Skip to content

Category: Uncategorized

Published on Leave a comment on Support Science

Image result for earth wikipedia On this Earth Day I want to say: Support science. Support the work of scientists. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Science is about facts and evidence - not opinions. Medicine is applied science - scientific discoveries are turned into real-world medical treatments. Yes, scientific theories and what we know in science and medicine can change over time as more evidence is found. But science is not political, or it shouldn't be political. This is because we all benefit from science and scientific knowledge.

Sometimes there is bias in science (as when scientists receiving money from a corporation or working for a corporation then do research with results desired by that corporation), but that is why it is important to have transparency in research studies and results, and why good research involves peer review (other scientists review the research) and open discussion, and the importance of others having similar research results in an area. This is also why government funding of basic research is important.

Science is a process of understanding how the world works - it is curiosity driven and uses empirical evidence, particularly information acquired by observation and experimentation. Data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is part of the scientific method. Basic science results in discoveries that may lead to incredible uses down the road and to amazing benefits to society. An example is the discovery of penicillin, which eventually changed medicine. Government funding has supported basic science for years - for example, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation. Without government support, most basic scientific research will never happen.

Basically every post I've ever done is science based. Even the ones on sinusitis, Lactobacillus sakei, and the results of self-experimentation. And yes, self-experimentation in science and medicine has a long and honorable history. A very famous example was when the Australian physician Barry Marshall drank a petri dish containing Helicobacter pylori bacteria (from a patient) and soon developed the symptoms of peptic ulcer - this led to his eventually being awarded the Nobel Prize in 2005.

Similarly, through self-experimentation - my four family members, as well as many people writing to me, have reported amazing results within days of using a L. sakei product without changing anything else in their lives. These self-experiments were based on scientific evidence presented in the original Abreu et al study (2012) on sinusitis and the sinus microbiome. This is science at its most basic: doing "A" to a person with condition "B" and seeing the result "C" (which can be a positive effect, no effect, or negative effect).

So take a moment and appreciate all the different fields of science and how they have changed our lives: oceanography, chemistry, physics, earth science, ecology, geology, meteorology, astronomy, zoology, human biology (includes microbiology, anatomy, neurology, immunology, genetics, physiology, pathology, and ophthalmology), botany, anthropology, archaeology, criminology, psychology, sociology, computer science, statistics, mathematics, etc. Some areas of applied science are: engineering, computer science, and medicine. Wow....So please...Support science and the pursuit of knowledge. It's not political. It's not opinions or wishful thinking. Don't deny science.

Published on Leave a comment on Just For Fun, Part Two

I think everyone needs to laugh at the silly side of life sometimes. With that said, I am offering the following (all from The New Yorker archives) about health and food:

 

 

 

 

"Throw out the hummus - from now on, we only eat food too fake to host bacteria."

 

 

 

 

"Be honest - how much are you exercising?"

 

 

Credit: R. Glasbergen

Published on Leave a comment on Why Are Inflammatory Bowel Diseases In Very Young Canadian Children Increasing?

Sooo.....what is going on here? Why are very early onset (5 years and younger) pediatric inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in children increasing so rapidly in Canada? Inflammatory bowel diseases include Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. In the last two decades there has been an increase of 7.2% per year- to the point that it is among the highest in the world (9.68 per 100,000 children). Only Norway has a similar incidence (10.6 per 100,000 children under the age of 16 years), with Sweden having an incidence  of 12.8 per 100,000. Research studies find that the microbial communities are out of whack (dysbiosis) in IBD.

But why is the rate of IBD increasing in these northern countries? The researchers mention that rates are also increasing in the northern states in the US. Currently the reasons for the higher rates in Canadian and northern European children are not known. Some environmental factors such as lack of sunlight exposure and high rates of vitamin D deficiency, antibiotic use, and diet have been hypothesized as contributing to the pediatric IBD increase. Stay tuned... From Science Daily:

Inflammatory bowel diseases on the rise in very young Canadian children

Canada has amongst the highest rates of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the world, and the number of children under five years old being diagnosed increased by 7.2 per cent every year between 1999 to 2010, according to a new study by researchers at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute and the Canadian Gastro-Intestinal Epidemiology Consortium.

