Deal—or no deal? Lobby offers GOPers $10,000 to prove anti–medical pot claims
The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) next week plans to offer GOP presidential wannabes $10,000 if they can back up their claims that medical marijuana is either unnecessary or "too dangerous" for medical use. According to an MPP official, the Washington, D.C.–based group and two medical marijuana– using patients will hold a news conference in Manchester, N.H., on Thursday (Dec. 6) at which the pot reform lobby will offer the max political contributions ($5,000 for the primary campaign, $5,000 for the general election) to Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney if they can provide evidence backing up their statements. Mind you, the MPP, which believes pot should be regulated like alcohol, doesn't expect to be forking out any dough. To wit: the event will reportedly feature a billboard featuring images of all three candidates sporting Pinocchio-like noses after the fairy tale character whose schnoz grew longer with each fib. "For months, Giuliani, Romney and McCain have been making statements about medical marijuana that are simply false—claiming, for example, that medical marijuana is either not needed or too dangerous to use as medicine," the MPP official says. "We've offered them the scientific evidence and they've chosen to ignore it. So, if they won't listen to science or compassion, we're going to try speaking a language we know they understand—campaign contributions. It's time for these candidates to either prove what they've been saying or stop lying to the voters.'' (SIMM—Stichting Institute of Medical Marijuana)
America, land of the tubby
The latest stats on adult obesity in the U.S. are out: The good news is that they don't seem to be rising dramatically, the bad news is that they're not going down, either. A hefty (no pun intended) 72 million Americans are now considered to be porcine, but the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the adult obesity rates seem to be holding steady at around 34 percent. According to the CDC, obesity rates in this country had been inching up since 1980, when around 15 percent of the adult population was considered to be too beefy. The CDC's newest report is based on a survey of 4,400 adults ages 20 and older in 2005 and 2006. Seems women are doing a bit better than the men in keeping a lid on poundage: The obesity rate for women has been about the same since 1999–2000, whereas for males it has climbed from around 27.5 percent. No word yet on the latest rates of childhood corpulence, though last time the CDC looked (2003–2004) they were on the rise. (CDC report: "Obesity Among Adults in the United States--No Change Since 2003-2004")
Research warns CT scans could up cancer risk
A new study says that millions of Americans, especially children, may be needlessly receiving CT (computed tomography) scans, warning that radiation from the x-rays (which provide three-dimensional views of organs and tissue) in a few decades could cause as many as 2 percent of all cancers in the U.S. "We are very concerned about the built-up public health risk over a long period of time," study co-author Eric Hall of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center told the Associated Press. Hall and colleague David Brenner argued in The New England Journal of Medicine that though the scans can be life savers by diagnosing injuries, cancer and other health woes, they are used far too routinely given the potential dangers. It is commonly believed that x-rays are harmless, because of the relatively small amounts of radiation involved. But Hall and Brenner show this is unlikely in the case of CT scans. They base their conclusions on studies of thousands of Japanese atomic bomb survivors who were about two miles (3 kilometers) away from the explosions and received radiation doses similar to several CT scans. About 62 million scans were conducted in the U.S. last year (more than four million of them on children), up from three million in 1980. The researchers stress that in most cases the benefits outweigh the risks, but said that as many as a third of all CT scans are unnecessary, meaning that as many as 20 million adults and more than one million kids a year may be needlessly put at risk. They recommended three ways to reduce associated risks: lower the CT-related radiation doses in individual patients; use alternatives with no radiation risk when possible such as ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); and decrease the total number of CT scans prescribed. (FDA)
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentSomebody in the PDA got something. This is obviously not a good public relations move so the only reason a sane person would do it is some sort of payoff from the people that sell milk tainted with harmones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately the government acting against the public good in favor of some "friend" is all to common.
I can't wait to see the response of GOP presidential wannabes to the offer made by the MPP. Their responses will be very revealing, in my opinion, as to how much (BS) is involved in these wannabes campaigns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCT Scans increase cancer risk. Messers Hall and Brenner have made a serious mistake corrrelating the one time effect of radiation dose from the bomb with low dose rates over extended periods of time. We are constantly bombarded by radiation, and our body's imunne system deals with the dammage, but a one off significant dose can damage not only cells, but the imunne systems ability to respond. Also, the bomb put large doses of other carcinogenic compounds in the air. Also, today we are exposed to different, more complex chemicals in our enviroment (who used teflon frying pans 40-60 years ago)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest they read W. Allen Wallis and Harry V. Roberts book, The Nature of Statistics. Particularly the excellent chapter 3 on medical statistics comparring phycossis between the late 1800 and 1950's in New England. It should be required reading for all medical statiticians.
I thought that the Japanese nuclear bomb survivors were recently shown to have remarkably low radiation-induced cancer rate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this