nabeepchen.comlogo

Vital Signs and Remedies for a Full Spectrum World
by Roxanne Nelson

27 July 2005

Could it Really Be–That I Have Good News to Post?

So much of the health and medical news is disappointing, discouraging, and downright criminal. That’s why, when good news comes along (and especially if it has to do with the Bush administration) it is almost shocking. Like, gag me. Is this real? Is the Bush camp really not screwing up some poor sick people?

And this bit of news really does send shivers down your spine because it concerns one of those social diseases that neocons think only evil people contract…..AIDS!!!

I’ll cut the suspense and let you read the press release from HIVMA:

HIV Care Providers Applaud Bush Administration on Ryan White Proposal

Front-line HIV medical care providers from a leading organization of health care professionals are applauding the Bush administration for making medical care the top priority in its newly released guidelines to Congress for renewing the nation’s largest program dedicated to HIV/AIDS care, the Ryan White CARE Act.

Ryan White CARE Act programs provide medical care and other services for more than half a million low-income, uninsured, or underinsured people living with HIV/AIDS. The Act expires on Sept. 30, requiring Congress to reauthorize it.

“Ryan White was originally written at a time when HIV infection was a death sentence,” says Paul Volberding, MD, chair of the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) Board of Directors. “HIVMA members from across the country have been there as new drugs and medical care changed it into a chronic condition.”

HIVMA is pleased to see that the administration’s guidelines for reauthorizing Ryan White follow recommendations the Association made this spring along with the American Academy of HIV Medicine (AAHIVM). Those recommendations focused on revising Ryan White’s funding priorities to ensure access to lifesaving medical treatment for people with no other source of care. The recommendations drew from members’ abundant experience in providing HIV care, and were informed by a key 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine.

“We see wide variations across the country in the care to which people with HIV/AIDS have access. That’s not right,” says HIVMA board member Anita Vaughn, MD. “Whether you get the treatment that can save your life shouldn’t depend on where you live. We’re glad to see the administration understands that.” The administration proposes that 75 percent of Ryan White funds be used for core medical services. HIVMA looks forward to working with the administration and members of Congress to define a set of core medical services that reflects the complexity of HIV disease, including mental health, substance abuse, and nutrition counseling services.

HIVMA is also pleased to see the administration backing the Association’s proposal for a federal list of core anti-AIDS medications based on federal treatment guidelines. “All low-income people deserve access to a minimum set of essential drugs,” Dr. Vaughn says.

The administration proposes establishing indicators to determine “severity of need” for Ryan White funds. The intention is to target money to places and groups that need it most. “We’re glad to see the administration’s efforts to make Ryan White funding more equitable,” Dr. Volberding says. “We look forward to working with the administration and Congress on how to define ’severity of need.’”

The Association will also work to expand the Act to encourage training, recruitment, and retention of HIV care providers.

“Experienced providers are closing their practices, and there aren’t many new ones willing to take on this demanding complex field,” Dr. Volberding says. “This is a major factor decreasing access to care. We badly need more care providers to treat the increasing number of people living with HIV/AIDS.”

“We congratulate the Bush administration for providing the leadership necessary to spur action on this essential program,” Dr. Volberding says. “We urge Congress to take up the matter right away, so a new Act is ready when the old one expires Sept. 30.”

###

The Bush administration’s Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization principles are online at http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2005pres/ryanwhite.html.

— roxanne @ 7:20 pm — Comments Off

Yum! Pesticides for Growing Children

I haven’t yet had time to look at the August issue of Parents magazine and see if this news item is true–but if it is, well, very disturbing indeed. This is a news release that I just received from the Organic Consumer’s Network:

PARENTING ADVICE: EAT YOUR PESTICIDES

“Parents Magazine”, one of the most influential parenting publications in the U.S., advised parents not to worry about pesticide residues in children’s food in its recent August 2005 issue. In an article titled “Food Under Fire,” the magazine belittles the benefits of organic foods as a myth, and endorses pesticides in foods as safe, stating: “there’s no evidence that these chemicals, used at the low levels found in our food supply, are harmful to children.” The author of the piece based his research on the opinion of a single “expert,” never mentioning three decades of scientific evidence from academic, government and industry sources that states otherwise. The magazine serves as a “parenting guide” to more than 14 million subscribers. Read some related facts below, and write a quick letter to their editor here: mailbag@parentsmagazine.com

And here’s a few quick facts about pesticides and children:

QUICK RELATED U.S. GOVERNMENT ISSUED FACTS:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that one of the main sources of pesticide exposure for U.S. children comes from the food they eat.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, half of produce currently tested in grocery stores contains measurable residues of pesticides. Laboratory tests of eight industry-leader baby foods reveal the presence of 16 pesticides, including three carcinogens.

According to EPA’s “Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment,” children receive 50% of their lifetime cancer risks in the first two years of life.

In blood samples of children aged 2 to 4, concentrations of pesticide residues are six times higher in children eating conventionally farmed fruits and vegetables compared with those eating organic food.

I would be curious to read the issue and see who the “expert” is, the know-it-all who may very well be on the payroll of some corporation. Many of the articles appear in consumer magazines are nothing more than a handful of anecdotes and selected sound-bytes. What they don’t tell you that in many cases, the “experts” and sound-bytes have been carefully vetted to make sure that they don’t conflict with advertisers. What they also fail to acknowledge is that many of the medical and scientific experts quoted in an article are on the payroll of a corporation, work as consultants for the products that they are telling you are “safe,” or may even have a strong financial stake in it.

This may well be the case with the Parents article. Otherwise, how can anyone in their right mind tell you that pesticides are safe and that there are no benefits to eating organic food? Again, I would have to read the article myself to pass full judgment, but having seen this type of thing so many times before, and even have written trash of that nature myself, I tend to think that the press release is accurate. And if so, then shame on Parents magazine. How could they allow such a biased piece of junk journalism to be printed and offered as advice to parents? Research based on the opinion of one person, and completely ignoring all of the scientific evidence to the contrary? Presenting one side of the story with the most minimal of back-up support?

I hope that Parents get several million letters from angry readers and threats to cancel subscriptions, unless they print a retraction. And please tell us, Parents mag, what is the real story behind this? Which advertiser are you protecting? Or does your EIC or CEO have mega-stakes in a company that manufactures pesticides?

— roxanne @ 3:48 pm — Comments Off