Skip to content

Author: Sima

Published on Leave a comment on Jogging Or Fast Walking May Strengthen Your Back

Guess what? Instead of babying our backs, we may have to be sure to get plenty of running, jogging, or brisk walking to make our backs stronger - specifically, to strengthen the discs in our spines. Once again, a study finds that exercise (here the upright exercise of running, jogging, or fast walking) has benefits.

The authors of the study state that the research results go against conventional medical wisdom - that instead of weakening the spine (conventional view), those people who run or jog  many miles each week may actually be strengthening the discs of the spine. And maybe... the researchers suggest (though it needs to be verified first)... in the future, we may get medical prescriptions to jog or fast walk a certain number of miles each week to strengthen the discs in our spines.

The study found that the ideal speed for the spine health was a slow run or a fast walk (4 miles per hour). Specifically fast walking and slow running at about 2 meters per second (m/s) appeared the most beneficial. However, high impact exercises, or aerobic exercises, slower walking, or no exercise did not have these benefits.

Until now, discs had been considered a "slow tissue," thought to take much longer to respond to exercise than muscle. And that with age and use the discs degenerate, and nothing could really be done to improve them. But the study's findings suggest that exercise can benefit and strengthen the intervertebral disc (IVD) in the spine. As researcher Dr. Belavy said: "It's also important to reduce the amount of time spent in static postures, such as sitting or even standing still. Even going for a walk during a break at work, or choosing to take the stairs rather than the elevator is good for the discs, as well as for overall back health."

From NY Times: Why Running May Be Good for Your Back

People who regularly run or walk briskly appear to have healthier discs in their spines than people who do not exercise, according to one of the first studies to closely examine links between movement and disc health. The findings refute a widely held belief that activities like running might overtax the spine and indicate that, instead, they make it sturdier. The human spine is a complicated mechanism, composed of vertebral bones cushioned between intervertebral discs. These discs, shaped like tiny whoopee cushions, contain a viscous fluid that compresses and absorbs pressure during movement, keeping the back in good working form. With age, disease or injury, spinal discs can degenerate and bulge, resulting in back pain, which can be debilitating.

There were tantalizing hints in animal studies, however, that this idea could be out of date. ....So for the new study, which was published in April in Scientific Reports, researchers at Deakin University in Australia and other institutions decided to examine the backs of people who run and others who do not. Eventually they recruited 79 adult men and women, two-thirds of whom said that they were runners. Some of these told the researchers that they covered more than 30 miles (about 50 kilometers) a week in training. The researchers designated these as the “long-distance” group. The others said that they ran between 12 and 25 miles a week. All had been training for at least five years. The final group rarely exercised at all.

To ensure that people’s reported activity levels were accurate, the researchers asked their volunteers to wear accelerometers for a week. Then they scanned everyone’s spines, using a sophisticated type of M.R.I. that precisely measures the size and liquidity of each disc. And they found differences. In general, the runners’ discs were larger and contained more fluid than the discs of the men and women who did not exercise. Since both greater size and increased levels of internal fluid indicate better disc health, the runners harbored fundamentally healthier spines than the people who were sedentary, says Daniel Belavy, a professor of physical activity at Deakin University who led the study. Interestingly, mileage barely mattered. 

Published on Leave a comment on Moderate Drinking Associated With Harm to the Brain

Uh-oh... looks like any benefits of moderate alcohol consumption may not extend to the brain, at least in men. A  recent study found that moderate alcohol consumption over the course of a 30 years was associated with increased odds of hippocampal atrophy (brain damage in the hippocampus of the brain) - when compared to abstainers. Hippocampal atrophy causes memory problems and affects spatial navigation, and is also an early characteristic of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. This result occurred in a dose dependent fashion - meaning the more that was drunk regularly, the more the atrophy in that area of the brain.

The heavier drinkers (when compared to abstainers) also had a faster decline in verbal skills ('verbal fluency") and changes in the white matter of the brain (specifically "corpus callosum microstructure"). There was no protective effect of light drinking when compared to abstainers (the 2 groups had similar results). **However, the researchers also reported: "The hippocampal atrophy associations we found in the total sample were replicated in men alone but not in women." Note: there were few women in the study (only 103 out of 527 studied) and even fewer were "heavy" drinkers (14 women), but one wonders - why not? Why didn't women drinkers have these brain changes?**

So how much did the moderate drinkers drink? They really didn't drink that much, but there were different groups: the abstainers (less than 1 unit of alcohol a week), “light” drinking was between 1 and <7 units, “moderate” drinking as 7 to <14 units a week for women and 7 to <21 units for men, and the heavier drinkers - those that drank more units per week, for an average of 30 units a week. What is a "unit" of alcohol? A medium glass of wine has about two units of alcohol, and so does a pint of  ordinary strength beer or lager. Thus the male moderate drinkers drank about a medium glass of wine or a beer each night, and maybe a little extra on the weekends. (In other words, not that much.) And the heaviest drinkers had a little more than two medium glasses of wine or two beers every night of the week, plus a little more on weekends.

