="" was="" with="">

Hat tip to and thier e-mails...


I'm not crazy - it's my belly!

Now I have an excuse for whatever I want...

How bacteria in your gut affect your mental health

Bacteria in yogurt produce a happy signal

Scientists searching for the underlying causes of mental illness have discovered a surprising contributor — it appears the bacteria that live in your gut may play a major role in your mental health and well-being.
CBC Radio science columnist Torah Kachur spoke to researchers such as Karen Madsen at the University of Alberta who are studying the types of bacteria that live in your gut and how they affect your behaviour, via a nerve that travels between the gut and the brain.
"You know the whole term, 'listen to your gut'? It’s kind of taking on a whole new meaning," Kachur told Rebecca Zandbergen, host of CBC's Radio West.
Kachur explained that there are "good" bacteria, like Bifidiobacterium and Lactobacillus, that are present in yogurt. They produce a happy signal called GABA, which acts on the nervous system to curb depressive symptoms and anxiety. 
Meanwhile, "bad" bacteria like the Clostridium family, of botulism fame, live in our guts and dine on our Western diets of high fat, high sugar and processed foods, Kachur said. She added that these bacteria can produce toxins that are released into the bloodstream and could affect the  brain.
CBC Radio science columnist Torah Kachur
Kachur recommends eating food high inprobiotics, such as yogurt, sauerkraut,kimchi and miso soup; and avoiding high fat and high sugar diets, in order to promote the growth of bacteria that are good for your mental health.
"We've got to nurture and take care of our microbes.

Why are they criminalising Bone Marrow reimbursements?

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Sorry, but this is what happens when anonymous paper pushing robotic bureaucrats make decisions via wikipedia page insights.

Outlawing a process because it didn't exist when some law was passed in the '80s proves that government only HINDERS medical science, and can not possibly help.

I will just give it to you full bore...


