Paying More For Alcohol May Actually Save Lives

window.google_render_ad();
It’s no secret that alcohol is no good for our health, as it might increase our risk for liver disease, oral or breast cancers and even alcohol poisoning when drunk in excessive amounts. More and more car accidents happen because alcohol consumption. More and more lives are ruined because the “mind-blowing” effect of alcohol. The latest study on alcohol appears to sustain the idea.
The study funded by the Substance Abuse University of Florida College of Medicine found that raising taxes on beer, wine and liquor immediately reduced the number of deaths from alcohol-related disease. The study was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.
“The findings are quite astounding. A simple adjustment of the tax rate resulted in a substantial drop in the death rate,” said Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD, with the University of Florida College of Medicine.
The study reviewed two separate tax increases on alcoholic beverages in 1983 and 2002 in Alaska and also looked at the number of people who died from alcohol-related diseases in the years following the tax hikes. Alaska was known for a high number of illnesses and deaths due to alcohol. That’s why the state decided to do something about it, and so it became the first state to implement a noticeable tax increase. In 1983, Alaska's tax on beer increased to 63 cents per gallon, compared to 46 cents in 1982, and increased to $1.20 in 2002.
The researchers compiled the number of deaths caused by alcohol, such as alcohol poisoning and alcoholic liver disease, and deaths linked to alcohol, such as cirrhosis and chronic pancreatitis. They did not include deaths caused by alcohol-related car accidents or violence. Finally, deaths from Alaska were compared with data from other states to control for nationwide factors, such as population growth and advanced medical care.
The study found that the 1983 tax increase was immediately followed by a 29 percent reduction in deaths (23 deaths averted per year) and the 2002 tax increase reduced the number of deaths by 11 percent (an additional 21 deaths averted per year).
“The bottom line is that when we see an intervention that can reduce the death rate of any chronic disease such as cancer or heart disease by a few percent across the whole population, we consider it an important success. In this case, the death rate for alcohol-related diseases dropped suddenly by at least 11 percent and at minimal cost,” Wagenaar said.
Another study in Finland found similar results when examining the relationship between alcohol taxes and alcohol-positive deaths. The study was published in 2007 in the Addiction journal. Finland had high alcohol taxes for years. However, in March 2004 the government lowered the taxes nearly 33 to 44 percent to protect domestic sales. Consequently, consumption levels in Finland increased 50 percent from the previous year. Also, arrests for drunken and disorderly conduct increased by 11 percent after taxes were lowered. The study also showed that alcohol was the underlying cause of death for 1,860 Finns that year, a 20 percent increase from 2003.
“Taxation has indeed been found to be the most cost-effective measure in reducing alcohol consumption. Raising alcohol tax level has low costs and is effective in reducing alcohol consumption and thus alcohol-related harms,” the study concluded.

Vitamin C, E Supplements Fail To Reduce Cancer Risk

A series of studies have lately shown that vitamins don’t reduce cancer risk. Just two weeks ago, researchers at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital of Harvard Medical School concluded that taking folic acid and other B vitamins on regular basis doesn’t prevent breast cancer or cancer in general.

In October, a trial of the National Cancer Institute involving about 35,000 men was halted after it was found that vitamin E and selenium didn’t prevent prostate cancer. On contrary, researchers found a higher risk for aggressive prostate cancer in participants taking only vitamin E and a small risk of developing diabetes in subjects taking only selenium.

An earlier study (of a much smaller group) conducted on the effect of selenium supplementation on the recurrence of skin cancers did not demonstrate a reduced rate of recurrence of skin cancers, but did show a reduced occurrence of total cancers.

Coming closer, a study released last week found that vitamin D supplements, taken at a dose of 400 international units per day, may not help prevent breast cancer in women after menopause.

Now, a new study funded by the National Institutes of Health and released Sunday at the American Association for Cancer Research conference in Washington, shows that vitamin C or E supplements do not help prevent cancer in men.

“After nearly 10 years of supplementation with either vitamin E or vitamin C, we found no evidence supporting the use of either supplement in the prevention of cancer. While vitamin E and C supplement use did not produce any protective benefits, they also did not cause any harm,” said Howard D. Sesso, Sc.D., M.P.H., an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

The study involved 14,641 male US doctors who took either 400 IU of vitamin E every other day or a placebo, or 500 milligrams of vitamin C daily or a placebo. Their average age was 64 at the start of the study and they were followed for eight years on average.

