Thursday, October 29, 2009

| Russian president backs nuclear spaceship

Russian-president-backs-nuclear-spaceship Russia laid out its ambition to gain an edge in the space race by building a nuclear-powered spaceship.

But the plan outlined to a government meeting Wednesday left key questions unanswered, U.S. engineers were skeptical, and a Russian Greenpeace activist voiced concern.

Federal Space Agency chief Anatoly Perminov told the meeting that the preliminary design could be ready by 2012. He said it would then take nine years and 17 billion rubles to build the ship.

At the meeting on new communications and space technologies, televised live, President Dmitry Medvedev hailed the plan and ordered the Cabinet to find the money for it. But the stated ambition contrasted with slow progress on building a replacement to the mainstay Russian spacecraft, sounding more like a plea for extra government cash than a detailed proposal.

Its a very serious project, said Medvedev. We need to find the money.

Its one of a series of sucker-bait trial balloons looking for some government or corporation in the West with more dollars than sense, said James Oberg, an engineer in Houston who is an expert and consultant in the Russian space program.

‘Unique breakthrough project’
Perminov said his plan was a unique breakthrough project that would put Russia ahead of foreign competitors in space. But he offered few details or make clear what the nuclear-powered ships mission would be: whether it would be used near Earth like the existing Soyuz spacecraft, or for voyages into deep space.

Stanley Borowski, a senior engineer at NASA specializing in nuclear rocket engines, said that in deep space they are twice as fuel-efficient as conventional rocket fuel and would have many advantages on such missions as taking astronauts and gear to Mars.

But launched from Earth, they could expose crew and people near the blastoff site to potential radiation that would escape the confines of the rocket, he said.

We never talk about using them for Earth-to-orbit launch, Borowski told The Associated Press. The way they have always talked about it in NASA missions is for use in deep space.

Perminov said the ship will have a megawatt-class nuclear reactor, as opposed to reactors in Cold-War era Soviet satellites that produced just a few kilowatts of power and lasted about a year.

One of them, the derelict Cosmos-954 nuclear-powered satellite, scattered radioactive debris over northern Canada on its fiery re-entry in 1978, but caused no injuries in the lightly populated area.

Its dangerous to put nuclear materials in space. They pose risks at re-entry.said Greenpeaces Vladimir Chuprov.

The U.N. outer space treaty, in force since 1967 and ratified by 105 countries including Russia and the U.S., was designed to keep outer space free of nuclear weapons. It makes no mention of using nuclear energy for nonmilitary purposes.

NASA also used small amounts of plutonium in deep space probes, including those to Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto and beyond.

Upcoming NASA missions powered by plutonium include the over-budget and delayed Mars Science Laboratory, set to launch in 2011, and a mission to tour the solar systems outer planets scheduled to go up in 2020.

The only planetary mission considered by Russia is a probe to one of Mars twin moons, Phobos. It was set to launch this year, but was delayed.

The Russian space agency also has weighed missions to the moon and Mars but has set no specific time frame.

Perminov and other officials have previously said the Soyuz craft need a successor model for missions in Earth orbit, but so far have only talked about a ship powered by a conventional fuel.

Russia sends crews to the International Space Station using Soyuz capsules and booster rockets developed 40 years ago. Development of a replacement vessel using conventional propellant has dragged on with no end in sight.

But Russia stands to take a greater role in space exploration in the coming years. NASAs plan to retire its shuttle fleet next year will force the United States and other nations to rely on the Russian spacecraft to ferry their astronauts to the International Space Station and back to Earth until NASAs new manned ship becomes available.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf + 1;if{i=url.indexOf + 1;}if{i=url.indexOf;}if{url = url.substring;document.write;if{window.print;}}
MSN Privacy .
Legal © 2009 MSNBC.com - | Russian president backs nuclear spaceship |

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

| Economy is spooking Halloween shoppers

Economy-is-spooking-Halloween-shoppers This month, instead of ghosts and goblins, or even Bernie Madoff impersonators, its the economy that has consumers running scared.

Shoppers are expected to spend an average of $56.31 on holiday merchandise. Thats down from $66.54 last year, according to the National Retail Federations 2009 Halloween Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey, conducted last month by BIGresearch. Total Halloween spending is expected to reach about $4.75 billion compared to $5.77 billion last year.

To lure shoppers, retailers have cut prices and advertised discounts and deals. They are also heavily promoting online sales. Halloween Express, a retailer with locations nationwide, offers a 110 percent guarantee on any costume sold online. That means that that if within 14 days of a purchase a lower price is found elsewhere online, Halloween Express will refund the difference plus 10 percent.

The reason for such a push online? Theres a lot of competition, says Tony Bianchi, owner of Halloween Adventure, a costume retailer in New York City. Bianchi launched his Web site newyorkcostumes.com last year when he realized that customers were scouting costumes in-store then turning to the Web to find the best deals.

Knowing that shoppers are scouring the Internet, online retailers are also focused on search engine optimization. Building our organic page ranking on search engines ... is part of our marketing strategy, says Brad Butler, spokesman for Halloween Express. The difference between No. 1 and No. 2 in the search engine is almost a 20 percent difference in sales.

What will these searches mean for those handing out treats Oct. 31? Lots of Kate Gosselins or Michael Jacksons running around town. Both are expected to be among this years most popular costumes, according to various costume retailers. NRF says that witches, superheroes and princesses will be also popular. Avid readers of the Twilight series of books and viewers of shows like True Blood are likely to make vampires one of this seasons hits.

Saving money is also big. That might include a shift from buying pre-packaged costumes to using pieces from closets with affordable accessories added.