HHS Proposes Rule to Amend NOTA, Nullify Flynn v. Holder

Section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 criminalizes the transfer of “human organs” for “valuable consideration.” Reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses associated with travel and lost wages are okay—as are, since the 2008 amendment of NOTA, paired living donor chains—but any other “valuable consideration” that might incentivize sources of organs is not. Under NOTA, as amended,
‘human organ’ means the human (including fetal) kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, cornea, eye, bone, and skin or any subpart thereof and any other human organ (or any subpart thereof, including that derived from a fetus) specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation
(emphases added). HHS has since added to this list “intestine, including the esophagus, stomach, small and/or large intestine, or any portion of the gastrointestinal tract.”
So-called “bone marrow transplants”—in reality, infusions of hematopoietic (blood) stem cells (HSCs)—are often life-saving procedures for those with, for example, leukemia or aplastic anemia. (See these sobering statistics compiled by the Institute for Justice, which represented the plaintiffs in Flynn.) When NOTA was passed, the only way to obtain HSCs was through bone marrow aspiration using a long needle thick enough to suck liquid marrow directly from the donor’s pelvic bone. HSCs are then harvested from the marrow. The procedure is done under general anesthesia and so the donor is subject to the usual risks of anesthesia. Although the donor can return to usual activities in two to seven days, discomfort may linger for up to two weeks..During the past twenty years or so, however, a new method of obtaining HSCs has emerged—apheresis—that avoids the need to invade the bone for marrow. (Kim Krawiec had a helpful post a while back with short videos thatexplain the differences between the two methods.) Today, something like two-thirds of HSC donation occurs through apheresis (traditional aspiration is medically indicated in some cases). Using this method, the donor receives five daily injections of a drug that accelerates blood stem cell production and coaxes the stem cells to move from the bone marrow into the bloodstream, where they are called peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). On the fifth day, the donor sits in a recliner for up to eight hours while blood is drawn from one of her arms, recycled through an apheresis machine that harvests the stem cells, and returns the remaining blood to the donor in her other arm. Possible side effects of the drug in the five-day run-up to the procedure include headaches and bone or muscle aches. After harvesting, the donor can return to her normal routine in one or two days, and complications are, according to the 9th Circuit, “exceedingly rare.”
Still, insufficient numbers of willing, compatible donors (there are just four blood types but millions of marrow cell types) exist. Those in need of transplants who have diverse genetic backgrounds, such as African Americans and those of multiple races/ethnicities, are especially difficult to match.
In Flynn v. Holder, a group of plaintiffs challenged the ban on compensating bone marrow donors. Plaintiffs included parents of children with leukemia and aplastic anemia; a parent of mixed-race children; and, a California nonprofit that wanted to test a pilot program in which it would offer bone marrow providers $3,000 awards in the form of scholarships, housing allowances, or gifts to a charity of their choice. They pressed two arguments before the Ninth Circuit—one based on the Equal Protection Clause, and one based on statutory interpretation. (A third argument, that the ban violates substantive due process, was rejected by the district court by fairly dubious analogy toAbigail Alliance, and plaintiffs did not raise it on appeal.)
Plaintiffs’ first argument was that NOTA, as applied to’s pilot program, violates the Equal Protection Clause by distinguishing, without rational basis, blood, sperm, and eggs (which do not come within NOTA’s definition of “human organ,” and donors of which may be compensated) and HSCs (donors of which may not be compensated under HHS’s interpretation of NOTA, regardless of the method of procurement). Plaintiffs argued that HSC donors—like blood and gamete donors, but unlike solid organ donors—are exposed to little risk and quickly regenerate what they have donated.
As applied to HSCs donated through aspiration, the court held that NOTA’s compensation ban might have any number of rational (if imperfect) bases and, therefore, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. However, the court avoided the constitutional question as applied to HSCs donated through apheresis, holding that “the statute contains no prohibition.” According to the court, Congress could not have intended for NOTA’s reference to “bone marrow” to encompass the harvesting of HSCs through apheresis (that is, PBSCs), because that procedure did not exist in 1984.
As for what the statute implies about apheresis-derived PBSCs, the question came down to whether PBSCs should (as the government argued) be considered “bone marrow” or a “subpart thereof,” both of which are covered by NOTA’s ban, or (as plaintiffs argued) “blood,” which is not. The court sided with plaintiffs, finding among other defects in the government’s argument that it “proved too much”; after all, if HSCs are “part of” bone marrow because they are formed there, then so are the white and red blood cells that the government concedes fall outside of NOTA’s scope. In short, the court found,
All that differentiates the blood drawn in peripheral blood stem cell apheresis from the blood drawn from a compensated blood donor, other than the filtration process, is the medicine given to donors in the days before the blood draw to increase hematopoietic stem cell secretion.
In its petition for rehearing (here’s Kim again), the government raised a fairly weak new argument (Kim again) based on the fact that Congress—in an entirely different Title of the U.S. Code, pertaining to entirely different issues—defined “bone marrow” to include PBSCs. The court rejected the government’s petition for rehearing but did amend its opinion to reflect its rejection of the state’s new argument. The court concluded:
We construe “bone marrow” to mean the soft, fatty substance in bone cavities, as opposed to blood, which means the red liquid that flows through the blood vessels. The statute does not prohibit compensation for donations of blood and the substances in it, which include peripheral blood stem cells. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has not exercised regulatory authority to define blood or peripheral blood stem cells as organs. We therefore need not decide whether prohibiting compensation for such donations would be unconstitutional.
In its notice of proposed rulemaking this week, of course, HHS seeks to use just this regulatory authority. (Comments, by the way, are due by December 2, 2013.) The agency proposes to “explicitly incorporate hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) within peripheral blood in the definition of ‘’bone marrow,’ so that the prohibition on transfers of human organs for valuable consideration applies to HSCs regardless of whether they were recovered directly from bone marrow (by aspiration) or from peripheral blood (by apheresis).”
As I said, in my next post, I’ll talk about the policy arguments for underlying HHS’s use of its regulatory authority. They include the usual suspects—commodification, coercion of PBSC vendors, exploitation of the sick, and concerns about compensation crowding out altruism and incentivizing vendors to conceal infectious diseases.

As part of the Cancer Community...

just doing my part!

Hi again, thanks for getting back to me! I work as the Community Outreach Director for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance. Mesothelioma Awareness Day just passed last Thursday and our campaign was a huge success! I am contacting bloggers like you in the cancer community to ask for help in continuing to spread awareness. Fortunately, because mesothelioma is a completely preventable cancer (caused only by asbestos exposure), knowing more about the disease and it's risk factors truly does make a difference.

