A Beach Lover’s Dream: A Step Toward Long-Lasting Sunscreen

Newswise, April 3, 2017 — In a perfect world, people would diligently reapply suncreen every couple of hours to protect their delicate skin from damaging solar radiation. But in reality, few people actually adhere to reapplication guidelines, and those who do hardly relish the task.

To develop longer-lasting sunscreens, researchers are trying to answer a basic question: How do sunblock ingredients work?

The researchers presented their work at the 253rd National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS). ACS, the world’s largest scientific society, is holding the meeting here through Thursday. It features more than 14,000 presentations on a wide range of science topics.

“Sunscreens have been around for decades, so you’d think we know all there is to know about them — but we really don’t,” Vasilios Stavros, Ph.D., says.

 “If we better understand how the molecules in sunscreen absorb light, then we can manipulate the molecules to absorb more energy, and we can protect the molecules from degradation. If the molecule doesn’t break down, there's no need to reapply.”

A typical sunscreen sold at a drug store contains many different ingredients, Stavros explains.

 “We wanted to break these lotions and creams down like a jigsaw puzzle — take one of the ingredients and understand it from a molecular point of view without interactions from the other component parts.”

The researchers, who are at the University of Warwick (U.K.), started by focusing on sunscreen ingredients called chemical filters, which are molecules that absorb UV light. They have studied about 10 common chemical filters so far.

When these molecules absorb energy from the sun, Stavros explains, they enter into an excited electronic state. Other molecules are likely to break under the sun's glare, sometimes releasing dangerous free radicals. But instead of breaking, chemical filters can shimmy and shake themselves back into the more stable ground state, releasing energy as harmless heat. The problem is that these chemical filters can fail, breaking into pieces or getting stuck in the excited state.

To figure out how to prevent chemical filter dysfunction, Stavros’ team used lasers to simulate the sun’s energy and to monitor the flow of energy through the chemical filters as the molecules traverse from the ground state to the excited state and back again (or not).

For example, the researchers found that about 10 percent of the molecules of the sunscreen ingredient oxybenzone get locked in an excited state when the laser is shone on them.

 “When that chemical filter is in an excited state, its atoms are rotating around certain bonds,” Stavros says. “If we can manipulate this rotation by adding different chemical groups, we could help the molecule find its way back to the ground state,” he says, noting that they plan to work on this project soon.

In addition, the researchers are beginning to study the filters in a context that is more similar to an actual sunscreen, rather than in isolation. “We are increasing molecular complexity, building the jigsaw puzzle,” Stavros says.

He adds that analyzing the data has been a challenge, but one that the team is tackling head-on. In the end, the data analyses and chemical manipulations should shed more light on how sunscreens protect against sun damage so researchers can develop longer-lasting concoctions.

Stavros acknowledges funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Royal Society, The Leverhulme Trust and the University of Warwick (all in U.K.).

The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. With nearly 157,000 members, ACS is the world’s largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. ACS does not conduct research, but publishes and publicizes peer-reviewed scientific studies. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

‘Sniffing’ Urine to Detect Prostate Cancer Could Prevent Unnecessary Biopsies

Newswise, April 3, 2017— On the list of dreaded medical tests, a prostate biopsy probably ranks fairly high. The common procedure requires sticking a needle into the prostate gland to remove tissue for assessment.

Thousands of men who undergo the uncomfortable procedure, prompted by a positive PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test, ultimately don’t require cancer treatment. Today, scientists report progress toward minimizing unnecessary biopsies: They have identified the molecules likely responsible for the scent of prostate cancer, which could be detected by chemically “sniffing” urine.

The researchers will present their results at the 253rd National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS). ACS, the world’s largest scientific society, is holding the meeting here through Thursday. It features more than 14,000 presentations on a wide range of science topics.

“The idea for this project started with a study published in 2014 showing that trained canines could detect prostate cancer with greater than 97 percent accuracy,” says Mangilal Agarwal, Ph.D., the project’s principal investigator.

His team had already been working on a sensor to sniff hypoglycemia on a person’s breath as dogs have also been shown to do. When the prostate cancer study appeared in the Journal of Urology, Agarwal’s lab set out to determine what molecules the dogs might be sensing.

“If dogs can smell prostate cancer, we should be able to, too,” says Amanda Siegel, Ph.D., who is presenting the work at the meeting. Both Agarwal and Siegel are at the Integrated Nanosystems Development Institute of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) and the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center.