Still, some Halloween-lovers dont seem to be letting the economy get in the way of a little fun.

Bianchi, dressed as Batman with a fishing hat, points to a $1,200 costume of Boba Fett and a $1,199 costume of a Halo videogame character on the top shelf of his store.

Weve sold several of these high-end costumes, he says. When times are good, people want to party. When times are bad, people want to party. Theres still money out there.




© 2009 Forbes.comvar url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf + 1;if{i=url.indexOf + 1;}if{i=url.indexOf;}if{url = url.substring;document.write;if{window.print;}}
MSN Privacy .
Legal © 2009 MSNBC.com - | Economy is spooking Halloween shoppers |

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

| No quiet fadeaway for ‘public option’

No-quiet-fadeaway-for-‘public-option’ WASHINGTON - Fears about high costs of the health care overhaul and mistrust of insurers are rekindling interest in letting the government sell health insurance as part of the plan.

The leading congressional proposal as of Wednesday — a Senate Finance bill that relies on private coverage with no new government plan — could price out some 17 million Americans. And the insurance industry may have unwittingly helped the case for public coverage with a report over the weekend asserting the Finance bill would raise premiums for everyone.

Business groups and conservatives remain steadfastly opposed to government insurance — formidable political opposition that shows no sign of weakening. So advocates are getting creative, trying to reformulate the public option in a way that can gain the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate.

Trying to provide choices
Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, theyre trying to provide choices.

What if each state could decide whether to offer public coverage instead of having it decreed from Washington — as proposed by Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del.?

What if states had a menu of options, from nonprofit co-ops to using their own employee health plans?

What if public coverage were offered only as a backstop in areas where one insurer has a lock on the market?

We are all talking together, trying to find something that not everyone will love but the entire caucus will come to agreement on, said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who for months has been seeking a politically viable compromise.

Its going to be something flexible, but not weak, Schumer added. His idea: a federal plan that states can opt out of.

The lone Republican to back health care overhaul legislation, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, has suggested a possible way out: allowing a public plan to kick in if competition among health insurance companies under a revamped system fails to bring down costs. Snowe is opposed to government insurance as a first-line solution.

What if Snowes idea is combined with an approach that lets states make the call?

Those are all elements that one could easily fashion into an outcome that would seem to be elegant, said economist Len Nichols of the New America Foundation. It would show the left: Look we will be there when were needed if coverage is not affordable. And it would show the right that this not some backdoor government takeover, because were only going where were needed.

What to do about the public plan is the most politically sensitive issue on the agenda of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., as he sets out to merge the Finance bill with a Senate health committee version that does include a government option.

Another GOP senator open to health overhaul
The health overhaul drive got a potential boost Wednesday as a second Republican senator signaled shes open to voting for a health care bill. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told The Associated Press that the Finance bill needs substantial improvements to make coverage more affordable, contain costs and protect Medicare, but she joined Snowe in endorsing the goal of far-reaching changes.

My hope is we that can fix the flaws in the bill and come together with a truly bipartisan bill that could garner widespread support, Collins said in an interview.

On Wednesday, top White House aides, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, traveled to the Capitol to meet with Reid, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., about combining the Finance bill with the Senate health panel measure.

Reid is giving no hints. Asked Wednesday if he thought it was likely there would be a public plan in his merged bill, he responded: Im not betting on health care. Likely is in a game of craps.

Republicans say the fix is in for a public plan. Behind the scenes, Democrats will take Baucus middle-of-the-road plan and turn it hard to the left, they say.

We know that the bill written behind closed doors here in the Capitol will be another 1,000-page, trillion-dollar Washington takeover, said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Democrats did try one new tack Wednesday, on an issue involving doctors. Senate Democrats are now pushing for quick passage of separate legislation to spare doctors a $247 billion cut in Medicare fees over a decade. That would raise federal deficits, but the White House says the increase should not count in the price tag for the health care overhaul.

Whats politically achievable
A senior Democratic aide said Reid is focused on whats politically achievable.

The public option is being assessed in terms of what it would mean for health care overall and, just as importantly, whether it can win approval, said the staff member, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

A drawback of the Finance bill is that its 10-year, $829 billion budget wouldnt be enough to guarantee access to affordable health insurance for everyone. People with solid middle-class incomes who buy their own coverage would still have to pay hefty premiums — even after tax credits intended to help them out.

For example, a family of four making $66,000 a year and headed by a 45-year-old would face $11,080 in premiums. After a tax credit of $3,182, the family in the example would still have to come up with $7,898 — less than a mortgage but probably more than a years car payment. The ballpark figures come from the Kaiser Foundations Health Reform Subsidy Calculator.

Because there isnt enough money in the bill for everyone, the Congressional Budget Office projects the Finance bill would leave some 17 million citizens and lawful immigrants without coverage in 2019, when its fully phased in.

The insurance industry study asserting that the Finance bill would raise premiums for everyone only added fuel to the fire. The report says costs are going up — the best way to get costs down is the public option, said Schumer.

The heated rhetoric was evident Wednesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Reid and Schumer called for repealing the antitrust exemption for health insurers.

Support for a public option runs high in opinion surveys. But opposition from influential interest groups stands as a formidable barrier. Its not just the insurance industry, but many medical providers and businesses big and small.

One group, the National Federation of Independent Business, praised the Finance Committee for passing a bill with no government option and no requirement that employers offer coverage. But if Reid and the Democrats stick either of the two back in, they will derail health care reform altogether, warned NFIB vice president Susan Eckerly.

NFIB, which represents small businesses, is well known in the health care debate. It was instrumental in killing then-President Bill Clintons health care plan in the 1990s.

