美前副總統切尼換心
2012年03月26日
切尼換心後正在醫院深切治療部留醫。路透社
美國前副總統切尼（ Dick Cheney）前晚（周六晚）換心，現正在深切治療部留醫。
在總統喬治布殊（ George W. Bush）年代出任其副手的切尼，現年71歲，是長期心臟病患者。
他曾五次心臟病發。
他於37歲首次心臟病發，1988年做心臟搭橋手術，之後兩次「通波仔」，2001年更植入心臟除顫器。
他在2010年因心臟衰竭植入人造心臟泵，其時他已不排除要換心。
美國心臟移植專家沃爾什說，切尼每次心臟病發都令負責泵血的心肌出現更大的「死亡區」，進而令心臟逐漸衰竭，無法運作。
首年存活率88%
切尼辦公室表示，切尼輪候心臟移植逾20個月，終於前晚在維珍尼亞州福爾斯徹奇一間醫院接受心臟移植，他現正在醫院深切治療部留醫及康復中。
家人並不知道捐心者身份，但將永遠感謝這份「生命的禮物」。
換心是項大手術，切尼之後要接受密切監察，也要服藥抑制免疫力，以防身體排斥新心臟。
醫生指稍後會為切尼的新心臟進行切片檢查，過程會增加受感染風險。
據統計，換心者首年存活率有88%、五年存活率75%，10年約為56%。
路透社/法新社
***
Dick Cheney's heart
For the first time, Dick Cheney speaks frankly and in detail about the heart disease that plagued him during his political career
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dick-cheneys-heart/
Today Cheney says he's taking good care of his new heart. He spends much of his time back in Wyoming with his family - and playing rodeo hand to granddaughter Gracie.
Dick Cheney: You wake up every morning with a smile on your face because you've got a new day you never expected to have. And there's a sense of wonderment. Nothing short of magical.
Sanjay Gupta: You know, magical, wonderment, you're words. Those aren't words you typically hear, or expect to hear from you...
2012年3月26日 星期一
2012年2月19日 星期日
Placebo Effect 安慰劑效應
維基百科 安慰劑效應
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/%E5%AE%89%E6%85%B0%E5%8A%91%E6%95%88%E6%87%89
BBC Horizon 2015 The Power of the Placebo BBC Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v6nPcHgBXQ
Treating Depression: Is there a placebo effect?
A Harvard scientist says the drugs used to treat depression are effective, but for many, it's not the active ingredient that's making people feel better. It's the placebo effect.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/treating-depression-is-there-a-placebo-effect/
Do antidepressants work? Since the introduction of Prozac in the 1980s, prescriptions for antidepressants have soared 400 percent, with 17 million Americans currently taking some form of the drug. But how much good is the medication itself doing? "The difference between the effect of a placebo and the effect of an antidepressant is minimal for most people," says Harvard scientist Irving Kirsch. Will Kirsch's research, and the work of others, change the $11.3 billion antidepressant industry? Lesley Stahl investigates.
The following script is from "Treating Depression" which aired on Feb. 19, 2012. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Richard Bonin, producer.
The medical community is at war - battling over the scientific research and writings of a psychologist named Irving Kirsch. The fight is about antidepressants, and Kirsch's questioning of whether they work.
Kirsch's views are of vital interest to the 17 million Americans who take the drugs, including children as young as six and to the pharmaceutical industry that brings in $11.3 billion a year selling them.
Irving Kirsch is the associate director of the Placebo Studies Program at Harvard Medical School, and he says that his research challenges the very effectiveness of antidepressants.
Irving Kirsch: The difference between the effect of a placebo and the effect of an antidepressant is minimal for most people.
Lesley Stahl: So you're saying if they took a sugar pill, they'd have the same effect?
Irving Kirsch: They'd have almost as large an effect and whatever difference there would be would be clinically insignificant.
Stahl: But people are getting better taking antidepressants. I know them.
Kirsch: Oh, yes.
Stahl: We all know them.
Kirsch: People get better when they take the drug. But it's not the chemical ingredients of the drug that are making them better. It's largely the placebo effect.
Irving Kirsch's specialty has been the study of the placebo effect: the taking of a dummy pill without any medication in it that creates an expectation of healing that is so powerful, symptoms are actually alleviated.
[Kirsch: This is the placebo response...]
Kirsch, who's been studying placebos for 36 years, says "sugar pills" can work miracles.
Kirsch: Placebos are great for treating a number of disorders: irritable bowel syndrome, repetitive strain injuries, ulcers, Parkinson's disease.
Even traumatic knee pain. In this clinical trial some patients with osteoarthritis underwent knee surgery. While others had their knees merely opened and then sewn right back up.
Kirsch: And here's what happened. In terms of walking and climbing, the people who got the placebo actually did better--
Stahl: Come on.
Kirsch: --than the people who got the real surgery.
Stahl: No.
Kirsch: And that lasted for a year. At two years after surgery, there was no difference at all between the real surgery and the sham surgery.
Stahl: Is it all in your head or--
Kirsch: Well, it's not all in your head because the placebos can also affect your body. So if you take a placebo tranquilizer, you're likely to have a lowering of blood pressure and pulse rate. Placebos can decrease pain. And we know that's not all in the mind also because we can track that using neuro-imaging in the brain as well.
He says the doctors who prescribe the pills become part of the placebo effect.
Kirsch: A clinician who cares, who takes the time, who listens to you, who asks questions about your condition and pays attention to what you say, that's the kind of care that can help facilitate a placebo effect.
He says he got into researching the effect of antidepressants by accident.
Kirsch: I was interested in evaluating the size of the placebo effect. I really didn't even care about the drug effect because everybody, including me, knew it worked. I used to refer patients to get prescriptions. I didn't change the focus of my work onto looking at the drug effect until I saw the data from our first analysis.
What he saw was that it almost didn't matter what kind of pill doctors gave patients.
Kirsch: We even looked at drugs that are not considered antidepressants: tranquilizers, barbiturates. And do you know what? They had the same effect as the antidepressants.
Stahl: Come on.
Kirsch: Really.
Kirsch was so surprised by his initial findings, he decided to do a second study - using data not only from the drug companies' clinical trials that had been published in medical journals.
This time he got data that weren't published but had been submitted to the FDA, which he got through the Freedom of Information Act.
Kirsch: These are the studies that showed no benefit of the antidepressant over the placebo. What they did is they took the more successful studies, they published most of them. They took their unsuccessful studies and they didn't publish them.
Stahl: So when you did your study, you put all the trials together?
Kirsch: That's right.
Stahl: You're looking at patients who took the real drug and patients who took the placebo.
Kirsch: Yes.
Stahl: Did they get equally better, or did the ones who took the pills get even a little better?
Kirsch: If they were mildly or moderately depressed, you don't see any real difference at all. The only place where you get a clinically meaningful difference is at these very extreme levels of depression.
Stahl: Now look, psychiatrists say the drug works.
Kirsch: Right.
Stahl: The drug companies and their scientists say the drug works. Maybe you're wrong.
Kirsch: Maybe. I'd add to that, by the way, patients say the drugs--
Stahl: Patients say the drug works.
Kirsch: --work. And, for the patients and the psychiatrists, it's clear why they would say the drug works. They take the drug; they get better. Our data show that as well.
Stahl: You're just saying why they get better.
Kirsch: That's right. And the reason they get better is not because of the chemicals in the drug. The difference between drug and placebo is very, very small; and in half the studies non-existent.
Kirsch and his studies have triggered a furious counterattack - mainly from psychiatrists, who are lining up to defend the use of antidepressants like Dr. Michael Thase, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, who has been a consultant to many of the drug companies.
Stahl: Irving Kirsch says that depressants are no better than placebo for the vast majority of people with depression, the vast majority. Do you agree with that?
Michael Thase: No, no. I don't agree. I think you're confusing, or he's confusing, the results of studies versus what goes on in practice.
He says that Kirsch's statistical analysis overlooks the benefits to individual patients.
[Thase with patient: Have a seat.]
And while he agrees there's a substantial placebo effect -
[Thase: Have you been keeping track of your depression scores?]
Especially for the mildly depressed, using a different methodology, he finds that the drugs help 14 percent of those moderately depressed, and even more for those severely depressed.
Thase: Our own work indicates pretty convincingly that this is a large and meaningful effect for a subset of the patients in these studies.
Stahl: But even by your own numbers more people, maybe twice as many people, are having a placebo effect than are actually being helped by the drug.
Thase: That's correct.
Stahl: In the moderate range?
Thase: That's correct.
Stahl: And this isn't troubling to you?
Thase: I wish our antidepressants were stronger. I hope we have better ones in the future. But that 14 percent advantage over and above the placebo is for a condition that afflicts millions of people, that represents hundreds of thousands of people who are better parents, who are better workers, who are happier and who are less likely to take their life.
Since the introduction of Prozac in the 1980s, prescriptions for these drugs have soared 400 percent -
[Commercial: I used to be happy, I remember being happy...]
-- with the drug companies having spent billions over the years advertising them.
