Thursday, March 09, 2006

Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal Containing Vaccines

I have, off and on, engaged in debates about the wisdom of our choice to abstain from vaccines. All the big, bad childhood diseases are paraded in front of us, all the possible dangers. Don't we want to do the best thing for our children?


Too right we do.

Autism Rates Fall With The Removal of Mercury

"Seems the absence of thimerosal (the mercury-based preservative) in childhood vaccines has coincided with a reversal in autism rates, according to a new study.

Makes sense to me, considering a young child's average exposure to thimerosal dropped from 240 micrograms in 1999 to almost nothing four years later."

Dr. Mercola

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Wal-Mart doubling organic food offerings

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. aims to be the mass-market provider of organic food, and will have doubled its organic offerings over the next couple of weeks, Wal-Mart's head of dry grocery told Reuters on Monday.

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Organic diets keep kids pesticide free

By CHRISTINE DELL'AMORE
UPI Consumer Health Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 (UPI) -- Children who switched their diets for only a few days to organic foods dramatically and immediately lowered the amount of toxic pesticides in their bodies, researchers report.

Lead author Chensheng Lu of Emory University found that when kids eat organic foods, pesticides in their body plummet to undetectable levels -- even when following the diet for only five days.

"An organic diet does provide protective measures for pesticide exposure in kids," said Lu, who presented his research at a panel at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in St. Louis. His study appeared in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Lu designed a novel intervention study by substituting organic foods into the diets of 23 elementary school children in the Seattle area. All the kids, who were aged 3 to 11, had metabolites -- or evidence of pesticides -- in their urine at the study's start. But as soon as they began eating organic foods, the concentration of metabolites dropped to essentially zero. Once they returned to their conventional diet, the pesticides levels bounced back up.

The parents were given shopping lists to buy organic vegetables, fruits and juices, as well as wheat and corn products. Meat and dairy products were left out, Lu said, because these foods don't usually have pesticide residues. The parents fed their children organic foods for five consecutive days during a 15-day study period. The researchers evaluated the kids four times over the course of a year by analyzing their urine and saliva.

Lu said he is confident that the pesticide reductions can be attributed to the kids' diet, because the particular class of pesticides studied, called organophosphorus pesticides, or OPs, are not found in households. The kids ingested these pesticides from eating conventional foods, and not from playing in grass treated with chemicals, for example.

Although this study to some degree proves the obvious -- pesticide-free foods create pesticide-free children -- co-author Richard Fenske at the University of Washington says he was impressed by the magnitude of difference in the results.

So should parents be worried?

Lu and Fenske claim the health risks to children are still uncertain, although Lu points out that there's no getting around the fact a pesticide is a neurotoxin. Since the chemicals disrupt enzymes in the brain which govern communication, exposure to pesticides could damage a child's brain. These chemicals are developed, after all, to kill bugs by paralyzing or over-exciting their neurological systems.

"In terms of the impact of these low levels of chemicals on a regular basis in a developing organism -- and that's what a child's neurological system is -- this is extremely important that we try to understand this," Fenske said.

The Environmental Protection Agency warns children may be sensitive to pesticides because their excretory systems are not developed enough to excrete pesticides, and that in relation to their body weight, kids eat and drink more than adults.

Currently, researchers are studying whether conditions like attention deficit disorder, lowered IQs, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease can be linked to early exposure to pesticides. Children are most vulnerable to pesticides from formation of the fetus up to 2 years of age.

Charles Benbrook, the chief scientist of The Organic Center, a Rhode Island-based nonprofit encouraging the widespread adoption of organic foods and processes, says there's enough consensus to act now to rid agriculture of pesticides. He mentioned the work of Robin Whyatt at Columbia University with pregnant women in New York. Whyatt found that birth weight and birth length is lower in children whose mothers were exposed to pesticides.

Benbrook said he was amazed at how fast and how significantly the urinary metabolites fell in Lu's study participants.

"This is very encouraging. What it says is this point is bigger than the debate about organics. If farmers were to change how they managed pests for six or eight crops, we could essentially eliminate most of pesticide exposure and take this risk factor out of equation," he said.

Lu emphasized children also get exposed in other outlets, for example around the home or in public sports fields, where pesticides are often oversprayed.

"You have to accept the fact a farmer needs to use pesticides to have healthy crops for harvest, but is it really necessary for parents to use pesticides around the home?" he asked.

Overall, parents should be aware of how their kids could be in contact with pesticides, Lu said. Since organics tend to cost more than conventional foods, parents don't need to go 100 percent organic to get protective benefits, he said. He recommends checking out www.ewg.org, which provides a list of foods and their pesticide risk.

"The message of this paper is not to scare parents from eating conventional diets, but it's for them to think about pesticide exposure as a whole, and how to minimize the exposure. Diet is not necessarily the only answer," Lu said.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Maggot Medicine

Robert Krulwich and Jonah Lehrer :: 9.15.05

Jonah Lehrer: I've got a multiple-choice question for you.

Robert Krulwich: Fire away.

Lehrer: Let's say you're a diabetic, and you've got a terrible and infected wound on your foot that just won't heal. What should your doctor do:

1. apply lots of antibiotics, the stronger the better
2. just flush the wound with water and wait
3. feed the wound with thousands of hungry maggots

Krulwich: You gotta be kidding me. That's the easiest question ever. Of course, the answer is a. Put endless amounts of the strongest possible antibiotic cream on the wound. That should clear the infection right up.

Lehrer: Actually, you're completely wrong. The answer is c. For a truly festering flesh wound, maggots are a very valuable treatment. In fact, maggots are often better than anything else modern medicine has to offer.