- | No quiet fadeaway for ‘public option’ |

Saturday, October 10, 2009

| Moms reveal why they gave up their children

Moms-reveal-why-they-gave-up-their-children Some stereotypes die harder than others. One of the most enduring is the widespread perception that women who give up custody of their children are horrible mothers.

Rebekah Spicuglia lives with that perception every day. For many years after she relinquished custody of her son to his father, she tried to avoid even discussing the topic. But as more and more women make the socially unorthodox decision to give up primary custody of their children, Spicuglia has found that people are gradually coming to understand that sometimes the best thing a mother can do for her child is let go of them.

“Telling people that I was a noncustodial mom — I found it to be a conversation stopper,” Spicuglia told TODAY’s Meredith Vieira Wednesday in New York. “For a long time, I didn’t really feel comfortable talking about it.”

Growing trend
Mothers currently retain custody of the children in approximately 70 percent of divorces. But even though that’s the majority, that still leaves a large and growing number of women who do not retain custody.

“The more I talk about it, the more I find that people’s eyes are open to the reality — which is that over 2 million noncustodial moms are in America right now, and it is definitely increasing,” Spicuglia said. “People are recognizing that fathers can be amazing primary caregivers, and we shouldn’t sell men short.”

Spicuglia is one of several women profiled in a Marie Claire magazine article about the growing phenomenon of noncustodial mothers. Joanna Coles, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, said that response to the story has been generally positive.

“I think this is a story that’s been gradually creeping up. It’s increasingly a trend, especially as society becomes less judgmental of men who want to step into that role,” said Coles, who joined Spicuglia on TODAY. “We’ve had a few people who are just like, ‘I’ll never understand it. It’s insane. What kind of mother is doing this?’ But I think it was very important to lift the taboo on it and to say these are real stories that happen to real people, and the children are just fine.”

Young motherhood
Spicuglia said that’s the case with her son, Oscar, who was born when she was just 18 years old. Spicuglia married her son’s father, a restaurant worker in Santa Maria, Calif., and started taking classes at the local community college.

But she wanted to build a career and travel. Her husband, on the other hand, wanted to stay at home surrounded by his extended family and working in the job with which he was familiar and comfortable. When Spicuglia was accepted as a student at Berkeley, her husband did not want to move, and she didn’t want to give up what could have been her one chance for a top-level education.

So she moved alone to Berkeley, leaving Oscar, then 3, with his father. At first, she was racked by guilt over her decision, but with time came to see it as the best way to ensure Oscar’s well-being.

“For me, I made the best decision that I could in the best interests of my son. As parents, that’s what we have to do. It makes parenting the hardest job possible,” Spicuglia said.

Another woman profiled in the magazine, Maria Housden, would agree. She gave up custody of her children when she divorced 11 years ago, and, like Spicuglia, she found it to be a traumatic decision.

Housden had also married young, at age 20, and would have four children. But problems in the marriage began to show when her oldest daughter, Hannah, was diagnosed with cancer just a month before her third birthday. One year later, Hannah was dead and Housden was devastated. Though she stayed in the marriage for three more years and had additional children, the marriage had begun to deteriorate.

In a separate story reported by TODAY’s Natalie Morales, Housden said it was her husband who suggested that he become the primary caregiver when they divorced. Having grown up with the image of a stay-at-home mom as being her only proper role, Housden had trouble comprehending the idea.

“My first reaction was, I was horrified,” Housden told Morales. “What I was afraid of was what other people would think: What kind of mother would leave her kids?”

Like Spicuglia, Housden met with open hostility when she finally made the decision to be a noncustodial mom. She remembers walking into a school meeting and having conversation stop when she passed. “It was like this zone of silence as I walked through the room,” she said.

Now, as her daughters are in or approaching adulthood, Housden has a rich relationship with them. “I do think that our children have blossomed and grown beautifully. I hope that the decisions that were made were part of that,” she said.

Mixed reactions
Spicuglia told a similar story to Vieira about giving up primary custody to her husband when they divorced. Now living in New York, she sees Oscar, who is 11, during school holidays and he spends his summers with her. She remains on good terms with her former husband, and his support of the arrangement is vital.

“We have a great relationship,” Spicuglia told Vieira, speaking of her son. “He spends school vacations with me. He’s here during the summer and on Christmas break. We also communicate all the time. We call, we text, we have a very active communication.”

She still meets with resistance and disapproval from some. When she asked to be listed as an emergency contact for her son at school, she said, a vice principal was openly hostile to her. On the other hand, the school’s principal was supportive.

The ambivalence on the part of others, particularly other women, is understandable, said clinical psychologist Judith Sills, who joined the conversation.

“Women are quick to judge other women as mothers even if they go to the office, so you can imagine if they’re giving up custody,” Sills told Vieira. “It comes from a very serious emotional place. We have a very deeply held social feeling that the mother-child bond is sacred, and good moms protect and nurture their children.”

But perception doesn’t always jibe with reality, she went on. “The fact is, some good moms can protect their children best by recognizing someone else is the better parent,” Sills said. “Maybe at this moment; maybe they’re emotionally overwhelmed; maybe to get financially on their feet; maybe because in a divorce, mom is desperate to leave the house, but she knows the kids need stability. That is the ability to make a rational individual decision against a social tide. It takes a lot of strength.”

Sills said that children look at such situations differently than adults. For adults, it’s about social norms; for children, it’s about whether they have a happy and stable home, regardless of which parent they’re living with.

Spicuglia asked that before people judge, they consider that there are a lot of factors at play.