What do the results mean?  The researchers said that  they don't have any evidence linking the brain changes they saw on the MRI brain scans to any negative general cognitive effects, but they did lose more "language fluency" with time. (They gave the people various tests.) The abstainer group (37 people) was very small - perhaps other lifestyle factors (e.g., nutrition) may be playing a part in the results. Also, if people  under-reported actual alcohol consumption - then it would throw off the results. While studies show that drinking can increase cancer risk, other studies have found that moderate drinkers seem to live longer than abstainers. From Medical Xpress:

Even moderate drinking linked to a decline in brain health, finds study

Alcohol consumption, even at moderate levels, is associated with increased risk of adverse brain outcomes and steeper decline in cognitive (mental) skills, finds a study published by The BMJ today. Heavy drinking is known to be associated with poor brain health, but few studies have examined the effects of moderate drinking on the brain—and results are inconsistent. So a team of researchers based at the University of Oxford and University College London set out to investigate whether moderate alcohol consumption has a beneficial or harmful association—or no association at all—with brain structure and function.

They used data on weekly alcohol intake and cognitive performance measured repeatedly over 30 years (1985-2015) for 550 healthy men and women who were taking part in the Whitehall II study. This study is evaluating the impact of social and economic factors on the long term health of around 10,000 British adults. Participants had an average age of 43 at the start of the study and none were alcohol dependent. Brain function tests were carried out at regular intervals and at the end of the study (2012-15), participants underwent an MRI brain scan.... After adjusting for these confounders, the researchers found that higher alcohol consumption over the 30 year study period was associated with increased risk of hippocampal atrophy - a form of brain damage that affects memory and spatial navigation.

While those consuming over 30 units a week were at the highest risk compared with abstainers, even those drinking moderately (14-21 units per week) were three times more likely to have hippocampal atrophy compared with abstainers. There was no protective effect of light drinking (up to 7 units per week) over abstinence.

Higher consumption was also associated with poorer white matter integrity (critical for efficient cognitive functioning) and faster decline in language fluency (how many words beginning with a specific letter can be generated in one minute). But no association was found with semantic fluency (how many words in a specific category can be named in one minute) or word recall. The authors point out that this is an observational study, so no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect, and say some limitations could have introduced bias. [Original study.]

Published on Leave a comment on Can Cancer Immunotherapy Make Some Cancers Grow?

T-Cells and cancer Everyone has heard about the miraculous stories of recovery from cancer using immunotherapy. Immunotherapy involves giving the sick person substances which stimulate the person's own immune system to battle the cancer. And when it works, it's wonderful. But...there's another side - a dark side of the harms from these treatments - that is rarely discussed, and why we should be very careful going forward.

Here are two articles that do point out the problems - such as in some people the immunotherapy actually accelerates the cancer being treated (called "hyperprogression of tumors"). Studies suggest that these people share certain genetic characteristics or they are over the age of 65. In general, many patients undergoing immunotherapy have side-effects, some even developing life-threatening ones, from the treatments. Also, most patients do not respond to the immunotherapy treatments, for reasons that remain largely unknown. Obviously more studies are needed. Remember, this field is in its infancy.

Excerpts from Bob Tedeschi's article, from STAT: Cancer researchers worry immunotherapy may hasten growth of tumors in some patients

For doctors at the University of California, San Diego, it was seemingly a no-lose proposition: A 73-year-old patient’s bladder cancer was slowly progressing but he was generally stable and strong. He seemed like the ideal candidate for an immunotherapy drug, atezolizumab, or Tecentriq, that had just been approved to treat bladder cancer patients. Doctors started the patient on the drug in June. It was a spectacular failure: Within six weeks, he was removed from the drug, and he died two months later.

In a troubling phenomenon that researchers have observed in a number of cases recently, thetreatment appeared not only to fail to thwart the man’s cancer, but to unleash its full fury. It seemed to make the tumor grow faster. The patient’s case was one of a handful described last week in the journal Clinical Cancer Research. Of the 155 cases studied, eight patients who had been fairly stable before immunotherapy treatment declined rapidly, failing the therapy within two months. Six saw their tumors enter a hyperactive phase, where the tumors grew by between 53 percent and 258 percent.

“There’s some phenomenon here that seems to be true, and I think we cannot just give this therapy randomly to the patient,” the author of the study, Dr. Shumei Kato, an oncologist at UC San Diego, said in an interview with STAT. “We need to select who’s going to be on it.” .... But similar findings were published last year by cancer researchers at the Gustave Roussy Institute in France. These results were considered controversial by some, since they hadn’t been widely confirmed by other oncologists.

In the latest Clinical Cancer Research findings, those who experienced the hyperprogression of tumors, as the phenomenon is known, shared specific genetic characteristics. In all six patients with so-called amplifications in the MDM2 gene family, and two of 10 patients with alterations in the EGFR gene, the anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immunotherapies quickly failed, and the patients’ cancers progressed rapidly. ....Doctors who prescribe immunotherapies may be able to identify at-risk patients by submitting tumors for genetic testing, Kato and his coauthors suggested.

The findings published last year by the Gustave Roussy team also appeared in Clinical Cancer Research. In that study, of 131 patients, 12 patients, or 9 percent, showed hyperprogressive growth after taking anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immunotherapies. The lead author of that study, Stephane Champiat, acknowledged that the research so far raises more questions than it answers. ... Champiat suggested factors that could be associated with the effect. In his study’s patients, for instance, those who were older than 65 showed hyperprogressive growth at twice the rate of younger patients.