Stahl: I don't know about you, but I'm seeing more women running through daisy fields after looking morose than ever before.
Dr. Walter Brown: Absolutely. There's a lot of hype out there.
Dr. Walter Brown is a clinical professor of psychiatry at Brown University's Medical School. He has co-authored two studies that largely corroborate Kirsch's findings.
Brown: The number of antidepressant prescriptions over the last decade has increased and most troublesome, the biggest increase is in the mildly depressed, who are the ones who are least likely to benefit from them.
He says they're getting virtually no benefit from the chemical in the pill. Like most experts, he says these drugs do work for the severely depressed, but he questions the widely held theory that depression is caused by a deficiency in the brain chemical called serotonin, which most of these pills target.
Brown: The experts in the field now believe that that theory is a gross oversimplification and probably is not correct.
Stahl: And the whole idea of antidepressants is built around this theory?
Brown: Yes, it is.
To approve any drug, the Food and Drug Administration merely requires that companies show their pill is more effective than a placebo in two clinical trials - even if many other drug trials failed.
Brown: The FDA for antidepressants has a fairly low bar. A new drug can be no better than placebo in 10 trials, but if two trials show it to be better, it gets approved.
Stahl: Does that make sense to you?
Brown: That's not the way I would do it if I were the king. But I'm not.
Dr. Tom Laughren, director of the FDA's division of psychiatry products, defends the approval process.
Stahl: We're told you discard the negatives. Is that not right?
Tom Laughren: We consider everything that we have. We look at those trials individually--
Stahl: But how are you knowing that the two positives deserve bigger strength in the decision?
Laughren: Getting that finding of a positive study by chance, if there isn't really an effect, is very low. I mean, that's basic statistics and that's the way clinical trials are interpreted. A separate question is whether or not the effect that you're seeing is clinically relevant.
Stahl: Okay. Is it clinically relevant?
Laughren: The data that we have shows that the drugs are effective.
Stahl: But what about the degree of effectiveness?
Laughren: I think we all agree that the changes that you see in the short-term trials, the difference between improvement in drug and placebo is rather small.
Stahl: It's a moderate difference.
Laughren: It's a small, it's a modest difference.
It's so modest - that in Great Britain the National Health Service decided to dramatically revamp the way these drugs are prescribed. It did so after commissioning its own review of clinical trials.
Tim Kendall: We came to the conclusion that for mild to moderate depression, these drugs probably weren't worth having.
Stahl: At all.
Kendall: Not really.
Dr. Tim Kendall, a practicing psychiatrist and co-director of the commission that did the review says that like Irving Kirsch - they were surprised by what they found in the drug companies' unpublished data.
Kendall: With the published evidence, it significantly overestimated the effectiveness of these drugs and it underestimated the side effects.
Stahl: The FDA would say that some of these unpublished studies are unpublished because there were flaws in the way the trials were conducted.
Kendall: This is a multibillion dollar industry. I doubt that they are spending $10 million per trial to come up with a poor methodology. What characterizes the unpublished is that they're negative. Now I don't think it's that their method is somehow wrong; it's that their outcome is not suitable from the company's point of view.
Because of the review, new public health guidelines were issued. Now drugs are given only to the severely depressed as the first line of treatment. For those with mild to moderate depression, the British government is spending nearly half a billion dollars training an army of talk therapists.
[Instructor: If you wanna go a little faster, you can.]
Physical exercise is another treatment prescribed for the mildly depressed.
Kendall: By the end of 10 weeks, you get just as good a change in their depression scores, as you do at the end of 10 or 12 weeks with an antidepressant.
None of the drug companies we spoke to was willing to go on camera, but Eli Lilly told us in an email that drug trials show antidepressants work better than placebos over the long term and that "numerous studies have shown that patients on placebos are more likely to relapse" back into depression. The industry's trade association, PhRMA, wrote us: "antidepressants have been shown to be tremendously effective."
But if Irving Kirsch has his way, the drug companies will have to completely rethink their $11.3 billion business.
Stahl: You're throwing a bomb into this. This is huge what you're saying.
Kirsch: I know that. The problem is that you can get the same benefit without drugs. I think more are beginning to agree. And I think things have begun to change.
Everyone in this story says that if you're depressed, you should see your doctor, and if you're already on these powerful drugs, you shouldn't stop taking them on your own.
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/%E5%AE%89%E6%85%B0%E5%8A%91%E6%95%88%E6%87%89
BBC Horizon 2015 The Power of the Placebo BBC Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v6nPcHgBXQ
Treating Depression: Is there a placebo effect?
A Harvard scientist says the drugs used to treat depression are effective, but for many, it's not the active ingredient that's making people feel better. It's the placebo effect.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/treating-depression-is-there-a-placebo-effect/
Do antidepressants work? Since the introduction of Prozac in the 1980s, prescriptions for antidepressants have soared 400 percent, with 17 million Americans currently taking some form of the drug. But how much good is the medication itself doing? "The difference between the effect of a placebo and the effect of an antidepressant is minimal for most people," says Harvard scientist Irving Kirsch. Will Kirsch's research, and the work of others, change the $11.3 billion antidepressant industry? Lesley Stahl investigates.
The following script is from "Treating Depression" which aired on Feb. 19, 2012. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Richard Bonin, producer.
The medical community is at war - battling over the scientific research and writings of a psychologist named Irving Kirsch. The fight is about antidepressants, and Kirsch's questioning of whether they work.
Kirsch's views are of vital interest to the 17 million Americans who take the drugs, including children as young as six and to the pharmaceutical industry that brings in $11.3 billion a year selling them.
Irving Kirsch is the associate director of the Placebo Studies Program at Harvard Medical School, and he says that his research challenges the very effectiveness of antidepressants.
Irving Kirsch: The difference between the effect of a placebo and the effect of an antidepressant is minimal for most people.
Lesley Stahl: So you're saying if they took a sugar pill, they'd have the same effect?
Irving Kirsch: They'd have almost as large an effect and whatever difference there would be would be clinically insignificant.
Stahl: But people are getting better taking antidepressants. I know them.
Kirsch: Oh, yes.
Stahl: We all know them.
Kirsch: People get better when they take the drug. But it's not the chemical ingredients of the drug that are making them better. It's largely the placebo effect.
Irving Kirsch's specialty has been the study of the placebo effect: the taking of a dummy pill without any medication in it that creates an expectation of healing that is so powerful, symptoms are actually alleviated.
[Kirsch: This is the placebo response...]
Kirsch, who's been studying placebos for 36 years, says "sugar pills" can work miracles.
Kirsch: Placebos are great for treating a number of disorders: irritable bowel syndrome, repetitive strain injuries, ulcers, Parkinson's disease.
Even traumatic knee pain. In this clinical trial some patients with osteoarthritis underwent knee surgery. While others had their knees merely opened and then sewn right back up.
Kirsch: And here's what happened. In terms of walking and climbing, the people who got the placebo actually did better--
Stahl: Come on.
Kirsch: --than the people who got the real surgery.
Stahl: No.
Kirsch: And that lasted for a year. At two years after surgery, there was no difference at all between the real surgery and the sham surgery.
Stahl: Is it all in your head or--
Kirsch: Well, it's not all in your head because the placebos can also affect your body. So if you take a placebo tranquilizer, you're likely to have a lowering of blood pressure and pulse rate. Placebos can decrease pain. And we know that's not all in the mind also because we can track that using neuro-imaging in the brain as well.
He says the doctors who prescribe the pills become part of the placebo effect.
Kirsch: A clinician who cares, who takes the time, who listens to you, who asks questions about your condition and pays attention to what you say, that's the kind of care that can help facilitate a placebo effect.
He says he got into researching the effect of antidepressants by accident.
Kirsch: I was interested in evaluating the size of the placebo effect. I really didn't even care about the drug effect because everybody, including me, knew it worked. I used to refer patients to get prescriptions. I didn't change the focus of my work onto looking at the drug effect until I saw the data from our first analysis.
What he saw was that it almost didn't matter what kind of pill doctors gave patients.
Kirsch: We even looked at drugs that are not considered antidepressants: tranquilizers, barbiturates. And do you know what? They had the same effect as the antidepressants.
Stahl: Come on.
Kirsch: Really.
Kirsch was so surprised by his initial findings, he decided to do a second study - using data not only from the drug companies' clinical trials that had been published in medical journals.
This time he got data that weren't published but had been submitted to the FDA, which he got through the Freedom of Information Act.
Kirsch: These are the studies that showed no benefit of the antidepressant over the placebo. What they did is they took the more successful studies, they published most of them. They took their unsuccessful studies and they didn't publish them.
Stahl: So when you did your study, you put all the trials together?
Kirsch: That's right.
Stahl: You're looking at patients who took the real drug and patients who took the placebo.
Kirsch: Yes.
Stahl: Did they get equally better, or did the ones who took the pills get even a little better?
Kirsch: If they were mildly or moderately depressed, you don't see any real difference at all. The only place where you get a clinically meaningful difference is at these very extreme levels of depression.
Stahl: Now look, psychiatrists say the drug works.
Kirsch: Right.
