Shots Should Be on College Kids' Back-to-School List

'modId':'mediasocialchromefriends','isPreLoad':0,'pageSize':12,'numFriends':null,'notificationCount':0,'property':'News','learnMorePath':'/activity-learn-more/','friendbarNotification':'0','friendbarRollup':'0','moduleConf':YAHOO.Media.Facebook.ModuleConf,'friendIdList':

View the Original article

All HIV Patients Should Take Meds Early On, Experts Now Say

HealthDay – 1 hr 41 mins ago MONDAY, July 23 (HealthDay News) -- A new report recommends that physicians begin treating all HIV-positive adults with antiretroviral drugs instead of waiting, at least in countries where the therapy is easily accessible.

All HIV-positive patients should take the drugs, even if blood tests reveal that their immune system is healthy, according to the revised guidelines, which were presented Sunday at the International AIDS Conference in Washington D.C., and published in the July 25 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Over the last 25 years, antiretroviral drugs have become stronger, easier to tolerate and simpler to take, the authors of the report explained. "New trial data and drug regimens that have become available in the last two years warrant an update to guidelines for antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults in resource-rich settings," Dr. Melanie Thompson and her 2012 International Antiviral Society-USA Panel colleagues said in the report.

While medications don't rid the body of HIV -- the virus that causes AIDS -- they can prevent the virus from replicating and have allowed millions of people to live for years with a greatly reduced threat of developing AIDS, experts have noted.

However, not every person infected with HIV takes the medications. In some cases, doctors prefer to wait until a patient's immune system begins to show signs that the virus is becoming stronger.

The reasons why doctors sometimes wait to prescribe antiretroviral medications may be because the drugs can cause side effects, and there's also the challenge that patients must keep taking them or take the risk that the virus will rebound.

Commenting on the report, Rowena Johnston, director of research with the Foundation for AIDS Research in New York City, explained, "We can't lose sight of the fact that this is a big commitment. Once you start, you can't stop."

The report recommends that initial treatment include two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir/emtricitabine

View the Original article

All HIV Patients Should Take Meds Early On, Experts Now Say

HealthDay – 1 hr 41 mins ago MONDAY, July 23 (HealthDay News) -- A new report recommends that physicians begin treating all HIV-positive adults with antiretroviral drugs instead of waiting, at least in countries where the therapy is easily accessible.

All HIV-positive patients should take the drugs, even if blood tests reveal that their immune system is healthy, according to the revised guidelines, which were presented Sunday at the International AIDS Conference in Washington D.C., and published in the July 25 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Over the last 25 years, antiretroviral drugs have become stronger, easier to tolerate and simpler to take, the authors of the report explained. "New trial data and drug regimens that have become available in the last two years warrant an update to guidelines for antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults in resource-rich settings," Dr. Melanie Thompson and her 2012 International Antiviral Society-USA Panel colleagues said in the report.

While medications don't rid the body of HIV -- the virus that causes AIDS -- they can prevent the virus from replicating and have allowed millions of people to live for years with a greatly reduced threat of developing AIDS, experts have noted.

However, not every person infected with HIV takes the medications. In some cases, doctors prefer to wait until a patient's immune system begins to show signs that the virus is becoming stronger.

The reasons why doctors sometimes wait to prescribe antiretroviral medications may be because the drugs can cause side effects, and there's also the challenge that patients must keep taking them or take the risk that the virus will rebound.

Commenting on the report, Rowena Johnston, director of research with the Foundation for AIDS Research in New York City, explained, "We can't lose sight of the fact that this is a big commitment. Once you start, you can't stop."

The report recommends that initial treatment include two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir/emtricitabine

View the Original article

Should we sleep more to lose weight?

ScienceDaily (July 10, 2012) — Research to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior (SSIB) suggests that sleep behavior affects body weight control and that sleep loss has ramifications not only for how many calories we consume but also for how much energy we burn off.

See Also:Health & MedicineSleep Disorder ResearchInsomnia ResearchFitnessDiet and Weight LossObesityStaying HealthyLiving WellReferenceCircadian rhythm sleep disorderSleep deprivationRapid eye movementNight terror

In recent years an increasing number of epidemiological studies have found a relationship between how long we sleep for and obesity as well as type 2 diabetes, suggesting that insufficient sleep increases the risk of gaining weight and developing diabetes.

