Saturday, March 31, 2012

Vaccine to stop heart attacks could be here in 5 years



 
 

Vaccine to stop heart attacks could be here in 5 years

 

 
 
 
 
A vaccine delivered in an injection or nasal spray to prevent heart attacks could be available within five years.
 

A vaccine delivered in an injection or nasal spray to prevent heart attacks could be available within five years.

Photograph by: Wayne Leidenfrost , PROVINCE

A vaccine delivered in an injection or nasal spray to prevent heart attacks could be available within five years.
Scientists have discovered that the drug stimulates the body's immune system to produce antibodies which prevent heart disease by stopping fat building up in the arteries.
It is the first time that the underlying cause of heart disease has been targeted. Current treatments focus on using drugs to reduce cholesterol levels and blood pressure.
The vaccine can cut the build up of fat in arteries by up to 70 per cent, according to tests by researchers at Lund University in Sweden. The fatty deposits cause arteries to narrow, meaning the body has to work harder to pump blood, and can lead to a heart attack.
Prof Peter Weissberg, the British Heart Foundation medical director, said the vaccine was "very promising".
Different ways of administering the vaccine are being developed and could be licensed within five years, the Frontiers in CardioVascular Biology conference at Imperial College London was told.
Cardiovascular disease is the biggest killer in Britain, causing one in three deaths; 191,000 each year. There are 2.7?million people with heart disease and their treatment costs pounds 3.2?billion a year.
Prof Jan Nilsson, professor of experimental cardiovascular research at Lund University, acknowledged that treatments such as statins and blood pressure drugs reduced the risk of heart disease by 40 per cent, but added: "It should not be forgotten that 60 per cent of cardiovascular events continue to occur."
He said: "These treatments are far more like drugs: to be effective they'd need to be given long term. The antibody therapy in particularly is likely to be expensive, so you could probably only afford to give it to high-risk populations rather than everyone."
The team created a vaccine that reduced plaque build-up by 60 to 70 per cent in mice. The resulting injection is waiting regulatory clearance to start clinical trials. A second vaccine has been created as a nasal spray. A trial on 144 heart disease sufferers is under way in the U.S. and Canada.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Stunning Finding: President's Health Law Creates $17 Trillion In Unfunded Financial Obligations


WASHINGTON, March 29--On the Senate floor today, Ranking Member Sessions announced that a new Budget Committee analysis has found that the long-term, unfunded liabilities associated with President Obama's health care law will reach $17 trillion. The Committee's analysis is based on the Obama Administration's own numbers as well as those from the Congressional Budget Office. It is a modest, conservative estimate and yet is still more than double that of Social Security.

At a "bipartisan fiscal responsibility summit" in 2009, President Obama's then-OMB Director, Peter Orszag, stated: "To my fellow budget hawks in this room and in the rest of the country, let me be very clear: Health care reform is entitlement reform. The path to fiscal responsibility must run directly through health care." But despite this emphatic statement, the nation's unfunded liabilities--money we must spend but for which there is no source of funds set aside--increased from $65 trillion to $82 trillion since the health law was passed.

To view a graph depicting the increase in unfunded obligations brought on by the law, please click here: http://1.usa.gov/H4Lk66.

Category:


     




            

katy perry ,part of me


Looks like She has some real Heart in her ,some real Spirit....


   

Monday, March 26, 2012

Jewish hate in Brooklyn..


Jewish hate in Brooklyn..


Park Slope Food Coop 

members to decide on 

Israeli food ban


A five-year food fight that’s left both sides queasy is about to be decided.
Members of the popular Park Slope Food Coop will vote tomorrow on whether to hold a referendum on a proposed boycott of Israeli products.
Some anti-Israel members want products made in Israel off the trendy Brooklyn food-cooperative’s shelves in protest of that country’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
However, others say the idea stinks of anti-Semitism and goes against the 39-year-old Union Street co-op’s mission statement of commitment to "diversity and equality."
The turnout of the co-op’s monthly meeting is expected to be so large that it’s been moved from a small neighborhood synagogue to a 3,000-seat auditorium at Brooklyn Technical High School. It starts at 7 p.m.
If a majority of members attending shoot the down the referendum proposal, it’s dead and the co-op can continue selling Israel-imported products like the popular-selling Sodastream seltzer maker, bath salts and paprika.
But if there’s enough support, the issue will be decided in the coming months through a mail-ballot referendum distributed to co-op’s 16,000 members.
“There are many loud voices on both sides of this issue, but even more who haven't spoken,” said Irina Ivanova, a leader of the co-op group pushing the boycott. “By asking for a referendum, we're simply asking that everyone who wants to weigh in on this issue can do so.”
But Barbara Mazor, a leader of the anti-boycott contingent, disagrees, saying “it would be damaging and toxic to us as a co-op to get involved in such a contentious, divisive issue.”
The referendum push is part of an international movement, called “B.D.S” for “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions,” aimed at pressuring Israel into pulling out of Palestinian territories.
While similar Israeli boycotts have been proposed in America, the only grocery store nationwide to agree to one is a food co-op in Olympia, Wash in 2010. It has since been sued for its actions.
The Israeli-product debate first surfaced at the Park Slope food co-op five years year, but started heating up in 2010 as some members began pushing the referendum plan.
Members on both sides now have dueling blogs and Facebook pages giving their slanted views, and the co-op’s publication, Linewaiter’s Gazette, has been flooded in recent years with letters debating the controversial issue.
As for the co-op’s management team, it opposes the referendum but doesn’t have a say.
"We feel [a boycott] would be divisive," Ann Herpel, a general coordinator at the co-op told The Post last year. "We want to be good stewards and make all people feel welcome."
Boycotts are not new at the co-op, as its board has previously voted various products off shelves, including Coca-Cola products because of alleged illegal labor practices in Colombia.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