Stahl: The drug companies and their scientists say the drug works. Maybe you're wrong.
Kirsch: Maybe. I'd add to that, by the way, patients say the drugs--
Stahl: Patients say the drug works.
Kirsch: --work. And, for the patients and the psychiatrists, it's clear why they would say the drug works. They take the drug; they get better. Our data show that as well.
Stahl: You're just saying why they get better.
Kirsch: That's right. And the reason they get better is not because of the chemicals in the drug. The difference between drug and placebo is very, very small; and in half the studies non-existent.
Kirsch and his studies have triggered a furious counterattack - mainly from psychiatrists, who are lining up to defend the use of antidepressants like Dr. Michael Thase, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, who has been a consultant to many of the drug companies.
Stahl: Irving Kirsch says that depressants are no better than placebo for the vast majority of people with depression, the vast majority. Do you agree with that?
Michael Thase: No, no. I don't agree. I think you're confusing, or he's confusing, the results of studies versus what goes on in practice.
He says that Kirsch's statistical analysis overlooks the benefits to individual patients.
[Thase with patient: Have a seat.]
And while he agrees there's a substantial placebo effect -
[Thase: Have you been keeping track of your depression scores?]
Especially for the mildly depressed, using a different methodology, he finds that the drugs help 14 percent of those moderately depressed, and even more for those severely depressed.
Thase: Our own work indicates pretty convincingly that this is a large and meaningful effect for a subset of the patients in these studies.
Stahl: But even by your own numbers more people, maybe twice as many people, are having a placebo effect than are actually being helped by the drug.
Thase: That's correct.
Stahl: In the moderate range?
Thase: That's correct.
Stahl: And this isn't troubling to you?
Thase: I wish our antidepressants were stronger. I hope we have better ones in the future. But that 14 percent advantage over and above the placebo is for a condition that afflicts millions of people, that represents hundreds of thousands of people who are better parents, who are better workers, who are happier and who are less likely to take their life.
Since the introduction of Prozac in the 1980s, prescriptions for these drugs have soared 400 percent -
[Commercial: I used to be happy, I remember being happy...]
-- with the drug companies having spent billions over the years advertising them.
Stahl: I don't know about you, but I'm seeing more women running through daisy fields after looking morose than ever before.
Dr. Walter Brown: Absolutely. There's a lot of hype out there.
Dr. Walter Brown is a clinical professor of psychiatry at Brown University's Medical School. He has co-authored two studies that largely corroborate Kirsch's findings.
Brown: The number of antidepressant prescriptions over the last decade has increased and most troublesome, the biggest increase is in the mildly depressed, who are the ones who are least likely to benefit from them.
He says they're getting virtually no benefit from the chemical in the pill. Like most experts, he says these drugs do work for the severely depressed, but he questions the widely held theory that depression is caused by a deficiency in the brain chemical called serotonin, which most of these pills target.
Brown: The experts in the field now believe that that theory is a gross oversimplification and probably is not correct.
Stahl: And the whole idea of antidepressants is built around this theory?
Brown: Yes, it is.
To approve any drug, the Food and Drug Administration merely requires that companies show their pill is more effective than a placebo in two clinical trials - even if many other drug trials failed.
Brown: The FDA for antidepressants has a fairly low bar. A new drug can be no better than placebo in 10 trials, but if two trials show it to be better, it gets approved.
Stahl: Does that make sense to you?
Brown: That's not the way I would do it if I were the king. But I'm not.
Dr. Tom Laughren, director of the FDA's division of psychiatry products, defends the approval process.
Stahl: We're told you discard the negatives. Is that not right?
Tom Laughren: We consider everything that we have. We look at those trials individually--
Stahl: But how are you knowing that the two positives deserve bigger strength in the decision?
Laughren: Getting that finding of a positive study by chance, if there isn't really an effect, is very low. I mean, that's basic statistics and that's the way clinical trials are interpreted. A separate question is whether or not the effect that you're seeing is clinically relevant.
Stahl: Okay. Is it clinically relevant?
Laughren: The data that we have shows that the drugs are effective.
Stahl: But what about the degree of effectiveness?
Laughren: I think we all agree that the changes that you see in the short-term trials, the difference between improvement in drug and placebo is rather small.
Stahl: It's a moderate difference.
Laughren: It's a small, it's a modest difference.
It's so modest - that in Great Britain the National Health Service decided to dramatically revamp the way these drugs are prescribed. It did so after commissioning its own review of clinical trials.
Tim Kendall: We came to the conclusion that for mild to moderate depression, these drugs probably weren't worth having.
Stahl: At all.
Kendall: Not really.
Dr. Tim Kendall, a practicing psychiatrist and co-director of the commission that did the review says that like Irving Kirsch - they were surprised by what they found in the drug companies' unpublished data.
Kendall: With the published evidence, it significantly overestimated the effectiveness of these drugs and it underestimated the side effects.
Stahl: The FDA would say that some of these unpublished studies are unpublished because there were flaws in the way the trials were conducted.
Kendall: This is a multibillion dollar industry. I doubt that they are spending $10 million per trial to come up with a poor methodology. What characterizes the unpublished is that they're negative. Now I don't think it's that their method is somehow wrong; it's that their outcome is not suitable from the company's point of view.
Because of the review, new public health guidelines were issued. Now drugs are given only to the severely depressed as the first line of treatment. For those with mild to moderate depression, the British government is spending nearly half a billion dollars training an army of talk therapists.
[Instructor: If you wanna go a little faster, you can.]
Physical exercise is another treatment prescribed for the mildly depressed.
Kendall: By the end of 10 weeks, you get just as good a change in their depression scores, as you do at the end of 10 or 12 weeks with an antidepressant.
None of the drug companies we spoke to was willing to go on camera, but Eli Lilly told us in an email that drug trials show antidepressants work better than placebos over the long term and that "numerous studies have shown that patients on placebos are more likely to relapse" back into depression. The industry's trade association, PhRMA, wrote us: "antidepressants have been shown to be tremendously effective."
But if Irving Kirsch has his way, the drug companies will have to completely rethink their $11.3 billion business.
Stahl: You're throwing a bomb into this. This is huge what you're saying.
Kirsch: I know that. The problem is that you can get the same benefit without drugs. I think more are beginning to agree. And I think things have begun to change.
Everyone in this story says that if you're depressed, you should see your doctor, and if you're already on these powerful drugs, you shouldn't stop taking them on your own.
