Diabetes Mediated by Pollution

This news release reminded me of this prior research which prompted me to think about this research. Then I found this and  this and this and this  and this which of course led to the obvious hypothesis being thus  and thus (full text available at link)all of which reminded of this recent research news wherein they still fail to recognise the obvious hypothesis. Take note from the last reference:

One striking observation is that obese persons that do not have elevated POPs are not at elevated risk of diabetes, suggesting that the POPs rather than the obesity per se is responsible for the association.

At a personal level I find this quite incredible because several years ago I wrote up a report for an environmental group wherein I argued that the compounds found in many electronic components were known to be toxic and needed to be safely disposed of instead of being put in landfill. The Queensland Environmental Protection Agency laughed at my report. Idiots, it was the obvious hypothesis back then, if only because several countries had already passed legislation to address the issue.

All that is a friggin disaster.

2- Enriched environment, stress, inhibits cancer?

In a previous post I mentioned the new research showing how an enriched environment can markedly impede the development of cancer. This research, the abstract of which is available here. (This research is concordant with research I earlier addressed, you can read it here.)The results of this current research indicate that a key variable is leptin. Leptin is a hormone released by fat cells(and other cells) that suppresses appetite. When writing up that previous post I was in a hurry so did not have time to think about it. As I driving over to a friend's place I had a petit epiphany, realising that there could very well be a linkage between the findings of this study and another post I put up on the same day that indicated regular coffee consumption is associated with cancer reduction. The typical assumption is that coffee confers this protection because it is extremely high in antioxidants, but together with the above research we can see another way in which coffee exerts its anti-cancer effects. There are some important lessons here, both in relation to the dangers of extrapolation when dealing with complex adaptive systems and the need to constantly re-evaluate our assumptions. I know, whilst thinking about this during the week I made some silly logical errors.

Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

bad science
Dr. Ben Goldacre
Fourth Estate - London, 2008
Website: Bad Science


Purpose of this text: to inform the general public about how to better understand modern biomedical news and in particular health related news. He is a British doctor and keeps his focus on the British scene but his lessons are universal and badly needed. In an earlier post  I  made some comments on the chapter in this text "Professor Patrick Holford".

This is a very important book. If you have never read a text on how to read and understand biomedical literature yet read biomedical literature you should read this text.

Professor Patrick Holford - Nutrition Nonsense

The other day I picked up this text and late last night decided to read the chapter Professor Patrick Holford because I read a book of his some years ago. Ben Goldacre is a British doctor who writes regularly for the Guardian and has taken up the challenge of addressing all the kookiness out there in relation to health advice. Good on him, high time the medical profession put some effort into attacking the multitude of spurious nutrition advice out there. I may provide a full review of "Bad Science" later but for now I will focus on this Patrick Holford character.

Coffee and Cancer

Coffee used to be regarded as a dangerous substance. The research is now clearly pointing out that coffee can confer a great many benefits. This video from Healthday puts forward the results of some surprising research showing that regular coffee consumption is protective against a range of cancers.