Cancer Cholesterol / Cholesterol Cancer?!?!

We blame the researchers and the publications but if we spent the money and got our lazy behinds out to every single medical conference in the country we could get the verification for the information reported in the news. But have you read us? We tire easily and we're not the "Big & Rich" (hey they're not any longer) business we hope to be. What we can report is our experiences with Pearlie Mae Frierson Leach, after whom we are so named. All are articles we suggest you peruse beyond the headlines and the news story.

Many of the headlines (ABC News, US News & World Report, AP, WedMD), which are difficult to write, don't quite shed light on the complexity of the results. If the materials aren't publicly published we can't verify. We write (rather) email for more info to the mentioned speakers but they don't usually reply. While the info might be cited it can't always be checked. We just thought you should know! We're on it - as best we can!

The headline: Low Cholesterol May Be Sign of Undiagnosed Cancer from ABC News yesterday said: "Low total cholesterol may be a sign of cancer rather than a cause, as some researchers have suggested, and men who have low cholesterol actually have a lower risk of developing high-risk prostate cancer, two teams reported on Tuesday."

That headline seemed to contradict this headline from US News and World Report: "Low Cholesterol May Help Prevent Cancer - Two studies dispel longstanding fears about possible connection - Low blood cholesterol levels reduce the risk not only of heart disease but also of cancer, two new studies show."

AP reported using the same research report: "Men may protect more than their hearts if they keep cholesterol in line: Their chances of getting aggressive prostate cancer may be lower, new research suggests." WedMD reported: "Radiation treatment cuts the risk that melanoma will come back in people at high risk for recurrence, a new study suggests. Researchers studied more than 200 people with melanoma at high risk of having their cancer return after surgery because the disease had spread to the lymph nodes."

The original abstract from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (CEBP) concluded: "Results from the two analyses of cholesterol and risk of cancer published in this issue of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention provide one answer and raise two new questions. Results from the ATBC analysis clearly show that low total cholesterol is unlikely to increase risk of cancer. At the same time, the ATBC results raise a new question about the potential role of high HDL cholesterol and its correlates in reducing risk of cancer."

You had to be there - unfortunately we couldn't and weren't. Hey its not the last time. We're working on other stories and because we weren't there we'll have to wait for responses to our questions from the researchers who tend to be too busy to answer emails. That's just the way it is!

You Are Where You Live

Where you live can determine how long you live? Maybe and we're not talking "Three Mile island" or "Love Canal" locations but when you're considering schools system, recreation facilities, parks, bike paths, crime rates you might want to add the availability of "fruit and veg" stands to your list of neighborhood home purchase considerations.

What we love is this blame the environment studies rather than blaming the victim. It's not that we are anti-earthers we don't hate the planet. We don't! We love mother earth. What we don't like is old useless suggestions that ignore prior failures of implementation. Failures aren't what we should be studying successes are.

ABC News does it again. Call it reporting on truly environmental (sustainable) planning: "[T]he risk of diabetes associated with living in such a "healthy" 'hood was 38% lower than for people who lived in the unhealthiest places, Dr. Amy H. Auchincloss of Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia and her colleagues found. The findings raise the possibility, Auchincloss told Reuters Health, that changing people's environments could help improve their health. "There's certainly a lot of potential for making an impact," she added, pointing to initiatives like improving public transportation, increasing green space, making sidewalks safer, and opening farmer's markets in urban neighborhoods where supermarkets are scarce."

The LA Times does it better and we recommend you read their story asking: "Can your neighborhood make you sick? Type 2 diabetes may not be contagious, but it certainly appears to be spreading. In 1958, the prevalence was 0.9%. By 2000 it had climbed to 4.4%, and it’s projected to hit 7.2% in 2050. What accounts for this? Perhaps it’s the way residential neighborhoods have evolved to accommodate car rides to fast-food restaurants instead of walks to corner grocery stands."

MSN is not a normal source of information for us adds: "People who live in neighborhoods that promote physical activity and offer access to healthy foods may be less likely to develop type 2 diabetes, researchers say. Their study included 2,285 people, aged 45 to 84, living in neighborhoods in Baltimore, Forsyth County, N.C., and New York City/Bronx. Their neighborhoods were assessed by asking residents questions, such as whether it's easy or pleasant to walk in their community, and whether local stores carry a large, high-quality selection of fruits, vegetables and other low-fat foods. Average neighborhood scores were 3.68 for physical activity and 3.36 for healthy foods, the researchers found."

We have to take their word for it but we did ask Assistant Professor Amy H. Auchincloss of Drexel University if any of the above mentioned three got it right. We'll let you know what she says.

While the stories focused on type 2 diabetes the LATimes incorporates a PearlieMaes style of investigation of multiple studies that reached similar conclusions. One of the reasons we love the LATimes is reporting that goes beyond the obvious to real reporting. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's (NHLBI) "Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) - (which) investigated the prevalence, correlates, and progression of subclinical cardiovascular disease (CVD) and risk factors that predict progression to clinically overt CVD, and that predict progression of subclinical disease itself, in a population-based sample of 6,800 ethnically diverse men and women."

