Ingredients:
4 oz. low-fat goat cheese, softened
1/3 c. sugar
1/2 tsp. vanilla extract
1/2 tsp. cocoa powder
2 eggs, separated
1 tbsp. flour
1/4 tsp. ancho chili powder
Directions:
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Combine goat cheese, sugar, and vanilla and mix until smooth. Add egg yolks two at a time. Fold in flour, cocoa powder, and ancho chile. Whip egg whites until soft peaks form. Gently fold into mixture. Spread into buttered and sugared parchment-lined baking pan. Bake for 20-25 minutes. Cool. Remove from pan by picking up parchment. Use 1 in. cookie cutter to make individual circles and insert skewers to create a "lollipop.”
Makes about eight servings.
Recipe provided by Chef Chris Santos of
Beauty & Essex and
The Stanton Social
Ingredients:
1/2 c. pumpkin puree
1/4 c. egg whites (from an egg or carton)
Sweetener
Cinnamon or pumpkin pie spice
Directions:
?Mix together all the ingredients. If you prefer a flan-like texture, add more pumpkin; if you prefer a cake-like texture, add more egg whites. Microwave for two minutes. Use a mix of Greek yogurt, hazelnut cream cheese, and pumpkin pie spice for the icing. Top with toasted pecans.
Makes one serving.
Recipe provided by
Live Laugh Eat
Ingredients:
1 1/4 c. Fuyu persimmons, cubed
1 tbsp. lemon juice
1 tbsp. coconut oil
2 tbsp. unsweetened applesauce
1/2 c. agave nectar
2 c. whole-wheat flour
1 tsp. baking powder
1/2 tsp. baking soda
1/2 tsp. ginger
1/2 tsp. nutmeg, freshly grated
1/2 tsp. salt
1/4 c. raisins
Directions:
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Oil or spray a bundt pan. In a small bowl, mix the persimmon, lemon juice, coconut oil or applesauce, and agave nectar. In a large bowl, combine the remaining ingredients, except for raisins. Pour the wet into the dry and mix just until all flour is moistened (do not over-mix). Fold in the raisins. Pour into the prepared pan and bake until a toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean, about 40-45 minutes, if you using a pan for one bundt cake. (Note: a pan for six bundt cakes takes about 30 minutes.) Allow to cool for 10 minutes and then remove from pan. Cool completely before serving.
Makes six servings.
Recipe provided by
Cooking Melangery
Ingredients:
1 batch brown rice flour pie crust (recipe
here)
1/2 c. slow cooker cinnamon apples (recipe
here)
Directions:
Begin by preheating your oven to 375 degrees and making your pie crust (or use your favorite pie crust). Using a floured flat surface, roll the pie crust out to about 1/8 in. thickness. Using a coffee mug with a diameter of 3.5 in., cut four circles out of the dough and set aside. At this time, you will probably have to re-roll the dough out. Then, using a smaller coffee mug or bowl with a diameter of 3 in., cut another four circles out of the dough and set aside. Spray your muffin tin with cooking spray, and gently set the larger dough circles in the bottom of the muffin tins so the dough comes up the sides of the muffin tins as well. Then, carefully scoop some of the slow cooker cinnamon apples (about 2 tbsp. per mini pie) on top of the dough. Top your mini pies with the smaller dough circles and use a fork to pinch the two dough circles together. Bake in a 375 degree oven for 20-24 minutes, or until the edges around the pie crusts begin to brown. Let pies cool completely before removing from the muffin pan.
Makes four servings.
Recipe provided by
Clean Eating Chelsey
“The nuts have protein and vitamin E, and they fill you up the right way—no empty calories there!" says food blogger Alyssa Shelasky. "And dark chocolate, well, it's on the good side of bad.”
Pair these nutty, fruity 95-calorie clusters with a cup of a tea for a satisfying pick-me-up.
Ingredients:
3/4 c. almonds (or any nut of your preference like pistachios or macadamias)
12 oz. dark chocolate (60-70% cocoa), divided
1/2 tsp. pure vanilla extract
1/3 c. dried tart cherries (swap for dates or dried apricots)
Sprinkle of coarse sea salt (optional)
Directions:
Heat oven to 350 degrees. On a baking sheet lined with parchment paper, toast the nuts until they smell nice and roasted, about 10 minutes. Let them cool completely. Fill a medium saucepan with 1 in. water; bring to a simmer over medium-low heat. Set a large heat-proof bowl atop saucepan, making sure water doesn't touch bottom of bowl. Place the dark chocolate in bowl; cook, stirring, until smooth. Remove bowl from saucepan; stir in 1/2 tsp. pure vanilla extract, toasted nuts, and the dried cherries/fruit. Pour onto baking sheet; spread into an even layer about 1/4 in. thick; sprinkle lightly with coarse sea salt (optional). Refrigerate until firm, 1 hour. Break into 24 pieces. Serve in odd, mismatched shapes.
Makes 24 pieces.
Recipe provided by Alyssa Shelasky of
Apron Anxiety and New York Magazine’s Grub Street
Ingredients:
1 c. pecans
1 12 oz. box vanilla wafers
1 c. confectioner’s sugar
2 tbsp. bittersweet cocoa
1/2 c. bourbon
1/4 c. light corn syrup
Directions:
Eat a vanilla wafer to make sure they are good. Then pulse wafers in a food processor until they are crumbs. Toast pecans in the oven until fragrant, about 4 minutes at 400 degrees. Pulse pecans, sugar, and cocoa in with wafers to combine into a nice crumb mixture. Combine whiskey with corn syrup. Add to crumbs. Use hands to combine. Wash hands to get big clumps off. Roll into balls. It’s helpful to squish a blob of dough back and forth between your hands 6-7 times to mush it together before rolling.
Makes 50-60 balls.
Recipe provided by
Kath Eats Real Food
Ingredients:
1 1/2 c. (or 1 can) chickpeas, drained and rinsed
3 tbsp. nut butter (or other fat source)
3/4 tsp. baking powder
1-2 tsp. vanilla extract
1/8 tsp. baking soda
Heaping 1/8 tsp. salt
1 tbsp. unsweetened applesauce
1/4 c. ground flax
2 and 1/4 tsp. cinnamon
Pinch cream of tartar and raisins (optional)
Directions:
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Blend all ingredients until very smooth, and scoop into a greased (or tinfoil-lined) 8x8 in. pan. Bake for 35-40 minutes. You want the blondies to look a little undercooked when you take them out, because they’ll firm up as they cool.
