Monday, March 23, 2009
Flavor Lab Video
This video takes you inside a flavor lab. Chips, candy, everything processed contains these chemicals. Disturbing but cool. Gotta love the people at Discovery.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Measles May Protect Kids Against Allergies
Measles may protect kids against allergies
Wed Mar 4, 3:36 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Children who've been infected with measles are less likely to develop allergies, a large study in Europe has demonstrated.
The occurrence of allergic disorders has increased during past decades, coinciding with reduced rates of many childhood infections and increasing use of vaccinations, Helen Rosenlund, at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, and colleagues note in the medical journal Pediatrics.
However, previous studies looking for any link between allergies, measles infection, and measles vaccination have produced positive, negative and neutral results.
In the PARSIFAL study, researchers focused on children brought up in a farming and "anthroposophic" lifestyle. They explain that an anthroposophic lifestyle typically makes less use of antibiotics, medication to treat fevers, and vaccinations; it also involves high consumption of "biodynamic" foods.
The study included 12,540 children 5 to 13 years of age. According to the investigators, questionnaire responses indicated that 73 percent of children were vaccinated against measles, 20 percent had been infected with measles (including 11 percent of vaccinated children), and 14 percent had been neither vaccinated nor naturally infected.
Among the children who never had measles infection, those who had been vaccinated were more likely to have nasal allergies, Rosenlund's group observed.
Further analysis showed that allergies were less likely in children who had had a bout of measles, but not in those who had been vaccinated against measles.
SOURCE: Pediatrics, March 2009.
Wed Mar 4, 3:36 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Children who've been infected with measles are less likely to develop allergies, a large study in Europe has demonstrated.
The occurrence of allergic disorders has increased during past decades, coinciding with reduced rates of many childhood infections and increasing use of vaccinations, Helen Rosenlund, at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, and colleagues note in the medical journal Pediatrics.
However, previous studies looking for any link between allergies, measles infection, and measles vaccination have produced positive, negative and neutral results.
In the PARSIFAL study, researchers focused on children brought up in a farming and "anthroposophic" lifestyle. They explain that an anthroposophic lifestyle typically makes less use of antibiotics, medication to treat fevers, and vaccinations; it also involves high consumption of "biodynamic" foods.
The study included 12,540 children 5 to 13 years of age. According to the investigators, questionnaire responses indicated that 73 percent of children were vaccinated against measles, 20 percent had been infected with measles (including 11 percent of vaccinated children), and 14 percent had been neither vaccinated nor naturally infected.
Among the children who never had measles infection, those who had been vaccinated were more likely to have nasal allergies, Rosenlund's group observed.
Further analysis showed that allergies were less likely in children who had had a bout of measles, but not in those who had been vaccinated against measles.
SOURCE: Pediatrics, March 2009.
Well there you go. Amazing they didn't bury this.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
EPA Spends $76 Mill in 12 Years With Nothing To Show For It
Is One Very Tough Rat a Very Big Risk to Human Health?
01.22.2009
The rodents charged with testing environmental chemicals may be too tough for their jobs.
Discovery Magazine
by Marilyn Berlin Snell
The success of one of the most ambitious and contested federal science programs in years may rest on the delicate shoulders of a one-pound albino breed of rat known as Sprague Dawley. In a hotly debated move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has selected this unassuming rodent as the primary test animal for a vastly complex and comprehensive new chemical-evaluation program. The effort is designed to investigate many of the most vexing public-health questions of the day: Are you putting yourself, your children, or even your children’s children at risk when you microwave food in plastic containers? What is contributing to hormone-related killers like breast, uterine, and testicular cancer? And are common garden sprays—like the one you use to keep the aphids off your hybrid tea rose—affecting your unborn baby’s developing brain?
The EPA initiative, called the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, is set to begin testing some of the 87,000 chemicals identified by a federal advisory panel for their potential to interfere with the body’s endocrine, or hormone, system. As the body’s chemical messengers, hormones play a critical role in regulating biological processes including metabolism, reproduction, and brain development. The female ovaries, male testes, and pituitary, thyroid, and adrenal glands are all part of this complex system. Endocrine disruptors may mimic natural hormones or block their normal action, cause the body to produce too much or too little of a hormone, or scramble a hormone’s message so that the body thinks it should abort a fetus, for example, or produce extra insulin. If any of the thousands of chemicals in common use today adversely affect the human hormone system, the EPA’s testing program should catch them—but only if Sprague Dawley catches them
first. And therein lies the controversy.
Since World War II, this white-furred rodent with beady red eyes has been among industry’s most often used lab rats for testing drugs and chemicals before they hit the market. The animal’s utility is undisputed; it has helped researchers study not just pharmacology and toxicology but everything from cancer and AIDS to obesity and aging. In this case, though, it may be the wrong rat for the job. Critics say that Sprague Dawley is a kind of superrodent whose hearty constitution may not react in ways an average human’s would. If so, the animal could give a clean bill of health to chemicals that actually pose a real threat to human well-being.
Last spring the EPA convened a scientific advisory panel to make final adjustments to the proposed testing program. One panelist was David Furlow, a University of California at Davis endocrinologist with extensive experience in rat-strain variations and how they can affect outcomes in the lab. He tried repeatedly to raise a red flag about Sprague Dawley. “I’ve known about these differences since I was an undergraduate in the 1980s,” Furlow says, citing scientific literature that suggests it is more resistant to endocrine-disrupting chemicals than other rat strains. His concerns, he says, were downplayed.
Sprague Dawley’s unique characteristics have been evident for decades. In 1946 physical chemist Robert Dawley’s company sent a letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) detailing how, through selective breeding, Dawley had developed a rat (Sprague was his first wife’s maiden name) with good temperament, vigor, and high rates of lactation. But Sprague Dawley’s good genes—not to mention its fecundity—could have bad consequences for humans: A prolific breeder may not be the best test subject for chemicals that may cause infertility and other reproductive problems. The letter to the NIH also stated that the rat strain had been bred for “high resistance to arsenic trioxide,” a toxic substance used in insecticides and herbicides and known today to be an endocrine disruptor.
“It’s a significant problem,” says Jef French, acting chief of the Host Susceptibility Branch of the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (French emphasized that he was speaking for himself and not the government.) “Because of Sprague Dawley’s [genetic] selection, chemicals that might be harmful to humans might be judged to be nonharmful to the rat,” he says.
The results of the EPA’s tests could guide federal regulation of numerous chemicals for many years to come, so the stakes for both the public and the chemical industry are enormous.
+++
The far-reaching Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program dates to 1996, when Congress ordered the EPA to begin testing chemicals for their potential to interfere with the human endocrine system. By some accounts the legislation was prompted by the publication earlier that year of a book titled Our Stolen Future. Called “an environmental thriller” by The Washington Post, the book, by two zoologists and an environmental journalist, called attention to a longtime concern of environmentalists: failing wildlife populations and strange deformities in the offspring of those that survived. For instance, there was a massive die-off of alligators after a 1980 pesticide spill in Florida’s Lake Apopka. Studies later found deformed sex organs in the offspring of the remaining gator population, even after tests showed the water in the lake to be apparently clean. Mink ranchers in the Great Lakes region who fed their animals local fish began noticing that the females weren’t producing pups, a problem later linked to PCB contamination. In California researchers found what came to be known in the press as “gay gulls”: same-sex seagull couples shacking up together in the nest, protecting eggs with abnormally thin shells that often harbored dead chicks. DDT was the suspected culprit.
Because of genetic selection, chemicals that might be harmful to humans might be judged nonharmful to the rat. Confronted with these findings, scientists began to wonder whether small quantities of synthetic chemical compounds found in our food and water—and in everyday products like makeup, plastics, and bug spray—could be sabotaging human fertility, undermining our immune systems, or affecting prenatal development. When the public got wind of the possible threat and started demanding answers, the EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program was born.
Twelve years and $76 million later, not a single chemical has been screened by the EPA for its potential to scramble male, female, and thyroid hormones. Before screening could begin in earnest, the agency had to make sure that the protocols used in the screens would be reliable and reproducible. In this validation phase, studies were conducted at several labs using the same protocol, with the results then compared to ensure that the screens are replicable across labs. In this preliminary phase, several rat strains were used, including ones known as Long-Evans Hooded and Wistar, but Sprague Dawley was always the top pick.
During the validation studies, Sprague Dawley and other strains were housed in polycarbonate cages with wire lids. In some tests their life spans were brief—around six to eight weeks. Juvenile males were dosed with chemicals, then decapitated and examined. Pubescent males and females were injected with atrazine and myriad other chemicals, then had ovaries removed and studied, tiny testicles weighed, and kidney and thyroid glands checked for toxic effects.
A 2003 white paper commissioned by the EPA notes that because companies have for decades conducted these kinds of tests on Sprague Dawley, there is a large database of information on them that is lacking for other strains. But a “reviewer’s appendix” to the white paper—in which an independent scientist is asked to critique the report—argues that Sprague Dawley may be a poor choice for endocrine disruptor screening because the animal was bred to be resistant to known environmental toxicants. Written by research geneticist Jimmy Spearow, then at U.C. Davis, the appendix presented evidence that other rat strains, including Fischer 344, were more sensitive to more chemicals than was Sprague Dawley. “Compared with several other strains that have been studied, the strain that is least sensitive to the most endocrine-disrupting chemicals has been identified, and the EPA is planning to use it in the screening assays,” says Spearow, now a staff
toxicologist for the California EPA; he emphasizes that this is his personal opinion, based on previous work conducted at Davis. In 2007 the EPA finally acknowledged there was reason to believe that Sprague Dawley might be less sensitive to certain endocrine tests, which made critics like Spearow wonder what other toxic effects the rat had failed to catch all those years.
Which rat to use in the EPA study isn’t the only thing being fought over. There has been a pitched battle between the chemical industry and its many critics regarding the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program itself, with some industry representatives questioning the very premise that endocrine disruption is a human health risk. At a recent industry-sponsored workshop on the endocrine disruptor program that included representatives from Procter & Gamble, Monsanto, the American Chemistry Council, and Dow, one speaker repeatedly prefaced the phrase “endocrine disruptor” with “quote unquote.”
“There will always be different interpretations of science,” says Angelina Duggan, an original member of the EPA advisory panel and today a managing scientist at Exponent, a chemical industry consulting firm. “Whether this issue is more emotion or science remains to be seen.”
+++
To Marion Moses, a physician who runs the Pesticide Education Center in San Francisco, there is no need for such equivocation. “It’s become a fight over process and whether one can extrapolate animal studies to humans,” she says. “It’s a charade, and it has been going on for 12 years.” Trying to nail down unassailable proof of endocrine disruption in humans is essentially a fool’s errand, in her view. Moses, who has treated farmworkers for acute poisoning, rashes, and asthma that seem to be related to the spraying season, feels that the wildlife data alone should be enough to outlaw certain pesticides. “I spent a lot of time trying to get these awful chemicals off the market,” she says while walking in a San Francisco garden-supply store. The snail bait, lawn weed-and-feed products, fungicides, and insect repellents she pulls off the shelf all contain chemicals slated for testing.