Prostate cancer is the third most common type of cancer in the United States. In 2016, more than 180,000 new cases were diagnosed, according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute.

Early detection has been critical to saving the lives of many men with prostate cancer. But diagnosing the disease can be fraught with challenges.

The screening test that doctors use now to determine whether to perform a biopsy assesses PSA levels in a blood sample. The prostate gland normally produces this protein in small amounts. Increased levels, however, can indicate many different conditions besides cancer, including prostate infection. As a result, the test is widely recognized as flawed and often leads to unnecessary biopsies.

“Currently, about 60 percent of men who get a biopsy to test for prostate cancer don’t need to get one,” Siegel says. “We hope our research will help doctors and patients make better-informed decisions about whether to have a biopsy, and to avoid unwarranted procedures.”

To determine which molecules wafting from urine could indicate prostate cancer in a patient, the IUPUI and VA team collected urine samples from 100 men undergoing prostate biopsies.

To avoid issues that similar studies have had with sample degradation, Agarwal’s team developed a pre-processing step — adding sodium chloride and neutralizing the pH — to ensure the samples would remain intact during the analysis.

Then, they used gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to identify the volatile organic compounds floating in the “headspace” above the urine samples.

With this method, the researchers pinpointed a small set of molecules that showed up in 90 percent of the samples from patients with prostate cancer but not in samples from those who did not have the disease.

Next, the team plans to conduct large-scale tests at multiple health centers to validate their findings. They have also submitted a proposal for funding to confirm the molecular signature they identified by collaborating with a local dog trainer and comparing their technique’s results to those obtained with a canine nose.

Depending on the outcome of these projects, Siegel and Agarwal say their test could become available to patients and doctors within the next few years. In the short-term, urine samples would have to be sent to a lab for analysis, but the researchers say their ultimate goal is to design a sensor that can yield results in a doctor’s office.

The researchers acknowledge support and funding from the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center.

The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. With nearly 157,000 members, ACS is the world’s largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences.

ACS does not conduct research, but publishes and publicizes peer-reviewed scientific studies. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

Brain-Aging Gene Discovered

Genetic variant accelerates normal brain aging in older people by up to 12 years

Newswise, March 20, 2017—Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) researchers have discovered a common genetic variant that greatly impacts normal brain aging, starting at around age 65, and may modify the risk for neurodegenerative diseases.

 The findings could point toward a novel biomarker for the evaluation of anti-aging interventions and highlight potential new targets for the prevention or treatment of age-associated brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was published online   in the journal Cell Systems.

“If you look at a group of seniors, some will look older than their peers and some will look younger,” said the study’s co-leader Asa Abeliovich, PhD, professor of pathology and neurology in the Taub Institute for Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain at CUMC.

“The same differences in aging can be seen in the frontal cortex, the brain region responsible for higher mental processes. Our findings show that many of these differences are tied to variants of a gene called TMEM106B. People who have two ‘bad’ copies of this gene have a frontal cortex that, by various biological measures, appears 12 years older that those who have two normal copies.”

Studies have identified individual genes that increase one’s risk for various neurodegenerative disorders, such as apolipoprotein E (APOE) for Alzheimer's disease.

“But those genes explain only a small part of these diseases,” said study co-leader Herve Rhinn, PhD, assistant professor of pathology and cell biology in the Taub Institute.

“By far, the major risk factor for neurodegenerative disease is aging. Something changes in the brain as you age that makes you more susceptible to brain disease. That got us thinking, ‘What, on a genetic level, is driving healthy brain aging?’”

In the current study, Drs. Abeliovich and Rhinn analyzed genetic data from autopsied human brain samples taken from 1,904 people without neurodegenerative disease. First, the researchers looked at the subjects’ transcriptomes (the initial products of gene expression), compiling an average picture of the brain biology of people at a given age.

Next, each person’s transcriptome was compared to the average transcriptome of people at the same age, looking specifically at about 100 genes whose expression was found to increase or decrease with aging.

From this comparison, the researchers derived a measure that they call differential aging: the difference between an individual’s apparent (biological) age and his or her true (chronological) age. “This told us whether an individual’s frontal cortex looked older or younger than expected,” said Dr. Abeliovich.

The researchers then searched the genome of each individual, looking for genetic variants that were associated with an increase in differential age.

“One variant stood out: TMEM106B,” said Dr. Rhinn. “It’s very common. About one-third of people have two copies and another third have one copy.”

