An awesome piece by David Kirby...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/there-is-no-autism-epidem_b_37647.html
There is no autism epidemic
It's s been nearly two years since the release of my book, "Evidence of Harm, Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic - A Medical Controversy," and I continue to be vilified by critics who insist that mercury does not cause autism, that autism is a stable genetic condition, and that it cannot be an "epidemic."
I am going to declare a New Year's truce, and announce that my critics are 100 percent correct.
This year, I hope we can ALL agree on one thing: There is no autism epidemic.
Among my most spirited and articulate detractors is a group of adults with autism who belong to a movement that refers to itself as the "neurodiversity" community.
These adults argue passionately that autism is neither a disease nor a disorder, but rather a natural and special variation of the chance genetic imprint left upon human behavior. Most of them, I believe, have what science calls "Asperger's Syndrome," or very high functioning autism.
From their eloquent and well reasoned point of view, autism has no "cause," and it certainly requires no "cure." To suggest otherwise is to brand these adults with the stigma of disease and disability, which is patently absurd given their educational and intellectual achievements.
It's like saying that left-handers or gays are deviant and need treatment - something that reasonable people stopped doing years ago.
So maybe autism really is just an odd genetic peculiarity that yields atypical people whose own set of talents and gifts can lead to perfectly happy and fulfilled lives, with little or no dependence on others for their survival.
If that's the case, then autism has always been with us at some steady, but largely overlooked rate. Growing awareness and better diagnostics have certainly helped us identify and count more people with the condition, who might have been mislabeled as "quirky" or "nerdy" a decade ago.
But if that's autism, then the kids that I have met suffer from some other condition entirely. When I talk about "curing" autism, I am not talking about curing the "neurodiverse."
I am talking about kids who begin talking and then, suddenly, never say another word.
I'm talking about kids who may never learn to read, write, tie their shoes or fall in love.
I'm talking about kids who sometimes wail in torture at three in the morning because something inside them hurts like a burning coal, but they can't say what or where it is.
I'm talking about kids who can barely keep food in their inflamed, distressed guts, and when they do, it winds up in rivers of diarrhea or swirls of feces spread on a favorite carpet or pet (no one said this kind of "autism" was pretty).
I'm talking about kids who escape from their home in a blaze of alarms, only to be found hours later, freezing, alone and wandering the Interstate.
I'm talking about kids who have bitten their mother so hard and so often, they are on a first name basis at the emergency room.
I'm talking about kids who spin like fireworks until they fall and crack their heads, kids who will play with a pencil but not with their sister, kids who stare at nothing and scream at everything and don't even realize it when their dad comes home from work.
These are the kids I want to see cured. And I don't believe they have "autism."
Scientists tell us that 1-in-104 American boys are currently diagnosed with some form of autism spectrum disorder. But the mildest, "high functioning" forms of autism have seemingly little in common with the most severe or even moderate cases.
My hunch (and yes, that is all it is) is that most of these kids do not have "autism" at all, and it's probably time we started calling it something else.
American kids are in huge trouble. One in six has a learning disability. Asthma, diabetes, allergies and arthritis are ravaging their bodies in growing numbers. And little of this is due to "better diagnostics" or "greater awareness."
It can only be attributed to radical changes in our environment over the last 10-20 years. There is something, or more likely some things in our modern air, water, food and drugs that are making genetically susceptible children sick, and we need to find out what they are.
Mercury remains a logical candidate for contributing to "autism spectrum disorders," either alone or in combination with other environmental insults. Mercury exposure can kill brain cells. It can cause loss of speech and eye contact, digestive and immune dysfunction, social withdrawal and anxiety, and repetitive and self-injurious behaviors.
So maybe we should leave the autistics in peace and focus on these environmentally toxic kids and what it is that ails them.
Maybe what these kids have is not autism, but something like, say, "Environmentally-acquired Neuroimmune Disorder," which we could call E.N.D. (Great slogan: "Let's End E.N.D.).
Maybe that would explain why a recent CDC-funded study of the San Francisco Bay Area showed that kids with "autism" were 50% more likely to be born in neighborhoods with high levels of airborne toxins, especially mercury. If a second study underway in Baltimore yields similar data, it will be that much harder to defend the "better diagnosis" argument, (other studies have shown an association between autism rates and proximity to coal-fired power plants).