Work carried out by researchers from the German Universities Tubingen and Lubeck and Uppsala University in Sweden has investigated the effect of short term sleep deprivation on hunger as well as on physical activity and energy used by the body. Physical activity was measured by special devices worn on the wrist that detect acceleration. Energy used by the body was assessed by indirect calorimetry, a method which estimates how much heat is produced by a person as they use oxygen.

Sleep deprivation increased how hungry participants felt and also raised the amount of the "hunger hormone" ghrelin detected in their blood. In fact, the shorter the amount of sleep a person had experienced the hungrier they were. After just one night of disrupted sleep volunteers moved around less although this was not surprising considering they also felt more tired. In addition, staying awake for one complete night reduced the amount of energy used by the body when resting. This research tells us when we are sleep deprived we are likely to eat more calories because we are hungrier. This alone might cause us to gain weight over time. However sleep loss also means we burn off fewer calories which adds to the risk of gaining weight.

Ongoing studies aim to find out if increasing sleep time might help with weight control efforts. While there is still some way to go before sleep improvement is used to treat obesity and diabetes, the available research results clearly supports the notion that sleep is involved in the balance between the amount of calories we eat and the amount we use up through activity and metabolism.

The research was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

View the Original article

Few Patients Should Get Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants, FDA Panel Says

background:url(http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/a/5b/a5ba32682eb601fb573b57542c19b9c1.png);width:115px;height:25px;margin-left:50px;margin-top:7px

View the Original article

Parts of Obamacare Should Be Kept

According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to render a decision next week regarding whether President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is constitutional. The law, if it doesn't pass constitutional muster, could be struck down entirely or parts could be implemented, while others could not. While I'm not in favor of the government mandating people purchase health insurance or taking over the health care industry, I do think there are some good parts to the law that should remain in place.

I like the idea of people being able to stay on their parents' insurance until they reach the age of 26. Life is hard, particularly when you're first starting out on your own. It makes sense that parents should be able to reach the decision to cover their adult children on their insurance if they choose to do that. While I see the point of insurance companies to a point of not wanting to provide coverage for entire generations of people on one person's policy, I don't think asking to allow parents to help their kids out in this way is an unreasonable request.

I also believe that requiring insurance companies to cover people with preexisting medical conditions is a good thing. I have known too many people who were afraid to leave their job in favor of a better opportunity for themselves solely due to having a preexisting medical condition or having a family member with a preexisting condition, and the fear they would not be able to get insurance. It seems pretty barbaric to me that the people who need medical insurance the most have a hard time getting it, while those who are healthy and will probably remain so are able to find insurance without a problem.

Of course, I think both of these things are necessary temporary measures. Neither address the fact that health care is too expensive. Neither addresses price gouging in the health care industry or the need for a medical degree to even understand the services one needs or how to go about getting them affordably.

Bottom line: It seems that insurance companies and ridiculous costs are the main problem with our health care system as it is. We're being given a choice: have the government take over the health care system, or continuing letting the insurance companies run it. Both options come with extreme problems, and both options are going to be costly to implement. I think the best solution is a compromise. Break down the giant law and keep the parts that work and that don't infringe on our freedoms. And realize that, whatever the law is, there is so much more work to do in the matter.

View the Original article

Guidelines Issued for When Docs Should Order Vascular Testing

background:url(http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/a/5b/a5ba32682eb601fb573b57542c19b9c1.png);width:115px;height:25px;margin-left:50px;margin-top:7px

View the Original article

India should tax air tickets to pay for AIDS drugs - U.N.

Reuters – 5 hrs ago NEW DELHI, June 5 (AlertNet) - Millions of the world's poorest people could have easier access to life-saving drugs if India introduces an air ticket tax to help fund purchases of cheap medicines for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, a senior U.N. official said.

UNITAID, a U.N. agency which negotiates for cheap medicines from pharmaceutical manufacturers to treat deadly diseases, is lobbying countries such as India to join its air ticket levy initiative which began in 2006.

