This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Election fever hits; genetic influence on diet success and why multivitamin pills might be dangerous

Our roundup of news headlines on Tuesday 6 April.

Our roundup of news headlines on Tuesday 6 April.

As Gordon Brown meets with the Queen to ask for her permission to dissolve parliament, the NHS is holding a central place in political tussles that will dominate the forthcoming election campaign.

The Conservative Party has been accused of ‘sleight of hand' over claims a freeze in national insurance payments will save £200m that they would spend on cancer drugs.

In the Guardian John Appleby chief economist of the King's Fund health thinktank , said the figures did not add up because they were based on a tax rise that had not yet been implemented.

‘I find it very hard to see where the money is. This is like making a saving on a cost that has not been implemented yet. It is not a cost the NHS has to bear at the moment,' he said.

The Daily Mail decides to stick with more comfortable news fodder, with the obligatory cancer scare story of the day. This time it is multivitamin tablets that have been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, according to Swedish researchers.

Experts tracked more than 35,000 women aged between 49 and 83 over a ten-year period and found those who regularly took multivitamins were 19% more likely to have developed a breast tumour.

In other news, the Telegraph reports the secret to losing weight could be down to a persons genes rather than how strictly they adhere to a diet. In the ultimate cop-out for a muffin top, American researchers say it is more likely to be down to genes linked to how the body uses fat and carbohydrate.

But do not lose hope. The Times has a story that aerobic exercise during pregnancy can reduce your chances of having an obesity-prone baby.

Women who trained on exercise cycles had lighter babies than those who did no exercise, scientists found. But their babies were not shorter in length and there was no evidence that they lacked nutrition. *mops brow*

Spotted a story we've missed? Let us know and we'll update the digest throughout the day...

Daily Digest - 06 April 2010

Rate this article 

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Have your say