Skip to content

For years scientists have warned of breast cancer links to some pesticides, while the EPA and the chemical industry pooh-poohed these associations. Just a coincidence, not true, studies poorly done, and ignore or attack were their common responses. Seeing a mismatch between scientific evidence and what the EPA was saying led researchers at the respected Silent Spring Institute to examine EPA pesticide documents and studies.

The big question: was the EPA deliberately ignoring evidence that some pesticides can cause mammary tumors (the equivalent of breast cancer in humans)? In other words, was the EPA ignoring evidence of some pesticides being carcinogenic when they were determining how to classify a pesticide and its risk assessment?

Their finding: Yes, the EPA was ignoring evidence for a number of pesticides causing mammary tumors. And because of this some pesticides are not labeled as cancer-causing (carcinogenic) by the FDA. Another problem they (and others) found is that the EPA is ignoring evidence about endocrine disruptors, and evidence that some chemicals have a bigger effect at smaller doses than big doses. The old view: the dose makes the poison, but now we know that doesn’t apply to endocrine disruptors which may have a bigger effect at smaller doses.

The scientists identified 28 pesticides that produced mammary tumors in studies, but the EPA acknowledged tumors only in nine, and dismissed the rest. The scientists strongly suggested that the EPA reassess cancer risks for some commonly used pesticides, including malathion, triclopyr, atrazine, propylene oxide, and 3-iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC).

Another concerning problem (and not addressed at all by the EPA) is that 10 pesticides had reported effects on the mammary gland (other than tumors). For five of these pesticides (atrazine, chlorpyrifos, malathion, methoxychlor, and parathion) exposure during pregnancy or early life altered mammary gland development. What does this mean long-term? Will there be effects on lactation (breast-feeding)? (Some research suggests yes).

From Medical Xpress: Dozens of pesticides linked with mammary gland tumors in animal studies

In an analysis of how regulators review pesticides for their potential to cause cancer, researchers at Silent Spring Institute identified more than two dozen registered pesticides that were linked with mammary gland tumors in animal studies. The new findings raise concerns about how the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves pesticides for use and the role of certain pesticides in the development of breast cancer.

Several years ago, a resident on Cape Cod in Massachusetts contacted researchers at Silent Spring looking for information on an herbicide called triclopyr. Utility companies were looking to spray the chemical below power lines on the Cape to control vegetation.  ...continue reading "EPA Needs to Look At Breast Cancer Risks From Certain Pesticides"

Disappointing results from a large study of more than 18,000 adults that looked at whether daily vitamin D supplements for 5 years helps prevent depressionThe Harvard Medical School researchers found that vitamin D didn't prevent depression or improve mood.

The study was large (more than 18,000 adults over the age of 50), double-blind (no one knew who was getting what to prevent bias), had people assigned randomly to either getting vitamin D3 (2000 IU/d of cholecalciferol) or a placebo, and lasted 5 years. The researchers summary of findings: "These findings do not support the use of vitamin D3 in adults to prevent depression."

By the way, the results of this well-done study (which was designed to see cause and effect) are in contrast to observational studies that suggested that a person's vitamin D levels and vitamin D supplements are correlated with the risk of depression and depressive symptoms. Once again a well-done vitamin D study did not provide the health benefits that people were hoping for.

From Medical Xpress: Large study confirms vitamin D does not reduce risk of depression in adults

Vitamin D supplementation does not protect against depression in middle-age or older adulthood according results from one of the largest ever studies of its kind. This is a longstanding question that has likely encouraged some people to take the vitamin.  ...continue reading "Study Finds That Vitamin D Supplements Don’t Prevent Depression"

Could our risk of getting Alzheimer's disease be lowered by something as simple as getting flu and pneumonia vaccines? Two large observational studies suggest just that.

The studies, which were presented at this year's Alzheimer's Association International Conference (AAIC), found that: getting a flu vaccine (with more than one flu shot over the years even better), getting the flu vaccines at a younger age, and additionally getting the pneumonia vaccine between the ages of 65 and 75 years were all associated with a lowered risk of Alzheimer's disease. It's as if they somehow were brain protective.