Under the program, countries put a nominal amount on the cost of air tickets which funds UNITAID to buy drugs for patients in the developing world. Ten countries have imposed the levy, generating $200 million annually for cheap medicine.

"What we want in India is a similar system by which a very small contribution which is painless to the traveler can be applied to large numbers of travelers," UNITAID Executive Director Denis Broun told AlertNet in an interview.

"Since air traffic is very high in India, the small amount of levy makes a huge difference to the amount of drugs that we can purchase and the number of poor who can benefit from them."

HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis kill 4.4 million people each year, UNITAID says. Approximately 14.2 million people are in need of anti-retroviral drugs globally, yet more than half cannot afford them.

India's airlines are reeling under a debt load of $20 billion and lost $2 billion last year, as high fuel prices, a weakening rupee and competition kept fares low and costs high.

But the country boasts the fastest growing air passenger market of major economies with 61 million people traveling last year, and still growing.

"People are saying I am coming at the wrongest possible moment. You hear all these arguments, but they are absolutely bogus. It has no impact on government budgets, airline traffic or the economy."

WIN-WIN FOR INDIA

Broun, who met civil aviation and health officials, said he was proposing a tax of 10 rupees (18 U.S. cents) on domestic tickets and $1 on international flights. He said discussions were at a very early stage.

Chile charges $1 per ticket as their levy, while Brazil charges $2 for international flights, he said. French passengers pay one euro for domestic and four euros for international tickets.

Mali, Mauritius, Madagascar, Cameroon, Congo, Niger and South Korea had also implemented air-ticket levies, said Broun.

He said it was a win-win situation for India as 80 percent of the drugs bought by UNITAID are from Indian pharmaceutical firms and some of which were for Indian patients.

"It would be a good thing for India. First of all, Indian patients benefit - 35,000 Indian children are treated for HIV using drugs paid for by UNITAID," he said.

"We buy most of our drugs from India so in a sense what would the tax do? It would go back into the Indian economy into the pharmaceutical sector. So it's difficult to find arguments to say it would be bad."

(AlertNet is a humanitarian news service run by Thomson Reuters Foundation. Visit http://www.trust.org/alertnet)

(Additional reporting by Anurag Kotoky; Editing by Robert Birsel)

View the Original article

India should tax air tickets to pay for AIDS drugs - U.N.

Reuters – 5 hrs ago NEW DELHI, June 5 (AlertNet) - Millions of the world's poorest people could have easier access to life-saving drugs if India introduces an air ticket tax to help fund purchases of cheap medicines for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, a senior U.N. official said.

UNITAID, a U.N. agency which negotiates for cheap medicines from pharmaceutical manufacturers to treat deadly diseases, is lobbying countries such as India to join its air ticket levy initiative which began in 2006.

Under the program, countries put a nominal amount on the cost of air tickets which funds UNITAID to buy drugs for patients in the developing world. Ten countries have imposed the levy, generating $200 million annually for cheap medicine.

"What we want in India is a similar system by which a very small contribution which is painless to the traveler can be applied to large numbers of travelers," UNITAID Executive Director Denis Broun told AlertNet in an interview.

"Since air traffic is very high in India, the small amount of levy makes a huge difference to the amount of drugs that we can purchase and the number of poor who can benefit from them."

HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis kill 4.4 million people each year, UNITAID says. Approximately 14.2 million people are in need of anti-retroviral drugs globally, yet more than half cannot afford them.

India's airlines are reeling under a debt load of $20 billion and lost $2 billion last year, as high fuel prices, a weakening rupee and competition kept fares low and costs high.

But the country boasts the fastest growing air passenger market of major economies with 61 million people traveling last year, and still growing.

"People are saying I am coming at the wrongest possible moment. You hear all these arguments, but they are absolutely bogus. It has no impact on government budgets, airline traffic or the economy."

WIN-WIN FOR INDIA

Broun, who met civil aviation and health officials, said he was proposing a tax of 10 rupees (18 U.S. cents) on domestic tickets and $1 on international flights. He said discussions were at a very early stage.

Chile charges $1 per ticket as their levy, while Brazil charges $2 for international flights, he said. French passengers pay one euro for domestic and four euros for international tickets.