So maybe what we have here is just a semantic failure to communicate. Columbus thought he had met "Indians," and we only recently began to use the term "Native American."
Columbus was not in the Indies, mercury doesn't cause autism, and there is no autism epidemic.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Plastics Cause Concern
Plastics chemical harms eggs in unborn mice
* 13:01 12 January 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Roxanne Khamsi
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10946-plastics-chemical-harms-eggs-in-unborn-mice.html
Female mice exposed to a common chemical found in plastics while in the
womb develop abnormal eggs, according to a new study. Based on this
finding, researchers speculate that the chemical, bisphenol A, might
increase the risk of spontaneous abortion and genetic disorders in humans,
such as Down's syndrome.
Bisphenol A, or BPA, is commonly found in hard plastics and the lining of
tin cans. The chemical has come under scrutiny before because it can mimic
the hormone oestrogen.
Patricia Hunt at Washington State University in Pullman, US, and
colleagues exposed pregnant mice to 20 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of
their bodyweight each day over a one-week period. During this same period,
the reproductive cells of female mice developing inside in the womb begin
a process of division known as meiosis.
Meiosis ultimately yields mature eggs, which have half the number of
chromosomes as other cells in the body. But the process is gradual. In
humans, for example, cells only reach the end of this division process
before ovulation.
Scrambled eggs
Researchers followed the female mouse pups that had been exposed to BPA in
the womb. When these mice reached adulthood, Hunt's team examined their
eggs. More than one in every 20 cells taken from those mice had unpaired
chromosomes – an abnormal trait. This trait was completely absent in cells
taken from the BPA-free control mice.
An analysis of slightly more mature eggs taken from another group of
females exposed to BPA in utero found that 10 eggs out of 56 sampled had
one or more extra chromosomes than normal. In contrast, only one out of 57
such cells from a control group showed the same defect.
By staining the cells, the researchers found that the chromosomes in eggs
from BPA-exposed mice connect in odd places during cell division. This
might explain why they do not segregate properly during meiosis.
The embryos of mice exposed to BPA in utero also show abnormalities,
suggesting that the chemical affects the grandchildren of exposed mice – a
"grandmaternal" impact.
Human concern
Hunt is concerned that BPA might disrupt egg development in humans as
well. The types of chromosomal defects seen in her mice are known to
increase the risk of spontaneous abortion and genetic disorders such as
Down's syndrome.
"It's very concerning," agrees Dorothy Warburton at Columbia University in
New York, who was not involved in the study. But she notes that measuring
exposure to BPA in humans "is a not an easy thing to do".
The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared that exposure to 50
micrograms or less of BPA per kilogram of bodyweight is safe for humans.
Steve Hentges of the American Plastics Council in Arlington, Virginia, US,
stresses that this guideline refers to eating or drinking BPA. He believes
that the unborn mice were exposed to higher levels of BPA because they
received it through implanted pellets rather than through their food.
For this reason, Hentges argues against drawing conclusions about human
health from the study: "These results do not seem to be relevant for
reproduction and in particular fertility." He adds that other mouse
studies that involved BPA levels similar to those used in Hunt's
experiments did not show an increased risk of genetic abnormalities across
generations.
However, Hunt is convinced that the BPA amounts used in her study are
equivalent to current human exposure. She notes that previous research has
found that mice exposed to the chemical in utero have abnormal prostate
and breast tissue development that could put them at greater risk of
developing cancer in these tissues.
* 13:01 12 January 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Roxanne Khamsi
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10946-plastics-chemical-harms-eggs-in-unborn-mice.html
Female mice exposed to a common chemical found in plastics while in the
womb develop abnormal eggs, according to a new study. Based on this
finding, researchers speculate that the chemical, bisphenol A, might
increase the risk of spontaneous abortion and genetic disorders in humans,
such as Down's syndrome.
Bisphenol A, or BPA, is commonly found in hard plastics and the lining of
tin cans. The chemical has come under scrutiny before because it can mimic
the hormone oestrogen.
Patricia Hunt at Washington State University in Pullman, US, and
colleagues exposed pregnant mice to 20 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of
their bodyweight each day over a one-week period. During this same period,
the reproductive cells of female mice developing inside in the womb begin
a process of division known as meiosis.
