Jun 30, 2010

A succinct summary of the Evidence on Vitamin D and Cancer, from the NCI

This NCI summary of the evidence on the link (or lack of it) between Vitamin D and cancer incidence is an up-to-date for each cancer type. Bottom line: cancer prevention is not the strongest reason for taking Vitamin D, though its role may be clarified in the future.

Jun 28, 2010

Why Vitamin D recommendations are so low.

Here's a great article in the Financial Times about the politics of Vitamin D recommendations. With this issue, there are no bad guys, only policy makers and scientists with different mind-sets about what constitutes good evidence.

Jun 26, 2010

To tackle the federal deficit EVERYONE must suffer some.

Here's an analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget which lays out how federal employees have fared over the past few years compared with employees in the private sector. In my view, federal employees should share in the pain to avoid an angry backlash from the American taxpayer in the future.
But, so should everyone else. AARP should take a leadership role here, but I'm not holding my breath.

Jun 22, 2010

Vitamin D & Cancer- Could it be just sunlight, and not Vitamin D?

New studies funded by NCI have checked out whether people with high circulating levels of Vitamin D have lower rates of certain rare cancers, and have come up with zilch. Vitamin D doesn't seem to be related to incidence of those cancers. For example, non-hodgkins lymphoma: not affected by Vitamin D. But, Non-hodgkins lymphoma IS inversely related to sun exposure. So, the authors of that study (available free-click here) speculate that there may be some other effect of sunlight on immune systems, not acting through Vitamin D, which protects against n-h lymphoma. Could such an effect be making Vitamin D look good across a variety of correlational studies? Maybe... we'll have to stay tuned to the research as it emerges.

Jun 14, 2010

Closing the Wall Street Tax Loophole: Citizen action needed now

You may have heard something about how private equity managers are able to shield most of their income from ordinary income taxes, instead paying the 15% capital gains tax. The original bill in the House eliminated that windfall and required them to declare income from investments in which they have no financial stake as ordinary income. Now, the financial reform bill is in Congress, and ALREADY compromises have been made. This morning's Washington Post editorial (strangely and stupidly not available on their web site right now) lays out the latest deal -- only 65% of the income will be taxed as ordinary income, leaving the remaining 35% to capital gains.

These guys (yes, they're mostly guys) make gazillions, and their lobbying efforts are paying off, with stupid arguments about how this will hurt their incentives to take risks. The only risks they take are with their human capital by choosing to work as private equity artists, and I betcha they couldn't make as much money -- even fully taxed -- had they invested their human capital for 15 years to become a brain surgeon!

Now is the time for those of you in swing states (alas, Maryland is full of democrats who will vote for whatever the leadership agrees to) to contact your congressman or senator and demand that these private equity firm managers pay their fair share of taxes. Click here for directions on how to find out who your congressman or senator is, and how to contact her or him.