AlterNet
by Laura Gottesdiener
No one--to repeat, no one--understands how it happens. Every day, the minds of millions of high-functioning people slowly slip into another reality, one in which life events, loved ones' faces, children’s names and all the other memories that constitute a person’s identity have disappeared. Deep inside their brains, the slide begins decades before the symptoms of dementia manifest. By the time the car keys begin to go missing, it’s already far too late.
Currently, there are about 36 million people in the world suffering from dementia. By 2050, the population at risk for the disease is expected to hit two billion, causing what experts say will be an unprecedented health care crisis that could cost $1 trillion a year in the U.S. alone.
"The scope of the looming medical-care disaster is beyond comparison with anything that has been faced during the entire history of humanity,” said Dr. Barry Greenberg, the director of strategy for the Toronto Dementia Research Alliance, in a recent talk in Canada.
Researchers have spent decades and tens of billions of dollars in searching for a treatment to Alzheimer’s, to no avail. Even before the looming health care crisis became clear, a drug that could slow or halt the chronic, terminal evaporation of a person’s memory has long been considered the Holy Grail of neuroscience research. The reasons are both economic and philosophic. Since the protracted disease is often as painful for relatives as it is for the patient, drugs are in high demand, with pharmaceutical companies projecting a $14 billion a year market by 2020. But the real reason that a treatment is so highly desired may be because the disease’s challenges the fundamental modern conception of humanity. If Descartes’ proposition, “I think, therefore I am” is accepted as what it means--at least in the Western world--to be human, then what about the projected two billion people who will soon become living, breathing entities without the capacity to remember their own thoughts?
Today, many Alzheimer’s experts are blunt about the lack of any available treatments.
"There really is nothing," Dr. Evelyn C. Granieri told Technology Review in its recent feature on the state of Alzheimer's research. "You don't get better, ever."
This medical reality hasn’t stopped the pharmaceutical industry from turning a profit by selling drugs that are, at best, only minimally effective. Since 1996, Japanese company Eisai and U.S. drug marketer Pfizer have raked in more than $2 billion on the drug Aricept, even though studies have shown the medicine to barely slow the disease. In 2012, the Federal Drug Administration caused a scandal when it approved a higher dosage of the drug--called Aricept 23 mg--so that Pfizer and Eisai could extend their copyright despite evidence that the higher dosage was no more effective and was more likely to cause gastrointestinal problems for patients.
Meanwhile, scientists and federal agencies are rushing to find a real treatment that could stave off the economic and social disaster of having a world population of two billion patients who require daily care. Last February, the National Institute of Health approved additional Alzheimer’s research funding.
“We can’t wait to act,” Kathleen Sebelius, the U.S. health and human services secretary, said upon the announcement.
A new round of clinical trials focused on preventing the onset of the disease--rather than treating it once it has already begun--are beginning this winter. Scientists hope that these trials will demonstrate that the disease’s progression can be interrupted, that the chronic deterioration of patients’ memories can be stopped if the disease is attacked early enough.
This goal faces many challenges. There are numerous genetic mutations of Alzheimer’s, which requires scientists to match clinical trials with the appropriate patients. The disease often lies dormant for decades in a patient’s cerebral spinal fluids before it begins to affect one’s cognitive functioning, prompting scientists to ask just how early the intervention must occur. And all the while, the clock is ticking--not just for individual patients, but also for the entire health care system, prompting some scientists to call for a suspension of the private, profit-based research model in favor of a global, public-private program.
"The medical-care system is going to be bankrupt by 2050 if we don't figure out a way to delay or treat Alzheimer's disease," Greenberg told Technology Review.
"The competitive marketplace," he says, "was not conceived to overcome problems of this magnitude."
Related: How Long Do You Trust an Alzheimer’s Relative with the Car Keys?
Monday, October 15, 2012
Saturday, October 13, 2012
No Value in Any Influenza Vaccine: Cochrane Collaboration Study
Gaia Healthby Heidi Stevenson
This study is damning of the entire pharmaceutical industry and its minions, the drug testing industry and the medical system that relies on and promotes them. Influenza vaccines produce no benefit and cause serious harm. (Updated article.)