“I think that the important thing to remember is that child custody decisions are very complex, and every family situation is different,” she said.

In her case, it’s worked out well. “Our story is not a sad one,” Spicuglia assured Vieira. “It’s a story of a happy family that makes it work.”

- | Moms reveal why they gave up their children |

Friday, October 9, 2009

| EU prepares to settle Microsoft browser case

EU-prepares-to-settle-Microsoft-browser-case BRUSSELS - European Union regulators said Wednesday they were preparing to settle a long and costly antitrust battle with Microsoft Corp. with a deal to give Windows users a choice of web browsers.

Microsoft promised the changes after the EU charged it with monopoly abuse for tying the Internet Explorer browser to the Windows operating system installed on most of the worlds desktop computers.

Microsofts general counsel Brad Smith said the EU announcement was a big step toward ending its antitrust woes in Europe and would allow the company to focus on European regulatory approval for our agreement with Yahoo, that is objective no. 1. In July, Yahoo agreed to let Microsoft handle its searches as part of a 10-year deal.

The European Commission said it would on Friday formally seek feedback from computer manufacturers, software companies and consumers on Microsofts offer to allow users to pick one of 12 browsers when they install Windows. They have a month to respond to regulators.

If the feedback is positive, the EU could accept Microsofts offer, which would two months later turn into a legally binding settlement to last five years. A settlement would end the EU antitrust case on browsers without adding to the 1.7 billion euros in fines that the company has already racked up.

Smith said the company had made numerous changes to an initial offer made in July after extensive discussions with regulators over the last month. Regulators were scathing about earlier offers, among which Microsofts announcement in June that it might strip browsers entirely from new European versions of Windows to avoid any antitrust problems.

EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said Microsofts commitments would indeed address our competition concerns and they would have a direct and immediate impact on the market.

It would empower all current and future users of Windows in Europe to choose which browser they wished to use, she said.

She also said she trusted Microsoft to offer developers more interoperability information — data used by other companies to create programs that work on Windows — in a separate deal that will not be enforced by regulators.

I trust Microsoft. I had contact with Steve Ballmer, the team is in close contact so there cant be a misunderstanding here, Kroes said. Its the result of a long discussion over a long period.

European users of Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 — due to launch on Oct. 22 — will automatically be shown a screen explaining what web browsers are and then get a choice of tell me more buttons to give them details on what each browser can do.

They can then pick several browsers — listed in alphabetical order — to install along with or instead of Internet Explorer. They can come back to that screen later to change their browser choice.

Smith confirmed that the company would now push ahead with launching Windows 7 in Europe. Microsoft had earlier hinted that EU antitrust trouble could delay the rollout of the new operating system.

Microsofts Internet Explorer is the most widely used browser worldwide, but Mozilla Corp.s Firefox is gaining in popularity.

Microsoft is now focusing on Internet search and hoping to grab a greater share of the market from Google Inc. by striking a deal with Yahoo Inc. to use its Bing search engine to process all Yahoos search requests and steer search-related ads.

Smith said the antitrust landscape has changed radically and the search market — and Google — was now the focus. We certainly have our concerns about the lack of competition in search and paid search advertising and weve been explicit about it, he said.

The company had not yet decided whether to ask EU or German regulators to review the deal, he said.

Mozilla and Google Inc. — which recently released its own browser, Chrome — are supporting the case against Microsoft. It was originally triggered by a complaint from Norwegian mobile browser company Opera Software ASA that Microsoft was abusing its monopoly to unfairly squeeze out rivals.

Regulators said they would be able to review how and which browsers are offered to make sure that consumers continue to have genuine choice.

Kroes said a deal would not allow Microsoft to discriminate against personal computer manufacturers who decided to load PCs with another browser and disable Internet Explorer.

Most people buy the software pre-installed on a computer assembled by manufacturers such as Dell Inc. or Hewlett-Packard Co.

Microsoft has also committed to share more information with software developers for the next 10 years to help them make products compatible with Windows, Windows Server, Office, Exchange and SharePoint. The company published the new offer on its Web site.

Smith said Microsoft will also be required to support industry standards and document how it implements them in its software, including in the browser.

This attempts to answer rivals complaints that the company does not strictly adhere to industry standards for the Web. Several companies were also unhappy that Microsoft developed its own file format OpenXML instead of using the industry standard Open Document Format for saving documents for archives.

Thomas Vinje, legal counsel for a group of companies that complained about Microsofts business methods, said the settlement does not seem to deal with the flawed way that Microsoft applies standards, its unfair pricing practices or other concerns about patent abuse or standards manipulation.

- | EU prepares to settle Microsoft browser case |

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

| Women turning to hormones to look younger

Women-turning-to-hormones-to-look-younger Sometime after her 43rd birthday, Dawn Foley noticed she was beginning to look her age. And she didn’t like it one bit. A former beauty queen turned sales professional in Los Angeles, the blue-eyed brunette is used to turning heads. “I just did not want to look older,” she says. “You end up with wrinkles. Your skin starts to sag. And no matter how much you exercise, you just don’t have the body you had when you were 30.” She tried everything to stop the clock: diet pills that claim to stave off weight gain; photo facials and Fraxel laser treatment to rejuvenate skin and erase wrinkles. She even had her breasts lifted. “I’m happy with those,” she says. “But I wanted to look younger without any more surgery.”

