Health & Fitness

Our ability to feel pain and react to it is both a boon and a curse, simultaneously. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defines pain as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage.” This means that pain is highly subjective, and it is informed by a mix of past experiences, our current emotional state, and future expectations. Since pain is an emotional and sensory experience it affects our quality of life immensely, and treatment is complex.

Chronic pain management with opioids is not ideal

Opioids are among the most potent medications used to manage pain. Opioids curb pain by blocking pain signals between the brain and the body. This class of medication also relaxes the brain, providing a sense of calm and euphoria, and there is a high risk of addiction. Opioid misuse is more pronounced in people who have had surgery and been given opioids than in people who have not had surgery. The longer a person uses opioids, the greater risk of their misusing these medications. The ongoing opioid epidemic has led physicians to look for adjunct and nonmedication therapies to help people reduce opioid use and still effectively manage pain.

Mind-body therapies for pain management

Mind-body therapies (MBTs) are integrative practices, and they include breathing exercises and/or body movements aimed at achieving relaxation of mind and body. Some MBTs are Isha yoga, vipassana, mindfulness-based stress reduction, integrative body-mind training, tai chi, guided imagery, cognitive behavioral therapy, and others.

Pain and meditation both alter our senses, thinking, and emotional responses

One MBT is mindfulness meditation, which involves practicing attention control, emotional regulation, and self-awareness. There is increased perception and awareness with mindfulness practices, and meditation addresses both the sensory and emotional components of pain. The interoception center in the brain increases and the amygdala shrinks in size with regular mindfulness practices, which explains better emotional regulation and pain control. The brain’s ability to react to painful stimuli with an emotional response decreases, and a person is more likely to respond calmly to a stimulus instead of having a hasty emotional reaction (hurt, pain, anger, etc.). The increased perception and awareness with regular mediation will make a person feel every sensation, including pain; however, they may choose not to react to it, so practicing meditation can help you better manage pain.

New research on MBTs for pain management and reducing opioid use

A recent paper published in JAMA looked into the use of MBTs as potential tools in addressing the opioid crisis. Researchers reviewed 60 randomized clinical trials with 6,404 participants and found that MBTs had a moderate association with reduction in pain intensity and a small but statistically significant association with reduced opioid dose. These findings suggest that MBTs are an effective nonmedication tool in reducing the experience of pain, and using MBTs may have some benefit in reducing opioid use and misuse. MBTs may also help with cravings for opioids if someone is trying to reduce their dose.

However, a closer look into the analysis reveals that the type of MBT used affects therapeutic efficacy. Often combinations of MBTs are used to treat pain, and it is difficult to be certain which type of MBT is most effective. There is also a lack of conclusive evidence for the benefit of using MBTs in certain clinical scenarios (such as following surgery), due to inconsistent reporting of opioid dosing and durations. Lastly, there is currently a gap in our understanding regarding the right time to implement MBTs, and their effectiveness as an adjunct to opioid-treated pain. All these criticisms do not negate the results of the JAMA study; rather, this work highlights a need for future research to determine what types of MBTs could be most effective in helping with pain and reducing opioids.

Routine mindfulness meditation practices can improve your quality of life

As mentioned, MBTs, particularly meditation, play a huge role in transforming our experience of pain. Meditation allows us to recognize the authenticity of distress and not be overwhelmed by it. Learning and practicing mindfulness-based meditation is a means to deal with pain and the inevitable stresses of life, and to improve your quality of life. However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach and no one MBT that works for everyone.

The array of available MBTs means there is flexibility to choose your level of involvement and time spent in these practices. Our personal experience with meditation and its effects on our lives and the well-being of our patients make us strong advocates of MBTs. As always, discuss all medication changes and new lifestyle practices with your doctor.

The post Mind-body therapies can reduce pain and opioid use appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

from Harvard Health Blog https://ift.tt/37o3mDS

How the CDC Combats Health Freedom Through Front Groups

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is supposed to be an independent organization watching out for public health, it has repeatedly demonstrated that it is working on behalf of the drug industry.

Not only does the CDC accept funding from the drug industry,¹ which in and of itself may influence its public health recommendations, it also has front groups that lobby for mandatory vaccinations and seek to suppress information about vaccine risks.

CDC Front Group Lobbies for Mandatory Vaccinations

One of them is the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO),² an organization whose mission is “focused on being a leader, partner, catalyst and voice for change for local health departments around the nation.”