A remarkable study published in the Cochrane Library found no evidence of benefit for influenza vaccinations. It’s also damns the quality of flu vaccine studies by saying that the vast majority of trials were inadequate. The authors stated that the only ones showing benefit were industry-funded. They also pointed out that the industry-funded studies were more likely to be published in the most prestigious journals … and one more thing: They found cases of severe harm caused by the vaccines, in spite of inadequate reporting of adverse effects.
The study, Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults, is damning of the entire pharmaceutical industry and its minions: the drug testing industry and the medical system that both relies on and promotes them.
In the usual scientific journal style of understatement, the authors concluded:
The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure. As healthy adults have a low risk of complications due to respiratory disease, the use of the vaccine may be only advised as an individual protection measure against symptoms in specific cases.
The Study
The authors attempted to find and investigate every study that has evaluated the effects of flu vaccines in healthy adults aged 18-65. To this end, they “searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2010) and EMBASE (1990 to June 2010).” They included 50 reports. Forty of them were clinical trials adding up to over 70,000 people. Two reported only on harmful effects and were not included in this study. Studies of all types of influenza vaccines were included: live, attenuated, and killed—or fractions of killed—vaccines.
The primary outcomes they looked for were numbers and seriousness of influenza and influenza-like illnesses. They also looked at the number and seriousness of harms from the vaccines. The authors attempted to collect missing data by writing to the individual studies’ authors. They describe the response as “disappointing”. In the end, they included 50 studies and refused to use 92, mostly because of highly significant flaws, such as using inappropriate controls, not being randomly controlled trials, inconsistencies in data presented, lack of study design, unclear definitions, poor reporting, lack of crude data, and lack of placebo.
The authors found:
Vaccines administered parenterally, that is, outside the digestive tract—which generally means by injection—reduced influenza-like symptoms by only 12%.*
They found no evidence that vaccination prevents viral transmission in healthy adults! (There goes the whole herd immunity argument!) This is particularly significant because, as they noted, inactivated vaccines are known to perform best in healthy adults.
They also found no evidence that flu vaccines prevent complications, either. They attempted to ascertain the degree of complications, and though they did report on some, most of the studies simply did not address the issue or did so inadequately.
*Please note that the article originally read, “reduced influenza-like symptoms by only 4%”, which was incorrect. The figure has been changed to 12% to accurately reflect the study’s report.
Conclusions
The Cochrane study found very little evidence to support even a small improvement in time off work. Even that finding needs to be put into the context of industry influence. The authors wrote:
This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.
“…industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies…”
“…reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin…”
“…there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”
Most assuredly, the “content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding”!
Even without taking into account the shoddiness of the studies in general, the authors were still hard put to find any benefit of any sort for influenza vaccinations in healthy people. At best, they found a small decrease in number of days off work. They did not find that the vaccinations had any benefit whatsoever in complications or mortality.
In spite of the limited reporting on adverse effects, the authors did find some, including 1.6 Guillain-Barré cases per million.
The question that must be asked is: How can influenza vaccinations be justified when there is virtually no benefit—not even the oft-cited dubious herd-immunity—and cases of severe harm are documented, in spite of disgustingly limited reporting of adverse effects?
It is long past time to end the travesty of jabbing adults and children without a shred of evidence showing benefit in spite of trying to find it, and with evidence of crippling harm, in spite of trying to mask it.
7 Nasty and Crazy Effects of Pesticides in Food, Exposure
Natural Society
by Lisa Garber
When asked by a skeptical friend why you buy organic, do you find yourself tongue-tied? Was it obesity? Or thyroid problems? Why should you buy organic? There are numerous reasons to skip the mainstream supermarket food and shop at an organic grocer, but just one of those reasons revolves around the effects of pesticides.
Unfortunately, pesticides attack your body on several fronts. Keep this list handy the next time you find yourself wondering if you should buy a carton of conventional strawberries rather than organic to potentially save a few pennies. Remember that all of the following conditions will cost you much more than money; the effects of pesticides will cost you your health.
