michael

Copy of apost i made at

http://forums.hypography.com/medical-science/6740-obesity-why-we-getting-fat-epizza-12.html?highlight=hungerwinter#post144741

n 1976, G P Ravelli, Z.A. Stein and M.W. Susser reported the results of a study of 300,000 men born to women who were pregnant during the Dutch Hungerwinter. These researchers discovered that adult men born to women malnourished during the first two trimesters of their pregnancies where more likely to be obese than were men in the general population.

Given that the offspring of mothers who were underfed for the entire duration of their pregnancies are known to be permanently underweight this finding is remarkable indeed.

Alan Jones and M. I. Friedman from Pitzer college tested this Hungerwinter on animals.

In their initial studies they fed pregnant rats 50% of their normal rations for the first 2/3ds of their pregnancies and then allowed them to eat freely for the final trimester.

These rats ultimately gave birth to pups that had body weights that were the same as those born to normally fed mothers.

However, weeks later, after weaning on to a high fat diet, the male-but not the female- offspring of the malnourished mothers ate more and gained more weight than did the offspring of the normally fed mothers.

(even though the offspring of the normally fed mothers were weaned onto the same high fat diet.)

The fat cells of the obese males were larger and there fat pads weighed two to three times the fat pads of the normal males.

FROM:

P118-119

The Dependent Gene"

Prof. David S. Moore, Times BooksNYNY 2001

(For, why this may be so? read p 119-121)

and

http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/he...andmother-ate/

Quote:

New research has shown that you are what your mother and grandmother ate

. . .

This new research from Australia was tested on mice by Sydney researchers. It has shown that food eaten during pregnancy affects at least the next two generations of offspring.

“It’s known that children can be affected by how healthy their mothers are - if she gets too much or too little nutrition during pregnancy, this can have long-reaching effects on their health,” said lead researcher Dr Jennifer Cropley.

“Recent evidence suggests that these effects can also be passed on to the grandchildren, too - but until now, nobody knew how it worked.”

They experimented by adding extra vitamins to the diet of pregnant lab animals.

Tests on offspring found that a gene that causes obesity and diabetes when turned on had been switched off.

Another interesting article:-

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/mo...d/16016401.htm

I will try to find the original research

Quote:

The idea that we're too fat because we eat too much and exercise too little is based largely on "circumstantial evidence," according to a recent report in the "International Journal of Obesity." Investigators from the University of Alabama point to at least 10 other possible reasons why we are getting too big for our britches. Here are the top three:

• We don't get enough sleep. Studies on animals and humans have shown that too little sleep increases the appetite.. . .. Other studies have found that fewer hours of sleep at night are associated with being overweight.

• We have more air conditioning. As the temperature goes up, appetite goes down and we tend to burn more calories, sa. . In the South where it can get really hot, researchers note that the number of homes with central air conditioning rose from 37 percent to 90 percent over the last 20 years... right along with skyrocketing rates of obesity.

• Disrupted hormones. DDT, PCBs and other industrial chemicals can mess up our metabolism, say scientists. Maybe that's why we're too fat.

I cant' get to the original journal article but there is this:-

http://www.dmt123.com/diet-fitness/1507-dmt123-3.html

Quote:

10 Causes of Obesity

The researchers put forth these 10 "additional explanations" for obesity:

Sleep debt. Getting too little sleep can increase body weight. Today's Americans get less shut-eye than ever.

Pollution. Hormones control body weight. And many of today's pollutants affect our hormones.

Air conditioning. You have to burn calories if your environment is too hot or too cold for comfort. But more people than ever live and work in temperature-controlled homes and offices.

Decreased smoking. Smoking reduces weight. Americans smoke much less than they used to.

Medicine. Many different drugs -- including contraceptives, steroid hormones, diabetesdiabetes drugs, some antidepressants, and blood pressure drugs -- can cause weight gain. Use of these drugs is on the upswing.

Population age, ethnicity. Middle-aged people and Hispanic-Americans tend to be more obese than young European-Americans. Americans are getting older and more Hispanic.

Older moms. There's some evidence that the older a woman is when she gives birth, the higher her child's risk of obesity. American women are giving birth at older and older ages.