Mali, Mauritius, Madagascar, Cameroon, Congo, Niger and South Korea had also implemented air-ticket levies, said Broun.

He said it was a win-win situation for India as 80 percent of the drugs bought by UNITAID are from Indian pharmaceutical firms and some of which were for Indian patients.

"It would be a good thing for India. First of all, Indian patients benefit - 35,000 Indian children are treated for HIV using drugs paid for by UNITAID," he said.

"We buy most of our drugs from India so in a sense what would the tax do? It would go back into the Indian economy into the pharmaceutical sector. So it's difficult to find arguments to say it would be bad."

(AlertNet is a humanitarian news service run by Thomson Reuters Foundation. Visit http://www.trust.org/alertnet)

(Additional reporting by Anurag Kotoky; Editing by Robert Birsel)

View the Original article

Why Should I See A Cosmetic Dentist?

May 23, 2012 by admin

Why should you see a cosmetic dentist? The real question is, if you have teeth you are unhappy with, why wouldn’t you see a cosmetic dentist? A cosmetic dentist can help to correct any aesthetic deficiencies you may have with your teeth, as well as address any oral health concerns you may have.

People visit cosmetic dentists for many reasons, but some of the most common are teeth whitening, porcelain veneers, and even neuromuscular dentistry. But an experienced cosmetic dentist has many tricks of the trade to cover or completely eliminate issues, such as tooth implants, as well as the technology to perform these things. Any cosmetic dentist will have state-of-the-art tools that can give you the smile you’ve always wanted.

Like many cosmetic procedures, cosmetic dentistry is a trickle-down practice, meaning it had the perception that it was only for the rich and famous.

This may have been true at one point, but as more and more people wanted these procedures, and the procedures became cheaper, everyday folks are lining up in places to get cosmetic dental procedures. It’s not uncommon for people to have their teeth whitened by a cosmetic dentist prior to a wedding or other big event, and people who once believed they would have to suffer pain and a social stigma due to missing teeth found dental implants were the solution.

Some cosmetic dentists are trained in neuromuscular dentistry, which deals with temporomandibular joint disorder (TMJ or TMD). TMD is a painful condition with symptoms ranging from an aching and clicking jaw to migraine-like headaches to depression. If you have suffered with pain in your jaw that nothing seems to help, you may want to contact an experienced neuromuscular dentist.

So, you should see a cosmetic dentist if you want to change how your teeth look in relation to your face. Or, you should see a cosmetic dentist if you are having trouble eating or speaking because of pain. The truth is, a cosmetic dentist is very versatile in how they can help you with things related to oral health.

Dental

View the Original article

Should you use condoms in an exclusive relationship?

This story comes from the Yahoo! Contributor Network, where individuals publish their unique perspectives on some of the world’s most popular websites.Do you have a story to tell? Become a Yahoo! contributor

Many have told me that once they have sex with someone they're dating, they consider themselves exclusive and they don't sleep with anyone else; if the other person doesn't agree, they move on. Part of the decision has to do with not using condoms. I can count the times on one hand that I've had sex without using a condom, but many others seem to prefer forgoing condoms entirely once they're in an exclusive relationship.

The decision about using condoms isn't so cut and dry. There's a variety of factors to consider and every couple is different. Even when condoms are used correctly there's still a 2% failure rate; when not used correctly the rate jumps to 18%. Does sex feel better without them? Yes, but is it the best decision to skip them? Maybe not. So what should you ask yourself before telling your guy to go without?

Do you want to go on birth control?

I'm one of those women who has a problem handling birth control (hormonal or not); my body doesn't react well to it at all. If I were to forgo using condoms, there's basically no defense at all against getting pregnant. If you're not already on birth control, ask yourself if it's something you would consider? Keep in mind that even using the pill perfectly isn't 100% effective. For example, Planned Parenthood states, "Less than 1 out of 100 women will get pregnant each year if they always take the pill each day as directed. About 9 out of 100 women will get pregnant each year if they don't always take the pill each day as directed." However, there are a variety of types of birth control to consider, so consult with your gynecologist about which one is right for you.

Also, make sure to tell your guy if you're not on birth control. He may be willing to go without a condom if he thinks you're on it, but insist on wrapping it up if he finds out you're not. Before you have sex, let him know so the two of you can make the decision about what to do.