“TMEM106B begins to exert its effect once people reach age 65,” said Dr. Abeliovich. “Until then, everybody’s in the same boat, and then there’s some yet-to-be-defined stress that kicks in. If you have two good copies of the gene, you respond well to that stress. If you have two bad copies, your brain ages quickly.”

The researchers found a second variant—inside the progranulin gene—that contributes to brain aging, though less so than TMEM106B. Progranulin and TMEM106B are located on different chromosomes but are involved in the same signaling pathway. Both have also been associated with a rare neurodegenerative disease called frontotemporal dementia.

The study did not address what role the two genetic variants might have in neurodegenerative disease. “We were studying healthy individuals, so it is not about disease, per se,” said Dr. Abeliovich.

“But of course, it’s in healthy tissue that you start to get disease. It appears that if you have these genetic variants, brain aging accelerates and that increases vulnerability to brain disease. And vice versa: if you have brain disease, the disease accelerates brain aging. It’s a vicious cycle.”

The study is titled, “Genetic determinants of aging in human brain.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Aging (AG042317), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.

Dr. Abeliovich is a co-founder of and consultant for Alector. Dr. Rhinn is a consultant for Alector. The researchers declare no other financial conflicts of interest.

Age Not a Factor in Success of Shoulder Replacement Surgery

Newswise, March 20, 2017– Whether you’re younger than 65 or older than 75, age may not be a discernible factor in the success of shoulder replacement surgery, according to a Henry Ford Hospital study.

In a small prospective study of 365 patients, researchers made a surprising finding: While younger patients had better function and range of motion before surgery, it was the older cohort that saw greater improvement from pre-operative levels after surgery. Younger patients also had a higher complication rate.

Researchers theorize that the older patients had greater improvement simply because they had worse shoulder function before surgery.

The study is being presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons annual meeting in San Diego.

“Much like we saw with hip and knee replacements, we are seeing an increased trend in shoulder replacement surgery,” says Kelechi Okoroha, M.D., a fifth-year resident in Henry Ford’s Department of Orthopedic Surgery and the study’s lead author.

“Our study suggests that age is not a noticeable factor on the final outcome of surgery. However, older patients see more improvement in their shoulder function than what they had prior to surgery.”

An estimated 53,000 people undergo shoulder replacement surgery each year due in large part to the “wear and tear” type of arthritis called osteoarthritis. People who have surgery experience an improved quality of life including less pain, improved motion and strength, and function.

Researchers at Henry Ford in Detroit analyzed data and shoulder function scores from two patient cohorts with osteoarthritis who had surgery: 262 patients under 65 and 103 patients older than 75. Patients older than 75 showed greater improvement in shoulder function scores after surgery.

The study was funded by Henry Ford Hospital.

Many Chronically Ill Patients Choose Needlessly Expensive Insurance Plans, Driving Up Medical Costs, According to Johns Hopkins University Researcher

Newswise, March 20, 2017 — Chronic illnesses account for 75 percent of health care expenditures in the United States, and while many cases could be treated with preventive care, a significant number of consumers choose more expensive “curative” options that needlessly drive up medical costs, according to a new study by a Johns Hopkins Carey Business School researcher.

The paper in Marketing Science by Carey Business School Associate Professor Jian Ni proposes a remedy that could guide chronic-illness patients to the appropriate level of care and thus reduce the costs to them and health insurers, helping to lower the nation’s ballooning health care bills.

Ni and his co-authors say their paper breaks new ground on this topic by mining a broader data set than was available to previous researchers, enabling a more detailed view of consumers’ health plan decisions over multiple years.

They had access to three years of detailed data from an unnamed health insurer that offered Preferred Provider Organization plans ― basic, medium, and comprehensive ― to customers through their employers.

Going from basic to medium to comprehensive, the annual premium increased, but the deductible, co-insurance rate (the percentage of expenses the consumer owes after paying the deductible), and out-of-pocket maximum decreased.

The researchers focused on the nearly 3,000 chronic-illness sufferers who bought individual care plans during the 2005-2007 period covered in the study.

Some 133 million Americans are afflicted with chronic maladies, the most common of which include heart disease, cancer, hypertension, respiratory diseases, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and kidney disease.

Preventive care for such illnesses would include diagnostic tests and drugs that keep the patient’s condition from worsening. Curative care would include surgeries and drugs that, while expensive, provide a major boost to the patient’s health. 