The 2003 white paper that drew such strong criticism from Spearow, who called it “disturbing” and “misleading,” was coauthored by Rochelle Tyl, another member of the EPA advisory panel. Tyl, who runs a lab in North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park where many of the screens and tests will eventually be done, acknowledges that Sprague Dawley isn’t the perfect choice. Still, she defends the report, calling Fischer 344, for instance, a “lousy” test animal because the males have reproductive problems. Asked about rats bred to be super reproducers, she waves her arm impatiently. “I know that’s the criticism, that Sprague Dawleys are good breeders. But if you don’t have an animal that gives decent litters, how do you run a study?”
Gary Timm, a senior environmental scientist with the EPA, has been working on the endocrine disruptor program since its very first days and likewise recognizes the complexity of the process. “I’ve been totally surprised at how long it’s taken,” he says. The agency felt a constant tug between “keep it simple” and “be comprehensive.”
“Compromises have been struck,” Timm continues. He, too, cites the problem of Sprague Dawley’s virility. “People say, ‘Look, these rats suffer a 50 percent decrease in sperm and they still reproduce.’ They say, ‘If you had a guy who had a 50 percent decrease in sperm, he’d be infertile!’” Asked how he responds to such criticism, he answers, “Those are just some of the things we have to allow for.”
Representative Henry Waxman and others on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are not so sure. In 2007 the committee sent a letter to the administrator of the EPA voicing concern that public health was being put at risk by the selection of Sprague Dawley. The agency responded, “While the EPA recognizes there are reasons to believe that this strain might be less sensitive, the data currently available appear to show that it is no worse (or better) than other strains for screening for endocrine activity.”
In some ways the EPA is correct, Spearow says. No one rat strain is most sensitive to all endocrine-disrupting chemicals. “However, available data show that the Sprague Dawley rat strain is least sensitive to the most endocrine-disrupting chemicals relative to other strains that have been studied,” he says. “I’m not saying it is inappropriate for all testing, but to use it as the only test animal in this program means that we could really underestimate the effects of certain kinds of chemicals. Do we make sure they’re safe for King Kong? Or do we make sure they’re safe for you and me and Bambi?”
Congress, fed up with the EPA’s delay of more than a decade, wrote into the 2008 appropriations bill that the screening of possible endocrine-disrupting compounds was to begin last summer. Testing of the first chemicals, including the herbicides 2,4-D and atrazine and the insecticide malathion, was scheduled to follow, but the EPA pushed back its deadlines yet again, to early 2009.
Endocrine disruption, with its diffuse causes and effects that may not show up for a generation, is a hydra-headed 21st-century health challenge. Thousands of chemicals will be tested and many millions of dollars will be spent. Still, opponents of using Sprague Dawley say one nagging question remains: If the whiskered workhorse in the laboratory isn’t up to the task, who will be the real lab rats?
01.22.2009
The rodents charged with testing environmental chemicals may be too tough for their jobs.
Discovery Magazine
by Marilyn Berlin Snell
The success of one of the most ambitious and contested federal science programs in years may rest on the delicate shoulders of a one-pound albino breed of rat known as Sprague Dawley. In a hotly debated move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has selected this unassuming rodent as the primary test animal for a vastly complex and comprehensive new chemical-evaluation program. The effort is designed to investigate many of the most vexing public-health questions of the day: Are you putting yourself, your children, or even your children’s children at risk when you microwave food in plastic containers? What is contributing to hormone-related killers like breast, uterine, and testicular cancer? And are common garden sprays—like the one you use to keep the aphids off your hybrid tea rose—affecting your unborn baby’s developing brain?
The EPA initiative, called the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, is set to begin testing some of the 87,000 chemicals identified by a federal advisory panel for their potential to interfere with the body’s endocrine, or hormone, system. As the body’s chemical messengers, hormones play a critical role in regulating biological processes including metabolism, reproduction, and brain development. The female ovaries, male testes, and pituitary, thyroid, and adrenal glands are all part of this complex system. Endocrine disruptors may mimic natural hormones or block their normal action, cause the body to produce too much or too little of a hormone, or scramble a hormone’s message so that the body thinks it should abort a fetus, for example, or produce extra insulin. If any of the thousands of chemicals in common use today adversely affect the human hormone system, the EPA’s testing program should catch them—but only if Sprague Dawley catches them
first. And therein lies the controversy.
Since World War II, this white-furred rodent with beady red eyes has been among industry’s most often used lab rats for testing drugs and chemicals before they hit the market. The animal’s utility is undisputed; it has helped researchers study not just pharmacology and toxicology but everything from cancer and AIDS to obesity and aging. In this case, though, it may be the wrong rat for the job. Critics say that Sprague Dawley is a kind of superrodent whose hearty constitution may not react in ways an average human’s would. If so, the animal could give a clean bill of health to chemicals that actually pose a real threat to human well-being.
Last spring the EPA convened a scientific advisory panel to make final adjustments to the proposed testing program. One panelist was David Furlow, a University of California at Davis endocrinologist with extensive experience in rat-strain variations and how they can affect outcomes in the lab. He tried repeatedly to raise a red flag about Sprague Dawley. “I’ve known about these differences since I was an undergraduate in the 1980s,” Furlow says, citing scientific literature that suggests it is more resistant to endocrine-disrupting chemicals than other rat strains. His concerns, he says, were downplayed.
Sprague Dawley’s unique characteristics have been evident for decades. In 1946 physical chemist Robert Dawley’s company sent a letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) detailing how, through selective breeding, Dawley had developed a rat (Sprague was his first wife’s maiden name) with good temperament, vigor, and high rates of lactation. But Sprague Dawley’s good genes—not to mention its fecundity—could have bad consequences for humans: A prolific breeder may not be the best test subject for chemicals that may cause infertility and other reproductive problems. The letter to the NIH also stated that the rat strain had been bred for “high resistance to arsenic trioxide,” a toxic substance used in insecticides and herbicides and known today to be an endocrine disruptor.
“It’s a significant problem,” says Jef French, acting chief of the Host Susceptibility Branch of the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (French emphasized that he was speaking for himself and not the government.) “Because of Sprague Dawley’s [genetic] selection, chemicals that might be harmful to humans might be judged to be nonharmful to the rat,” he says.
The results of the EPA’s tests could guide federal regulation of numerous chemicals for many years to come, so the stakes for both the public and the chemical industry are enormous.
+++
The far-reaching Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program dates to 1996, when Congress ordered the EPA to begin testing chemicals for their potential to interfere with the human endocrine system. By some accounts the legislation was prompted by the publication earlier that year of a book titled Our Stolen Future. Called “an environmental thriller” by The Washington Post, the book, by two zoologists and an environmental journalist, called attention to a longtime concern of environmentalists: failing wildlife populations and strange deformities in the offspring of those that survived. For instance, there was a massive die-off of alligators after a 1980 pesticide spill in Florida’s Lake Apopka. Studies later found deformed sex organs in the offspring of the remaining gator population, even after tests showed the water in the lake to be apparently clean. Mink ranchers in the Great Lakes region who fed their animals local fish began noticing that the females weren’t producing pups, a problem later linked to PCB contamination. In California researchers found what came to be known in the press as “gay gulls”: same-sex seagull couples shacking up together in the nest, protecting eggs with abnormally thin shells that often harbored dead chicks. DDT was the suspected culprit.
Because of genetic selection, chemicals that might be harmful to humans might be judged nonharmful to the rat. Confronted with these findings, scientists began to wonder whether small quantities of synthetic chemical compounds found in our food and water—and in everyday products like makeup, plastics, and bug spray—could be sabotaging human fertility, undermining our immune systems, or affecting prenatal development. When the public got wind of the possible threat and started demanding answers, the EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program was born.
Twelve years and $76 million later, not a single chemical has been screened by the EPA for its potential to scramble male, female, and thyroid hormones. Before screening could begin in earnest, the agency had to make sure that the protocols used in the screens would be reliable and reproducible. In this validation phase, studies were conducted at several labs using the same protocol, with the results then compared to ensure that the screens are replicable across labs. In this preliminary phase, several rat strains were used, including ones known as Long-Evans Hooded and Wistar, but Sprague Dawley was always the top pick.
During the validation studies, Sprague Dawley and other strains were housed in polycarbonate cages with wire lids. In some tests their life spans were brief—around six to eight weeks. Juvenile males were dosed with chemicals, then decapitated and examined. Pubescent males and females were injected with atrazine and myriad other chemicals, then had ovaries removed and studied, tiny testicles weighed, and kidney and thyroid glands checked for toxic effects.
A 2003 white paper commissioned by the EPA notes that because companies have for decades conducted these kinds of tests on Sprague Dawley, there is a large database of information on them that is lacking for other strains. But a “reviewer’s appendix” to the white paper—in which an independent scientist is asked to critique the report—argues that Sprague Dawley may be a poor choice for endocrine disruptor screening because the animal was bred to be resistant to known environmental toxicants. Written by research geneticist Jimmy Spearow, then at U.C. Davis, the appendix presented evidence that other rat strains, including Fischer 344, were more sensitive to more chemicals than was Sprague Dawley. “Compared with several other strains that have been studied, the strain that is least sensitive to the most endocrine-disrupting chemicals has been identified, and the EPA is planning to use it in the screening assays,” says Spearow, now a staff
toxicologist for the California EPA; he emphasizes that this is his personal opinion, based on previous work conducted at Davis. In 2007 the EPA finally acknowledged there was reason to believe that Sprague Dawley might be less sensitive to certain endocrine tests, which made critics like Spearow wonder what other toxic effects the rat had failed to catch all those years.
Which rat to use in the EPA study isn’t the only thing being fought over. There has been a pitched battle between the chemical industry and its many critics regarding the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program itself, with some industry representatives questioning the very premise that endocrine disruption is a human health risk. At a recent industry-sponsored workshop on the endocrine disruptor program that included representatives from Procter & Gamble, Monsanto, the American Chemistry Council, and Dow, one speaker repeatedly prefaced the phrase “endocrine disruptor” with “quote unquote.”
“There will always be different interpretations of science,” says Angelina Duggan, an original member of the EPA advisory panel and today a managing scientist at Exponent, a chemical industry consulting firm. “Whether this issue is more emotion or science remains to be seen.”
+++
To Marion Moses, a physician who runs the Pesticide Education Center in San Francisco, there is no need for such equivocation. “It’s become a fight over process and whether one can extrapolate animal studies to humans,” she says. “It’s a charade, and it has been going on for 12 years.” Trying to nail down unassailable proof of endocrine disruption in humans is essentially a fool’s errand, in her view. Moses, who has treated farmworkers for acute poisoning, rashes, and asthma that seem to be related to the spraying season, feels that the wildlife data alone should be enough to outlaw certain pesticides. “I spent a lot of time trying to get these awful chemicals off the market,” she says while walking in a San Francisco garden-supply store. The snail bait, lawn weed-and-feed products, fungicides, and insect repellents she pulls off the shelf all contain chemicals slated for testing.
