http://community.bewell.com/service/getFeed.kickAction?quantity=25 New blogs from DarshakSanghaviMD on BeWell Community Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:59:16 GMT Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:59:16 GMT community@bewell.com (bewelladmin) community@bewell.com (bewelladmin) KickApps Feed Builder 2009-09-22T14:59:16Z 10 http://community.bewell.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?as=142833&sortType=recent 0 http://community.bewell.com/_Prescription-for-School-Success/BLOG/1692014/142833.html Suprisingly, many young children experiencing trouble in school might simply have trouble with proper vision. That's why a basic eye exam, even for preschool children, is important to ensure success in the early school years. Generally, many pediatricians perform basic vision screening at their annual checkups, and parents should make sure that happens. Be well! Suprisingly, many young children experiencing trouble in school might simply have trouble with proper vision. That's why a basic eye exam, even for preschool children, is important to ensure success in the early school years. Generally, many pediatricians perform basic vision screening at their annual checkups, and parents should make sure that happens. Be well! Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:59:16 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Prescription-for-School-Success/BLOG/1692014/142833.html DarshakSanghaviMD 2009-09-22T14:59:16Z BeWell Community Suprisingly, many young children experiencing trouble in school might simply have trouble with proper vision. That's why a basic eye exam, even for preschool children, is important to ensure success in the early school years. Generally, many pediatricians perform basic vision screening at their annual checkups, and parents should make sure that happens. Be well! nonadult false Prescription for School Success text blog 147 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19063475&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/DarshakSanghaviMD_142833_1262294106171_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1692014 19063475 Member 365 http://community.bewell.com/_Choosing-the-Best-Safest-Bath-Products-for-Your-Baby/BLOG/1692013/142833.html These days, parents often feel overwhelmed when trying to select products that are safe for babies, especially with the occasional news story or study that suggests some items may contain cancer-causing chemicals. Here's a brief Q & A to help you decide whether you really need to worry, and what products might be best bets for your little one.\ A quick note: I don't have any commercial or financial relationships with any of the companies and products mentioned below. Shampoos & Body WashesQuestion: At least one recent studies found that some baby bath products contain cancer-causing chemicals, like formaldehyde and dioxane. What should parents look for when purchasing a baby wash?Answer: This is a tough one, since you can’t know for sure which bath soaps have the questionable chemicals, as they aren't listed on the product label. But the good news is the risk of actually harming your baby is really, really tiny. Even so, I give parents two tips: 1) Stick with products from well-known companies, since they usually have good manufacturing standards, and 2) Don’t always assume that organic products are better.   Also, keep in mind that some shampoos containing lavender, tea-tree oil, or placental extracts may cause hormone problems, like breast development in young kids. Two pretty good bets are Aveeno Baby Soothing Bath Treatment—which got the highest rating from one group that issues the report on cancer-causing chemicals in baby bath products—and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Shampoo.    Lotions & PotionsQuestion: What about baby lotions and diaper creams? How do I pick the safest options for my child?Answer:  First, parents should steer clear of powders, since some contain asbestos and can cause lung problems. Honestly, body creams aren't necessary unless your baby has 'atopic dermatitis' or dry skin. In that case, I'd recommend a fragrance- and color-free ointment, preferably one that's mostly oil-based to lock in moisture.  I like Aquaphor and Vaseline Pure Petroleum Jelly.For diaper rash, stay away from corn starch and baking soda, which are folk remedies that actually worsen the problem. Diaper creams containing zinc oxide are considered safe from toxins and usually work well if you remember to slather it on liberally. You don't need something with vitamins or other additives. A good bet is Desitin, which you can also get as a cheap generic in most drugstores. A quick caution: Some diaper creams may contain peanut oil, which can cause babies to develop peanut allergies. ToothpasteQuestion: Are there any dangerous ingredients in baby toothpaste?Answer:  Thankfully, we don't know of any cancer-causing products in toothpaste. That said, kids under six tend to swallow toothpaste, which can cause 'flourosis,' a harmless but unsightly tooth staining affecting one in five kids. Until age three, brush toddler teeth either with just a toothbrush or a fluoride-free toothpaste like Oragel Training Toothpaste, which gets kids used to the taste. Between ages three and six you can use a pea-sized amount of any regular fluoride toothpaste, but parents should supervise kids to make sure they spit it after brushing.    SunscreenQuestion: Are there particular sunscreens that are safer or more effective for babies?Answer:  We don't know if sunscreen chemicals like oxybenzone can harm babies, though we do know they enter a child's bloodstream. For concerned parents, I recommend sunblock -- not sunscreen -- for babies, since they just sit on top of the skin and don't get absorbed into the blood. (To be honest, though, there's still a lot of controversy over this designation.) \ Children under six months should just be dressed in protective clothing. After then, I recommend sunblocks containing only titanium or zinc oxide, like Blue Lizard Australian Suncream or Neutrogena Sunblock for Sensitive Skin SPF 30. These also protect against both UVA and UVB rays, and work immediately instead of needing half-an-hour to activate, like typical sunscreens. These days, parents often feel overwhelmed when trying to select products that are safe for babies, especially with the occasional news story or study that suggests some items may contain cancer-causing chemicals. Here's a brief Q & A to help you decide whether you really need to worry, and what products might be best bets for your little one.\ A quick note: I don't have any commercial or financial relationships with any of the companies and products mentioned below. Shampoos & Body WashesQuestion: At least one recent studies found that some baby bath products contain cancer-causing chemicals, like formaldehyde and dioxane. What should parents look for when purchasing a baby wash?Answer: This is a tough one, since you can’t know for sure which bath soaps have the questionable chemicals, as they aren't listed on the product label. But the good news is the risk of actually harming your baby is really, really tiny. Even so, I give parents two tips: 1) Stick with products from well-known companies, since they usually have good manufacturing standards, and 2) Don’t always assume that organic products are better.   Also, keep in mind that some shampoos containing lavender, tea-tree oil, or placental extracts may cause hormone problems, like breast development in young kids. Two pretty good bets are Aveeno Baby Soothing Bath Treatment—which got the highest rating from one group that issues the report on cancer-causing chemicals in baby bath products—and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Shampoo.    Lotions & PotionsQuestion: What about baby lotions and diaper creams? How do I pick the safest options for my child?Answer:  First, parents should steer clear of powders, since some contain asbestos and can cause lung problems. Honestly, body creams aren't necessary unless your baby has 'atopic dermatitis' or dry skin. In that case, I'd recommend a fragrance- and color-free ointment, preferably one that's mostly oil-based to lock in moisture.  I like Aquaphor and Vaseline Pure Petroleum Jelly.For diaper rash, stay away from corn starch and baking soda, which are folk remedies that actually worsen the problem. Diaper creams containing zinc oxide are considered safe from toxins and usually work well if you remember to slather it on liberally. You don't need something with vitamins or other additives. A good bet is Desitin, which you can also get as a cheap generic in most drugstores. A quick caution: Some diaper creams may contain peanut oil, which can cause babies to develop peanut allergies. ToothpasteQuestion: Are there any dangerous ingredients in baby toothpaste?Answer:  Thankfully, we don't know of any cancer-causing products in toothpaste. That said, kids under six tend to swallow toothpaste, which can cause 'flourosis,' a harmless but unsightly tooth staining affecting one in five kids. Until age three, brush toddler teeth either with just a toothbrush or a fluoride-free toothpaste like Oragel Training Toothpaste, which gets kids used to the taste. Between ages three and six you can use a pea-sized amount of any regular fluoride toothpaste, but parents should supervise kids to make sure they spit it after brushing.    