In the study, Ni and his colleagues found that about 14 percent of the people who would have been a good match for a medium plan and preventive care ― that is, they were in moderate health, though they felt uncertain about their health status, and price wouldn’t likely be a factor in their purchasing decisions ― nonetheless chose the more costly comprehensive plans and curative care.

As Ni notes, this is a classic example of a “moral hazard,” when a risk taker is largely unaffected by the consequences of the action. In this instance, a health care consumer doesn’t mind choosing a more costly care plan, however unnecessary, because he knows that the insurer will pay for the bulk of it.

“Certainly some people with more serious conditions will benefit from a comprehensive plan and curative care, but the 14 percent in our study pose the kind of moral hazard that contributes to health care expenses in the U.S. that are higher than they probably should be, roughly a fifth of gross domestic product,” Ni, an expert on the impact of consumer behavior on firm strategies, said in an interview.

Giving customers better information could go a long way toward easing the problem, the paper suggests. With clearer instruction and guidance from their physicians and insurers, consumers could develop the habit of choosing plans that would more properly fit their health status. The moral hazard would be mitigated, and the costs to customers and insurers alike trimmed.

The paper, “A Dynamic Model of Health Insurance Choices and Health Care Consumption Decisions,” was derived from Ni’s doctoral dissertation. His co-authors are Professor Kannan Srinivasan of Carnegie Mellon University, Professor Baohong Sun of the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, and Associate Professor Nitin Mehta of the University of Toronto.

“Ryancare” Dead on Arrival: Can We Please Now Try Single Payer?

BY ELLEN BROWN/WEB OF DEBT

The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans. . . . We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing.  

— Donald Trump, The America We Deserve (2000)

The new American Health Care Act has been unveiled, and critics are calling it more flawed even than the Obamacare it was meant to replace. Dubbed “Ryancare” or “Trumpcare” (over the objection of White House staff), the Republican health care bill is under attack from left and right, with even conservative leaders calling it “Obamacare Lite”, “bad policy”, a “warmed-over substitute,” and “dead on arrival.”

The problem for both administrations is that they have been trying to fund a bloated, inefficient, and overpriced medical system with scarce taxpayer funds, without capping its costs. US healthcare costs in 2016 averaged $10,345 per person, for a total of $3.35 trillion dollars, a full 18 percent of the entire economy, twice as much as in other industrialized countries.

Ross Perot, who ran for president in 1992, had the right idea: he said all we have to do is to look at other countries that have better health care at lower cost and copy them.

So which industrialized countries do it better than the US? The answer is, all of them.

So which industrialized countries do it better than the US? The answer is, all of them.They all not only provide healthcare for the entire population at about half the cost, but they get better health outcomes than in the US. Their citizens have longer lifespans, fewer infant mortalities and less chronic disease.

President Trump, who is all about getting the most bang for the buck, should love that.

Hard to Argue with Success

The secret to the success of these more efficient systems is that they control medical costs. According to T. R. Reid in The Healing of America, they follow one of three models: the “Bismarck model” established in Germany, in which health providers and insurers are private but insurers are not allowed to make a profit; the “Beveridge model” adopted in Britain, where most healthcare providers work as government employees and the government acts as the single payer for all health services; and the Canadian model, a single-payer system in which the healthcare providers are mostly private.

A single government payer can negotiate much lower drug prices – about half what we pay in the US – and lower hospital prices. Single-payer is also much easier to administer. Cutting out the paperwork can save 30 percent on the cost of insurance.According to a May 2016 post by Physicians for a National Health Program:

Per capita, the U.S. spends three times as much for health care as the U.K., whose taxpayer-funded National Health Service provides health care to citizens without additional charges or co-pays. In 2013, U.S. taxpayers footed the bill for 64.3 percent of U.S. health care — about $1.9 trillion. Yet in the U.S. nearly 30 million of our citizens still lack any form of insurance coverage.

The for-profit U.S. health care system is corrupt, dysfunctional and deadly. In Canada, only 1.5 percent of health care costs are devoted to administration of its single-payer system. In the U.S., 31 percent of health care expenditures flow to the private insurance industry. Americans pay far more for prescription drugs. Last year, CNN reported, Americans paid nearly 10 times as much for prescription Nexium as it cost in the Netherlands.

