Skip to content

People are excited over the possibility that herpes viruses could be behind Alzheimer's disease and whether it could be prevented with the use of antiviral medication. This is because currently there is no way to prevent or treat the disease.The June 22, 218 post discussed the amazing recently published study done in Taiwan. The study looked at more than 33,000 individuals and found that those with herpes simplex infections (HSV) had a 2.56-fold increased risk of developing dementia. But individuals that were treated with anti-herpetic (antiviral) medications for a newly diagnosed HSV outbreak had a decreased risk of dementia - that the risk dropped back down "to baseline". [Note that whether it was the person's initial infection or reactivation of an existing infection is unclear.]

The researchers' conclusion was that the antiviral medication reduced the risk of senile dementia (Alzheimer’s disease) by keeping the herpes infection in check. Now studies need to be done to see if this association holds. But the amazing results, along with studies that also implicate other herpes viruses, led to a commentary being published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease about the tantalizing possibility of a simple treatment or prevention - perhaps even a vaccine. This commentary highlights the excitement among some (many?) researchers. The authors of the commentary mention that currently "over 130 studies, using a variety of approaches, support a major role for HSV1 in Alzheimer's Disease". Even if it's not all cases of Alzheimer's disease, but only a portion - it would still be incredible.

From Science Daily: Herpes linked to Alzheimer's: Antivirals may help

A new commentary by scientists at the Universities of Manchester and Edinburgh on a study by Taiwanese epidemiologists supports the viability of a potential way to reduce the risk of Alzheimer's disease. When the Taiwanese authors looked at subjects who suffered severe herpes infection and who were treated aggressively with antiviral drugs, the relative risk of dementia was reduced by a factor of 10. 
...continue reading "Excitement Builds Over Possible Herpes Virus Link to Alzheimer’s disease"

Full fat dairy products better (healthier) than low-fat or non-fat dairy products? A number of studies have recently suggested this (herehere), and now another one. A large study (from Univ. of Texas, Houston School of Public Health) actually measured different kinds of fatty acids in almost 3000 adults over 65 years of age during a 22 year period. The researchers found no link with whole fat dairy and death (from any cause), coronary heart disease, and stroke. In fact, one type of fatty acid (heptadecanoic acid) found in dairy fat was associated with lower death rate from heart disease, especially death from strokes.

Just note that US nutritional guidelines are still sticking to encouraging low-fat or non-fat dairy foods. Eh... From Science Daily:

New research could banish guilty feeling for consuming whole dairy products

Enjoying full-fat milk, yogurt, cheese and butter is unlikely to send people to an early grave, according to new research by The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth). The study, published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no significant link between dairy fats and cause of death or, more specifically, heart disease and stroke -- two of the country's biggest killers often associated with a diet high in saturated fat. In fact, certain types of dairy fat may help guard against having a severe stroke, the researchers reported. 

...continue reading "Is Full Fat Dairy Healthier Than Low Fat or Non-fat Dairy?"

The last few days a number of articles appeared in the news about the official US government's opposition to a WHO (World Health Organization)  resolution supporting breastfeeding. Huh? Apparently this was because the US government decided that supporting formula companies was more important than the health of mothers and babies. The US government went so far as to threaten other countries if they supported the resolution.

Medical and scientific studies have clearly established that breast milk is best for a baby for numerous short and long-term health benefits. There are also health benefits to the mother from breastfeeding (e.g. lower incidence of breast and ovarian cancer, and type 2 diabetes). Of course there are many women who can't or won't breastfeed for various reasons (including they can't because of lack of maternity leave or support at their workplace) and their babies will drink infant formula and do well. But .... in general women should be encouraged to breastfeed because of the numerous health benefits, and they shouldn't just hear nonsense (e.g.lies)  from infant formula companies. Below are links to articles explaining what happened in the US vs the WHO and other countries in the breastfeeding controversy, and some reasons why breast milk  is better than formula.