The 2003 white paper that drew such strong criticism from Spearow, who called it “disturbing” and “misleading,” was coauthored by Rochelle Tyl, another member of the EPA advisory panel. Tyl, who runs a lab in North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park where many of the screens and tests will eventually be done, acknowledges that Sprague Dawley isn’t the perfect choice. Still, she defends the report, calling Fischer 344, for instance, a “lousy” test animal because the males have reproductive problems. Asked about rats bred to be super reproducers, she waves her arm impatiently. “I know that’s the criticism, that Sprague Dawleys are good breeders. But if you don’t have an animal that gives decent litters, how do you run a study?”
Gary Timm, a senior environmental scientist with the EPA, has been working on the endocrine disruptor program since its very first days and likewise recognizes the complexity of the process. “I’ve been totally surprised at how long it’s taken,” he says. The agency felt a constant tug between “keep it simple” and “be comprehensive.”
“Compromises have been struck,” Timm continues. He, too, cites the problem of Sprague Dawley’s virility. “People say, ‘Look, these rats suffer a 50 percent decrease in sperm and they still reproduce.’ They say, ‘If you had a guy who had a 50 percent decrease in sperm, he’d be infertile!’” Asked how he responds to such criticism, he answers, “Those are just some of the things we have to allow for.”
Representative Henry Waxman and others on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are not so sure. In 2007 the committee sent a letter to the administrator of the EPA voicing concern that public health was being put at risk by the selection of Sprague Dawley. The agency responded, “While the EPA recognizes there are reasons to believe that this strain might be less sensitive, the data currently available appear to show that it is no worse (or better) than other strains for screening for endocrine activity.”
In some ways the EPA is correct, Spearow says. No one rat strain is most sensitive to all endocrine-disrupting chemicals. “However, available data show that the Sprague Dawley rat strain is least sensitive to the most endocrine-disrupting chemicals relative to other strains that have been studied,” he says. “I’m not saying it is inappropriate for all testing, but to use it as the only test animal in this program means that we could really underestimate the effects of certain kinds of chemicals. Do we make sure they’re safe for King Kong? Or do we make sure they’re safe for you and me and Bambi?”
Congress, fed up with the EPA’s delay of more than a decade, wrote into the 2008 appropriations bill that the screening of possible endocrine-disrupting compounds was to begin last summer. Testing of the first chemicals, including the herbicides 2,4-D and atrazine and the insecticide malathion, was scheduled to follow, but the EPA pushed back its deadlines yet again, to early 2009.
Endocrine disruption, with its diffuse causes and effects that may not show up for a generation, is a hydra-headed 21st-century health challenge. Thousands of chemicals will be tested and many millions of dollars will be spent. Still, opponents of using Sprague Dawley say one nagging question remains: If the whiskered workhorse in the laboratory isn’t up to the task, who will be the real lab rats?
How disturbing and frustrating is this? So much waste. TheEndocrine Disruptor Screening Program sounded like such a good idea, a great response after the book came out. And still fighting over the rat. Well, not the rat actually, but how much money this will cost certain large companies. Where are people's ethics? Don't these scientists and government heads want their children to grow normally? What is inside their kitchens? Don't they live on this planet?
Haven't we hit rock bottom? Maybe it IS like the movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still" remake says, we won't change until we are on the brink of destruction. I think destruction is here.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Response to Vaccine Ruling
What we really need to do is take a step back and look at the big picture. Why are we having babies with GI and immune deficiencies? Why does the American Academy of Pediatrics report that 1 out of every 6 babies born will have either a developmental delay or major disorder like Autism, PDD, ADHD, Allergies, Asthma, or other immune/autoimmune disorders? Why are we still in denial as a country?
With that, like a broken record I say our children these days cannot handle the environmental load. Whether it's vaccines, toxins in our water, food, toys, in the air we breathe, it's just too much for anyone to handle let alone a growing child. Why wouldn't mercury, the vaccine load by itself, or any other major shock to the system trigger Autism or any of the above things? What causes Autism? No one has a fast answer, so it can't be ruled out. Especially by judges that don't understand Autism. The medical community doesn't, why would they?
I read that there are 5500 cases in the courts on this topic. THese are the first 3. 3 out of 5500? On my shit list? That CNN pregnant bitch Campbell Brown reporting that the dispute is over after that. That she's "tired" of the issue. I bet I can think of hundreds of thousands more people that are more tired of it than she is. Opinions are one thing, but irresponsible reporting is another.
Here are the best links that speak my feelings on this issue.
Autism Speaks
Autism Society of America
Medical News Today
Age of Autism
With that, like a broken record I say our children these days cannot handle the environmental load. Whether it's vaccines, toxins in our water, food, toys, in the air we breathe, it's just too much for anyone to handle let alone a growing child. Why wouldn't mercury, the vaccine load by itself, or any other major shock to the system trigger Autism or any of the above things? What causes Autism? No one has a fast answer, so it can't be ruled out. Especially by judges that don't understand Autism. The medical community doesn't, why would they?
I read that there are 5500 cases in the courts on this topic. THese are the first 3. 3 out of 5500? On my shit list? That CNN pregnant bitch Campbell Brown reporting that the dispute is over after that. That she's "tired" of the issue. I bet I can think of hundreds of thousands more people that are more tired of it than she is. Opinions are one thing, but irresponsible reporting is another.
Here are the best links that speak my feelings on this issue.
Autism Speaks
Autism Society of America
Medical News Today
Age of Autism
Huffington Post - Jim Carrey
All for now. I need to take care of my other immune compromised child that lives in chronic pain as a result AGAIN of the ignorant medical community that is ruled by insurance companies.
Happy Presidents Day.
All for now. I need to take care of my other immune compromised child that lives in chronic pain as a result AGAIN of the ignorant medical community that is ruled by insurance companies.
Happy Presidents Day.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Plastic chemical may stay in body longer: study
By Will Dunham
Wed Jan 28, 12:21 am ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A controversial chemical used in many plastic products may remain in the body longer than previously thought, and people may be ingesting it from sources other than food, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December said it planned more research into the safety of bisphenol A, or BPA, but the agency indicated no immediate plans to curb the chemical, found in baby bottles and other products.
Dr. Richard Stahlhut of the University of Rochester and colleagues looked at levels of the chemical in the urine of 1,469 U.S. adults who took part in a government health survey.
While the belief had been BPA was quickly and completely eliminated from the body through urine, this study found people who had fasted for even a whole day still had significant levels of the chemical.
Stahlhut said this suggested BPA may hang around in the body longer than previously known or that it may get into the body through sources other than just food, perhaps including tap water or house dust. Stahlhut added that BPA may get into fat tissue, from where it might be released more slowly.
"If it leaves the body quickly, then it reduces the amount of time when it can cause problems. If it does cause problems, obviously if it stays around much longer, then that changes the game," Stahlhut, whose study appears in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal, said in a telephone interview.
BPA is used in many food and beverage containers, the coating of food cans and some medical devices. It mimics the hormone estrogen in the body. People consume it when it leaches from plastic into baby formula, water or food in a container.
The researchers tracked how urine levels of BPA declined based on the length of time a person had fasted. But they found that people who fasted for 8.5 hours, for example, had about the same BPA levels as those who fasted 24 hours.
Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council industry group said the conclusions of the new study "are speculative at best," and reiterated the industry view that BPA is safe at current levels of exposure.
U.S. government toxicologists at the National Institutes of Health last year expressed concern that BPA may have harmful effects on the development of the prostate and brain and induce behavioral changes in fetuses, infants and children.
A 2008 study by British researchers showed that high levels of BPA in the body were linked to heart disease, diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities.
(Editing by Maggie Fox and Todd Eastham)
Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters
Wed Jan 28, 12:21 am ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A controversial chemical used in many plastic products may remain in the body longer than previously thought, and people may be ingesting it from sources other than food, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December said it planned more research into the safety of bisphenol A, or BPA, but the agency indicated no immediate plans to curb the chemical, found in baby bottles and other products.
Dr. Richard Stahlhut of the University of Rochester and colleagues looked at levels of the chemical in the urine of 1,469 U.S. adults who took part in a government health survey.
While the belief had been BPA was quickly and completely eliminated from the body through urine, this study found people who had fasted for even a whole day still had significant levels of the chemical.
Stahlhut said this suggested BPA may hang around in the body longer than previously known or that it may get into the body through sources other than just food, perhaps including tap water or house dust. Stahlhut added that BPA may get into fat tissue, from where it might be released more slowly.
"If it leaves the body quickly, then it reduces the amount of time when it can cause problems. If it does cause problems, obviously if it stays around much longer, then that changes the game," Stahlhut, whose study appears in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal, said in a telephone interview.
BPA is used in many food and beverage containers, the coating of food cans and some medical devices. It mimics the hormone estrogen in the body. People consume it when it leaches from plastic into baby formula, water or food in a container.
The researchers tracked how urine levels of BPA declined based on the length of time a person had fasted. But they found that people who fasted for 8.5 hours, for example, had about the same BPA levels as those who fasted 24 hours.
Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council industry group said the conclusions of the new study "are speculative at best," and reiterated the industry view that BPA is safe at current levels of exposure.
U.S. government toxicologists at the National Institutes of Health last year expressed concern that BPA may have harmful effects on the development of the prostate and brain and induce behavioral changes in fetuses, infants and children.
A 2008 study by British researchers showed that high levels of BPA in the body were linked to heart disease, diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities.
(Editing by Maggie Fox and Todd Eastham)
Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters
DUH. Oh right, most doctors believe all people are alike. We all respond to the environment the same way. We all have the same genetic components. Oh, and we all live the same lifestyles and detox the same, very efficiently. Will there ever come a day when they see we are all unique??
Chickenpox vaccine not tied to strokes in kids
Tue Jan 27, 5:47 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Unlike chickenpox itself, the vaccine against chickenpox does not increase the risk of stroke or brain inflammation in children, according to a large US study reported in the journal Pediatrics.
Stroke is a known complication of chickenpox, a viral disease also called varicella, the study team points out. Although there have been case reports of stroke after varicella vaccination, "the existence and magnitude of any vaccine-associated risk has not been determined."
To shed light on this subject, Dr. James G. Donahue of the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Wisconsin and colleagues analyzed data for the period 1991 through 2004 from the Vaccine Safety DataLink on 3.2 million children, 35.3 percent of whom received the varicella vaccine.
They identified a total of 203 new stroke cases, including 8 that occurred within 12 months of varicella vaccination. However, the timing of each case did not suggest that vaccination caused the strokes.
Stroke was strongly associated with known risk factors such as sickle cell disease and heart disease, they found.
Donahue and colleagues also identified 243 cases of brain inflammation or encephalitis. None of these cases occurred during the first 30 days after vaccination and there was no association between encephalitis and varicella vaccination at any time in the 12 months after vaccination.
"Complementing two recent reviews that found serious adverse events to be rare after varicella vaccination, this study offers reassurance that the rare complication of stroke seen after varicella infection" is simply a coincidence, not a cause and effect relationship, the team concludes.
SOURCE: Pediatrics, February 2009.
Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited.
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Unlike chickenpox itself, the vaccine against chickenpox does not increase the risk of stroke or brain inflammation in children, according to a large US study reported in the journal Pediatrics.
