JAHI MCMATH: Medical "Guinea Pig" For New Sleep Apnea Device Minus Parental Consent?? (Research Funding For Hospitals)

#JahiMcMath


JAHI MCMATH: MEDICAL "GUINEA PIG" FOR THE GOV'T & HOSPITAL MEDICAL RESEARCH FUNDS??


Was JAHI MCMATH being used by OAKLAND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL as a Human "Guinea Pig" to test a new SLEEP APNEA Device for the Gov't without Parental Consent???

This new Device must be Surgically-Implanted near the Heart.

It's a well-known fact that Hospitals do receive FEDERAL FUNDS for Medical Research.

So JAHI MCMATH was selected as the perfect "Candidate" aka "Medical Guinea Pig" for this new Surgically-Implanted SLEEP APNEA Device.

However apparently something went terribly WRONG.

Since this is a new Medical Device, it may have been Implanted Incorrectly.

Or......

JAHI MCMATH may have Suffered Adverse Side Effects from the Implanted Device.

Of course my analysis is purely Hypothetical, but as it relates to Medical Research for BIG BUCK$$$, Hospitals have a history of such acts.

Perhaps this explains why OAKLAND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL Officials were trying to Murder JAHI to hide/ cover-up EVIDENCE.

Thank GOD for Caring, PRAYING People who wanted to see her LIVE & Not Die.

Please continue to PRAY for JAHI.





ARTICLE: "Study Bolsters New Sleep Apnea Device"

A possible alternative for people who can't tolerate the traditional CPAP

A surgical implant to treat obstructive sleep apnea reduced major symptoms of the disorder by nearly 70%, according to a study published online Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The new device stimulates a nerve at the base of the tongue, opening the airway. It is one of several new technologies being developed for sleep apnea, a disorder in which people stop breathing during sleep.

Sleep apnea already has a very effective treatment, CPAP, or continuous positive airway pressure.

But studies show that anywhere from 30% to more than one half of patients can't or won't use CPAP as directed by their doctors.

Some patients complain that CPAP machines, which deliver pressurized air through a face mask, are uncomfortable and unwieldy.

Sleep apnea, which is characterized by loud snoring and daytime sleepiness, is linked to a host of serious health problems, including an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and stroke.

The new implants will "be for a subset of patients, not for all patients," says M. Safwan Badr, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and chief of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, who was involved with the study.

Indeed, earlier studies with the implant showed that it didn't work as well in patients who were very obese or who had certain kinds of soft-palate collapse.

The current study excluded people with certain health conditions, a body mass index of more than 32 and particular types of airway collapse.

In the new study, 126 people with moderate to severe sleep apnea who had tried CPAP but couldn't tolerate it had the new device surgically implanted and were followed for 12 months.

The participants underwent overnight sleep studies before implantation and then again at two, six and 12 months.

After treatment, the number of times they stopped breathing, either completely or partially during sleep, was reduced by 68%, to nine times per hour, down from 29.3 times per hour.

Also, the number of times their blood-oxygen levels fell significantly, the so-called oxygen-saturation index, was reduced by 70% to 7.4 times per hour from 25.4 times per hour.

Two patients had to have a repeat procedure because of pain at the implantation site.

Other side effects included muscle soreness, temporary tongue weakness and tongue abrasions.

The study was funded by the device's manufacturer, Inspire Medical Systems Inc. of Maple Grove, Minn. Inspire's device is approved in Europe; the company is applying for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.

"Some patients we encounter, despite our best efforts, we cannot get them comfortable with [CPAP] therapy," said Patrick J. Strollo, professor of medicine and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author of the study.

The new implantable device "has the promise that we really have another option to treat patients."

About 18 million Americans have sleep apnea, according to the National Sleep Foundation, a nonprofit research and advocacy group.

The new device is placed under the skin of the chest.

One electrical lead extends up the neck and encircles the hypoglossal nerve, which runs beneath the base of the tongue.

The other lead extends to the middle of the chest, where a sensor detects breathing.

The patient turns the device on with a remote control when ready for bed and turns it off upon waking.

During sleep, the device electrically stimulates the hypoglossal nerve with each round of breath.

Sources: AP, KRON, Wall Street Journal, Youtube

Komen Foundation: I Stand With Komen! Fighting Breast Cancer NOT Fund Abortions!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Is the Susan G. Komen Foundation backing down?

The Susan G. Komen Foundation has just released a new statement from CEO Nancy Brinker. The first line is a mea culpa: “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”

But what does this mea culpa mean?

Brinker goes on to make clear that they will amend their guidelines so only “criminal and conclusive” investigations affect their funding decisions.

They will ensure that “politics has no place in our grant process,” and they will “continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.”