2011年9月26日 星期一
肺腺癌後勤練平甩功兩年半來沒中斷蕭萬長：做來不易卻對健康很有益
肺腺癌後勤練平甩功兩年半來沒中斷 蕭萬長：做來不易卻對健康很有益
副總統蕭萬長昨天在一項活動中說，自己是平甩功的受益者，2年半前一場大病後，他選擇做平甩功，2年半來沒中斷。
蕭萬長、國民黨榮譽主席吳伯雄、台北市長郝龍斌、交通部長毛治國、宏碁創辦人施振榮、尼加拉瓜大使達比亞、國民黨籍立委周守訓等人都出席梅門德藝天地開幕，這是推廣平甩功的李鳳山師父傳承養生文化的園區，由台鐵委託經營，此處原是台鐵麗水街宿舍，曾是「巨流河」作者齊邦媛及其夫婿羅裕昌的舊居。
蕭萬長先前曾患肺腺癌，他致詞時透露，自己是平甩功的受益者，2年半前一場大病之後，「很多人建議我做這種運動、吃那種偏方，最後選擇平甩功」，平甩功說起來容易、做起來不容易，但他「2年半沒中斷」，「各位看到我，就知道有沒有幫助」；蕭萬長這席話搏得現場滿堂喝彩。
蕭萬長說，齊邦媛是台灣的文學之母，她的夫婿羅裕昌曾是台鐵資深工程師，對台鐵自動化、電氣化工程有很大貢獻，這個地方是科學與文化、理性與感性的結合，很有靈氣。
吳伯雄說，雖然他自己也學平甩功，但是因為比較懶，所以成果不及蕭萬長。
吳伯雄說，這塊地他很熟悉，這裡將近20年沒人住，晚上經過都覺得陰森森，原本是養蚊子的地方，但今天卻是陽光普照、磁場很好，李鳳山不管是對人或對物，都能化腐朽為神奇。
梅門德藝天地改建過程，一度引發「違建」爭議，台北市議員李新指出，現在沒有違章的問題，一切依法完成。
台灣新生報 中醫藥天地 2011年09月26日
副總統蕭萬長昨天在一項活動中說，自己是平甩功的受益者，2年半前一場大病後，他選擇做平甩功，2年半來沒中斷。
蕭萬長、國民黨榮譽主席吳伯雄、台北市長郝龍斌、交通部長毛治國、宏碁創辦人施振榮、尼加拉瓜大使達比亞、國民黨籍立委周守訓等人都出席梅門德藝天地開幕，這是推廣平甩功的李鳳山師父傳承養生文化的園區，由台鐵委託經營，此處原是台鐵麗水街宿舍，曾是「巨流河」作者齊邦媛及其夫婿羅裕昌的舊居。
蕭萬長先前曾患肺腺癌，他致詞時透露，自己是平甩功的受益者，2年半前一場大病之後，「很多人建議我做這種運動、吃那種偏方，最後選擇平甩功」，平甩功說起來容易、做起來不容易，但他「2年半沒中斷」，「各位看到我，就知道有沒有幫助」；蕭萬長這席話搏得現場滿堂喝彩。
蕭萬長說，齊邦媛是台灣的文學之母，她的夫婿羅裕昌曾是台鐵資深工程師，對台鐵自動化、電氣化工程有很大貢獻，這個地方是科學與文化、理性與感性的結合，很有靈氣。
吳伯雄說，雖然他自己也學平甩功，但是因為比較懶，所以成果不及蕭萬長。
吳伯雄說，這塊地他很熟悉，這裡將近20年沒人住，晚上經過都覺得陰森森，原本是養蚊子的地方，但今天卻是陽光普照、磁場很好，李鳳山不管是對人或對物，都能化腐朽為神奇。
梅門德藝天地改建過程，一度引發「違建」爭議，台北市議員李新指出，現在沒有違章的問題，一切依法完成。
台灣新生報 中醫藥天地 2011年09月26日
2011年9月3日 星期六
長跑人瑞秘訣無壓力
英國印度裔人瑞辛格（ Fauja Singh）已經100歲，但仍老當益壯，更是全球最年長的馬拉松跑手。他的健康長壽秘訣是多吃薑汁咖喱、喝大量茶，最重要是無壓力生活。
他說：「既然有些東西你無法改變，為何要憂慮？為所擁有的東西感恩，遠離思想負面的人，保持微笑，繼續跑步。」
他現時每日跑16公里，2003年以5小時40分跑畢多倫多馬拉松賽，創下90歲以上男子的最快世界紀錄。他原居住在印度，中年移居英國，開始認真練跑，89歲至今完成過七次馬拉松賽。
英國《每日郵報》
蘋果日報
2011年09月03日
如果有令人氣憤的事 人應快樂地面對
如果心身因此動怒 傷害只會是自己及身邊的人
既然有些東西你無法改變 為何要憂慮？
為所擁有的東西感恩
遠離思想負面的人
保持微笑 繼續跑步
遠離壓力 吃薑汁咖喱 喝多啲茶 就是佢養生秘訣
全球最年長的馬拉松跑手
由89歲至今完成過七次馬拉松賽
每日跑 16公里
2003年以 5小時 40分跑畢多倫多馬拉松賽
創下 90歲以上男子的最快世界紀錄
身心健康 快樂
2011年6月11日 星期六
經脈受寒 類風濕
經脈受寒 類風濕
經過多次抽血檢查，得到莫醫生鍥而不捨地為去追查病源，最後的化驗報告顯示我的類風濕指數奇高，理應是屬於七八十歲的病患，大部份的關節亦應
早已扭曲變形，但正因為我所知道的家族史中並無人患上類風濕，除了腰間及右手中指關節時有腫痛外，其它一切正常，我缺乏類風濕病患的曲型病徵，所以一直都無循此途徑追查。
做了數年病患，努力讀醫書做功課，用身體做實驗，對此症亦略有心得。根據西醫理論，類風濕關節炎的病因不明，是病者的免疫系統侵襲自己的關節組織，持續惡化會導致關節活動能力喪失。
中醫則認為類風濕是由於經脈受寒氣阻塞而導致的，寒氣當然亦分外寒和內寒，醫治的方法就是咬住一個「寒」字不放，只要把阻塞住經脈的寒氣去掉，就能解決疼痛。
這些年來，知道了問題所在後，每天便乖乖地準時吃藥，開始練習適合風濕病患者的太極拳，每天早晚都做15分鐘平甩功，讓氣血到達四肢末梢。保持情緒樂觀，做足保暖措施，絕不立於風口，出入冷氣場所，必備圍巾或小外套。
（這裏要多口講句，香港所有公共交通工具和商場係咪有病呀？冷氣開到勁大，既不環保又嚴重危害健康。
看看今日孩子們多有濕疹等各種皮膚病，這都是寒氣入侵的表徵！）冬天或下雨天，家中會常備紅糖薑湯，有空亦會在家做溫灸療法；但最重要當然是盡力保護身上各大小關節，絕不手持重物，不扭毛巾，不轉扭瓶瓶罐罐，不揹負皮手袋，因為所有的關節一旦變形殘障後便無法復元。
如果家族有人曾患類風濕關節炎，有晨僵，有對稱性的關節同時出現腫腫痛楚，請在你的關節變形前，立即去檢查吧！
鍾慧冰
新報 名筆薈 紅豆冰時間
2011年06月11日
經過多次抽血檢查，得到莫醫生鍥而不捨地為去追查病源，最後的化驗報告顯示我的類風濕指數奇高，理應是屬於七八十歲的病患，大部份的關節亦應
早已扭曲變形，但正因為我所知道的家族史中並無人患上類風濕，除了腰間及右手中指關節時有腫痛外，其它一切正常，我缺乏類風濕病患的曲型病徵，所以一直都無循此途徑追查。
做了數年病患，努力讀醫書做功課，用身體做實驗，對此症亦略有心得。根據西醫理論，類風濕關節炎的病因不明，是病者的免疫系統侵襲自己的關節組織，持續惡化會導致關節活動能力喪失。
中醫則認為類風濕是由於經脈受寒氣阻塞而導致的，寒氣當然亦分外寒和內寒，醫治的方法就是咬住一個「寒」字不放，只要把阻塞住經脈的寒氣去掉，就能解決疼痛。
這些年來，知道了問題所在後，每天便乖乖地準時吃藥，開始練習適合風濕病患者的太極拳，每天早晚都做15分鐘平甩功，讓氣血到達四肢末梢。保持情緒樂觀，做足保暖措施，絕不立於風口，出入冷氣場所，必備圍巾或小外套。
（這裏要多口講句，香港所有公共交通工具和商場係咪有病呀？冷氣開到勁大，既不環保又嚴重危害健康。
看看今日孩子們多有濕疹等各種皮膚病，這都是寒氣入侵的表徵！）冬天或下雨天，家中會常備紅糖薑湯，有空亦會在家做溫灸療法；但最重要當然是盡力保護身上各大小關節，絕不手持重物，不扭毛巾，不轉扭瓶瓶罐罐，不揹負皮手袋，因為所有的關節一旦變形殘障後便無法復元。
如果家族有人曾患類風濕關節炎，有晨僵，有對稱性的關節同時出現腫腫痛楚，請在你的關節變形前，立即去檢查吧！
鍾慧冰
新報 名筆薈 紅豆冰時間
2011年06月11日
2010年11月30日 星期二
手腳冰冷膚色多變可能是雷諾氏症警訊排除疾病因素氣血虛者多動可練練平甩功、太極拳、蹲蹲馬步
手腳冰冷膚色多變可能是雷諾氏症警訊排除疾病因素氣血虛者多動可練練平甩功、太極拳、蹲蹲馬步
手腳冰冷可能是疾病警訊！壢新醫院中醫科主任陳威達指出，手腳冰冷的民眾一旦發現手足膚色轉為蒼白色，一會又變成藍紫色，最後充血成紅色，同時手指或腳趾感到麻木刺痛時，要特別留意是否為雷諾氏症警訊。上述這些症狀通常天冷時較容易發生，尤其在冬夜，症狀更為明顯。