After the follow-up period, there were 1,929 cases of cancer, including 1,013 cases of prostate cancer, which many had hoped vitamin E would prevent. However, rates of prostate cancer and of total cancer were similar among all four groups. Overall, 490 men taking vitamin E developed prostate cancer compared to 523 in the placebo group.

“Well-conducted clinical trials such as this are rapidly closing the door on the hope that common vitamin supplements may protect against cancer. It’s still possible that some benefit exists for subgroups that couldn’t be measured, but the overall results are certainly discouraging,” said Marji McCullough, nutrition chief at the American Cancer Society.

Given the circumstance, people should not put all their hope in vitamins in order to prevent cancer. They should try to do things that are known to prevent the disease, such as having a healthy diet based mainly on vegetables and fruits, maintaining a healthy weight and exercising as much as possible, even if that involves only walking or cleaning the house. Staying active helps people maintain a balance in their life and get rid of daily stress, which can be extremely dangerous to their health.

Breast Cancer Risk Said To Be Increased By Family History

Breast Cancer Risk Said To Be Increased By Family History
A new study has found that the risk of breast cancer for a woman with a strong family history is four times higher than that of the general population.Very tellingly, this is said to be the case even if she does not carry one of the breast cancer-linked mutations of the BRCA gene.It is noteworthy of mention that according to Canadian researchers, for women younger than age 40 without the BRCA mutations, but with a very strong family history, the risk is about 15 times higher than the general population.Delving further into this report, over a six-year period, the researchers followed up nearly 1,500 women from 365 families who had tested negative for the so-called breast cancer gene mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. The findings suggest there are other genetic mutations that play a role in breast cancer, Metcalfe said. She is to report the finding Monday at the American Association for Cancer Research's annual International Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research meeting, in Washington, D.C.Drawing from related statistics, according to the American Cancer Society, about 184,000 new breast cancer cases and 40,000 breast cancer deaths are expected this year in the United States.Reportedly, previous research is hereby confirmed by the new study said Dr. Shawna Willey, director of the Betty Lou Ourisman Breast Health Center at the Lombardi Cancer Center at Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C.She says: Women with this strong family history might consider more frequent screening, including breast MRI. "They could be a candidate for chemoprevention."

Breast Cancer Risk Up in Women with a Family History of the Disease

Women with a family history of breast cancer have a very high risk of developing the disease even if they test negative for two genetic mutations commonly linked to it, researches said Monday at the American Association for Cancer Research’s Seventh Annual International Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research meeting.
The two genetic mutations involved are BRCA 1 and BRCA2. They may facilitate earlier detection and prevention among high-risk women.
Women with a family history of breast cancer who test negative for these genetic mutations are four times more likely to develop breast cancer compared to other women, translating to roughly a 40 percent lifetime risk of getting the disease, researchers at the University of Toronto led by Steven Narod M.D. said.
Narod holds the Canada Research Chair in breast cancer at the University of Toronto and Women's College Research Institute. He also said the new finding will help doctors counsel these women about their risk of breast cancer.
“Now when we see families such as this, we will be able to offer better advice about their actual risk,” said Narod.
The study followed 1,492 women from 365 families with negative BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations for a minimum of five years. The women had a family history of either two or more cases of breast cancer among close relatives under the age of 50 or three cases among close relatives at any age.
The researchers compared breast cancer rates of these women with control rates found in local breast cancer registries and discovered they had a 4.3-fold increased risk for breast cancer.
There is still good news in this study: the women involved in the study did not have an increased risk of ovarian cancer like BRCA1- and BRCA2-carriers do.
The findings suggest that additional genes, hormones or other unknown factors, perhaps environmental, may play a significant role in developing breast cancer, Narod said. He also added that for women with a family history of breast cancer who test negative for the two genetic mutations, tamoxifen would be a good option, as well as breast screening MRI. “Our hope is to be able to prevent or pick up on breast cancer early enough to stop patients from dying. We will see what patients decide to do with this advice.”
An estimated 465,000 women died from breast cancer in 2007 worldwide and 1.3 million new cases were diagnosed, according to the American Cancer Society, a nationwide community-based voluntary health organization struggling to eliminate cancer as a main health problem.
The disease kills about 45,000 women each year in the United States. Early detection is the key, and no one knows your body like you do. So, if you think something is wrong, be persistent because the life you save is your own.