The green elements of the solution to our health issues include a "Whole Foods" philosophy of using products and produce locally produced to reduce the transportation and energy cost associated with bring items from longer distances to reduce our carbon foot print. Less expenses mean more savings in our pockets and to our planet. Its easier being green than you thought when we think and better plan.

We're Not Number 1! We're Not Number 1!

Maybe to ABC News health care is a game that can be won or lost. When they treat health care as something with a scorecard they ignore the report. While we as a jurisdiction may be ahead of the curve none of us as a nation are winning.

Oh, sure Maryland is ahead of District of Columbia and Virginia it doesn't mean Maryland's got the best care in the US. All the jurisdictions are above the norm and better than most in the situation and in this game that's not saying a whole heck of a lot. As you would expect Virginia is better than the DC when it comes to health care. In a game of health its more disease care than health. We're number twenty-six (26) with a bullet. We're number twenty-six! Doesn't just fall off the tongue does it?

• District of Columbia    Overall   -   26
• Maryland   Overall   -   17
• Virginia   Overall   -   22

"The Commonwealth Fund (CF) is a private foundation that aims to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults."

We recommend that you read the original report from the CF. "Among the states that moved up the most in the overall performance rankings, Minnesota rose within the top quartile to become the fourth-ranked state, with significant improvement on multiple indicators. In three states—Arkansas, Delaware, and West Virginia—plus the District of Columbia, at least half of the performance indicators improved by 5 percent or more. Leading states set new benchmarks for 20 of the 35 indicators with trends."

2009 Ranking	Revised 2007 Ranking
1   Vermont     2   Hawaii     2   Iowa     4   Minnesota     5   Maine     5   New Hampshire     7   Massachusetts     8   Connecticut     9   North Dakota    10   Wisconsin    11   Rhode Island    12   South Dakota    13   Nebraska	1   Hawaii     2   Vermont     3   Iowa     4   Connecticut     5   New Hampshire     6   Massachusetts     7   Maine     8   Rhode Island     9   Minnesota    10   Nebraska    11   Wisconsin    12   North Dakota    13   South Dakota

There is room for improvement across all states.
"All states have substantial room to improve. No state ranked in the top quartile across all performance indicators. On some indicators, even the top rates are well below what should be achievable. In each of the states with the highest overall rankings, several indicators declined by 5 percent or more; each also had some indicators in the bottom quartile or half of performance. At the same time, in each of the lowest-ranked states, there were certain areas of performance that improved—some quite significantly."

Confirmed Deaths

One of our favorite BBC Scifi Programs was called BLAKES 7 and on the program their computer answered the pilots by saying: Confirmed! On the show it was the dispassionate computers way of saying: Yes!

What does confirmed mean when the local jurisdictions health departments use the word? What's that mean? Absolutely nothing! ABC News reported this morning on the new report from Connecticut where their confirmation process has been called into question because of the amount of incorrect responses received. This early indicator research suggests that having specific information of only CONFIRMED cases does not adequately provide enough accurate information to be of use to the general public or the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

We've long maintained that to the general public, we who suffer, what we have isn't as important is how we can avoid, not be killed by, or survive it. What we need is full information and leave the specifics to the scientists and technicians. We here at PearlieMaes don't want you to die and we're certain no one wants you to die in or out of government. That's not the issue. The issue, to us, is what decisions will they or we make that will put your life and health first and foremost.

When there is an information restriction or blockage doesn't panic occur when the restrictions are removed? That's the issue. When you can't trust those trusted with "Prevention" and discover that trust was violated you have to assume the facts are so bad they are beyond belief and panic is the only rational reaction.

By Jurisdictions	Flu Deaths
District of Columbia	89
Baltimore, MD	556
Richmond / Norfolk, VA	170+

Since the first week January 2009 to September 25, 2009 these are the REPORTED figures to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention by the above mentioned local jurisdictions state Health Departments. These are the figures that are not reported on their websites.

Don't panic. From the research we're not really certain washing your hands (early and often) is sufficient to protect you from the flu. What we are certain is that diligence and hand washing creates good habits that can probably limit your exposure. Washing your hands and face we think when out in public gently while taking a clean moist paper towel to turn off the faucets, open the doors to the rest room where you wash your hands and face is probably a better idea. Because: "It's a jungle out there" - who knew you have to be "Monk" to survive it. "We could be wrong but we don't think so. It's a jungle out there!(Hear)(Read)"

So pay no attention to the obituaries. Just because people are dying from the pneumonia. They're aren't confirmed! Their deaths don't count. Just ask your health departments.

Sorry Wrong Numbers?!?

Why are we so smart? How did everybody else get it wrong? Are we wrong? We verify and we ask the unasked questions. We also tell you when we ask, who we ask, when they allow us to we tell you what they say or at least our impressions or responses to their information.