Meiosis ultimately yields mature eggs, which have half the number of
chromosomes as other cells in the body. But the process is gradual. In
humans, for example, cells only reach the end of this division process
before ovulation.
Scrambled eggs
Researchers followed the female mouse pups that had been exposed to BPA in
the womb. When these mice reached adulthood, Hunt's team examined their
eggs. More than one in every 20 cells taken from those mice had unpaired
chromosomes – an abnormal trait. This trait was completely absent in cells
taken from the BPA-free control mice.
An analysis of slightly more mature eggs taken from another group of
females exposed to BPA in utero found that 10 eggs out of 56 sampled had
one or more extra chromosomes than normal. In contrast, only one out of 57
such cells from a control group showed the same defect.
By staining the cells, the researchers found that the chromosomes in eggs
from BPA-exposed mice connect in odd places during cell division. This
might explain why they do not segregate properly during meiosis.
The embryos of mice exposed to BPA in utero also show abnormalities,
suggesting that the chemical affects the grandchildren of exposed mice – a
"grandmaternal" impact.
Human concern
Hunt is concerned that BPA might disrupt egg development in humans as
well. The types of chromosomal defects seen in her mice are known to
increase the risk of spontaneous abortion and genetic disorders such as
Down's syndrome.
"It's very concerning," agrees Dorothy Warburton at Columbia University in
New York, who was not involved in the study. But she notes that measuring
exposure to BPA in humans "is a not an easy thing to do".
The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared that exposure to 50
micrograms or less of BPA per kilogram of bodyweight is safe for humans.
Steve Hentges of the American Plastics Council in Arlington, Virginia, US,
stresses that this guideline refers to eating or drinking BPA. He believes
that the unborn mice were exposed to higher levels of BPA because they
received it through implanted pellets rather than through their food.
For this reason, Hentges argues against drawing conclusions about human
health from the study: "These results do not seem to be relevant for
reproduction and in particular fertility." He adds that other mouse
studies that involved BPA levels similar to those used in Hunt's
experiments did not show an increased risk of genetic abnormalities across
generations.
However, Hunt is convinced that the BPA amounts used in her study are
equivalent to current human exposure. She notes that previous research has
found that mice exposed to the chemical in utero have abnormal prostate
and breast tissue development that could put them at greater risk of
developing cancer in these tissues.
Pesticides and Organics
Here's a great site that measures pesticides in fruit.
This link connects to the Environmental Working Group's report on
pesticide loads in produce. There is a handy shopping wallet card you
can print out. If you're like us, we cannot afford to buy organic
EVERYTHING, so we focus our food budget on selecting organic for foods
that are:
1. at the top of the food chain (meat)
2. high in fats (oils, dairy if we ate dairy)
3. produce with a high pesticide load
This report will tell you which fruits and vegetables have high
pesticide loads. Very helpful in making costly shopping decisions!
http://www.foodnews.org/walletguide.php
This link connects to the Environmental Working Group's report on
pesticide loads in produce. There is a handy shopping wallet card you
can print out. If you're like us, we cannot afford to buy organic
EVERYTHING, so we focus our food budget on selecting organic for foods
that are:
1. at the top of the food chain (meat)
2. high in fats (oils, dairy if we ate dairy)
3. produce with a high pesticide load
This report will tell you which fruits and vegetables have high
pesticide loads. Very helpful in making costly shopping decisions!
http://www.foodnews.org/walletguide.php
No MMR until First Birthday (if at all!)
Get this interesting little ditty from the State of Tenn DOH:
"Because MMR is less likely to protect the child if given before their first birthday, the first dose must be given no more than 4 days before the child's first birthday. DOSES GIVEN EARLIER MUST BE REPEATED TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL ENTRY REQUIREMENT."
-k
"Because MMR is less likely to protect the child if given before their first birthday, the first dose must be given no more than 4 days before the child's first birthday. DOSES GIVEN EARLIER MUST BE REPEATED TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL ENTRY REQUIREMENT."
-k
Limit Flouride with Babies - Use bottled water for formula mixing
CDC, dental group warn of too much fluoride for babies
By ALISON YOUNG
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/07/07
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/02/07/0207meshdental.html
Health officials are recommending that parents who feed formula to their
babies consider using bottled water — rather than tap — when mixing it to
prevent a dental condition that causes subtle white marks on developing
teeth.