Oncologists studying this phenomenon said it could complicate treatment strategies, becausesome patients who receive immunotherapies can exhibit what’s known as “pseudo-progression,” in which tumor scans reveal apparent growth. In reality, however, the scans are instead showing areas where the cancer is being attacked by armies of immune cells. Roughly 10 percent of melanoma patients on immunotherapies, for instance, experience this phenomenon.

Jimmy Carter is perhaps the best-known immunotherapy success story. But most patients do not respond to the immunotherapy treatments, for reasons that remain largely unknown. In a study by Prasad and Dr. Nathan Gay, also of Oregon Health and Science University, nearly 70 percent of Americans die from forms of cancer for which there is no immunotherapy option, and for the rest who do qualify forimmunotherapy, only 26 percent actually see their tumors shrink.

And while immunotherapies typically include less intrusive side effects than chemotherapy, those side effects, when they happen, can be life-threatening. Researchers have reported cases in which immunotherapies attacked vital organs, including the colon, liver, lungs, kidney, and pancreas, with some patients experiencing acute, rapid-onset diabetes after receiving the treatments. But in those cases, the treatments were at least attacking the cancer. Such reports didn’t raise the specter of these treatments possibly working on the cancer’s behalf to shift it into overdrive.

 T-Cells and cancer A group of killer T cells (green and red) surrounds a cancer cell (blue, center). Credit: NIH.

From Health News Review: Cancer immunotherapy: more reason for concern?

Immunotherapy for cancer — which basically involves manipulating our immune system to attack cancer cells — is ever so slowly creeping toward the scrutiny phase. This slow crawl is something we reported on four months ago. With few exceptions, like this deep dive by the New York Times (the Cell Wars series ), we found many journalists completely overlooked the harms (some life-threatening) of this oft-vaunted treatment.

Published on Leave a comment on Autism and Lead and Metal Levels in Baby Teeth

Image result for teeth wikipedia Interesting new study! Researchers analyzed baby teeth among twins - sets of twins where both are healthy, and sets of twins where one has autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but not the other twin (the control). They found that in the children that developed ASD, the teeth revealed that during the second and third trimester and 30 weeks after birth they had higher levels of lead (which is a neurotoxin) and lower levels of the essential nutrients manganese and zinc. There were also differences between ASD and controls in levels of other elements including tin, strontium and chromium - but each of these elements differed the most between the ASD and control twin at different points of time.

How many people know that during fetal and childhood development, a new tooth layer is formed every week or so in the developing baby, which leaves an "imprint" in the tooth layer of the chemicals exposed to? So there's a chronological record of exposure - similar to using growth rings on a tree to find out the tree's growth history. A laser removed a tiny bit of the tooth dentine layer and then it was analyzed for various metals (see the illustration below).

Now studies are needed to determine whether the differences in the amount of lead and metals are due to differences in how much a fetus or baby is exposed to them, or whether it occurs because of a genetic difference in how a baby takes in and handles these metals and nutrients. And, of course, other studies suggest that other environmental exposures (e.g., pesticides) may also play a part in ASD development.

From Science Daily: Exposure to specific toxins and nutrients during late pregnancy and early life correlate with autism risk

Using evidence found in baby teeth, researchers from The Senator Frank R. Lautenberg Environmental Health Sciences Laboratory and The Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai found that differences in the uptake of multiple toxic and essential elements over the second and third trimesters and early postnatal periods are associated with the risk of developing autism spectrum disorders (ASD), according to a study published June 1 in the journal Nature Communications.

The critical developmental windows for the observed discrepancies varied for each element, suggesting that systemic dysregulation of environmental pollutants and dietary elements may serve an important role in ASD. In addition to identifying specific environmental factors that influence risk, the study also pinpointed developmental time periods when elemental dysregulation poses the biggest risk for autism later in life.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ASD occurs in 1 of every 68 children in the United States. The exact causes are unknown, but previous research indicates that both environmental and genetic causes are likely involved. While the genetic component has been intensively studied, specific environmental factors and the stages of life when such exposures may have the biggest impact on the risk of developing autism are poorly understood. Previous research indicates that fetal and early childhood exposure to toxic metals and deficiencies of nutritional elements are linked with several adverse developmental outcomes, including intellectual disability and language, attentional, and behavioral problems.

"We found significant divergences in metal uptake between ASD-affected children and their healthy siblings, but only during discrete developmental periods," said Manish Arora, PhD, BDS, MPH, Director of Exposure Biology at the Senator Frank Lautenberg Environmental Health Sciences Laboratory at Mount Sinai and Vice Chair and Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. "Specifically, the siblings with ASD had higher uptake of the neurotoxin lead, and reduced uptake of the essential elements manganese and zinc, during late pregnancy and the first few months after birth, as evidenced through analysis of their baby teeth. Furthermore, metal levels at three months after birth were shown to be predictive of the severity of ASD eight to ten years later in life."

