Mar 23, 2007
LONDON, England (AP) -- Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than illegal drugs like marijuana or ecstasy, according to a new British study.

In research published Friday in The Lancet magazine, Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University and colleagues proposed a new framework for the classification of harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society.

Their ranking listed alcohol and tobacco among the top 10 most dangerous substances.

Read the original article here or here.

Alcohol is ranked much more harmful than the Class A drug ecstasy in a controversial new classification system proposed by a team of leading scientists.

The table, published today in The Lancet medical journal, was drawn up by a team of highly respected experts led by Professor David Nutt, from the University of Bristol, and Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council.

The authors proposes that drugs should be classified by the amount of harm that they do, rather than the sharp A, B, and C divisions in the UK Misuse of Drugs Act.

They say the basis of the Act is ill-defined, opaque, and seemingly arbitrary and overestimates the risks of ecstasy, which kills around ten people annually of the half a million people who use it every weekend, while neglecting those of alcohol, a legal substance which kills more than 300 annually by acute poisoning, and many tens of thousands by road traffic accidents, cirrhosis, gut and heart disease.

In the paper, the team argues that it would make much more sense for drugs to be reclassified on a rational basis that can be updated as new evidence emerges, and more easily than the current rigid category system now in use.

Prof Blakemore added that policies of the past four decades “clearly have not worked”, given the ubiquity and low price of illegal drugs, and that fresh thinking is now required.

Today’s call to overhaul the UK drug classification system, which will be examined by the forthcoming UK Drug Policy Commission, is likely to receive popular public support, according to research into attitudes to drugs by the Academy of Medical Sciences’ DrugsFutures project.

Harmful drugs are currently regulated according to classification systems that purport to relate to the harms and risks of each drug.

However, “these are generally neither specified nor transparent, which reduces confidence in their accuracy and undermines health education messages,” said Prof Blakemore.

“The most striking observation is that there is no statistical correlation between this ranking of harm of drugs and the ABC classification.”

In the new system legal drugs, such as alcohol and nicotine, are ranked alongside illegal drugs.

The new ranking places alcohol and tobacco in the upper half of the league table. These socially accepted drugs were judged more harmful than cannabis, and substantially more dangerous than the Class A drugs LSD, 4-methylthioamphetamine and ecstasy.

“Alcohol is not far behind demonised terrors of the street such as heroin and cocaine,” said Prof Blakemore.

But the conclusions are likely to be ignored, according to coauthor Prof David Nutt from the University of Bristol, who has worked with the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs.

Because some individuals with a particularly genetic make-up are at greater risk, as has been seen with rare deaths connected with ecstasy, ministers have been reluctant to change classifications despite the relative safety for the rest of the population.

Several millennia of human experience with alcohol, its pervasiveness in industrialised cultures, and the US experience with alcohol prohibition (1920–32) make it unlikely that any industrialised society will criminalise alcohol use, he said.

But that still leaves taxation and regulation as methods of control. “Alcohol is a drug we should take very seriously.”

The team identified three main factors that together determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse: the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug; the tendency of the drug to induce dependence and addiction; the effect of drug use on families, communities, and society

Within each of these categories, they recognized three components, leading to a comprehensive “matrix of harm”.

Expert panels gave scores, from zero to three, for each category of harm for 20 different drugs.

All the scores for each drug were combined to produce an overall estimate of its harm. In order to provide familiar benchmarks, for comparison with illicit drugs, five legal drugs of potential misuse (alcohol, khat, solvents, alkyl nitrites, and tobacco) and one that has since been classified (ketamine) were included in the assessment. The process proved simple, and yielded roughly similar scores for drug harm when used by two separate groups of experts, one of consultant psychiatrists who were on the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ register as specialists in addiction and the second including a range of expertise, from police chief constables to scientists. “The two show very good agreement,” said Prof Nutt.

Cannabis, the subject of much recent debate, was ranked below tobacco, despite the evidence for a link with psychotic episodes in about 7% of schizophrenics. Since the expert panels were asked to assess the harm of drugs in the form that they are currently used, this ranking took account of the widespread use of skunk, which is about twice as potent than traditional cannabis resin.