While its name and mission statement would make you think it’s a member-funded organization, it actually operates primarily on government grants, and the CDC is a primary source.³ Seven of 11 funding priorities for NACCHO programs also come from the CDC.⁴ As revealed by Sott.net, membership dues only amount to about 2% of the organization’s annual revenues.⁵

For example, in July 2011, NACCHO issued a policy statement urging legislators in all states to remove vaccine exemptions for religious, conscientious and philosophical beliefs.⁶

NACCHO also lobbied heavily for SB132⁷ in 2013, an Oregon state bill aimed at eliminating the religious belief vaccine exemption. In 2015, the group also lobbied in Oregon for SB442,⁸ which again sought to eliminate all but medical vaccine exemptions granted by a doctor. In fact, NACCHO was portrayed as a primary supporter of the bill.⁹

The organization has also put its weight behind eliminating personal belief vaccine exemptions in other states. NACCHO policies not only favor mandatory use of vaccines from cradle to grave, but also promote the creation of national electronic registries that monitor the vaccination status of all children and adults.

It’s worth noting that, in addition to the 69 doses of 16 vaccines on the federally recommended childhood vaccination schedule, the CDC recommends dozens of doses of vaccines for adults between the ages of 19 and 65, which includes an annual flu shot.

CDC Webinar Instructs Doctors on How to Boost Vaccine Uptake

In August 2019, NACCHO provided a CDC webinar^10,¹¹ in which doctors were given strategic guidance on how to combat “vaccine misinformation” and deal with vaccine hesitant patients in their practice.

The webinar was based on CDC research with parents and health care professionals, aimed at developing and refining educational messages about vaccines.

As just one example, the CDC found that one of the primary motivations that drive pregnant women to get vaccinated is “the idea of protecting their babies.” They also found that the internet is the primary source of vaccine information during pregnancy.

Parents of infants are primarily motivated by messages mentioning local occurrences of vaccine-preventable diseases, the risk of not vaccinating on schedule, and comparison of risks and benefits of vaccines. Messages that focus on the importance of vaccinating your child in order to avoid making others sick did not have a significant motivating impact, according to the CDC.

Based on the CDC’s findings, NACCHO urged doctors to “Make vaccination decisions before pregnancy, during pregnancy or before the 2-month visit,” as “once parents start vaccinating at 2 months, there is very little change later to delay or refuse” vaccination.

CDC Profits by Undermining Health Freedom

Seeing how NACCHO is primarily funded by the CDC, it seems the CDC is actively undermining vaccine exemptions and civil liberties, including freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief.

This isn’t entirely surprising considering the agency itself, as well as many of its individual employees and committee members, profit financially from mandatory vaccination policies and laws. As reported by Weltchek Mallahan & Weltchek, a Maryland-based law firm specializing in medical malpractice and wrongful death:¹²

“The CDC Immunization Safety Office is responsible for investigating the safety and effectiveness of all new vaccinations; once an investigation is considered complete, a recommendation is then made to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) who then determines whether the new vaccine will be added to the current vaccination schedule.

Members of the ACIP committee include physicians such as Dr. Paul Offit … Offit and other CDC members own numerous patents associated with vaccinations and regularly receive funding for their research work from the very same pharmaceutical companies who manufacturer vaccinations which are ultimately sold to the public ...

This situation creates an obvious conflict of interest, as members of the ACIP committee benefit financially every time a new vaccination is released to the market.”

CDC Buys HALF of All Vaccines in the US

In the June 2019 article,¹³ “Close Ties and Financial Entanglements: The CDC-Guaranteed Vaccine Market,” the organization Children’s Health Defense describes how the CDC is an integral part of the vaccine industry, protecting vaccine profits above public safety. As noted by Children’s Health Defense:

“The CDC is a major player in the vaccine marketplace, buying half of all childhood vaccines in the U.S. and then selling them to contracted public health agencies through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, which pushes free and low-cost vaccines on indigent children.

Over the past three decades, the CDC’s vaccine purchases have increased 15-fold as the average cost of fully vaccinating a child to age 18 rose from $100 to $2192 — while vaccine companies have raked in the profits.

The agency’s involvement with vaccine manufacturers also extends to patents, licensing agreements and collaboration on projects to develop new vaccines. In fact, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) profit handsomely from their ownership or co-ownership with private sector partners of vaccine-related patents.

An early 2017 analysis of Google Patents results showed that the CDC held 56 patents¹⁴ pertaining to various aspects of vaccine development, manufacturing, delivery and adjuvants.