"The number of children under five being diagnosed with IBD is alarming because it was almost unheard of 20 years ago, and it is now much more common," says Dr. Eric Benchimol, lead author of the study, scientist at ICES and a pediatric gastroenterologist at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Inflammatory Bowel Disease Centre, in Ottawa. IBD primarily includes Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, which are lifelong conditions that cause inflammation in the digestive tract, leading to chronic diarrhea, blood in the stool, abdominal pains and weight loss.

Researchers say a change in the bacterial composition of the gut may be to blame for the increase in IBD cases but they don't know what is causing the change. They suspect a combination of environmental risk factors could be to blame, such as early life exposure to antibiotics, diet, or lower levels of Vitamin D in Canadians.

The researchers found that the incidence of IBD has stabilized in children over the age of five, but in children under five it continues to rise rapidly. The researchers estimate that approximately 600 to 650 children are diagnosed with IBD every year in Canada. [Original study.]

Published on Leave a comment on Even Six Days of Corticosteroid Use Is Linked to Higher Rate of Problems

Image result for pills wikipedia Huh?...A recent study found that short-term use (less than 30 days) of commonly prescribed corticosteroid medications are linked to some nasty side-effects: an increase in rates of sepsis,  venous thromboembolism, and fractures. The most common reasons for the prescriptions were for upper respiratory tract infections, spinal conditions, bronchitis, and allergies. The study looked at 1.5 milliion patients, and found that the most common prescriptions written for oral corticosteroids was a six day methylprednisolone “dosepak” (about 47% of prescriptions). Note that while this was an "observational" study (so doesn't prove corticosteroid medication caused the effects), it still is concerning. One should always keep in mind that all medications have side effects, some bigger and some smaller.

Corticosteroids are powerful anti-inflammatory drugs that have been used to treat a variety of diseases for over seven decades. Long term use of corticosteroids is generally avoided because of the risks of serious complications (such as infection, venous thromboembolism, fractures, as well as chronic diseases). However, side-effects of short-term use have been unclear- which is why they are so frequently prescribed (about 1 in 5 Americans or 21% of the people in this study). This is why this study was needed. From Medical Xpress:

Common drugs, uncommon risks? Higher rate of serious problems after short-term steroid use

Millions of times a year, Americans get prescriptions for a week's worth of steroid pills, hoping to ease a backache or quell a nagging cough or allergy symptoms. But a new study suggests that they and their doctors might want to pay a bit more attention to the potential side effects of this medication. People taking the pills were more likely to break a bone, have a potentially dangerous blood clot or suffer a life-threatening bout of sepsis in the months after their treatment, compared with similar adults who didn't use corticosteroids, researchers from the University of Michigan report in a new paper in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

Though only a small percentage of both groups went to the hospital for these serious health threats, the higher rates seen among people who took steroids for even a few days are cause for caution and even concern, the researchers say. The study used data from 1.5 million non-elderly American adults with private insurance. One in 5 of them filled a short-term prescription for oral corticosteroids such as prednisone sometime in the three-year study period. While the rates of the serious events were highest in the first 30 days after a prescription, they stayed elevated even three months later.

Using anonymous insurance claims data that IHPI purchased for use by U-M health care researchers, they found that half of the people who received oral steroids had gotten them for just six diagnoses, related to back pain, allergies or respiratory tract infections including bronchitis. Nearly half received a six-day prepackaged methylprednisolone "dosepak," which tapers the dose of steroids from highest to lowest. 

Dr. Waljee and his colleagues found higher rates of sepsis, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and fractures among short-term steroid users using multiple different statistical approaches to ensure their findings were as robust as possible....The consistent findings across the three approaches are important given the frequent use of these drugs and potential implications for patients. Waljee notes that the reason for this broad effect of steroids on complications may have its roots in how the drugs work: they mimic hormones produced by the body, to reduce inflammation but this can also induce changes that put patients at additional risk of serious events.

In the meantime, based on the new results, he advises patients and prescribers to use the smallest amount of corticosteroids possible based on the condition being treated. "If there are alternatives to steroids, we should be use those when possible," he says. "Steroids may work faster, but they aren't as risk-free as you might think." [Original study.]

Published on Leave a comment on Getting A Second Opinion Might Be A Good Idea

Image result for stethoscope A new Mayo Clinic study reinforces that YES - a person  should get a second opinion when dealing with a complex medical condition. The study compared the referring diagnosis to the final diagnosis of 286 patients referred to the Mayo Clinic by physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and physicians. The researchers found that in only 12 percent of the cases was the diagnosis confirmed. In 21 percent of the cases, the diagnosis was completely changed, while 66 percent of patients received a refined or redefined diagnosis. There were no significant differences between the referring diagnoses made by physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and physicians.