To determine the effects that the timing, amount, and subsequent absorption of toxins and nutrients have on ASD, Mount Sinai researchers used validated tooth-matrix biomarkers to analyze baby teeth collected from pairs of identical and non-identical twins, of which at least one had a diagnosis of ASD. They also analyzed teeth from pairs of normally developing twins that served as the study control group. During fetal and childhood development, a new tooth layer is formed every week or so, leaving an "imprint" of the micro chemical composition from each unique layer, which provides a chronological record of exposure. The team at the Lautenberg Laboratory used lasers to reconstruct these past exposures along incremental markings, similar to using growth rings on a tree to determine the tree's growth history. [Original study.]

Published on Leave a comment on Stop Using Antimicrobial Containing Products

Stop using the damn antibacterial products! Yes, stop using stuff that says "antibacterial", "antimicrobial", "germ-killing",  or "anti-odor". Whether in personal care items, or bedding, or socks, or hand wipes, or wherever else you see those labels - don't buy them and try to avoid using them. Plain soap works just as well for cleaning hands (see FDA page). The "antibacterial" chemicals in soaps, toothpastes, body washes, etc. are absorbed by the body where they may do harm. Yes - HARM. The harms may not be known initially, but over and over, at some later point, the various chemicals are shown to cause harm - whether in humans or the environment, or both.

A case in point is the antimicrobial triclosan. It has been used for years in soooo many products, and religiously used by those concerned with "killing germs". It is now finally banned by the FDA from soaps and body washes because of the harms it causes. These include various health effects - and also because it's an endocrine disruptor (disrupts hormones).  And yes, it also crosses the placenta and has been associated with effects on the developing baby. For example, a recent study found an "inverse relationship" - that higher levels of triclosan in the mothers' urine during pregnancy (meaning they had used and absorbed more triclosan products) were associated with lower birth weight, length, head circumference, and gestational age (length of pregnancy). Of special concern to us at Lacto Bacto is that it also disrupts our microbes - remember that antimicrobial products (whether Triclosan in soap or antibiotics) kill off both beneficial and harmful bacteria.

As a recent study shows - triclosan is absorbed by pregnant women (and can be measured in their urine) and, it is absorbed and found in the urine of children who washed their hands or brushed their teeth with products containing triclosan.  And the higher the socioeconomic status, the more triclosan in the body - after all, people pay a premium for products that are "antimicrobial". While triclosan is now banned from being used in certain products (soaps and body washes), it is still allowed in many, many other products. And there are all those other antimicrobials that also should NOT be used. So please read the labels, especially the ingredient lists, and try to avoid antimicrobial, antibacterial, germ-killing, and anti-odor products. From Environmental health News:

Hygiene leaves kids with loads of triclosan

Levels of a controversial chemical meant to kill bacteria spike in the bodies of young children after they brush their teeth or wash their hands, according to a new study. U.S. manufacturers are phasing triclosan out of hand soaps after the Food and Drug Administration banned it effective last year amid concerns that the compound disrupted the body's hormone systems. It remains in Colgate Total toothpaste, some cleaning products and cosmetics. Health experts say exposure is best avoided for babies in the womb and developing children.

The latest study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, is one of the first to show that children’s levels rise through their first few years of life. Hand washing and teeth brushing have speedy, significant impact on levels, the researchers found. Braun and colleagues tested the urine of 389 mothers and their children from Cincinnati, collecting samples from the women three times during pregnancy and from the children periodically between 1 and 8 years old.

They found triclosan in more than 70 percent of the samples. Among 8 year olds, levels were 66 percent higher in those that used hand soap. And more washing left the children with higher loads—those who reported washing their hands more than five times per day had more than four times the triclosan concentrations than those washing once or less per day. Children who had brushed their teeth within the last day had levels 2.5 times higher than those who had a toothpaste-free 24-hour span.

Braun said the levels of triclosan rose as the children aged, eventually leveling off. “Their levels were almost to moms’ levels by the time they reached 5 to 8 years of age.” This, he said, is likely due to more frequent use of personal care products as the kids aged. Despite the hand soap ban, triclosan remains on the market because it is effective at fighting plaque and gingivitis. Colgate uses 0.3 percent of the antibacterial to “fight harmful plaque germs.”.

Braun, however, said there is “quite compelling” evidence from animal studies that triclosan decreases thyroid hormone levels. Properly functioning thyroid hormones are critical for brain development. Just last month, using the same mothers and children, Braun and others reported that mothers’ triclosan exposure during pregnancy was linked to lower birth weights, smaller heads and earlier births. In addition, Pessah and colleagues reported triclosan hinders proper muscle development. The researchers used mice and fish, finding that triclosan affects the process responsible for muscle contraction.

Published on Leave a comment on Cold Water Versus Hot Water In Removing Bacteria From Hands

Image result for washing hands OK,  the study results sound promising: that washing with cold water is as good as washing with warm or hot water for removing bacteria from the hands. And that type of soap didn't matter - both the anti-microbial soap and ordinary soap were equally effective. But...the researchers only looked at one strain of bacteria - E. coli (full name Escherichia coli (ATCC 11229)), and there are MANY microbes and viruses out there that cause problems. So I would view it as a nice start ( a preliminary study), but not the final word. From Science Daily:

Handwashing: Cool water as effective as hot for removing germs

We all know that washing our hands can keep us from spreading germs and getting sick. But a new Rutgers-New Brunswick study found that cool water removes the same amount of harmful bacteria as hot. ....In the Rutgers study, published in the June issue of the Journal of Food Protection, high levels of a harmless bacteria were put on the hands of 21 participants multiple times over a six-month period before they were asked to wash their hands in 60-degree, 79-degree or 100-degree water temperatures using 0.5 ml, 1 ml or 2 ml volumes of soap.