Then Foley saw a news report about practitioners who claim they can reverse the aging process using a souped-up hormone regime. Getting old and fat is no longer inevitable, they said. It’s only a glandular disorder caused in part by dwindling hormones. And the way to fight that disorder is to replenish our levels to what they were in our 20s or 30s — whereupon we will once again feel as if we were that young. A little more digging brought Foley to Suzanne Somers’ best-selling books extolling the virtues of hormones. Somers, 62, takes daily shots of human growth hormone . Using a plastic applicator, she shoots a so-called bioidentical hormone called estriol directly into her vagina. She rubs bioidentical estrogen cream on her left arm every day, and two weeks out of the month adds progesterone on her right arm. “A lot of women, as they get older, their breasts start to droop,” Somers has said. “But when you put the hormones back in the right template, everything perks up again!”

Foley bought the pitch. “I thought, This is it! This is the magic potion!” she says.

Leading endocrinologists would call it something else: dangerous. “Use of these products for anti-aging is based on hype, not science,” says Steven Petak, M.D., of Houston, president of the American College of Endocrinology. Despite what bloviating celebrities like Somers claim, there is no evidence that hormones have anti-aging powers — and plenty of reasons to think they might cause harm, including diabetes and possibly cancer. Somers herself developed breast cancer while on her hormone-heavy routine and had a hysterectomy due to precancerous changes in her uterus. The FDA has not approved any of the substances for anti-aging. In the case of hGH, it’s a flat-out felony to prescribe it for reasons other than short stature in children, AIDS wasting syndrome or a condition called growth hormone deficiency syndrome, which is so rare it affects fewer than 5 out of every 10,000 adults.

When Foley approached her ob/gyn seeking hormones, the doctor told her that her levels fell within the normal range of a woman her age and that she didn’t need any more. So Foley instead turned to the world of “age management,” whose practitioners have learned to skirt the law by expanding the definition of growth hormone deficiency syndrome to include almost anyone over the age of 30. “That’s one of the first things I learned,” Foley says. “If a regular doctor tests your levels, he’ll say you’re within range even if you’re all the way down at the low end. But specialist is going to tell you, ‘You’re within the normal range, but if we bring those levels up, you’ll feel a whole lot better.’”

An M.D. in Beverly Hills, California, prescribed Foley bioidentical estrogen and testosterone creams, which she uses each morning; progesterone pills that she pops before bed; and hGH, which she injects nightly into her abdomen or thigh. Foley says she plans to use hGH every day for the rest of her life, or at least as long as she can afford the nearly $500-a-month cost. If she lives another 40 years, she could spend nearly a quarter of a million dollars on the stuff. “I don’t think there’s anything illegal about the way it’s being prescribed to me. I’m taking it because of a hormone imbalance,” she says. “I’m absolutely going to stay on it forever.”

Welcome to the newest cult in America’s worship of youth, in which thousands of women are following elaborate, unproven regimens for anti-aging and weight loss — and increasingly, like Foley, finding doctors who will help them do it. Without any additional training, an entrepreneurial physician can declare herself an anti-aging specialist, hang out a shingle and begin prescribing hormones, including estrogen, hGH and human chorionic gonadotropin , a pregnancy hormone injected during fertility treatments that doctors are touting as a miracle weight loss cure. Needless to say, the shots, which insurance generally doesn’t cover, are making these “anti-aging” doctors plenty of money.

Some of these physicians operate out of clinics with names like the Center for Clinical Age Management. Others dole out hormone therapy at medical spas, where it has been added to the list of quasi-medical anti-aging procedures that now include Botox injections, laser hair removal, skin resurfacing, oxygen facials and the occasional vaginal rejuvenation surgery. Spas have a huge incentive to diagnose their patients with hormone deficiencies, says Lorne Caplan, a consultant to the medical spa field in New York City. “The med spa industry has expanded so much in the past three years that most of them are getting hammered by the competition,” he says. “You can’t make money on laser hair removal anymore. You can’t make money on cosmetic injectables. You can’t even make money by anti-aging consultations or weight management. But they can charge whatever they want for hCG and hGH. That’s why they’re pushing them so hard. And in a lot of , there’s no regulation. It’s the Wild West.”

Amir Friedman, M.D., an anesthesiologist who now specializes in preventive medicine and anti-aging, runs the California Wellness Center in Encino. Dr. Friedman says about 10 percent of his patients use human growth hormone. He claims the shots can cure depression, sharpen your memory and improve your sex drive — enough that he’s seen crumbling marriages revived. “The greatest benefit is an overall sense of well-being that’s hard to quantify,” Dr. Friedman says. “It makes you feel like someone’s blowing back your hair all day long. Like this…whoosh. Like you can do anything!”

Foley says hormones had a dramatic effect on her. She credits growth hormone in particular with burning 10 pounds of belly fat she’d begun referring to as her pooch and restoring muscles she thought were gone forever. She claims the sun damage and fine lines on her face started to fade. She slept better and had more energy. “Whatever dangers they say it has aren’t a concern for me. The benefits outweigh them,” she says.

Health risks
Such glowing anecdotal testimonials have never been replicated in scientific studies, however. And many physicians — as well as the U.S. government — have deepening concerns about doctors’ willy-nilly promotion of hormones for lifestyle benefits. “If I had my druthers, I would take away their license. Because people believe you when you have an M.D.,” says Adriane Fugh-Berman, M.D., associate professor in the department of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C. “It is a perfect marketing opportunity, because you can’t prove the claims. We all age, but people take hormones and think, I wouldn’t have aged as well if I hadn’t taken them.”

