<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title> &#187; health</title>
	<atom:link href="http://medicalconsumers.org/tag/health/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://medicalconsumers.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:23:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='medicalconsumers.org' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://medicalconsumers.org/osd.xml" title="" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://medicalconsumers.org/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Type 2 diabetes drugs: risks w/o benefit</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/12/14/diabetes-drugs-risks-wo-benefit/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/12/14/diabetes-drugs-risks-wo-benefit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Chronic Conditions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conflict of Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Actos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amaryl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Avandia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diabetes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug-induced disease]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug-induced illness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glucophage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high blood sugar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oral hypoglycemic drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[type 2 diabetes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[type 2 diabetes drugs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=3969</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“We now have three randomized controlled trials of oral hypoglycemic drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes  and based on these three, we doctors cannot offer any meaningful assurance whatsoever that taking these drugs will decrease the likelihood of having a stroke, death before your time, amputation, renal failure, blindness. Anybody who tells you otherwise is exercising firm beliefs in the face of the evidence. They are wont to argue that oral hypoglycemics might have proven effective if we had done a bigger and/or longer trial. Such an argument is on the thinnest of ice. The available trials are impressive for their duration (measured in over a decade for two of the trials) and their size. Little of importance, if anything, has been missed. <img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=3969&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/12/14/diabetes-drugs-risks-wo-benefit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prostate cancer treatment misused</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/12/14/4023/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/12/14/4023/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Men's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surgery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[androgen deprivation therapy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chemical castration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug overuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug-induced castration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prostate cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prostate cancer treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prostate cancer treatment risks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PSA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treatment-induced illness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=4023</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hot flashes, weakness, fatigue, cognitive impairment, and depression are the “substantial unintended side effects” of ADT, aka chemical castration. The VA study is not the first to link ADT to an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, but it shines a light on unproven uses of this drastic therapy. The shows that ADT is given as the primary treatment for men with local and regional prostate cancer who have no symptoms of the disease, as well as symptomless men whose post-treatment PSA test show rising levels. The rise in the use of ADT can be chalked up to the fact that the PSA screening test was introduced in the late 1980s. This <img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=4023&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/12/14/4023/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Swine flu hysteria</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/12/04/swine-flu-update/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/12/04/swine-flu-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:43:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Chronic Conditions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[influenza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vaccines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conflict of Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[H1N1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[influenza threat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[swine flu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[swine flu deaths]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[swine flu hysteria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WHO conflict of interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WHO swine flu deaths]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world health organization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/12/04/swine-flu-update/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As time went on, we learned that everyone born before 1957 has natural immunity so they don’t need the vaccine. This is a startling public health about-face. Haven’t we always been told that vaccines are equal to or better than natural immunity—that is, getting the flu naturally? “It is a false assumption that the vaccine provides similar immunity to the natural infection. We have evidence that the natural infection provides long-term immunity for more than 50 years. We don’t know how long the vaccine-induced immunity lasts, but estimates are two to three years at best,” explained researcher, Jim Wright, MD, in response to an e-mail inquiry.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=3884&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/12/04/swine-flu-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Pap test guidelines</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/21/new-pap-test-guidelines/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/21/new-pap-test-guidelines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:37:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cervical cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pap test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pap test risks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pap testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[screening guidelines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=3349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I doubt many women have had the pros and cons of the Pap test explained to them by their doctors.  Nor are we told how rare cervical cancer is.  We have been lead to believe that Pap testing is reason why cervical cancer is rare, but in fact the cervical cancer death rate was going down years before the Pap test was given to a significant portion of the femal population.  See my 2007 article on the topic.  And here’s the National Cancer Institute’s <a href="http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/cervical/HealthProfessional/page11">cautions about the Pap test</a> that have been on its Web site for several years. I think women deserve an apology from the ACS and ACOG<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=3349&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/21/new-pap-test-guidelines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mammogram uproar</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/18/latest-mammogram-uproar/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/18/latest-mammogram-uproar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breast cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cancer regression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mammography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mammography risks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overdiagnosis and mammograms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[screening guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spontaneous regression cancer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=3318</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When a technology’s lifesaving benefit has been oversold to the public for over three decades—and the harms downplayed—any cutback in recommendations will be met with a firestorm of anger. That exactly what happened yesterday when a highly respected organizations recently broke ranks with others that issue screening guidelines.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=3318&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/11/18/latest-mammogram-uproar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