Other experts still doubt there is a cause and effect relationship between cannabis and psychosis, while a study that claimed genes place some people at particular risk requires confirmation.

Prof Nutt said that young people believe that the establishment lies and distorts the dangers posed by drugs and the only way to restore their confidence is to rely on hard evidence, not arbitrary classifications.

“It is a landmark paper, a real step towards evidence based classification,” commented Prof Leslie Iversen of the University of Oxford, a member of a working group of the Academy of Medical Sciences, though he added that there is still more to be done to take on board new understanding of addiction arising from neuroscience.

The Academy has been asked by the Government to undertake an independent review of the issues raised in the Foresight report ‘DrugsFutures 2025?’ The review will take on board the opinions of many hundreds of people from across the UK who have taken part in face to face discussions and an online debate at www.drugsfutures.org.uk, which is open until end of this month.

Participants are clear that the current classification of drugs is “confusing and inconsistent”. A majority of participants support a health-based approach to drug use and treatment, rather than a law enforcement approach. Many also point out that alcohol is one of the most harmful drugs in common use, to both individuals and wider society.

There appears to be little support for decriminalising drugs however. Professor Sir Gabriel Horn, Chair of the Academy of Medical Sciences group considering the findings of the DrugsFutures project said “The UK Government have asked us to explore the likely future impact of recent developments in science on addiction, drug use and treatments for mental health. We have heard views from both members of the scientific community and of the public which indicate that the current classification system is in need of review.

“Such a review must be underpinned by evidence on the harms of drug use to the individual user, to families and to society, and be considered in the light of the latest evidence from the brain sciences.”

Drug misuse is one of the major social, legal, and public-health challenges in the modern world.

In the UK, the total burden of drug misuse, in terms of health, social, and crime-related costs, has been estimated to be between £10 billion and £16 billion per year.

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals      
6015-B Unity Drive
Norcross, GA 30071
 

                On February 24^th the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Marshals seized approximately $3,000,000 worth of ephedra-containing dietary supplements from our firm. They also filed a Complaint for Forfeiture against Lipodrene® and Stimerex-ES®- supplements that are manufactured, marketed, and distributed by Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This action was in response to a lawsuit filed by Hi-Tech on August 10^th, 2005- 1:05-CV-2083.

            We believe this was a result of a series of unsuccessful attempts by the FDA regional offices to prevent Hi-Tech from legitimately selling our ephedra-based Lipodrene® and Stimerex-ES® to health food stores, gyms, drug stores, and various other retailers. Initially, on August 3^rd, 2005, the FDA requested that Hi-Tech cease and desist sales of our ephedra-containing dietary supplements. The FDA, however, refused to provide Hi-Tech with any written documentation from the FDA’s national office stating that selling Lipodrene® or Stimerex-ES® was illegal. The FDA also chose not to exercise its right to seize a dietary supplement that is being introduced into interstate commerce in violation of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) or the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C). Because of the failure on the part of the FDA to justify any legal basis for their request that Hi-Tech not sell Lipodrene® or Stimerex-ES®, Hi-Tech informed the FDA that we would not stop selling our ephedra-containing dietary supplements.

            On February 21^st, 2006, Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. responded to the United States Government’s and the FDA’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit pending in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia, before the Honorable Judge Ernest Tidwell. They alleged they had taken no action against Hi-Tech, therefore, the lawsuit was without merit. Hi-Tech responded with allegations that the government was “venue shopping.”

            In a desperate attempt to “not lose at any cost,” and prevent Hi-Tech from selling our ephedra-containing inventory, on that following day, the FDA asked the U.S. Attorney's office to file a civil complaint against the Lipodrene® and Stimerex-ES® inventory, requesting that the U.S. Marshall's Office exercise its authority to “arrest” the Lipodrene® and Stimerex-ES® bottles. Note that this is not a criminal action, nor even a civil action against Hi-Tech, but a civil action against the actual Lipodrene® and Stimerex-ES® inventory so that it could be “arrested” and taken into custody.