There appears to be a disconnect between what we read and document and what they say and don't. The network specialists, whom all are notable physicians, explain what's reported without challenge.

We went back to their source the CDC and we discovered that the numbers don't match because we discovered a number "reset." The Center for Disease Control and Prevention started from zero in their counting techniques. That's one reason our numbers don't match theirs. The CDC only reports "pediatric" deaths and not all deaths. We also can't confirm the numbers for our region because all though the number were reset to zero all jurisdictions don't report the numbers to the public in their "contact" email addresses.

Our questions now are: Do our jurisdictions have an obligations to us their paying public to conceal our information. Do we need to know? Are we better off being lied to? You lie! Or Lie to us! Which do we prefer? Can we handle the truth?

We reviewed the footage and what they say the professionals don't say. See if you can hear or find what they say because we certainly can't? Here are the reports and here are the facts that they had to reach the conclusions that they did. We couldn't. Watch and compare - we don't know how they did it - maybe you can figure it out and tell us.

Our favorite is NBC Nightly News whose story mentioned the report from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID). The NBC evening news report talked about how many shots NIAID is recommending for children, which can be protected with just one dose, and needed a booster shot in the past. NBC shows the NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. speaking but do not air his words saying what their report claims he says.

Our least favorite news broadcast is ABC's World News Tonight which had the least informative report which ignored the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease statement to focus on the CDC video contest winner on how to prevent the virus which they called "Fun With the Flu." Though the least informative it turns out to be the most accurate.

We love Katie Couric the NBC transplant to CBS but aren't a fan of the CBS Evening News. The networks graphics highlight that their source is NIAID and asks the important question: "How Do We Know It's Safe?" and speaks about the two forms of the vaccine - spray & or shot. They get it wrong as well even though CBS uses their own female physician to highlight the electronic chart.

Watch the broadcast if you've got ten (10) minutes and compare them to this statement from the source the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID): "This is very encouraging news," says NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "As we had hoped, responses to the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine are very similar to what we see with routinely used seasonal influenza vaccines made in the same way..."

"...These results are not unexpected and are both similar to what is seen with seasonal influenza vaccines and consistent with what we and our colleagues at the Food and Drug Administration anticipated," notes Dr. Fauci.

We asked the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) why there appears to be a disconnect between what they say on their website and what the networks report. Here's how we discovered why our numbers don't equal their numbers. "During week 36 - 1,378 (18.2%) specimens tested by U.S. World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) collaborating laboratories and reported to CDC/Influenza Division were positive for influenza..."

"...Two influenza-associated pediatric deaths were reported, and both were associated with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection..."

"...The 2009-10 influenza season officially begins October 4, 2009. To allow jurisdictions to implement the new case definition, counts were reset to zero on August 30, 2009. From August 30-September 12, 2009 4,569 hospitalizations and 364 deaths associated with influenza virus infection, or based on syndromic surveillance for influenza and pneumonia, were reported to CDC."

We'll of course their numbers are lower when they hit the "reset count" button and only show you the lowest groups (children's) numbers. Here's our verification and proof - where's theirs? So who are you going to believe them or our lying facts?

We were surprised to find this little nugget of truth from the World Health Organization (WHO) about the US and the H1N1 "swine flu." It's on page 1 of the PDF so you don't have to read it all. "The pandemic A(H1Nl) virus was first detected in April in the United States and shown to be responsible for outbreaks in Mexico in March and April. Outbreaks subsequently occurred in all regions of the world and by July pandemic A(H1Nl) was the predominant influenza virus circulating in many countries in the Americas, Asia, Europe and Oceania."

We're number one! We're number one!

Worst / Best Attacks

What we try to do here is to look at national news health stories and find how they relate to our jursidiction. Sometimes that's pretty simple and fairly easy to do and then came ABC News Men's Health Coverage. Their report based on Circulation's article appears to go beyond what's included. Now if we were physicians or more medically trained we might be better able to decipher the contents. What's missing from the story and the full text of the article are the specifics by state of the best hospitals for treatment of heart problems. Our jursidiction (DC, MD and VA) are not in the top or the bottom of the list.

The report authors place their emphasis on changing the process for treating individuals with heart problems. In an emergency situation such information is crucial. The rule of thumb is you have twenty (20) minutes to receive treatment for a heart attack if you are to survive without any permanent damage or if you are to fully recover from your "episode." Like somehow this is the next installment of "This Is Your Life - the series." This IS your life and not a reality show slated for the new fall season on ABC-TV.

The problem with the reports findings according to the authors are: "At the time of the measurement, there were no financial incentives for hospitals or the community to focus on this aspect of care. In fact, hospitals are penalized by reducing readmission rates, as this would adversely affect hospital revenues." (PDF)

Their solution: Another study on how the rates can be improved for all hospitals. Our opinion: You might not want to spend your 20 minutes trying to get to New Jersey it just might be that hospitals there just have higher revenues (read profits) and NOT better care. In any event the authors state that the differences aren't very large between the best and the worst which is a very LARGE concern to all of us.