Do you use the pull out method?

Several people explained to me that they use the "pull out" method rather than using condoms. A few others said they thought the withdrawal method was basically fail-safe - until they got pregnant. Sure it's better than nothing, but just barely and it's more risky than some realize. When done perfectly, the failure rate is 4%; not done correctly and it jumps to 27%. It's essentially like playing Russian Roulette. The surprising thing is how many guys don't realize that there's a chance a woman can get pregnant from pre-ejaculation fluid, which is probably one of the biggest reasons they'll have no problem promising to pull out first.

Are you ready for a child?

The scary truth is that even with using condoms, pregnancy could happen, but the odds are obviously higher when you go without. Whenever you have sex without a condom, you're taking a chance with getting pregnant. Just because you're exclusive with your guy doesn't mean you're ready to have a kid with him; keep that in mind before you tell him to leave the condom in the drawer.

Are both of you STD-free?

You may already know you're STD-free, but it's a good idea to make sure your guy is as well. You may feel odd talking to him about it, but if you can be exclusive with him, you surely can have the conversation with him about it.

Are both of you only having sex with just each other?

You may be in the mindset that you're exclusive because you've had sex, but your guy may not be on the same page. Before you assume that the two of you are only having sex with each other, talk to him about it. You may not like the answer, but at least you know where you stand. A guy I was dating last year actually brought it up to me first and it made me feel better to know that we were both able to discuss things and put it all out there.

Why do you want to stop using condoms?

I've heard several women say they weren't thrilled about forgoing condoms but stopped using them because their guy wanted to. If you're not 100% comfortable with not using them, then make sure your guy knows this and uses one. Don't let him give you excuses about how it doesn't feel good or he'll leave if he has to use one. If that's the case, let him walk. A true man will respect you and your body without judgment or ultimatums. Sex is about the two of you, and while both of you would likely love to pass up on the condoms, they're often a necessity for your health.

Even if you're exclusive with someone, using condoms shouldn't come down to "Sex feels better without them so let's just not use them." No one can tell you and your guy whether or not you should use them, but both of you should be able to have an open discussion with each other about the topic and make the decision together.

More from Lauren R:

Hanging out vs. a date: How to know the difference

How to get over the bad boy

Keeping a dating spreadsheet: Yay or nay?

View the Original article

Big Pharma Should Fund Research of Diabetes Drug for Cancer Prevention

This story comes from the Yahoo! Contributor Network, where individuals publish their unique perspectives on some of the world’s most popular websites.Do you have a story to tell? Become a Yahoo! contributor COMMENTARY

View the Original article

Should Elderly Drivers Need a Doctor's Note?

Print

Many older baby boomers will turn 65 this year — the largest generation of senior citizens ever to own driver’s licenses.

The influx of senior drivers may make it the right time to start implementing physician-mandated screenings to check whether some are medically fit to take the wheel, say some physicians.

“The restriction of licenses throughout Canada generally occurs only after accumulation of moving violations,” Dr. Donald Redelmeier, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, wrote in an editorial published today in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

“This approach is often too late to prevent injuries,” Redelmeier wrote.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans ages 55 and older use more than one medication that can affect their driving, according to a 2009 study by the AAA Foundation.

Graduated licensing programs that have restricted night and highway driving for young adults seem to have reduced the accident rate in both Canada and the U.S.  Redelmeier proposed similar programs for the elderly.

“The principle is to prevent trauma rather than to await a series of incidents before taking any action,” Redelmeier wrote.

But some researchers say physicians are overestimating how dangerous elderly drivers really are.

While it’s true that the older you get, the more likely you are to get in a crash, current data shows teenage drivers are far more likely to get into a crash than the elderly, according to Ezra Hauer, a professor in the department of civil engineering at the University of Toronto.

“In spite of what data show consistently, almost one-third of Canadians believe that elderly drivers are a ‘very or extremely serious traffic safety problem,’” Hauer wrote in a commentary published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

That perception may also apply to physicians who could be tasked to screen the elderly, he said.

SHOWS: Good Morning America 

View the Original article

Should Elderly Drivers Need a Doctor's Note?