To prevent the continued development of this type of arbitrary and capricious behavior on the part of the FDA in complete contravention to the federal court decision in April 2005 in which the Honorable Judge Tena Campbell reversed the FDA's ban on ephedra, Hi-Tech filed a challenge against the FDA's ability to regulate ephedra-containing dietary supplements on August 10, 2005.

The case, Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lester M. Crawford, et al., No. 1:05-cv-2083 (Northern District of Georgia), will now likely be before the Court within a few days due to this recent seizure by the FDA in Georgia. Although this action may on the surface appear to be a blow to the rights of consumers to continue to obtain the benefits of Lipodrene® and Stimerex-ES®, the reality is that Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals is actually pleased that the action in Georgia was taken, because it provides Hi-Tech with the mechanism to move our case more quickly before the Court to ensure that this type of FDA misconduct, both directly and through its “pawn” regulatory agencies at the state and local level, does not happen again with our ephedra-containing products. Hi-Tech will be filing a Preliminary Injunction motion on February 27^th, 2006.

It is quite noteworthy that the FDA had not taken any action directly against Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals in regard to the manufacturing and selling of our Lipodrene® and Stimerex-ES®, even though the FDA routinely visits our facility in Norcross, Georgia, consistent with its purview authority of all dietary supplement companies. This lack of action squarely dismisses their own allegations that ephedra is dangerous! 

Hi-Tech will continue to sell, manufacture, and distribute Lipodrene® and Stimerex-ES® and many other dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. All retailers should understand that the Honorable Judge Tena Campbell's ruling in Utah made the following determinations:

1) The 2004 Final Rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), which declared dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids illegal, has been ruled invalid. This means dietary supplements containing ephedra are currently legal again.
           
2) The matter has been remanded back to the FDA for further rule-making consistent with the court's opinion.

              Hi-Tech has always maintained that dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids are safe and effective when used as directed on our labels. Lipodrene® and Stimerex-ES® contain 25mg ephedrine group alkaloids per tablet. We recommend taking two tablets daily - not to exceed four tablets within a 24-hour period, or 100mg per day, which is consistent with the FDA's own safety parameters for the consumption of ephedrine.

              In addition, this ruling has been significant for the dietary supplement industry, in general. The Court's Order makes clear that the FDA must comply with the current law, as explicitly written in DSHEA. If the inappropriate standard that the FDA had applied in regard to ephedra-containing dietary supplements (supplements are defined as “food” under DSHEA) had been upheld, other foods, such as potato chips, could potentially have been banned.

            We will remain steadfast in our position and continue to fight the David vs. Goliath battle. This is an excellent example of the FDA trying to intimidate a small, dietary supplement company, like Hi-Tech, from legally selling dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids, irrespective of the Federal Court’s ruling in Utah to the contrary. We stand behind the safety and efficacy of our products, and we look forward to our day in court.

See the ruling here in PDF format.

SALT LAKE CITY—A U.S. District Court judge declared the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ephedra ban unlawful and ordered the agency to reopen its ephedra rulemaking. The April 13 decision from Judge Tena Campbell, U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Central Division, stems from a lawsuit filed in May 2004 by Nutraceutical Corp. against the agency.

Nutraceutical Corp. is the parent company of Solaray, which manufactures an ephedra dietary supplement (EDS) with no more than 10 mg of naturally occurring ephedrine alkaloids per serving. In its original complaint, Nutraceutical alleged FDA failed to prove ephedra presented a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury at every dose level, and that the agency’s use of a risk-benefit ratio in determining whether ephedra posed an unreasonable risk was in violation of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

In her decision, Campbell examined the process FDA took in releasing the final April 2004 ban on EDS, which dates back to the early 1990s. In making the final rule, FDA considered evidence on the pharmacology of ephedrine alkaloids, peer reviewed scientific literature, adverse event reports (AERs) and expert reviews of the scientific evidence. In issuing its ban, FDA concluded the benefits did not outweigh the risks of EDS and could not determine a safe intake level; therefore, all EDS were found to pose an unreasonable risk.

