Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com

HEADLINE HEADLINE HEADLINE

SPONSORED BY
The Human Condition Blog - Newsweek.com
  • Is Motherhood Keeping Good Scientists Down? How to Fix Research's "Mommy Gap"

    Newsweek | Nov 19, 2009 11:01 AM
  • There Is No Such Thing As Female Viagra: Flibanserin Can't Change Why Some Women Don't Want Sex

    Newsweek | Nov 18, 2009 10:42 AM
    by Barbara Kantrowitz

    Back in the pre-Viagra age, men were actually impotent. Now, guys with a mechanical problem suffer from erectile dysfunction (E.D. in the ubiquitous TV ads), clearly one of Big Pharma’s most successful rebranding efforts. But women have been denied a similar makeover for their sexual problems because no one has yet figured out why some want it all the time and others hardly ever. If you’re too tired, you’re just plain frigid.

    That could change with the announcement this week that a pill that appears to increase sexual desire in women with low libidos. This potential blockbuster, developed by the German drug manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim, is called flibanserin and it was almost a nonstarter when it was first tested as an antidepressant. Flibanserin didn’t lift mood, but researchers noticed that it had one intriguing quality: it appeared to heighten sexual interest in laboratory animals and humans.

    Could it be Big Pharma’s Holy Grail: a female Viagra? No doubt inspired by the tantalizing possibility of gazillions in worldwide sales, Boehringer paid for clinical trials of flibanserin in nearly 2,000 premenopausal European, American, and Canadian women suffering from hypoactive sexual desire disorder, a controversial diagnosis that reportedly affects as many as one in four women.

    The results, presented earlier this week at the Congress of the European Society for Sexual Medicine in Lyon, France, showed that the women in the trial who took a daily dose of 100 milligrams of flibanserin for about six months increased the number of “sexually satisfying events” (not necessarily orgasm) to an average of 4.5 from 2.8 in the North American arm of the trial, compared to 3.7 in the placebo group.The women on flibanserin also said they were more interested in sex than those taking a placebo.

    Flibanserin won’t be on sale any time soon. Boehringer still needs to get approval from the FDA and other regulatory bodies around the world, a process which could take years.

    Still, the announcement has already ignited the smoldering debate about the causes and even the definition of sexual dysfunction in women. Sex researchers (mostly men) used to believe that healthy women were just like them, always on the prowl for the right moment. Women who didn’t experience a constant undercurrent of sexual desire were considered abnormal.

    But in recent years, female researchers (most notably University of British Columbia psychiatrist Rosemary Basson) have come to a very different conclusion. Basson and her colleagues have found that while men’s sexual progression is essentially linear─from desire to arousal to orgasm─women’s sexuality is more accurately circular, with one positive factor (such as emotional satisfaction or intimacy) reinforcing others and eventually leading to desire and arousal.

    A woman is most like a man early in a relationship, when she is full of sexual excitement over a new lover. But women in long-term relationships tend to need more stimuli, and that means a guy who satisfies them emotionally (doing the dishes always helps) as well as physically. Women may also steer away from sex because of a large number of nonsexual disorders, including depression, alcoholism, hormonal problems, and even vaginal pain with penetration.

    According to Boehringer, the women in the flibanserin study were only suffering from hypoactive sexual desire disorder, not any other condition that could have hampered their sex drive. But that diagnosis is highly controversial. In order to figure out what it means, you have to define a normal sex drive. No one really knows whether normal means wanting sex once a day, once a month or once a year. Sex researchers currently say that a woman’s sex drive is dysfunctional only if she’s unhappy about it, if it causes her personal distress. That’s why the estimate of how many women suffer from sexual dysfunction ranges from 9 percent to as high as 26 percent.

    Such nuance could vanish if Boehringer eventually wins approval for flibanserin. It’s a good bet that right now there are marketers already testing out brand names and a catchy new label for the old frigid. Any ideas?

    Barbara Kantrowitz writes the "Her Body" column for Newsweek.com

  • Advertisement
  • The Real Problem With Mammograms: They're Too Good at Finding Things We Don't Understand

    Kate Dailey | Nov 17, 2009 05:32 PM
    This week, the United States Preventive Services Task Force revised their guidelines for breast cancer screening to be more conservative. Previously, women over 40 were encouraged to schedule a mammogram every year. Now, USPSTF says that women can wait until 50.