While emphasizing the significant benefits of fluoridated tap water in
preventing cavities, new recommendations from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association say parents
need to be aware of how much fluoride babies and young children are
exposed to.
"Since the beginning we knew there was a trade off between preventing
tooth decay and enamel fluorosis," said William Maas, director of CDC's
Division of Oral Health.
Enamel fluorosis is a condition involving changes to the enamel surface of
teeth — ranging from barely noticeable chalk-like white flecks and lines
to more severe pitting and staining. The condition occurs when children
are exposed to too much fluoride while their teeth are forming — and mild
forms have been on the rise since the late 1980s.
Currently about one-third of U.S. children will develop very mild or mild
fluorosis — which causes subtle white specks or lines on their adult teeth
that in most cases is not considered a cosmetic problem. About 4 percent
will develop moderate and severe forms of the condition, usually from
prolonged exposure to naturally high fluoride levels in some well water.
CDC has for years cautioned parents to limit the amount of fluoridated
toothpaste children use to no more than a pea-sized dollop because
ingesting the toothpaste during the first six years of their life — while
adult teeth are forming — had been linked to an increased risk of
fluorosis.
Then last year, for the first time, a study indicated an association
between the use of infant formula and very mild and mild fluorosis,
prompting the CDC and the American Dental Association to put out new
guidance. Infant formula has not been associated with more severe forms of
fluorosis.
"One of the more effective ways to reduce the already low fluoride levels
the youngest children are getting is looking at the reconstitution of
powdered or concentrated liquid formulas," said John Stamm, a spokesman
for the American Dental Association and professor of dental ecology at the
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
The issue isn't the infant formula itself, but the water it's
reconstituted with, Stamm and Maas said. For their size, babies consume a
large percentage of their body weight in fluoridated water when
reconstituted formula is their primary source of nutrition.
Ready-to-use infant formula has low levels of fluoride because companies
generally make it with demineralized water, and it is recommended by the
ADA. But most consumers prefer the lower price and convenience of powdered
formula or a concentrated liquid formula, which are mixed with tap water
before use.
Most municipal water supplies in Georgia and across the country have added
low levels of fluoride for decades as a means of preventing tooth decay.
Fluoride, when it washes over teeth, stops the removal of minerals from
teeth by oral bacteria. The CDC considers fluoridating community water
supplies a highly safe and effective health measure.
Both the CDC and the ADA note that breastfeeding is best.
In a recommendation issued in November, the American Dental Association
said that for infants who get most of their nutrition from formula,
parents should use fluoride-free or low-fluoride bottled water to mix
batches of formula.
The CDC, which published its background paper on the formula issue in
December, said parents should check the fluoride level of their water
supply, then weigh the risk of minor white flecking against the potential
protective benefits of early fluoride exposure against tooth decay.
"They need to consider the trade off and decide accordingly," Maas said.
Steven Adair, chairman of the department of pediatric dentistry at the
Medical College of Georgia, said most wells in Georgia have low levels of
fluoride, except some in coastal areas. Local water officials or dentists
can assist in getting water tested.
"If your household has fluoridated water and your child is taking
concentrated formula that's reconstituted, if it's economically feasible
to use bottled water to reconstitute it, that would be a good idea," Adair
said.
Children are at greater risk, Maas noted, from improper use of toothpaste
than from tap water. For years the CDC has urged parents to be careful
with toothpaste to avoid children swallowing it and putting them at higher
risk of fluorosis.
Since 1996 toothpaste tubes have carried a warning that parents should
consult with a dentist or doctor before introducing a child younger than 2
to fluoridated toothpaste.
"People still don't realize how important it is to control toothpaste
use," Maas said.
[Trust the ADA and CDC at your own risk]
To read the American Dental Association's and the CDC's recommendations,
go to:
www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infants.asp and
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
For more information about children's dental health, go to:
http://www.cdc.gov/OralHealth/factsheets/brushup.htm
By ALISON YOUNG
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/07/07
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/02/07/0207meshdental.html
Health officials are recommending that parents who feed formula to their
babies consider using bottled water — rather than tap — when mixing it to
prevent a dental condition that causes subtle white marks on developing
teeth.