Makes 15-20 squares.
Recipe provided by
Chocolate-Covered Katie
Ingredients:
1 banana, mashed
1 c. vanilla almond milk
1 tsp. vanilla
1 tbsp. chia seeds
1/4 c. fresh lemon juice
Zest of 1 small lemon
Liquid stevia (such as 21 drops of NuNaturals vanilla stevia) or 1/4 c. sweetener of choice (such as agave nectar)
1/4 c. coconut flour
1/4 c. millet flour
1 tsp. baking powder
1/2 tsp. baking soda
2 tbsp. corn starch
1/2 tsp. cinnamon
Directions:
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Use coconut oil to grease a 9 in. pie plate. In a medium bowl, mix together the mashed banana, almond milk, vanilla extract, chia seeds, lemon juice, lemon zest, and stevia (or agave). Do the wet ingredients first so it gives the chia seeds time to soften up. In a separate medium bowl, whisk together the coconut flour, millet flour, baking powder, baking soda, corn starch, and cinnamon. Combine the wet with the dry ingredients. Pour into the pie plate. Bake for 30 minutes.
Makes eight servings.
Recipe provided by
Healthful Sense
Ingredients:
For doughnuts:
1/2 tsp. apple cider vinegar
6 tbsp. non-dairy milk
1/2 c. fresh or canned pureed pumpkin
1/4 c. organic cane sugar (or white)
3 tbsp. unsweetened applesauce
2 tbsp. lightly packed brown sugar
2 tbsp. Earth Balance (or other non-dairy butter substitute), melted
2 tsp. baking powder
1/4 tsp. baking soda
1 tsp. cinnamon + 1/2 tsp. ginger + 1/4 tsp. nutmeg (or 1 3/4 tsp. pumpkin pie spice)
1/2 tsp. kosher salt
1 c. all-purpose flour
1/2 c. whole-wheat pastry flour
For cinnamon sugar:
1/4 c. Earth Balance (or other non-dairy butter substitute), melted
1/2 c. sugar
1/2 tsp. cinnamon
Directions:
For doughnuts:
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Grease two mini doughnut pans or two regular sized doughnut pans with Earth Balance (or other butter substitute). In a large bowl, whisk together the vinegar, milk, pumpkin, sugar, applesauce, brown sugar (sift if clumpy), and melted Earth Balance (or other butter sub). Sift in in the dry ingredients (baking powder, baking soda, spices, salt, and flours). Mix until just combined. Spoon the batter into a zip-lock bag or pastry bag and then secure it with the zip lock or rubber band. Twist the bag slightly and then cut off a hole at the corner to ‘pipe’ out the batter. Pipe the dough around the circle and gently flatten down with slightly wet fingers to smooth. Repeat. Bake for 10-12 minutes at 350 degrees or until they gently spring back when touched. Cool in the pan for 10 minutes before carefully using a butter knife to remove. Place on cooling rack for another 10-15 minutes.
For cinnamon sugar:
Melt Earth Balance in a small bowl and dip the cooled doughnuts into butter one at a time. Transfer the dipped doughnut into a bag with the cinnamon sugar and shake until coated thoroughly. Doughnuts keep for 2-3 days.
Makes 24 mini or 12 regular-sized doughnuts.
Recipe provided by
Oh She Glows
Ingredients:
3 c. mixed dried fruits
?2/3 c. Disaronno or any amaretto
?1/2 c. butter
?3/4 c. sugar
?3 large eggs, separated
?1 tsp. vanilla extract
?Finely grated zest of 1 lemon
?Finely grated zest of 1 orange
?1 c. gluten-free flour blend
?1 1/2 tsp. baking powder
?1/2 tsp. salt
?1/2 c. milk
?1 c. pecans, chopped
Directions:
A day or two before baking the fruitcake, chop dried fruits into pieces, mix in amaretto, and cover. Spray an 8 in. round cake pan or an 8x8 in. pan with cooking spray. Strain dried fruit mixture, keeping the amaretto fruit syrup. Cream the butter and sugar until light and fluffy. Add egg yolks (reserving the whites separately), vanilla, and zests. Continue beating until eggs are fully incorporated and mixture is once again smooth and fluffy. In a separate bowl, combine flour, baking powder, and salt. Add dry ingredients to the butter and sugar mixture, beat gently until well combined. Add milk, continuing to beat until well combined. Add strained fruits, mixing again until well combined. In another bowl, whip the eggs whites on high speed, until stiff peaks form. Gently fold whipped egg whites into the main batter, until they have been fully incorporated. Gently mix in the pecans. Pour cake batter into prepared pan. Bake for about an hour and half at 325 degrees, or until a knife poked into the center of the cake comes out clean. While cake is still hot, pour reserved amaretto from the fruit over the top of the cake.
Makes 12-16 servings.
Recipe provided by
Debbi Does Dinner… Healthy & Low Calorie
You can thank the stinging cold weather for your high-calorie cravings, as research shows that we all tend to eat a little more during the winter months. What do we hunger for most?
Comfort foods and sweet treats! Thankfully, we found 10 cold-weather desserts that deliver decadent flavor for shockingly few calories to keep you slim until spring.
Anumed takes pride in our
learning center making sure you obtain the information you desire. We stand next to you every step of the way. We understand the importance in helping you find the
younger and
healthier side, while given you the
direct information on many
products. Everyone wants the fastest, safest, and unique way to get
in shape and
look younger. In reality we all know time gets in the way. We designed the
learning center to educate and familiarize yourself at one quick stop. In our
learning center you will find different methods of what could be the cause of
weight gain or
saggy skin. You could be on the way to a healthier, sexier you simple by bringing up your
Vitamin D levels, switching to
stevia instead of sugar, or introducing
HGH into your life. Want to know why these simple methods work check out our
learning center and get informed. Below you will find an easy to read overveiw of everything our leaning center has to offer.
We are here because of you, so let us be here for you every step of the way.