Proponents of bioidentical hormones argue that they are safer than traditional hormone brands because bioidenticals are made from plants and have the same molecular structure as the hormones we produce naturally. But what we produce is not necessarily benign: We know that women with higher levels of estrogen have a higher rate of breast and endometrial cancer. And Dr. Fugh-Berman’s research on bioidentical hormone regimens has found no evidence they act differently in the body than conventional hormone replacement therapy does, which the federal Women’s Health Initiative study linked to heart disease, blood clots and breast cancer. Estriol increases the risk for uterine cancer, she adds. The hormone hCG, while seemingly more benign, can cause birth defects if taken while pregnant. And the side effects of human growth hormone can include carpal tunnel syndrome, swollen limbs, diabetes and, according to the FDA, possibly even cancer. “Science has never identified a harmless hormone,” Dr. Fugh-Berman says. “It’s one thing making an informed decision about risks when there are proven benefits. This is a case of unproven benefits and known risks.”

During the past few years, federal regulators have become so concerned about the overprescription of hGH that they are lobbying to reclassify it as a controlled substance. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has raided anti-aging clinics that distribute it, confiscating hormones of dubious quality shipped from far-flung nations like China and India. “There’s a lot of stuff out there that may have been made in the bathtub of somebody’s apartment,” says Michael Sanders of Washington, D.C., a spokesman and special agent for the DEA. Often, pharmacies mix bioidenticals specially for each patient in a process called compounding, which becomes necessary when doctors prescribe unorthodox combinations of hormones or substances such as testosterone that aren’t approved for use in women. Physicians brag about their “customized” programs, but the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists in Jacksonville, Florida, warns that compounding often results in imprecise dosing, unsterile conditions and cross-contamination.

None of which seems to dissuade true believers like Dawn Foley, who are convinced their doctor is doling out the elixir of youth in a syringe. “Somehow we got the notion that aging and menopause are unnatural,” says Barbara A. Brenner, executive director of Breast Cancer Action in San Francisco. “This is an uncontrolled experiment being done on women, and anybody who thinks you can alter your body chemistry and only get positive effects doesn’t understand how chemistry works.”

Green Valley Spa & Weight Loss Clinic, a posh destination perched in the red-rock-canyon country of St. George, Utah, with rooms that run as high as $995 a night, seems an unlikely hormone headquarters. But co-owner Carole Coombs confirms that Green Valley’s offerings now include a very popular hCG diet combining hormone shots and low-calorie meals. What’s more, the program is a direct response to popular demand ginned up by controversial infomercial guru Kevin Trudeau, who gushed during ads for his 2007 book, “The Weight Loss Cure ‘They’ Don’t Want You to Know About,” that taking hCG left him able to eat whatever he wants and still stay thin. “I’m talking real food! Mashed potatoes loaded with butter and cream!” he raved. After the book came out, Green Valley’s visitors inundated the weight loss clinic with requests for hCG, so much so that Coombs decided to try it for herself. “We always have our eyes and ears out for what’s newly happening and isn’t harmful to one’s health,” says Coombs, who says she lost 38 pounds on the program and was inspired to offer it to clientele.

The medical director at Green Valley is Gordon Reynolds, M.D., a gynecologist with a specialty in endocrinology. Dr. Reynolds claims that hCG is different from other weight loss treatments because it gets rid of hard-to-lose fat first — “visceral fat, intra-abdominal fat, the fat at the back of the arms,” he says. The program requires eating fattening foods for two days, theoretically to kick-start your metabolism; then patients begin injections of hCG and a spartan diet of 500 calories a day for three weeks. Ordinarily, a patient on such a diet would go into starvation mode and their muscle would begin to break down, but Dr. Reynolds claims hCG accesses the deep reserves of fat, giving you the energy to withstand it.

A protocol developed by British doctor A.T.W. Simeons using hCG as a cure for obesity became popular in the 1970s, but studies debunked it: Double-blind studies showed that the injections do not aid weight loss, redistribute fat, stave off hunger or promote a feeling of well-being. The Federal Trade Commission forced the Simeon Management Corporation to halt its deceptive advertising, and the hCG diet all but faded away as a miracle weight loss cure until Trudeau resurrected it. Last year, the FTC, long at war with Trudeau, convinced a federal judge to fine him $37 million and ban him from infomercials until 2011 for “clearly, and no doubt intentionally,” misrepresenting his plan on the air.

It’s likely that any success on the hCG diet is due not to magical properties of the shots but rather to the extreme, 500-calorie diet, reports a review of research published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. Women trying to lose weight should eat 1,200 to 1,500 calories a day at a bare minimum, according to registered dietitians. Studies also show a heightened risk for breast and ovarian cancer in women who use hCG for fertility treatments, says endocrinologist Rhoda H. Cobin, M.D., clinical professor of medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. The doses prescribed for weight loss, however, are roughly half of those used for fertility. “For a period of three weeks, is it going to cause cancer? I don’t know,” Dr. Cobin says.

Then again, patients can repeat the three-week program as many times as they choose, as long as they take a three-week rest in between, Dr. Reynolds says. And they can take any dose they like if they are left to administer their own shots — a practice especially common when medical spas prescribe hCG, as consultant Caplan notes. The lack of supervision came as a shock to Beverly, a 26-year-old from Southern California, who says she sought out hormone treatments to rid herself of the “after-baby fat” she couldn’t lose since giving birth to her son. After doing some online research, she found a facility in Beverly Hills that looked clean and was staffed by people in medical scrubs. But in retrospect, she says, “none of the staff looked older than 20, and nobody seemed informed.” She says the doctor, after a brief interview, handed her a big IV bag of hCG and said, “See you soon.” Beverly was charged $1,000 for the first two weeks’ supply and $250 a week thereafter, but no one taught her how to inject herself.