Ancestors' environment. Some influences may go back two generations. Environmental changes that made a grandparent obese may "through a fetally driven positive feedback loop" visit obesity on the grandchildren.

Obesity linked to fertility. There's some evidence obese people are more fertile than lean ones. If obesity has a genetic component, the percentage of obese people in the population should increase.

Unions of obese spouses. Obese women tend to marry obese men. If there are fewer thin people around -- and if obesity has a genetic component -- there will be still more obese people in the next generation.

On the polution thing there is a theory that the body deals with toxins by wrapping them in fat and storing them away. Clorinated Hydrocarbons seem to be especially associated with fat cells. This is why DDT etc can be excreted by females but not by males. The CH's are excreted though the fat in breast milk

http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/health/2006/11/15/you-are-what-your-grandmother-ate/

In a recession, pharma still makes money.

To reiterate

Stunningly, profits registered by the 10 drug companies were equal

to more than half of the $69.6 billion in profits netted by the entire list of Fortune 500 companies

Making money is not corrupt; but I have just read The Runaway Jury By John Grisham which has given me a very jaundiced view of corporate USA. Although fiction, it is chillingly too close to the bone.

Some Alternative Medicine Practitioners use Colloidal Silver as an anti-bacterial agent.

See

http://www.silvermedicine.org/byustudy.html

or give it a google

There is a meme about which goes:-

"You are fat because you eat too much and don't exercise-You slob"

Unfortunately this is not the case with the epidemic we are now facing.

It may not even be part of the problem!?

The in-utero environment is being shown to be a major contributor to later developmental obesity.

Whether the fetus was given not enough, or too much, nutrition in utero is a very major factor in development of later obesity.

There are a great many factors that influence obesity unfortunately our society is blinded to them by the above meme.

For a sane discussion of obesity issues see

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/magazine/13obesity.html?ei=5087&en=091c29f788379524&ex=1171771200&adxnnl=1&excamp=mkt_at4&adxnnlx=1164541958-YTbF4XxJ2If9smKoOySdoA

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Pharma_Report.pdf

Hefty Pharmaceutical Company Margins Dwarf Other Industries

The anemic national economy continued to drag down the vast majority of corporations in 2002, but the pharmaceutical industry soared past other business sectors – raking in profits

five-and-a-half times greater than the median for all industries represented in the Fortune 500.

In a year when the stock market remained listless and company after company was wounded by accounting scandals, the 10 biggest drug companies maintained nearly the same level of total profits they had in 2001, according to Fortune magazine’s annual analysis of America’s

500 largest companies.1 As a group, the drug companies had $35.9 billion in profits in 2002, compared with $37.2 billion in 2001, a drop of 3.5 percent. [see Figure 1]

By comparison, all companies in the Fortune 500 suffered a combined loss of 66.3 percent in profits from 2001 to 2002. Stunningly, profits registered by the 10 drug companies were equal

to more than half of the $69.6 billion in profits netted by the entire list of Fortune 500 companies – when all losses are subtracted from all gains.2

Just as they did in 2000 and 2001, the 10 drug companies in the Fortune 500 topped two key measures of profitability in 2002. Collectively, the pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune

500 reported:

A profit of 17 cents for every dollar of revenue, compared with a Fortune 500 median of

3.1 cents per dollar of revenue. [see Figure 2]

· A return on assets of 14.1 percent, compared with a Fortune 500 median of 2.3 percent.

· Along with earning the highest rankings in these two categories, the drug industry ranked

second among all business sectors in return on shareholder equity, with a rate more than two-and-a-half times the Fortune 500 median (27.6 percent compared with 10.2 percent).

They really have us by the nuts.

This is interesting too

http://www.newstarget.com/020345.html

The email notification option is in your User Control Panel.

Thankyou

Via erich who has similar interests (Terra preta)

How do you get back to threads you have posted on?

Do you advise of posts ?

I don't see the connection between Thalidomide misuse and drug company corruption. Could you clarify what you mean there?