Here are 7 nasty and crazy effects of pesticides.
Effects of Pesticides – Cancer
The dreaded diagnosis of cancer has been linked in over 260 studies worldwide to agrochemicals. Worse, scientists have linked pesticides with several types of cancers, including that of the breast, prostate, brain, bone, thyroid, colon, liver, lung, and more. Some researchers from USC found that “those who lived within 500 meters of places where methyl bromide, captan and eight other organochlorine pesticides had been applied, they found, were more likely to have developed prostate cancer.”
But even indirect exposure, such as through parental use, has been found to affect children in a terrible way. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives has linked parental use of pesticides with an increased risk of brain cancer in children. “Parental exposures may act before the child’s conception, during gestation, or after birth to increase the risk of cancer,” the study said. And when the parents are exposed to the pesticides may also play a role in the different cellular changes that lead to cancer.
Obesity and Diabetes
Because pesticides have also been linked to obesity, it’s logical that it would be connected to diabetes, in which obesity often has a role. Some researchers found a higher prevalence of obesity in the participants with high urinary concentrations of a pesticide known as 2,5-dichlorophenol (2,5-DCP). It is important to note that 2,5-DCP is one of the most widely used pesticides on the globe.
Robert Sargis, MD, PhD, revealed his recent study findings at the Endocrine Society’s 94th Annual Meeting, stating that agricultural fungicide created insulin resistance in fat cells. The journal Diabetes Carepublished in 2011 that people with excess weight and high levels of organochlorine pesticides in their bodies had greater risk of becoming diabetic.
Parkinson’s Disease
Long-term exposure to herbicides and pesticides have been associated in over 60 studies with Parkinson’s. You don’t have to be a conventional farmer to be wary of these findings. Use natural methods to keep pests and weeds out of your home and garden today.
Infertility and Birth Defects
One of the most well-known negative effects of pesticides, infertility is continuously found to be a result of exposure to these agrochemicals. Atrazine—a weed killer used in agriculture as well as on golf courses and which has been found in tap water—may be partially responsible for climbing miscarriage and infertility rates. As for men, one 2006 study pinpointed chlorpyrifos with lowering testosterone levels. This pesticide is often found in strawberry fields and apple and peach orchards.
Other researchers tested roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm), and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed.
Avoid pesticides even if you’re already pregnant. These chemicals are responsible for causing various birth defects, too. A report revealed that the top selling herbicide Roundup disrupts male hormones due to the main active ingredient – glyphosate.
Autism
Admittedly, pesticides aren’t solely to blame for autism, but they may be a hefty part of the equation. Leading scientists are attributing the condition to genes and insecticides exposed to the mother while pregnant as well as to the child in early years. This is because many chemicals affect the neurology of bugs, inadvertently affecting the neurological function of children, too. A 2010 Harvard study blames organophosphate pesticides—found in children’s urine—to ADHD.
What is the best way to to avoid pesticide exposure and pesticides in food? Don’t use pesticides, and buy organic. Organic isn’t always easy or cheap, so keep in mind these updated dirty dozen fruits and vegetables to always buy organic (plus 15 cleaner foods you can afford to buy conventional). NASA has also suggested raising air purifying plants indoors to clear your home of indoor air pollution. Remember to remove pesticides from your home, too.
by Lisa Garber
When asked by a skeptical friend why you buy organic, do you find yourself tongue-tied? Was it obesity? Or thyroid problems? Why should you buy organic? There are numerous reasons to skip the mainstream supermarket food and shop at an organic grocer, but just one of those reasons revolves around the effects of pesticides.
Unfortunately, pesticides attack your body on several fronts. Keep this list handy the next time you find yourself wondering if you should buy a carton of conventional strawberries rather than organic to potentially save a few pennies. Remember that all of the following conditions will cost you much more than money; the effects of pesticides will cost you your health.
Here are 7 nasty and crazy effects of pesticides.