So they are, perhaps, backing down. Or perhaps not. Yesterday, the Komen Foundation said the investigation was not the cause of their reduced support for Planned Parenthood, and that the real issue was that Planned Parenthood did not directly provide mammograms. This statement doesn’t address that concern at all.

So it would appear to leave open the possibility that the foundation intends to reject Planned Parenthood’s future grant applications — albeit on less overtly political grounds.

I posed these questions to Leslie Aun, vice president for communications at the Komen Foundation. “I think our statement speaks for itself,” she replied. You can be the judge of that. The statement follows in full:

Statement from Susan G. Komen Board of Directors and Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen.

We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation.

We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.

That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer.

Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process.

We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women.

We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work.

We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.




Susan G. Komen drops funding for Planned Parenthood


The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation revealed Tuesday it was cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, sparking an outcry from abortion rights advocates blaming “political pressure” and praise from an anti-abortion group.

The major breast cancer research group cut funds to the prominent family planning organization after Planned Parenthood has come under increasing scrutiny from Congress over how it provides abortion services.

The Komen Foundation gave few details on the reasons behind the decision, attributing the announcement to "changes in priorities and policies" and the need to "most fully advance [its] mission."

"It is critical to underscore that the women we serve in communities remain our priority. We are working directly with Komen Affiliates to ensure there is no interruption or gaps in services for women who need breast health screening and services,” the group said in a statement.

The Komen Foundation did not respond to repeated requests for more information about the decision.

Nancy Brinker, the founder and CEO of the Komen Foundation, was a political appointee of the George W. Bush Administration, in which she served as U.S. Ambassador to Hungary and as Chief of Protocol. Susan G. Komen was Brinker's sister.

Planned Parenthood, meanwhile, was clearly disappointed with the foundation's decision.

"We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure. Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement.

Planned Parenthood said funding from the Komen Foundation has largely paid for breast exams at local centers. In the last five years, grants from the group have directly supported 170,000 screenings, comprising about 4% of the total exams performed at Planned Parenthood health centers nationwide, according to the group.

The family planning organization announced a recent "emergency fund" from a different group, the Amy and Lee Fikes' Foundation, that will go towards making up for lost funds from Komen. The gift totaled $250,000.

Planned Parenthood said Komen began notifying local affiliates recently that their breast cancer initiatives would not be eligible for new grants. In a statement, the group said the foundation's leadership did not respond to requests to meet with Planned Parenthood officials about the decision.

In September, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce began an investigation of Planned Parenthood over the organization's "compliance with federal restrictions on funding abortions."

In a letter sent to Planed Parenthood, the committee asked the group to provide information on how it segregates family planning from abortion services, as well as its policies on reporting cases of sexual abuse, rape and sex trafficking.

The committee, chaired by Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns, also asked for all internal audit reports from 1998 to 2010.

Funding for Planned Parenthood came under the spotlight in April, when a GOP push to strip $317 million in federal funding for the group failed in an eleventh hour budget deal to avoid a government shutdown.

Reacting to the news Tuesday, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington pointed to the House investigation as the cause behind Komen's decision, saying in a statement she was "extremely disappointed that politics is once again coming between women and their health care needs."

Democratic Rep. Mike Honda of California also sharply criticized the moved and called on the Komen foundation to reconsider its decision.

"This is just the latest casualty in a misguided and harmful campaign started by House Republicans to demonize the life-saving health services delivered by Planned Parenthood health centers," Honda said in a statement.

But the decision was applauded by some in the anti-abortion community, which has long called for the dismantling of Planned Parenthood.

Tony Perkins, a major social conservative leader who heads the Family Research Council, quickly praised the Komen Foundation's decision Tuesday as “good news” for women seeking help with breast cancer, as well as for the “lives of many unborn babies.”

"Susan G. Komen can chose to stop subsidizing the abortion giant, surely Congress can redirect its resources to those helping women, not making a profit off the lives of unborn children," Perkins said in a statement.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Susan G. Komen Foundation, L.A. Times, MSNBC, Washington Post, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Birth Control As Preventive Medicine? Yes! (Health Insurance Coverage)

Should Birth Control Be Categorized As A Form Of Preventive Medicine Requiring Health Insurance Companies To Include It In Premiums?

Yes!

Here's Why.

Many Of You Know That I Personally Oppose Abortion.

Just For The Record Abortion Is NOT A Form Of Birth Control!

I Don't Judge People Who Do Endorse Terminating Pregnancies But I Would NEVER Do It Because Its Against My Faith.

However I'm Also Opposed To Women Having & Rearing Children At The Government's Expense, In Most Cases Minus Child Support!

Unless You (Women) Can Independently Afford To Properly Care For Children Don't Reproduce! Period!

After All We're Human Beings NOT Rabbits!

Here's My Next Thought On This Sensitive Subject.

