FDA Is Worried About Cough Syrup

The Food and Drug Administration is about to revise regulations on over-the-counter children's cough syrup. The FDA's review may even lead to the disappearance of the drugs from store shelves, making them available only via prescription.

The trouble, it seems, is twofold. First, the stuff doesn't work. Second, it may cause some unwanted side effects (which makes me wonder if you can call something a "side effect" if it doesn't actually have a primary effect...). Side effects include hallucinations (cool!), seizures (not cool), trouble breathing (very bad), heart problems (uh oh), and death (very not cool and very bad).

In response to an FDA-panel report back in October 2007, drug companies yanked all cough medicines for kids 2 and under off the shelves. The FDA let the companies keep selling the drugs for children older than that, however, despite the fact that the panel had determined that there was no evidence that the medicines actually worked.

The FDA had declined to stop the sale of the drugs, even though averse reactions to cough medicines led to over 7,000 ER visits, two-thirds of which involved children aged 2-5. The panel agreed that the drugs don't do any good for children age 6-11 either, but a majority of the panel members thought that parents "wouldn't have any good alternatives" (translation: It would be bad if drug companies would stop making money from this worthless and sometimes harmful product).

How were the companies able to push these harmful products for so long? It turns out that the drugs were first put on the market before proper drug testing was the norm, and then got grandfathered in. And then, hey, people were buying hundreds of millions of dollars of them a year, so what was the problem?

What's a worried dad (or mom) to do? Try a teaspoon of buckwheat honey (but not in children under 12 months as it may cause botulism in infants).

Are we worried enough?

A new report by some Israeli people in white coats has some interesting findings about worrying. Researchers claim that people in their 40s and 50s who worry a lot about their problems (at home and/or at work), had a significantly lower likelihood of dementia in their 80s. How much lower? How does 42% lower (than the care-free) grab you? The benefits were proportionately reduced the less you worried.

Great. Now I'm worried that if I don't worry too much I'm going to lose the bits of my mind that haven't been nuked by my cell phone.

Cell phones = death?

I was chatting with a friend the other day. I told her I wasn't getting good reception.

Her: "Your talking on a cell phone?!!!! I hope you're using one of those wireless sets."

Me: "Uh, oh."

I had stopped worrying about the whole cell phones cause brain cancer thing a while back when some pretty definitive sounding studies by people in white coats determined that there was no evidence of causation between cell phone use and brain tumors, brain cancer, or brain farts.

But now the world is abuzz with worry thanks to a memo from some guy to his staff warning them not to use their cellphones without those annoying earbud things because of the potential cancer risk. Turns out the guy, Ronald B. Herberman, is director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. Okay, he couldn't get a job at Harvard, but it's still pretty official sounding.

According to the memo: "Recently I have become aware of the growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer," Dr. Ronald Herberman said in the memorandum. "Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use."

He says that children, especially, should have their exposure to cellphones limited because their brains are still developing.

I have to admit that the last bit makes me wonder if this whole thing isn't an elaborate ruse to get his kids to stop running up his cell phone bill...

Low Fat and Skim Milk Does a Body Bad

Cinderalla wants a little sibling to kick around. This means that the Wife and I have to think about reproduction. Fertility = worry times 1 gazillion.

Turns out, according to people in white coats at Harvard, drinking less than full fat milk can reduce fertility. In an 8-year study of over 18,000 women between the ages of 24-42 (married, premenopausal with no history of infertility), those

who ate more than two portions a day of low fat dairy foods were 85 per cent more likely to be infertile due to ovulatory disorders than those who only ate it less than once a week.

Conversely they found that women who ate full-fat dairy foods, including ice cream, more than once per day had a 25 per cent reduced risk of infertility due to ovulatory disorders compared to those who ate full-fat dairy foods only once a week

The authors concluded that women trying to get pregnant should increase their intake of full-fat dairy, but keep their overall calorie intake the same. Good luck with that!

Other white coated people who couldn't get a job at Harvard have also done similarly huge studies of men and reported that men with diets heavy in low-fat dairy show a higher malignancy risk of prostate cancer compared with those who consume more full-fat dairy.