 "Also we learned even washing for 10 seconds significantly removed bacteria from the hands." While the study indicates that there is no difference between the amount of soap used, more work needs to be done to understand exactly how much and what type of soap is needed to remove harmful microbes from hands, said co-author Jim Arbogast, vice president of Hygiene Sciences and Public Health Advancements for GOJO. "This is important because the biggest public health need is to increase handwashing or hand sanitizing by food service workers and the public before eating, preparing food and after using the restroom," Arbogast said.

These findings are significant, particularly to the restaurant and food industry, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues guidelines, every four years, to states. Those guidelines currently recommend that plumbing systems at food establishments and restaurants deliver water at 100 degrees Fahrenheit for handwashing.

Schaffner said the issue of water temperature has been debated for a number of years without enough science to back-up any recommendation to change the policy guidelines or provide proof that water temperature makes a difference in hand hygiene. Many states, in fact, interpret the FDA guidelines as a requirement that water temperature for handwashing must be 100 degrees, he said. [Original study.]

Published on Leave a comment on Ticks and Scary Powassan Virus

Many of us who who spend time outdoors worry about ticks. Just about everyone in the Northeast knows someone who has struggled with Lyme disease or one of the other diseases spread by ticks. An earlier post from June 8, 2015 noted that the CDC says that there are 14 known tick-borne diseases in the United States, and possibly 15 (if recently discovered Bourbon virus is included). Lyme disease is the most common, but people can be infected with more than one tick-borne illness at a time. [POST on Some Ways  To Get Rid of Ticks]

But recently I've seen news reports about a rare and scary tick borne disease called Powassan virus which is spread by deer ticks. News stories reported that an infant that developed the disease was the first case ever in Connecticut, and that the tick had been attached less than 3 hours on the child.

What is Powassan virus and should I be concerned? The good news is that it is very rare, but the bad news is that it's very scary: the virus can be transmitted in less than 2 hours (even as little as 15 minutes!) from an attached tick, and is fatal in about 10% of cases. It can cause encephalitis. And among those who recover, there is about a 50 percent chance of permanent neurological damage.  On the other hand, the CDC also says: "Many people who become infected with POW virus do not develop any symptoms." - But note that we don't know how many people get it and don't get serious symptoms, or any symptoms at all.

Powassan virus (POWV) is a tick-borne flavivirus that was first discovered in Ontario, Canada in 1956. At this time we don't know how prevalent it is in the US. From 2006 to 2015, an average of 7 cases of POWV were reported each year in the United States - only 77 cases in total. Although the virus is mostly found in the Northeast and Great Lakes region of the United States, some states outside of this area have been reporting their first cases.  One recent study found that the Powassan virus was in 1 to 2% of the ticks studied in Long Island in NY and Connecticut.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that: "Signs and symptoms of infection can include fever, headache, vomiting, weakness, confusion, seizures, and memory loss. Long-term neurologic problems may occur. There is no specific treatment, but people with severe Powassan virus illnesses often need to be hospitalized to receive respiratory support, intravenous fluids, or medications to reduce swelling in the brain. One study of 14  Powassan virus cases in NY state (2004-20012) reported that all of the hospitalized patients who received corticosteroids during their illness survived (looks like something helps).

From CNN: Experts warn of increases in tick-borne Powassan virus

Summer is nearly here, and it's bringing fears of a rare tick-borne disease called Powassan. This potentially life-threatening virus is carried and transmitted by three types of ticks, including the deer tick that transmits Lyme disease. Over the past decade, 75 cases have been reported in the northeastern states and the Great Lakes region, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Though no one can say how many infections will occur this year, warmer winters have led to an increased tick population, so experts predict rising tick-borne infections of many types.

Everyone is at risk for Powassan: Newborns, 20-somethings, the middle-aged, the elderly and the immunocompromised. Anyone bitten by an infected tick can get it, said Dr. Jennifer Lyons, chief of the Division of Neurological Infections and Inflammatory Diseases at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Infections are most likely during late spring, early summer and mid-fall, when ticks are most active.

"About 15% of patients who are infected and have symptoms are not going survive," said Lyons, who is also an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School. "Of the survivors, at least 50% will have long-term neurological damage that is not going to resolve." Although most infected people will never show symptoms, those who do become sick usually do so a few days to about a week after the tick bite, she said. The most common symptoms will be fever and headache. "You basically feel nonspecific flu-like stuff," Lyons said, including "muscle aches and pains; maybe you have a little rash on your skin, but almost certainly, you'll have a fever and the headache."The unlucky few who develop a more serious illness will do so "very quickly over the next couple of days," she said. "You start to develop difficulties with maintaining your consciousness and your cognition. ....