SunscreenQuestion: Are there particular sunscreens that are safer or more effective for babies?Answer:  We don't know if sunscreen chemicals like oxybenzone can harm babies, though we do know they enter a child's bloodstream. For concerned parents, I recommend sunblock -- not sunscreen -- for babies, since they just sit on top of the skin and don't get absorbed into the blood. (To be honest, though, there's still a lot of controversy over this designation.) \ Children under six months should just be dressed in protective clothing. After then, I recommend sunblocks containing only titanium or zinc oxide, like Blue Lizard Australian Suncream or Neutrogena Sunblock for Sensitive Skin SPF 30. These also protect against both UVA and UVB rays, and work immediately instead of needing half-an-hour to activate, like typical sunscreens. Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:27:01 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Choosing-the-Best-Safest-Bath-Products-for-Your-Baby/BLOG/1692013/142833.html DarshakSanghaviMD 2009-07-07T19:27:01Z BeWell Community These days, parents often feel overwhelmed when trying to select products that are safe for babies, especially with the occasional news story or study that suggests some items may contain cancer-causing chemicals. Here's a brief Q & A to help you decide whether you really need to worry, and what products might be best bets for your little one.\ A quick note: I don't have any commercial or financial relationships with any of the companies and products mentioned below. Shampoos & Body WashesQuestion: At least one recent studies found that some baby bath products contain cancer-causing chemicals, like formaldehyde and dioxane. What should parents look for when purchasing a baby wash?Answer: This is a tough one, since you can’t know for sure which bath soaps have the questionable chemicals, as they aren't listed on the product label. But the good news is the risk of actually harming your baby is really, really tiny. Even so, I give parents two tips: 1) Stick with products from well-known companies, since they usually have good manufacturing standards, and 2) Don’t always assume that organic products are better.   Also, keep in mind that some shampoos containing lavender, tea-tree oil, or placental extracts may cause hormone problems, like breast development in young kids. Two pretty good bets are Aveeno Baby Soothing Bath Treatment—which got the highest rating from one group that issues the report on cancer-causing chemicals in baby bath products—and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Shampoo.    Lotions & PotionsQuestion: What about baby lotions and diaper creams? How do I pick the safest options for my child?Answer:  First, parents should steer clear of powders, since some contain asbestos and can cause lung problems. Honestly, body creams aren't necessary unless your baby has 'atopic dermatitis' or dry skin. In that case, I'd recommend a fragrance- and color-free ointment, preferably one that's mostly oil-based to lock in moisture.  I like Aquaphor and Vaseline Pure Petroleum Jelly.For diaper rash, stay away from corn starch and baking soda, which are folk remedies that actually worsen the problem. Diaper creams containing zinc oxide are considered safe from toxins and usually work well if you remember to slather it on liberally. You don't need something with vitamins or other additives. A good bet is Desitin, which you can also get as a cheap generic in most drugstores. A quick caution: Some diaper creams may contain peanut oil, which can cause babies to develop peanut allergies. ToothpasteQuestion: Are there any dangerous ingredients in baby toothpaste?Answer:  Thankfully, we don't know of any cancer-causing products in toothpaste. That said, kids under six tend to swallow toothpaste, which can cause 'flourosis,' a harmless but unsightly tooth staining affecting one in five kids. Until age three, brush toddler teeth either with just a toothbrush or a fluoride-free toothpaste like Oragel Training Toothpaste, which gets kids used to the taste. Between ages three and six you can use a pea-sized amount of any regular fluoride toothpaste, but parents should supervise kids to make sure they spit it after brushing.    SunscreenQuestion: Are there particular sunscreens that are safer or more effective for babies?Answer:  We don't know if sunscreen chemicals like oxybenzone can harm babies, though we do know they enter a child's bloodstream. For concerned parents, I recommend sunblock -- not sunscreen -- for babies, since they just sit on top of the skin and don't get absorbed into the blood. (To be honest, though, there's still a lot of controversy over this designation.) \ Children under six months should just be dressed in protective clothing. After then, I recommend sunblocks containing only titanium or zinc oxide, like Blue Lizard Australian Suncream or Neutrogena Sunblock for Sensitive Skin SPF 30. These also protect against both UVA and UVB rays, and work immediately instead of needing half-an-hour to activate, like typical sunscreens. nonadult false Choosing the Best (& Safest) Bath Products for Your Baby text blog 184 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19063475&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/DarshakSanghaviMD_142833_1262294106171_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1692013 19063475 Member 365 http://community.bewell.com/_Screening-newborns-for-broken-hearts/BLOG/1692012/142833.html Recently, I've become convinced that we need to do a better job to check newborns for potentially fatal heart defects. The best part is, the test is essentially free and available already at every hospital in the country. It's called 'pulse oximetry' and I wrote a about it in guest blog post for Tara Parker-Pope's health blog at the New York Times. You can read more at http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/saving-babies-with-broken-hearts/ and that post includes links to the original studies, if you're looking for details. Here's the text:In the middle of one night in August, a seemingly healthy 1-week-old infant named Ryan Olson suddenly began gasping for breath at home in Massachusetts, and his frantic parents rushed him to the hospital. There, emergency room doctors noted the critically ill baby had bluish feet and — even more worrisome — no pulse in his lower body. That almost certainly meant the boy had a “coarctation,” or blockage of his aorta, which is the key pipeline supplying oxygen-rich blood to the body. As the on-call pediatric cardiologist, I was urgently called in to help out.Ryan’s story isn’t that unusual, and I’ve seen half a dozen similar children recently. A few months ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the infant mortality rate in the United States was 6.71 per 1,000 live births, which was widely reported as being higher than other developed countries. Birth defects, especially involving the heart, are an important cause of these deaths. In October, researchers studying infant deaths over the past 16 years in California reported that hundreds of American infants like my patient probably die each year due to missed — but treatable — congenital heart defects.How can we identify these normal-appearing newborns before they leave the hospital, become critically ill like my patient and perhaps die?Traditionally, prospective mothers have prenatal sonograms to look for birth defects. But the quality of these scans varies widely, depending on the skill of the technician and the supervising doctor. In addition, current guidelines supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists mandate only a limited “four-chamber view” of the heart. As a result, a 1998 study from Southwestern Medical School in Texas reported that only one-quarter of major heart defects are identified prenatally.Unfortunately, when heart defects are missed by prenatal ultrasounds, pediatricians also have a hard time telling if critical cardiac problems are present. Normally, doctors examining newborns suspect heart defects if they hear a loud rushing noise (a “murmur”) with a stethoscope, notice the child has a bluish color, or lacks a pulse in the lower extremities. But in 1999, British researchers found that half of serious heart defects were missed by routine exams after birth. If sent home, these newborns become seriously ill.Folic acid can prevent up to 50 percent of many heart defects, but only if taken for about two months prior to conception. Because most pregnancies are unplanned, the C.D.C. recommends that all menstruating women should take a daily multivitamin.What’s needed is a large-scale formal screening program, similar to mammography or colonoscopy to identify at-risk individuals. We already do this to identify newborns with certain hidden but