However, Campbell found the agency erred in using a risk-benefit analysis, noting “dietary supplements are not classified on the basis of a risk-benefit analysis ... [and] FDA’s requirement that EDS demonstrate a benefit is contrary to the clear intent of Congress.” In addition, after a review of the scientific evidence, Campbell concluded it did not support the conclusion that a dose of 10 mg per day of EDS presented a significant or unreasonable risk. “A negative inference is different from the affirmative proof required,” she wrote. “The statue requires an affirmative demonstration of ‘significant or unreasonable’ risk at a particular dose level to support a finding of adulteration.”

Campbell ordered FDA to reopen its ephedra rulemaking and adopt a dose-dependent toxicity analysis, and enjoined FDA from taking any enforcement action against Solaray’s sale of its EDS containing 10 mg or less of ephedrine alkaloids.

Jonathan Emord, the lead attorney for Nutraceutical, said the company was “delighted” with the judge’s decision and believes it was the correct legal analysis. Emord noted the judge’s ruling that FDA cannot take enforcement action against the Solaray EDS is company-specific, but other companies supplying EDS with similar or lower levels of ephedrine alkaloids could argue that their products are equivalent.

The National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) issued a member alert, noting that while the decision appears to permit sales of low-dose EDS, the issue is far from over. “It is important to remember this decision does not undo state laws, nor does it alter the ban established by FDA in the federal rule against dosages in excess of 10 mg,” said David Seckman, NNFA’s executive director and chief executive officer. “However, an important effect of this decision is that it does challenge FDA’s risk/benefit safety analysis test, which most industry members agreed was inappropriate under DSHEA.”

The American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) responded to the ruling by advising its members against reintroducing ephedra products to the market. In a press release, AHPA’s executive committee cautioned against broad interpretations of the ruling and suggested the industry not act until FDA clarifies its intentions in response to the ruling.

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) echoed the sentiment that the court ruling is a mere first step, and it is too soon to tell how FDA will proceed. “This ruling applies only to a specific segment of the ephedra dietary supplement market and should not be misinterpreted as a complete overturn of the ephedra ban, nor should anyone leap to inappropriate conclusions about what this means for DSHEA,” said Steven Mister, president of CRN.

Kim Rawlings, a spokeswoman for FDA, told INSIDER the agency is currently evaluating the court’s decision. FDA does have the option to appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

....dietary supplements are regulated as a subset of foods unless the supplement producers make disease claims that bring the supplements within the definition of a drug....Accordingly, dietary supplement manufacturers are not required to produce evidence of product safety and efficacy before marketing their products. Additionally, the DSHEA [the governing law] does not require dietary supplement manufacturers to comply with the post-market product safety monitoring or reporting requirements that the FDCA [Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act] requires for drugs. The FDA relies on voluntary studies, voluntarily reported adverse event reports ("AERs"), and other data to identify potential safety problems associated with dietary supplements.
 

Warnings: Not suitable for those who are pregnant or nursing, or are at risk or are being treated for high blood pressure, heart, liver thyroid or psychiatric disease, diabetes pernicious anemia, nervousness, headache, anxiety, depression, seizure disorder, stroke or difficulty in urination due to prostate enlargement. Consult your health care professional before use if you are taking mao inhibitor or any other prescription drug. Discontinue use and consult your health care professional if dizziness sleeplessness, tremors, nervousness, headache, heart palpitations or tingling sensations occur. Not intended for use for persons under the age of 18.


SUGGESTED USE FROM A PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE:

All ephedra diet supplements are good as long as the ECA stack is in the following amounts per serving:

If you forget to take a dose and there is only 3 to 4 hours left before bedtime, then we recommend Pure Ephedrene or Ephedra 850 as these do not contain caffeine that prolongs the ephedra effects for 6 to 8 hours.  If your body begins to get used to the effects of any of our 20 - 25mgs ephedra stacks, then taking one pill along with Stacker 2 Lite will help as it contains only 12.5mgs of ephedra.  For instance, take 1 pill of Stacker 2 or 3 plus 1 Stacker 2 Lite for a combined total of 37.5mgs instead of 2 pills of Stacker 2 or 3 for a total of 50mgs.  Go for the smaller and safer increment of dose.