- Intro to adult health
- Intro to diabetes
- Research proves Vitamin D improves weightloss
- Probiactic bacteria
- HCG drops vs injections
- Why take HGH after HCG
- All about the active water
- Urologic Bladder Support
- Get rejuvenated with HGH
- Orgins of stevia
- Stay away from sugar, use stevia
- Intro to Vitamin D3
- Anumed Difference
- Anumed Mission Statement
Britain is in the grip of a new “flesh-eating bug spread by sneezes and coughs”, according to the front page of today’s Metro. The newspaper says that the bacteria are spreading across Britain, as they can be caught through people coughing and sneezing on crowded trains and buses.
This unsettling news put some of the Behind the Headlines team off grabbing their free copy of the Metro at the station this morning, not because of the fear of catching deadly germs from the paper, but because its report was alarmist and overblown. The basis of this news was a laboratory study that investigated why healthcare-acquired meticillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (
MRSA) bacteria rarely cause infections in healthy individuals. The study found that healthcare-acquired MRSA has a high level of antibiotic resistance, but that this property comes at a cost of reduced virulence (being less able to cause infection). Conversely, the study found that the type of MRSA that is usually caught in a community setting is more virulent, but weaker against treatment with antibiotics.
This study has not investigated the transmission, effects or number of cases of community-acquired MRSA in the UK, the discussion of which formed the basis of many news reports on the research. The researchers state that MRSA outside the healthcare system and in the community is a growing concern, but cases are still very rare. This interesting research contributes to our knowledge of MRSA, rather than warning us of an invasion of airborne superbugs.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Bath and the University of Nottingham in the UK; University College Dublin in Ireland; and Texas A&M Health Science Centre and the University of Texas in the US. It was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Studentship. The study was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Infectious Diseases.
This story was widely covered. Most reports were alarmist, concentrating on the supposed emergence of a dangerous, highly infectious new form of community-acquired MRSA. Many newspapers suggested that transmission is easy, that it can lead to a “flesh-eating form of pneumonia”, and that cases are on the increase. These claims seem to be based on the press release for the research rather than the research paper itself. The study was actually laboratory-based research that had investigated why healthcare-acquired MRSA bacteria rarely cause infections in healthy individuals. Although there was some investigation of community-acquired MRSA, the results do not justify the news coverage.
What kind of research was this?
This was a laboratory-based study. It aimed to examine why healthcare-acquired MRSA bacteria rarely cause infections in healthy individuals. Healthcare-acquired, or hospital-acquired, means that the bacteria cause infections that mostly occur in healthcare environments.
The researchers initially covered the nature of MRSA and how it resists certain types of antibiotics. It is already known that MRSA is resistant to the antibiotics meticillin and oxacillin because it has acquired a piece of DNA called a ‘mobile genetic element’. Meticillin is an old antibiotic that is now no longer used and has been replaced by flucloxacillin.
Many staphylococcus aureus bacteria have now also developed resistance to the penicillin group of antibiotics (because they produce enzymes that can make penicillin inactive), but they are usually still susceptible to the antibiotic flucloxacillin. MRSA, however, does not have this susceptibility to flucloxacillin, and is, therefore, harder to treat than most staphylococci bacteria, needing stronger antibiotics still.
One particular genetic element that is key for deciding the properties of MRSA is called the ‘staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec’ (SCCmec). There are several different versions of this cassette, which each provide bacteria with slightly different properties. The researchers state that healthcare-acquired MRSA have type I, II or III SCCmec elements, whereas community-acquired MRSA have type IV and V elements. These different cassettes all contain a gene (mecA) that codes for a protein called PBP2a, located in the cell wall of the bacteria. PBPs (penicillin binding proteins) are a normal part of the cell wall of many bacteria. Many antibiotics work by inactivating PBPs, which cause the bacteria to die. However, the version of PBP encoded by mecA, PBP2a, is less sensitive to antibiotics, allowing the bacteria to survive.
What did the research involve?
The researchers initially determined whether deleting the mecA gene, which encodes the PBP2a cell wall protein, affects the toxicity of MRSA. They then took a healthcare-acquired MRSA strain and a version of this strain that they genetically modified to delete the mecA gene, and performed tests to see how each was able to break up a type of immune cell called a T cell in the laboratory.
The researchers then investigated the ability of the different strains to respond to ‘signalling molecules’, which normally cause the bacteria to activate their production of toxins. The virulence of these strains was confirmed using mouse experiments.
The researchers then compared the production of the PBP2a cell wall protein, T-cell toxicity and the resistance of healthcare-acquired MRSA to antibiotics, compared with community-acquired MRSA.
What were the basic results?
The researchers found that deleting the mecA gene caused the MRSA to become more toxic. This was because the expression of mecA results in cell wall changes that interfere with MRSA’s ability to detect or respond to signals to switch on toxin expression. MRSA with mecA deleted was also more virulent in a mouse model, causing mice to lose weight or die.
The researchers then compared MRSA strains with different SCCmec elements: those with type II elements (typical of healthcare-acquired MRSA) and those with type IV elements (typical of community-acquired MRSA). They found that typical community-acquired MRSAs had lower resistance to the antibiotic oxacillin, were more toxic to the immune system’s T-cells and expressed less PBP2a.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
“As a direct result of its high level of antibiotic resistance, healthcare-acquired MRSA is impaired in its ability to cause infection, which can explain its inability to cause infection in community settings, where antibiotic usage and the prevalence of susceptible patients are low.” In other words, healthcare-acquired MRSA makes a trade-off, sacrificing its ability to spread to healthy individuals in order to fight off a greater range of antibiotics.
Conclusion
This interesting study helps explain why healthcare-acquired MRSA infections are rarely found in healthy individuals. It found that expression of a gene that produces one of the proteins responsible for MRSA’s antibiotic resistance caused it to be less toxic. It also showed that typical community-acquired MRSA strains express less of this antibiotic-resistance protein, but are more toxic.
However, this intriguing lab study did not investigate the transmission, effects or number of cases of community-acquired MRSA in the UK, the discussion of which formed the majority of the news reports. On this basis, the research itself does not support the claims that we are under siege from an ‘airborne, bacteria-resistant, flesh-eating superbug’, as newspapers have today suggested.