By May 2019, the search terms ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccines’ retrieved 143 results¹⁵ in the Google Patents search engine, and a separate legal website displayed 10 screens worth of CDC patents,¹⁶ both vaccine- and non-vaccine-related.”

CDC Also Supports Prominent Vaccine Educators

Prominent medical trade and pro-mandatory vaccination organizations, such as Every Child By Two (ECBT), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC), are acting on behalf of the CDC and the vaccine industry as well.

All three of these organizations, which claim to be independent, receive funding from both vaccine manufacturers and the CDC. (Incidentally, the IAC also provides funding to NACCHO.¹⁷)

As noted by Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, in his 2017 article¹⁸ “The Unofficial Vaccine Educators: Are CDC Funded Non-Profits Sufficiently Independent?” the ECBT, AAP and IAC “in their advocacy for compulsory vaccination … all have in common a goal that pushes beyond official governmental policy and, in the case of influenza vaccines, the evidence.” Doshi continues:

“Officially, the CDC is neutral on vaccine mandates … But the CDC gives money to non-profits that actively work in this void. Presumably, these activities are funded from non-CDC sources, as U.S. federal law prohibits the use of CDC award money for lobbying, a prohibition that ‘includes grassroots lobbying efforts by award recipients …’ according to CDC policy.”

The question is, is anyone actually ensuring CDC funds are not used for lobbying? Doshi also points out that the IAC’s use of scientific evidence is “questionable,” as they stand by their flu vaccination campaign for health care workers even though “multiple reviews have found insufficient evidence that mandatory influenza vaccination for health care workers has benefits for patients.”

“In broad terms, the CDC and nonprofits share a common goal of increasing vaccination rates,” Doshi writes. And since their primary goals include advocating for mandatory vaccination laws and elimination of vaccine exemptions, that really should not be, considering the CDC is also responsible for ensuring vaccine safety.¹⁹

By focusing on increasing vaccination rates, the agency is unlikely to properly tackle the task of finding out whether all of the vaccines on the childhood and adult vaccination schedules are, in fact, necessary, safe and effective, especially when given in combination.

Voices for Vaccines

Yet another front group for the vaccine industry — and the CDC — is Voices for Vaccinedies, which “advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease.”

Its administrators are portrayed as two concerned mothers, who founded the blog Moms Who Vax. In reality, Voices for Vaccines is an “administrative project” of the Task Force for Global Health, the third largest charity in the U.S.,²⁰ which has deep financial ties to the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry. Voices for Vaccines’ scientific advisory board includes:^21,²²

Merck vaccine developers and mandatory vaccination proponents Paul Offit and Stanley Plotkin.
Former CDC immunization director Dr. Alan Hinman, an Emory University professor and program director of the Center for Vaccine Equity at the Task Force for Global Health.
Vanderbilt professor and medical director for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, William Schaffner. In 2018, Schaffner told CNN the influenza vaccine — which had a measly 36% effectiveness rate — was “not perfect,” but that we should “give the vaccine credit for softening the blow” anyway.
Deborah Wexler, director of the IAC, which is funded by pharmaceutical companies through the CDC Foundation.²³

A former member with financial ties to the industry was Maurice R. Hilleman, a professor of vaccinology and the developer of Merck’s vaccine program. In an interview included in the 2007 film “In Lies We Trust: The CIA Hollywood and Bioterrorism,”²⁴ Hilleman admitted Merck was responsible for unleashing the cancer-causing monkey virus SV40 via its polio vaccine. Hilleman died in 2005.

In 2014, the online blog VacTruth also detailed the many connections between Voices for Vaccines, the Task Force for Global Health, Emory University, the CDC, vaccine makers and other pro-vaccine organizations and promoters, including Offit.²⁵

All of these connections, and others not included here, point to the existence of a vast, undisclosed yet well-documented pharma-driven network that uses every propaganda tactic in the book to squash freedom of thought and speech about vaccination — all in the name of protecting profits — and the CDC is a key player.

CDC Petitioned to Quit Making False Claims

While the CDC has long fostered the perception of independence through the use of disclaimers stating²⁶ it does not accept funding from special interests, in reality, it accepts millions of dollars each year from commercial interests through its government-chartered foundation, the CDC Foundation, which funnels those contributions to the CDC after deducting a fee.²⁷

Several watchdog groups — including the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), Public Citizen, Knowledge Ecology International, Liberty Coalition and the Project on Government Oversight — are now petitioning²⁸ the CDC to cease making these false disclaimers.²⁹

According to the petition,³⁰ the CDC accepted $79.6 million from drug companies and commercial manufacturers between 2014 and 2018 alone. As reported by the Lown Institute:³¹

“Many of these contributions could be seen as conflicts of interest — for example, a $193,000 donation from Roche, the maker of antiviral drug Tamiflu, to fund a CDC flu prevention campaign.