In My Family I Have A Niece Currently Residing In North Carolina Who Could Most Certainly Benefit From The Use Of BIRTH CONTROL & Some SELF-CONTROL!

I Love My Niece Dearly So What's The Problem?

She Is Just 25 Years Old But A Low Income, Unwed Mother Of 4 Beautiful Children!!

Wait A Minute!

Who Paid For Her To Have Those 4 Beautiful Children?

TAXPAYERS!

Who's Helping To Care For Those 4 Beautiful Children Even As We Speak?

That's Right TAXPAYERS!

And Yet....

She Won't Properly Use Birth Control, Nor Have Her Fallopian Tubes Tied Because She Wants To Keep Having Babies!

Since All Of Her Children Were Born Via Cesarean Sections (C-Sections) Not Only Is My Niece Being SELFISH & FOOLISH Regarding Her Health, But Her Children Are Suffering Due To Each Of Them Being So Young. (Ages 6, 4, 3, Infant)

Why Were Her Children Delivered Via Cesarean Section Versus Natural Birth, A Less Expensive Method Of Birth?

My Niece Is Physically Able To Reproduce But NOT Medically Able To Have Children Via Natural Birth.

She Tried & Almost Died! Literally!

Forcing My Niece To Have Babies Naturally Would Result In Her Death, Which Would Create A Whole New Chain Of Circumstances & Despair For Her 4 Beautiful Children.

North Carolina Social Workers Are Well Aware Of This Situation But Yet They Allow My Niece To Continue Having Babies At Taxpayers'& The Federal Government's Expense!

How Convenient I Must Say.

Despite What Anyone Else Says Or Thinks, A 25 Year-Old, Low Income, Unwed Mother With 4 Children Can NOT Properly Nurture Her Children!!

At Least NOT Emotionally!

In Fact More Often Than Not Such Circumstances Is What Causes Women Like My Niece To Commit Child Abuse & Neglect, Either Intentionally Or Unintentionally.

(No My Niece Does NOT Physically Abuse Her Children.)

Observing My Low Income, Unwed Niece NOT Being Able To Properly Care For Her Young Children Both Frustrates & Hurts Me Because Her Decision To Continue Having Babies Minus A Husband, Minus An Education & Minus Adequate Finances, Creates An Environment Lacking In Emotionally Stability For All Of Them.

In Most Cases Poverty Adversely Affects Young Children, Thereby Hindering Their Chances For Future Academic Success.

I Truly Love Children With All My Heart.

Especially My Niece's Children.

But A Woman's Right To Choose Should NOT Mean That Women Have The Right To Keep Having Children They Can NOT Properly Care For Via Government Assistance!!

Due To The Southern States Illegally Using Eugenics On Black Women & Mentally Retarded Women Against Their Will, Its Now Illegal For Any State To Force Any Woman To Use Birth Control Or Allow Physicians To Tie Her Fallopian Tubes.

However I Don't Agree!!

I Firmly Believe That If A Unwed, Normally Healthy Woman Living In Poverty & Receiving Government Assistance i.e., Welfare Checks (TANF), Food Stamps, Medicaid, Child Care Assistance, Section 8, etc., Refuses To Remain On Birth Control Or Get Her Fallopian Tubes Tied After 2 Or 3 Children Then Either Cut Off Their Assistance!!

Especially If Its Obvious Those Unwed, Normally Healthy Women Want To Continue Having Children To Keep A Boyfriend Or To Use As Pawns For More Food Stamps & Welfare Payments, etc.,

Unfortunately North Carolina Is A State That Appears To Encourage Low Income, Unwed Mothers To Continue Having Children.

i.e., Human "Baby Factories"

Why?

For 2 Reasons:

1) To Procure Large Sums Of Federal Dollars Of Which Only A Very Small Amount Is Given To Those Low Income, Unwed Mothers.

The Rest Is Used By Our Governor & State Legislators To Provide A Higher Mode Of Living For North Carolina's Wealthy WHITE Citizens.

i.e., Better Roads & Highways, Nice Neighborhood Parks, Nice Business Establishments Versus Chicken Joints & ABC Stores, Nice, NEW Public Schools, NEW City Transit Buses, etc.,

2) To Place THOUSANDS Of BLACK Children From Low Income Homes Headed By Single Mothers In FOSTER CARE Until They Are 21 For The Sole Purpose Of Getting Even More Federal Dollars To Spend On North Carolina's Wealthy WHITE Citizens.

Requiring Low Income, Unwed Mothers Who Rely On Government Assistance To Use Birth Control Or Lose Access To Government Assistance, Would Prohibit States Like North Carolina From Profiteering Via Using Such Women As Human "Baby Factories".

Thus I Do Agree W/ The Obama Administration's Medical Advisory Panel's Recommendation That Contraceptives SHOULD Be Covered By Health Insurance Companies.