deadly conditions. For example, most state health departments currently analyze a few blood drops taken from a baby’s foot and check for certain genetic problems like phenylketonuria (PKU) and galactosemia, which are treated with special diets to prevent developmental problems.Recently, researchers have identified a promising new method called pulse oximetry to screen all babies for heart defects. Taped briefly to a newborn’s foot, a small sensor painlessly beams red light through the foot and measures how much oxygen is in the blood. It takes about a minute. (Picture E.T. the extra-terrestrial’s finger lighting up, and you get the idea.) If the screening test is abnormal, doctors perform a confirmatory ultrasound of the heart. Last year, Norwegian doctors published one of the largest clinical trials of this strategy, and checked half of all babies born in the country.The results were impressive. Within a few hours of birth, pulse oximetry detected three-quarters of critical heart defects that had been previously missed. For every 2,000 newborns screened with the toe light, roughly one with a critical heart defect might have been prevented from going home. The cost-benefit ratio compares favorably to current practices of newborn screening for PKU and hypothyroidism. In January, Swedish doctors published an even more methodical study of almost 40,000 newborns, and showed that oximetry entirely eliminated death from missed critical cardiac defects.Of course, as with any screening, the technique may miss some defects and also involves some unnecessary, though benign, testing of normal children. But these false positive rates were low (only about one in 1,000 in the Swedish study) and triggered only about two instances of extra, noninvasive testing for every serious heart defect that was picked up. Many parents and doctors caring for children with critical heart defects subscribe to some variant of the “1 percent doctrine.” If there is even a small chance of catastrophe — like the sudden death of a newborn — they feel justified to push for preemptive action, especially when it’s a harmless and inexpensive screening test.While the screening test is not done routinely in the United States, some hospitals have adopted it, mostly in Texas and Florida, where some small trials have been conducted. But parents can ask doctors to screen their babies for heart defects using pulse oximetry. It’s essentially free since it needs no specialized equipment other than the oximeter, which is present in every hospital already. A specialized doctor isn’t needed; the test is quite simple, and a nurse can do it if the pediatrician orders it anytime after birth, but before discharge from the hospital. Hopefully they won’t mind doing it. Personally, I do think parents should request it. I did for my kids.Fortunately, Ryan, the baby I was urgently called to treat, had his heart surgery last summer and is doing well now. I see him every few months in clinic. Recently, I've become convinced that we need to do a better job to check newborns for potentially fatal heart defects. The best part is, the test is essentially free and available already at every hospital in the country. It's called 'pulse oximetry' and I wrote a about it in guest blog post for Tara Parker-Pope's health blog at the New York Times. You can read more at http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/saving-babies-with-broken-hearts/ and that post includes links to the original studies, if you're looking for details. Here's the text:In the middle of one night in August, a seemingly healthy 1-week-old infant named Ryan Olson suddenly began gasping for breath at home in Massachusetts, and his frantic parents rushed him to the hospital. There, emergency room doctors noted the critically ill baby had bluish feet and — even more worrisome — no pulse in his lower body. That almost certainly meant the boy had a “coarctation,” or blockage of his aorta, which is the key pipeline supplying oxygen-rich blood to the body. As the on-call pediatric cardiologist, I was urgently called in to help out.Ryan’s story isn’t that unusual, and I’ve seen half a dozen similar children recently. A few months ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the infant mortality rate in the United States was 6.71 per 1,000 live births, which was widely reported as being higher than other developed countries. Birth defects, especially involving the heart, are an important cause of these deaths. In October, researchers studying infant deaths over the past 16 years in California reported that hundreds of American infants like my patient probably die each year due to missed — but treatable — congenital heart defects.How can we identify these normal-appearing newborns before they leave the hospital, become critically ill like my patient and perhaps die?Traditionally, prospective mothers have prenatal sonograms to look for birth defects. But the quality of these scans varies widely, depending on the skill of the technician and the supervising doctor. In addition, current guidelines supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists mandate only a limited “four-chamber view” of the heart. As a result, a 1998 study from Southwestern Medical School in Texas reported that only one-quarter of major heart defects are identified prenatally.Unfortunately, when heart defects are missed by prenatal ultrasounds, pediatricians also have a hard time telling if critical cardiac problems are present. Normally, doctors examining newborns suspect heart defects if they hear a loud rushing noise (a “murmur”) with a stethoscope, notice the child has a bluish color, or lacks a pulse in the lower extremities. But in 1999, British researchers found that half of serious heart defects were missed by routine exams after birth. If sent home, these newborns become seriously ill.Folic acid can prevent up to 50 percent of many heart defects, but only if taken for about two months prior to conception. Because most pregnancies are unplanned, the C.D.C. recommends that all menstruating women should take a daily multivitamin.What’s needed is a large-scale formal screening program, similar to mammography or colonoscopy to identify at-risk individuals. We already do this to identify newborns with certain hidden but deadly conditions. For example, most state health departments currently analyze a few blood drops taken from a baby’s foot and check for certain genetic problems like phenylketonuria (PKU) and galactosemia, which are treated with special diets to prevent developmental problems.Recently, researchers have identified a promising new method called pulse oximetry to screen all babies for heart defects. Taped briefly to a newborn’s foot, a small sensor painlessly beams red light through the foot and measures how much oxygen is in the blood. It takes about a minute. (Picture E.T. the extra-terrestrial’s finger lighting up, and you get the idea.) If the screening test is abnormal, doctors perform a confirmatory ultrasound of the heart. Last year, Norwegian doctors published one of the largest clinical trials of this strategy, and checked half of all babies born in the country.The results were impressive. Within a few hours of birth, pulse oximetry detected three-quarters of critical heart defects that had been previously missed. For every 2,000 newborns screened with the toe light, roughly one with a critical heart defect might have been prevented from going home. The cost-benefit ratio compares favorably to current practices of newborn screening for PKU and hypothyroidism. In January, Swedish doctors published an even more methodical study of almost 40,000 newborns, and showed that oximetry entirely eliminated death from missed critical cardiac defects.Of course, as with any screening, the technique may miss some defects and also involves some unnecessary, though benign, testing of normal children. But these false positive rates were low (only about one in 1,000 in the Swedish study) and triggered only about two instances of extra, noninvasive testing for every serious heart defect that was picked up. Many parents and doctors caring for children with critical heart defects subscribe to some variant of the “1 percent doctrine.” If there is even a small chance of catastrophe — like the sudden death of a newborn — they feel justified to push for preemptive action, especially when it’s a harmless and inexpensive screening test.While the screening test is not done routinely in the United States, some hospitals have adopted it, mostly in Texas and Florida, where some small trials have been conducted. But parents can ask doctors to screen their babies for heart defects using pulse oximetry. It’s essentially free since it needs no specialized equipment other than the oximeter, which is present in every hospital already. A specialized doctor isn’t needed; the test is quite simple, and a nurse can do it if the pediatrician orders it anytime after birth, but before discharge from the hospital. Hopefully they won’t mind doing it. Personally, I do think parents should request it. I did for my kids.Fortunately, Ryan, the baby I was urgently called to treat, had his heart surgery last summer and is doing well now. I see him every few months in clinic. Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:25:50 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Screening-newborns-for-broken-hearts/BLOG/1692012/142833.html DarshakSanghaviMD 2009-04-15T00:25:50Z BeWell Community Recently, I've become convinced that we need to do a better job to check newborns for potentially fatal heart defects. The best part is, the test is essentially free and available already at every hospital in the country. It's called 'pulse oximetry' and I wrote a about it in guest blog post for Tara Parker-Pope's health blog at the New York Times. You can read more at http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/saving-babies-with-broken-hearts/ and that post includes links to the original studies, if you're looking for details. Here's the text:In the middle of one night in August, a seemingly healthy 1-week-old infant named Ryan Olson suddenly began gasping for breath at home in Massachusetts, and his frantic parents rushed him to the hospital. There, emergency room doctors noted the critically ill baby had bluish feet and — even more worrisome — no pulse in his lower body. That almost certainly meant the boy had a “coarctation,” or blockage of his aorta, which is the key pipeline supplying oxygen-rich blood to the body. As the on-call pediatric cardiologist, I was urgently called in to help out.Ryan’s story isn’t that unusual, and I’ve seen half a dozen similar children recently. A few months ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the infant mortality rate in the United States was 6.71 per 1,000 live births, which was widely reported as being higher than other developed countries. Birth defects, especially involving the heart, are an important cause of these deaths. In October, researchers studying infant deaths over the past 16 years in California reported that hundreds of American infants like my patient probably die each year due to missed — but treatable — congenital heart defects.How can we identify these normal-appearing newborns before they leave the hospital, become critically ill like my patient and perhaps die?Traditionally, prospective mothers have prenatal sonograms to look for birth defects. But the quality of these scans varies widely, depending on the skill of the technician and the supervising doctor. In addition, current guidelines supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists mandate only a limited “four-chamber view” of the heart. As a result, a 1998 study from Southwestern Medical School in Texas reported that only one-quarter of major heart defects are identified prenatally.Unfortunately, when heart defects are missed by prenatal ultrasounds, pediatricians also have a hard time telling if critical cardiac problems are present. Normally, doctors examining newborns suspect heart defects if they hear a loud rushing noise (a “murmur”) with a stethoscope, notice the child has a bluish color, or lacks a pulse in the lower extremities. But in 1999, British researchers found that half of serious heart defects were missed by routine exams after birth. If sent home, these newborns become seriously ill.Folic acid can prevent up to 50 percent of many heart defects, but only if taken for about two months prior to conception. Because most pregnancies are unplanned, the C.D.C. recommends that all menstruating women should take a daily multivitamin.What’s needed is a large-scale formal screening program, similar to mammography or colonoscopy to identify at-risk individuals. We already do this to identify newborns with certain hidden but deadly conditions. For example, most state health departments currently analyze a few blood drops taken from a baby’s foot and check for certain genetic problems like phenylketonuria (PKU) and galactosemia, which are treated with special diets to prevent developmental problems.Recently, researchers have identified a promising new method called pulse oximetry to screen all babies for heart defects. Taped briefly to a newborn’s foot, a small sensor painlessly beams red light through the foot and measures how much oxygen is in the blood. It takes about a minute. (Picture E.T. the extra-terrestrial’s finger lighting up, and you get the idea.) If the screening test is abnormal, doctors perform a confirmatory ultrasound of the heart. Last year, Norwegian doctors published one of the largest clinical trials of this strategy, and checked half of all babies born in the country.The results were impressive. Within a few hours of birth, pulse oximetry detected three-quarters of critical heart defects that had been previously missed. For every 2,000 newborns screened with the toe light, roughly one with a critical heart defect might have been prevented from going home. The cost-benefit ratio compares favorably to current practices of newborn screening for PKU and hypothyroidism. In January, Swedish doctors published an even more methodical study of almost 40,000 newborns, and showed that oximetry entirely eliminated death from missed critical cardiac defects.Of course, as with any screening, the technique may miss some defects and also involves some unnecessary, though benign, testing of normal children. But these false positive rates were low (only about one in 1,000 in the Swedish study) and triggered only about two instances of extra, noninvasive testing for every serious heart defect that was picked up. Many parents and doctors caring for children with critical heart defects subscribe to some variant of the “1 percent doctrine.” If there is even a small chance of catastrophe — like the sudden death of a newborn — they feel justified to push for preemptive action, especially when it’s a harmless and inexpensive screening test.While the screening test is not done routinely in the United States, some hospitals have adopted it, mostly in Texas and Florida, where some small trials have been conducted. But parents can ask doctors to screen their babies for heart defects using pulse oximetry. It’s essentially free since it needs no specialized equipment other than the oximeter, which is present in every hospital already. A specialized doctor isn’t needed; the test is quite simple, and a nurse can do it if the pediatrician orders it anytime after birth, but before discharge from the hospital. Hopefully they won’t mind doing it. Personally, I do think parents should request it. I did for my kids.Fortunately, Ryan, the baby I was urgently called to treat, had his heart surgery last summer and is doing well now. I see him every few months in clinic. nonadult false Screening newborns for broken hearts text blog 138 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19063475&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/DarshakSanghaviMD_142833_1262294106171_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1692012 19063475 Member 365 http://community.bewell.com/_The-Real-Lessons-of-the-Octomom-Debate/BLOG/1692010/142833.html For many families, in vitro fertilization (or IVF) is a blessing that allows them to experience pregnancy.  Unfortunately, the recent birth of octuplets to Nadya Suleman, the weird California mother of six other children, has cast a lot of scrutiny on the practice of IVF.  Yet I think there's a buried lesson to be learned: It turns out that increasing the availability of IVF may actually reduce cases like that of Nadya Suleman. You can read my argument in a piece I wrote for Slate.com. I'd love to read any thoughts on this. For many families, in vitro fertilization (or IVF) is a blessing that allows them to experience pregnancy.  Unfortunately, the recent birth of octuplets to Nadya Suleman, the weird California mother of six other children, has cast a lot of scrutiny on the practice of IVF.  Yet I think there's a buried lesson to be learned: It turns out that increasing the availability of IVF may actually reduce cases like that of Nadya Suleman. You can read my argument in a piece I wrote for Slate.com. I'd love to read any thoughts on this. Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:09:13 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_The-Real-Lessons-of-the-Octomom-Debate/BLOG/1692010/142833.html DarshakSanghaviMD 2009-04-01T19:09:13Z BeWell Community For many families, in vitro fertilization (or IVF) is a blessing that allows them to experience pregnancy.  Unfortunately, the recent birth of octuplets to Nadya Suleman, the weird California mother of six other children, has cast a lot of scrutiny on the practice of IVF.  Yet I think there's a buried lesson to be learned: It turns out that increasing the availability of IVF may actually reduce cases like that of Nadya Suleman. You can read my argument in a piece I wrote for Slate.com. I'd love to read any thoughts on this. nonadult false The Real Lessons of the "Octomom" Debate text blog 239 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19063475&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/DarshakSanghaviMD_142833_1262294106171_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1692010 19063475 Member 365 http://community.bewell.com/_Raising-a-Baby-with-Developmental-Delays/BLOG/1692008/142833.html Like many parents, I learned a huge amount from the Early Intervention Program, which is a federal-state government partnership designed to educate families caring for a child certain developmental problems.  