SCIENCE SUPPORTING THE CLAIMS:

The safety and efficacy of a mixture of ephedrine (75-150mg), caffeine (150mg) and aspirin (330mg), in divided premeal doses, were investigated in 24 obese humans (mean BMI 37.0) in a randomized double blind placebo-controlled trial. Energy intake was not restricted. Overall weight loss over 8 weeks was 2.2kg (4.85Lbs) for ECA vs. 0.7kg (1.54Lbs) for placebo (p < 0.05). 8 of 13 placebo subjects returned 5 months later and received ECA in an unblinded crossover. After 8 weeks, mean weight loss with ECA was 3.2kg (7.05 Lbs.) vs 1.3 kg (for placebo (p = 0.036). 6 subjects continued on ECA for 7 to 26 months. After 5 months on ECA, average weight loss in 5 of these was 5.2kg (11.46Lbs) compared to 0.03kg (0.07Lbs) gained during 5 months between studies with no intervention (p = 0.03). The sixth subject lost 66kg (145.50Lbs) over 13 months by self-imposed caloric restriction. In all studies, no significant changes in heart rate, blood pressure, blood glucose, insulin, and cholesterol levels, and no differences in the frequency of side effects were found. ECA in these doses is thus well tolerated in otherwise healthy obese subjects, and supports modest, sustained weight loss even without prescribed caloric restriction, and may be more effective in conjunction with restriction of energy intake.

WHAT STUDIES SHOW:

Chronic administration of aspirin to obese mice had no effect on energy balance and body composition. In contrast, ephedrine increased energy expenditure by 9% and reduced body weight and body fat by 18% and 50%, respectively: obesity, however, was reduced but not reversed. In the presence of both ephedrine and aspirin, increase in energy expenditure found during treatment with ephedrine alone was doubled, and the obese group lost greater than 75% of body fat: obesity was reversed. These studies indicate that although aspirin administered alone has no influence on energy balance it can markedly potentiate thermogenic properties of ephedrine, effects which led to a normalization of body composition of the obese to that of the lean. Such ephedrine-aspirin mixtures, often found in over-the-counter preparations for asthma and bronchial disorders, could be put to new use as aids for treatment of human obesity.
 

IS EPHEDRINE REALLY SAFE ?