Links To The Headlines
Flesh-eating bug spread by sneezes and coughs. Metro, February 2 2012
Deadly new superbug is heading for Britain. Daily Express, February 2 2012
New deadly MRSA strain on its way to the UK from USA. Daily Mirror, February 2 2012
Super-strong MRSA bug heading to UK. The Sun, February 2 2012
Flesh-eating bug spread by coughs and sneezes spreading across the UK. Daily Mail, February 2 2012
Links To Science
Rudkin JR, Edwards AM, Bowden MG et al.
Methicillin Resistance Reduces the Virulence of Healthcare-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Interfering With the agr Quorum Sensing System. Journal of Infectious Diseases
,
February 1 2012
“Sugar is so harmful that it should be controlled and taxed in the same way as tobacco and alcohol,” according to health experts quoted in today’s Daily Express
.
The researchers say that sugar indirectly contributes to 35 million deaths a year worldwide.
The news is based on a comment article by US health scientists, who argue that there has been a massive rise in diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes since we began eating more sugar contained in processed food. The researchers argue that many of the health effects of excess sugar consumption are similar to those of alcohol, and that sugar should, therefore, be controlled and taxed in a similar way. They advocate introducing a tax on processed foods with added sugar, limiting sales during school hours and placing age limits on purchase. Interestingly, the authors rate sugar as more dangerous to health than saturated fat and salt, which they call dietary “bogeymen”.
It is important to highlight that the researchers’ article is a comment piece and, therefore, primarily reflects their views and opinions, rather than presenting direct research on the issue. While it is certainly an interesting concept, there is still a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of such measures and, crucially, whether the public would actually accept them.
Where did the story come from?
The article was written by researchers from the University of California. There is no information about any external funding. It was published in the comment section of the
peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature
.
The article was covered fairly by the papers, many of which included comments from UK experts including the UK Food and Drink Federation, which represents food manufacturers. The BBC also quoted an expert from the British Heart Foundation, who reportedly said that taxing salt and fat alongside sugar should also be considered.
What kind of article was this?
This was a comment piece in which experts discuss the global burden of general chronic disease related to sugar consumption and the need to regulate certain dietary items. In particular, the authors draw parallels between the health effects of sugar and the use of alcohol and tobacco, arguing that sugar should be regulated in a similar manner.
It is important to highlight that this was a comment piece only and, as such, it primarily reflects the views and opinions of the authors. A formal
systematic review of the literature does not appear to have been conducted and, as such, it is not certain whether all relevant evidence and resources related to sugar consumption and its health effects will have been consulted.
Also, the short piece looks at the issue from a global perspective and, therefore, is not a direct commentary on sugar consumption in the UK. In fact, a map showing average added sugar consumption per day across different nations shows that people in the UK consume a relatively low amount of sugar, at least compared with the rest of the world. Much of the article’s content may be focused on policies suited to the US, which has by far the greatest per-head sugar consumption, at more than 600 calories worth of sugar per day.
What does the article say?
The article points out that, for the first time in human history, non-communicable diseases such as
heart disease,
cancer and
diabetes, pose a greater health burden worldwide than infectious disease. While alcohol, tobacco and diet are all targeted as risk factors for these diseases by policymakers, only the first two – alcohol and cigarettes – are regulated by governments to protect public health. (Although, as the report points out, Denmark taxes food high in saturated fats and is now considering taxing added sugar.) The authors argue that fat and salt have become the current “dietary bogeymen” in the US and Europe, but that most doctors no longer believe that fat is the “primary culprit” of such disease. Doctors are apparently calling for attention to be turned towards the dangers of excess sugar consumption.
The authors estimate that over the past 50 years sugar consumption has tripled worldwide, mainly as a result of it being added to cheap processed foods. While excess sugar is thought to be a key cause of the obesity epidemic, they argue that obesity itself is not the root cause of disease but that its presence is a marker for metabolic damage. This, they say, could explain why 40% of those with metabolic syndrome (a collection of the key metabolic changes that lead to heart disease and diabetes) are not obese.
Why do they think sugar is dangerous?
The authors say that although sugar is described as “empty calories”, a growing body of evidence suggests that fructose (one component of table sugar) can trigger processes that lead to liver toxicity and a host of other chronic diseases. “A little is not a problem but a lot kills – slowly,” they say.
The authors argue that sugar meets all the four criteria used by health policy makers to justify the regulation of alcohol. These are:
- Unavoidability. While sugar was only available as fruit and honey at certain times of the year to our ancestors, it is now present in nearly all processed foods. In some parts of the world people are consuming more than 500 calories worth of sugar per day.
- Toxicity. There is growing evidence that excess sugar has an effect on human health beyond simply adding calories and can cause many of the same problems as alcohol, including high blood pressure, high blood fats, insulin resistance and diabetes.
- Potential for abuse. The authors argue that, like tobacco and alcohol, sugar acts on the brain to encourage dependence. Specifically, it interferes with the workings of a hormone called ghrelin (which signals hunger to the brain) and it also affects the action of other important compounds.
- Negative impact on society. The economic and human costs of these diseases place excess consumption of sugar in the same category as smoking and drinking.
What do they think should be done?
While the authors accept that sugar is “natural” and a “pleasure”, they argue that, like alcohol, too much of a good thing is toxic. Strategies to reduce consumption of alcohol and tobacco show that government controls, such as taxation and imposing age limits, work better than educating people. They make several proposals for controlling sugar, including:
- taxing any processed foods with added sugar, including drinks
- reducing the hours during which retailers can sell food containing added sugar
- tightening the licensing requirements on vending machines and snack bars selling sugary products
- controlling the numbers of fast food outlets and convenience stores
- limiting sales during school hours or imposing an age limit for drinks with added sugar
Finally, they argue that regulating sugar will not be easy, but it can be done with enough pressure for change, citing bans on smoking in public places as an example of what can be achieved.
What does this mean for me?
This article will be of interest to food scientists, health policy makers and the public alike, but the use of strategies to restrict the consumption of added sugar is complicated and, indeed, controversial. The implications of such moves would need to be considered in both medical and societal terms. They would need both medical evidence to support their effectiveness and assurance that the public would accept drastic changes, such as age limits on buying sweets. For example, in recent years, Denmark has imposed taxes on fatty foods, a move that has divided opinions greatly.