Just as there are no vaccines to prevent infection, there are also no treatments for Powassan. There are some experimental therapies we try when somebody comes in and they get here early enough and we get the therapy started early enough, but we have no idea if any of that works," Lyons said. Standard treatment includes intravenous fluids, though antiviral medications, systemic corticosteroids and other drugs have been tried in some patients.

Scientists also believe Powassan is on the rise based on studies that have identified an increasing number of infections in deer. Similarly, Lyme is showing increasing numbers. ....To make the matter more complicated, we are seeing greater number of ticks infected with other tick-associated pathogens, including babesiosis and anaplasmosis," Molaei said. Both babesiosis and anaplasmosis usually don't have symptoms, just like Powassan, though both may cause severe or even life-threatening illnesses.

Medical story about the Connecticut infant who developed Powassan virus. From Contagion Live: Connecticut Reports Its First Human Case of Powassan Virus

Published on Leave a comment on Improve Knee Arthritis Pain With A High Fiber Diet?

Another study finding health benefits of a fiber rich diet, which means lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes (beans), nuts, and seeds. This time, researchers doing an a analysis of 2 studies lasting over a number of years found that there was an association with more fiber in the diet and less risk of developing knee osteoarthritis pain and of knee osteoarthritis symptoms worsening. The highest fiber group reported eating a median (middle number) 25.5 grams of fiber per day, while the lowest fiber group had a median of about 9 grams of fiber per day. They found a dose dependent relationship - the more fiber, the less osteoarthritis knee pain, and vice versa (the less daily fiber, the more they reported knee pain worsening) - this is called a "dose-dependent inverse relationship". The average fiber intake for Americans is about 15 grams per day.

The researchers also found that the more fiber in the diet, the lower their Body Mass Index (less weight) - but they say they took that into account in the analyses, and found that the amount of fiber intake was the most important thing regarding knee osteoarthritis pain. Interestingly, they did not find an association of fiber intake and x-ray evidence of osteoarthritis.  Note that this was an observational study - it observed that certain things go hand in hand, but it doesn't prove causation.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is common among adults aged 60 years and older, and is sometimes called "wear and tear" arthritis because it affects the joints. It causes pain and limits a person's physical functioning. There is a strong association between obesity, inflammation, and knee osteoarthritis. Obesity causes both inflammation and puts extra weight on the knees, and inflammation results in more joint pain. On the other hand, a high fiber diet reduces inflammation. The researchers point out that the data shows "a consistent protective association" between fiber in the diet and symptoms of knee osteoarthritis (no matter if you're overweight or not). IN SUMMARY: Eat lots of fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts! From Science Daily:

Fiber-rich diet linked to lowered risk of painful knee osteoarthritis

A fibre-rich diet is linked to a lowered risk of painful knee osteoarthritis, finds the first study of its kind, published online in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. The findings, which draw on two different long term studies, are broadly in line with the other reported health benefits of a fibre-rich diet. These include reductions in blood pressure, weight, and systemic inflammation, and improved blood glucose control.

The researchers mined data from two US studies in a bid to find out if dietary fibre might have any bearing on the risks of x-ray evidence of knee osteoarthritis, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (x-ray evidence and symptoms, such as pain and stiffness), and worsening knee pain. The first of these studies was the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). This has been tracking the health of nearly 5000 US men and women with, or at risk of, osteoarthritis since 2004-6 (average age 61), to pinpoint potential risk factors for the condition.  The second was part of the Framingham Offspring cohort study, which has been tracking the health of more than 1200 adult children of the original Framingham Heart Study and their partners since 1971.

Analysis of the data showed that eating more fibre was associated with a lower risk of painful knee osteoarthritis. Compared with the lowest intake (bottom 25 per cent of participants), the highest intake (top 25 per cent) was associated with a 30 per cent lower risk in the OAI and a 61 per cent lower risk in the Framingham study. But it was not associated with x-ray evidence of knee osteoarthritis. Additionally, among the OAI participants, eating more fibre in general, and a high cereal fibre intake, were associated with a significantly lower risk of worsening knee pain.

This is an observational study, so no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect. Nevertheless, the researchers say: "These data demonstrate a consistent protective association between total fibre intake and symptom-related knee [osteoarthritis] in two study populations with careful adjustment for potential confounders." [Original study.]

Published on Leave a comment on Popular Weedkiller Found In Pregnant Women – What Are the Effects On Babies?

 News about the controversial pesticide Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate just keep coming. Roundup is the most heavily used pesticide in the world, and it is used as a herbicide or weed-killer throughout the USA. Its use is rapidly rising, especially due to its use for preharvest applications on crops, and for genetically modified Roundup Ready crops. The chemical giant Monsanto (manufacturer of Roundup) insists that Roundup is safe for humans and the environment, but studies are indicating otherwise (see posts on Roundup). And yes, the pesticide and its residues are found wherever its presence is looked for. So one very important question is: If this heavily used pesticide is found in the foods we eat, and is around us (thus we have chronic low levels of exposure), what is it doing to us, if anything? 