Despite the significant funding the CDC receives from industry via its foundation, few were aware of these conflicts until Jeanne Lenzer called attention to the foundation in The BMJ³² a few years ago.”

In a November 5, 2019, press release, Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group stated:³³

“That the CDC accepts millions from corporations directly impacted by the agency’s public health programs is indefensible. So, the CDC instead has adopted the strategy of repeatedly denying that it accepts such payments.”

The petition asks the CDC to stop publishing the false and misleading disclaimers, remove all previously published disclaimers from the CDC website and its publications, and to issue corrections, retroactively disclosing the agency’s financial relationships with industry.

“By issuing these false disclaimers, CDC is misleading health professionals, consumers and others both in the United States and around the world,” the petition states.³⁴

“This deception undermines CDC’s credibility and integrity. But the damage here is not merely to the CDC itself. CDC is a national and global leader on medical and public health matters. It is crucial for the CDC to lead by example on matters of ethics, and, at a minimum, to faithfully and truthfully disclose its conflicts of interest.”

The CDC in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services portrays itself as a public health watchdog. It has tremendous credibility within the medical community, and part of this credibility hinges on the idea that it’s free of industry bias and conflicts of interest. Again and again, investigations have shown that funding plays an enormous role in decision-making and in research outcomes.

As noted by Shannon Brownlee, senior vice president for the Lown Institute, government-chartered foundations “exist at least in part because they allow industries to directly fund and thus control the work of agencies that are either supposed to regulate them, or conduct research that can help or hurt their business.”³⁵

When it comes to vaccines, it’s quite clear that the CDC is anything but impartial. It owns vaccine-related patents and employs and defers to “experts” who have deep ties to vaccine makers. It funds pro-vaccine front groups that lobby for mandatory vaccinations, and it receives funds from vaccine makers.

Aside from the groups already mentioned, the CDC also funds state health programs aimed at implementing “no exceptions” mandatory vaccination policies and laws, including mandatory HPV vaccination programs.³⁶

This, despite the fact the HPV vaccine is one of the most dangerous and unnecessary vaccines ever made. There’s also no evidence it actually helps prevent cervical cancer. As noted by Mark Blaxill, Age of Autism’s editor-at-large:³⁷

“Gardasil is perhaps the leading example of a new form of unconstrained government self-dealing, in arrangements whereby [HHS] can transfer technology to pharmaceutical partners, [and] simultaneously both approve and protect their partners’ technology licenses while also taking a cut of the profits.”

Your Help Is Needed!

To help push for greater transparency, please contact the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services today at scheduling@hhs.gov and let them know that you demand the CDC:

Cease publication of disclaimers that CDC has “no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products” and that it “does not accept commercial support.”
Remove all such disclaimers from the CDC website, including the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
Add corrections to all MMWR articles bearing these disclaimers, explaining that the disclaimers were incorrect and have been removed.
Retroactively disclose, in any MMWR article bearing the disclaimers, any corporate contributions to the CDC or CDC Foundation that are relevant to the MMWR article.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

from Articles https://ift.tt/2Hd8CPV
via IFTTT

Kellogg to Phase Out Preharvest Glyphosate Use

In a major victory that could signal the beginning of the end for the use of glyphosate as a preharvest drying agent, or desiccant, food giant Kellogg has announced they’re phasing out the practice.

In a quiet revelation on their website’s glyphosate Q&A page, Kellogg addressed a question they’ve had from customers, which asks, “I’ve heard that farmers spray Roundup on crops before harvest to dry them out. Does that happen on crops that you use to make cereal?”¹

In response, Kellogg states that while they do not own or operate any farms, they’ve been engaging with their suppliers about pesticide use, including the use of glyphosate as a desiccant, since before 2017. Notably, they state they’re in the process of stopping the controversial practice entirely, with plans of phasing it out by 2025:

“Although this practice is not widespread in our wheat and oat supply chains worldwide and is not an approved practice in the U.S., we are working with our suppliers to phase out using glyphosate as pre-harvest drying agent in our wheat and oat supply chain in our major markets by the end of 2025.”²

Why Is Glyphosate Used as a Desiccant?