In Fact HIV Testing, HPV Vaccinations & Birth Control Should ALL Be Covered Because They Are Forms Of Preventive Medicine.

i.e., FREE! Completely Covered By Health Insurers!

This Includes MEDICAID Not Just Private Health Insurers.

If Health Insurance Companies & Medicaid Were To Allow Their Plan Premiums To Include Birth Control As Preventive Medicine For Female Patients, States Like North Carolina Would NOT Be Able To Encourage Low Income, Unwed BLACK Women To Breed Babies Like Animals.

Breeding Babies Like Animals To Obtain FAT Checks From The Federal Government!!

I Repeat: A Woman's Right To Choose Should NOT Mean That Women Have The Right To Keep Having Children They Can NOT Properly Care For Via Government Assistance!!

So Should Birth Control Be Categorized As A Form Of Preventive Medicine Requiring Health Insurance Companies To Include It In Premiums?

Yes!

Just My Opinion.








Panel Recommends Coverage for Contraception

A leading medical advisory panel recommended on Tuesday that all insurers be required to cover contraceptives for women free of charge as one of several preventive services under the new health care law.

Obama administration officials said that they were inclined to accept the panel’s advice and that the new requirements could take effect for many plans at the beginning of 2013. The administration signaled its intentions in January when Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, unveiled a 10-year program to improve the nation’s health. One goal was to “increase the proportion of health insurance plans that cover contraceptive supplies and services.”

Administration officials, who say they hope to act on the recommendations by Aug. 1, are receptive to the idea of removing cost as a barrier to birth control — a longtime goal of advocates for women’s rights and experts on women’s health.

But the recommendations immediately reignited debate over the government’s role in reproductive health. Women’s groups and medical professionals applauded the recommendations while the Roman Catholic Church raised strenuous objections.

The recommendations came in a report submitted to Ms. Sebelius by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The new health care law says insurers must cover “preventive health services” and cannot charge for them. Ms. Sebelius will decide on a minimum package of essential health benefits, and her decision will not require further action by Congress.

The panel said insurers should be forbidden to charge co-payments for contraceptives and other preventive services because even small charges could deter their use. The recommendation would not help women without insurance.

The administration asked the Institute of Medicine, a nonpartisan, nongovernmental arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to help identify the specific services that must be covered for women.

“This report is historic,” Ms. Sebelius said on Tuesday in accepting the document. “Before today, guidelines regarding women’s health and preventive care did not exist. These recommendations are based on science and existing literature.”

In addition to contraceptive services for women, the panel recommended that the government require health plans to cover screening to detect domestic violence; screening for H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS; and counseling and equipment to promote breastfeeding, including the free rental of breast pumps.

The panel also said all insurers should be required to cover screening for gestational diabetes in pregnant women; DNA testing for the human papillomavirus as part of cervical cancer screening; and annual preventive-care visits. Such visits could include prenatal care and preconception care, to make sure women are healthy when they become pregnant.

Defending its recommendations on contraceptive coverage, the panel said that nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States were unintended, and that about 40 percent of unintended pregnancies ended in abortion. Thus, it said, greater use of contraception would reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, teenage pregnancy and abortion.

The chairwoman of the panel, Dr. Linda Rosenstock, dean of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles, said, “We did not consider cost or cost-effectiveness in our deliberations.”

But the panel’s report says that “contraception is highly cost-effective,” averting unintended pregnancies that would be far more expensive than contraception.

To reduce unintended pregnancies, the panel said, insurers should cover the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as sterilization procedures and “education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

This recommendation would require coverage of emergency contraceptives including pills like ella and Plan B, panel members said.

Under rules issued last year, many health plans are already required to cover numerous preventive services like blood pressure and cholesterol tests, colonoscopies and other cancer screenings, and routine vaccinations. A provision of the law drafted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, requires coverage of “additional preventive care and screenings” for women.

Most private insurance provides contraceptive coverage, but co-payments have increased in recent years, the panel said.

The report touched off a fierce debate Tuesday. Obstetricians, gynecologists, public health experts and Democratic women in Congress hailed the recommendations.

“We are one step closer to saying goodbye to an era when simply being a woman is treated as a pre-existing condition,” Ms. Mikulski said. “We are saying hello to an era where decisions about preventive care and screenings are made by a woman and her doctor, not by an insurance company.”

Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California, said the recommendations would remove cost as a barrier to birth control — and in hard economic times like these, she said, cost can be a formidable barrier.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and some conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, denounced the recommendation on birth control.

“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed,” said Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat. “But the Institute of Medicine report treats them as such.”

Ms. McQuade expressed deep concern about requiring coverage of surgical sterilizations and contraceptive drugs and devices.

Jeanne Monahan, the director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, said: “Some people have moral or ethical objections to contraceptives. They should not be forced to violate their conscience by paying premiums to health plans that cover these items and services.”