This month the results of a study of 69 pregnant women receiving prenatal care at an Indiana obstetric practice was presented at a Children’s Environmental Health Network (CEHN) conference. The researchers reported that they found the presence of glyphosate and its breakdown products (aminomethylphosphonic acid or AMPA) in the urine of 91% of pregnant women. They found that higher levels of glyphosate were associated with lower than average birth weights and shorter pregnancy length (gestation age). Also, women living in rural areas had higher average glyphosate levels than women in urban/suburban regions. The researches suggested that it was because the rural women lived close to corn and soybean fields where glyphosate is heavily used.

The researchers also pointed out that this is especially worrisome because low birth weights and shortened pregnancy length (gestation) are seen as risk factors for many health and neurodevelopmental problems over the course of an individual’s life - lower cognitive abilities (including IQ), diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and obesity. Of course the researchers plan to expand this research on more women.

But unfortunately US government agencies such as the FDA are not testing for the presence of glyphosate residues in foods (a major way we are exposed to glyphosate), even though they test for many other pesticides. So testing for the most heavily used pesticide in the world  in foods is deliberately not being done! It doesn't matter whether one thinks that Roundup (glyphosate) is harmful or not - we should know what foods this pesticide in the world appears in and at what levels. So far, whatever conventional foods are looked at, glyphosate residues are found. Even foods that one does not expect it in, such as honey. On the other hand, organic foods or crops are not allowed to use Roundup or glyphosate, so eating organic foods is the only way to avoid the pesticide. And of course, by not using Roundup or other glyphosate products on the property where you live.

The researchers and CEHN (Children’s Environmental Health Network) have put together a web-site documenting the increase in Roundup (glyphosate) use in the United States in the past few decades and why we should be concerned. There are many links at the thorough and well-researched site. If one looks at only a few pages, then look at the introduction page - The Project, the Birth Outcomes section, and the Biomonitoring Data page - which discusses "biomonitoring" to track levels of chemicals such as pesticides in human urine and blood, and why we should be concerned. They also discuss 2,4-D - another popular pesticide (herbicide or weed-killer), which is also used in many lawn "weed and feed" products. 2.4-D has serious health concerns, but its use is also rapidly increasing on farms due the increase in genetically modified crops (which allow it to be sprayed on crops without killing the crops).

Bottom line: We are being exposed to chronic low levels of pesticides in our environment and foods - and we really don't know what this is doing to us. We don't even know the extent of our exposures because it is not being measured. This is especially worrisome because our exposure to some of these pesticides is rapidly increasing.

From the investigative journalism site FERN: Researchers find glyphosate in pregnant women, worry about impact on infants

A team of scientists this week released early results of an ongoing study spotlighting concerns about the rising use of pesticides and reproductive risks to women and children. The researchers tested and tracked, over a period of two years, the presence of the common herbicide glyphosate in the urine of 69 expectant mothers in Indiana.

The team – led by Paul Winchester, medical director of the neonatal intensive care unit at the Franciscan St. Francis Health System and professor of clinical pediatrics at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis, Ind. – found glyphosate residues in 91 percent of the women, and high levels of those residues appeared to correlate with shortened pregnancies and below-average birth weights adjusted for age. The findings alarmed the researchers because such babies are at increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and lower cognitive abilities. “Gestational age maximizes the size of your brain at birth, and any shortening is essentially a reduction of IQ points,” Winchester said in an interview with FERN’s Ag Insider. “It has not just health, but lifetime achievement implications.”

This is the first time that anyone has demonstrated glyphosate is present in pregnant women in the U.S., according to Winchester. However, the results were limited by a small sample size. He and his colleagues plan to submit their research to a peer-reviewed journal within the month and they hope to expand the study later this year. “The fact that we were able to find adverse effects on the small number of people we measured would imply a larger study is needed immediately to find out if this is prevalent everywhere,” Winchester says. “This is a critical piece of information that I think people should be concerned about.”

Glyphosate is the world’s most popular herbicide and the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer. Globally, 9.4 million tons of glyphosate have been sprayed on crops, lawns, and gardens since the chemical was released on the market in 1974....Currently, concerns about the safety of glyphosate are at the center of a major national lawsuit. Monsanto is being sued by hundreds of U.S. consumers who say the company did not warn them, despite evidence, that the chemical can cause cancers such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood disease. A key piece of testimony in the suit is a 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report stating that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Monsanto contests the listing, citing rulings by the EPA, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Food Safety Authority that did not find cancer risks.

Winchester has long studied the risks posed by agrochemicals, finding in a 2009 study that high levels of the farming chemical atrazine in water was associated with increased risk of genital birth defects in children. In the glyphosate study, Winchester and his colleagues considered whether water might again be the exposure route for the pregnant women they monitored. After testing water samples, the scientists concluded that it was not the source. They suspect diet may play a role. The Food and Drug Administration, however, recently suspended the testing of glyphosate residues in food, citing the need for improved validation methods.

Experts say the spread of weeds resistant to glyphosate in the Midwest is triggering intensification of herbicide use over longer periods of time. “Until this year, most herbicides in the Midwest were sprayed during a six-week window, but now heavy herbicide spray season will last at least four months, placing more women and children at heightened risk,” Phil Landrigan, dean for global health at Mount Sinai Medical School and a member of the research team, said in a statement. As a result, he and his colleagues predict the risk of reproductive problems and adverse birth outcomes will rise among women and children living in rural areas.