About two weeks prior to harvesting grain crops like wheat, oats and barley, glyphosate may be sprayed onto the crop, which accelerates the drying process, allowing for earlier harvest.

This benefits farmers, as it may allow them to complete their harvest before wet weather comes and, by drying out the grain, it may reap them a higher profit, as the greater the moisture content of the grain at sale, the lower the price they get. As Kellogg stated:

“We know that some consumers have questions about the use of the herbicide glyphosate (also known by its brand name Round Up) as a drying agent a few weeks before harvest, particularly with wheat and oats. This practice is done by some farmers in certain circumstances — like harvesting the crop more quickly if weather is challenging.”³

Although it may not be officially approved, the use of glyphosate as a desiccant is widespread enough that it could be driving up human exposures and leading to high levels of glyphosate residues in popular foods.

While media headlines often focus on the use of glyphosate in genetically engineered (GE) crops, such as Roundup Ready varieties, the use of glyphosate as a desiccant may be particularly problematic because it’s sprayed so near to harvest, which could result in higher residue levels and greater exposures to consumers.⁴

Glyphosate as a Desiccant Could Be Driving Up Human Exposures

A revealing study published in JAMA in 2017 tested urine levels of glyphosate and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) among 100 people living in Southern California over a period of 23 years — from 1993 to 2016.⁵

At the start of the study, very few of the participants had detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine, but by 2000 30% of them did and this rose to 70% by 2016.⁶ Overall, the prevalence of human exposure to glyphosate increased by 500% during the study period while actual levels of the chemical, in ug/ml, increased by a shocking 1,208%.⁷

Initially, one might suggest that the increases were due to exposure to GE crops, but this remained relatively stable during the study, leading experts to suggest that the preharvest spraying of glyphosate as a desiccant could be to blame.

In an analysis for Environmental Health News, Richard Jackson, professor at the Fielding School of Public Health at UCLA, and Charles Benbrook, a visiting scholar in the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, wrote:⁸

“Around 2002, farmers in the U.S. started adopting pre-harvest, desiccation uses of Roundup … Such ‘harvest aid’ uses of glyphosate entail spraying fields about two weeks prior to harvest … But spraying a mature grain or bean crop so close to harvest with a glyphosate-based herbicide results in much higher residues than traditional, spring or early summer applications.

Beginning around 2004 and over about the next decade, incrementally more acres were sprayed to speed up harvest in the U.S. It is nearly certain that residues from these applications were largely responsible for doubling the levels of glyphosate and its metabolite found in the urine of Rancho Bernado residents.”

Governments’ High Glyphosate Residues Allow for Desiccation

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), along with MegaFood, Ben & Jerry’s, Stonyfield Farm, MOM’s Organic Market, Nature’s Path, Happy Family Organics and other consumer groups, has petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce the amount of glyphosate residues allowed in oats from 30 parts per million (ppm) to 0.1 ppm, as well as prohibit the use of glyphosate as a preharvest desiccant.⁹

The 0.1 ppm limit for glyphosate on oats was actually the legal limit in 1993 — it has since been raised 300-fold, in response to a petition from Monsanto around the time farmers began to widely use glyphosate as a desiccant late in the season.¹⁰ Similarly, in the E.U., the maximum residues level (MRL) for glyphosate in barley grain is 20 ppm but rises to 200 ppm for barley straw.

Writing in Frontiers in Environmental Science, researchers explained, “These high MRLs are set to accommodate the use of glyphosate as desiccant in farming of barley.” They added:¹¹

“We find it disturbing that dominant agricultures are developing in such a way that toxins are used rather indiscriminately in order to ease harvesting. This use of herbicides is non-essential and from the perspective of both health of environment, hazardous.

Again, here we see a development which contributes to the increasing total load of pesticides, and glyphosate in particular, into biota, fields and consumer organisms.”

Glyphosate Residues in Popular Children’s Cereal

EWG has commissioned three rounds of glyphosate testing on cereals and other foods sold by Kellogg, General Mills and Quaker, the latest of which took place in 2019 and involved 21 oat-based cereal and snack products.