One panel member, Prof. Anthony Lo Sasso, a health economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, filed a dissent, saying the committee did not have enough time to conduct “a serious and systematic review” of the evidence.

The report, he said, includes “a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.”


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Dr. Phil, MSNBC, NY Times, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Pink Gloves Dance...Promoting Breast Cancer Awareness

Sources: Providence St. Vincent Michael Medical Center, Youtube

"New" Mammogram & Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines: Medical Science Or Politics? I Call Bull!

New Mammogram Screening Guidelines: Medical Science or Politics?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now Women are being told to wait longer for Pap Smear Screenings too. I call Bull!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Doctors advise Women to hold off on Cervical Cancer Screenings. No Way! I want to live.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sources: MSNBC

6 Americans Share Medicine, Physics 2009 Nobel Prizes

(Making a Difference: Nobel Prize winner Elizabeth Blackburn. Elizabeth Blackburn, a scientist from Tasmania, Australia, found a protein that determines the life span of cells, so crucial to the study of aging, stress, cancer and many other diseases. Her discovery led to her winning the 2009 Nobel Prize in medicine. NBC's Robert Bazell reports.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

3 Americans share 2009 Nobel Medicine prize

Americans Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak won the 2009 Nobel Prize in medicine on Monday for discovering a key mechanism in the genetic operations of cells, an insight that has inspired new lines of research into cancer.

It was the first time two women have been among the winners of the medicine prize.

The trio solved the mystery of how chromosomes, the rod-like structures that carry DNA, protect themselves from degrading when cells divide.

The Nobel citation said the laureates found the solution in the ends of the chromosomes — features called telomeres that are often compared to the plastic tips at the end of shoe laces that keep those laces from unraveling.

Blackburn and Greider discovered the enzyme that builds telomeres — telomerase — and the mechanism by which it adds DNA to the tips of chromosomes to replace genetic material that has eroded away.

The prize-winners' work, done in the late 1970s and 1980s, set the stage for research suggesting that cancer cells use telomerase to sustain their uncontrolled growth. Scientists are studying whether drugs that block the enzyme can fight the disease. In addition, scientists believe that the DNA erosion the enzyme repairs might play a role in some illnesses.

New 'understanding of the cell'
"The discoveries by Blackburn, Greider and Szostak have added a new dimension to our understanding of the cell, shed light on disease mechanisms, and stimulated the development of potential new therapies," the prize committee said in its citation.

Ten women have won the prestigious medicine award since the first Nobel Prizes were handed out in 1901, but it was the first time that two women were honored in the same year.

Nobel judges say women are underrepresented in Nobel statistics because the award-winning research often dates back several decades to a time when science was dominated by men. Still, critics say the judges aren't looking hard enough for deserving women candidates.

"We don't give Nobel Prizes because of gender," medicine prize committee member Goran Hansson told The Associated Press. "We give it for scientific discoveries. As more women participate in research and make scientific discoveries, more women will win Nobel Prizes."

Blackburn, who holds U.S. and Australian citizenship, is a professor of biology and physiology at the University of California, San Francisco. Greider is a professor in the department of molecular biology and genetics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

Greider, 48, said she was telephoned just before 5 a.m. her time with the news that she had won.

"It's really very thrilling, it's something you can't expect," she told The Associated Press by telephone.

People might make predictions of who might win, but one never expects it, she said, adding that "It's like the Monty Python sketch, 'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!'"

Greider described the research as beginning with experiments aimed at understanding how cells work, not with the idea for certain implications for medicine.

"Funding for that kind of curiosity-driven science is really important," she said, adding that disease-oriented research isn't the only way to reach the answer, but "both together are synergistic," she said.

Blackburn, 60, said she was awakened at 2 a.m.

"Prizes are always a nice thing," she told The AP. "It doesn't change the research per se, of course, but it's lovely to have the recognition and share it with Carol Greider and Jack Szostak."

London-born Szostak, 56, has been at Harvard Medical School since 1979 and is currently professor of genetics. He is also affiliated with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

"There's always some small chance that something like this might happen, so when the phone rang, I thought maybe this is it, so, sure enough," Szostak told the AP.

He said winning the prize was made sweeter because it also included Blackburn and Greider.

"When we started the work, of course, we were really just interested in the very basic question about DNA replication, how the ends of chromosomes are maintained," he said. "At the time we had no idea there would be all these later implications."

He said that since then it had become apparent that "this process of maintaining the ends of DNA molecules is very important and plays an important role in cancer and in aging, which are really still being fully worked out."

Prize committee member Goran Hansson said there is a lot of work yet to do to develop therapies for blood, skin and lung disease based on the winners' breakthroughs.