But one concern I have with the study is - how do we know that the Mayo Clinic diagnosis was the correct one, especially in the 21% of cases they gave a completely different diagnosis (what they called "misdiagnosis")? Hmm..? Bottom line: Yes, a second opinion adds to the medical costs, but it may be helpful. From Science Daily:

The value of second opinions demonstrated in study

Many patients come to Mayo Clinic for a second opinion or diagnosis confirmation before treatment for a complex condition. In a new study, Mayo Clinic reports that as many as 88 percent of those patients go home with a new or refined diagnosis -- changing their care plan and potentially their lives. Conversely, only 12 percent receive confirmation that the original diagnosis was complete and correct.

Often, because of the unusual nature of the symptoms or complexity of the condition, the physician will recommend a second opinion. Other times, the patient will ask for one.....To determine the extent of diagnostic error, the researchers examined the records of 286 patients referred from primary care providers to Mayo Clinic's General Internal Medicine Division in Rochester over a two-year period (Jan. 1, 2009, to Dec. 31, 2010). This group of referrals was previously studied for a related topic. It consisted of all patients referred by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, along with an equal number of randomly selected physician referrals.

The team compared the referring diagnosis to the final diagnosis to determine the level of consistency between the two and, thus, the level of diagnostic error. In only 12 percent of the cases was the diagnosis confirmed. In 21 percent of the cases, the diagnosis was completely changed; and 66 percent of patients received a refined or redefined diagnosis. There were no significant differences between provider types.

Published on Leave a comment on Marathon Running Linked To Short Term Kidney Injury

A possible problem with running marathons is short term kidney injury in the two days right after the race. A study of 22 runners in the 2015 Hartford (Connecticut) Marathon found that most of the runners temporarily developed acute kidney injury (AKI) directly after the race. The study main author Chirag R. Parikh, MD, PhD said: "The kidney responds to the physical stress of marathon running as if it's injured, in a way that's similar to what happens in hospitalized patients when the kidney is affected by medical and surgical complications".

The runners studied fully recovered from the kidney injury 2 days after the event, but the study raises questions about the long-term effects for regular marathon runners, especially in warmer climates. Also, how about the effects of repeated marathons? The researchers say they can only speculate that marathoners adapt to the kidney injury, because they recover within 2 days. But they also pointed out that research has shown there are also changes in heart function associated with marathon running. Something else to keep in mind when considering training for marathons. From Science Daily:

Marathon running may cause short-term kidney injury

According to a new Yale-led study, the physical stress of running a marathon can cause short-term kidney injury. Although kidneys of the examined runners fully recovered within two days post-marathon, the study raises questions concerning potential long-term impacts of this strenuous activity at a time when marathons are increasing in popularity. More than a half million people participated in marathons in the United States in 2015.

While past research has shown that engaging in unusually vigorous activities -- such as mine work, harvesting sugarcane, and military training -- in warm climates can damage the kidneys, little is known about the effects of marathon running on kidney health. A team of researchers led by Professor of Medicine Chirag Parikh, M.D. studied a small group of participants in the 2015 Hartford Marathon. The team collected blood and urine samples before and after the 26.2-mile event. They analyzed a variety of markers of kidney injury, including serum creatinine levels, kidney cells on microscopy, and proteins in urine.

The researchers found that 82% of the runners that were studied showed Stage 1 Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) soon after the race. AKI is a condition in which the kidneys fail to filter waste from the blood. "The kidney responds to the physical stress of marathon running as if it's injured, in a way that's similar to what happens in hospitalized patients when the kidney is affected by medical and surgical complications," said Parikh. The researchers stated that potential causes of the marathon-related kidney damage could be the sustained rise in core body temperature, dehydration, or decreased blood flow to the kidneys that occur during a marathon. [Original study.]

Published on Leave a comment on Why Is No U.S. Government Agency Testing For This Pesticide In Food?

Why is the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) dropping plans to test for glyphosate residues in food? It was supposed to start soon (April 1, 2017), in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but now all plans to test have been dropped. Why is this worrisome? The issue is that glyphosate is currently the most widely used pesticide in the world. It is a herbicide that is the active ingredient in the herbicide commonly known as Roundup. Global use was 1.65 billion pounds in 2014 , while overall use in the US was 276.4 million pounds in 2014. Glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen and linked to various health effects, and research shows that glyphosate residues are commonly found in foods.