In my home state of Massachusetts, thousands of families get services from this terrific program, which has been repeatedly shown to be cost effective.  Unfortunately, some states are cutting back on funding, which means that toddlers with language delays, symptoms concerning for autism, or other issues may be neglected.  To explain more, I wrote the below op-ed for the Boston Globe earlier this month.  I'd love to hear parents' (or anyones') thoughts on this: A crash course to help at-risk toddlers By Darshak Sanghavi March 18, 2009 IMAGINE if we allowed teenagers to operate automobiles without driver's education. Or if we let people dive into a pool without any prior swimming classes. Yet today many routinely engage in an activity of equal importance - and greater complexity - with little societal commitment to proper preparation: being a parent of a child with developmental problems. Unfortunately, the state has cut what little money was available. Pediatricians in Massachusetts are looking harder than ever for early social and developmental problems in young children - yet increasingly are able to do less and less about them. Stemming from the 2005 class action lawsuit Rosie D. v. Romney, pediatricians now must screen all children on Medicaid for developmental problems, such as language delays, during routine visits. When problems are suspected, children are referred to the state's Early Intervention Program, and the doctor's job is largely complete. The majority of children's developmental delays and parental education in the state get handled not by doctors, nurses, or hospitals, but by Early Intervention. Roughly 30,000 Massachusetts children each year qualify for continuing services. After an initial home-based assessment by a developmental specialist, Early Intervention coordinates regular parental education, occupational or speech therapy, social work, and other family support. An avalanche of data supports EI's effectiveness. In 2007, 1,387 toddlers with moderate to severe developmental problems graduated to normal pre-schools, saving the state over $20 million in special education costs. The Early Intervention Collaborative Study showed that children in the program make strong gains in multiple developmental areas, and the Carolina Abecedarian Project showed such gains in mental, verbal, and math skills persisted until 21 years of age. Now 7, my son Jake is an EI graduate who had a speech delay as a toddler. Though I'm a Harvard-trained pediatrician and medical subspecialist, I had little practical parenting know-how. Every few weeks, a young woman named Lisa visited our house to help us learn to enrich Jake's language skills. 'Let's go out' was replaced by 'Let's drive to the store to buy some vegetables,' as my wife and I introduced more words in context. We offered more choices ('Do you want to hold Daddy's left or right hand to cross the street?') and began, for example, to run constant verbal commentary on our cooking or shopping when Jake was with us. In addition, Lisa pointed out useful discipline tactics and recommended books and resources on parenting. We essentially had a crash course on toddler language and behavior - and within two years Jake had met all his milestones. Clearly, not all children do so well. But research from sociologist Annette Lareau of the University of Maryland shows that such parenting skills often translate to later cultural and social advantages - and thankfully, our family gained some of them from Early Intervention. With a little push in the right place, a child veering from the path of normal development was steadied. Unfortunately like many other state services, Early Intervention is facing budget cuts. Before January, children with more than 25 percent delays in language or other skills qualified for services. Now they must be 30 percent delayed - a change estimated to cut services for 3,000 at-risk children and save about $1.1 million. In essence, the standards for normal development in toddlers have been lowered, and further gerrymandering is possible. What was once cause for concern is now repackaged as normal, to cut costs. Today, researchers understand that certain social and emotional stresses can harm molecules called teomeres in the brains of at-risk toddlers, which may explain why nurturing these children is critical. In our state, pediatricians now identify these children before the damage is irreversible. And decades of research have shown that for these babies' brains, an ounce of prevention from Early Intervention buys more than a pound of cure. What a shame that we now understand so much, yet may end up choosing to do too little. Like many parents, I learned a huge amount from the Early Intervention Program, which is a federal-state government partnership designed to educate families caring for a child certain developmental problems.  In my home state of Massachusetts, thousands of families get services from this terrific program, which has been repeatedly shown to be cost effective.  Unfortunately, some states are cutting back on funding, which means that toddlers with language delays, symptoms concerning for autism, or other issues may be neglected.  To explain more, I wrote the below op-ed for the Boston Globe earlier this month.  I'd love to hear parents' (or anyones') thoughts on this: A crash course to help at-risk toddlers By Darshak Sanghavi March 18, 2009 IMAGINE if we allowed teenagers to operate automobiles without driver's education. Or if we let people dive into a pool without any prior swimming classes. Yet today many routinely engage in an activity of equal importance - and greater complexity - with little societal commitment to proper preparation: being a parent of a child with developmental problems. Unfortunately, the state has cut what little money was available. Pediatricians in Massachusetts are looking harder than ever for early social and developmental problems in young children - yet increasingly are able to do less and less about them. Stemming from the 2005 class action lawsuit Rosie D. v. Romney, pediatricians now must screen all children on Medicaid for developmental problems, such as language delays, during routine visits. When problems are suspected, children are referred to the state's Early Intervention Program, and the doctor's job is largely complete. The majority of children's developmental delays and parental education in the state get handled not by doctors, nurses, or hospitals, but by Early Intervention. Roughly 30,000 Massachusetts children each year qualify for continuing services. After an initial home-based assessment by a developmental specialist, Early Intervention coordinates regular parental education, occupational or speech therapy, social work, and other family support. An avalanche of data supports EI's effectiveness. In 2007, 1,387 toddlers with moderate to severe developmental problems graduated to normal pre-schools, saving the state over $20 million in special education costs. The Early Intervention Collaborative Study showed that children in the program make strong gains in multiple developmental areas, and the Carolina Abecedarian Project showed such gains in mental, verbal, and math skills persisted until 21 years of age. Now 7, my son Jake is an EI graduate who had a speech delay as a toddler. Though I'm a Harvard-trained pediatrician and medical subspecialist, I had little practical parenting know-how. Every few weeks, a young woman named Lisa visited our house to help us learn to enrich Jake's language skills. 'Let's go out' was replaced by 'Let's drive to the store to buy some vegetables,' as my wife and I introduced more words in context. We offered more choices ('Do you want to hold Daddy's left or right hand to cross the street?') and began, for example, to run constant verbal commentary on our cooking or shopping when Jake was with us. In addition, Lisa pointed out useful discipline tactics and recommended books and resources on parenting. We essentially had a crash course on toddler language and behavior - and within two years Jake had met all his milestones. Clearly, not all children do so well. But research from sociologist Annette Lareau of the University of Maryland shows that such parenting skills often translate to later cultural and social advantages - and thankfully, our family gained some of them from Early Intervention. With a little push in the right place, a child veering from the path of normal development was steadied. Unfortunately like many other state services, Early Intervention is facing budget cuts. Before January, children with more than 25 percent delays in language or other skills qualified for services. Now they must be 30 percent delayed - a change estimated to cut services for 3,000 at-risk children and save about $1.1 million. In essence, the standards for normal development in toddlers have been lowered, and further gerrymandering is possible. What was once cause for concern is now repackaged as normal, to cut costs. Today, researchers understand that certain social and emotional stresses can harm molecules called teomeres in the brains of at-risk toddlers, which may explain why nurturing these children is critical. In our state, pediatricians now identify these children before the damage is irreversible. And decades of research have shown that for these babies' brains, an ounce of prevention from Early Intervention buys more than a pound of cure. What a shame that we now understand so much, yet may end up choosing to do too little. Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:04:22 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Raising-a-Baby-with-Developmental-Delays/BLOG/1692008/142833.html DarshakSanghaviMD 2009-04-01T19:04:22Z BeWell Community Like many parents, I learned a huge amount from the Early Intervention Program, which is a federal-state government partnership designed to educate families caring for a child certain developmental problems.  In my home state of Massachusetts, thousands of families get services from this terrific program, which has been repeatedly shown to be cost effective.  Unfortunately, some states are cutting back on funding, which means that toddlers with language delays, symptoms concerning for autism, or other issues may be neglected.  To explain more, I wrote the below op-ed for the Boston Globe earlier this month.  I'd love to hear parents' (or anyones') thoughts on this: A crash course to help at-risk toddlers By Darshak Sanghavi March 18, 2009 IMAGINE if we allowed teenagers to operate automobiles without driver's education. Or if we let people dive into a pool without any prior swimming classes. Yet today many routinely engage in an activity of equal importance - and greater complexity - with little societal commitment to proper preparation: being a parent of a child with developmental problems. Unfortunately, the state has cut what little money was available. Pediatricians in Massachusetts are looking harder than ever for early social and developmental problems in young children - yet increasingly are able to do less and less about them. Stemming from the 2005 class action lawsuit Rosie D. v. Romney, pediatricians now must screen all children on Medicaid for developmental problems, such as language delays, during routine visits. When problems are suspected, children are referred to the state's Early Intervention Program, and the doctor's job is largely complete. The majority of children's developmental delays and parental education in the state get handled not by doctors, nurses, or hospitals, but by Early Intervention. Roughly 30,000 Massachusetts children each year qualify for continuing services. After an initial home-based assessment by a developmental specialist, Early Intervention coordinates regular parental education, occupational or speech therapy, social work, and other family support. An avalanche of data supports EI's effectiveness. In 2007, 1,387 toddlers with moderate to severe developmental problems graduated to normal pre-schools, saving the state over $20 million in special education costs. The Early Intervention Collaborative Study showed that children in the program make strong gains in multiple developmental areas, and the Carolina Abecedarian Project showed such gains in mental, verbal, and math skills persisted until 21 years of age. Now 7, my son Jake is an EI graduate who had a speech delay as a toddler. Though I'm a Harvard-trained pediatrician and medical subspecialist, I had little practical parenting know-how. Every few weeks, a young woman named Lisa visited our house to help us learn to enrich Jake's language skills. 'Let's go out' was replaced by 'Let's drive to the store to buy some vegetables,' as my wife and I introduced more words in context. We offered more choices ('Do you want to hold Daddy's left or right hand to cross the street?') and began, for example, to run constant verbal commentary on our cooking or shopping when Jake was with us. In addition, Lisa pointed out useful discipline tactics and recommended books and resources on parenting. We essentially had a crash course on toddler language and behavior - and within two years Jake had met all his milestones. Clearly, not all children do so well. But research from sociologist Annette Lareau of the University of Maryland shows that such parenting skills often translate to later cultural and social advantages - and thankfully, our family gained some of them from Early Intervention. With a little push in the right place, a child veering from the path of normal development was steadied. Unfortunately like many other state services, Early Intervention is facing budget cuts. Before January, children with more than 25 percent delays in language or other skills qualified for services. Now they must be 30 percent delayed - a change estimated to cut services for 3,000 at-risk children and save about $1.1 million. In essence, the standards for normal development in toddlers have been lowered, and further gerrymandering is possible. What was once cause for concern is now repackaged as normal, to cut costs. Today, researchers understand that certain social and emotional stresses can harm molecules called teomeres in the brains of at-risk toddlers, which may explain why nurturing these children is critical. In our state, pediatricians now identify these children before the damage is irreversible. And decades of research have shown that for these babies' brains, an ounce of prevention from Early Intervention buys more than a pound of cure. What a shame that we now understand so much, yet may end up choosing to do too little. nonadult false Raising a Baby with Developmental Delays text blog 139 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19063475&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/DarshakSanghaviMD_142833_1262294106171_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1692008 19063475 Member 365 http://community.bewell.com/_A-Strong-Defense-of-Vaccination/BLOG/1692004/142833.html This month's Pediatrics (the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics) has a smart, pull-no-punches critique of the work of Dr. Robert Sears, an ayatollah of the anti-vaccine movement whose work The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child argues strongly against the vaccine schedules recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.  Dr. Offit, who has emerged as a fearless, principled defender of children's health, dismantles the spacey arguments made by Dr. Sears in his book, and should be required reading for all parents.  Read the full article here.  This month's Pediatrics (the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics) has a smart, pull-no-punches critique of the work of Dr. Robert Sears, an ayatollah of the anti-vaccine movement whose work The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child argues strongly against the vaccine schedules recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.  Dr. Offit, who has emerged as a fearless, principled defender of children's health, dismantles the spacey arguments made by Dr. Sears in his book, and should be required reading for all parents.  Read the full article here.  Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:36:51 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_A-Strong-Defense-of-Vaccination/BLOG/1692004/142833.html DarshakSanghaviMD 2009-01-28T01:36:51Z BeWell Community This month's Pediatrics (the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics) has a smart, pull-no-punches critique of the work of Dr. Robert Sears, an ayatollah of the anti-vaccine movement whose work The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child argues strongly against the vaccine schedules recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.  Dr. Offit, who has emerged as a fearless, principled defender of children's health, dismantles the spacey arguments made by Dr. Sears in his book, and should be required reading for all parents.  Read the full article here.  nonadult false A Strong Defense of Vaccination text blog 128 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19063475&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/DarshakSanghaviMD_142833_1262294106171_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1692004 19063475 Member 365 http://community.bewell.com/_The-Right-Things-to-Worry-About/BLOG/1692003/142833.html Parents today frequently worry about all sorts of things, and it's easy to lose sight of what dangers really matter and which ones don't.  A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control is a great way to regain perspective on how to save children's lives.  It turns out that the leading causes of severe illness and death in children isn't cancer or diabetes or any medical problem.  The leading cause of death are 'unintentional injuries,' meaning car crashes, suffocation, and other frequently preventable accidents.  