Krulwich: I don't believe you. This is the 21st century. We can watch babies in the womb and transplant hearts. We can perform brain surgery. And you have the gall to tell me that doctors are using maggots? Do I look especially gullible today?

Lehrer: Wait. It gets worse.

Krulwich: It couldn't possibly get worse. You've already supplied me with my next nightmare.

Lehrer: Well, prepare for another nightmare. What is the only thing more disgusting that having maggots in a wound?

Krulwich: I don't know. Maybe having a leech sucking my blood.

Lehrer: Exactly.

Krulwich: Oh, no you don't. There is no way modern medicine is using leeches. No way.

Lehrer: Way.

Krulwich: What possible good could a leech do? I thought we gave up all the bloodletting stuff hundreds of years ago.

Lehrer: We did, and we made a mistake. Take this scenario. Let's say your finger gets cut off. Luckily, you find the finger, pack it in ice, and rush off to the emergency room, where doctors are able to reattach the digit.

Krulwich: Eeeww. I hope this story has a point.

Lehrer: Unfortunately, these types of reattachment surgeries often suffer from serious circulatory problems. After surgery, blood tends to engorge the reattached body part. And because the blood isn't circulating, it will clot and kill the flesh. This is where leeches come in. Leeches come with their own pharmacy. They naturally inject patients with an anticoagulant to keep blood moving, an anesthetic to dull the pain, and an antibiotic to prevent infection. Pretty high-tech, huh?

Krulwich: I still don't get how attaching a slimy vampire to my finger helps anything.

Lehrer: Well, the leeches encourage bleeding, which prevents blood from gathering in the newly reattached part. Leeches also encourage the growth of new veins.

Krulwich: Personally, I might prefer a four-fingered hand, but I can see how leeches might be useful under certain post-surgical conditions.

Lehrer: Actually, leeches are so useful that the Food and Drug Administration is now trying to figure out how to regulate them. According to the FDA, leeches—like maggots—are just another medical mechanical device.

Krulwich: Last time I checked, most medical devices didn't want to suck my blood.

Lehrer: You're so 20th century. This is progress. Imagine how tough it would be to engineer a tool as complicated and effective as a leech. Here is an invertebrate perfectly engineered for its new medical purpose.

Krulwich: You're calling me old-fashioned? I'm not the one advocating a return to an ancient medical practice. Ever since Hippocrates, misguided doctors have been using leeches to treat just about everything. In fact, I remember hearing stories about how leeches used to be so popular that the French and German governments had to set up farms for leeches, which they would feed with old horses.

Lehrer: Poor horses. But to answer your question, doctors are not using leeches the way those 19th-century doctors did. In other words, bloodletting by leeches will not cure obesity or migraine headaches or pneumonia. Leeches are really only useful for dealing with the aftereffects of microsurgery.

Krulwich: Fine. Maybe I would put a leech or two on my finger if they let me keep it. I like having five fingers. But maggots? What could maggots possibly be useful for?

Lehrer: As I mentioned earlier, maggots are useful for treating wounds that can't be helped by conventional methods. They are a last-ditch resort before amputation, because they help remove dead tissue and expose healthy tissue, a process called debridement. Hopefully, once that dead tissue is out of the way, the body can begin repairing itself.

Krulwich: I have to lie down. This really is straight out of my nightmares. The idea of creepy-crawlies eating my insides makes me sick.

Lehrer: You're probably one of those people who faints every time you see a needle. Of course, no doctor likes the idea of using maggots. But sometimes, there really is no other viable option. And when it comes to healing gangrenous wounds, maggots held in place by wire-mesh bandages are unparalleled. There is nothing better.

Krulwich: So is this the start of a whole new range of gross, ancient, but strangely effective medical treatments? Are leeches and maggots just the beginning?

Lehrer: Probably not. You won't see witches brewing up potions in hospitals anytime soon. But the fact is, there are many old-fashioned treatments that medicine used to think of as being cruel and worthless that are now being reevaluated.

Krulwich: Like?

Lehrer: How about electroshock therapy?

Krulwich: Don't tell me we're still doing that. Isn't that what they used on Jack Nicholson in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?

Lehrer: Yup. Electroshock therapy, or ECT for short, went out of fashion for about 30 years. It was regarded as cruel and useless. But now ECT is back. No one quite knows how or why it works, but for many patients who can't be helped by drugs or therapy, ECT is their last, best hope.

Krulwich: So I guess we should never count out any treatment.

Lehrer: Hopefully not. Medicine uses what works. Until we find better healing devices than leeches and maggots, plan on seeing them at your local hospital.

Link

So, I'm apparently a kook.. I mean, I have been behind the leech and maggot thing for years now. LOL!

What amazes me is how absolutely we tend to denigrate some of our medical roots. There is a lot of benefit to many traditional modalities of healing. Sometimes I think we get so caught up in the nifty things we can do, we forget why we are doing them. We revel in the power and awesomeness of surgery on babies in the womb then discard the miracle of that life in the pursuit for some other therapy. We apply relentless chemical changes to the body in the form of prescription medications and forget to listen to the heart of a person, to respect the whole of the body with nourishment and love.

My question is... how is that working for you? Is the diabetic looking at a life that gets better? Or a life of perpetual drugs? When Nixon declared war on cancer it was the #8 killer of Americans.. today it's the # 1 killer. Since Nixon how many thousands of wonder drugs have we applied to cancer? How are we doing? How many people do you know with an autoimmune disease? How many of our parents or grandparents even heard of 1/3 of them? How about our rate of autism that went from something like 1 in 10,000 in the 50's to 1 in 150 today? How are we doing?

We rock in trauma. We suck in chronic illness. We aren't a country with health plans, we are a country with sickness management plans that are sucking the life blood from us all.