It is generally accepted that added sugar or excessive sugar consumption is bad for health and dietitians advise restricting sugar intake to the occasional “treat”. However, to what extent sugar is directly to blame for the rise in chronic disease and how much is due to other dietary components, such as saturated fat and salt, is open to debate. The current article does not appear to be a formal systematic review of the literature, and it is not certain whether all relevant evidence and resources related to sugar consumption and its health effects have been consulted. As such, it should be considered primarily to reflect the views and opinions of the authors.
In the UK at present, policymakers generally favour encouraging healthier eating through education and the provision of healthier options. This is carried out through public health campaigns such as
5 A DAY or by introducing new food ranges to schools. Whether this approach alone is adequate and whether healthier eating patterns should be encouraged by government regulation, is a crucial area of debate.
Links To The Headlines
Sugar 'is toxic and must be regulated just like cigarettes', claim scientists. Daily Mail, February 2 2012
Sugar tax needed, say US experts. BBC News, February 2 2012
Tax harmful sugar. Daily Express, February 2 2012
Links To Science
Lustig RH, Schmidt LA, Brindis LD.
Public health: The toxic truth about sugar. Nature, February 2 2012
Dear Mrs. Smith,
As you look forward to spending a day with your loved one on February 14th, now is the perfect time to talk about heart health for women and how your healthcare provider's Electronic Health Records (EHR) can help them care for you. Electronic Health Records have made recording patient information easier. EHRs can store and transfer information between your hospital, clinic or specialist, enabling a more seamless flow of vital information. The more informed your healthcare providers are, the better they will be able to diagnose and treat you.
With more healthcare providers implementing Electronic Health Record systems, your heart health will be better tracked and understood than ever before. Conditions of the heart and vascular system, also known as Cardiovascular Disease, affect approximately 42 million American women. Of that 42 million nearly 400,000 women die each year from a Cardiovascular related disease.1
One way your Podiatric Physician can evaluate your Cardiovascular health is to test for Peripheral Artery Disease (P.A.D.), which affects the arteries outside the heart. P.A.D. is a buildup of plaque that sticks to the walls of your arteries, constricting the flow of blood. The most common form of P.A.D. is found in your legs. Blocked blood flow can lead to even more severe problems like heart attack, stroke or amputation. Common symptoms of P.A.D. include cramping, aching, numbness and weakness in your legs (usually after exercise), discoloration of your skin and wounds that heal slowly. Signs of P.A.D. often appear in the lower extremities, so your Podiatric Physician is one of your first lines of P.A.D. detection.
Since evidence of P.A.D. might seem like arthritis, stiffness or natural effects of aging, it is important to talk to your healthcare professional about any symptoms you may be experiencing. If you do experience any of these symptoms, your Podiatric Physician may suggest a non-invasive test for P.A.D. using PADnet™+. Keeping your healthcare professional informed will help them track your related symptoms, tests results and other factors in an Electronic Health Record system like TRAKnet™ DPM. They can even use TRAKnet™ DPM's e-prescribing feature to send a prescription supported by your insurance straight to a pharmacy.
You can visit the
BioMedix™ Location Finder online to find a healthcare professional near you that can provide a PADnet™+ exam to test for P.A.D. To learn more about TRAKnet™ DPM or P.A.D. you can visit
www.BioMedix.com.
1. Eileen Hsich MD. (2011). Cardiovascular Disease. Retrieved January 26, 2011, from Heart Health Women:
http://www.hearthealthywomen.org/cardiovascular-disease.html
officially hit shelves Monday, January 31. A departure from Anheuser-Busch's traditional low-calorie, low-alcohol content beers, Bud Light Platinum was designed to appeal to people who appreciate craft beer.
Nutritional Information
Calories:
137
Carbs:
4.4 grams
Alcohol by Volume (ABV):
6 percent
Nutritional Information
Calories:
145
Carbs:
10.6 grams
ABV:
5 percent
Nutritional Information
Calories:
175?
Carbs:
18 grams
?ABV:
4.7 percent
Nutritional Information
Calories:
110
Carbs:
6 grams
ABV:
4.2 percent
Nutritional information
Calories:
147
Carbs:
13 grams
ABV:
4 percent
Nutritional Information
Calories:
156
Carbs:
11 grams
ABV:
5.1 percent
Nutritional Information
Calories:
154
Carbs:
12 grams
ABV:
5.2 percent
Nutritional Information
Calories:
175
Carbs:
14 grams
ABV:
5.6 percent
Nutritional Information
Calories:
135
Carbs:
14 grams
ABV:
4.4 percent
A Super Bowl party without beer is like New Year's Eve without champagne. It happens, and you'll still have fun, but some occassions just feel incomplete without the habitual beverage. And according to search trend research conducted by Yahoo!, most people agree. Super Bowl XLVI is this Sunday, and Internet searches for beer are way up. In fact, searches for "bud light platinum" alone increased by 349 percent this week.
After many years of delays, the agency said in August it would complete the first part of the dioxin reassessment, which would have set a toxicological threshold for the first time, by January 31.
The draft reassessment has been sharply criticized by the food industry for being too restrictive and being based on shaky science. Health and environmental groups expressed outrage at the continued delay.
"Shame on EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for denying parents the information they need to protect their children from the health impacts of dioxin," said Lois Marie Gibbs, executive director of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, a group among dozens pressuring EPA on the issue. "This is America -- parents have the right to know."
Dioxins are released into the air during certain industrial processes, like cement production and are also naturally occurring. According to new government data, air releases of dioxin rose 10 percent between 2009 and 2010. Dioxins are ingested by food animals, via grazing and contaminated feed, and are bioaccumulated -- a reality that has concerned regulators and public health authorities because dioxins are linked to reproductive and developmental problems, immune system damage and cancer.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 90 percent of human exposure to dioxins is via food, particularly meat, dairy, fish and shellfish. The food industry worries that the EPA reassessment would have recommended an exposure threshold that is lower than the level of exposure many Americans already face through their daily diet.