Effects of Pesticides – Cancer
The dreaded diagnosis of cancer has been linked in over 260 studies worldwide to agrochemicals. Worse, scientists have linked pesticides with several types of cancers, including that of the breast, prostate, brain, bone, thyroid, colon, liver, lung, and more. Some researchers from USC found that “those who lived within 500 meters of places where methyl bromide, captan and eight other organochlorine pesticides had been applied, they found, were more likely to have developed prostate cancer.”
But even indirect exposure, such as through parental use, has been found to affect children in a terrible way. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives has linked parental use of pesticides with an increased risk of brain cancer in children. “Parental exposures may act before the child’s conception, during gestation, or after birth to increase the risk of cancer,” the study said. And when the parents are exposed to the pesticides may also play a role in the different cellular changes that lead to cancer.
Obesity and Diabetes
Because pesticides have also been linked to obesity, it’s logical that it would be connected to diabetes, in which obesity often has a role. Some researchers found a higher prevalence of obesity in the participants with high urinary concentrations of a pesticide known as 2,5-dichlorophenol (2,5-DCP). It is important to note that 2,5-DCP is one of the most widely used pesticides on the globe.
Robert Sargis, MD, PhD, revealed his recent study findings at the Endocrine Society’s 94th Annual Meeting, stating that agricultural fungicide created insulin resistance in fat cells. The journal Diabetes Carepublished in 2011 that people with excess weight and high levels of organochlorine pesticides in their bodies had greater risk of becoming diabetic.
Parkinson’s Disease
Long-term exposure to herbicides and pesticides have been associated in over 60 studies with Parkinson’s. You don’t have to be a conventional farmer to be wary of these findings. Use natural methods to keep pests and weeds out of your home and garden today.
Infertility and Birth Defects
One of the most well-known negative effects of pesticides, infertility is continuously found to be a result of exposure to these agrochemicals. Atrazine—a weed killer used in agriculture as well as on golf courses and which has been found in tap water—may be partially responsible for climbing miscarriage and infertility rates. As for men, one 2006 study pinpointed chlorpyrifos with lowering testosterone levels. This pesticide is often found in strawberry fields and apple and peach orchards.
Other researchers tested roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm), and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed.
Avoid pesticides even if you’re already pregnant. These chemicals are responsible for causing various birth defects, too. A report revealed that the top selling herbicide Roundup disrupts male hormones due to the main active ingredient – glyphosate.
Autism
Admittedly, pesticides aren’t solely to blame for autism, but they may be a hefty part of the equation. Leading scientists are attributing the condition to genes and insecticides exposed to the mother while pregnant as well as to the child in early years. This is because many chemicals affect the neurology of bugs, inadvertently affecting the neurological function of children, too. A 2010 Harvard study blames organophosphate pesticides—found in children’s urine—to ADHD.
What is the best way to to avoid pesticide exposure and pesticides in food? Don’t use pesticides, and buy organic. Organic isn’t always easy or cheap, so keep in mind these updated dirty dozen fruits and vegetables to always buy organic (plus 15 cleaner foods you can afford to buy conventional). NASA has also suggested raising air purifying plants indoors to clear your home of indoor air pollution. Remember to remove pesticides from your home, too.
Labels:
autism,
cancer,
diabetes,
glyphosate,
GMOs,
obesity,
pesticides
Autism and Vaccinations: Will Your Pediatrician Tell The Truth?
Prevent Disease
by ALEATHEA WIGGINS
The controversy surrounding the link between soaring autism rates and vaccinations continues to escalate. Pediatricians assure parents that most vaccines are safe, but is their word good enough to ease your fears? The research community says there are no conclusive scientific studies which prove that vaccinations cause autism. Opponents of vaccinations also make a valid point, which is that there have never been any long term, double blind studies for any vaccine ever to prove that they are not responsible for the development of autism in children. The vaccine testing, therefore, is on the general population.
Are you willing to play Russian roulette with your child’s brain? An analytical thinker will realize that something is causing autism and it is not the drinking water. Decades ago, the autism rate was about 1 in 10,000. These days, the autism rate is more than 1 in 100. The interesting thing is that since the number of recommended vaccinations has increased, so has the rate of autism.
