Archive for the ‘research’ Category

Truth on Mammograms

Lazris & Rifkin’s Risk-Benefit Characterization Theater

Mammograms are said to cut the risk of dying from breast cancer by as much as 20 percent, which sounds like an invincible argument for regular screening.

Two Maryland researchers want people to question that kind of thinking. They want patients to reexamine the usefulness of cancer exams, cholesterol tests, osteoporosis pills, MRI scans and many other routinely prescribed procedures and medicines.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/01/25/harmful-ineffective-mammograms.aspxutm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20170125Z1&et_cid=DM131782&et_rid=1858150143

Dr. Mercola writes that the Huffington Post stated in a recent article that fewer women are going to be screened for breast cancer with mammograms, if Obamacare is repealed. He asks if that’s a bad thing since “studies have repeatedly negated the idea that mammograms lower death rates, noting more women are harmed in the process than are actually saved.”

Mercola states that if you feel an actual lump in your breast a mammogram may be warranted but to consider other non-ionizing alternatives such as ultrasounds as they are considered superior – especially for dense-breasted women who are at a higher risk for a false negative mammogram.

http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-15-thermography-uncovering-health-issues-safely.html  A safer alternative, thermal imaging or Thermography, can be performed in about 15 minutes and is safe, non-invasive, painless, and accurate. Unlike mammograms, which can actually increase the risk of breast cancer by bombarding patients with high levels of radiation, thermography emits no radiation.   The technique can also indicate the threat or presence of gum disease, TMJ, dental abscesses, digestive disorders, fibromyalgia, arthritis, heart disease, musculoskeletal injury, and vascular and neurological dysfunction.

 http://health.costhelper.com/breast-thermogram.html   Costs for Thermography are from $175-$250, while mammography costs range wildly from $0-$2,786.95! http://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2013/05/how-much-does-a-mammogram-cost-prices-payments-vary-widely-our-survey-with-wnyc-finds/

Beyond the initial costs of mammograms are “hidden costs,” which include more testing and over treatment.  http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/04/13/398818949/the-hidden-cost-of-mammograms-more-testing-and-overtreatment

 

 

NASEM Report on Cannabis

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24625

Jan. 12, 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Nearly 100 Conclusions on the Health Effects of Marijuana and Cannabis-Derived Products Presented in New Report; One of the Most Comprehensive Studies of Recent Research on Health Effects of Recreational and Therapeutic Use of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products

WASHINGTON – A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine offers a rigorous review of scientific research published since 1999 about what is known about the health impacts of cannabis and cannabis-derived products – such as marijuana and active chemical compounds known as cannabinoids – ranging from their therapeutic effects to their risks for causing certain cancers, diseases, mental health disorders, and injuries. The committee that carried out the study and wrote the report considered more than 10,000 scientific abstracts to reach its nearly 100 conclusions. The committee also proposed ways to expand and improve the quality of cannabis research efforts, enhance data collection efforts to support the advancement of research, and address the current barriers to cannabis research.

“For years the landscape of marijuana use has been rapidly shifting as more and more states are legalizing cannabis for the treatment of medical conditions and recreational use,” said Marie McCormick, chair of the committee; the Sumner and Esther Feldberg Professor of Maternal and Child Health, department of social and behavioral sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass. “This growing acceptance, accessibility, and use of cannabis and its derivatives have raised important public health concerns. Moreover, the lack of any aggregated knowledge of cannabis-related health effects has led to uncertainty about what, if any, are the harms or benefits from its use. We conducted an in-depth and broad review of the most recent research to establish firmly what the science says and to highlight areas that still need further examination. As laws and policies continue to change, research must also.”

Currently, cannabis is the most popular illicit drug in the United States, in terms of past-month users. Based on a recent nationwide survey, 22.2 million Americans ages 12 and older reported using cannabis in the past 30 days. This survey also reports that 90 percent of adult cannabis users in the United States said their primary use was recreational, with about 10 percent reporting use solely for medical purposes. Around 36 percent reported mixed medical and recreational use. In addition, between 2002 and 2015, the percentage of past-month cannabis users in the U.S. population ages 12 and older has increased steadily from 6.2 percent to 8.3 percent.