He said telomerase is very active in many cancer cells, "and if you turn it off or destroy the cells which have this high activity, you could be able to treat cancer," he said.

The award includes a 10 million kronor ($1.4 million) purse split three ways among the winners, a diploma and an invitation to the prize ceremonies in Stockholm on Dec. 10.

The researchers have already won a series of medical honors for their research. In 2006, they shared the Lasker prize for basic medical research, often called "America's Nobel."

Some inherited diseases are now known to be caused by telomerase defects, including certain forms of congenital aplastic anemia, in which insufficient cell divisions in the stem cells of the bone marrow lead to severe anemia. Certain inherited diseases of the skin and the lungs are also caused by telomerase defects.

Ten women have won the prestigious medicine award since the first Nobel Prizes were handed out in 1901, but this was the first time that two women were honored in the same year.

Nobel judges say women are underrepresented in Nobel statistics because the award-winning research often dates back several decades to a time when science was dominated by men. Still, critics say the judges aren't looking hard enough for deserving women candidates.

The Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, literature and the Nobel Peace Prize will be announced later this week, while the economics award will be presented on Oct. 12.

Prize founder Alfred Nobel, a Swedish industrialist who invented dynamite, left few instructions on how to select winners, but medicine winners are typically awarded for a specific breakthrough rather than a body of research.

Nobel established the prizes in his will in 1895. The first awards were handed out six years later.



3 Americans share Nobel Physics prize

Three scientists who created the technology behind digital photography and helped link the world through fiber-optic networks shared the 2009 Nobel Prize in physics Tuesday.

Charles K. Kao was cited for his breakthrough involving the transmission of light in fiber optics while Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith were honored for inventing an imaging semiconductor circuit known as the CCD sensor.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said all three have American citizenship. Kao also holds British citizenship while Boyle is also Canadian.

The award's 10 million kronor ($1.4 million) purse will be split between the three with Kao taking half and Boyle and Smith each getting a fourth. The three also receive a diploma and an invitation to the prize ceremonies in Stockholm on Dec. 10.

Kao, who was born in Shanghai and lives in Britain, was cited for his 1966 discovery that showed how to transmit light over long distances via fiber-optic cables, which became the backbone of modern communication networks that carry phone calls and high-speed Internet data around the world.

Surgical instruments
Boyle and Smith worked together to invent the charged-coupled device, or CCD, the eye of the digital camera found in everything from the cheapest point-and-shoot to high-speed, delicate surgical instruments.

In its citation, the Academy said that Boy and Smith "invented the first successful imaging technology using a digital sensor, a CCD. The CCD technology makes use of the photoelectric effect, as theorized by Albert Einstein and for which he was awarded the 1921 year's Nobel Prize."

The two men, working at Bell Labs in New Jersey, designed an image sensor that could transform light into a large number of image points, or pixels, in a short time.

"It revolutionized photography, as light could now be captured electronically instead of on film," the Academy said.



View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps

North Carolina's Triangle Area Wins $145 Mil In Stimulus Funds For Medical Research...Health Care Reform Watch

Stimulus jolts Triangle science

Triangle area researchers won a massive infusion of $145 million in federal stimulus money Wednesday for scientific projects large and small -- including an ambitious effort to seek cancer treatments by unraveling the complex genetics of tumors.

Of the 521 grants awarded to the state, 415 are in the 4th Congressional District, which includes the Triangle. The big winners were UNC-Chapel Hill, with 186 grants worth more than $60 million, and Duke University, with 181 grants totaling more than $75 million.

The stimulus bill enacted this year included $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health, which opened the financial spigot to projects that might have otherwise taken years to fund.

In addition to creating high-paying jobs in scientific fields, the money will spur the pace of discovery into conditions that affect millions, including heart disease, autism, Alzheimer's and breast cancer.

"What it should do is help to extend existing research programs but also help to create new research programs into the future that will be very competitive with respect to obtaining other funding," said Wayne Holden, an executive vice president with RTI International, a think tank in Research Triangle Park that received 10 grants.

One of the largest awards is headed to UNC-CH, which was tapped as one of 12 research institutions in the nation to receive a Cancer Genome Atlas Grant for research into the mechanisms of how cancer grows and spreads. That knowledge is crucial for developing new therapies and even cures.

The five-year award could total from $13 million to $20 million, university officials said, and will result in the hiring of at least six people for lab and computer work.

"It's really the next phase of the Human Genome Project," said Dr. Charles Perou, referring to the huge national effort to create a blueprint of the human DNA sequence. Perou, associate professor of genetics, and pathology and laboratory medicine, is one of the leaders of the university's cancer atlas project.

"Now what we need is a blueprint of what it is to be a cancer tumor," he said.

Perou said this area of science has already borne fruit. Genetic research has found that breast cancer is actually four or five different diseases -- each responding differently to treatments based on the molecular origins.