As more women return to work shortly after giving birth, the number of infants getting vaccinated increases because mothers are often forced to place their newborns into daycare centers, which require infants to get vaccinated for enrollment. Most public schools also exert extreme (sometimes illegal) pressure upon parents to vaccinate their children, and never mention that there are specific exemption clauses in every state, which allow families to legally opt-out of all vaccinations for religious and/or philosophical reasons. Therefore, contrary to all the disinformation, vaccines are technically not required by law.
Does the medical profession have any idea what kind of havoc these vaccinations are causing in the bodies of young babies whose immune systems have not had a chance to develop? What if the babies are allergic to the ingredients? What are the ingredients? Could they be toxic? Do you know what is being injected into your child, or are you blindly following the crowd being too afraid to question so-called authorities?
There are pediatricians who have reservations about giving vaccinations, and refuse to inoculate their own children and grandchildren, but they will inoculate yours. Medical school was expensive, they have loans to repay, and they need to make a living. In his book, How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor, Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, pediatric medical doctor, stated that “vaccinations are the bread and butter of pediatric practice.” Dr. Mendelsohn further explained that there are “significant risks associated with every vaccination and contraindications that may make it dangerous for the shots to be given to your child.” However, most doctors routinely give vaccines to children while remaining unsure of their long term consequences.
Parents have a right to know the truth about vaccinations. Do the benefits really outweigh the risks? Is it better to delay the vaccinations until children are older? Should some of the vaccines on the schedule be eliminated all together? Is there a safer method to help protect children from common childhood diseases? What about pediatricians who practice natural and holistic health care as an option? Is it worse to catch the measles or develop vaccine-induced autism? These are the questions concerned parents need answered.
Is there a link between autism and vaccines? This question will continue to be the topic of debate and controversy and not offer any hope to parents whose children are afflicted with the disease. A better question to ask is “what is the American Pediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics doing to find out what is causing the increase of autism rates in children?” In the meantime, if you are a parent, do your homework and then make the decision you believe is best. Remember, the pediatrician is not going to raise your child.
by ALEATHEA WIGGINS
The controversy surrounding the link between soaring autism rates and vaccinations continues to escalate. Pediatricians assure parents that most vaccines are safe, but is their word good enough to ease your fears? The research community says there are no conclusive scientific studies which prove that vaccinations cause autism. Opponents of vaccinations also make a valid point, which is that there have never been any long term, double blind studies for any vaccine ever to prove that they are not responsible for the development of autism in children. The vaccine testing, therefore, is on the general population.
Are you willing to play Russian roulette with your child’s brain? An analytical thinker will realize that something is causing autism and it is not the drinking water. Decades ago, the autism rate was about 1 in 10,000. These days, the autism rate is more than 1 in 100. The interesting thing is that since the number of recommended vaccinations has increased, so has the rate of autism.
As more women return to work shortly after giving birth, the number of infants getting vaccinated increases because mothers are often forced to place their newborns into daycare centers, which require infants to get vaccinated for enrollment. Most public schools also exert extreme (sometimes illegal) pressure upon parents to vaccinate their children, and never mention that there are specific exemption clauses in every state, which allow families to legally opt-out of all vaccinations for religious and/or philosophical reasons. Therefore, contrary to all the disinformation, vaccines are technically not required by law.
Does the medical profession have any idea what kind of havoc these vaccinations are causing in the bodies of young babies whose immune systems have not had a chance to develop? What if the babies are allergic to the ingredients? What are the ingredients? Could they be toxic? Do you know what is being injected into your child, or are you blindly following the crowd being too afraid to question so-called authorities?
There are pediatricians who have reservations about giving vaccinations, and refuse to inoculate their own children and grandchildren, but they will inoculate yours. Medical school was expensive, they have loans to repay, and they need to make a living. In his book, How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor, Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, pediatric medical doctor, stated that “vaccinations are the bread and butter of pediatric practice.” Dr. Mendelsohn further explained that there are “significant risks associated with every vaccination and contraindications that may make it dangerous for the shots to be given to your child.” However, most doctors routinely give vaccines to children while remaining unsure of their long term consequences.