In December, the Food Industry Dioxin Working Group (FIDWG) -- an ad hoc coalition made up of groups like United Egg Producers, the American Farm Bureau and the American Frozen Food Institute -- sent a letter to a senior White House policy adviser expressing "deep concern" over the effort. The letter was also sent to key officials at the EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services, and the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The EPA's acceptable level for dioxin exposure, otherwise known as a reference oral dose (RfD), is expected to be .7 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day. Similar thresholds set by the World Health Organization and the European Union are between 1-4 picograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day.
If EPA finalized an RfD for dioxin it would not be a regulatory action, but it could be used as the basis for future regulation and would likely fuel some people to alter their dietary choices.
As the food industry pointed out recently in a letter to the Obama administration, some common food items could easily put someone over the draft RfD.
"Under EPA's proposal...nearly every American - particularly young children - could easily exceed the daily RfD after consuming a single meal or heavy snack," according to the industry groups. "The implications of this action are chilling. EPA is proposing to create a situation in which most U.S. agricultural products could arbitrarily be classified as unfit for consumption. The impact on agricultural production - conventional, organic, livestock/poultry/dairy, fruits, grains and vegetables - may be significant, as will be the loss of trade markets, all without evidence of additional health protection."
The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical companies, says that EPA needs to take more time to ensure the reassessment is based on sound science, and claims that the agency is "ignoring the most recent peer-reviewed science." Many lawmakers and advocates say the reassessment is years overdue and that further delays are the result of undue influence of industry.
Just how long has this reassessment been in the works? EPA first began work on assessing the risks of dioxin exposure in the 1980s. The most recent human health reassessment was submitted by EPA to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2003, during the Bush administration. In 2006, NAS submitted recommendations to EPA on the reassessment. In May 2010, the agency released a draft reanalysis and the agency says it's working expeditiously to get a final guidance out, but major industry opposition remains.
"The American public has been waiting for the completion of this dioxin study since 1985 and cannot afford any further delays," Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) said a letter to EPA this month to urge the agency to meet its deadline. "Despite worldwide agreement about the toxicity of these chemicals and their persistence in the environment, EPA has yet to release its findings on how dangerous these chemicals are to public health."
According to CDC, dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have a similar toxicity.
"Human health effects from low environmental exposures are unclear," says CDC on its resource page. "People who have been unintentionally exposed to large amounts of these chemicals have developed a skin condition called chloracne, liver problems, and elevated blood lipids (fats). Laboratory animal studies have shown various effects, including cancer and reproductive problems."
For more information on dioxin exposure, see
FDA's resource guide here.
Health systems to access payor and provider data to support new care delivery models and improve population health
Premier healthcare alliance and Verisk Health join forces to help hospitals and health systems better assess quality, utilization and cost of care
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (February 2, 2012) – The
Premier healthcare alliance and
Verisk Health, a leader in risk management solutions to the global healthcare industry, have joined forces to offer data solutions to help hospitals and health systems better define, measure and improve the health of their communities.
From Cindy Sage:
January 23, 2012
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has adopted a resolution
calling for a halt to wireless smart meters.
The full text of the resolution is below. A hard copy on letterhead may be
obtained soon on the AAEM website at _www.aaemonline.org_
(
http://www.aaemonline.org/) .
This represents the first national physician’s group to look in-depth at
wireless health risks;
and to advise the public and decision-makers about preventative public
health actions that are necessary.
Please distribute to those who may be interested.
Cindy Sage
Sage Associates
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
6505 E Central • Ste 296 • Wichita, KS 67206 Tel: (316) 684-5500 • Fax:
(316) 684-5709
_www.aaemonline.org_ (
http://www.aaemonline.org/)
Decision Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey (Mailed 1/22/2012)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, On the
proposed decision 11-03-014
Dear Commissioners:
The Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine opposes the
installation of wireless “smart meters” in homes and schools based on a
scientific assessment of the current medical literature (references available
on request). Chronic exposure to wireless radiofrequency radiation is a
preventable environmental hazard that is sufficiently well documented to
warrant immediate preventative public health action.
As representatives of physician specialists in the field of environmental
medicine, we have an obligation to urge precaution when sufficient
scientific and medical evidence suggests health risks which can potentially affect
large populations. The literature raises serious concern regarding the
levels of radio frequency (RF – 3 KHz – 300 GHz) or extremely low frequency
(ELF – o- 300 Hz) exposures produced by “smart meters” to warrant an
immediate and complete moratorium on their use and deployment until further study
can be performed. The board of the American Board of Environmental Medicine
wishes to point out that existing FCC guidelines for RF safety that have
been used to justify installation of “smart meters” only look at thermal
tissue damage and are obsolete, since many modern studies show metabolic and
genomic damage from RF and ELF exposures below the level of intensity which
heats tissues. The FCC guidelines are therefore inadequate for use in
establishing public health standards. More modern literature shows medically
and biologically significant effects of RF and ELF at lower energy densities.
These effects accumulate over time, which is an important consideration
given the chronic nature of exposure from “smart meters”. The current
medical literature raises credible questions about genetic and cellular effects,
hormonal effects, male fertility, blood/brain barrier damage and increased
risk of certain types of cancers from RF or ELF levels similar to those
emitted from “smart meters”. Children are placed at particular risk for
altered brain development, and impaired learning and behavior. Further EMF/RF
adds synergistic effects to the damage observed from a range of toxic
chemicals. Given the widespread, chronic and essentially inescapable ELF/RF
exposure of everyone living near a “smart meter”, the Board of the American
Academy of Environmental Medicine finds it unacceptable from a public health
standpoint to implement this technology until these serious medical concerns
are resolved. We consider a moratorium on installation of wireless “smart
meters” to be an issue of the highest importance.
The Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine also wises to
note that the US NIEHS National Toxicology Program in 1999 cited
radiofrequency radiation as a potential carcinogen. Existing safety limits for pulsed
RF were termed “not protective of public health” by the Radiofrequency
Interagency Working Group (a federal interagency working group including the
FDA, FCC, OSHA, the EPA and others). Emissions given off by “smart meters”
have been classified by the World Health Organization International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Possible Human Carcinogen.
Hence, we call for:
• An immediate moratorium on “smart meter” installation until these
serious public
health issues are resolved. Continuing with their installation would be
extremely
irresponsible.
• Modify the revised proposed decision to include hearings on health
impact in the
second proceedings, along with cost evaluation and community wide
opt-out.
• Provide immediate relief to those requesting it and restore the analog
meters.