The chemical was found in all 21 products, with all but four of them coming in higher than EWG’s benchmark for lifetime cancer risk in children, which is 160 parts per billion (ppb).¹²

In response to their testing, which shows concerning levels of glyphosate in popular breakfast foods often marketed to children, more than 310,000 people have signed EWG’s petition calling on the cereal giants to remove the ubiquitous chemical from their products.¹³

EWG was among those who commended Kellogg for taking proactive steps to reduce glyphosate in their products. EWG President Ken Cook said in a news release:¹⁴

“We applaud Kellogg's for working with their suppliers to address the risks posed by glyphosate. It’s no surprise that consumers don’t want a controversial weedkiller in their cereal. Now it’s time for General Mills and Quaker to listen to their customers and fall in behind Kellogg's leadership and do the same – end this use of this notorious weedkiller.”

To be clear, it’s not only oats and cereal products that are impacted by glyphosate residues — it’s prevalent in a number of foods and substances. Glyphosate has been detected in PediaSure Enteral Formula nutritional drink, which is given to infants and children via feeding tubes, for instance.¹⁵

It’s also found in air, rain, municipal water supplies, soil samples, breast milk, urine, organic plant-based protein supplements and even vaccines, including the pneumococcal, Tdap, hepatitis B (which is injected on the day of birth), influenza and MMR.¹⁶

Kellogg’s step to avoid glyphosate as a desiccant for its products is a positive move, but it’s only one of many needed to help reduce exposure to this widespread contaminant.

Roundup Cancer Lawsuits Could Surpass 75,000

Why is it so important to get glyphosate out of our food and water supplies? In the U.S., approximately 42,700 U.S. lawsuits from individuals alleging that glyphosate caused them to develop cancer have already been filed.¹⁷ Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, Roundup’s original maker, in 2018, is in settlement talks to resolve the litigation but continues to deny that the chemical causes cancer.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) identified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015,¹⁸ however, and research published in Frontiers in Genetics also supports glyphosate’s cancer link, finding that exposure in low concentrations (in parts per trillion) may induce cancer in cells when combined with microRNA-182-5p (miR182-5p).¹⁹

MicroRNA-182-5p is a gene regulatory molecule found in everyone, and overexpression of the molecule has been linked to cancer. Michael Antoniou of King's College London, who peer reviewed the study, stated, "These observations highlight for the first time a possible biomarker of glyphosate activity at the level of gene expression that could be linked with breast cancer formation.”²⁰

Ken Feinber, a court-appointed mediator, stated in January 2020 that Roundup cancer claimants could surpass 75,000.²¹ In the first three cases to go to trial, Bayer has been ordered to pay billions of dollars to the plaintiffs, although the awards were later slashed to the tens of millions range.

Bayer’s latest tactic is trying to circumvent the filing of new Roundup lawsuits by banning plaintiffs' lawyers from advertising for new clients.²²

What Are the Risks of Glyphosate Exposure?

Aside from cancer, significant bioaccumulation of glyphosate has been documented in the kidney, an organ with known susceptibility to glyphosate, and glyphosate-induced kidney toxicity has been associated with disturbances in the expression of genes associated with fibrosis, necrosis and mitochondrial membrane dysfunction.²³

Further, research published in 2015 found that glyphosate in combination with aluminum synergistically induced pineal gland pathology, which in turn was linked to gut dysbiosis and neurological diseases such as autism, depression, dementia, anxiety disorder and Parkinson's disease.²⁴

A number of animal and human diseases have been rising in step with glyphosate usage. This includes conditions such as failure to thrive, congenital heart defects, enlarged right ventricle, liver cancer, and, in newborns, lung problems, metabolic disorders and genitourinary disorders.²⁵

The environmental risks are also immense. Speaking to Politico, Jeroen van der Sluijs, a professor of science and ethics at Norway's Bergen University, explained:²⁶

"It [glyphosate] kills a lot of non-target plants and it leads to an agricultural practice where you have monoculture with no wild plants left in the fields … If you remove all the wild plants from the fields then you only have the crop that flowers and that's only a very short period in the year. The rest of the year there's nothing to forage on.

… We find [glyphosate] everywhere in surface waters, it is indeed toxic for all kinds of aquatic organisms, so of special concern are amphibians like frogs and salamanders."

The take-home message here is that some companies, including Kellogg, are starting to wake up (and/or respond to consumer demand) and are taking steps to get glyphosate out of their food. But in the meantime, it’s important to choose organic or biodynamically grown foods, to filter your home’s water and to avoid using glyphosate around your home and garden.

If you’re interested, the Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide. They’re also in the process of doing hair testing for glyphosate, which is a better test for long-term exposure.