I've attached the mesothelioma facts sheet that I used for the campaign this year. I would love it if you'd be willing to share it on your blog for your community. With more awareness, hopefully one day we can get asbestos banned once and for all.

Hoping to hear from you soon : )

 "How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives."  -Annie Dillard

Wouldn't want it, and thankfully, it will get rarer...


Day Zero +1825

Yep - one day at a time.

One scary summer down, we shall see about the future.

Now I gotta clean house...


PS: Interesting note on probiotics - I emailed him and I think I will try it.

Well, duh!

Congressional staff (trust me, no Congress critter could do this alone) hobble this "and the kitchen sink too!" piece of legistlation together, and yet when it hits the real world >BAM< it falls apart.


From my favorite website

During the design and passage of the Affordable Care Act, its architects and supporters described a fantastic new system for buying insurance. You would go onto a website and enter some simple information about yourself. The computer system would fetch data about you from various places — it would verify income with the Internal Revenue Service, check with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that you were a citizen or legal resident, and tap a database of employer coverage to make sure that you were not already being offered affordable coverage (defined as 9.5 percent of your income or less) by your employer. Provided you passed all those tests, it would calculate what subsidies you were eligible for, and then apply that discount automatically to the hundreds of possible policies being offered on the exchange. You would see the neatly listed prices and choose one, buying it as easily as you buy an airline ticket on Travelocity.
Before I went to business school, I used to work in an IT consultancy, and setting up this system sounded like an enormous job to me — a five- to eight-year job, given government procurement rules, not a three-year rush special. But Obamacare’s stewards seemed very confident, so I assumed that they must have it covered.
As time wore on, the administration has steadily stripped major components out of the exchanges and the data hub behind them as it became clear that they couldn’t possibly make the Oct. 1 deadline when all of this was supposed to be ready. The employer mandate was delayed, and then it was announced that at least some of the exchanges would be relying on self-reporting of income, rather than verifying with the IRS. . . .
How did we get to this point? The exchanges were the core selling point of Obamacare. (The Medicaid expansion was actually a bigger part of the coverage expansion, at least until the Supreme Court ruled that the administration couldn’t force states to take part, but it tended to be downplayed, because no one’s exactly a huge fan of Medicaid.) They were going to introduce competition to a fragmented and distorted marketplace, and make it easy for middle-class people to buy affordable coverage from a bevy of insurers. How can it be that one week before the deadline for opening, no one’s really sure the exchanges are going to work?
The country’s in the very best of hands. Plus, from the comments:
If Obamacare were merely an IT project I wouldn’t think twice about it. I would take it in a heartbeat over what Obamacare actually is.
Obamacare is not about the exchanges and I’m stunned that you would say that it is. Obamacare is a five-fold reentrenchment of the insane health care payment system that we have somehow allowed to evolve from its origins as a wretched socialist mistake made in the 1940s by the wretched socialist FDR administration attempting to put price caps on salaries.
Obamacare is a giant leap forward on the path of more bureaucracy, less choice, worse quality, and higher cost. It continues removing decisions from consumers and providers and placing them with third parties. It makes health care decisions even more contingent upon rulings by the IRS (THE IRS!!!) than they already were – and the fact that our health care financing system is largely overseen by our tax collection agency should be absurd on its face, and yet Obamacare doubles down on this absurdity.
If it were all about the exchanges I’d be ECSTATIC. Write the specs then take bids from Amazon and IBM and Raytheon and call it a day. It’d be full of problems but it would work eventually.
What we have instead will never work, even if the exchanges someday do. What we have instead will only serve to make things worse.
Amazing that this dumb law, and huge financial costs for the nation, ultimately stem from FDR’s dumb wartime wage controls, but in fact that’s correct.
UPDATE: A reader emails:
Glenn, first off, please do not use my name if you choose to mention anything I say in this email.
I work for one of the largest Telecom providers in the country. I’m an engineer who designs dedicated data links (DS3s, OC3s, etc…) for major companies across the US.
For background, some of these circuits can be put up fairly quickly, but not the ones that I work on. The ones I design can take up to 90 business days to install.
Anyways, a few weeks ago, we got deluged with orders for circuits that needed to be installed by October 1st. These were circuits to support Obamacare.
Needless to say, they aren’t going to make that deadline. Some of the circuits are being held up due to construction builds that won’t be complete until the end of November. The others won’t make the deadline due to the complexity and the number of various companies involved.
The customer is basically screaming and escalating but because they requested the orders so late, there isn’t much that can be done.
I can only imagine that this same scenario is playing out with other Telecom companies in the United States.
The country’s in the very best of hands.