"We hope to get a more comprehensive picture of the genetic causes and then use that information to improve treatments and outcomes for cancer patients," Perou said.

The UNC-CH portion of the money for the project will fund research to characterize the different genetic signatures that cancers express. The other national institutions receiving Cancer Genome Atlas will conduct similar work or provide data support. All will share findings.

Perou said the university was positioned to compete for the grant because it had been allocated state money to buy the sophisticated tools necessary for the genetic inquiry. The project is led by the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center but involves scientists throughout the university.

Price sees a boost

U.S. Rep. David Price, a Chapel Hill Democrat who represents the Triangle, said he encouraged his local institutions to look at opportunities in the economic stimulus package. But he said he had not influenced NIH's decisions on who won the grants.

"Some people in Washington have asked, 'How does medical research provide a financial stimulus?' " Price said in an interview. "I don't think you have to ask people in our area that question. That's a big part of our economy."



View Larger Map

Sources: News & Observer, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Pres. Obama Invests $5 Bil In Recovery Act Funds To Cutting Edge Medical Research

(The video below touts Pres. Obama's $5 Billion dollars (Recovery Act money) investment in Medical Research will fund cutting-edge medical advances and create jobs in all 50 states. That's what I'm talking about! Yes we can!)





Pres. Obama Touts Medical Research Funding from Recovery Act Money

Calling it the "single largest boost to biomedical research in history" President Obama today traveled to the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland to announce the awarding of $5 billion in grants for research into cures for cancer, heart diseases, and autism among other diseases.

The money comes from the $787 billion economic stimulus package – which allotted $10 billion for the NIH. The $5 billion being formally distributed today will support the 12,000 existing projects over the next two years.

"We're announcing that we've awarded $5 billion -- that's with a b -- in grants, through the Recovery Act, to conduct cutting-edge research all across America, to unlock treatments to diseases that have long plagued humanity, to save and enrich the lives of people all over the world."

Through the investment the NIH is expanding the Human Genome Project, which Mr. Obama said has made exciting progress by applying what scientists have learned to help understand, prevent and treat various forms of cancer, heart disease, and autism.

The President struck a short personal tone, saying that cancer has reached him personally, his mother died of ovarian cancer in 1995.

"This has extraordinary potential to help us better understand and treat this disease, "Obama said of the research investment, "Cancer has touched the lives of all Americans, including my own family's."

Another important byproduct of the investment into research, Obama said, is the goal of the recovery act – to create and save jobs.

"We also know that these investments will save jobs. They'll create new jobs: tens of thousands of jobs conducting research in manufacturing and supplying medical equipment and building and modernizing laboratories and research facilities all across America. And that's also what the Recovery Act is all about. It's not just about creating make-work jobs. It's about creating jobs that will make a lasting difference for our future."

During his remarks the President stayed largely out of the health care debate going out on Capitol Hill this week, yet briefly touched upon the issue of naysayers in general who oppose any type of health care reform.

"There are some who have opposed the reforms we're suggesting, saying it would lead to a takeover by the government of the health care sector. But this concern about the involvement in government, I should point out, has been present whenever we have sought to improve our health care system."

Quoting FDR's address defending himself against similar accusations of a government takeover at the dedication of the NIH in 1970, President Obama said that his words are a stark reminder.

"These words are a reminder that while we've made great advances in medicine, our debates haven't always kept pace. And these words remind us that there have always been those who argued against progress, but that, at our best, we've never allowed our fears to overwhelm our hopes for a brighter future."

Before the President's speech he toured a laboratory at the NIH, and was shown brain cells in a microscope to see the difference between good cells versus bad cells.

"You've got a pretty spiffy microscope," Obama said and then after checking added, "Well that is a brain."

Dr. Francis Collins showed the President the microscopic images displayed on a video screen – comparing first a healthy brain and then a brain with cancer.

"This is the kind of cancer Senator Kennedy had," Collins told Obama.


Sources: Whitehouse.gov, Recovery.gov, National Institutes of Health, ABC News, Youtube

HIV Vaccine That Actually Works! Helps To Prevent AIDS Infection...Thai Study, Medical Milestone

(The CDC is expected to recommend that all babies in the U.S. be circumcised in order to reduce the spread of HIV. NBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman discusses the controversial issue.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

First HIV Vaccine Helps Prevent AIDS Infection

For the first time, an experimental vaccine has prevented infection with the AIDS virus, a watershed event in the deadly epidemic and a surprising result. Recent failures led many scientists to think such a vaccine might never be possible.

The World Health Organization and the U.N. agency UNAIDS said the results "instilled new hope" in the field of HIV vaccine research.

The vaccine – a combination of two previously unsuccessful vaccines – cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent in the world's largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand, researchers announced Thursday in Bangkok.