If it turns out that you have measurable levels of glyphosate in your body, Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), shared some tips for detoxing glyphosate here.

from Articles https://ift.tt/37kYQpj
via IFTTT

Humidifiers Can Hinder the Flu

Outbreaks of influenza are seasonal in nature, with transmission and death rates increasing in winter months. Dry air and cold temperatures are particularly known to promote the spread of influenza, and, in temperate regions, flu outbreaks have been closely correlated with decreased humidity.¹

While it’s previously been shown that low ambient humidity encourages the transmission of viruses, what this means for infection in humans, as well as outcomes among those infected, is less clear, leading researchers to look into whether changes in humidity could play a role in influenza infection.

It turns out that altering humidity levels could be one way to not only reduce the transmission of flu, but also to bolster humans’ resistance against infection.

Influenza’s Link to Humidity

Environmental factors play a prominent role in influenza’s tendency to flare up seasonally. Along with seasonal factors like changes in exposure to sunlight, vitamin D levels and time spent in crowded indoor areas, fluctuations in temperature and humidity certainly play a role.

Specifically, it’s known that the combination of cold temperatures and low humidity is ideal for influenza to spread. According to a study in PNAS:²

“IAV [influenza A] outbreaks occur during the winter months in temperate regions, peaking between November and March in the Northern Hemisphere and between May and September in the Southern Hemisphere …

A key epidemiological study analyzing data collected over 30 y[ears] across the continental United States showed that a drop in absolute humidity, which is dependent on relative humidity and temperature, correlates most closely with the rise in influenza-related deaths.

Experimental studies in guinea pigs demonstrate that low temperature and low humidity enable aerosol transmission of influenza virus, providing one explanation for the seasonality of viral transmission.”

Studies on the survival of influenza virus also show a humidity connection, with one suggesting that “aerosolized influenza survived best when the relative humidity was below 36%.”³ There are fluctuations, too, between relative humidity (RH) and absolute humidity (AH) in the air.

AH, defined as “the mass of water per volume of air,” may have an even stronger relationship with influenza than RH, which is defined as “the ratio of the vapor pressure of water to the saturation vapor pressure at a prescribed temperature and pressure.” In fact, it’s been suggested that “AH, as a modulator of influenza transmission, drives seasonal variations of influenza transmission in temperate regions.”⁴

This is noteworthy since indoor moisture levels can be influenced by a number of factors, including outdoor moisture loads, sources of indoor moisture and levels of ventilation, and it’s believed that targeting indoor humidity levels during flu season could lessen the spread of influenza viruses in the air and on surfaces.

Raising Indoor Humidity Levels Reduces Survival of Flu Virus

Using a portable humidifier in your bedroom during flu season could reduce the survival of influenza virus in the air, according to a study published in Environmental Health.⁵ A model of a two-story residential structure was used under two ventilation conditions: forced hot air and radiant heating.

Portable humidifiers were used to control moisture content in the air, which was monitored for absolute humidity and concentrations of influenza virus.

The addition of a portable humidifier with an output of 0.16 kilograms of water per hour in the bedroom increased absolute humidity 11% and relative humidity 19% during sleeping hours compared to having no humidifier present. Along with the increases in humidity came a decrease in the survival of influenza virus, by 17.5% to 31.6%.

The distribution of water vapor through the whole home was also beneficial, with increases of 3% to 12% AH/RH associated with reductions in influenza virus survival of 7.8% to 13.9%.⁶

The results suggest that not only could adding a humidifier to your bedroom prove to be an easy way to protect against the flu, but increasing humidification in public settings could also be beneficial for public health. According to researchers:⁷

“Results from this modeling analysis demonstrate that the use of portable residential humidifiers increases RH and AH to levels that can potentially decrease the survival of airborne influenza virus in a residential setting. This effect is more pronounced in rooms where the humidification is located.

While this study evaluated the impacts in a residential setting, the expected benefits of humidification are likely to be larger in places where larger populations of people with the flu and people susceptible to the flu congregate.”

Dry Air May Make It Easier To Be Infected by Influenza

Not only does increased humidification lower the survival of influenza virus in the air, but it also influences the host’s response to infection. In a study on mice, those housed in a low-humidity environment were more susceptible to influenza and had more severe disease.⁸

Mice exposed to an aerolsized influenza virus and housed at 20% relative humidity, for instance, had more rapid weight loss, drop in body temperature and shortened survival compared to mice housed at 50% relative humidity.