Even though whether glyphosate is a carcinogen is hotly debated by some groups (with Monsanto fiercely fighting against such a label), it shouldn't matter in the decision of whether to test for glyphosate residues in foods. What is going on with our food, and whether and how much glyphosate residues are in food should be monitored. Government agencies (such as USDA) test for other pesticide residues, and they should do the same for glyphosate, especially because it is so widely used.

The FDA did test for a short while last year (2016) and then stopped in the fall, and yes, they found residues in the foods they studied. Government and private testing has already found glyphosate residues in breast milk, soybeans, corn, honey, cereal, wheat flour, oatmeal, soy sauce, beer, and infant formula. It is currently unknown what the glyphosate residues in food that we eat means for human health. Several studies have linked glyphosate to human health ailments, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney and liver problems. Of special concern is that because glyphosate is so pervasive in the environment, even trace amounts might be harmful due to chronic exposure. Glyphosate is patented by its manufacturer (Monsanto) for its antibacterial properties - thus it can be viewed as an antibiotic. What is it doing to our gut microbes when ingested? Some people (including researchers) are even suggesting that much of "gluten sensitivity" or "gluten intolerance" that people complain of, may actually be sensitivity to glyphosate residues in food. There are many unanswered questions.

So....is this a case of burying the head in the sand? That there are no problems if no one looks for them? The EPA has long known that glyphosate residues are occurring in food because in 2013 the EPA raised "tolerance limits" for human exposure to glyphosate for certain foods, stating with "reasonable certainty that no harm will result" from human exposure to the chemical. This increase in tolerance levels came about from a request from Monsanto (the manufacturer of the glyphosate herbicide Roundup), and even though numerous groups protested the increase, the EPA went along with Monsanto's request. Some tolerances doubled. Pesticide residues are an important issue - because we don't know what chronic exposure to mixtures of low levels of pesticides (which includes glyphosate) in foods does to us. To babies and children, to pregnant women, to the elderly, to all of us.

But remember.... there are very strong industry pressures on the EPA and USDA, with some government officials also having ties to the industry, and so perhaps it's a case of keeping the head firmly in the sand for all sorts of pesticide issues. Maybe the motto is: see no evil...hear no evil....There have been some lawsuits from people claiming harm from the pesticide, as well as push back from scientists and environmental groups. Some influential scientists and physicians came out with a Statement of Concern in 2016 regarding their serious concerns with glyphosate.

The reason that glyphosate tolerance limits needed to be increased in the USA is because Roundup Ready crops are now so extensively planted, and this has resulted in skyrocketing use of glyphosate in the last 20 years. Roundup Ready crops are genetically modified to tolerate repeated glyphosate spraying (against weeds)  during the growing season. However, the crops take up and accumulate  glyphosate, and so glyphosate residues are increasing in crops. Another reason for increased residue of glyphosate in crops is the current practice of applying an herbicide such as Roundup right at the time of harvest to non-GMO crops such as wheat, so that the crop dies at once and dries out (pre-harvest crop dessication), and which is called a "preharvest application" by Monsanto. Glyphosate is now off-patent so many other companies are also using glyphosate in their products throughout the world.

How to lower your daily intake of glyphosate? Eat organic foods as much as possible, including wheat, corn, oats, soybeans. Glyphosate is not allowed to be used in organic food production. The following excerpts are from an article by journalist Carey Gillam, and it is well worth reading the entire article. From The Huffington Post:

USDA Drops Plan to Test for Monsanto Weed Killer in Food

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has quietly dropped a plan to start testing food for residues of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used weed killer and the key ingredient in Monsanto Co.’s branded Roundup herbicides. The agency spent the last year coordinating with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in preparation to start testing samples of corn syrup for glyphosate residues on April 1, according to internal agency documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. Documents show that at least since January 2016 into January of this year, the glyphosate testing plan was moving forward. But when asked about the plan this week, a USDA spokesman said no glyphosate residue testing would be done at all by USDA this year.

The USDA’s plan called for the collection and testing of 315 samples of corn syrup from around the United States from April through August, according to the documents. Researchers were also supposed to test for the AMPA metabolite, the documents state. AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) is created as glyphosate breaks down. Measuring residues that include those from AMPA is important because AMPA is not a benign byproduct but carries its own set of safety concerns, scientists believe.