Parents have a right to know the truth about vaccinations. Do the benefits really outweigh the risks? Is it better to delay the vaccinations until children are older? Should some of the vaccines on the schedule be eliminated all together? Is there a safer method to help protect children from common childhood diseases? What about pediatricians who practice natural and holistic health care as an option? Is it worse to catch the measles or develop vaccine-induced autism? These are the questions concerned parents need answered.
Is there a link between autism and vaccines? This question will continue to be the topic of debate and controversy and not offer any hope to parents whose children are afflicted with the disease. A better question to ask is “what is the American Pediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics doing to find out what is causing the increase of autism rates in children?” In the meantime, if you are a parent, do your homework and then make the decision you believe is best. Remember, the pediatrician is not going to raise your child.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
CELL PHONES TOXIC TO HUMANS AND EARTH
Discovery Newsby Tim Wall
The pollution produced by cell phones can be hard to locate, and it’s not just the fault of the iPhone 5’s much maligned map app. From production to disposal, cell phones contaminate the environment. A recent study by the Ecology Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan and ifixit.com dissected 36 different models of cell phone and found that every one of them contained at least one of the toxic elements: lead, bromine, chlorine, mercury or cadmium.
The least toxic telephone was the Motorola Citrus, whereas the dirtiest dialer was the iPhone 2G. Apple had made big improvements over the years. The iPhone 4S and 5 both ranked in the top 5 of cleanest phones.
“Even the best phones from our study are still loaded with chemical hazards,” said the research director of the Ecology Center and founder of HealthyStuff.org, where the results were published, Jeff Gearhart, in a press release.
“These chemicals, which are linked to birth defects, impaired learning and other serious health problems, have been found in soils at levels 10 to 100 times higher than background levels at e-waste recycling sites in China. We need better federal regulation of these chemicals, and we need to create incentives for the design of greener consumer electronics.”
Altogether, 1,106 individual phones were disassembled and tested by the team at ifixit.com using X-ray fluorescence, a technique that bombards an object with radiation then measures the radiation that is re-released by the object. Specific materials can be identified by the characteristic signature of radiation they re-release.
The biggest pollution and health risk from the phones comes in the mining of the minerals used in the phones, the production of the devices, and their subsequent disposal or recycling.
“We’re not making any claim that there’s any in-use exposure hazard from these mobile phones,” Gearhart told the Detroit Free Press.
The mining of some of the tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold used in cell phone production has been associated with exploitation and brutality in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said Gearhart in a press release. Once the life of the phone is over, many of them are shipped to China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and the Philippines where the hands-on recycling process there exposes workers to dangerous chemicals, according to the release.
"In 2009, 2.37 million tons of electronics were ready for what the Environmental Protection Agency calls ‘end-of-life management’—code for broken, dead, outdated, and unwanted devices,” said Kyle Wiens, CEO of ifixit.com, in a press release. “Of the digital castoffs, only 25 percent made it into recycling centers. We can't allow the other 75 percent of our old electronics to become waste. All those toxins add up. E-waste is an enormous problem that can result in toxic chemicals seeping into drinking water and poisoning the environment.”
Healthystuff.org recommends the e-Stewards website for consumers looking to responsibly dispose of their cell phones and other electronics.
New Study Proves Mercury Exposure During Pregnancy Causes ADHD in Children
Activist Postby Andrew Puhanic
Women who are planning to have a baby or who are already pregnant are now being warned to avoid foods containing mercury and are now being encouraged to eat more fish during pregnancy.
It is well-known that certain species of fish (shark, Barramundi and swordfish) contain high levels of mercury. Whereas, other species of fish such as snapper and salmon usually have relatively low levels of mercury. For a comprehensive list of fish to avoid, click here.
A new study published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine has concluded that children born from mothers who had been exposed to mercury before and during pregnancy are at risk of developing ADHD-related behaviors in their children.