    According to the New York Times,

    While many women do not think a screening test can be harmful, medical experts say the risks are real. A test can trigger unnecessary further tests, like biopsies, that can create extreme anxiety. And mammograms can find cancers that grow so slowly that they never would be noticed in a woman’s lifetime, resulting in unnecessary treatment.

    Overall, the report says, the modest benefit of mammograms — reducing the breast cancer death rate by 15 percent — must be weighed against the harms. And those harms loom larger for women in their 40s, who are 60 percent more likely to experience them than women 50 and older but are less likely to have breast cancer, skewing the risk-benefit equation. The task force concluded that one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women age 40 to 49 who are screened for 10 years, compared with one death for every 1,339 women age 50 to 74, and one death for every 377 women age 60 to 69.

    Many cancer groups opposed the decision, and it's easy to see why: their job is to ensure that no one, no matter how slim the odds, dies of cancer that could have been prevented. Proponents of evidence-based medicine say that mammograms lead to too many unnecessary tests and the detection of too many tumors that may not really need treatment. But as it turns out, mammograms themselves aren’t the problem.
    More
  • New Report Claims That Many Probiotics Provide Fewer Live Cells Than Listed on Labels

    Johannah Cornblatt | Nov 16, 2009 03:27 PM

    Americans are spending more and more dollars each year on probiotic supplements, or so-called “friendly” bacteria. Studies have shown that probiotics—which you might purchase in the form of yogurt, capsules, miso, beverages, or powders—can treat a host of conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome, diarrhea caused by viral infection or antibiotics, vaginal yeast infections, hypertension, the common cold, and even acne. Over the past decade, consumer sales of probiotics in the U.S. have nearly quadrupled (growing from $115 million in 1998 to $425 million in 2008), according to Nutrition Business Journal.

    But, according to a report released today, many of the most popular probiotic supplements don’t contain the amount of live bacteria listed on their labels. ConsumerLab, a private company that tests health and nutritional products at independent labs across the country, found that at the time a consumer buys a probiotic, it may contain as little as 10 to 58 percent of the amount of viable organisms listed on the label. “It’s shocking how many products really don’t have what they claim on their labels,” says Tod Cooperman, the president of ConsumerLab. “The buyer has to be careful.”

    ConsumerLab purchased the probiotics as a consumer would, cultured the products to determine the number of viable cells in them, and compared the results to the amounts listed on the product labels. The company sent any product that did not contain the amount of live cells listed on the label to a second lab for additional testing. “We’re absolutely certain about what we found,” Cooperman says. Despite the misleading numbers, most products contained at least one billion organisms, which is probably enough to provide some—although not necessarily optimal—benefit, according to Cooperman. 

    Find out more about the findings after the jump. 

    More
  • Research Determines Exactly What All Women Want, All The Time, In Every Scenario...Except Not.

    Newsweek | Nov 16, 2009 01:07 PM

    by Leigh Bond

    Who says that women only like jerks? A new study published in the journal Science from Binghamton University and the University of Arizona adds yet another clue to the mystery that is female sexual selection.  "Mom was right," says the press release. "Nice guys don't always finish last."

    Of course, mom was probably not discussing the mating habits of bugs. Researchers in this study observed the effects of a controlled group of male water striders – both aggressive and low-key, and their sexual relations with the females in the group. According to the study led by Omar Tonsi Eldakar of the University of Arizona’s Arizona Research Laboratories, groups of “gentlemen” water striders mated with  more females than did groups of the “psychopath” suitors. The research contradicts previous laboratory studies finding sexually aggressive males more successful at reproducing, said Eldakar. In previous studies, the females were blocked from leaving the areas populated by the sexually aggressive males; this study showed that actually given a choice, the females would leave whenever the jerk bugs came around - the nice bugs got the girls.

    What does this have to do with you? Almost nothing. Find out why, after the jump. 

    More
  • The American Medical Association Reconsiders Marijuana. Will the Justice Department Follow?

    Jessica Bennett | Nov 13, 2009 02:44 PM
  • Health Care's Prayer Provision: How Complementary and Alternative Medicine Fits Into Obama's Evidence-Based Model

    Sarah Kliff | Nov 5, 2009 09:24 AM

    Should health-care reform require insurers to cover chiropractors? Acupuncturists? Yoga? Spiritual healers? These are the questions raised by a recently noticed health-care amendment requiring insurers to consider covering "religious and spiritual health care."