But what these news articles didn't mention is another really important health benefit: mothers transmit hundreds of species of microbes to their babies in breast milk. Yes, hundreds of microbial species which help "seed" the infant's microbiome (microbial communities). [Some research posts: more than 700 species of bacteria in breast milk, and gut microbiota development,]

From Quartz:  All the scientific support for breastfeeding that the US apparently didn’t read  ...continue reading "Why Are Formula Company Profits More Important Than the Health of Babies?"

Two more studies find that drinking coffee is associated with health benefits, which is good news for coffee drinkers. The first study found an association of daily coffee drinking (both caffeinated and decaffeinated) and lower risk of premature mortality (early death) among half a million United Kingdom residents - as compared to those who don't drink coffee. Studies finding an association with daily coffee consumption and health benefits (e.g. lower risk of type 2 diabetes, some cancers, and death from heart disease and stroke) are really adding up. The studies generally find the positive health effects to be dose dependent, usually up to about 4 cups of coffee.

The second study found that in mice, an amount of caffeine equivalent to four cups of coffee was beneficial to mitochondria, improved mitochondria-dependent processes, and protected heart cells from damage. The researchers thought that the same process occurs in humans. What are mitochondria?Mitochondria are the “powerhouses of the cell”. Mitochondria are organelles found in the cells of every complex organism. They produce about 90% of the chemical energy that cells need to survive.

From Medical Xpress: Fresh grounds for coffee: Study shows it may boost longevity

Go ahead and have that cup of coffee, maybe even several more. New research shows it may boost chances for a longer life, even for those who down at least eight cups daily. In a study of nearly half-a-million British adults, coffee drinkers had a slightly lower risk of death over 10 years than abstainers ...continue reading "More Good News About Coffee"

Figured I'd post an article discussing a recent study that tested a new chronic sinusitis treatment, since so much of this site is devoted to sinusitis  - both the latest research and treatments. Eh... I wasn't impressed with the study. Once again research was aimed at treating symptoms, rather than the actual microbial imbalance (dysbiosis) in the sinuses. No wonder it didn't work so well. The researchers added the corticosteroid drug budesonide to daily nasal saline irrigation in one group vs the other group just did daily nasal saline irrigation - both for 30 days. There were no statistically significant differences - both groups basically improved the same. 

The researchers felt that the budesonide group "trended" toward more of an improvement, but statistically there wasn't a difference. The study was nicely done: it was double-blind (no one knew who got what), it had a placebo group (the saline irrigation only group), and people were randomly put into one or the other group. The budesonide (a corticosteroid) was meant as an alternative to, and to see if it was better than using a corticosteroid nasal spray -  which many people with chronic sinusitis try for a while.

For those interested, here is the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) that people took before and after the 30 days of nasal irrigation, and which is used in many sinusitis studies.  Note that some of the questions, in my mind, are bizarre as a measure of sinusitis symptoms and totally not appropriate, especially these 3 questions: Sad? Embarrassed? Frustrated/restless/irritable? And some of the questions are too vague. They list "post nasal drip" which is vague. Where is a question about "phlegm dripping down the throat", and even perhaps "gagging on phlegm" or "constantly clearing throat"? Where is "waking up with a daily sore throat"? How about "constant headaches", or "constantly feeling sick", or "need to sleep semi-sitting up"? These are descriptions people give me again and again. So eh... the test could use improvement.

Bottom line: People with chronic sinusitis have for years been doing nasal saline irrigation to help treat sinusitis symptoms. It helps the symptoms a little, but typically doesn't cure.  From Medscape:

Does Budesonide Improve Outcome of Nasal Irrigation in Chronic Rhinosinusitis?

 In patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), addition of budesonide to daily large-volume, low-pressure saline sinus irrigation might lead to improved outcome, but the findings are not clear-cut.  ...continue reading "Adding Budesonide to Nasal Sinus Irrigation Does Not Help In Chronic Sinusitis"

Flame retardants are a big, big concern nowadays, with their links to all sorts of health problems, including endocrine disruption, cancer, reproductive problems, etc. (here) And it's hard to avoid them - they're in products all around us, including the upholstered furniture and electronics that most people have in their homes. They leach or "migrate" out of the products, enter into the air, and settle as dust particles in our homes, and in the process get into us - from inhalation and ingestion of the dust. So we can't fully avoid them... but we can drastically reduce the amounts we get into us fairly quickly as a recent study showed.