This is why the Pilgrims came to America.....Pelosi: Obamacare Allows You to Quit Your Job and Become ‘Whatever’


Pelosi: Obamacare Allows You to Quit Your Job and Become ‘Whatever’


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Obamacare facilitates the type of “liberation” that the “Founders had in mind” because it allows you to quit your job and become a “photographer,”  a “writer,” a “musician”–or “whatever.”
“As you hear from these stories, this is a liberation,” Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday.
“This is what our founders had in mind–ever expanding opportunity for people.
“You want to be a photographer or a writer or a musician, whatever —  an artist, you want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, you want to change jobs, you no longer are prohibited from doing that because you can’t have access to health care, especially because you do not want to put your family at risk,” she said.

WEST: Why Obamacare is bad for America’s health Expensive overreach could prove fatal if not struck down


WEST: Why Obamacare is bad for America’s health

Expensive overreach could prove fatal if not struck down

 
On Monday, the Supreme Court will consider the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also referred to as Obamacare. Thehigh court will pore over Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to determine the true meaning behind the words, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.” The 2012 Supreme Court must determine whether the Founders had any intention of mandating the behavior of private enterprises and individuals.
To me, the answer is obvious: absolutely not.
Our nation was founded on the Declaration of Independence. Freedom of choice and a free market are at the core of our nation’s soul. A governmental mandate for the behavior of individuals and private enterprises is anathema to what our founders intended. The prospect of having an unelected panel of bureaucrats determining fundamental decisions about our individual health care is perhaps the most personal and intimate intrusion into our lives. The concept of this absurd and dangerous law surely ranks with the grievances laid down 236 years ago.
In January 2011, Florida federal District Judge C. Roger Vinson ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional, stating: “Never before has Congressrequired that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States. If [the government] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a transaction… it is not hyperbolic to suggest thatCongress could do almost anything it wanted.” Today, this prediction is being attempted before our very eyes.
With Obamacare, insurance companies will be forced to provide contraceptive products free of charge. Why just contraception? Will the government next force insurance companies to provide surgical procedures free of charge? Where does it end? Perhaps supermarkets should be compelled to offer apples and carrots free of charge to ensure children have access to healthy food.
Beyond exerting oppressive control over individuals and private enterprises, Obamacare circumvents the foundation of our own legislative structure.
At the heart of the Affordable Care Act is the Independent Payment Advisory Panel (IPAB), made up of 15 unelected officials appointed by the president to reduceMedicare spending. The IPAB will be tasked with and given the authority to reduce costs to the government by, among other things, limiting reimbursements to doctors. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to recognize that this will lead to more physicians leaving the Medicare system, reducing access to care for our seniors and limiting available treatments.
But this isn’t the most frightening part. Any recommendations by the IPAB automatically become law. The only way around this unprecedented amount of power for Washington bureaucrats is an act ofCongress, with a three-fifths supermajority in the Senate. In other words, the unelected IPAB, appointed by the president, essentially becomes its own shadow legislative branch.
The fundamental structure of our government, with three co-equal branches and a careful system of checks and balances, is being usurped. Our freedoms and liberties are being chipped away, bit by bit. Our country is being transformed step by incremental step into a centrally planned, stringently controlled bureaucratic nanny state, and what I find most frightening is that a portion of our populace willingly dons the shackles, and like lemmings, marches to our demise.
Perhaps some Americans are simply unaware of the exorbitant monetary cost of this governmental behemoth. The numbers don’t lie, and they are dangerous:
c $1.76 trillion from American taxpayers to pay for Obamacare over 10 years, nearly double the $940 billion forecast when the bill was signed into law (Congressional Budget Office). c $52 billion in new taxes on businesses as employers are forced to provide health insurance. (CBO). c $800,000 fewer U.S. jobs. (CBO). c $47 billion in new taxes on drug companies and medical device makers, costs that surely will be passed down to patients, particularly our senior citizens.
c Families earning more than $250,000 a year will see more taxes, as Obamacare adds a new tax to investment income, including capital gains, dividends, rental income and royalties.
c Insurance premiums are expected to increase 1.9 percent to 2.3 percent in 2014 and up to 3.7 percent by 2023 because Obamacare adds a premium tax on health insurers offering full coverage.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unworkable and destined to fail. One need only look back a few years ago to the last big government program with the word “affordable” in it. Barney Frank’s Affordable Housing Act managed, in less than a decade, to demolish the housing market, weaken financial institutions and wipe out the net worth of millions of Americans.
What makes anyone think government intervention in health care will be successful? Obamacare is unconstitutional, anti-constitutional and, most certainly, an awful piece of American policy. Let’s hope after next week’s Supreme Court decision it also becomes a short-lived piece of American history.
View Entire Story
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.