    The amendment, covered in this Los Angeles Times article, comes with backing from Senate heavyweights like Orrin Hatch, John Kerry, and the late Ted Kennedy. And while it does not mention Christian Science by name, it's been widely interpreted as a protection of the church's prayer treatments, which it encourages as an alternative to medical help. Others have understood the provision as even more far-reaching as to include any health provider acting within the scope of their license.The Freedom From Religion Foundation has criticized the amendment as an unconstitutional violation of church and state.

    Even with its powerful supporters, the amendment seems unlikely to make the final bill; Pelosi already dropped it from the House version. But just the suggestion of covering religious health care highlights a difficult question for reformers: how, exactly, does prayer fit into the president's support for evidence-based medicine? Or, more broadly, is there a place for any sort of unproven, alternative medicine, religious or otherwise, in health-care reform?

    More
  • Swine Flu: When to Head to the Hospital, When to Stay Home

    Kate Dailey | Nov 4, 2009 06:02 PM
  • Do Fat Parents Have Taller Babies? Mice study indicates surprising relationships between food, height, and families.

    Patrice Wingert | Nov 4, 2009 01:58 PM
    Could your height be determined (at least in part) by your grandma’s weight? That’s the startling implication of a new study published in the November issue of the journal Endocrinology . The study showed that mothers who were fed a high-fat diet had... More
  • BREAKING: Health Author Suzanne Somers Mostly Wrong About Science, Medicine

    Patrice Wingert | Oct 23, 2009 11:32 AM

    It’s the book every medical writer in the country wants to ignore. Suzanne Somers’s latest “health” tome hit the bookstores this week, and this time she's offering her advice on how to cure and prevent cancer. As if people with cancer don’t have enough problems. When the review copy arrived, we decided to give it a once-over—so you don’t have to.

    The gist of Somers’s argument is that conventional cancer treatments—surgery, radiation, chemotherapy—take a destructive approach and that chemo, in particular, is overused. Long an advocate of alternative therapies, Somers argues that it makes more sense to build up the body to fight cancer than it does to tear it down through radiation and chemicals. She is particularly enamored of nutritional “cures.”

    Of course, Somers has had no formal medical or scientific training, but considers herself an authority—in part because she’s survived breast cancer after choosing not to have chemotherapy, and because she’s a regular on the alternative-medicine circuit.  This book, like her others, consists mainly of transcripts of her conversations with various alternative-medicine doctors, as well as lots of details about her own experiences and prevention regimen, which she has spelled out many times before, most notably on Oprah  earlier this year. It’s noteworthy that her promotion of the book began by publicly blaming Patrick Swayze’s recent death on chemotherapy, rather than his pancreatic cancer. (She has since apologized to his family.)      

    Cancer is a highly emotional topic, particularly since the war on cancer isn’t going particularly well. As my colleague Sharon Begley recently put it, “Cancer is on track to kill 565,650 people in the United States this year—more than 1,500 a day, equivalent to three jumbo jets crashing and killing everyone aboard 365 days a year.”  The fact is that  modern medicine is far from understanding everything we need to know about cancer, and the most effective treatments available often come with nasty side effects. We all wish there were more effective and less toxic options, and we need to stay open-minded about new discoveries and alternatives. Maybe some of the doctors Somers interviewed in her book will eventually prove to be on to something.

    But there is a big difference between staying open-minded and tossing aside treatments that have been proven effective after rigorous testing in favor of new “natural” therapies that have undergone much flimsier scrutiny. If you’re someone who needs answers now, and want to make health decisions based on solid scientific findings rather than wishful thinking, there’s not much in Somers’s latest book to help you. The basic problem with the book, says Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, “is that it’s really inaccurate” when it describes the science behind current treatments  and lacks a basic understanding of the scientific method. Not all research findings are equally authoritative. Just because something sounds good doesn’t mean it works. “Some people confuse what they believe with what they know," Brawley said. 

    Even if some patients are cancer-free after following a certain treatment plan, that doesn’t prove that it was the treatment that cured them, especially if no control group was used for comparison. “We’re finding that about 25 to 30 percent of some cancers stop growing at some point,” Brawley says. ”That can make some treatments look good that aren’t doing anything.” Until doctors figure out how to identify which patients have cancers that won’t progress, he said, the only option is to treat everyone.   