Excerpts from Medscape: Flu, Pneumonia Vaccination Tied to Lower Dementia Risk

Vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia may help protect against Alzheimer's disease (AD), two large observational studies suggest.

In a cohort study of more than 9000 older adults, receiving a single influenza vaccination was associated with a 17% lower prevalence of AD compared with not receiving the vaccine. In addition, for those who were vaccinated more than once over the years, there was an additional 13% reduction in AD incidence.  ...continue reading "Flu and Pneumonia Vaccinations Linked To a Lower Alzheimer’s Disease Risk"

Are human papilloma viruses (HPV) causing some prostate cancers? And could getting the HPV vaccine help in preventing some cases of prostate cancer? Sure sounds like it according to a recent study published by Australian researchers.

The researchers reviewed 26 studies and came to the conclusion that while prostate cancer likely has many causes, it appears to also have an infectious viral cause - specifically certain human papilloma viruses (HPVs). They point out that HPV vaccines protect against the high risk HPV types 16 and 18, which cause the majority of cervical cancers, and also appear to be implicated in some prostate cancers.

From Medical Xpress: Potential causal role of human papilloma viruses (HPVs) in prostate cancers

Human papilloma viruses (HPVs) - a common group of viruses known to cause cervical cancers—may also have a causal role in prostate cancer, according to a literature review published in the open access journal Infectious Agents and Cancer, supporting the case for universal HPV vaccination. 

James Lawson and Wendy Glenn, at the University of New South Wales, Australia reviewed results from 26 previous studies on HPVs and their links to prostate cancer. They assessed the existing evidence using a common set of nine causal criteria, including the strength and consistency with which HPVs were associated with prostate cancers and whether HPVs were detected in prostate tissues that later went on to develop cancer.  ...continue reading "Prostate Cancer and Human Papilloma Viruses"

Want to lose weight without counting calories?  According to a recent study, weight loss occurs easily in people only eating during a time-restricted time (a limited time each day). Eat all you want, but only during a 4 or 6 hour time period, and then no food the rest of the day. Drink plenty of water, and during fasting hours can also drink zero calorie beverages (black coffee, tea, diet soda).

The study found that two groups of obese adults who only ate within a 4 or 6 hour period each day had a similar weight loss over a 2 month period, similar reductions in insulin resistance and oxidative stress, and resulted in similar body fat loss. Eating within this short time (either 4 or 6 hours) actually resulted in consuming about 550 fewer calories per day.

On average, participants were 47 years old, weighed about 220 pounds (100 kg) and with a body mass index (BMI) of 37 at the start of the study. Most were women (90%) and about 66% were Black. After 8 weeks, persons in both the 4 and 6 hour eating period lost about 3.2% of their initial weight, while those in the control group (who continued eating normally) lost 0.1% of their starting weight.

Can you do it? One example - only eat lunch and dinner every day, say between noon and 6 pm, and watch those pounds melt off! It'll be tough to not eat at other times, but hey! - it's eat what you want (even though you'll ultimately eat less each day), no calorie counting, and still lose weight!

Excerpts from Medscape: Time-Restricted Feeding a 'Viable Option' to Lose Weight

Adults with obesity had similar weight loss and improvements in some cardiometabolic markers after restricting their eating to 4 or 6 hours a day for 2 months, in a new study. ...continue reading "How to Lose Lose Weight Without Counting Calories"

What you eat is all important for health. A recent study found that eating higher amounts of protein, whether animal or plant protein,  were associated with lower rates of death (from any cause). Eating a diet high in plant protein appeared to be especially beneficial, and was associated with both a lower risk of death (all cause mortality) and deaths from cardiovascular disease. Higher protein intakes, whether animal, plant or combined, were not associated with rates of death from cancer.

The research, which was an analysis of 32 studies, found there was a dose-response association between intake of plant protein and risk of death (from any cause) - the more plant protein in the diet, the lower the risk of death.

What foods are high in plant protein? Legumes (beans,lentils, peas ), whole grains, and nuts. Bottom line: Eat more protein, especially plant protein, for your health. [And this means real foods, not supplements!]