“I told the staff that my arm was starting to get sore, but they said, ‘Don’t worry; just keep doing it there.’” Eventually, Beverly decided to seek the same hormones at a different clinic and was stunned at the many tests she underwent on her first visit, including a pregnancy test. “They told me you can’t be on this stuff if you’re pregnant . They never tested me for that in the other place! What if I had been ?”

Unproven treatment
Whatever controversy surrounds hCG is nothing compared with the controversy over hGH, which the FDA has declared illegal to prescribe or distribute for anti-aging purposes. Not that you’d know it from the thousands of websites touting hGH and sometimes even selling it directly to consumers. This was where Marla, a boutique owner in Phoenix, first discovered hGH. By the time she hit her 40s, Marla says, she’d already had her breasts done, and — inspired by none other than Suzanne Somers — she was ready for the next step. “I was looking for youth and energy,” she says. “So I found a doctor on the Internet.”

After one meeting and a round of blood tests, the doctor — a pediatrician running an anti-aging clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona — agreed to prescribe growth hormone to Marla. But after three months, the daily shots hadn’t done anything to make her feel younger — or more energetic. “I spent $1,500 a month giving myself injections, and it didn’t do anything at all,” she says. “After a while, my legs swelled up, and they looked terrible. I didn’t feel comfortable taking the hGH after that.” A new doctor diagnosed Marla with edema, swollen tissue due to water retention. “When I found out that doctors were illegally prescribing hGH for reasons other than what it is meant for, I got mad. I realized it might even be dangerous,” she says.

How did an unproven and risky treatment become such a burgeoning industry? The first signs of how lucrative the growth hormone business could be emerged in 1990, when The New England Journal of Medicine published a study stating that a dozen older men who were given daily injections of hGH had seen an increase in lumbar bone density and lean body mass and a decrease in fat. Never mind that the study was too small to be statistically relevant, did not investigate side effects and did not apply to women. For some in the medical community, there was only one sentence that mattered: “The effects of six months of human growth hormone on lean body mass and adipose-tissue mass were equivalent in magnitude to the changes incurred during 10 to 20 years of aging.” Ten years erased in six months! It is this one sentence, you could say, on which the anti-aging industry has been built and continues to flourish.

Endocrinologists criticizing hGH as an anti-aging supplement find the very premise of its pitch to be flawed; as Dr. Cobin notes, it’s a natural physiologic phenomenon to see a decline in growth hormone secretions with age, and there may be consequences if you take more than your body intends for you to have. “You can see the results of having too much hGH in people who have acromegaly, a disease caused by a tumor that makes growth hormone,” she says. “People with the disease have swollen features, a higher risk for hypertension, more heart disease, arthritis, colon polyps and possibly colon cancer.”

A 2007 review of studies of healthy elderly men and women taking growth hormone reports only small changes in body composition — “comparable to what could be achieved by moderate weight training in the gym,” says study author Hau Liu, M.D., associate chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, California. At the same time, the study found hGH significantly increased rates of adverse events, including swelling, joint pain and carpal tunnel syndrome.

No one knows the long-term effects of growth hormones for anti-aging, Dr. Friedman concedes. “But there are no studies showing that it definitely causes cancer,” he adds. “We do know the deficiency and lack of growth hormone are strongly associated with the major diseases that affect the United States: cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke. How can we feel good about letting hormone levels decline to such an extent when clearly there are major problems with an individual’s health? Of course, more studies should be done. But do we have outcome levels for 50 years for Prozac?”

Eventually, pharmaceutical companies hope to profit even further from the hormone-happy trend by developing drugs that would trigger the pituitary gland to release unused reservoirs of human growth hormone, says L. Stephen Coles, M.D., a researcher on aging at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Clinical trials of such substances, called hGH secretagogues, are ongoing, and Dr. Coles says he expects the FDA to approve at least one of them, an oral spray called tesamorelin, by the end of the year. The primary indication would be for patients with HIV, but Dr. Coles suspects physicians will leap to use it for anti-aging even if it is not officially approved for that purpose. For now, though, the most proven anti-agers we have are old-fashioned, low-risk and practically free: a diet rich in antioxidants such as vitamins A, C and E, along with regular exercise.

All we know for sure is that as long as there’s money to be made, there will be people selling anti-aging cures, says S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health and the author of “The Quest for Immortality: Science at the Frontiers of Aging” . Among the hundreds of methods we humans have tried in the past are bathing in solid-gold bathtubs and sleeping with virgins. “Some men had doctors cut the testicles off goats and sew them onto their own testicles — which is the same theory behind hormone replacement today, if you think about it,” Olshansky says. “All of this anti-aging nonsense goes back thousands of years. That’s why I call it the world’s second-oldest profession.”

Copyright © 2009 CondéNet. All rights reserved.var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf + 1;if{i=url.indexOf + 1;}if{i=url.indexOf;}if{url = url.substring;document.write;if{window.print;}}
MSN Privacy .
Legal © 2009 MSNBC.com - | Women turning to hormones to look younger |

| Todd: Grading Obamas European debut

Todd:-Grading-Obamas-European-debut WASHINGTON - It seems a shame to let the week go by without taking a deep breath and debriefing the first overseas trip by President Barack Obama.

Looking back — with a couple of days of rest — I have reached one big conclusion about the overall media coverage of the trip: We both over-covered and under-covered the eight-day marathon.

Specifically, the minutiae of the trip was over-covered, and the larger, over-arching set-up events were under-covered.

Let’s start with the three summits: G-20, NATO and the European Union.

All the summits were over-covered, while the one-on-one meetings the president had with world leaders didnt get nearly the attention they deserved.