While emphasizing the significant benefits of fluoridated tap water in
preventing cavities, new recommendations from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association say parents
need to be aware of how much fluoride babies and young children are
exposed to.
"Since the beginning we knew there was a trade off between preventing
tooth decay and enamel fluorosis," said William Maas, director of CDC's
Division of Oral Health.
Enamel fluorosis is a condition involving changes to the enamel surface of
teeth — ranging from barely noticeable chalk-like white flecks and lines
to more severe pitting and staining. The condition occurs when children
are exposed to too much fluoride while their teeth are forming — and mild
forms have been on the rise since the late 1980s.
Currently about one-third of U.S. children will develop very mild or mild
fluorosis — which causes subtle white specks or lines on their adult teeth
that in most cases is not considered a cosmetic problem. About 4 percent
will develop moderate and severe forms of the condition, usually from
prolonged exposure to naturally high fluoride levels in some well water.
CDC has for years cautioned parents to limit the amount of fluoridated
toothpaste children use to no more than a pea-sized dollop because
ingesting the toothpaste during the first six years of their life — while
adult teeth are forming — had been linked to an increased risk of
fluorosis.
Then last year, for the first time, a study indicated an association
between the use of infant formula and very mild and mild fluorosis,
prompting the CDC and the American Dental Association to put out new
guidance. Infant formula has not been associated with more severe forms of
fluorosis.
"One of the more effective ways to reduce the already low fluoride levels
the youngest children are getting is looking at the reconstitution of
powdered or concentrated liquid formulas," said John Stamm, a spokesman
for the American Dental Association and professor of dental ecology at the
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
The issue isn't the infant formula itself, but the water it's
reconstituted with, Stamm and Maas said. For their size, babies consume a
large percentage of their body weight in fluoridated water when
reconstituted formula is their primary source of nutrition.
Ready-to-use infant formula has low levels of fluoride because companies
generally make it with demineralized water, and it is recommended by the
ADA. But most consumers prefer the lower price and convenience of powdered
formula or a concentrated liquid formula, which are mixed with tap water
before use.
Most municipal water supplies in Georgia and across the country have added
low levels of fluoride for decades as a means of preventing tooth decay.
Fluoride, when it washes over teeth, stops the removal of minerals from
teeth by oral bacteria. The CDC considers fluoridating community water
supplies a highly safe and effective health measure.
Both the CDC and the ADA note that breastfeeding is best.
In a recommendation issued in November, the American Dental Association
said that for infants who get most of their nutrition from formula,
parents should use fluoride-free or low-fluoride bottled water to mix
batches of formula.
The CDC, which published its background paper on the formula issue in
December, said parents should check the fluoride level of their water
supply, then weigh the risk of minor white flecking against the potential
protective benefits of early fluoride exposure against tooth decay.
"They need to consider the trade off and decide accordingly," Maas said.
Steven Adair, chairman of the department of pediatric dentistry at the
Medical College of Georgia, said most wells in Georgia have low levels of
fluoride, except some in coastal areas. Local water officials or dentists
can assist in getting water tested.
"If your household has fluoridated water and your child is taking
concentrated formula that's reconstituted, if it's economically feasible
to use bottled water to reconstitute it, that would be a good idea," Adair
said.
Children are at greater risk, Maas noted, from improper use of toothpaste
than from tap water. For years the CDC has urged parents to be careful
with toothpaste to avoid children swallowing it and putting them at higher
risk of fluorosis.
Since 1996 toothpaste tubes have carried a warning that parents should
consult with a dentist or doctor before introducing a child younger than 2
to fluoridated toothpaste.
"People still don't realize how important it is to control toothpaste
use," Maas said.
[Trust the ADA and CDC at your own risk]
To read the American Dental Association's and the CDC's recommendations,
go to:
www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infants.asp and
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
For more information about children's dental health, go to:
http://www.cdc.gov/OralHealth/factsheets/brushup.htm
Watch a Neuron and the Effects of Mercury
Go to http://commons.ucalgary.ca/mercury/ and watch this video. The ADA just came out with new statistics that 53% of American Dentists no longer use amalgam fillings!
-k
-k
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