Ernie and Pat Bechler, who testified at the recent congressional hearings on ephedra, blame the herbal stimulant for the death of their son, Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler, during spring training last February. So does Bechler’s widow, who has filed a lawsuit seeking $600 million in damages from the manufacturer and distributor of Xenadrine, an ephedra-based diet aid found in the 23-year-old baseball player’s locker.
As one of Bechler’s teammates put it, ‘‘Someone has to be held responsible for a young kid dying like that.’’ But the rush to condemn ephedra, which the Food and Drug Administration and members of Congress have threatened to ban, is not justified by the evidence.
Bechler, who died of heatstroke, was overweight, had high blood pressure and abnormal liver function, and was exercising hard in hot, humid Florida weather to which he was not acclimated. Broward County Medical Examiner Joshua Perper concluded that ‘‘the toxicity of ephedra played a significant role in the death of Mr. Bechler, although it’s impossible to define mathematically the contribution of each one of the factors in his unfortunate death due to heatstroke.’’
Perper added, ‘‘I am not saying (ephedra) was the triggering factor, because I cannot identify the triggering factor. You have here a constellation of factors working together.’’
But if ephedra was not ‘‘the triggering factor,’’ it’s possible that Bechler would still be dead even if he hadn’t consumed the stimulant. That was the conclusion reached by the renowned forensic pathologist Michael Baden, whom Xenadrine’s manufacturer asked to review the case.
‘‘The coincidental toxicologic finding of ephedrine, which is not known to produce heat stroke, in my opinion should not have been linked to the death by the medical examiner,’’ Baden wrote in a letter to the House committee that heard testimony from Bechler’s parents. ‘‘It is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, . . . that Xenadrine did not cause or contribute to Mr. Bechler’s death.’’
The Bechler case illustrates the peril of leaping to conclusions when someone dies after consuming an ephedra product. News reports frequently assert that ‘‘more than 100 deaths’’ have been ‘‘linked’’ to ephedra. Yet a RAND Corporation study of all the ‘‘adverse event’’ reports in the FDA’s files and in the medical literature that were available as of Sept. 30 found only two fatalities where there was an attempt to rule out other factors.
RAND also identified ‘‘four myocardial infarctions, nine cerebrovascular accidents, one seizure, and three psychiatric cases’’ that fell into the same category. Even in such cases, the FDA concedes, the reports ‘‘may indicate a safety problem but do not prove that ephedra caused the adverse event. ... Other unmeasured factors may have contributed, and such serious adverse events are likely to happen (albeit at very low rates) among the millions of users of ephedra anyway.’’
With an estimated 12 million to 17 million Americans taking something like 3 billion doses of ephedra products a year, FDA Administrator Mark McClellan admits, ‘‘serious adverse events from ephedra appear to be infrequent.’’ That point is underlined by data from the federal government’s Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), which indicate that two deaths, or even 100, over a decade would not make ephedra stand out on a list of drugs mentioned by medical examiners.
In 1999, the last year for which nationwide totals were reported by drug, DAWN counted 811 mentions for Valium, 641 for Benadryl, 427 for Tylenol, 305 for Prozac, and 104 for aspirin. No drug is completely safe, but ephedra seems considerably safer than many popular over-the-counter remedies and prescription drugs.
The ephedra industry is vulnerable partly because it depends on a loophole in federal law that allows ‘‘dietary supplements,’’ including ‘‘herbs,’’ to be sold without the FDA approval required for pharmaceuticals. Hence manufacturers have to pretend their product is not a drug. This legalistic maneuver gives consumers a bit more freedom to self-medicate, but it also raises unreasonable expectations about safety.
The dietary supplement route is not the only way for a psychoactive substance to escape regulation as a drug. Coffee is considered a food, for example, even though it contains caffeine. Indeed, the manufacturer of NoDoz, which is considered a drug, reassures consumers by telling them the caffeine pill is ‘‘safe as coffee.’’
It’s too bad for the ephedra industry that ‘‘Mormon tea,’’ an ephedra brew that Mormons used to drink instead of beverages containing caffeine, never really caught on.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor with Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist. His column publishes on Saturday.

With the recent steroid use controversy among MLB players, who knows what else played a role in his untimely death?

The report, to be published in the medical journal The Lancet, shows that obese women and female smokers have shorter cellular structures known as telomeres.

Telomeres are found at the ends of chromosomes and become shorter every time a cell divides. Once their telomeres reach a critically short length, cells are no longer able to divide and some die as a result.

Therefore scientists have suggested a link between aging cells with shorter telomeres, and the wrinkled skin and immune system decline that come naturally with aging.

Read more here

A number of recent academic studies, presented at the recent AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research, provide worrying reading for the food industry, and present regulators with another headache.

"Given the trends in obesity and the increasing evidence of a broad range of cancers caused by excess energy balance, the projected burden of cancer over the coming years is worrisome," said Graham Colditz, professor of epidemiology with the Harvard School of Public Health.

The food industry is already taking a lot of the heat. The recent introduction of nutritional guidelines in the UK has led to the banning of soft drinks and high-fat snacks from vending machines in schools, while France has banned such machines from schools altogether.

Read more here.

The risk of dying from prostate cancer is doubled if the sufferer is carrying too much weight, according to research published today. Doctors compared the chances of survival of 788 patients against their body mass index - the measure of obesity that takes into account weight and height. Within five years of diagnosis, the prostate cancer death rate for men with a normal BMI - 25 or under - was less than 7 per cent against 13 per cent for men with a BMI over 25.

Cancer campaigners said the findings were of "great concern" in the light of the growing obesity crisis. Every year nearly 35,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer in Britain and 10,000 men die from it. It is the most common cancer diagnosed in men, with at least one person dying from the disease every hour. Many more are thought to have the disease without realising it. Dr Jason Efstathiou and colleagues from Massachusetts General Hospital, in Boston, studied 788 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer - the form where the cancer has spread outside the prostate gland. Overall, men who were moderately fat - with a BMI of between 25 and 30 - were 1.5 times more likely to die from their cancer than those with a "normal" BMI of 25, Dr Efstathiou found.