Therapeutic Effects

One of the therapeutic uses of cannabis and cannabinoids is to treat chronic pain in adults. The committee found evidence to support that patients who were treated with cannabis or cannabinoids were more likely to experience a significant reduction in pain symptoms. For adults with multiple sclerosis-related muscle spasms, there was substantial evidence that short-term use of certain “oral cannabinoids” – man-made, cannabinoid-based medications that are orally ingested – improved their reported symptoms. Furthermore, in adults with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, there was conclusive evidence that certain oral cannabinoids were effective in preventing and treating those ailments.

Injury and Death

Evidence suggests that cannabis use prior to driving increases the risk of being involved in a motor vehicle accident. Furthermore, evidence suggests that in states where cannabis use is legal, there is increased risk of unintentional cannabis overdose injuries among children. In one study, ingestion was the most common route of unintentional pediatric exposure, accounting for 78 percent of all incidents. Another study reported that from 2000 to 2013, the annual rate of poison center calls related to cannabis exposures among children younger than 6 years of age was 2.82 times higher in states that had legalized medical cannabis prior to 2000 than in states where medical cannabis remained illegal as of 2013. The committee called for more research to determine whether and how cannabis use is associated with death or with occupational injury.

Cancer

Regarding the link between marijuana and cancer, the committee found evidence that suggests smoking cannabis does not increase the risk for cancers often associated with tobacco use – such as lung and head and neck cancers. The committee also found limited evidence that cannabis use is associated with one sub-type of testicular cancer and insufficient evidence that cannabis use by a mother or father during pregnancy leads to a greater risk of cancers in the child.

Heart Attack, Stroke, and Diabetes

The committee said that more research is needed to determine whether and how cannabis use is associated with heart attack, stroke, and diabetes. However, some evidence suggests that cannabis smoking may trigger a heart attack.

Respiratory Disease

The evidence reviewed by the committee suggests that smoking cannabis on a regular basis is associated with more frequent chronic bronchitis episodes and worse respiratory symptoms, such as chronic cough and phlegm production, but quitting cannabis smoking is likely to reduce these conditions. The committee stated that it is unclear whether cannabis use is associated with certain respiratory diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or worsened lung function.

Immunity

There is a lack of data on the effects of cannabis or cannabinoid-based therapeutics on the human immune system, as well as insufficient data to draw overarching conclusions concerning the effects of cannabis smoke or cannabinoids on immune competence, the committee stated. There is also insufficient evidence to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis or cannabinoid use and adverse effects on immune status in individuals with HIV. Nevertheless, limited evidence suggests that regular exposure to cannabis smoke may have anti-inflammatory activity.

Mental Health

The evidence reviewed by the committee suggests that cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia, other psychoses, and social anxiety disorders, and to a lesser extent depression. Alternatively, in individuals with schizophrenia and other psychoses, a history of cannabis use may be linked to better performance on learning and memory tasks. Heavy cannabis users are more likely to report thoughts of suicide than non-users, and in individuals with bipolar disorder, near-daily cannabis users show increased symptoms of the disorder than non-users.

Problem Cannabis Use

The evidence reviewed by the committee suggests that with greater frequency of cannabis use, there is an increased likelihood of developing problem cannabis use. There is also evidence to suggest that initiating cannabis use at a younger age increases the likelihood of developing problem cannabis use.

Cannabis Use and the Abuse of Other Substances

The committee found limited evidence that cannabis use increases the rate of initiating other drug use, primarily the use of tobacco. However, the committee found moderate evidence to suggest that there is a link between cannabis use and the development of substance dependence and/or a substance abuse disorder for substances including alcohol, tobacco, and other illicit drugs.

Psychosocial

The committee found that learning, memory, and attention are impaired after immediate cannabis use. Limited evidence suggests that there are impairments in cognitive domains of learning, memory, and attention in individuals who have stopped smoking cannabis. In addition, there is limited evidence to suggest that cannabis use is related to impairments in subsequent academic achievement and education as well as social relationships and social roles. Adolescence and young adulthood are when most youth begin to experiment with substances of abuse, including cannabis, and it is during these periods that the neural layers that underlie the development of cognition are most active. The committee also found limited evidence of an association between cannabis use and increased rates of unemployment and low income.

Prenatal, Perinatal, and Neonatal Exposure

Smoking cannabis during pregnancy is linked to lower birth weight in the offspring, some evidence suggests. However, the relationship with other pregnancy and childhood outcomes is unclear.