The dry air compromised the mice’s resistance to infection, and those housed at lower humidity levels had impaired mucociliary clearance, innate antiviral defense and tissue repair function, the study found. The researchers further noted, “Moreover, mice exposed to dry air were more susceptible to disease mediated by inflammasome caspases.”

It seems that humidity levels affect physical and innate immune defenses against viral infections, with researchers concluding:⁹

“These mechanisms … may in part underlie the epidemiological correlation of a drop in absolute humidity preceding death from seasonal influenza infection in temperate regions … Our study suggests that increasing ambient humidity may be a viable strategy to reduce disease symptoms and to promote more rapid recovery in influenza-infected individuals.”

There is one caveat, however, that needs further exploration, which is the fact that tropical climates with wet, warm conditions also have influenza outbreaks, and different areas of the world appear to be influenced by humidity in different ways.

What Else Are Humidifiers Good For?

Humidity, which in simple terms is the amount of water droplets suspended in the air, should be optimized in your home for optimal health. Doing so can affect a number of conditions, including respiratory infections, as the featured study suggested.

In another study, a meta-analysis of nine epidemiological studies, researchers found the incidence of absenteeism and respiratory infections was lower in people who worked or lived in environments with a midrange relative humidity.¹⁰

Another study demonstrated “prolonged exposure to high (greater than 50%) or low (lower than 30%) relative humidity was associated with an increased risk of respiratory symptoms among teachers.”¹¹

Yet another study found maintaining indoor relative humidity greater than 40% could significantly reduce the infectivity of influenza virus in the air.¹² Dry skin and throat, allergy symptoms and dry eyes can also be affected by humidity levels. The Environmental Health study noted:¹³

“Increasing low indoor moisture levels may have benefits beyond reducing survival of the influenza virus.

Low RH has been associated with a number of symptoms including dry skin, throat and mucous membranes and eye irritation in office and hospital workers. In a home humidification intervention, the authors reported a decrease in dryness of the nose and throat and improved breathing in patients with allergies.”

In terms of allergies, relative humidity below 50% will minimize mite populations, while keeping levels below 60% will also make it difficult for most species of fungi to grow.¹⁴ The humidity level in your home even influences the offgassing of formaldehyde from indoor building materials and the formation of ozone, with experts suggesting the ideal level of relative humidity to avoid adverse health effects is between 40% and 60%.

“This would require humidification during winter in areas with cold winter climates. Humidification should preferably use evaporative or steam humidifiers, as cool mist humidifiers can disseminate aerosols contaminated with allergens,” researchers explained in Environmental Health Perspectives.¹⁵

Be Careful About Mold Growth

There’s a definite sweet spot when it comes to humidity and it’s important to keep levels neither too high nor too low. While low levels may allow infections to flourish, high levels can lead to mold and mildew growth. In the featured Environmental Health study, adding a humidifier to the bedroom occasionally resulted in relative humidity levels that exceeded 60%, especially when radiant heat was used.¹⁶

If your home's humidity is higher than 60%, it increases the risk of mold and fungal growth and may make your home feel stuffy. You might notice condensation on the walls, floors and windows, increasing the risk of triggering growth of bacteria and dust mites. These allergens may increase your respiratory problems and provoke flare-ups of allergies and asthma.¹⁷

A dirty humidifier can also lead to the growth of mold and bacteria, so keeping it clean is important. Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer of your device, you can keep your machine running clean using hydrogen peroxide and white vinegar. Change the water often so mineral deposits and film do not develop, being sure to unplug it first. Distilled or demineralized water is typically recommended.

A hydrogen peroxide solution and soft bristle brush can be used to clean your humidifier, which should be done every three days. If your humidifier has a filter, be sure to change it at least as often as the manufacturer recommends and more if it’s dirty.¹⁸

How to Measure Humidity Levels in Your Home

To keep humidity levels between the recommended 40% and 60%, you’ll need to know what the level is in your home. The best way to test levels in your home is with a hygrometer. This device looks like a thermometer and measures the amount of moisture in the air.

Some humidifiers come with a built-in hygrometer, or humidistat, to help the humidifier maintain relative humidity in your home at a healthy level. If not, you can purchase a hygrometer at most hardware stores.

Depending on the humidity level in your home, you may need to add moisture with a humidifier or remove moisture with a dehumidifier. During flu season, making sure your home has enough moisture in the air is a simple way to lower the spread of influenza virus and increase your resistance to infection.

from Articles https://ift.tt/31HU2JH
via IFTTT