Stroke is a known complication of chickenpox, a viral disease also called varicella, the study team points out. Although there have been case reports of stroke after varicella vaccination, "the existence and magnitude of any vaccine-associated risk has not been determined."
To shed light on this subject, Dr. James G. Donahue of the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Wisconsin and colleagues analyzed data for the period 1991 through 2004 from the Vaccine Safety DataLink on 3.2 million children, 35.3 percent of whom received the varicella vaccine.
They identified a total of 203 new stroke cases, including 8 that occurred within 12 months of varicella vaccination. However, the timing of each case did not suggest that vaccination caused the strokes.
Stroke was strongly associated with known risk factors such as sickle cell disease and heart disease, they found.
Donahue and colleagues also identified 243 cases of brain inflammation or encephalitis. None of these cases occurred during the first 30 days after vaccination and there was no association between encephalitis and varicella vaccination at any time in the 12 months after vaccination.
"Complementing two recent reviews that found serious adverse events to be rare after varicella vaccination, this study offers reassurance that the rare complication of stroke seen after varicella infection" is simply a coincidence, not a cause and effect relationship, the team concludes.
SOURCE: Pediatrics, February 2009.
Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited.
I don't believe it. If there is a known correlation between stroke and chicken pox, then it has to be the same with a vaccine. The body often can't tell the difference and doesn't care about the delivery method of the virus. Wild strain or vaccine strain, if that's how the body can respond then there IS a relationship. I wonder how much money went into this study compared to the potential law suit money people may have gotten.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Serious infections rising in U.S. children: study
Mon Jan 19, 4:52 pm ET
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Children in the United States increasingly are developing serious head and neck infections with a drug-resistant type of "superbug" bacteria called MRSA, U.S. researchers said on Monday. They said rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, are rising in children, and called on doctors to be more judicious in prescribing antibiotics.
"There is a nationwide increase in the prevalence of MRSA in children with head and neck infections that is alarming," said Dr. Steven Sobol of Emory University, whose study appears in the Archives of Otalaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
MRSA previously had been a major concern only in hospitals, attacking patients who are already weakened by disease. But recent outbreaks in the community in otherwise healthy children have raised new concerns. Sobol noted that other studies have shown increases in community-acquired infections of the skin and soft tissue, but some institutions have observed MRSA infections among children with head and neck infections, such as those involving the ear, nose, throat or sinuses. To get a sense of the scope of the outbreak, the researchers studied 21,009 children ages 1 to 18 with head and neck infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus from 300 hospitals across the nation between 2001 and 2006.
While only 12 percent of the staph infections in 2001 showed signs of antibiotic resistance, that number more than doubled to 28 percent in just five years. Nearly 60 percent of all MRSA infections of the head and neck among children in the study were acquired outside hospitals. Most were in children's ears. The researchers suggest that doctors conduct careful testing of head and neck infections, and prescribe antibiotics only when they will do some good. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 94,000 Americans get serious, invasive MRSA infections each year and 19,000 die.
(Reporting by Julie Steenhuysen, editing by Will Dunham and David Wiessler)
Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited.
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Children in the United States increasingly are developing serious head and neck infections with a drug-resistant type of "superbug" bacteria called MRSA, U.S. researchers said on Monday. They said rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, are rising in children, and called on doctors to be more judicious in prescribing antibiotics.
"There is a nationwide increase in the prevalence of MRSA in children with head and neck infections that is alarming," said Dr. Steven Sobol of Emory University, whose study appears in the Archives of Otalaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
MRSA previously had been a major concern only in hospitals, attacking patients who are already weakened by disease. But recent outbreaks in the community in otherwise healthy children have raised new concerns. Sobol noted that other studies have shown increases in community-acquired infections of the skin and soft tissue, but some institutions have observed MRSA infections among children with head and neck infections, such as those involving the ear, nose, throat or sinuses. To get a sense of the scope of the outbreak, the researchers studied 21,009 children ages 1 to 18 with head and neck infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus from 300 hospitals across the nation between 2001 and 2006.
While only 12 percent of the staph infections in 2001 showed signs of antibiotic resistance, that number more than doubled to 28 percent in just five years. Nearly 60 percent of all MRSA infections of the head and neck among children in the study were acquired outside hospitals. Most were in children's ears. The researchers suggest that doctors conduct careful testing of head and neck infections, and prescribe antibiotics only when they will do some good. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 94,000 Americans get serious, invasive MRSA infections each year and 19,000 die.
(Reporting by Julie Steenhuysen, editing by Will Dunham and David Wiessler)
Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited.
Japan Says Cloned Animals are Safe For Food
Tue Jan 20, 3:20 am ET
TOKYO (Reuters) – A study group for Japan's top safety watchdog said cloned animals are safe for food, the first step in a series of decisions needed before the watchdog makes recommendations to the government.
With several meetings pending by a higher-level committee of experts, it will take months before the Food Safety Commission reports its assessment on the safety of food in production using the controversial reproductive technology. The United States in January last year opened the door to bringing meat and milk from cloned cattle, hogs and goats and their offspring into the food supply. "The working group focused on the assessment of the health of cloned cattle and hogs. The assumption of their discussion was that if such animals are healthy, food made from them would be safe," said Kazuo Funasaka, a spokesman at the commission, said on Tuesday. "Their conclusion is that based on the scientific knowledge and information available at present, such food is as safe as cattle and hogs bred conventionally," he said.
Cloning animals is considered a key technology to improve efficiency in livestock production. Japan's health ministry asked the commission in April 2008 for its assessment on safety of such food. Japan's government has had to face fierce criticism from consumers over its handling of tainted imported rice, and a series of food scandals last year have made consumers even more cautious about food from cloned animals.
But Japan was among the first countries to produce cloned animals. It bred cloned cattle in 1998 and the cumulative total of such cattle now totals more than 550. It also breeds cloned hogs and goats, all for research purposes.
(Reporting by Risa Maeda; Editing by Edwina Gibbs)
Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited.
TOKYO (Reuters) – A study group for Japan's top safety watchdog said cloned animals are safe for food, the first step in a series of decisions needed before the watchdog makes recommendations to the government.
With several meetings pending by a higher-level committee of experts, it will take months before the Food Safety Commission reports its assessment on the safety of food in production using the controversial reproductive technology. The United States in January last year opened the door to bringing meat and milk from cloned cattle, hogs and goats and their offspring into the food supply. "The working group focused on the assessment of the health of cloned cattle and hogs. The assumption of their discussion was that if such animals are healthy, food made from them would be safe," said Kazuo Funasaka, a spokesman at the commission, said on Tuesday. "Their conclusion is that based on the scientific knowledge and information available at present, such food is as safe as cattle and hogs bred conventionally," he said.
Cloning animals is considered a key technology to improve efficiency in livestock production. Japan's health ministry asked the commission in April 2008 for its assessment on safety of such food. Japan's government has had to face fierce criticism from consumers over its handling of tainted imported rice, and a series of food scandals last year have made consumers even more cautious about food from cloned animals.
But Japan was among the first countries to produce cloned animals. It bred cloned cattle in 1998 and the cumulative total of such cattle now totals more than 550. It also breeds cloned hogs and goats, all for research purposes.
(Reporting by Risa Maeda; Editing by Edwina Gibbs)
Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited.
"The assumption of their discussion was that if such animals are healthy, food made from them would be safe." My favorite quote from this article. So empirical isn't it? I am "totally" convinced that these animals are safe. Way to go Japan. ,"
Saturday, January 10, 2009
What Sucks More, Lyme or Autism?
An uber mom asked me that question recently. Not that it really matters because both problems are things I can't change unless we go back in time and fix the medical community much like Sarah Connor tries to do in my coveted show "The Sarah Connor Chronicles". Wow that was a nice run-on.
The answer is different depending on the day. I am more equipped as a seasoned advocate. I understand the medical community and how things like ASD and Lyme are recognized biomedically by a minority of brave, open, and bright physicians. My learning curve is much better. But today Lyme wins because my daughter is feeling worse and there's nothing I can do to take that pain away.
Pain
There is so much physical PAIN with Lyme. A second doesn't go by where Sydney isn't in chronic all over body pain. On average, 20 pain areas: Headache, stomach ache, rib pain, back pain, arms and leg pain, heels, ankles, wrists, fingers. Everything. Then she must endure flares, a time where a symptom gets much worse, a sudden attack of acute pain.
I look back and Leo wasn't really in PAIN. Leo had emotional pain perhaps? Fear, anxiety, stress just existing. But, there were things that could help those things. Yes, the obstacles were ASSHOLE doctors, then ASSHOLE school district people, but all-in-all I knew there was an answer, a solution. Sometimes attainable, and sometimes not. And mostly, a lot of waiting.
Doctors Don't Understand It
The medical community is divided over Lyme, what it is, how to treat it, and yes, it comes down to economics, egos, self interest like these things always do. My obstacles were the same, ASSHOLE doctors that would rather be *right* and dutifully follow dated guidelines when deep inside they know the truth. Good little soldiers not fulfilling their Hippocratic oath of healing. With Autism, it's DAN doctors and parents versus the rest of the medical community as obstacles toward healing and saving money. With Lyme, the same thing, no one believing people that have been in chronic pain, pain that can be life-threatening and unbearable for most. The "quacks" in the Autism world and the Lyme world share the same enemy.
They are Invisible
Both Autism and Lyme can be an invisible. Syd runs around at recess with her friends, laughing. To an observer, she doesn't appear sick. They don't see her pain that she now thinks is "normal". She doesn't remember life without this pain. With Autism, same thing, the amount of brain power, concentration, dedication, and effort it takes for some kids to just get through a day of school. Processing the world differently requires so much for an ASD child. The pain for a Lyme patient goes on unnoticed throughout the day as well. Just keeping her head up all day on top of a burning throbbing neck is a feat in itself. Using scissors and glue is an olympic event on some days, as is staying awake and present while battling fatigue. Ignoring the pain sensation of "knives coming out of my stomach" while eating a PB&J in the cafeteria.
Stigma
Surprisingly, there is a stigma with chronic Lyme. People don't understand it since the acute form (when you catch it early with the accepted symptoms) is treatable with antibiotics. You can be completely well after one month. Because of this, people don't take chronic Lyme seriously. It makes others uncomfortable since they don't understand this disease. Sound familiar? The same thing for Autism.
Advocacy
The same thing with Autism, no one cares about Lyme unless it's in their house, and in the chronic virulent form. I have the same barriers to wellness - insurance companies, the majority of doctors, dated guidelines, misinformation, politics, and special interest groups within government agencies.
I will fight like I always do, and I pray that my daughter will live a pain-free life again. It really sucks.
The answer is different depending on the day. I am more equipped as a seasoned advocate. I understand the medical community and how things like ASD and Lyme are recognized biomedically by a minority of brave, open, and bright physicians. My learning curve is much better. But today Lyme wins because my daughter is feeling worse and there's nothing I can do to take that pain away.