年長者與女性最常手腳冰冷，兩族群手腳冰冷的主因不太相同。陳威達主任分析，年長者多為器官衰退，引起手腳冰冷，常有脾氣不足、腎氣不足、肺氣不足、體弱虛寒、血虛寒凝等問題。而女性則多半為血少、情緒問題導致手腳冰冷，像體質虛、氣虛血少(血液量不足)、氣鬱(血液運行不暢)都會造成手腳冰冷。
另外，像保暖衣物不足、待在冷氣房過久、待在天冷室外過久、缺少規律運動、營養不良、熱量不足、身體衰弱、疲憊、糖尿病、血液問題、血壓異常、血管硬化、感冒發燒影響神經體溫調節、壓力過大、交感神經功能異常等也都可能引起手腳冰冷。
陳威達主任進一步解釋，當身體缺少運動，或壓力過大引起自律神經失調，都容易讓壓力荷爾蒙增加，促使血管收縮，使血液不流暢。而心臟病患者因心臟衰弱，沒有足夠力量將血液順利運送到四肢末梢，所以心臟病患也容易有手腳冰冷問題。
陳威達主任叮嚀，一旦手腳冰冷症合併單邊手足無力、心絞痛症狀，要特別留意是否有動脈硬化現象，民眾要注意心肌梗塞、腦中風等威脅。若合併月經不順、經痛、腰痛等症狀，也許是卵巢機能障礙等疾病警訊。如果合併腰痛、膀胱炎、頻尿等症狀，要小心腎炎等疾病警訊。只要手腳冰冷症還合併其他不適症狀，一定要盡早就醫接受診斷、治療。有手腳冰冷問題，平日要多做運動，天冷則可在室內做些東方式運動。壢新醫院中醫科主任陳威達建議，容易手腳冰冷的民眾可多飲溫水或適時適度喝黑糖薑母茶。天冷可在室內多作瑜珈、平甩功、太極拳等東方式運動，也可在看電視時蹲蹲馬步，因持續運動半小時可以降低壓力荷爾蒙、使血管擴張，幫助血液流暢，有助減輕手腳冰冷困擾。
陳威達主任強調，容易手腳冰冷的民眾一定要在晚上10點半前上床睡覺，夜間11點至1點為膽經時刻，讓身體充分休息，以利養精蓄氣，更使肝膽氣機流暢，更助全身氣血運行，手足更暖和。
要避免手腳冰冷，生活上除了少吃冰冷食物，陳威達主任另建議，常手腳冰冷的民眾可增加紅色、黑色食材，如紅蘿蔔、葡萄、草莓、櫻桃、桑椹、蘋果、紅棗、紅豆、黑豆、黑木耳、黑芝麻等，另可多吃平補食材，如糙米、玉米、薏苡仁、地瓜、空心菜、波菜、茼蒿、花椰、山藥、芭樂、木瓜等。
常手腳冰冷的民眾可適量吃些溫性食物，如糯米、燕麥、甘藷、栗子、杏仁、南瓜、桃子、龍眼肉、花椒、芫萎、老薑、茴香、咖哩等。也要增加熟熱食比例，促進血液循環；少吃大白菜、白蘿蔔等性冷食物。
天冷時常手腳冰冷的民眾注意保暖，外出穿戴帽子、圍巾、口罩、手套，可用些暖暖包保暖，或正確、小心使用電暖器，將室內溫度調到溫暖宜人的程度。當天氣變暖時，可多到郊區運動，舒緩心情可令氣機通達，運動還可以促進血液運行，讓手腳暖和一點。
陳威達主任補充，體重過輕者要維持正常身體質量指數(BMI)，女生BMI值盡量控制在19-22之間，不要過度減重，以免天冷時手腳冰冷症狀惡化。
記者蘇湘雲/台北報導
台灣新生報 中醫藥天地 保健錦囊 2010年11月30日
手腳冰冷可能是疾病警訊！壢新醫院中醫科主任陳威達指出，手腳冰冷的民眾一旦發現手足膚色轉為蒼白色，一會又變成藍紫色，最後充血成紅色，同時手指或腳趾感到麻木刺痛時，要特別留意是否為雷諾氏症警訊。上述這些症狀通常天冷時較容易發生，尤其在冬夜，症狀更為明顯。
年長者與女性最常手腳冰冷，兩族群手腳冰冷的主因不太相同。陳威達主任分析，年長者多為器官衰退，引起手腳冰冷，常有脾氣不足、腎氣不足、肺氣不足、體弱虛寒、血虛寒凝等問題。而女性則多半為血少、情緒問題導致手腳冰冷，像體質虛、氣虛血少(血液量不足)、氣鬱(血液運行不暢)都會造成手腳冰冷。
另外，像保暖衣物不足、待在冷氣房過久、待在天冷室外過久、缺少規律運動、營養不良、熱量不足、身體衰弱、疲憊、糖尿病、血液問題、血壓異常、血管硬化、感冒發燒影響神經體溫調節、壓力過大、交感神經功能異常等也都可能引起手腳冰冷。
陳威達主任進一步解釋，當身體缺少運動，或壓力過大引起自律神經失調，都容易讓壓力荷爾蒙增加，促使血管收縮，使血液不流暢。而心臟病患者因心臟衰弱，沒有足夠力量將血液順利運送到四肢末梢，所以心臟病患也容易有手腳冰冷問題。
陳威達主任叮嚀，一旦手腳冰冷症合併單邊手足無力、心絞痛症狀，要特別留意是否有動脈硬化現象，民眾要注意心肌梗塞、腦中風等威脅。若合併月經不順、經痛、腰痛等症狀，也許是卵巢機能障礙等疾病警訊。如果合併腰痛、膀胱炎、頻尿等症狀，要小心腎炎等疾病警訊。只要手腳冰冷症還合併其他不適症狀，一定要盡早就醫接受診斷、治療。有手腳冰冷問題，平日要多做運動，天冷則可在室內做些東方式運動。壢新醫院中醫科主任陳威達建議，容易手腳冰冷的民眾可多飲溫水或適時適度喝黑糖薑母茶。天冷可在室內多作瑜珈、平甩功、太極拳等東方式運動，也可在看電視時蹲蹲馬步，因持續運動半小時可以降低壓力荷爾蒙、使血管擴張，幫助血液流暢，有助減輕手腳冰冷困擾。
陳威達主任強調，容易手腳冰冷的民眾一定要在晚上10點半前上床睡覺，夜間11點至1點為膽經時刻，讓身體充分休息，以利養精蓄氣，更使肝膽氣機流暢，更助全身氣血運行，手足更暖和。
要避免手腳冰冷，生活上除了少吃冰冷食物，陳威達主任另建議，常手腳冰冷的民眾可增加紅色、黑色食材，如紅蘿蔔、葡萄、草莓、櫻桃、桑椹、蘋果、紅棗、紅豆、黑豆、黑木耳、黑芝麻等，另可多吃平補食材，如糙米、玉米、薏苡仁、地瓜、空心菜、波菜、茼蒿、花椰、山藥、芭樂、木瓜等。
常手腳冰冷的民眾可適量吃些溫性食物，如糯米、燕麥、甘藷、栗子、杏仁、南瓜、桃子、龍眼肉、花椒、芫萎、老薑、茴香、咖哩等。也要增加熟熱食比例，促進血液循環；少吃大白菜、白蘿蔔等性冷食物。
天冷時常手腳冰冷的民眾注意保暖，外出穿戴帽子、圍巾、口罩、手套，可用些暖暖包保暖，或正確、小心使用電暖器，將室內溫度調到溫暖宜人的程度。當天氣變暖時，可多到郊區運動，舒緩心情可令氣機通達，運動還可以促進血液運行，讓手腳暖和一點。
陳威達主任補充，體重過輕者要維持正常身體質量指數(BMI)，女生BMI值盡量控制在19-22之間，不要過度減重，以免天冷時手腳冰冷症狀惡化。
記者蘇湘雲/台北報導
台灣新生報 中醫藥天地 保健錦囊 2010年11月30日
2010年2月13日 星期六
克林頓 2010年02月 「通波仔」
克林頓心臟動脈栓塞要「通波仔」
2010年02月13日
曾有心血管疾病紀錄的美國前總統克林頓（Bill Clinton），前天（周四）因感胸口不適，入院進行「通波仔」手術，打通一條栓塞了的心臟動脈。醫生指手術很成功，他昨天已出院。
手術順利 昨天已出院
克林頓近日為海地大地震賑災和重建工作奔波，兩度訪問海地後患上感冒，一直覺得疲倦不適，胸口更持續幾日不適，於是前天到紐約長老會醫院檢查，但途中仍為海地賑災開電話會議。
克林頓2004年亦在該醫院進行四重心臟搭橋手術，為四條幾乎完全栓塞了的冠狀動脈造繞道。醫生昨天替克林頓檢查，發現其中一條搭橋血管已完全塞死，於是做手術打通其中一條原有動脈，把微型氣球從他腹股溝血管的小切口，向上送至動脈栓塞處打開，再植入兩個支架，撐起打通了的部位。
主診心臟科醫生施瓦茨表示，克林頓的手術很順利，可望下周一恢復工作。助手和朋友說他手術後精神很好，出院後將繼續投入海地工作。
克林頓過去出了名愛吃快餐和高脂食物，而且食量驚人，牛扒要拳頭那麼厚，但在04年做心臟搭橋手術後，飲食已較清淡，施瓦茨稱新的栓塞與飲食無關。專家指心臟搭橋血管5-10年後再出現栓塞，並不罕見，克林頓要再「通波仔」，並不影響他的長遠存活機率。
身為太太的國務卿希拉莉（ Hillary）和女兒切爾西（ Chelsea），都到醫院陪伴克林頓。希拉莉專程由華盛頓到紐約陪伴丈夫，但仍打算按原定計劃出訪波斯灣地區，只是押後一日至今天才啟程。
美聯社/英國《泰晤士報》
通波仔復元快但易翻發