The USDA does not routinely test for glyphosate as it does for other pesticides used in food production. But that stance has made the USDA the subject of criticism as controversy over glyphosate safety has mounted in recent years. The discussions of testing this year come as U.S. and European regulators are wrestling with cancer concerns about the chemical, and as Monsanto, which has made billions of dollars from its glyphosate-based herbicides, is being sued by hundreds of people who claim exposures to Roundup caused them or their loved ones to suffer from non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Internal Monsanto documents obtained by plaintiffs’ attorneys in those cases indicate that Monsanto may have manipulated research regulators relied on to garner favorable safety assessments, and last week, Congressman Ted Lieu called for a probe by the Department of Justice into Monsanto’s actions.

Along with the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration also annually tests thousands of food samples for pesticide residues. Both agencies have done so for decades as a means to ensure that traces of weed killers, insecticides, fungicides and other chemicals used in farming do not persist at unsafe levels in food products commonly eaten by American families. If they find residues above the “maximum residue level” (MRL) allowed for that pesticide and that food, the agencies are supposed to inform the EPA, and actions can be taken against the supplier. The EPA is the regulator charged with establishing MRLs, also called “tolerances,” for different types of pesticides in foods, and the agency coordinates with USDA and FDA on the pesticide testing programs.

But despite the fact that glyphosate use has surged in the last 20 years alongside the marketing of glyphosate-tolerant crops, both USDA and FDA have declined to test for glyphosate residues aside from one time in 2011 when the USDA tested 300 soybean samples for glyphosate and AMPA residues. At that time the agency found 271 samples contained glyphosate, but said the levels were under the MRL - low enough not to be worrisome. The Government Accountability Office took both agencies to task in 2014 for the failure to test regularly for glyphosate.

The USDA’s most recent published report on pesticide residues in food found that for 2015 testing, only 15 percent of the 10,187 samples tested were free from any detectable pesticide residues. That’s a marked difference from 2014, when the USDA found that over 41 percent of samples were “clean” or showed no detectable pesticide residues. But the agency said the important point was that most of the samples, over 99 percent, had residues below the EPA’s established tolerances and are at levels that “do not pose risk to consumers’ health and are safe.” Many scientists take issue with using MRLs as a standard associated with safety, arguing they are based on pesticide industry data and rely on flawed analyses. Much more research is needed to understand the impact on human health of chronic dietary exposures to pesticides, many say.

Published on Leave a comment on What Are The Effects Of Eating Nanoparticles?

Did you know that some foods have nanoparticles added to them? Which means that you may be ingesting food nanoparticles without knowing it. There are currently hundreds of foods with nanoparticles in them, and it is estimated that people (in developed countries) consume more than 1012 nanoparticles in foods each day. The nanoparticles in foods are ingredients so small that they are measured in nanometers or billionths of one meter. The most common nanoingredients are: titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, and zinc oxide. 

What, if anything, do nanoingredients do to humans? That is, are there any effects from ingesting them? Several articles in the past year raise a number of concerns, especially because so much is still unknown. Two recent studies, one done in the US. (using an intestinal model) and one in France (using rats) also raise similar health concerns.

The U. S. study found that the ability of small intestine cells to absorb nutrients and act as a barrier to pathogens is "significantly decreased" after chronic low-level exposure to nanoparticles of titanium dioxide. It affected the surface of the intestinal cells, called microvilli, of the small intestine in a negative way (it "induced a significant decrease in absorptive microvilli").

The French study found that 100 days of chronic low-level ingestion of titanium nanoparticles in food resulted in intestinal inflammation, that it crossed the intestinal barrier and passed into the bloodstream (and even to the liver), and there was development of "preneoplastic lesions" - thus leading the researchers to suggest that chronic low-level exposure plays a role in initiating and promoting early stages of colorectal cancer (colorectal carcinogenesis).

Meanwhile the use of nanoingredients is unregulated in the U.S., and the number of foods with nanoingredients is growing rapidly. About 36% of the titanium dioxide used in food is in titanium dioxide nanoparticle form. It is frequently found in processed foods such as candies, icing, and chewing gums, and is primarily used to make the food whiter or brighter. In the European Union titanium dioxide nanoparticles used as a food additive is known as E171.