Pain
There is so much physical PAIN with Lyme. A second doesn't go by where Sydney isn't in chronic all over body pain. On average, 20 pain areas: Headache, stomach ache, rib pain, back pain, arms and leg pain, heels, ankles, wrists, fingers. Everything. Then she must endure flares, a time where a symptom gets much worse, a sudden attack of acute pain.
I look back and Leo wasn't really in PAIN. Leo had emotional pain perhaps? Fear, anxiety, stress just existing. But, there were things that could help those things. Yes, the obstacles were ASSHOLE doctors, then ASSHOLE school district people, but all-in-all I knew there was an answer, a solution. Sometimes attainable, and sometimes not. And mostly, a lot of waiting.
Doctors Don't Understand It
The medical community is divided over Lyme, what it is, how to treat it, and yes, it comes down to economics, egos, self interest like these things always do. My obstacles were the same, ASSHOLE doctors that would rather be *right* and dutifully follow dated guidelines when deep inside they know the truth. Good little soldiers not fulfilling their Hippocratic oath of healing. With Autism, it's DAN doctors and parents versus the rest of the medical community as obstacles toward healing and saving money. With Lyme, the same thing, no one believing people that have been in chronic pain, pain that can be life-threatening and unbearable for most. The "quacks" in the Autism world and the Lyme world share the same enemy.
They are Invisible
Both Autism and Lyme can be an invisible. Syd runs around at recess with her friends, laughing. To an observer, she doesn't appear sick. They don't see her pain that she now thinks is "normal". She doesn't remember life without this pain. With Autism, same thing, the amount of brain power, concentration, dedication, and effort it takes for some kids to just get through a day of school. Processing the world differently requires so much for an ASD child. The pain for a Lyme patient goes on unnoticed throughout the day as well. Just keeping her head up all day on top of a burning throbbing neck is a feat in itself. Using scissors and glue is an olympic event on some days, as is staying awake and present while battling fatigue. Ignoring the pain sensation of "knives coming out of my stomach" while eating a PB&J in the cafeteria.
Stigma
Surprisingly, there is a stigma with chronic Lyme. People don't understand it since the acute form (when you catch it early with the accepted symptoms) is treatable with antibiotics. You can be completely well after one month. Because of this, people don't take chronic Lyme seriously. It makes others uncomfortable since they don't understand this disease. Sound familiar? The same thing for Autism.
Advocacy
The same thing with Autism, no one cares about Lyme unless it's in their house, and in the chronic virulent form. I have the same barriers to wellness - insurance companies, the majority of doctors, dated guidelines, misinformation, politics, and special interest groups within government agencies.
I will fight like I always do, and I pray that my daughter will live a pain-free life again. It really sucks.
Salmonella Outbreak Linked to Institution Sized Peanut Butter
Salmonella outbreak linked to peanut butter
By Maggie Fox
Fri Jan 9, 9:52 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Minnesota health officials issued a product alert for peanut butter on Friday after finding a jar that was contaminated with a strain of salmonella linked to an outbreak across the United States.
While the bacteria in the peanut butter match the outbreak strain genetically, the health officials said it was not clear yet that the peanut butter could be linked to any cases.
The outbreak of salmonella food poisoning has sickened at least 399 people and put 70 or more into hospital since September.
Officials from Minnesota's departments of agriculture and health said they were issuing a product advisory for King Nut brand creamy peanut butter after finding the Salmonella typhimurium bacteria in a big institutional-size jar.
"The Minnesota cases have the same genetic fingerprint as the cases in a national outbreak that has sickened almost 400 people in 42 states," the health department said in a statement.
It said the product was distributed in Minnesota to places such as long-term care facilities, hospitals, schools, universities, restaurants, cafeterias and bakeries.
"At this time, the product is not known to be distributed for retail sale in grocery stores," it said. "State officials are urging establishments who may have the product on hand to avoid serving it, pending further instructions as the investigation progresses."
Earlier on Friday, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed the numbers of cases in each of the 42 affected states. California was hardest hit with 55 cases, while Ohio had 53 and Minnesota had 30.
An outbreak of salmonella was linked to Peter Pan brand peanut butter in 2007. ConAgra Foods Inc closed a Georgia plant after more than 300 people became ill in that outbreak.
The CDC is trying to trace the source of the outbreak, which began in September. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, state health officials and the Food and Drug Administration are also involved.
Tracking the source of such an outbreak can be tricky. The CDC said poultry, cheese and eggs are the most common source of Salmonella typhimurium strains.
Every year, about 40,000 people are reported ill with salmonella in the United States, the CDC says, but many more cases are never reported.
There have been several high-profile outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United States, including a strain of salmonella carried by peppers from Mexico that sickened 1,400 people from April to August 2007 and an E. coli epidemic in 2006, traced to California spinach, that killed three people.
(Editing by John O'Callaghan)
Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc.
By Maggie Fox
Fri Jan 9, 9:52 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Minnesota health officials issued a product alert for peanut butter on Friday after finding a jar that was contaminated with a strain of salmonella linked to an outbreak across the United States.
While the bacteria in the peanut butter match the outbreak strain genetically, the health officials said it was not clear yet that the peanut butter could be linked to any cases.
The outbreak of salmonella food poisoning has sickened at least 399 people and put 70 or more into hospital since September.
Officials from Minnesota's departments of agriculture and health said they were issuing a product advisory for King Nut brand creamy peanut butter after finding the Salmonella typhimurium bacteria in a big institutional-size jar.
"The Minnesota cases have the same genetic fingerprint as the cases in a national outbreak that has sickened almost 400 people in 42 states," the health department said in a statement.
It said the product was distributed in Minnesota to places such as long-term care facilities, hospitals, schools, universities, restaurants, cafeterias and bakeries.
"At this time, the product is not known to be distributed for retail sale in grocery stores," it said. "State officials are urging establishments who may have the product on hand to avoid serving it, pending further instructions as the investigation progresses."
Earlier on Friday, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed the numbers of cases in each of the 42 affected states. California was hardest hit with 55 cases, while Ohio had 53 and Minnesota had 30.
An outbreak of salmonella was linked to Peter Pan brand peanut butter in 2007. ConAgra Foods Inc closed a Georgia plant after more than 300 people became ill in that outbreak.
The CDC is trying to trace the source of the outbreak, which began in September. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, state health officials and the Food and Drug Administration are also involved.
Tracking the source of such an outbreak can be tricky. The CDC said poultry, cheese and eggs are the most common source of Salmonella typhimurium strains.
Every year, about 40,000 people are reported ill with salmonella in the United States, the CDC says, but many more cases are never reported.
There have been several high-profile outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United States, including a strain of salmonella carried by peppers from Mexico that sickened 1,400 people from April to August 2007 and an E. coli epidemic in 2006, traced to California spinach, that killed three people.
(Editing by John O'Callaghan)
Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc.
Just nasty. Another example of the risks we are taking with an industrial food supply. And of those 300 plus people got sick? Possibly kids from lunches, our special needs people in day facilities? I have only my imagination.
Monday, January 05, 2009
GMO Shopping Guide
I recently came across this brochure about GMO (genetically modified organisms) food. It contains a list of brands that use these ingredients and brands that don't. Handy. Naturally the big food companies are on the list for most of the food categories - like cereals (General Mills, Kellogg, Post, and Quaker). The big four at-risk ingredients are:
Corn
Soy
Canola
Cotton
Surprisingly wheat is not on the list. I can't figure that one out as I know they have modified it over time to include 12% more gluten among other thing that make the plant hardier on top of cutting the crop earlier and earlier while it's still green.
Corn
Soy
Canola
Cotton
Surprisingly wheat is not on the list. I can't figure that one out as I know they have modified it over time to include 12% more gluten among other thing that make the plant hardier on top of cutting the crop earlier and earlier while it's still green.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Jett Travolta
My heart goes out to the Travolta family. I used to have such disdain over their Scientology beliefs - not recognizing Autism in their son, letting him "just be", not maximizing his potential, giving him as many choices as possible. But hey, I'm not his parent. Every family is different and who knows what his individual deficits were. I had always fantasized that they'd be another powerhouse Autism family, Hollywood style.
But today I feel guilty about that judgement I made and my fantasy. No doubt Jett had a happy full life. I am so sad for their loss. One of our people on top of a child. I find myself always thinking about them now. I can't imagine what they must be going through.
Jett got to be with his family at Christmas, and swim in the ocean in the Bahamas. I'm sure it was a nice life. Not everyone has to be a poster child. Look at me, I'd be a hypocrite for not recognizing our anonimity. Our son has a good life too, who's to say that Jett's life was less full? I hope they can manage living after their loss, and do what they can to stay together as a couple and provide love and a life for the rest of their kids.
But today I feel guilty about that judgement I made and my fantasy. No doubt Jett had a happy full life. I am so sad for their loss. One of our people on top of a child. I find myself always thinking about them now. I can't imagine what they must be going through.
Jett got to be with his family at Christmas, and swim in the ocean in the Bahamas. I'm sure it was a nice life. Not everyone has to be a poster child. Look at me, I'd be a hypocrite for not recognizing our anonimity. Our son has a good life too, who's to say that Jett's life was less full? I hope they can manage living after their loss, and do what they can to stay together as a couple and provide love and a life for the rest of their kids.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Out of Control Drug Companies: NY Times article
December 20, 2008
Medical Publisher to Review Claim About Article’s Writer
By DUFF WILSON
Elsevier, a medical publisher, said Friday that it would investigate a senator’s recent allegation that one of its journals published an article on hormone replacement therapy that was improperly ghostwritten by a drug company promoting the product.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, had raised questions about the May 2003 “Editors’ Choice” article in Elsevier’s American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The article, signed by Dr. John Eden, an Australia academic, was among articles Mr. Grassley has cited that were favorable to drugs made by the pharmaceutical company Wyeth.
Mr. Grassley, a member of the Senate Finance Committee who is investigating drug company influence on doctors, contends that Wyeth commissioned the articles and had them ghostwritten by a medical writing firm. Only after the articles were conceived and under way did the firm line up doctors to put their names on them, Mr. Grassley contends.
“The charges made by Senator Grassley’s office with regard to the article published in 2003 by Dr. Eden are a significant concern to The Journal and Elsevier,” Glen P. Campbell, the senior vice president for Elsevier’s US Health Sciences Journals unit, said in a statement. “As with any charge of misconduct or inappropriate publishing acts, The Journal has launched its own investigation into the claims of ghostwriting and undisclosed financial support.”
The journal article, published more than a year after a landmark federal study linked Wyeth’s Prempro hormone product to breast cancer in women, said there was “no definitive evidence” the hormones caused breast cancer.
Mr. Eden’s article did not mention any involvement by Wyeth or DesignWrite, the medical writing company hired by Wyeth. He acknowledged the contributions of two people for “editorial assistance” but did not disclose they worked for DesignWrite. The standard industry guidelines for medical journals require the authors to identify all significant contributors.
In an e-mail message to The New York Times last week, Mr. Eden said he stood by the article’s contents but declined to elaborate. “I cannot comment as these matters are before the Senate,” he said in the message. “I am also aware of ongoing lawsuits around these matters.” Mr. Eden is an associate professor at the University of New South Wales.