「通波仔」和心臟搭橋手術，是治療栓塞冠狀動脈兩大方法。「通波仔」的好處是毋須全身麻醉開刀，復元時間較短，但短期內再出現栓塞機率較高，一些病人栓塞情況太嚴重或出現栓塞的動脈太小，就需要做心臟搭橋手術，用身體其他部位血管或血管替代品搭橋。
「通波仔」手術很多時會同時植入金屬絲網管狀支架，除了撐起動脈內壁，部份更有藥物塗層，防止血管平滑肌增生令血管再變窄。
美國霍士新聞頻道
***
柯林頓胸痛 心血管植2支架
希拉蕊改行程奔病榻 小柯隔天出院
2010年02月13日
柯林頓為海地重建工作兩度訪問海地，近日胸口持續不適，前天接受心臟手術。
李寧怡╱綜合外電報導
卸任近10年仍極具影響力的美國前總統柯林頓，前天因胸痛嚴重，住院接受心血管裝支架手術，成為美國各媒體頭條新聞。63歲的柯林頓在總統任內以愛吃垃圾食物聞名，2004年曾接受心臟繞道手術。醫生指出，前天手術相當順利。柯林頓已於昨天由女兒雀兒喜陪同下出院，最快後天就能恢復工作。
身為聯合國特使，柯林頓（Bill Clinton）近日為海地大地震賑災和重建工作奔波，兩度訪問海地後感冒，一直覺得疲倦，胸口持續幾天不適，前天到紐約長老教會醫院接受手術，在被推進開刀房前，還在海地賑災開電話會議。
擔任國務卿的妻子希拉蕊（Hillary Clinton）立刻自華府趕往紐約探視丈夫，近午夜才離開。她原定昨訪問波灣行程延至今天。
無心臟病發跡象
總統歐巴馬（Barack Obama）、前總統布希（George W. Bush）及聯合國秘書長潘基文都致電慰問。
2004年9月小柯也在同一家醫院接受心臟繞道手術，當時他有4條冠狀動脈阻塞，隨時可能心臟病發，醫生取用他身體其他部位的血管，繞過阻塞位置，另闢新通道。
他的心臟外科醫師史瓦茲（Allan Schwartz）表示，柯林頓這次已胸痛數日，經檢查發現他有1條繞道血管已完全阻塞，但醫療團隊決定不處置這條血管，轉而在他原本阻塞的1條動脈中，植入2個支架。
史瓦茲表示，手術僅費時1小時，過程「相當順利」，術後2小時小柯就已下床活動。史瓦茲解釋，小柯術前無任何心臟病發跡象，新出現的血管阻塞與他的飲食無關，他「最快後天就能回到工作崗位，恢復他極為活躍的生活方式」。
飲食習慣已改變
柯林頓愛吃出了名，尤好牛排、漢堡、薯條等高熱量食物，是麥當勞的超級主顧。他還有一絕技，可兩口吞下一個蘋果，蘋果核、籽通通下肚，然後再來一個。他在家鄉阿肯色州最愛光顧的兩家餐廳，都以大份量食物聞名，如輪圈蓋的漢堡，及拳頭般厚的牛排。親友指，在5年多前心臟手術後，小柯已徹底改變糟糕的飲食習慣。
他在離開白宮後仍極為活躍，除積極主導柯林頓基金會慈善工作，也參與外交事務。去年到北韓成功營救兩名美國記者；上月海地發生慘絕人寰的大地震，他成為聯合國特使，全力協助賑災。
前幕僚卡維爾（James Carville）形容他：「沒有油門，只有開關，每天啟動23小時，只有一種速度，就是全速前進。」卡維爾認為，柯林頓可能不會聽從醫生的建議，「他不想慢下來，因為全世界的人都愛他。」
柯林頓小檔案
年齡：63歲（1946/08/19生）
政黨：民主黨
家庭：1973年與希拉蕊結婚，育有女兒雀兒喜
學歷：耶魯大學法學院畢業（1973年）
經歷：
1979~1981、1983~1992：阿肯色州州長
1993~2001：美國總統
1998：因性醜聞遭眾議院彈劾
卸任迄今：柯林頓基金會主席
資料來源：《蘋果》資料室
***
美式「王室」嫁女 克林頓：這一天實在太完美
切爾西婚照甜蜜蜜
2010年08月02日
美國沒有王室，但有「克林頓王朝」。前天（周六），美國前總統克林頓和曾競選總統的現任國務卿希拉莉嫁女，兩人的獨生愛女切爾西（ Chelsea Clinton）與投資銀行家梅茲文斯基（ Marc Mezvinsky）行婚禮，傳媒將這次婚禮形容為美式「王室」婚禮。但這是一場神秘婚禮，直至婚禮順利完成後，新娘子幸福出嫁的照片才由「王家」發放。
婚禮在紐約州小鎮萊茵貝克（ Rhinebeck）的阿斯特莊園（ Astor Courts）舉行，500名穿踢死兔和禮服的男女賓客乘巴士抵達莊園。榮升岳父大人的克林頓，牽着30歲女兒的手走上紅地毯。他自爆女兒要他在婚禮前減15磅，消息指他這天超額完成減了20磅，難怪清減了。
爸爸守諾減磅替她領婚，切爾西掩不住新娘子的喜悅，盡得媽媽遺傳基因的那張嘴全程露出燦爛笑容。她是基督徒，新郎是猶太人，所以婚禮採用跨宗教儀式，由一名牧師和一名猶太教士主持。新人交換戒指後由猶太教士唱祝詩歌表達「七項祝福」，再由新人一位朋友朗讀馬克斯短詩《我所有的生命》（ The Life That I Have）。
婚禮歷時兩小時，簡單隆重。晚上7時23分，傳媒終於收到克林頓和希拉莉發放的聲明宣告切爾西結婚了：「今日我們在家人和新人好友圍繞下，驕傲和激動地見證切爾西和馬克在阿斯特莊園美麗的儀式下成親。作為他們共同生活的開始，這一天實在太完美。我們非常高興地歡迎馬克成為我們的家庭成員。」
面對新婚夫婿，向來低調的切爾西在鏡頭前絕不吝嗇，一張照片中情深款款望着另一半。一名在鎮中看熱鬧的女子說，可惜沒有電視直播，「這應像英國戴妃婚禮那樣直播」；另一克林頓粉絲說，克林頓一家「就是我們的王室」。
相對克林頓1975年在初置業的那間磚屋、希拉莉只穿一條棉質裙的婚禮，這場婚禮除了是美式「王室」婚禮，更是一次父母痛錫女兒的婚禮。
美聯社/路透社
王薇薇設計無肩婚紗
婚禮大日子，切爾西明艷照人，一襲無肩婚紗，絲質布料呈斜角暗紋，裙身有散開的薄紗，上配以閃亮奪目的銀白腰帶、手鏈和價值60萬美元（466萬港元）訂婚戒指，簡約優雅。婚禮後公佈，婚妙確認出自「婚紗女王」王薇薇（ Vera Wang）手筆。
之前傳可能設計婚紗的 Oscar de la Renta，原來負責設計希拉莉婚禮所穿桃紅色裙子。新郎的黑色踢死兔禮服，伴郎、兄弟和克林頓的領帶，則由 Burberry設計總監 Christopher Bailey設計。
股神、高比拜恩傳撐場
獲邀切爾西這場美國「王室」婚禮的500賓客，被形容是「 AAA級人物」。但傳媒之前宣稱獲邀的名嘴奧花雲費（ Oprah Winfrey）、芭芭拉史翠珊（ Barbra Streisand）、史提芬史匹堡（ Steven Spielberg）、貝理雅（ Tony Blair）等名人，全部未見蹤影。現身的只見前國務卿奧爾布賴特（ Madeleine Albright）、華裔婚紗設計師王薇薇（ Vera Wang）、地產富豪兼電影製片人 Steve Bing等人，星光稍遜。有人說看見股神畢菲特（ Warren Buffett）和 NBA球星高比拜恩（ Kobe Bryant），賓客絕不失禮。
婚宴食素 備有機牛肉
新娘子切爾西自少女時代開始已素食，今次婚禮也奉行素食主義，但為了迎合食肉賓客口味，也饗以有機牛肉。據三藩巿餐飲公司東主勒迪克指出，素食婚宴的定單去年以來增加了15%，反映越來越多人注重健康。
他指出，素食菜式不能含任何來自動物的材料，包括牛油、芝士、牛奶等，但婚宴素菜不會單調，最受歡迎的菜式，包括烤豆腐、迷迭香配大香菇、金蘇茄配豆煮玉米等。由於切爾西對麪筋敏感，所以結婚蛋糕也特別製造，不含麪筋。
小鎮變「切爾西主題公園」
萊茵貝克平日是個只有8,000人口寧靜小鎮，這次為切爾西婚禮熱鬧起來。數百人為看名人一眼在街上流連，一班少年追逐奧爾布賴特拿簽名，有人戴着克林頓面具坐開篷車，食肆薄餅也有「我願意」字樣，整個鎮就像變成「切爾西主題公園」，吸引日本和以色列傳媒採訪。有當地傳媒人說，婚禮是「華盛頓軍隊18世紀驅逐英軍以來，萊茵貝克頭號大事」。因封路和安檢帶來不便，克林頓給每戶居民送上葡萄酒賠罪，居民甚麼氣都消了，有人更高喊：「我們愛你，恭喜！恭喜！」畢竟這裏的居民當年大選幾乎全是克林頓的支持者。
最低消費料達1560萬