Even though the benefit is modest, "it's the first evidence that we could have a safe and effective preventive vaccine," Col. Jerome Kim told The Associated Press. He helped lead the study for the U.S. Army, which sponsored it with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The institute's director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, warned that this is "not the end of the road," but said he was surprised and very pleased by the outcome.

"It gives me cautious optimism about the possibility of improving this result" and developing a more effective AIDS vaccine, Fauci said. "This is something that we can do."

The Thailand Ministry of Public Health conducted the study, which used strains of HIV common in Thailand. Whether such a vaccine would work against other strains in the U.S., Africa or elsewhere in the world is unknown, scientists stressed.

Even a marginally helpful vaccine could have a big impact. Every day, 7,500 people worldwide are newly infected with HIV; 2 million died of AIDS in 2007, UNAIDS estimates.

"Today marks a historic milestone," said Mitchell Warren, executive director of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, an international group that has worked toward developing a vaccine.

"It will take time and resources to fully analyze and understand the data, but there is little doubt that this finding will energize and redirect the AIDS vaccine field," he said in a statement.

The study tested the two-vaccine combination in a "prime-boost" approach, in which the first one primes the immune system to attack HIV and the second one strengthens the response.

They are ALVAC, from Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine division of French drugmaker Sanofi-Aventis; and AIDSVAX, originally developed by VaxGen Inc. and now held by Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases, a nonprofit founded by some former VaxGen employees.

ALVAC uses canarypox, a bird virus altered so it can't cause human disease, to ferry synthetic versions of three HIV genes into the body. AIDSVAX contains a genetically engineered version of a protein on HIV's surface. The vaccines are not made from whole virus – dead or alive – and cannot cause HIV.

Neither vaccine in the study prevented HIV infection when tested individually in earlier trials, and dozens of scientists had called the new one futile when it began in 2003.

"I really didn't have high hopes at all that we would see a positive result," Fauci confessed.

The results proved the skeptics wrong.

"The combination is stronger than each of the individual members," said the Army's Kim, a physician who manages the Army's HIV vaccine program.

The study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women aged 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four "priming" doses of ALVAC and two "boost" doses of AIDSVAX over six months. The others received dummy shots. No one knew who got what until the study ended.

Thanad Yomha, a 33-year-old electrician from southeastern Thailand, said he didn't expect anything in return for volunteering for the project.

"I did this for others," Thanad said. "It's for the next generation."

All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.

Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.

The results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group. Two of the infected participants who received the placebo died.

The vaccine had no effect on levels of HIV in the blood for those who did become infected. That had been another goal of the study – seeing whether the vaccine could limit damage to the immune system and help keep infected people from developing full-blown AIDS.

That result is "one of the most important and intriguing findings of this trial," Fauci said. It suggests that the signs scientists have been using to gauge whether a vaccine was actually giving protection may not be valid.

"It is conceivable that we haven't even identified yet" what really shows immunity, which is both "important and humbling" after decades of vaccine research, Fauci said.

Details of the $105 million study will be given at a vaccine conference in Paris in October.

This is the third big vaccine trial since 1983, when HIV was identified as the cause of AIDS. In 2007, Merck & Co. stopped a study of its experimental vaccine after seeing it did not prevent HIV infection. Later analysis suggested the vaccine might even raise the risk of infection in certain men. The vaccine itself did not cause infection.

In 2003, AIDSVAX flunked two large trials – the first late-stage tests of any AIDS vaccine at the time.

It is unclear whether vaccine makers will seek to license the two-vaccine combo in Thailand. Before the trial began, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said other studies would be needed before the vaccine could be considered for U.S. licensing.

"This is a world first which proves that vaccine development is possible," said Dr. Supachai Rerks-Ngarm, the Thai Health Ministry official who oversaw the trial. "But this is not to the level where we can license or manufacture the vaccine yet."

Mass-producing the vaccine, plus how to proceed with future studies, will be discussed among the governments, study sponsors and companies involved in the trial, Kim said. Scientists want to know how long protection will last, whether booster shots will be needed, and whether the vaccine helps prevent infection in gay men and injection drug users, since it was tested mostly in heterosexuals in the Thai trial.

The study was done in Thailand because U.S. Army scientists did pivotal research in that country when the AIDS epidemic emerged there, isolating virus strains and providing genetic information on them to vaccine makers. The Thai government also strongly supported the idea of doing the study.

Study information: http://www.hivresearch.org/phase3/factsheet.html

Vaccine coalition: http://www.avac.org/

KTLA: http://tinyurl.com/krq7kr

Government AIDS info: http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/



View Larger Map

Sources: Huffington Post, Thailand Ministry of Public Health, MSNBC, World Health Organization, CDC, KTLA, NIH.gov, AVAC.org, HIV Research.org, Google Maps