    Somers relies heavily on patient testimonials, but any scientist knows that  talking only to those who benefited from a treatment can give less than objective results. A case in point: she lavishes praise on the research of Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, who uses a combination of enzymes, massive amounts of nutritional supplements (130 to 175 a day—yes, you read that right), a strict diet, and daily coffee enemas, which he says can cure pancreatic cancer. However, just about two months before Somers’s book was published, the Journal of Clinical Oncology  published the results of a controlled observational trial of Gonzalez’s protocol vs. chemotherapy for patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer. The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and enrolled 55 patients who met strict clinical criteria. A year into the study, 56 percent of those using chemotherapy were still alive, compared with only 16 percent of those who chose the enzyme therapy. In other words,  those who picked chemo over the alternative treatment lived three times as long. Interestingly, the study was concluded in 2005, yet Somers doesn’t mention this in the book.

    Somers also shines the spotlight on  Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski of Houston, whose controversial cancer treatments have resulted in years of battles with the FDA and the courts. Over the past 30 years, despite government investment, he has failed to provide compelling data that his expensive treatments work. More recently he expanded his research efforts into anti-wrinkle creams. (Side note: it is more than a little ironic that Somers is touting the work of Burzynski, who synthesizes peptides from human urine to create what he says is a cancer cure. In the books she’s written about hormones, Somers has expressed nothing but disdain for FDA-approved hormones synthesized from horse urine.)

    Another treatment that gets the sign of approval from Somers is mistletoe extract, which is a popular treatment in Germany, and which she credits with keeping her cancer-free for years. There are some intriguing studies, but good science requires looking at all the studies, not just the ones that support your opinion. When German scientists published a review of the data on mistletoe as a cancer treatment in 2008, they found that the evidence was “weak.” Other reviews have concluded that there were quality problems with many of the studies and that more research is necessary.

    Not all the recommendations Somers makes in the book raise eyebrows. She says eating healthy and exercising, reducing stress, and getting a good night's sleep may reduce the risk of cancer. That's true, but it's not news. She’s right that not every woman with stage I breast cancer needs chemo. Few doctors would argue. In fact, they have the technology to calculate the size of the likely benefit, and agree that sometimes it’s quite small.  Most doctors offer it as a choice to women who want to do everything possible to prevent cancer’s return.

    “And she’s right when she says that only some leukemias, lymphomas, and testicular cancers can be cured with chemotherapy,” Brawley says. “We admit that many conventional treatments are not as beneficial as we would like. But that doesn’t dismiss evidence that screenings have reduced the death rates of breast and colon cancer, or that the lives of other patients with cancer can be saved with early treatment or that chemo prolongs lives. Even in cases of stage IV breast cancer, or lung or prostate or colon cancer, when the cancer has spread throughout the body and particularly into the bone, we can’t cure people with chemotherapy, but we can prolong life and increase their quality of life. In her book, Somers completely rejects the idea that chemotherapy has any of these benefits.”

    When I interviewed Somers earlier this year, she said that she gets irritated when the media identify her as the former ditsy blonde from the TV sitcom Three’s Company. She would rather be identified as an author; after all, she’s written 18 books, most on the topics of weight loss (even though she’s admitted to Larry King that she’s used liposuction) and hormones (she recommends treatments most hormone specialists and oncologists describe as potentially risky.)

    For her next book, we’d like to suggest a topic she knows very well: media manipulation. You have to love the fact that the only blurb on the back of the book (“Ms. Somers writes with the passion of the prophet”—Wall Street Journal) comes from a review trashing an earlier book. Somers’s real specialty is understanding that when a celebrity writes a controversial book, it doesn’t matter how much mainstream doctors and serious researchers attack it, or whether people’s health is put at risk. Attacks bring publicity, and publicity sells books. Here’s hoping that this time the public proves her wrong.

    Wingert is a NEWSWEEK correspondent and  the coauthor of  The Menopause Book.



  • In Defense of Permissive Parenting: Why Talking Back May Lead to Smarter Kids

    Tony Dokoupil | Oct 21, 2009 12:20 PM
    Inside a convenience store, Xenia is battling her 4-year-old son, Paulino, over buying a soft drink. She wants him to try a small size, he wants a larger one. "That one does not work," she says, referring to the rack of big cups. "These [smaller] ones... More
  • Birth-Control Bummer? The Pill May Affect Attractiveness, but Don't Give Up on Oral Contraceptives Yet

    Sarah Kliff | Oct 7, 2009 12:00 PM
    File this one under "most unexpected side effect": birth-control pills both lower a woman's attractiveness and inhibit her ability to choose a good mate. That's the claim put forward by a study in this month's Trends in Ecology and Evolution. The review examines the surprisingly large body of research previously conducted on the relationship between birth control and female attractiveness. Taken as a whole, the studies suggest "oral contraceptives could interfere...with the ability to attract the preferred man."