Obese men, those with a BMI higher than 30, were 1.6 times more likely to die from their disease, the researchers report in the journal Cancer. Body mass index is measured by taking someone's weight in kilograms and dividing it by the square of their height in metres. Dr Efstathiou, whose team took into account other reasons why the cancer is more deadly for fat men, such as their income, social background and general health, said it was unclear whether losing weight after being diagnosed would alter the course of the disease. Approximately 12,000 men are diagnosed with locally advanced prostate cancer in Britain each year.

Treatments for prostate cancer include the complete surgical removal of the prostate, radiation and hormonal therapy. The Prostate Cancer Charity called for more studies into the link between obesity and post-treatment survival. Ingrid Spickett, senior nurse at the charity said: "This large scale study is of great concern considering the rising levels of obesity here in the UK. "We now need to ask what impact these men's particular treatments may have had on their survival and whether there other factors such as poor diet and lack of exercise may play a role. "We also need more studies to see whether the same is true of men who are diagnosed with localised prostate cancer and men who have different treatments." Earlier this month, a major study from the World Cancer Research Fund highlighted the links between diet, obesity and cancer. Some nutrients - including selenium and lycopene, found in tomatoes - can protect against the disease.

THURSDAY, April 6 (HealthDay News) -- People who are overweight or obese in their 40s have a greater risk of developing Alzheimer's disease later in life, a new study suggests.

"The implication is that keeping a healthy weight in middle age is linked to good outcomes in old age," said study author Rachel A. Whitmer, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California.

Whitmer and other researchers are finding increasing evidence that Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia are often linked to physical, and sometimes preventable, causes.

"There has been a whole bunch of recent evidence that being overweight is bad for the brain," she said.

Even when compensating for common health problems that can contribute to Alzheimer's, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, fat itself seemed to play a surprisingly important role in the development of the brain disease, Whitmer said.

The new findings were to be presented Wednesday at the American Academy of Neurology annual meeting, in San Diego.

Whitmer's research is part of a larger study, started in 1964, that followed nearly 9,000 Kaiser Permanente patients for up to 30 years. The participants were evaluated by measuring the thickness of skin folds both below the shoulder and at the back of the upper arm.

Those with the thickest shoulder measurements were nearly three times as likely to develop Alzheimer's disease as those in the lowest group. For arm measurements, those in the highest group were two and a half times as likely to develop the disease.

Whitmer said future studies are needed to examine the molecular mechanisms that seem to link obesity and Alzheimer's disease.

Maria Carrillo, director of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer's Association, said the findings aren't surprising.

She suggested that overweight people aren't as physically fit, so arteries can get clogged and restrict blood flow. And, she added, overweight people are probably not eating right. "Studies have shown that healthy eating can contribute to brain health," Carrillo said.

Alzheimer's disease is at epidemic proportions, Carrillo said, with 4.5 million Americans diagnosed now. As the population ages and people live longer, that number is expected to increase to 16 million by 2050.

More information

To learn more, visit the Alzheimer's Association.

The European Medicines Agency (EMEA) said it was recommending that anyone taking anti-depressants or suffering ongoing major depression should not take rimonabant, which is sold under the brand name Acomplia.

About 41,000 patients in the UK have been treated with rimonabant since it was launched here in June 2006.

The Department of Health's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said it had received reports of psychiatric reactions to Acomplia in the UK.

"Three hundred and sixty-four (364) psychiatric reactions have been reported," it said. "Amongst these, there have been 48 reports of depression, 16 reports of suicidal thoughts and one report of self-injury."

It said evidence suggested one in 10 people who take Acomplia may develop psychiatric side effects.

"Approximately one patient in every 100 may experience suicidal thoughts."

Last month, a committee advising the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States voted to ban the drug because of an increased risk of suicide.

You can read the complete article here!