切爾西這次美式「王室」婚禮，花費多少，外界猜測不停。克林頓朋友聲稱不超過100萬美元（780萬港元），但婚禮專家估計最少200萬美元（1,560萬港元），最多高達500萬美元（3,900萬港元），以下是婚禮部份開支估算：
結婚蛋糕 1.1萬美元（7.8萬港元）
•高級洗手間 1.5萬美元（12.0萬港元）
•新娘婚紗 2.0萬美元（15.0萬港元）
•婚桌餐具 10.9萬美元（85.0萬港元）
•額外保安 20.0萬美元（155.0萬港元）
•新娘珠寶首飾 25.0萬美元（194.0萬港元）
•婚宴冷氣玻璃帳篷 60.0萬美元（466.0萬港元）
•婚宴餐飲 75.0萬美元（585.0萬港元）
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/international/art/20100802/14301761
***
克林頓開出「遺願清單」
2010年7月20日
美國前總統比爾•克林頓日前仿照電影《遺願清單》，給自己列出了有生之年要完成的任務。這其中既有希望看到女兒切爾西的孩子出生，也有跑一次馬拉松。
A清單
我要活著看到我的外孫輩出生。
(克林頓的女兒切爾西本月末即將結婚，所以這一任務正在進行之中。)
我希望在我還活著的時候能知道，在不久的未來，這個世界上所有的孩子們都有機會實現自己的夢想，不會過早夭折。
B清單
我要在乞力馬扎羅的雪融化之前登上這座山。
(研究預測，全球氣候變化將導致乞力馬扎羅山的雪在20年之內融化。)
我要在去世之前跑一次馬拉松。
(克林頓在就任美國總統期間以熱愛慢跑而著稱，但他過去10年間多次受到心臟病問題困擾。)
兩份清單
美國前總統比爾•克林頓似乎正在考慮退休之後過上更電影化的生活。在19日舉行的第18屆國際艾滋病會議上，克林頓在講話中提到，在他這個歲數，已經可以像電影《遺願清單》中摩根•弗裡曼和傑克•尼克爾森扮演的角色一樣，給自己列一個去世前要完成的任務清單。
《遺願清單》是一部2007年上映的美國電影。電影講述兩個患了末期癌症的病人如何面對癌症為他們帶來的「死刑」。為了給最後的生命畫上完美句點，傑克•尼克爾森所扮演的億萬富翁與摩根•弗裡曼扮演的藍領技工決定享用共同的遺願清單——在巴黎吃早飯，去香港吃午餐，溜彎兒到長城飆摩托，開飛機去金字塔和泰姬陵……
克林頓說，他有兩份清單，A清單上列有他認為重要的事情，B清單上則是可做可不做的「好玩的事情」。
還有不少時間
在A清單上，克林頓所列的其中一條是希望能在活著的時候知道，所有的孩子都有機會實現夢想，而不是過早夭折。目前，全球有3300多萬艾滋病患者，每年新報告的患者人數為270萬人。克林頓目前正在幫助人們提高對艾滋病的認識，並籌集治療資金。
美國網民對克林頓的「遺願清單」有不同評價。有人說，應該加上「讓美國人收入提高，生活得更好」的願望。還有不少人祝福克林頓能在有生之年完成這些願望。由於克林頓的願望中還有一條是希望看到女兒切爾西的孩子出生，網民表示，克林頓「將會是個好外公」。
美國媒體評論說，63歲的克林頓還有不少時間來完成自己的心願。
來源：新聞晚報
來源：中新網
發佈者：bobo
2010年02月13日
曾有心血管疾病紀錄的美國前總統克林頓（Bill Clinton），前天（周四）因感胸口不適，入院進行「通波仔」手術，打通一條栓塞了的心臟動脈。醫生指手術很成功，他昨天已出院。
手術順利 昨天已出院
克林頓近日為海地大地震賑災和重建工作奔波，兩度訪問海地後患上感冒，一直覺得疲倦不適，胸口更持續幾日不適，於是前天到紐約長老會醫院檢查，但途中仍為海地賑災開電話會議。
克林頓2004年亦在該醫院進行四重心臟搭橋手術，為四條幾乎完全栓塞了的冠狀動脈造繞道。醫生昨天替克林頓檢查，發現其中一條搭橋血管已完全塞死，於是做手術打通其中一條原有動脈，把微型氣球從他腹股溝血管的小切口，向上送至動脈栓塞處打開，再植入兩個支架，撐起打通了的部位。
主診心臟科醫生施瓦茨表示，克林頓的手術很順利，可望下周一恢復工作。助手和朋友說他手術後精神很好，出院後將繼續投入海地工作。
克林頓過去出了名愛吃快餐和高脂食物，而且食量驚人，牛扒要拳頭那麼厚，但在04年做心臟搭橋手術後，飲食已較清淡，施瓦茨稱新的栓塞與飲食無關。專家指心臟搭橋血管5-10年後再出現栓塞，並不罕見，克林頓要再「通波仔」，並不影響他的長遠存活機率。
身為太太的國務卿希拉莉（ Hillary）和女兒切爾西（ Chelsea），都到醫院陪伴克林頓。希拉莉專程由華盛頓到紐約陪伴丈夫，但仍打算按原定計劃出訪波斯灣地區，只是押後一日至今天才啟程。
美聯社/英國《泰晤士報》
通波仔復元快但易翻發
「通波仔」和心臟搭橋手術，是治療栓塞冠狀動脈兩大方法。「通波仔」的好處是毋須全身麻醉開刀，復元時間較短，但短期內再出現栓塞機率較高，一些病人栓塞情況太嚴重或出現栓塞的動脈太小，就需要做心臟搭橋手術，用身體其他部位血管或血管替代品搭橋。
「通波仔」手術很多時會同時植入金屬絲網管狀支架，除了撐起動脈內壁，部份更有藥物塗層，防止血管平滑肌增生令血管再變窄。
美國霍士新聞頻道
***
柯林頓胸痛 心血管植2支架
希拉蕊改行程奔病榻 小柯隔天出院
2010年02月13日
柯林頓為海地重建工作兩度訪問海地，近日胸口持續不適，前天接受心臟手術。
李寧怡╱綜合外電報導
卸任近10年仍極具影響力的美國前總統柯林頓，前天因胸痛嚴重，住院接受心血管裝支架手術，成為美國各媒體頭條新聞。63歲的柯林頓在總統任內以愛吃垃圾食物聞名，2004年曾接受心臟繞道手術。醫生指出，前天手術相當順利。柯林頓已於昨天由女兒雀兒喜陪同下出院，最快後天就能恢復工作。
身為聯合國特使，柯林頓（Bill Clinton）近日為海地大地震賑災和重建工作奔波，兩度訪問海地後感冒，一直覺得疲倦，胸口持續幾天不適，前天到紐約長老教會醫院接受手術，在被推進開刀房前，還在海地賑災開電話會議。
擔任國務卿的妻子希拉蕊（Hillary Clinton）立刻自華府趕往紐約探視丈夫，近午夜才離開。她原定昨訪問波灣行程延至今天。
無心臟病發跡象
總統歐巴馬（Barack Obama）、前總統布希（George W. Bush）及聯合國秘書長潘基文都致電慰問。
2004年9月小柯也在同一家醫院接受心臟繞道手術，當時他有4條冠狀動脈阻塞，隨時可能心臟病發，醫生取用他身體其他部位的血管，繞過阻塞位置，另闢新通道。
他的心臟外科醫師史瓦茲（Allan Schwartz）表示，柯林頓這次已胸痛數日，經檢查發現他有1條繞道血管已完全阻塞，但醫療團隊決定不處置這條血管，轉而在他原本阻塞的1條動脈中，植入2個支架。
史瓦茲表示，手術僅費時1小時，過程「相當順利」，術後2小時小柯就已下床活動。史瓦茲解釋，小柯術前無任何心臟病發跡象，新出現的血管阻塞與他的飲食無關，他「最快後天就能回到工作崗位，恢復他極為活躍的生活方式」。
飲食習慣已改變
柯林頓愛吃出了名，尤好牛排、漢堡、薯條等高熱量食物，是麥當勞的超級主顧。他還有一絕技，可兩口吞下一個蘋果，蘋果核、籽通通下肚，然後再來一個。他在家鄉阿肯色州最愛光顧的兩家餐廳，都以大份量食物聞名，如輪圈蓋的漢堡，及拳頭般厚的牛排。親友指，在5年多前心臟手術後，小柯已徹底改變糟糕的飲食習慣。
他在離開白宮後仍極為活躍，除積極主導柯林頓基金會慈善工作，也參與外交事務。去年到北韓成功營救兩名美國記者；上月海地發生慘絕人寰的大地震，他成為聯合國特使，全力協助賑災。
前幕僚卡維爾（James Carville）形容他：「沒有油門，只有開關，每天啟動23小時，只有一種速度，就是全速前進。」卡維爾認為，柯林頓可能不會聽從醫生的建議，「他不想慢下來，因為全世界的人都愛他。」
柯林頓小檔案
年齡：63歲（1946/08/19生）
政黨：民主黨
家庭：1973年與希拉蕊結婚，育有女兒雀兒喜
學歷：耶魯大學法學院畢業（1973年）
經歷：
1979~1981、1983~1992：阿肯色州州長