« Study of human neurovegetative and hematologic effects of environmental
low-frequency (50-Hz) electromagnetic fields produced by transformers
_
http://www.emfacts.com/2012/01/study-of-human-neurovegetative-and-hematolog
ic-effects-of-environmental-low-frequency-50-hz-electromagnetic-fields-produ
ced-by-transformers/_
(
http://www.emfacts.com/2012/01/study-of-human-neurovegetative-and-hematologic-effects-of-environmental-low-frequency-50-hz-electr
omagnetic-fields-produced-by-transformers/)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Two of the country's most respected hospitals: Which one has mastered the art -- and science -- of great website design?
In this week's Website Smackdown, I’m taking a look at the websites for two of the biggest hospital complexes in the world, the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic.
You may be asking yourself, what can a small business learn from looking at the websites of two behemoth hospitals? Actually… plenty. One site understands its target audience and serves that audience’s needs extremely well, and the other just doesn’t get it.
The Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic rank neck and neck (third and fourth respectively) on US News & World Report’s Honor Roll of Best Hospitals, but there’s a huge difference in the quality of their websites.
Let’s Take a Look
Most people coming to the website for a major hospital have health-related questions, require immediate need for a doctor, or need information about visiting (directions, visiting hours, etc.). Just as hospitals are in the business of patient care, their websites should reflect that same level of care for site visitors.
A hospital website should provide key information to site visitors and make it simple and intuitive to find that information. It should also reflect a level of care, professionalism, and respect upon which the hospital has built its reputation.
Take a look at the homepage for the
Mayo Clinic website.
As you can see from the Mayo Clinic’s homepage, the central images are of former patients who have found their “Answers” at the Mayo Clinic. To get to those “Answers,” you have to read the tiny print to the right and click on the case study.
There is virtually nothing on the homepage that is designed to help patients, families of patients, or people looking for assistance from the hospital. After much searching, you can find (in a tiny font and in a sub-navigation) “Request an Appointment” and “Find a Doctor.” What you won’t find is a phone number, directions, or anything else that might be of real use.
By way of contrast, take a look at the
Cleveland Clinic’s homepage.
The Cleveland Clinic keeps the homepage very simple. The main image rotates, showing research, technology, and patient care as the three central messages. Much more importantly, the primary navigation clearly leads you to “Locations and Directions,” “Find a Doctor,” “Patient & Visitor” information, and bold tabs for “Contact Us” and “Appointments.”
Now take a look how each site handles the critical area of “Health Information.”
The Mayo Clinic Health Information page isn’t particularly user friendly. It offers a solid A to Z search and also has searches for symptoms, drugs, tests, and healthy living. While this is all helpful, it is also (forgive the pun) very clinical. People who are looking for health information are often in crisis and the role of the healthcare provider should be to provide as much support as possible.
The
Cleveland Clinic "Health Information" page offers all of the same search functions, but also provides useful tools as a phone number to contact them and even the ability to “Chat Online with a Health Information Search Specialist.” This is far more consumer friendly and much more helpful for a person with real health-related questions.
Finally, let’s look at one more service provided by both websites: Find a Doctor.
The
Mayo Clinic "Find a Doctor" page (again clinical and unfriendly) features an alphabetical search by doctors and departments and nothing else. The page also features videos of three doctors telling us how wonderful the Mayo Clinic is a wonderful place.
The
Cleveland Clinic’s “Find a Doctor” page not only clearly lays out five useful searches, it includes a video that actually walks you through the search process. Rather than extol the virtues of the Cleveland Clinic, it provides a real service to site visitors.
So what can you learn from these hospital websites?
- Know your target audience and know why they are coming to your site.
- Prioritize your navigation to serve the biggest needs of your visitors.
- Make sure you have powerful calls to action and prominent contact information.
- Emphasize customer service!
- Your online messaging should reflect the messaging of your business. If you are a service provider then make sure your site is designed with your potential clients/customers in mind.
Remember, creating a great website for your business isn’t brain surgery. It’s just a matter of understanding, appreciating, and serving your target audience.
And this is the reason for the acquisition. Many will credit the simplicity of ShoreTel PBXs as well as their "networking" based approach to design and deployment for some of their success. Obviously they are better at marketing and PR than most communication companies as well.
But the future is the cloud and M5 has been a regional player for a long time and although they have expanded their footprint they don't have a strong enough brand to be the cloud-communications alternative to a strong brand like Cisco or Avaya. Now with ShoreTel behind them they have the money and the marketing expertise to be a serious player.
The biggest hit will likely be felt by 8x8 as they are a pure-play cloud communications company who has been getting a lot of investor love lately due to their great earnings announcements.
Cisco may now be forced to buy 8x8 and
Avaya will likely make a move as well. This move could even push
Vonage to go after the SMB space. Mitel is an interesting question - they have leading edge tech but a troubled stock to use as currency.
One thing is for sure - it will be an interesting time for M&A this year in cloud communications. And if companies don't act fast they may not get a chance to compete in the cloud because the cable companies are not sitting still.
Tags:
cloud,
itexpo,
m5,
shoretelRelated tags:
cloud communications,
cloud,
communications,
companies,
shoretel
,
cloud,
itexpo,
m5,
shoretel
- Follow me:
Facebook Profile
Google Reader Profile
Twitter ProfileCloud Communications: That's gold, Jerry! Gold! - Aug 31, 2011
SIP Trunking Pre-Conference Session at ITEXPO E 2011 - Feb 01, 2011
ShoreTel Filling the Nortel Void? - Jan 20, 2011
ITEXPO East 2011 News Begins - Jan 13, 2011
VoIP Market up 13% This Year - Oct 01, 2010
Leading Health CIO Joins ShoreTel During ITEXPO Keynote - Sep 30, 2010
ITEXPO West 2010 Keynote Update - Sep 28, 2010
Apple, Sony, Microsoft, Google and ITEXPO News September 1, 2010 - Sep 02, 2010
Technology and TMC Happenings August 26, 2010 - Aug 26, 2010
Google Gmail VoIP, Cloud Computing and Other News August, 25 2010 - Aug 25, 2010
Comments |
Tag with del.icio.us |
Communications and Technology Blog - Tehrani.com Home | Permalink:
ShoreTel Acquires M5 for Cloud Communications
Copyright
Communications and Technology Blog - Tehrani.com
Sponsored by the
Call Center Outsourcing Community & the
Virtual Contact Center Outsourcing Community
Yesterday, Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier spoke on the floor of the House, blasting the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation for
its blatantly political decision to pull its funding of cancer screening and prevention programs from Planned Parenthood.