The study (of 32 mothers living in New York City) found that more frequent hand washing and more frequent house cleaning for one week reduced flame retardant levels - as measured in the urine. About 50% reductions after one week! And yes, all women had flame retardants in their urine - some of which they were able to reduce, but not eliminate. Earlier research by most of this same group of researchers found that every toddler tested (25 toddlers living in New York City) had flame retardants (from dust) on their hands.

The US EPA says that dust is the major way humans are exposed to flame retardants. They suggest the following steps be taken to lower flame retardant exposure, especially if one has young children: frequent hand washing (especially before eating), dust frequently with a moist cloth, frequently wet mop or vacuum with a  vacuum cleaner that has a HEPA filter, and repair tears to upholstered furniture. The study confirms that these steps work.

And please, if buying new upholstered furniture such as sofas, or rugs, or curtains, or some baby products - look at the label to make sure it doesn't contain flame retardants. Even the newer flame retardants that manufacturers claim are "safer" are still chemically related to the old versions, and have the same health concerns. From Medical Xpress:

Handwashing and house cleaning may protect against unhealthy chemicals

Washing your hands and cleaning your house frequently may help to lower your contact with common flame-retardant chemicals, according to a new study by researchers at the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH) at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

...continue reading "Study Finds That Simple Steps Lower Flame Retardant Levels In the Body"

A recent large study (using health data from the United Kingdom) found that children and adults who took five commonly prescribed types of antibiotics had an increased risk of developing kidney stones, compared to people who didn't take these antibiotics. The five types of antibiotics were sulfas, cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, nitrofurantoin, and broad-spectrum penicillins. The antibiotics were taken orally (by mouth).

However, not all antibiotics were associated with an increased risk of kidney stones. The study examined 12 types of antibiotics, and found seven types that didn’t appear to influence the risk of kidney stones.The strongest risks for kidney stones were in children and adolescents, and with more recent exposure. The risk of kidney stones decreased over time, but remained elevated several years after antibiotic use.

The researchers pointed out that recent studies have found differences in the gut microbiome (community of microbes) between patients with kidney stones and those without kidney stones. And that studies find that the use of antibiotics disrupts the microbiome. (here and here) Another reason to only take antibiotics when absolutely necessary. From Science Daily:

Oral antibiotics may raise risk of kidney stones

Pediatric researchers have found that children and adults treated with some oral antibiotics have a significantly higher risk of developing kidney stones. This is the first time that these medicines have been linked to this condition. The strongest risks appeared at younger ages and among patients most recently exposed to antibiotics ...continue reading "Antibiotics and Kidney Stones"

Over the last few decades, the mainstream theory of Alzheimer's disease (amyloid deposits build up in the brain) and medical treatments (drugs) just hasn't led anywhere. Nothing has worked to stop Alzheimer's disease. But evidence is building for an alternative view - that microbes in the brain are leading to the development of Alzheimer's disease (here and here). Now new compelling evidence from studies implicates several strains of herpes virus in Alzheimer's disease. At least one study has suggested herpes zoster, others the common herpes simplex, while other studies suggest other herpes strains. Which means that treatment could perhaps involve anti-viral drugs! (Wouldn't it be great if that works???)

In one study researchers found that human herpes virus DNA and RNA were more abundant in the brains of those diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and that "abundance correlated with clinical dementia scores" - meaning the more of it, the sicker the person was. And the two viruses they found to be most strongly associated with Alzheimer's, HHV-6A and HHV-7, were not as abundant in the brains of those with other neurodegenerative disorders.