 

I'm surprised to hear of "another generation of Thalidomide babies". Hasn't that situation been made fairly clear to the public, via warning labels and general information?

Not in south America. It is appalling. Check it out.It is being prescribed for the treatment of leprosy and for multiple myeloma to illiterate natives. Tetragenic effects are common.

Sorry I am new to this forum and i guess you don't email me when a post has been made on a subscribed thread?

From NE Journal of medicine

Volume 355:2169-2171 November 23, 2006 Number 21

 

Dangerous Deception — Hiding the Evidence of Adverse Drug Effects

Jerry Avorn, M.D.

 

s

September 30 is becoming a day of infamy for drug safety. On that date in 2004, Merck announced that rofecoxib (Vioxx) doubled the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, and the company withdrew the drug from the market after 5 years of use in more than 20 million patients.

On September 30, 2006, a front-page article in the New York Times reported that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had issued a warning that the antifibrinolytic drug aprotinin, widely used to reduce perioperative bleeding in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, could cause renal failure, congestive heart failure, stroke, and death.

 

Some experts had been concerned about aprotinin (Trasylol) ever since its approval in 1993.1 As Hiatt explains in his Perspective article in this issue of the Journal (pages 2171–2173), one of two epidemiologic studies reported early this year provided support for this concern.

In an observational study involving 4374 patients who underwent coronary revascularization,2 Mangano et al. found that patients who were given aprotinin had an incidence of postoperative renal failure requiring dialysis that was more than twice that among patients who received different agents. Among patients undergoing uncomplicated coronary-artery surgery, those given aprotinin had a 55% increase in the incidence of myocardial infarction or heart failure and a 181% increase in the incidence of stroke or encephalopathy.

The authors advised against further use of the drug, since safer, cheaper alternatives are available.

 

After the study was published, the FDA moved to convene an advisory committee to reassess the drug's safety and assembled the relevant data. The committee met on September 21, reviewed the available evidence, and concluded that there was no need for additional warnings on the drug's official labeling.

 

What put aprotinin on the front page on September 30, however, was the revelation that its manufacturer, Bayer, had hired a private contract research organization to perform its own large observational study of postoperative complications in patients given the drug. The analysis, completed in time for the FDA meeting, reached conclusions similar to those of Mangano et al.

It, too, adjusted for a wide variety of clinical characteristics and showed that patients who received aprotinin had higher mortality rates and substantially more renal damage than those given other treatments.

But neither Bayer nor its contractor had provided the report to the FDA or even acknowledged its existence before the meeting

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/21/2169?query=TOC

Hi erich

People may be interested in this

If you're in NSW, you might be able to check out the International Agrichar Initiative 2007 Conference... This is basically a conference for those interested in scaling up terra preta technology...

iaiconference.org/home.html

From the site:

April 29 - May 2, 2007

Terrigal, New South Wales, Australia

I wrote last week for details but so far no answer.

There are problems. That does not mean your future has to add to the mess. You can work in research There are interesting things being done at Harvard and Shaman Pharmaceutics in pharmocognosy for example.

You can always take a scientifically honest and moral stance and if the company you work for does not like it blow-the-whistle or quit.

In India the industry is definitely corrupt. They will "copy" any drug you like at any, or even no, strength you like. The drugs are packaged to look just like the real thing. This is causing many problems in Africa.

A recent USA volunteer surgery team operating on babies hearts in Africa had to withdraw their services as babies were dying because the drugs were counterfeit. Sorry I can't remember the African country involved.

I object to things like tetrogenic Thalidomide still being sold in S. America without proper care. As consequence another generation of Thalidomide babies is being born.

Iatrogenic disease is rife with drugs

In the US there are 2,000,000 "adverse drug reactions"(ADR) p.a. resulting in 100,000 deaths. This is between the 4th-6th leading cause of death.

In the UK 250,000 people are admitted to hospital each year from ADR

In Australia there are 140,000 ADR admissions p.a. and 1 in 10 GP consultations are patients who have suffered an ADR.

Drug companies PR firms are good at keeping these figures out of the public eye.

It is hoped that in the future pharmacogenomic testing will help reduce these appalling and alarming statistics.

--

michael