Looks like it's going to be another bad day for the foundation.
Greg Sargent
reports that 22 Democratic senators have signed a letter to Nancy Brinker, founder and CEO of the foundation, asking that she reverse the decision to deny funding to Planned Parenthood for its cancer screening and prevention programs.
Dear Ambassador Brinker,
We write to express our disappointment with Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s decision to cut funding for breast cancer prevention, screening, and education at Planned Parenthood health centers. This troubling decision threatens to reduce access to necessary, life-saving services. We urge Komen to reconsider its decision.
Planned Parenthood is a trusted provider of health care for women and men. More than 90 percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are primary and preventative including wellness exams and cancers screenings that save lives. Each year, Planned Parenthood health clinics provide 750,000 breast exams, 770,000 pap tests and nearly 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases. Twenty percent of all women in the U.S. have visited a Planned Parenthood health center.
For the past five years, grants to local affiliates of Planned Parenthood have been an important part of Planned Parenthood’s work to protect women from breast cancer. Komen funding for Planned Parenthood has provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and resulted in 6,400 referrals for mammograms. In 2011 alone, grants from Komen provided Planned Parenthood with roughly $650,000 in funding for breast cancer prevention, screening, and education. According to a recent statement by Komen, “In some areas of the U.S., our affiliates have determined a Planned Parenthood clinic to be the best or only local place where women can receive breast health care.”
It would be tragic if any woman —let alone thousands of women — lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack.
We earnestly hope that you will put women’s health before partisan politics and reconsider this decision for the sake of the women who depend on both your organizations for access to the health care they need.
The letter was signed by Sens. Frank Lautenberg, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantell, Kirsten Gillibrand, Robert Menendez, Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Begich, Jeff Merkley, Jon Tester, Daniel Akaka, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Patrick Leahy, Max Baucus, Ben Cardin, Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken and John Kerry.
Send an email to the Susan G. Komen Foundation and tell them what you think of this decision.
YESTERDAY the Associated Press reported that the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure—America's most prominent breast-cancer charity—
is stopping its grants to Planned Parenthood, America's leading reproductive health-care provider:
Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress—a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups.
Susan G. Komen provides grants dedicated to breast-cancer screening; Planned Parenthood says that of the 4m breast-cancer screenings it has conducted over the past five years, 170,000 have been paid for by the grants in question. On the left, the news has been greeted as a betrayal (see, for example,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here, and from Planned Parenthood itself,
here). On the right, it has been heralded (examples
here,
here,
here, and
here). What's interesting about the reactions is that neither side is giving any credence to Susan G. Komen's apparently anodyne explanation that it's a matter of policy to suspend funding for any organisation under congressional investigation. For progressives and feminists, the news is evidence that Susan G. Komen's commitment to women's health can be abrogated by political pressure from the pro-life right. For the pro-life right, in turn, the news is evidence that Susan G. Komen has taken a bold stance against the abortionists at Planned Parenthood.
It's a cynical thing to say, but I suspect this might cost Susan G. Komen more than it does Planned Parenthood. The former has long been criticised for sugar-coating or even commercialising breast cancer. See Barbara Ehrenreich's 2001 essay "Welcome to Cancerland" for
an elegant indictment:
What has grown up around breast cancer in just the last fifteen years more nearly resembles a cult—or, given that it numbers more than two million women, their families, and friends—perhaps we should say a full-fledged religion. The products—teddy bears, pink-ribbon brooches, and so forth—serve as amulets and talismans, comforting the sufferer and providing visible evidence of faith. The personal narratives serve as testimonials and follow the same general arc as the confessional autobiographies required of seventeenth-century Puritans: first there is a crisis, often involving a sudden apprehension of mortality (the diagnosis or, in the old Puritan case, a stem word from on high); then comes a prolonged ordeal (the treatment or, in the religious case, internal struggle with the Devil); and finally, the blessed certainty of salvation, or its breast-cancer equivalent, survivorhood.
Planned Parenthood, by contrast, serves several million people a year; mostly women, but also men. The bulk of its activities are focused on contraception, STI screening, and cancer screening, and it places a particular emphasis on providing reproductive health care to people who otherwise wouldn't have access. They also provide abortions, which are controversial, obviously, but legal, obviously. And insofar as access to contraception and other family-planning services reduces the demand for abortion, Planned Parenthood also prevents abortion. In my view, it is an important part of civil society. Even from a pro-life position, I would think it qualifies: being pro-life is a coherent moral position, and not one that necessarily implies a lack of concern for women's health. So I really don't understand why Planned Parenthood gets so much grief from the right. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that I understand what the complaints are, but I'm not really convinced. Last year, for example, Kathryn Jean Lopez published an admiring interview with Abby Johnson, a Planned Parenthood clinic director turned pro-life activist. Among other things, Ms Johnson said that Planned Parenthood
should be defunded:
Planned Parenthood is an organization that does not provide quality health care. Our tax money should go to organizations that provide comprehensive care to women, men, and children. There are better uses of our money. Planned Parenthood provides shabby, limited health care. Why would we want women to get some health care when they can go to a different clinic, other than Planned Parenthood, and receive total health care?
That makes some sense—Planned Parenthood doesn't focus on comprehensive health care—but what clinics is she talking about? The emergency room? Crisis pregnancy centres? No organisation is beyond inquiry, of course, and if people want to have a debate about whether the government should help fund Planned Parenthood, that's fair;
according to its most recent annual report, nearly half of its 2009-2010 revenue, or roughly $487m, came from government grants (federal, state or local). With that said, in the absence of a better safety net, it's a little bit churlish to be so reactionary about the organisations that are slogging away in this space. As for the Susan G. Komen grants, they added up to
about $680,000 last year. I wouldn't be surprised if Planned Parenthood raises more than that from private donations in the wake of this announcement.
(Photo credit: AFP)
No comments:
Post a Comment