    Why, exactly, would the pill stand in the way of a good date? Find out after the jump.
    More
  • Sharon Begley Predicts the Nobel Prize Laureates: Blackburn, Greider, and Szostak Win for Telomeres Research

    Kate Dailey | Oct 5, 2009 06:52 AM


    This morning at 5:30 ET, the Nobel Prize winners in medicine were announced in Stockholm (where it was a much more reasonable 11:30 a.m.). In an article last week for Newsweek.com, Sharon Begley wrote about experts who are handicapping the race by selecting  "citation laureates." David Pendlebury of Thomson Reuters measured how often scientists' work was cited by others and, based on that, created a list of Nobel frontrunners. Who were the big winners in the Reuters race? Begley reported its findings and put the company's top seeds in context:

    Jack Szostak of Harvard is a pioneer in synthetic biology—basically, creating life in a test tube. For my money, he'll have to wait until he actually succeeds before he gets called to Stockholm, but if he's honored this year it will be a recognition of how far toward that godlike goal he has already come.

    Elizabeth Blackburn of UC San Francisco would be a safer choice: she has made crucial discoveries about telomeres, the caps at the ends of chromosomes that are involved in aging as well as cancer. It would be hard to honor Blackburn without also including Carol Greider of Johns Hopkins, who has also made seminal discoveries about telomeres. Greider is still in her 40s; to gauge her accomplishments, consider that the average age of a first-time NIH grantee is about 43.

    And who were the big winners? Blackburn, Greider, and Szostak, who each took home one third of the Nobel Prize's $10 million winnings. The Nobel committee cited all of their work for its connection to telomeres, the chromosome caps Begley mentioned above. It's the telomere that helps the chromosome reproduce and keeps it from degrading, said the committee, and Blackburn, Greider, and Szostak were integral in figuring that out:

    Elizabeth Blackburn and Jack Szostak discovered that a unique DNA sequence in the telomeres protects the chromosomes from degradation. Carol Greider and Elizabeth Blackburn identified telomerase, the enzyme that makes telomere DNA. These discoveries explained how the ends of the chromosomes are protected by the telomeres and that they are built by telomerase.

    The Nobel committee suggests that further research on telomeres may lead to breakthroughs in anti-aging, cancer treatment, and inherited diseases.

    This is just the beginning of Nobel week—tomorrow the prize for physics will be announced, followed by the chemistry award on Wednesday, literature on Thursday, peace on Friday, and economics on Saturday. In her article, Begley reported on more findings by Thomson Reuters's Pendlebury, who so far is three for three, and she speculated on winners in other categories. In the final prize, she specifically likes William Nordhaus and Martin Weitzman for their work on the economics of environmental protection. Check in with nobelprize.org this weekend to find out if the Nobel committee feels the same.


  • 'We Are Our Brains': Writer Rita Carter on Her Book of Brain Images

    Newsweek | Oct 2, 2009 08:29 AM
  • The Very Bad Touch: Will Koalas Be Destroyed by a Bad Case of Chlamydia?

    Newsweek | Sep 30, 2009 11:46 AM

    Australia’s koalas are dying in droves of something newspapers are coyly calling a “stress disease.” You have to read down to the fourth paragraph of the Associated Press report to find out what said illness is: chlamydia. Yes, the same sexually transmitted disease you heard about in health class is killing off one of nature’s cuddliest creatures.

    In humans, chlamydia is caused by a nasty bacterium called Chlamydia trachomatis. The koala version comes in two varieties: C. pneumoniae and C. pecorum. Unlike their human cousin, these bacteria often attack the respiratory system and the eyes, causing pinkeye and blindness. And like their human cousin, they damage the sex organs, leading to incontinence, scarring, and infertility in females. Sam the Koala, a YouTube sensation, suffered this fate in August—she died during surgery to remove cysts from her bladder and uterus.

    Find out why the STD is worse than ever after the jump....

    More