Print

Many older baby boomers will turn 65 this year — the largest generation of senior citizens ever to own driver’s licenses.

The influx of senior drivers may make it the right time to start implementing physician-mandated screenings to check whether some are medically fit to take the wheel, say some physicians.

“The restriction of licenses throughout Canada generally occurs only after accumulation of moving violations,” Dr. Donald Redelmeier, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, wrote in an editorial published today in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

“This approach is often too late to prevent injuries,” Redelmeier wrote.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans ages 55 and older use more than one medication that can affect their driving, according to a 2009 study by the AAA Foundation.

Graduated licensing programs that have restricted night and highway driving for young adults seem to have reduced the accident rate in both Canada and the U.S.  Redelmeier proposed similar programs for the elderly.

“The principle is to prevent trauma rather than to await a series of incidents before taking any action,” Redelmeier wrote.

But some researchers say physicians are overestimating how dangerous elderly drivers really are.

While it’s true that the older you get, the more likely you are to get in a crash, current data shows teenage drivers are far more likely to get into a crash than the elderly, according to Ezra Hauer, a professor in the department of civil engineering at the University of Toronto.

“In spite of what data show consistently, almost one-third of Canadians believe that elderly drivers are a ‘very or extremely serious traffic safety problem,’” Hauer wrote in a commentary published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

That perception may also apply to physicians who could be tasked to screen the elderly, he said.

SHOWS: Good Morning America 

View the Original article

Should Cystic Fibrosis Patients Get So Many Antibiotics?

HealthDay – 3 mins 26 secs ago MONDAY, March 26 (HealthDay News) -- Antibiotics can prolong cystic fibrosis patients' lives, but the drugs also help treatment-resistant bacteria thrive in their lungs, a new, small study suggests.

The findings from the 10-year investigation suggest, but do not prove, that the current standard of aggressive antibiotic treatment for cystic fibrosis patients may not always be the best approach.

It's common to use antibiotics to control infection in cystic fibrosis patients' lungs, but maintaining a more diverse range of bacteria in the lungs may help some patients stay healthy longer, according to study senior author Dr. John LiPuma, a research professor of pediatrics and communicable diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor.

"The conventional wisdom has been that as patients with cystic fibrosis age and become sicker, as their lung disease progresses, more and more bacteria move in," he said in a university news release. "But our study -- which was the first to examine the bacterial communities in cystic fibrosis patients' lungs over a long period of time -- indicates that's not what happens."

Aggressive use of antibiotics actually lowers the diversity of lung bacteria, resulting in infections that are increasingly difficult to treat. A more diverse community of lung bacteria may help keep the most dangerous strains in check, the researchers noted.

"What we normally do is essentially carpet bombing with antibiotics," explained LiPuma. "However, what we found is that over time this ultimately helps treatment-resistant bacteria by getting rid of their competition."

He said the findings may be a first step toward developing new treatment methods, such as more focused use of antibiotics or even giving cystic fibrosis patients beneficial bacteria.

The study was published March 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Cystic fibrosis is a chronic disease in which the body produces thick, sticky mucus that clogs the lungs. The accumulation of the mucus leaves people prone to serious, hard-to-treat and recurrent infections. Eventually, the repeated infections destroy the lungs.

In the study, researchers examined the bacteria from six patients collected over eight to nine years. Half of the patients had a relatively stable type of the disease and the others had the more typical, faster-progressing form. The investigators conducted DNA analysis on bacteria in 126 sputum samples.

Over time, the researchers found that bacterial diversity declined, yet the overall level of bacteria remained fairly constant. The study authors explained that this means a small number of organisms multiply to take the place of those that have been killed off by antibiotics.

More information

The U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute has more about cystic fibrosis.

View the Original article

Rush Limbaugh: Should he be honored with a sculpture in the Missouri capitol?

Beware of Mr. Baker’Entries By CategoryAboutJacqueline TrescottJazzNational Endowment for the Artsnational endowment for the humanitiesStories By DateFull Monthly Archive Posted at 11:17 AM ET, 03/06/2012By Maura Judkis

Rush Limbaugh has never thought highly of artists (though his words for them haven’t been as harsh as what he had to say about Georgetown student Sandra Fluke).

View the Original article