What the hell - I'm on their naughty list anyway...

Another e-mail to my congress critter:

Did you support the Obamacare waiver for your staff?

Are you in favor of repealing the Obamacare waiver for your staff?

Answers please.  The louder and clearer the better.


Lets see if Ed Royce answers this one...


BTW: still waiting on a response on the last one.

Morons... led by complete morons

And to think that people actually pay him for his "serious manner" and "deep insight".


This guy talks to no one other than the self appointed "consensus makers" of the same ilk and therefore confirm all their looney ideas to themselves, congratulating said ilk about their deep brilliance.


Bill Moyers should be put in the alzheimer's ward and left to dazzle the nurses there on an hourly basis with his deep brilliance.

Syria is not climate related (whatever the hell that means) and he is clueless about the millennia of undercurrents that shape that battlespace.

What can the US do there?

Short of cleaning the surface of the earth of every human within the borders of what we currently call "Syria", nothing.  A bomblet here and there will change nothing.



Another note to my Congress Critter

I actually kind of like him, but even Ed Royce needs his feet put to the fire...

The actual note:

Just a quick note so you can use your next few session days usefully representing me...

Immigration: NOTHING COMPREHENSIVE (like the Senate bill)

Syria: We have no dog in this fight.  POTUS made his red-lined bed, let him lie in it.

ObamaCare: Defund it.  Not just discretionary funding, ALL OF IT.

Wrap it up quick and get out of there...


PS: Give my best to Patty Shay!

Just as I like it - short and sweet.

Not that he will ever read it...


I always thought that the antibiotics had something to do with it...

After taking antibiotics for, what seemed forever, I have gained 50 pounds since my pre-cancer days.

Flora and thyroid... a nasty combo.

Gotta go get some ice cream now-


Weight gain in ex-smokers likely caused by changes in intestinal bacteria, not increased appetite

Swiss researchers have found that changes to intestinal bacteria, not increases in calorie intake, are to blame for weight gains in people who quit smoking.
Grant Black/Calgary HeraldSwiss researchers have found that changes to intestinal bacteria, not increases in calorie intake, are to blame for weight gains in people who quit smoking.

A question for all of the on-again, off-again smokers out there: Have you noticed that you gain weight every time you quit smoking?
If the answer is yes, as it is for many — 80% of people who quit smoking put on an average of 15 pounds — you may be surprised to learn that it has little to do with your calorie intake.
Researchers in Switzerland have found that weight gains after quitting smoking are due to changes in the composition of intestinal flora, and not due to increased calorie intake.
They found that weight increases occur even if the calorie intake levels remain the same or even decrease compared to levels before ditching the cigarettes.
Researchers attributed the weight gains to changes in the bacterial diversity of the intestine.
For the study, a group of 20 people were asked to give stool samples. The group included five smokers, five non-smokers, and 10 people who quit smoking one week into the study.
Weight increases occur even if the calorie intake levels remain the same or even decrease compared to levels before ditching the cigarettes
While bacterial diversity underwent little change in the smokers and non-smokers, there were lots of shifts in the intestines of those who quit smoking.
Test subjects who quit smoking gained an average of 4.8 pounds over the course of the nine-week study, even though their eating a drinking habits remained the same (for the most part — towards the end of the study, these participants drank more alcohol than they did before they quit smoking).
 Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
Jeff J Mitchell/Getty ImagesBelgian scientists have discovered a link between intestinal flora and complications related to obesity.
Another recent study concerning the diversity of intestinal flora has shown that there is also a link between that diversity and a susceptibility to medical conditions and complications related to obesity.
The research shows that people with fewer bacterial species in their intestines are more likely to develop cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.
“This is an amazing result with possibly enormous implications for the treatment and even prevention of the greatest public health issue of our time. But we are not there yet, now we need studies in which we can monitor people for a longer period,” said Jeroen Raes of the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology in Belgium.
Obesity is a medical concern that has grown to become an epidemic in many parts of the world. It is expected that obesity will affect more than 700 million people by 2015.