Published by researchers from the Boston University School of Public Health, data was analysed from more than 780 children between 1993 and 1998 at St Luke’s Hospital, the primary hospital that services the population of greater New Bedford, Massachusetts.
The study was designed in response to the contamination of water in the New Bedford harbor from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) before dumping of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) was banned.
For participants of the study that were found to have up to 1 microgram of mercury per gram of hair, their consumption of fish was associated with a lower risk of ADHD-type behaviours in their children.
Interestingly, for participants of the study who had more that 1 microgram of mercury per gram of hair, it was concluded that there was an increased risk of ADHD-type behaviours in their children.
Mothers that were selected to participate in the study had to meet the following conditions: Their children must have been born at St Luke’s Hospital, New Bedford. They must have been at least 18 years old. Lived in 1 of the 4 towns adjacent to the contaminated harbor during their pregnancy.
The researchers also found strong protective associations for mothers who consumed fish during pregnancy (of the safe types listed at the beginning of this article). The results are supported by data from a well-characterized birth cohort.
Interestingly, children of mothers who adjusted their total fish consumption (eating varying quantities) did not, in most instances, change associations between mercury levels and ADHD. Also, it was discovered that high mercury levels were found in mothers who were categorized as:
Mothers who were older.
Mother who were married.
Mothers who had a higher household income.
Mother who did not smoke during pregnancy or use illicit drugs the year before birth.
Mothers who consumed more fish during pregnancy, and had children of white race.
In general, the researchers also found no strong correlation to whether males or females were more prone to developing ADHD when exposed to mercury. However, it was noted that associations were stronger in boys.
The findings presented in this study are consistent with the growing literature that proves mothers who are exposed to mercury during pregnancy increase the risk of their unborn child developing ADHD-related behaviours.
The good news is that there is now more evidence to suggest that consumption of fish during pregnancy has a positive impact on fetal brain development.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Superweeds linked to rising herbicide use in GM crops
Science Blog
A study published this week by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook finds that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops — cotton, soybeans and corn — has actually increased. This counterintuitive finding is based on an exhaustive analysis of publicly available data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agriculture Statistics Service. Benbrook’s analysis is the first peer-reviewed, published estimate of the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant (HT) crops on pesticide use.
In the study, which appeared in the the open-access, peer-reviewed journal “Environmental Sciences Europe,” Benbrook writes that the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is strongly correlated with the upward trajectory in herbicide use. Marketed as Roundup and other trade names, glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds. Approximately 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres, and over 85 percent of corn, are planted to varieties genetically modified to be herbicide resistant.
“Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent,” Benbrook said.
The annual increase in the herbicides required to deal with tougher-to-control weeds on cropland planted to GE cultivars has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds in 2011.
Herbicide-tolerant crops worked extremely well in the first few years of use, Benbrook’s analysis shows, but over-reliance may have led to shifts in weed communities and the spread of resistant weeds that force farmers to increase herbicide application rates (especially glyphosate), spray more often, and add new herbicides that work through an alternate mode of action into their spray programs.
A study published this week by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook finds that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops — cotton, soybeans and corn — has actually increased. This counterintuitive finding is based on an exhaustive analysis of publicly available data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agriculture Statistics Service. Benbrook’s analysis is the first peer-reviewed, published estimate of the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant (HT) crops on pesticide use.
In the study, which appeared in the the open-access, peer-reviewed journal “Environmental Sciences Europe,” Benbrook writes that the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is strongly correlated with the upward trajectory in herbicide use. Marketed as Roundup and other trade names, glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds. Approximately 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres, and over 85 percent of corn, are planted to varieties genetically modified to be herbicide resistant.
“Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent,” Benbrook said.
The annual increase in the herbicides required to deal with tougher-to-control weeds on cropland planted to GE cultivars has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds in 2011.
Herbicide-tolerant crops worked extremely well in the first few years of use, Benbrook’s analysis shows, but over-reliance may have led to shifts in weed communities and the spread of resistant weeds that force farmers to increase herbicide application rates (especially glyphosate), spray more often, and add new herbicides that work through an alternate mode of action into their spray programs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