Both the G-20 and NATO summits struck me as a tad unruly.

The EU meeting was a faux get-together from the get-go, hastily put together by the Czech Republic as an excuse to host Obama in Prague.

Tangible results?
But as for the other two, there’s a reason why so little came out of either summit.

Ask yourself, have you ever had a productive meeting with more than a dozen, let alone two dozen, folks around a table?

French President Nicolas Sarkozy had a point when he pre-criticized the G-20, expressing concern that any language the group could craft would be too broad to accomplish anything tangible.

And what was binding out of the G-20?

The summit led to productive one-on-one meetings and smaller breakout groups, but trying to get the entire body to move as one proved nearly impossible.

Sure, there was general agreement, and perhaps having the G-20 collectively promise to name and shame countries acting as tax shelters was a good step toward creating a safer world banking system.

And it’s possible that the decision by the G-20 to recognize the International Monetary Fund as a more influential institution for global financial policy could shift the group from being a rescue fund for poor nations to, for lack of a better description, a global Federal Reserve.

Still, outside of some philosophical agreements by the 20 nations, it’s hard to identify exactly what else was accomplished at the big meeting.

Again, a lot can be said of the big conference leading to productive one-on-one meetings but as for the big gathering, not so much.

NATOs big development
As for NATO, it seems we all got distracted by the story about whether the president was going to be able to convince the group to commit more troops to Afghanistan. As a result, the truly big story about the meeting went unreported: NATO is searching for its 21st century rationale.

Seriously, shouldn’t that be the gigantic take-away from the NATO conference?

There it was, right at the top of the NATO communiqué — NATO’s decision to come up with a new strategic concept. It’s truly stunning, actually, that the organization continues to accept new members without having a future-minded vision of how its security umbrella will operate.

I’m not going to pretend that I’m a national security expert, but common sense dictates that an organization shouldn’t be expanding so aggressively without a strategic vision for the 21st century.

NATOs future potential for security success is predicated on success in Afghanistan but another question remains: When does the organization become too big to be useful?

At what point does NATO and the United Nations start bumping into one other? Is it nothing more than a Cold War relic that needs to be revamped?

Let’s move on to what else was under-covered. In eight days, Obama tackled some of the trickier international issues of the the next decade — and some didnt get the press they deserved.

Among them:

China: The decision to elevate contact with the nation to a “strategic and economic dialogue” strikes me as yet another acknowledgment that China is the chief rival of the United States for the 21st century. And while Obama said he did not view the U.S. and China as a “G-2,” the very fact that he uttered the phrase “G-2” suggests that its probably closer to reality — meaning, there’s the U.S., China, and everyone else.

Nuclear proliferation: The president’s speech in Prague and the pledges he made after meeting with the Russian president indicate a real motivation on Obamas part to make progress on this issue. But how far is he willing to go? Will the U.S. and Russia ever actually abandon their nukes? This is where the president’s rhetoric might not match the goal. Still, the rhetoric opens the door for other nations to jump to the U.S. side against Iran.

Relations with the Muslim world: The Turkey visit didn’t get the attention it deserved, thanks in part to the president’s surprise trip to Iraq. The elevation of Turkey and Obamas ability to speak more directly with the Muslim world from a majority-Muslim nation was a big deal. Sure, it may be an optic, but it could lead to something big in the Middle East.

American exceptionalism: The president gave a fascinating answer to a foreign reporter’s question about “American exceptionalism.” It’s an issue many in the American intelligentsia have been concerned about and presidents usually duck this kind of philosophical talk — but Obamas answer probably made even the most isolationist conservative feel pretty good. The fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that weve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that were not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us, said Obama.

Now, there are still questions that the president didnt answer that I thought he would during the trip .

Is the Taliban in Afghanistan a threat to the U.S. in the same way al-Qaida is? Why is he confident that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is the one calling the shots and not Prime Minister Vladimir Putin? What does he make of Israel’s threat to handle Iran if the U.S. doesn’t? Is China the chief, superpower rival of the United States?

There are plenty of other questions, but I would have liked the president to expound upon these at some point.

Finally, lets assess how the president did as a world politician.

Europe vs. Iowa
Judged in this role, the trip was an unequivocal success for the president. In First Read, we compared this trip to an inaugural voyage to Iowa for a presidential candidate.

Everything felt good, all the key officials were in suck-up mode and the media was gee-whizzing with its coverage — but when it was all over, tangible successes were hard to find.

To be fair, I think the Obama administration is right when it says this trip was about supposed to be about planting seeds, just like a first trip Iowa is about seed planting.

The popularity of this president was impressive to watch.

World leaders were tripping over each other to be seen with him. Average Europeans gawked at his motorcade with more interest than even Americans have right now. One veteran European journalist even said to me that an American president hasnt been this popular in Europe since Eisenhower — and he saved the continent from destruction.


Everything gets judged through such a partisan prism these days, so we might not be appreciating Americans global resurgence right now. It’s a remarkable moment for the nation, no matter what you think of the current president.

And now its up to the president to take full advantage of his popularity and this moment.

He doesn’t lack for confidence, and like most new presidents, he seems to enjoy playing the role of world statesman, more so than having to act as an economic recoverer-in-chief.

He may have been elected to focus on domestic policy but when history is done with Barack Obama, we may discover that it was his abilities on the world stage that defined his tenure.

© 2009 msnbc.com  Reprintsvar url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf + 1;if{i=url.indexOf + 1;}if{i=url.indexOf;}if{url = url.substring;document.write;if{window.print;}}
MSN Privacy .
Legal © 2009 MSNBC.com - | Todd: Grading Obamas European debut |