1993~2001：美國總統
1998：因性醜聞遭眾議院彈劾
卸任迄今：柯林頓基金會主席
資料來源：《蘋果》資料室
***
美式「王室」嫁女 克林頓：這一天實在太完美
切爾西婚照甜蜜蜜
2010年08月02日
美國沒有王室，但有「克林頓王朝」。前天（周六），美國前總統克林頓和曾競選總統的現任國務卿希拉莉嫁女，兩人的獨生愛女切爾西（ Chelsea Clinton）與投資銀行家梅茲文斯基（ Marc Mezvinsky）行婚禮，傳媒將這次婚禮形容為美式「王室」婚禮。但這是一場神秘婚禮，直至婚禮順利完成後，新娘子幸福出嫁的照片才由「王家」發放。
婚禮在紐約州小鎮萊茵貝克（ Rhinebeck）的阿斯特莊園（ Astor Courts）舉行，500名穿踢死兔和禮服的男女賓客乘巴士抵達莊園。榮升岳父大人的克林頓，牽着30歲女兒的手走上紅地毯。他自爆女兒要他在婚禮前減15磅，消息指他這天超額完成減了20磅，難怪清減了。
爸爸守諾減磅替她領婚，切爾西掩不住新娘子的喜悅，盡得媽媽遺傳基因的那張嘴全程露出燦爛笑容。她是基督徒，新郎是猶太人，所以婚禮採用跨宗教儀式，由一名牧師和一名猶太教士主持。新人交換戒指後由猶太教士唱祝詩歌表達「七項祝福」，再由新人一位朋友朗讀馬克斯短詩《我所有的生命》（ The Life That I Have）。
婚禮歷時兩小時，簡單隆重。晚上7時23分，傳媒終於收到克林頓和希拉莉發放的聲明宣告切爾西結婚了：「今日我們在家人和新人好友圍繞下，驕傲和激動地見證切爾西和馬克在阿斯特莊園美麗的儀式下成親。作為他們共同生活的開始，這一天實在太完美。我們非常高興地歡迎馬克成為我們的家庭成員。」
面對新婚夫婿，向來低調的切爾西在鏡頭前絕不吝嗇，一張照片中情深款款望着另一半。一名在鎮中看熱鬧的女子說，可惜沒有電視直播，「這應像英國戴妃婚禮那樣直播」；另一克林頓粉絲說，克林頓一家「就是我們的王室」。
相對克林頓1975年在初置業的那間磚屋、希拉莉只穿一條棉質裙的婚禮，這場婚禮除了是美式「王室」婚禮，更是一次父母痛錫女兒的婚禮。
美聯社/路透社
王薇薇設計無肩婚紗
婚禮大日子，切爾西明艷照人，一襲無肩婚紗，絲質布料呈斜角暗紋，裙身有散開的薄紗，上配以閃亮奪目的銀白腰帶、手鏈和價值60萬美元（466萬港元）訂婚戒指，簡約優雅。婚禮後公佈，婚妙確認出自「婚紗女王」王薇薇（ Vera Wang）手筆。
之前傳可能設計婚紗的 Oscar de la Renta，原來負責設計希拉莉婚禮所穿桃紅色裙子。新郎的黑色踢死兔禮服，伴郎、兄弟和克林頓的領帶，則由 Burberry設計總監 Christopher Bailey設計。
股神、高比拜恩傳撐場
獲邀切爾西這場美國「王室」婚禮的500賓客，被形容是「 AAA級人物」。但傳媒之前宣稱獲邀的名嘴奧花雲費（ Oprah Winfrey）、芭芭拉史翠珊（ Barbra Streisand）、史提芬史匹堡（ Steven Spielberg）、貝理雅（ Tony Blair）等名人，全部未見蹤影。現身的只見前國務卿奧爾布賴特（ Madeleine Albright）、華裔婚紗設計師王薇薇（ Vera Wang）、地產富豪兼電影製片人 Steve Bing等人，星光稍遜。有人說看見股神畢菲特（ Warren Buffett）和 NBA球星高比拜恩（ Kobe Bryant），賓客絕不失禮。
婚宴食素 備有機牛肉
新娘子切爾西自少女時代開始已素食，今次婚禮也奉行素食主義，但為了迎合食肉賓客口味，也饗以有機牛肉。據三藩巿餐飲公司東主勒迪克指出，素食婚宴的定單去年以來增加了15%，反映越來越多人注重健康。
他指出，素食菜式不能含任何來自動物的材料，包括牛油、芝士、牛奶等，但婚宴素菜不會單調，最受歡迎的菜式，包括烤豆腐、迷迭香配大香菇、金蘇茄配豆煮玉米等。由於切爾西對麪筋敏感，所以結婚蛋糕也特別製造，不含麪筋。
小鎮變「切爾西主題公園」
萊茵貝克平日是個只有8,000人口寧靜小鎮，這次為切爾西婚禮熱鬧起來。數百人為看名人一眼在街上流連，一班少年追逐奧爾布賴特拿簽名，有人戴着克林頓面具坐開篷車，食肆薄餅也有「我願意」字樣，整個鎮就像變成「切爾西主題公園」，吸引日本和以色列傳媒採訪。有當地傳媒人說，婚禮是「華盛頓軍隊18世紀驅逐英軍以來，萊茵貝克頭號大事」。因封路和安檢帶來不便，克林頓給每戶居民送上葡萄酒賠罪，居民甚麼氣都消了，有人更高喊：「我們愛你，恭喜！恭喜！」畢竟這裏的居民當年大選幾乎全是克林頓的支持者。
最低消費料達1560萬
切爾西這次美式「王室」婚禮，花費多少，外界猜測不停。克林頓朋友聲稱不超過100萬美元（780萬港元），但婚禮專家估計最少200萬美元（1,560萬港元），最多高達500萬美元（3,900萬港元），以下是婚禮部份開支估算：
結婚蛋糕 1.1萬美元（7.8萬港元）
•高級洗手間 1.5萬美元（12.0萬港元）
•新娘婚紗 2.0萬美元（15.0萬港元）
•婚桌餐具 10.9萬美元（85.0萬港元）
•額外保安 20.0萬美元（155.0萬港元）
•新娘珠寶首飾 25.0萬美元（194.0萬港元）
•婚宴冷氣玻璃帳篷 60.0萬美元（466.0萬港元）
•婚宴餐飲 75.0萬美元（585.0萬港元）
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/international/art/20100802/14301761
***
克林頓開出「遺願清單」
2010年7月20日
美國前總統比爾•克林頓日前仿照電影《遺願清單》，給自己列出了有生之年要完成的任務。這其中既有希望看到女兒切爾西的孩子出生，也有跑一次馬拉松。
A清單
我要活著看到我的外孫輩出生。
(克林頓的女兒切爾西本月末即將結婚，所以這一任務正在進行之中。)
我希望在我還活著的時候能知道，在不久的未來，這個世界上所有的孩子們都有機會實現自己的夢想，不會過早夭折。
B清單
我要在乞力馬扎羅的雪融化之前登上這座山。
(研究預測，全球氣候變化將導致乞力馬扎羅山的雪在20年之內融化。)
我要在去世之前跑一次馬拉松。
(克林頓在就任美國總統期間以熱愛慢跑而著稱，但他過去10年間多次受到心臟病問題困擾。)
兩份清單
美國前總統比爾•克林頓似乎正在考慮退休之後過上更電影化的生活。在19日舉行的第18屆國際艾滋病會議上，克林頓在講話中提到，在他這個歲數，已經可以像電影《遺願清單》中摩根•弗裡曼和傑克•尼克爾森扮演的角色一樣，給自己列一個去世前要完成的任務清單。
《遺願清單》是一部2007年上映的美國電影。電影講述兩個患了末期癌症的病人如何面對癌症為他們帶來的「死刑」。為了給最後的生命畫上完美句點，傑克•尼克爾森所扮演的億萬富翁與摩根•弗裡曼扮演的藍領技工決定享用共同的遺願清單——在巴黎吃早飯，去香港吃午餐，溜彎兒到長城飆摩托，開飛機去金字塔和泰姬陵……
克林頓說，他有兩份清單，A清單上列有他認為重要的事情，B清單上則是可做可不做的「好玩的事情」。
還有不少時間
在A清單上，克林頓所列的其中一條是希望能在活著的時候知道，所有的孩子都有機會實現夢想，而不是過早夭折。目前，全球有3300多萬艾滋病患者，每年新報告的患者人數為270萬人。克林頓目前正在幫助人們提高對艾滋病的認識，並籌集治療資金。
美國網民對克林頓的「遺願清單」有不同評價。有人說，應該加上「讓美國人收入提高，生活得更好」的願望。還有不少人祝福克林頓能在有生之年完成這些願望。由於克林頓的願望中還有一條是希望看到女兒切爾西的孩子出生，網民表示，克林頓「將會是個好外公」。
美國媒體評論說，63歲的克林頓還有不少時間來完成自己的心願。
來源：新聞晚報
來源：中新網
發佈者：bobo
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)