It's fascinating reading, and you can see the full report here.  Some highlights: Sufocation is the leading cause of death in children under 1 year of age, and most of these occur in the bed. Car crashes are the leading cause of death after 1 year of age, and most children who die are restrained--but incorrectly.  That's why the single most important job for a new parents is ensuring they install and use car seats properly. Four times as many children die of injury in some states (for example, Mississippi) than in other states (for example, Massachusetts).  In general, states with higher education and stricter injury-prevention laws have far fewer injury-related deaths. Twice as many children die of drowning as poisoning, which is why fencing-in swimming pools and teaching water safety are just as important as having the poison control center number handy. Four times as many children die in fires as they do while riding bicycles--which is why smoke detectors and fire escape plans are just as important as wearing a bike helmet. It's sobering reading for this time of year, but reports like this one ultimately can save children's lives. Parents today frequently worry about all sorts of things, and it's easy to lose sight of what dangers really matter and which ones don't.  A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control is a great way to regain perspective on how to save children's lives.  It turns out that the leading causes of severe illness and death in children isn't cancer or diabetes or any medical problem.  The leading cause of death are 'unintentional injuries,' meaning car crashes, suffocation, and other frequently preventable accidents.  It's fascinating reading, and you can see the full report here.  Some highlights: Sufocation is the leading cause of death in children under 1 year of age, and most of these occur in the bed. Car crashes are the leading cause of death after 1 year of age, and most children who die are restrained--but incorrectly.  That's why the single most important job for a new parents is ensuring they install and use car seats properly. Four times as many children die of injury in some states (for example, Mississippi) than in other states (for example, Massachusetts).  In general, states with higher education and stricter injury-prevention laws have far fewer injury-related deaths. Twice as many children die of drowning as poisoning, which is why fencing-in swimming pools and teaching water safety are just as important as having the poison control center number handy. Four times as many children die in fires as they do while riding bicycles--which is why smoke detectors and fire escape plans are just as important as wearing a bike helmet. It's sobering reading for this time of year, but reports like this one ultimately can save children's lives. Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:18:32 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_The-Right-Things-to-Worry-About/BLOG/1692003/142833.html DarshakSanghaviMD 2008-12-24T15:18:32Z BeWell Community Parents today frequently worry about all sorts of things, and it's easy to lose sight of what dangers really matter and which ones don't.  A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control is a great way to regain perspective on how to save children's lives.  It turns out that the leading causes of severe illness and death in children isn't cancer or diabetes or any medical problem.  The leading cause of death are 'unintentional injuries,' meaning car crashes, suffocation, and other frequently preventable accidents.  It's fascinating reading, and you can see the full report here.  Some highlights: Sufocation is the leading cause of death in children under 1 year of age, and most of these occur in the bed. Car crashes are the leading cause of death after 1 year of age, and most children who die are restrained--but incorrectly.  That's why the single most important job for a new parents is ensuring they install and use car seats properly. Four times as many children die of injury in some states (for example, Mississippi) than in other states (for example, Massachusetts).  In general, states with higher education and stricter injury-prevention laws have far fewer injury-related deaths. Twice as many children die of drowning as poisoning, which is why fencing-in swimming pools and teaching water safety are just as important as having the poison control center number handy. Four times as many children die in fires as they do while riding bicycles--which is why smoke detectors and fire escape plans are just as important as wearing a bike helmet. It's sobering reading for this time of year, but reports like this one ultimately can save children's lives. nonadult false The Right Things to Worry About text blog 129 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19063475&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/DarshakSanghaviMD_142833_1262294106171_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1692003 19063475 Member 365 http://community.bewell.com/_Confused-About-Your-Child39s-Medical-Therapy-Guidelines-May-or-May-Not-Help/BLOG/1692001/142833.html I wrote an article for today's New York Times about clinical guidelines in children.  Though this seems like a boring topic, it's actually not. Pediatricians don't always know right away exactly how to treat ear infections, ADHD, constipation, or other problems, especially when new studies and medicines are coming out regularly. So they often rely on clinical guidelines -- recipes for medical care, really -- to help guide them.  In my essay, I discuss how the process of writing guidelines isn't so easy.  Read the full story and let me know what you think by posting a comment. I wrote an article for today's New York Times about clinical guidelines in children.  Though this seems like a boring topic, it's actually not. Pediatricians don't always know right away exactly how to treat ear infections, ADHD, constipation, or other problems, especially when new studies and medicines are coming out regularly. So they often rely on clinical guidelines -- recipes for medical care, really -- to help guide them.  In my essay, I discuss how the process of writing guidelines isn't so easy.  Read the full story and let me know what you think by posting a comment. Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:24:08 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Confused-About-Your-Child39s-Medical-Therapy-Guidelines-May-or-May-Not-Help/BLOG/1692001/142833.html DarshakSanghaviMD 2008-12-09T16:24:08Z BeWell Community I wrote an article for today's New York Times about clinical guidelines in children.  Though this seems like a boring topic, it's actually not. Pediatricians don't always know right away exactly how to treat ear infections, ADHD, constipation, or other problems, especially when new studies and medicines are coming out regularly. So they often rely on clinical guidelines -- recipes for medical care, really -- to help guide them.  In my essay, I discuss how the process of writing guidelines isn't so easy.  Read the full story and let me know what you think by posting a comment. nonadult false Confused About Your Child's Medical Therapy? Guidelines May or May Not Help text blog 122 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19063475&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/DarshakSanghaviMD_142833_1262294106171_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1692001 19063475 Member 365 http://community.bewell.com/_A-New-Genetic-Test-to-Tell-if-Your-Toddler-Will-Be-an-Olympian/BLOG/1692000/142833.html The latest fad in genetic testing: Today's New York Times reported on a commercial DNA test for a gene called ACTN3, which is being marketed to parents by a company called Atlas Sports Genetics. For $150, parents of children age 1 or older can supposedly determine whether their toddler will be better at 'speed/power' sports or 'endurance' sports. Read the full story, and for a fascinating look at how DNA test marketers are playing on the anxieties of parents, visit the company's web site. In my opinion, these kinds of DNA tests are really misleading and should be avoided. To begin, the underlying science behind the tests is very weak, and the predictive power of the tests is totally unproven. Second, the gene tests add to the fatalistic (and erroneous) view that a child's potential is inborn, and not largely the result of hard work and determination. For many years, parents have been told their children's potential is fixed before they're even potty-trained.  (Last month, I wrote about this disturbing trend in Slate.)  