Nanoparticles are typically used in foods as additives, flavorings, coloring, or even coatings for food packaging (which can then migrate or leach into food). It is thought that nanocoatings are being used on some fruits and vegetables. Even though ingredients such as titanium dioxide are considered to be "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) before they're made into nanoparticles, the question is whether they’re safe in their nanoparticle form. This is because nanoparticles can exhibit new or altered properties at nanoscale dimensions.

Some concerns about nanoparticles are that they are small enough to penetrate the skin, lungs, digestive system, and perhaps pass through the blood-brain barrier and placental-fetal barrier, and cause damage. Some earlier studies raised the question of whether low-level inflammation of the intestines from chronic (daily) nanoparticle ingestion is contributing to intestinal bowel diseases or the development of colorectal cancer in humans. This research is in its infancy. Whew...

So if this concerns you, how can you avoid nanoparticles in food? Read food ingredient lists to avoid titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, zinc oxide, and cut back (or avoid) eating processed foods as much as possible.

From Science Daily:  Food additive found in candy, gum could alter digestive cell structure and function

The ability of small intestine cells to absorb nutrients and act as a barrier to pathogens is "significantly decreased" after chronic exposure to nanoparticles of titanium dioxide, a common food additive found in everything from chewing gum to bread, according to research from Binghamton University, State University of New York. Researchers exposed a small intestinal cell culture model to the physiological equivalent of a meal's worth of titanium oxide nanoparticles -- 30 nanometers across -- over four hours (acute exposure), or three meal's worth over five days (chronic exposure).

Acute exposures did not have much effect, but chronic exposure diminished the absorptive projections on the surface of intestinal cells called microvilli. With fewer microvilli, the intestinal barrier was weakened, metabolism slowed and some nutrients -- iron, zinc, and fatty acids, specifically -- were more difficult to absorb. Enzyme functions were negatively affected, while inflammation signals increased. "There has been previous work on how titanium oxide nanoparticles affects microvilli, but we are looking at much lower concentrations," Mahler said. "We also extended previous work to show that these nanoparticles alter intestinal function."

Titanium dioxide is generally recognized as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and ingestion is nearly unavoidable.[Note: the FDA does not distinguish between regular titanium dioxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles.] The compound is an inert and insoluble material that is commonly used for white pigmentation in paints, paper and plastics. It is also an active ingredient in mineral-based sunscreens for pigmentation to block ultraviolet light. However, it can enter the digestive system through toothpastes, as titanium dioxide is used to create abrasion needed for cleaning. The oxide is also used in some chocolate to give it a smooth texture; in donuts to provide color; and in skimmed milks for a brighter, more opaque appearance which makes the milk more palatable. "To avoid foods rich in titanium oxide nanoparticles you should avoid processed foods, and especially candy. That is where you see a lot of nanoparticles," Mahler said. [Original study.]

From Science Daily: Food additive E171: First findings of oral exposure to titanium dioxide nanoparticles

Researchers from INRA and their partners1 have studied the effects of oral exposure to titanium dioxide, an additive (E171) commonly used in foodstuffs, especially confectionary. They have shown for the first time that E171 crosses the intestinal barrier in animals and reaches other parts of the body. Immune system disorders linked to the absorption of the nanoscale fraction of E171 particles were observed. The researchers also showed that chronic oral exposure to the additive spontaneously induced preneoplastic lesions in the colon, a non-malignant stage of carcinogenesis, in 40% of exposed animals. Moreover, E171 was found to accelerate the development of lesions previously induced for experimental purposes. While the findings show that the additive plays a role in initiating and promoting the early stages of colorectal carcinogenesis, they cannot be extrapolated to humans or more advanced stages of the disease. The findings were published in the 20 January 2017 issue of Scientific Reports.

Present in many products including cosmetics, sunscreens, paint and building materials, titanium dioxide (or TiO2), known as E171 in Europe....Composed of micro- and nanoparticles, E171 is nevertheless not labelled a "nanomaterial," since it does not contain more than 50% of nanoparticles (in general it contains from 10-40%). The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated the risk of exposure to titanium dioxide by inhalation (occupational exposure), resulting in a Group 2B classification, reserved for potential carcinogens for humans. [Original study.]