In a statement Friday, Wyeth said the academic authors were not paid by Wyeth and had “substantive editorial control” of the articles. Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he appreciated the publishing company’s response and would continue his own investigation.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Medical Publisher to Review Claim About Article’s Writer
By DUFF WILSON
Elsevier, a medical publisher, said Friday that it would investigate a senator’s recent allegation that one of its journals published an article on hormone replacement therapy that was improperly ghostwritten by a drug company promoting the product.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, had raised questions about the May 2003 “Editors’ Choice” article in Elsevier’s American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The article, signed by Dr. John Eden, an Australia academic, was among articles Mr. Grassley has cited that were favorable to drugs made by the pharmaceutical company Wyeth.
Mr. Grassley, a member of the Senate Finance Committee who is investigating drug company influence on doctors, contends that Wyeth commissioned the articles and had them ghostwritten by a medical writing firm. Only after the articles were conceived and under way did the firm line up doctors to put their names on them, Mr. Grassley contends.
“The charges made by Senator Grassley’s office with regard to the article published in 2003 by Dr. Eden are a significant concern to The Journal and Elsevier,” Glen P. Campbell, the senior vice president for Elsevier’s US Health Sciences Journals unit, said in a statement. “As with any charge of misconduct or inappropriate publishing acts, The Journal has launched its own investigation into the claims of ghostwriting and undisclosed financial support.”
The journal article, published more than a year after a landmark federal study linked Wyeth’s Prempro hormone product to breast cancer in women, said there was “no definitive evidence” the hormones caused breast cancer.
Mr. Eden’s article did not mention any involvement by Wyeth or DesignWrite, the medical writing company hired by Wyeth. He acknowledged the contributions of two people for “editorial assistance” but did not disclose they worked for DesignWrite. The standard industry guidelines for medical journals require the authors to identify all significant contributors.
In an e-mail message to The New York Times last week, Mr. Eden said he stood by the article’s contents but declined to elaborate. “I cannot comment as these matters are before the Senate,” he said in the message. “I am also aware of ongoing lawsuits around these matters.” Mr. Eden is an associate professor at the University of New South Wales.
In a statement Friday, Wyeth said the academic authors were not paid by Wyeth and had “substantive editorial control” of the articles. Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he appreciated the publishing company’s response and would continue his own investigation.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Out of control. You think it's bad when you read about the FDA and the CDC. I was quickly reminded that it's pervasive across all areas in the medical community.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Strep and Rife Machines
I finally have some positive news to share. I found a technology that dramatically reduces Leo's facial tics. Both my kids, especially my 10 year old son Leo, has an autoimmune response when exposed to strep. No high fever, angry sore throat here. His class could have 4 kids infected and home and he'll respond with eye blinks, strabismus, neck turns, and a furrowed brow. And again when I tested him on the EAV machine, strep came up as the winner.
His facial tics have been the worst EVER this fall. What does this mean? Did I wait too long to find something that works? Is he just getting more immune compromised? I just don't know and I'm certainly not going to waste my time by asking a medical doctor.
The strep nosode (a homeopathic remedy) helped for a while, but eventually the tics came back and the repeat dosing and other remedies stopped working. I'm sure this is a failure on my part (the mom practitioner), not with homeopathy. When you get it right, it works permanently.
I researched and purchased a Rife machine for my daughter Sydney's chronic Lyme disease. Yes, we are still in Lyme Hell after 6 weeks on antibiotics with no end in sight. The Rife machine, another way to kill the Lyme bacteria, is part 2 of my master plan. We will use this to wipe out any remaining/hiding Lyme so she will not relapse and go back to Lyme Hell (and neither will the rest of us in the family).
The machine, the EMX, costs around 1300 with shipping. I purchased mine at www.rifelabs.com. People that are electricians can build them by themselves with an old stereo system and other stuff you buy at Home Depot. Well meaning people have posted all this info for free, including the frequencies for the various Lyme life cycles. I couldn't find much about strep and rifing, hard enough with Lyme, but the movement is growing rapidly.
Here is another website with Rife info: http://www.lymebook.com.
So here I am, in my world of bacteria. Lyme and Strep. My new world. Somewhat new anyway. Perhaps a new possibility to end chronic health issues. Dare I type it.
His facial tics have been the worst EVER this fall. What does this mean? Did I wait too long to find something that works? Is he just getting more immune compromised? I just don't know and I'm certainly not going to waste my time by asking a medical doctor.
The strep nosode (a homeopathic remedy) helped for a while, but eventually the tics came back and the repeat dosing and other remedies stopped working. I'm sure this is a failure on my part (the mom practitioner), not with homeopathy. When you get it right, it works permanently.
I researched and purchased a Rife machine for my daughter Sydney's chronic Lyme disease. Yes, we are still in Lyme Hell after 6 weeks on antibiotics with no end in sight. The Rife machine, another way to kill the Lyme bacteria, is part 2 of my master plan. We will use this to wipe out any remaining/hiding Lyme so she will not relapse and go back to Lyme Hell (and neither will the rest of us in the family).
The machine, the EMX, costs around 1300 with shipping. I purchased mine at www.rifelabs.com. People that are electricians can build them by themselves with an old stereo system and other stuff you buy at Home Depot. Well meaning people have posted all this info for free, including the frequencies for the various Lyme life cycles. I couldn't find much about strep and rifing, hard enough with Lyme, but the movement is growing rapidly.
Here is another website with Rife info: http://www.lymebook.com.
So here I am, in my world of bacteria. Lyme and Strep. My new world. Somewhat new anyway. Perhaps a new possibility to end chronic health issues. Dare I type it.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
FDA sets up offices in China to ensure food safety
So this is now what our tax dollars are going towards? Lame government employees overseas to somehow ensure the food that's shipped is safe. They say they are reacting to the melanine incident. But what about the food we have here in this country? OUR food supply is what needs improving, babysitting, monitoring, what have you. Is it really more cost effective going to China rather than fixing our food supply woes here? Even if I didn't have a degree in economics (which I do, a minor anyway), this doesn't jive.
In over my head with Lyme, but I couldn't let this little nugget of info go by without comment. IDIOTS
Ashley
In over my head with Lyme, but I couldn't let this little nugget of info go by without comment. IDIOTS
Ashley
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Friendship Perspective Taking
I went to dinner with a group of women friends recently. A very New England group - wealthy, fit and pretty, and live very homogenius lives for the most part. Tennis, PTA, coffees, husbands socialize, jewelry parties, you get the drift. Karen grew up in the area, has her family local, and has a wide array of friends from work, school, and the community. I have always been envious of her comfort and how easy her life seems to me. How nice is it that she has so many people to call for sitters, to go for coffee, a real solid base. I've told her she has an amazing life. She's offered to help me with the kids, which I've taken her up on before. She really gets it and is thankful.
I am somehow accepted into this group although I don't feel I fit in exactly. Good enough, they can be fun, our kids go to school together, a night out is always a plus. Anyway, one of the women, let's call her Karen, starts talking about another mom that's not there, Jennifer. Karen sets up her story first by saying the right things, "I shouldn't be talking bad about her, she's really nice, it's nothing really." We all lean in, eagerly awaiting any juicy story.
I felt conflicted because I recently met Jennifer and thought she was really nice, and better yet, was a UNIQUE person that had passion and good energy. I recently talked to her at an event, we didn't even talk about kids, a breath of fresh air. I thought I should "say something" but decided against it. I thought it may ruin the fun for everyone, knowing this is dinner party conversation, no need to be so serious. So I sat back and just listened.
She starts to say how Jennifer is very quirky, she learned how to knit, and then a month later went into the knitting store and bought yarn for 5 sweaters (for her family) and became totally obsessed. They all laughed about it, and I sat there thinking how I liked that about her, her passion and drive. She goes on to say that Jennifer's husband tells people that Karen's husband is "one of his best friends". And also tells people the same about her, that they are "good friends". They all laugh about it, saying how crazy that is, that they aren't even "friends", they carpool together and do PTA stuff, but that's it. Karen's husband states they aren't friends either, they went to school together, and in fact they all made fun of him because he was so nerdy and strange.
Funny, I had plans later that week with Jennifer, and that night I met her husband. Definitely an Aspie! I really liked him a lot. He didn't "get" that we were talking girl talk at one point, and continued to stand there. He even joined us with a glass of wine. It was a little threesome, certainly not what I expected, but still fun. I would've rather chatted with just Jen, but that's what was going on. At one point, he mentioned Karen and said her husband was one of his best friends!
I thought about the two different versions of friendships over the next day. I realized that neither person was "wrong". Jennifer's husband hardly socializes and doesn't have a large stable of friends like Karen's husband does. According to Jen's husband, his perspective is that YES, they are very close. According to Karen's, they are not, because he has a wide array of friends, and doesn't even consider him in the category of friend, just a classmate. Neither husband are aware of each others perspective.
I am very aware of the friendship disparity with my own situation. As a west coast transplant and Autism refugee, I try not to take it personally when I'm not at the top of the list with some of my friends. My "close" friends and BFF live peppered all over the country, none are local. I have many "good" friends locally, especially Autism friends. Even Karen is a good friend, we've known each other a long time. I am not sure if it's worth pointing all this out to Karen or not. Either way, I know it's not malicious, just ignorant, and maybe insensitive.
Seems that perspective taking doesn't happen as often as it could.
I am somehow accepted into this group although I don't feel I fit in exactly. Good enough, they can be fun, our kids go to school together, a night out is always a plus. Anyway, one of the women, let's call her Karen, starts talking about another mom that's not there, Jennifer. Karen sets up her story first by saying the right things, "I shouldn't be talking bad about her, she's really nice, it's nothing really." We all lean in, eagerly awaiting any juicy story.
I felt conflicted because I recently met Jennifer and thought she was really nice, and better yet, was a UNIQUE person that had passion and good energy. I recently talked to her at an event, we didn't even talk about kids, a breath of fresh air. I thought I should "say something" but decided against it. I thought it may ruin the fun for everyone, knowing this is dinner party conversation, no need to be so serious. So I sat back and just listened.
She starts to say how Jennifer is very quirky, she learned how to knit, and then a month later went into the knitting store and bought yarn for 5 sweaters (for her family) and became totally obsessed. They all laughed about it, and I sat there thinking how I liked that about her, her passion and drive. She goes on to say that Jennifer's husband tells people that Karen's husband is "one of his best friends". And also tells people the same about her, that they are "good friends". They all laugh about it, saying how crazy that is, that they aren't even "friends", they carpool together and do PTA stuff, but that's it. Karen's husband states they aren't friends either, they went to school together, and in fact they all made fun of him because he was so nerdy and strange.
Funny, I had plans later that week with Jennifer, and that night I met her husband. Definitely an Aspie! I really liked him a lot. He didn't "get" that we were talking girl talk at one point, and continued to stand there. He even joined us with a glass of wine. It was a little threesome, certainly not what I expected, but still fun. I would've rather chatted with just Jen, but that's what was going on. At one point, he mentioned Karen and said her husband was one of his best friends!