My advice: Just say no to any DNA or other test that supposedly foretells your young child's future professional or social potential. The latest fad in genetic testing: Today's New York Times reported on a commercial DNA test for a gene called ACTN3, which is being marketed to parents by a company called Atlas Sports Genetics. For $150, parents of children age 1 or older can supposedly determine whether their toddler will be better at 'speed/power' sports or 'endurance' sports. Read the full story, and for a fascinating look at how DNA test marketers are playing on the anxieties of parents, visit the company's web site. In my opinion, these kinds of DNA tests are really misleading and should be avoided. To begin, the underlying science behind the tests is very weak, and the predictive power of the tests is totally unproven. Second, the gene tests add to the fatalistic (and erroneous) view that a child's potential is inborn, and not largely the result of hard work and determination. For many years, parents have been told their children's potential is fixed before they're even potty-trained.  (Last month, I wrote about this disturbing trend in Slate.)  My advice: Just say no to any DNA or other test that supposedly foretells your young child's future professional or social potential. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:36:35 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_A-New-Genetic-Test-to-Tell-if-Your-Toddler-Will-Be-an-Olympian/BLOG/1692000/142833.html DarshakSanghaviMD 2008-12-01T00:36:35Z BeWell Community The latest fad in genetic testing: Today's New York Times reported on a commercial DNA test for a gene called ACTN3, which is being marketed to parents by a company called Atlas Sports Genetics. For $150, parents of children age 1 or older can supposedly determine whether their toddler will be better at 'speed/power' sports or 'endurance' sports. Read the full story, and for a fascinating look at how DNA test marketers are playing on the anxieties of parents, visit the company's web site. In my opinion, these kinds of DNA tests are really misleading and should be avoided. To begin, the underlying science behind the tests is very weak, and the predictive power of the tests is totally unproven. Second, the gene tests add to the fatalistic (and erroneous) view that a child's potential is inborn, and not largely the result of hard work and determination. For many years, parents have been told their children's potential is fixed before they're even potty-trained.  (Last month, I wrote about this disturbing trend in Slate.)  My advice: Just say no to any DNA or other test that supposedly foretells your young child's future professional or social potential. nonadult false A New Genetic Test to Tell if Your Toddler Will Be an Olympian? text blog 122 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19063475&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/DarshakSanghaviMD_142833_1262294106171_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1692000 19063475 Member 365 http://community.bewell.com/_Problematic-Food-Labels-and-Allergies/BLOG/1691999/142833.html Last week, the Chicago Tribune published an interesting investigation about misleading food labeling, and discovered that rougly five food products per week are recalled because of hidden allergens. (For example, the gluten-free chicken nuggests sold at a largely organic grocery chain that tested very high in gluten!)  As many parents of allergic children know, relying on proper food labelling is critical to safeguading health.  Many parents of allergic children were heartened when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandated that all food products after 2006 be labelled clearly if they contain any of the eight most common food allergens: milk, egg, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, and soybeans.  However, the FDA does not proactively tests products to assess whether any manufacturer's claims are true.  Neither is the manufacturer required to test for any specific allergens.  Finally, when allergens mistakenly do appear in foods, manufacturer recalls can be voluntary and may not be not well publicized.  As the Chicago Tribune reported, that happens frequently. Confusingly, the FDA does not have any regulatory authority over meats (like beef, pork, chicken, and certain egg products), which falls to the USDA, which unfortunately does not have the same clear allergen labelling requirements. Thus, parents sometimes buy and consume meat products for children at their own risk. What's a parent to do?  For now, it's best to continue scrutinizing labels and hope they are accurate.  If your child develops symptoms after eating allergen-free food, however, know that labels (particularly from certain meat-based products) may not be accurate, and you may wish to avoid that particular brand.  If you're convinced the food was contaminated with an allergen, you can report your suspicions to the FDA or USDA. You can also consult the Food Allergy and Analphylaxis Network (www.foodallergy.org) for advice. Read the Chicago Tribune's full story here. Last week, the Chicago Tribune published an interesting investigation about misleading food labeling, and discovered that rougly five food products per week are recalled because of hidden allergens. (For example, the gluten-free chicken nuggests sold at a largely organic grocery chain that tested very high in gluten!)  As many parents of allergic children know, relying on proper food labelling is critical to safeguading health.  Many parents of allergic children were heartened when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandated that all food products after 2006 be labelled clearly if they contain any of the eight most common food allergens: milk, egg, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, and soybeans.  However, the FDA does not proactively tests products to assess whether any manufacturer's claims are true.  Neither is the manufacturer required to test for any specific allergens.  Finally, when allergens mistakenly do appear in foods, manufacturer recalls can be voluntary and may not be not well publicized.  As the Chicago Tribune reported, that happens frequently. Confusingly, the FDA does not have any regulatory authority over meats (like beef, pork, chicken, and certain egg products), which falls to the USDA, which unfortunately does not have the same clear allergen labelling requirements. Thus, parents sometimes buy and consume meat products for children at their own risk. What's a parent to do?  For now, it's best to continue scrutinizing labels and hope they are accurate.  If your child develops symptoms after eating allergen-free food, however, know that labels (particularly from certain meat-based products) may not be accurate, and you may wish to avoid that particular brand.  If you're convinced the food was contaminated with an allergen, you can report your suspicions to the FDA or USDA. You can also consult the Food Allergy and Analphylaxis Network (www.foodallergy.org) for advice. Read the Chicago Tribune's full story here. Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:18:58 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Problematic-Food-Labels-and-Allergies/BLOG/1691999/142833.html DarshakSanghaviMD 2008-11-24T15:18:58Z BeWell Community Last week, the Chicago Tribune published an interesting investigation about misleading food labeling, and discovered that rougly five food products per week are recalled because of hidden allergens. (For example, the gluten-free chicken nuggests sold at a largely organic grocery chain that tested very high in gluten!)  As many parents of allergic children know, relying on proper food labelling is critical to safeguading health.  Many parents of allergic children were heartened when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandated that all food products after 2006 be labelled clearly if they contain any of the eight most common food allergens: milk, egg, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, and soybeans.  However, the FDA does not proactively tests products to assess whether any manufacturer's claims are true.  Neither is the manufacturer required to test for any specific allergens.  Finally, when allergens mistakenly do appear in foods, manufacturer recalls can be voluntary and may not be not well publicized.  As the Chicago Tribune reported, that happens frequently. Confusingly, the FDA does not have any regulatory authority over meats (like beef, pork, chicken, and certain egg products), which falls to the USDA, which unfortunately does not have the same clear allergen labelling requirements. Thus, parents sometimes buy and consume meat products for children at their own risk. What's a parent to do?  For now, it's best to continue scrutinizing labels and hope they are accurate.  If your child develops symptoms after eating allergen-free food, however, know that labels (particularly from certain meat-based products) may not be accurate, and you may wish to avoid that particular brand.  If you're convinced the food was contaminated with an allergen, you can report your suspicions to the FDA or USDA. You can also consult the Food Allergy and Analphylaxis Network (www.foodallergy.org) for advice. Read the Chicago Tribune's full story here. nonadult false Problematic Food Labels and Allergies text blog 143 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19063475&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/DarshakSanghaviMD_142833_1262294106171_portrait160X120.jpg false 1 0 1691999 19063475 Member 365