The article mentions another recently published study from Taiwan. This amazing study looked at more than 33,000 individuals in Taiwan and found that patients with herpes simplex infections (HSV) may have a 2.56-fold increased risk of developing dementia. And they found that the use of anti-herpetic (antiviral) medications in the treatment of HSV infections was associated with a decreased risk of dementia - that the risk dropped back down "to baseline". The conclusion was that the antiviral medication reduced the risk of Alzheimer’s by keeping the herpes infection in check. Yes! Finally, a way foreward in this horrible disease.

Scroll down and read what one group of researchers says: "Our model right now is that it’s not just a single microbe, but a disturbance in the brain microbiome that can lead to Alzheimer’s disease.”

From A. Azvolinsky's article at The Scientist: Herpes Viruses Implicated in Alzheimer’s Disease

The brains of Alzheimer’s disease patients have an abnormal build up of amyloid-β proteins and tau tangles, which, according to many researchers, drives the ultimately fatal cognitive disease. This theory is being amended to a newer one, which posits that microbes may trigger Alzheimer’s pathology ...continue reading "Herpes Viruses and Alzheimer’s Disease"

1

Titanium dioxide is an ingredient in many foods (including candy), non-prescription medicines, sunscreens, and other products. The titanium dioxide is used to make whites "whiter" and colors "brighter". But...  are titanium dioxide particles somehow contributing to the development of type 2 diabetes in people? The results of a small Univ. of Texas study suggest that titanium dioxide migrates to and is found in the pancreas in people with type 2 diabetes, but not in healthy persons (without type 2 diabetes).

Note that the small study examined only 11 pancreas specimens. But the researchers said the results raise the possibility that type 2 diabetes could be a titanium dioxide particle associated inflammatory disease of the pancreas. Similar to chronic crystal-caused inflammatory lung diseases like silicosis and asbestosis. Whew.

The following article (a press release) about the study does not mention that titanium dioxide particles can vary in size, with a large increase in the use of tiny nanoparticles (diameters less than 100 nm) in recent decades. (In contrast, larger titanium dioxide particles are usually  in the 200–300 nm range.)  But the actual journal article does discuss this - as well as pointing out health harms in animals and humans from all size particles of titanium dioxide. Titanium dioxide is inhaled or ingested, and both animal and human studies show that they enter the bloodstream, they cause inflammation, and even cell death. [Post about some nanoparticle titanium dioxide health concerns.]

So the first question is - will these same results also be found in a larger group of people? And then the big question is - how come it's in the pancreas of those with diabetes and not those without diabetes? Is their diet different? Medicine use? Occupations? Or...? From Medical Xpress:

Possible link found between diabetes and common white pigment

In a pilot study by a team of researchers at The University of Texas at Austin, crystalline particles of titanium dioxide—the most common white pigment in everyday products ranging from paint to candies—were found in pancreas specimens with Type 2 diabetes, suggesting that exposure to the white pigment is associated with the disease

...continue reading "Titanium Dioxide and Diabetes Link?"

Long-awaited  vitamin D studies are finally appearing this year. A large international study found that higher levels of vitamin D in a person's blood is associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer. Those with the highest vitamin D levels had a 21% lower risk (compared to the lowest group) of colorectal cancer after an average 5.5 years.

But the researchers generally do not recommend vitamin D supplements - saying that most people had adequate levels from foods and sunshine. However, they suggest that the risk for vitamin D deficiency is higher for those with very dark skin; for older adults (their skin may not be as efficient at synthesizing vitamin D); and for those who do not go outside at all - and that these groups may need supplementation (but not beyond 4000 IU per day - because higher levels have negative health effects). From Medical Xpress:

Large international study links blood vitamin D levels to colorectal cancer risk

new study authored by scientists from the American Cancer Society, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and more than 20 other medical centers and organizations finds that higher circulating vitamin D concentrations are significantly associated with lower colorectal cancer risk. This study strengthens the evidence, previously considered inconclusive, for a protective relationship. Optimal vitamin D concentrations for colorectal cancer prevention may be higher than the current National Academy of Medicine recommendations, which are based only on bone health ...continue reading "Vitamin D and Colorectal Cancer Risk"