I thought about the two different versions of friendships over the next day. I realized that neither person was "wrong". Jennifer's husband hardly socializes and doesn't have a large stable of friends like Karen's husband does. According to Jen's husband, his perspective is that YES, they are very close. According to Karen's, they are not, because he has a wide array of friends, and doesn't even consider him in the category of friend, just a classmate. Neither husband are aware of each others perspective.
I am very aware of the friendship disparity with my own situation. As a west coast transplant and Autism refugee, I try not to take it personally when I'm not at the top of the list with some of my friends. My "close" friends and BFF live peppered all over the country, none are local. I have many "good" friends locally, especially Autism friends. Even Karen is a good friend, we've known each other a long time. I am not sure if it's worth pointing all this out to Karen or not. Either way, I know it's not malicious, just ignorant, and maybe insensitive.
Seems that perspective taking doesn't happen as often as it could.
Book Fair Week
The kids seem to rarely be at school in November. I enjoyed looking over their "wish lists" for the book fair. We talked about allowance money, our contribution (parents contribute half). As I was reading his list, he says to me "Mom, since I'm getting older, I'm not obsessed with the big hard cover books that come with toys. These books are all chapter books that are not as expensive." Good observation!
Leo got his first 4Th grade report card and it looks like he continues to be a solid B student (one A in science). I wasn't surprised by a B in math because of the geometry focus. I am very proud of him! His personal development section needs improvement - he looks like again he's talking to much to his friends. I am still thinking about when he couldn't talk, so as long as he's absorbing the lectures I don't care too much, although I don't want him to think being disrespectful to the teacher is "okay". We already laugh too much about the finger game.
Leo got his first 4Th grade report card and it looks like he continues to be a solid B student (one A in science). I wasn't surprised by a B in math because of the geometry focus. I am very proud of him! His personal development section needs improvement - he looks like again he's talking to much to his friends. I am still thinking about when he couldn't talk, so as long as he's absorbing the lectures I don't care too much, although I don't want him to think being disrespectful to the teacher is "okay". We already laugh too much about the finger game.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Our Lyme Hell, Still In Pain After 5 Weeks Of Antibiotics
So my daughter is still in chronic pain after almost 5 weeks of antibiotics. I took great pleasure in filling out the form from our ped's office to transfer our files to our new pediatrician. I pressed down hard and checked "entire contents." Yeah, fuckers! Too bad I don't have extra time right now to file a complaint to the state for their mishandling, or do the high road thing and prepare a Lyme care package that includes the latest info on chronic Lyme and Lyme's broader symptoms. I have visions in my head of beautifully wrapped books with extravagant bows to be delivered to each and every one of those "doctors" in that practice.
I got a call from "Nancy", the office manager that I have NO RELATIONSHIP with whatsoever. The obligatory "why are you switching" call. They don't give a shit, ped A will be relieved that he will no longer be getting articles shoved in his pocket and biannual arguments. I'm done. So of course I'm not going to call, mainly because how can I possibly condense my problems into a simple list? And they won't change, so why bother.
But I move on. I have moved from ped A to ped B. I have a very good Lyme specialist. I have an incredible nutritionist and homeopath. I push about 30 different substances into my child's 60lb body each day while she aches from head to toe. Her antibiotics make her nauseous each time she takes them, which is 3 times a day. For 2 months she's had the following symptoms:
pulsating headache that wraps around like a band
sore neck
rib pain
chest pain
stomach ache (worse with food)
sore back (can't even touch)
arm and leg pain
sore shins
wrist, ankle, and heel pain (so bad she has to sit in the shower because the tile hurts her feet)
hip pain
dizzyness after any sugar (Halloween night was "fun".
How does she do it? I don't know. Her personality has changed, it's wearing on all of us because she is miserable. Leo gets his share of her irritability and sensitivity. I talk to him every day about it, validating him, and seeing if he needs to talk. He does "get it", he's amazing. But still unfair. And they share a room!
I have the "right" blood work done that tests positive for Lyme along with a normal CBC panel. I have my cancer doc friends that reassure it's not a cancer based on her symptoms and her testing. I now have to sit and wait for her to get better. No one knows when, there isn't a handy chart that will indicate when this hell will be over.
I wish I could just walk away from health problems and go back to advertising without a care in the world. I wish I could just buy food because, hey, it looks yummy. I wonder if I should take up smoking.
I got a call from "Nancy", the office manager that I have NO RELATIONSHIP with whatsoever. The obligatory "why are you switching" call. They don't give a shit, ped A will be relieved that he will no longer be getting articles shoved in his pocket and biannual arguments. I'm done. So of course I'm not going to call, mainly because how can I possibly condense my problems into a simple list? And they won't change, so why bother.
But I move on. I have moved from ped A to ped B. I have a very good Lyme specialist. I have an incredible nutritionist and homeopath. I push about 30 different substances into my child's 60lb body each day while she aches from head to toe. Her antibiotics make her nauseous each time she takes them, which is 3 times a day. For 2 months she's had the following symptoms:
pulsating headache that wraps around like a band
sore neck
rib pain
chest pain
stomach ache (worse with food)
sore back (can't even touch)
arm and leg pain
sore shins
wrist, ankle, and heel pain (so bad she has to sit in the shower because the tile hurts her feet)
hip pain
dizzyness after any sugar (Halloween night was "fun".
How does she do it? I don't know. Her personality has changed, it's wearing on all of us because she is miserable. Leo gets his share of her irritability and sensitivity. I talk to him every day about it, validating him, and seeing if he needs to talk. He does "get it", he's amazing. But still unfair. And they share a room!
I have the "right" blood work done that tests positive for Lyme along with a normal CBC panel. I have my cancer doc friends that reassure it's not a cancer based on her symptoms and her testing. I now have to sit and wait for her to get better. No one knows when, there isn't a handy chart that will indicate when this hell will be over.
I wish I could just walk away from health problems and go back to advertising without a care in the world. I wish I could just buy food because, hey, it looks yummy. I wonder if I should take up smoking.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
WSJ: And You Thought the Debate Over Fluoridation Was Settled
HEALTH JOURNALNOVEMBER 4, 2008
And You Thought the Debate Over Fluoridation Was Settled
By MELINDA BECK
As a baby boomer growing up without fluoridation, I had 14 cavities before my 18th birthday, including seven at one particularly mortifying dental visit.
A generation later, my teenage daughters, who've grown up in a fluoridated city, have a combined total of none.
I assumed that the debate over fluoridation was long settled -- after all, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls adding minute quantities of fluoride to municipal water supplies one of the 10 most significant public-health advances of the 20th century. But opposition remains fervent in some communities. More than 180 million Americans have access to fluoridated water, which leaves over 100 million who do not.
Fluoridation is on the ballot today in 41 such communities in Nebraska, as well as one in New York state, one in Maine and two in Wisconsin -- and the battles echo 60 years of controversy.
"Fluoride is a poison. You can't dump it in the ocean or a landfill, and they want to put it in our water. It's insane," says Marvin "Butch" Hughes of Hastings, Neb. (population 25,000), who heads the local chapter of Nebraskans for Safe Water.
"I've had reporters ask me if fluoride can be used to make weapons of mass destruction," sighs Jessica Meeske, a pediatric dentist in Hastings and board member of the Nebraska Dental Association, which supports fluoridation. She treats patients from communities that have fluoride and those that don't: "The kids who don't have more cavities, and the cavities are much deeper. They're in a lot of pain. They aren't able to eat. They don't do well in school. And the decay just escalates. It spreads from tooth to tooth."
Controversy has dogged fluoridation ever since scientists determined in the 1930s that tiny amounts of the naturally occurring mineral added to water can guard against tooth decay. Opponents dubbed it a Communist plot and have claimed over the years that it raises the risk for cancer, Down's syndrome, heart disease, osteoporosis, AIDS, Alzheimer's, lower IQ, thyroid problems and other diseases.
In 2006, the National Research Council warned that high levels of fluoride -- roughly four times the amount typically used in water systems -- are associated with severe dental fluorosis, in which teeth become mottled and pitted, and could cause bone fractures. A separate study linked fluoride with a very rare bone cancer in boys.
Bill Bailey, a dental health officer at the CDC, says while a few isolated studies have raised such questions, "there's never been any compelling evidence that fluoridation has any harmful health effects" in over 60 years of research. A long list of medical associations have also endorsed fluoridation, including the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization and the past five surgeons general.
Overall, drinking fluoridated water cuts the rate of tooth decay 18% to 40%, according to the CDC. Studies have shown that it can help "remineralize" weakened areas in children's and adults' teeth, allowing many more elderly Americans to keep their teeth all their lives. The ADA estimates that every $1 spent on community fluoridation saves $38 in dental bills.
Fluoride is now widely added to toothpaste and mouthwash -- even many varieties of bottled water -- and dentists in unfluoridated areas often urge patients to use supplements. So some critics wonder whether adding it the water supply is necessary. Dr. Meeske says many poor families that she treats can't afford the supplements, and that fluoride is more effective at protecting teeth when it's ingested, so that teeth are continually bathed with a low dose. "It's much cheaper and simpler to prevent decay through water fluoridation than to drill it and fill it out of teeth," she says.
If you're concerned or just curious about the level of fluoride in your water, ask your local water utility. Home water filters that use reverse-osmosis (not the activated carbon filters that sit on a tap) can reduce fluoride as much as 99%. But think really hard before you do that: Take it from me, it's no fun getting your teeth filled.
Which state has the highest rate of fluoridation? Kentucky, where 99.8% of residents received fluoridated water, as of 2006. Hawaii had the lowest percentage, at just 8.4%. Next lowest was New Jersey, with only 22.4% of residents receiving fluoridated supplies. To see where your state ranks, see this CDC link: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2006stats.htm
Write to Melinda Beck at HealthJournal@wsj.com
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
And You Thought the Debate Over Fluoridation Was Settled
By MELINDA BECK
As a baby boomer growing up without fluoridation, I had 14 cavities before my 18th birthday, including seven at one particularly mortifying dental visit.
A generation later, my teenage daughters, who've grown up in a fluoridated city, have a combined total of none.
I assumed that the debate over fluoridation was long settled -- after all, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls adding minute quantities of fluoride to municipal water supplies one of the 10 most significant public-health advances of the 20th century. But opposition remains fervent in some communities. More than 180 million Americans have access to fluoridated water, which leaves over 100 million who do not.
Fluoridation is on the ballot today in 41 such communities in Nebraska, as well as one in New York state, one in Maine and two in Wisconsin -- and the battles echo 60 years of controversy.
"Fluoride is a poison. You can't dump it in the ocean or a landfill, and they want to put it in our water. It's insane," says Marvin "Butch" Hughes of Hastings, Neb. (population 25,000), who heads the local chapter of Nebraskans for Safe Water.
"I've had reporters ask me if fluoride can be used to make weapons of mass destruction," sighs Jessica Meeske, a pediatric dentist in Hastings and board member of the Nebraska Dental Association, which supports fluoridation. She treats patients from communities that have fluoride and those that don't: "The kids who don't have more cavities, and the cavities are much deeper. They're in a lot of pain. They aren't able to eat. They don't do well in school. And the decay just escalates. It spreads from tooth to tooth."