Another article on this research is from Carey Gillam for Huffington Post: Moms Exposed To Monsanto Weed Killer Means Bad Outcomes For Babies

Published on Leave a comment on Roundup Made With Vinegar (Rather Than Glyphosate) Is Now Available in Europe!

Roundup is a pesticide (a weed-killer or herbicide) containing the active ingredient glyphosate. It is a controversial herbicide that is the most heavily used pesticide in the world. And since the introduction of Roundup Ready crops that have been genetically modified to survive repeated Roundup applications, the use is only increasing on farms. Several posts (here, here, and here) have discussed research and controversies with Roundup, and the numerous health concerns (including that it is a "probable carcinogen"), as well as the residues that are in our food (and allowed to be there).

But...I just read an article that said that a product called Roundup, but containing acetic acid instead of glyphosate, is now available at garden centers in Austria. Ordinary vinegar is 5% acetic acid.  Huh?? Can that be? Yes, this product called Roundup AC is being manufactured by Scotts (the name is licensed from Monsanto), and it uses 10% acetic acid in place of glyphosate. Apparently Scotts wanted to use the name because Roundup is so well known as a strong herbicide. So, the question is: Will it soon also be available in the US and elsewhere? How well does it work? One problem - it is unknown from what I am reading whether other "more toxic" ingredients (the secret "inert" ingredients) are also in the product. Here is a link to the product's page at the Austrian store Hornbach and at Amazon (above photo is of Roundup AC).

By the way, vinegar works great as a weed-killer, especially on young weeds. Ordinary vinegar contains 5% acetic acid, but products with higher amounts of acetic acid (from 8% to 20%) are available (sometimes called horticultural vinegar) . But note that acetic acid products stronger than 10% can be dangerous if used carelessly - can cause burns if get some on bare skin or spilled on a person (it is acid, after all), so gloves and eye goggles should be used when using the stronger acetic acid products.

To use ordinary vinegar as a weed-killer: Use on a hot sunny dry day. Just spray or pour some on the offending weeds - and whatever the vinegar touches will soon die. Unfortunately the weeds may come back after a week or two (the root systems may not be killed off) - so just reapply vinegar. Or can make the effects of the vinegar stronger by adding one cup salt to a gallon vinegar or a little (a teaspoon or more) dish detergent to the vinegar. Or combine all three ingredients when needing permanent removal of vegetation from an area such as sidewalk cracks or gravel driveways.

From The Ecologist: Monsanto's new 'glyphosate-free' Roundup is vinegar!

Has Monsanto, dubbed the 'world's most evil corporation', turned a new leaf? It has taken the 'probably carcinogenic' glyphosate out of a new version of its market leading 'Roundup' herbicide, and replaced it with vinegar. The bad news is it's only available in Austria. That, and it may still contain toxic 'adjuvants' to increase its effectiveness.

A new type of Roundup is on sale in Austrian garden centres. It's the same old bottle with the same familiar brand name and is marketed by Scotts, under licence from Monsanto. The only difference compared with the old-style Roundup is that the new one has a prominent label on the front saying it's formulated "without glyphosate" ("ohne Glyphosat" in German). On the back, on the ingredients label, the 'active substance' is defined as none other than vinegar: 'Essigsäure'.

 

Monsanto's new 'Glyphosate-free' Roundup product, and a bottle of vinegar. Photo: Dr Helmut Burtscher  (a biochemist/ GMWatch).

In fact, organic and other gardeners have long been using vinegar as a weedkiller, which works by sucking moisture out of plants' leaves. It's most effective if used in dry weather when plants are already water-stressed, and the vinegar won't get washed off or diluted by rain. Most recipes also advise adding soap or washing up liquid to help it spread over leaves.

Why does Dr. Burtscher [biochemist who bought this product at an Austrian garden center] think that Scotts brought out this product? "The World Health Organisations' cancer agency IARC has stated that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen. Monsanto has admitted in court that it cannot claim that Roundup doesn't cause cancer because the complete formulation has never been tested. "Garden centres are wondering what they can tell their customers. They have undoubtedly lost business. Some have phased out all chemical pesticides, such as Bellaflora, which took this step in cooperation with GLOBAL 2000 long before IARC came out with its verdict.....Now they only sell organic-approved plant protection products."

But why does Burtscher think Scotts are calling its new vinegar-based herbicide Roundup? "Maybe Scotts thought: We need this trade name because people see Roundup as more effective than vinegar!"

Burtscher spent about €30 on the glyphosate-free Roundup but says in future he will just buy vinegar if it works out cheaper. It may also be safer, he adds, since "We do not know if the vinegar-based Roundup formulation still contains toxic adjuvants." ('Adjuvants' are additives present in glyphosate herbicide formulations that are designed to increase the toxicity of glyphosate to plants, for example by 'fixing' them to leaves and reduce wash-off in rain. But they can also increase the toxicity to animals, as in the case of tallowamine often used with glyphosate.) But if Scotts can prove the safety of the adjuvants, Burtscher says it's a win-win situation:"It's a victory for Monsanto because now it has a product that doesn't cause harm and a victory for people and the environment."