Single payer, or Medicare for All, is the system proposed in 2016 by Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. It is also the system endorsed by Donald Trump in his bookThe America We Deserve. Mr. Trump confirmed his admiration for that approach in January 2015, when he said on David Letterman:

A friend of mine was in Scotland recently. He got very, very sick. They took him by ambulance and he was there for four days. He was really in trouble, and they released him and he said, ‘Where do I pay?’ And they said, ‘There’s no charge.’ Not only that, he said it was like great doctors, great care. I mean we could have a great system in this country.

Contrary to the claims of its opponents, the single-payer plan of Bernie Sanders would not have been unaffordable. Rather, according to research by University of Massachusetts Amherst Professor Gerald Friedman, it would have generated substantial savings for the government:

Under the single-payer system envisioned by “The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act” (H.R. 676), the U.S. could save $592 billion – $476 billion by eliminating administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry and $116 billion by reducing drug prices …

According to OECD health data, in 2013 the British were getting their healthcare for $3,364 per capita annually; the Germans for $4,920; the French for $4,361; and the Japanese for $3,713. The tab for Americans was $9,086, at least double the others. With single-payer at the OECD average of $3,661 and a population of 322 million, we should be able to cover all our healthcare for under $1.2 trillion annually – well under half what we are paying now.

The Problem Is Not Just the High Cost of Insurance

That is true in theory; but governments at all levels in the US already spend $1.6 trillion for healthcare, which goes mainly to Medicare and Medicaid and covers only 17 percent of the population. Where is the discrepancy?

For one thing, Medicare and Medicaid are more expensive than they need to be, because the US government has been prevented from negotiating drug and hospital costs.

In January, a bill put forth by Sen. Sanders to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada was voted down. Sanders is now planning to introducea bill to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, for which he is hoping for the support of the president. Trump indicated throughout his presidential campaign that he would support negotiating drug prices; and in January, he said that the pharmaceutical industry is “getting away with murder” because of what it charges the government. As observed by Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, in February 2017:

. . . [B]ig pharmaceutical companies, for-profit hospitals and health insurers are allowed to jack up their profit margins at will. . . . Simply giving everyone access to Big Pharma’s overpriced drugs, and corporate hospitals’ profit-at-any-cost tests and treatment, will result in little more than soaring healthcare costs, with uninsured and insured alike remaining sick or becoming even sicker.

Besides the unnecessarily high cost of drugs, the US medical system is prone to over-diagnosing and over-treating. The Congressional Budget Office says that up to 30 percent of the health care in the US is unnecessary. We use more medical technologythen in other countries, including more expensive diagnostic equipment. The equipment must be used in order to recoup its costs. Unnecessary testing and treatment can create new health problems, requiring yet more treatment, further driving up medical bills.

Drug companies are driven by profit, and their market is sickness – a market they have little incentive to shrink. There is not much profit to be extracted from quick, effective cures. The money is in the drugs that have to be taken for 30 years, killing us slowly. And they are killing us. Pharmaceutical drugs taken as prescribed are the fourth leading cause of US deaths, after heart disease, cancer and stroke.  

The US is the only industrialized country besides New Zealand that allows drug companies to advertise pharmaceuticals. Big Pharma spends more on lobbying than any other US industry, and it spends more than $5 billion a year on advertising. Lured by drug advertising, 

Americans are popping pills they don’t need, with side effects that are creating problems where none existed before. Americans compose only 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we consume fully 50 percent of Big Pharma’s drugsand 80 percent of the world’s pain pills. We not only take more drugs (measured in grams of active ingredient) than people in most other countries, but we have the highest use of new prescription drugs, which have a 1 in 5 chance of causing serious adverse reactions after they have been approved.

The US death toll from prescription drugs taken as prescribed is now 128,000 per year.As Jon Rappaport observes, with those results Big Pharma should be under criminal investigation. But the legal drug industry has grown too powerful for that. According to Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, writing in 2002:

The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion). Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has [become] a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, [using] its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.

It’s Just Good Business

US healthcare costs are projected to grow at 6 percent a year over the next decade. The result could be to bankrupt not only millions of consumers but the entire federal government.

Obamacare has not worked, and Ryancare is not likely to work. As demonstrated in many other industrialized countries, single-payer delivers better health care at half the cost that Americans are paying now.

Winston Churchill is said to have quipped, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.” We need to try a thrifty version of Medicare for all, with negotiated prices for drugs, hospitals and diagnostic equipment.

Ellen Brown