Controversy has dogged fluoridation ever since scientists determined in the 1930s that tiny amounts of the naturally occurring mineral added to water can guard against tooth decay. Opponents dubbed it a Communist plot and have claimed over the years that it raises the risk for cancer, Down's syndrome, heart disease, osteoporosis, AIDS, Alzheimer's, lower IQ, thyroid problems and other diseases.
In 2006, the National Research Council warned that high levels of fluoride -- roughly four times the amount typically used in water systems -- are associated with severe dental fluorosis, in which teeth become mottled and pitted, and could cause bone fractures. A separate study linked fluoride with a very rare bone cancer in boys.
Bill Bailey, a dental health officer at the CDC, says while a few isolated studies have raised such questions, "there's never been any compelling evidence that fluoridation has any harmful health effects" in over 60 years of research. A long list of medical associations have also endorsed fluoridation, including the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization and the past five surgeons general.
Overall, drinking fluoridated water cuts the rate of tooth decay 18% to 40%, according to the CDC. Studies have shown that it can help "remineralize" weakened areas in children's and adults' teeth, allowing many more elderly Americans to keep their teeth all their lives. The ADA estimates that every $1 spent on community fluoridation saves $38 in dental bills.
Fluoride is now widely added to toothpaste and mouthwash -- even many varieties of bottled water -- and dentists in unfluoridated areas often urge patients to use supplements. So some critics wonder whether adding it the water supply is necessary. Dr. Meeske says many poor families that she treats can't afford the supplements, and that fluoride is more effective at protecting teeth when it's ingested, so that teeth are continually bathed with a low dose. "It's much cheaper and simpler to prevent decay through water fluoridation than to drill it and fill it out of teeth," she says.
If you're concerned or just curious about the level of fluoride in your water, ask your local water utility. Home water filters that use reverse-osmosis (not the activated carbon filters that sit on a tap) can reduce fluoride as much as 99%. But think really hard before you do that: Take it from me, it's no fun getting your teeth filled.
Which state has the highest rate of fluoridation? Kentucky, where 99.8% of residents received fluoridated water, as of 2006. Hawaii had the lowest percentage, at just 8.4%. Next lowest was New Jersey, with only 22.4% of residents receiving fluoridated supplies. To see where your state ranks, see this CDC link: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2006stats.htm
Write to Melinda Beck at HealthJournal@wsj.com
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
As we all know, it's not just about fluoride in public water. It's about the overall consumption of fluoride. That fluoride water is used to produce all our food and beverages. The total isn't known, but we all know it's big, and fluoride is a metal. A big concern for any human being, let alone a child, let alone a child with deficits. The big picture is being ignored once again. For us personally, I'd take my cavity ridden children any day over endless detoxing and additional neurological problems. Idiots!
Friday, November 07, 2008
4th Grader, 10 Years Old, Fall Update
November 5th, 2008 - Day One of Obama as President Elect
It's been a mellow beginning of the year for Leo. He seems to like school much better. I think he "gets" his teacher now. He tells me that he learns a lot from him and is very funny, but that he can be very boring. And that 4th grade is boring. I can't blame him. I am thankful his seat is in the front row next to the window. He gets ventilation and the ideal seat for a visual learner. He actually likes violin, an option he can do that requires a pull-out. He and his BFF signed up as a way to get out of being in class, but now he actually enjoys it.
We too "enjoy" the enthusiasm at home in our modestly sized home where there just isn't any escape. He's also gotten back into his acoustic guitar thanks to the people over at Guitar Hero. I say "thanks" to that, but a real thanks to introducing my kid to music I actually love from the 80s.
More about school - he seems to work a little harder this year at homework, taking I'd say 5 to 10 minutes longer. New for Leo, more thinking required rather than execution. Although 4th is more of a repeat year, I can see it's more challenging for him. I continue to monitor, and take note of the geometry assignments that come home that are very frustrating for him. As I've posted before, our strategy is reminding him about the big picture - most things come easily to him, many people take lots of time and struggle on most things, but for him this isn't the case.
We celebrated small this year for Leo's 10th birthday. Yes, I have a child that has a two digit age. I can't believe it! We let him choose one friend to go to a local hockey game with, along with Sydney, his dad, and his cousin and Uncle. The game was great, and he said how he actually liked it better that just one friend was there rather than lots of kids. I think he found it more meaningful and a calmer time. Of course he chose his BFF to go to the game.
These boys are inseparable. They call each other right off the bus, they talk on weekends, email each other. They have a secret code in class for various boy explusions. I can't recall exactly, but it goes something like this: You quietly "cough" to alert the other boy, then slyly hold up a finger indicating what bodily function just occurred. One finger is a burp, two fingers a fart, and so on. I think there's a signal for when you are bored, and when to call the other one an "ass". I treasure all of this, and appreciate the boyhood humor. The finger signals have expanded to two other boys, so let the fun continue! They discovered how to look up bad words in the class dictionary, so they have fun with the exact definitions. Ass is their favorite, and recite the specifics of what a rump is. They giggle and chat about it every day.
Fall Ball was fun and has finally ended, so our days are fairly simple until basketball starts (my idea). Leo just has to carpool with me for Sydney's ballet and hip-hop classes. He still loves coming home and unwinding by going outside to play "imaginary football" where he makes up games in his mind and runs around doing plays. I still consider this a stim, a way for him to transition out of school and let his mind have a break. Yale doesn't since it's appropriate play that's not obsessive, but I see it differently.
On the health front, Leo hasn't been sick all year, and his facial tic (mainly his eyes) are minimal. One kid noticed early on in the year, naturally this was his former arch nemesis-turned good friend-now just "okay" friend that rides the bus with Leo. He had a flare-up this week but it subsided after giving him the strep nosode, a homeopathic remedy. I hope to get him tested for Lyme as well as look at regular blood work to see how he is functioning. I am sure I'll need to tinker a bit.
Emotionally, life has been a little challenging for Leo because Sydney has chronic Lyme. We couldn't stay to watch all the games or do lots of extra activities because they were limited to how his sister was feeling. I haven't spend a lot of quality time with him, at least he's had it with his dad. As the caregiver-pill-pusher-lead-researcher, I am mostly with Sydney as we go along. She is stable now, so we've "kind of" adjusted to a new life that hopefully is temporary. She has about 6 months to go on treatment (I am estimating), and is back to school regularly. For more about Sydney, go to my blog.
Halloween was fun, of course he ran around with his BFF and his sister, hitting EVERY house this year in a certain easy neighborhood we go to. It was really cute. The conversations about what to be were challenging - he wasn't sure and wasn't into it, but in the end went as a punk rocker. His hair is pretty long now, so we put lots of gel and spray in it, he wore black bracelets and a metal belt with an ACDC t-shirt. He looked like Billy Idol, snarl and all. I figure I got a couple more years and he'll be staying home, until he's an older teen hitting parties (insert look of dread and fear here).
That's about it. Round two with chronic illness for me, so I'm not very happy right now, but I'm grateful my sweet boy is happy and doing well.
It's been a mellow beginning of the year for Leo. He seems to like school much better. I think he "gets" his teacher now. He tells me that he learns a lot from him and is very funny, but that he can be very boring. And that 4th grade is boring. I can't blame him. I am thankful his seat is in the front row next to the window. He gets ventilation and the ideal seat for a visual learner. He actually likes violin, an option he can do that requires a pull-out. He and his BFF signed up as a way to get out of being in class, but now he actually enjoys it.
We too "enjoy" the enthusiasm at home in our modestly sized home where there just isn't any escape. He's also gotten back into his acoustic guitar thanks to the people over at Guitar Hero. I say "thanks" to that, but a real thanks to introducing my kid to music I actually love from the 80s.
More about school - he seems to work a little harder this year at homework, taking I'd say 5 to 10 minutes longer. New for Leo, more thinking required rather than execution. Although 4th is more of a repeat year, I can see it's more challenging for him. I continue to monitor, and take note of the geometry assignments that come home that are very frustrating for him. As I've posted before, our strategy is reminding him about the big picture - most things come easily to him, many people take lots of time and struggle on most things, but for him this isn't the case.
We celebrated small this year for Leo's 10th birthday. Yes, I have a child that has a two digit age. I can't believe it! We let him choose one friend to go to a local hockey game with, along with Sydney, his dad, and his cousin and Uncle. The game was great, and he said how he actually liked it better that just one friend was there rather than lots of kids. I think he found it more meaningful and a calmer time. Of course he chose his BFF to go to the game.
These boys are inseparable. They call each other right off the bus, they talk on weekends, email each other. They have a secret code in class for various boy explusions. I can't recall exactly, but it goes something like this: You quietly "cough" to alert the other boy, then slyly hold up a finger indicating what bodily function just occurred. One finger is a burp, two fingers a fart, and so on. I think there's a signal for when you are bored, and when to call the other one an "ass". I treasure all of this, and appreciate the boyhood humor. The finger signals have expanded to two other boys, so let the fun continue! They discovered how to look up bad words in the class dictionary, so they have fun with the exact definitions. Ass is their favorite, and recite the specifics of what a rump is. They giggle and chat about it every day.
Fall Ball was fun and has finally ended, so our days are fairly simple until basketball starts (my idea). Leo just has to carpool with me for Sydney's ballet and hip-hop classes. He still loves coming home and unwinding by going outside to play "imaginary football" where he makes up games in his mind and runs around doing plays. I still consider this a stim, a way for him to transition out of school and let his mind have a break. Yale doesn't since it's appropriate play that's not obsessive, but I see it differently.
On the health front, Leo hasn't been sick all year, and his facial tic (mainly his eyes) are minimal. One kid noticed early on in the year, naturally this was his former arch nemesis-turned good friend-now just "okay" friend that rides the bus with Leo. He had a flare-up this week but it subsided after giving him the strep nosode, a homeopathic remedy. I hope to get him tested for Lyme as well as look at regular blood work to see how he is functioning. I am sure I'll need to tinker a bit.
Emotionally, life has been a little challenging for Leo because Sydney has chronic Lyme. We couldn't stay to watch all the games or do lots of extra activities because they were limited to how his sister was feeling. I haven't spend a lot of quality time with him, at least he's had it with his dad. As the caregiver-pill-pusher-lead-researcher, I am mostly with Sydney as we go along. She is stable now, so we've "kind of" adjusted to a new life that hopefully is temporary. She has about 6 months to go on treatment (I am estimating), and is back to school regularly. For more about Sydney, go to my blog.
Halloween was fun, of course he ran around with his BFF and his sister, hitting EVERY house this year in a certain easy neighborhood we go to. It was really cute. The conversations about what to be were challenging - he wasn't sure and wasn't into it, but in the end went as a punk rocker. His hair is pretty long now, so we put lots of gel and spray in it, he wore black bracelets and a metal belt with an ACDC t-shirt. He looked like Billy Idol, snarl and all. I figure I got a couple more years and he'll be staying home, until he's an older teen hitting parties (insert look of dread and fear here).
That's about it. Round two with chronic illness for me, so I'm not very happy right now, but I'm grateful my sweet boy is happy and doing well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)