From Science Daily: Diets high in protein, particularly plant protein, linked to lower risk of death

Diets high in protein, particularly plant protein, are associated with a lower risk of death from any cause, finds an analysis of the latest evidence published by The BMJ today.  ...continue reading "Diets High In Protein Are Beneficial For Health"

It is great to find a good news study these days, and this one is especially good news for chocolate lovers. Researchers reviewed 6 large studies from the last few decades and found that chocolate consumption more than once a week is associated with a reduced risk of coronary artery disease (CAD).

Coronary artery disease is the hardening and narrowing of the arteries that supply blood to the heart, and is caused by plaque buildup (cholesterol deposits) on the wall of the arteries.

The researchers think that chocolate could be "cardioprotective" (heart-protecting) because of the nutrients in chocolate, all of which have been found to have beneficial health effects in other studies. These are flavanols, polyphenols,  methylxanthines, and stearic acid. In this study they did not address the issue of types of chocolate (dark, milk) or whether eating chocolate more frequently (e.g. daily) is even better.

In recent years, other studies of chocoalte have found not only cardiovascular benefits, but that it also reduces inflammation, and that there are dose-dependent (the more chocolate, the better) improvements in cognition, attention, and memory.

From Science Daily: Chocolate is good for the heart

Eating chocolate at least once a week is linked with a reduced risk of heart disease, according to research published today in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, a journal of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). ...continue reading "Chocolate Appears to Be Good For the Heart"

Want to reduce your risk of getting type 2 diabetes? Two large studies published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ)  found that eating fruits, vegetables, and whole grains really reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes.

The first study (which took data from 3 large American studies) found that persons eating the most whole grain foods (when compared to those eating the least) had a 29% lower risk in developing type 2 diabetes over the next 24 years. Whole grain foods included: whole grain breakfast cereal, oatmeal, dark bread, brown rice, bran, wheat germ, and popcorn. The good results were from eating just two servings a day of whole grains.

A European study didn't just ask people what they ate, but actually measured the level of plasma vitamin C and carotenoids (from fruits and vegetables eaten) in the blood. Those with higher values had a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes over a 10 year period, with the highest group having a 49% lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

Current guidelines recommend eating at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables each day, which is equivalent to eating 400 g or more per day. Many people don't eat nearly enough servings, as was seen in the study. Fruit and vegetable intake in the study  was divided into 5 groups, with median consumption ranging from 274 g (lowest), 357 g, 396 g, 452 g, to 508 grams (highest) per day.

The good news was that increasing fruit and vegetable consumption by just 66 grams (3/4 cup) per day was associated with a 25% lower risk of developing diabetes. So even a small  increase in fruit and vegetable consumption could help prevent type 2 diabetes!

By the way, there are also other health benefits from eating whole grains. Higher consumption lowers the risk of developing several major chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, obesity, and some types of cancer.

From Science Daily: Higher fruit, vegetable and whole grain intake linked to lower risk of diabetes

Higher consumption of fruit, vegetables and whole grain foods are associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes, according to two studies published by The BMJ today.
...continue reading "Reduce Your Risk Of Diabetes By Eating Whole Grains, Fruits, and Vegetables"

Covid-19 is a weird and scary virus. It turns out that while most people report none or minimal symptoms from a Covid-19 infection, there are also thousands of people reporting prolonged symptoms. Instead of being sick with Covid-19 for 2 weeks or so (the average for mild cases), they get sick with the viral infection and then it never seems to go away. There may be big ups and downs with a wide variety of serious symptoms (including neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, fevers, heart palpitations), but they are still sick weeks or months after the initial infection.

What is going on? People experiencing long-term Covid-19 symptoms refer to themselves as "long-haulers" or "long-termers". Covid-19 is a new and complex disease that seems to attack many organs of the body. It is such a new disease that much is still unknown, including why some people seem to experience Covid-19 symptoms for weeks or months after the initial infection. But some possibilities are emerging, such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) . ME/CFS clusters have occurred in the past after many infectious outbreaks, including after the SARS epidemic (a similar coronavirus) of 2003.