Published on Leave a comment on Vitamin E and Selenium Supplements Don’t Prevent Dementia

Another study not finding benefits from taking supplements - this time older men taking vitamin E and selenium supplements to see if it prevents dementia and Alzheimer's disease. The men (average age 67.5 years) were randomly assigned to take either vitamin E (400 IU) or selenium (200 µg), both supplements, or a placebo daily for over 5 years. However, there was no difference among the groups in the rate of dementia Alzheimer's disease both after 5 years and the subset of men who were also studied for a further 7 years. The rationale for taking these supplements was that they are antioxidants. The authors also discuss that taking vitamin E supplements is linked to an increase in prostate cancer, and selenium is linked to an increase in diabetes. Bottom line: eat food, not supplements.

From Science Daily:  Vitamin E, selenium supplements did not prevent dementia

Antioxidant supplements vitamin E and selenium -- taken alone or in combination -- did not prevent dementia in asymptomatic older men, according to a study published online by JAMA Neurology. Antioxidants as potential treatment for cognitive impairment or dementia have been of interest for years because oxidative stress has been implicated as a dementia pathway.

The Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease by Vitamin E and Selenium (PREADViSE) clinical trial initially enrolled 7,540 older men who used the supplements for an average of about five years and a subset of 3,786 men who agreed to be observed longer. The men received either vitamin E, selenium, both or a placebo. The incidence of dementia (325 of 7,338 men [4.4 percent]) was not different among the four study groups, according to the results in the article by Richard J. Kryscio, Ph.D., of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and coauthors.

Limitations of the study include losing about half of the participants to long-term follow-up during the transition from a randomized clinical trial to a cohort study. Publicity about the negative effect of supplements also may have played a role, according to the authors. [Original study.]

Published on Leave a comment on Ibuprofen Use and Cardiac Arrest Risk?

A new study has been released that reminds us that all drugs (whether prescription or non-prescription) have side-effects.  This time a nation wide study from Denmark found that short-term use of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) ibuprofen (e.g. Advil and Motrin) and diclofenac is linked to a higher risk of cardiac arrest (the heart suddenly stops beating). It was an observational study so can't definitely say that ibuprofen and diclofenac caused the cardiac arrests, but the findings match a growing body of evidence.

Since Ibuprofen and other NSAIDs are popular non-prescription medicines used worldwide, people assume they are safe to use. In Denmark, ibuprofen is the only NSAID sold as an over-the-counter drug, and only in small amounts. In the U.S., both ibuprofen and diclofenac are sold in both non-prescription and prescription forms.

In the study, they found an increased risk of cardiac arrest in ibuprofen and diclofenac users. However, they did not find a risk of cardiac arrest with the use of COX-2 selective inhibitors, rofecoxib and celecoxib, nor with the NSAID naproxen. One of the researchers (Dr. Gislason) therefore advises consumers to try to avoid diclofenac, to limit the use of ibuprofen to no more than 1200 mg per day, and that perhaps the safest is naproxen (up to 500 mg per day). From Medical Xpress:

'Harmless' painkillers associated with increased risk of cardiac arrest

Painkillers considered harmless by the general public are associated with increased risk of cardiac arrest, according to research published today in the March issue of European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy.....The current study investigated the link between NSAID use and cardiac arrest. All patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark between 2001 and 2010 were identified from the nationwide Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry. Data was collected on all redeemed prescriptions for NSAIDs from Danish pharmacies since 1995. These included the non-selective NSAIDs (diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen), and COX-2 selective inhibitors (rofecoxib, celecoxib).

A total of 28 947 patients had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark during the ten year period. Of these, 3 376 were treated with an NSAID up to 30 days before the event. Ibuprofen and diclofenac were the most commonly used NSAIDs, making up 51% and 22% of total NSAID use, respectively. Use of any NSAID was associated with a 31% increased risk of cardiac arrest. Diclofenac and ibuprofen were associated with a 50% and 31% increased risk, respectively. Naproxen, celecoxib and rofecoxib were not associated with the occurrence of cardiac arrest, probably due to a low number of events.

"The findings are a stark reminder that NSAIDs are not harmless," said Professor Gislason. "Diclofenac and ibuprofen, both commonly used drugs, were associated with significantly increased risk of cardiac arrest. NSAIDs should be used with caution and for a valid indication. They should probably be avoided in patients with cardiovascular disease or many cardiovascular risk factors." NSAIDs exert numerous effects on the cardiovascular system which could explain the link with cardiac arrest. These include influencing platelet aggregation and causing blood clots, causing the arteries to constrict, increasing fluid retention, and raising blood pressure. [Original study.]