Paul Garner, professor of infectious diseases at Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, has documented his battle with long-term Covid-19 symptoms in the British Medical Journal blog (also June 23 follow-up), and the need for "pacing" during recovery to prevent relapses. [twitter.com/paulgarnerwoof?lang=en ]

There are support groups on Facebook such as Survivor Corps, Covid-19 Support Group (have it/had it), Long Covid Support Group, and Long Haul Covid Fighters. Fiona Lowenstein started a Covid-19 support group (Body Politic Covid-19 support group) for people living with the virus

Bottom line: Don't let others, including doctors, dismiss your symptoms. They are real. Read about the experiences of others and join support groups. The good news is that slowly, over time, most people are reporting improvement. Unfortunately, it will take time for public health officials, including the CDC, to catch up and acknowledge what people are already experiencing.

The following are some good articles to read. Start with Ed Yong's article in The Atlantic: Covid-19 Can Last for Several Months

A first person account of prolonged Covid-19 symptoms. Professor Paul Garner's original British Medical Journal (BMJ) piece for the BMJ blog: Paul Garner: For 7 weeks I have been through a roller coaster of ill health, extreme emotions, and utter exhaustion

From VOX, the site for explanatory journalism: The emerging long-term complications of Covid-19, explained

From VOX: My coronavirus survivor group is my most important medical support right now

The CDC view of ME/CFS (but with no mention of Covid-19). From the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)

Many studies find differences between organic and conventional foods, with more favorable results for organic foods (e.g. better nutritionally, lower pesticide residues). A study by Emory University researchers that analyzed samples of conventional and organic milk from different regions of the US adds to the list. They found  that the samples of conventional milk contained pesticides, antibiotics, and synthetic growth hormones, but none of these were found in organic milk.

The pesticide levels in the conventional milk varied among the samples, but included frequently used pesticides such as atrazine, permethrin, cypermethrin, chloroyrifos, and diazinon. Chlorpyrifos, found in 59% of the conventional milk samples, is the pesticide that scientists absolutely want banned because of its neurotoxic effects, especially on developing babies and children.  They also found that antibiotic residue levels in conventional milk samples surpassed federal limits for amoxicillin (3%), and illegal sulfamethazine (37%) and sulfathiazole (26%). Yikes!

These are important findings because milk is a staple in the diet of many people, especially children. By the way, international milk also can have pesticide and drug residues (e.g. Israel).

But not all organic milk is equal. Unfortunately a number of big so-called organic dairy farms (15,000 to 20,000 cows) are basically factory farms (e.g. Aurora Organic Dairy, Horizon) - they exploit loopholes in organic regulations, as well as deliberately not follow some organic standards. However, even low-quality organic milk has been shown to contain no residues of antibiotics and toxic pesticides - it's just that their milk nutritional profile is different than that of grass-fed organic cows.

Organic milk cows are supposed to be outside grazing during the growing season, at least 120 days a year - thus real organic milk is from "grass-fed" cows. Grass-fed cows (but not conventional and factory-farm organic cows) tend to produce milk with elevated levels of two types of fat: conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and omega-3 fat known as alpha-linolenic acid. Both have been associated with health benefits in humans, although the amounts found in milk are relatively small. Another type of fat called linoleic acid, (an omega-6 fat), tends to be lower in milk that is from pasture-fed cows.

The Cornucopia Institute has dairy scorecards and rankings of major organic milk brands, as well as other organic foods (e.g. poultry, cereal, eggs). Cornucopia is an organic agriculture watchdog group - an excellent resource to help you choose organic foods.

Some excerpts from the Jean A. Welsh et al. study in the journal Public Health Nutrition: Production-related contaminants (pesticides, antibiotics and hormones) in organic and conventionally produced milk samples sold in the USA

Conclusions: Current-use antibiotics and pesticides were undetectable in organic but prevalent in conventionally produced milk samples, with multiple samples exceeding federal limits. Higher bGH and IGF-1 levels in conventional milk suggest the presence of synthetic growth hormone. Further research is needed to understand the impact of these differences, if any, on consumers.   ...continue reading "Organic Milk Does Not Contain Toxic Pesticides Found In Conventional Milk"