Challenges and Barriers in Conducting Cannabis Research

In addition to recommending more research on the beneficial and harmful effects of cannabis and cannabinoid use, the committee emphasized several challenges and barriers in conducting such research. For instance, specific regulatory barriers, including the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance, impede the advancement of research. Researchers also often find it difficult to gain access to the quantity, quality, and type of cannabis product necessary to address specific research questions. The committee said a diverse network of funders is needed to support cannabis and cannabinoid research.

The study was sponsored by Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, Arizona Department of Health Services, California Department of Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CDC Foundation, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Mat-Su Health Foundation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse, Oregon Health Authority, Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, The Colorado Health Foundation, Truth Initiative, and Washington State Department of Health. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. The National Academies operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org.

 

The Ties that Bind Research Results

http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6770

Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study

Abstract

Objective To examine the association between the presence of individual principal investigators’ financial ties to the manufacturer of the study drug and the trial’s outcomes after accounting for source of research funding.

Design Cross sectional study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Setting Studies published in “core clinical” journals, as identified by Medline, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013.

Participants Random sample of RCTs focused on drug efficacy.

Main outcome measure Association between financial ties of principal investigators and study outcome.

Results A total of 190 papers describing 195 studies met inclusion criteria. Financial ties between principal investigators and the pharmaceutical industry were present in 132 (67.7%) studies. Of 397 principal investigators, 231 (58%) had financial ties and 166 (42%) did not. Of all principal investigators, 156 (39%) reported advisor/consultancy payments, 81 (20%) reported speakers’ fees, 81 (20%) reported unspecified financial ties, 52 (13%) reported honorariums, 52 (13%) reported employee relationships, 52 (13%) reported travel fees, 41 (10%) reported stock ownership, and 20 (5%) reported having a patent related to the study drug. The prevalence of financial ties of principal investigators was 76% (103/136) among positive studies and 49% (29/59) among negative studies. In unadjusted analyses, the presence of a financial tie was associated with a positive study outcome (odds ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.1). In the primary multivariate analysis, a financial tie was significantly associated with positive RCT outcome after adjustment for the study funding source (odds ratio 3.57 (1.7 to 7.7). The secondary analysis controlled for additional RCT characteristics such as study phase, sample size, country of first authors, specialty, trial registration, study design, type of analysis, comparator, and outcome measure. These characteristics did not appreciably affect the relation between financial ties and study outcomes (odds ratio 3.37, 1.4 to 7.9).

Conclusions Financial ties of principal investigators were independently associated with positive clinical trial results. These findings may be suggestive of bias in the evidence base.

https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-01/b-ftb011617.php

“They stress that their analysis is observational and cannot be used to draw conclusions about causation, but say, given the importance of industry and academic collaboration in advancing the development of new treatments, “more thought needs to be given to the roles that investigators, policy makers, and journal editors can play in ensuring the credibility of the evidence base.”

More research is certainly needed to identify how industry funding and financial ties could influence trial results, say Andreas Lundh from the University of Southern Denmark and Lisa Bero from the University of Sydney in a linked editorial.

They urge trial authors to share their data and participate in industry funded trials only if data are made publicly available – and suggest journals could help by rejecting research by authors who are unwilling to share their data and by penalising authors who fail to disclose financial ties. The role of sponsors, or companies with which authors have ties, in the research must also be transparent.

In the meantime, trials with industry funding or authors with financial ties “should be interpreted with caution until all relevant information is fully disclosed and easily accessible,” they conclude.”

 

 

Deer Tick in Raptor’s Mouth

http://doi.org/10.11158/saa.22.2.5

Abstract

We document the first report of a blacklegged tick, Ixodes scapularis Say, parasitizing an American Kestrel, Falco sparverius Linnaeus (Falconiformes: Falconidae), in Canada. A fully engorged I. scapularis nymph was collected from the base of the tongue of an American Kestrel nestling recovered at Mirabel, Québec. This nestling had recently fledged the nest, and was exposed to I. scapularis immatures that were host-seeking in the surrounding low-level vegetation.

DNA barcoding was used to confirm the identification of the tick. Primers of the flagellin (fla) gene were employed to determine whether the Lyme disease spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (s.l.) Johnson, Schmid, Hyde, Steigerwalt & Brenner, was present in the I. scapularis nymph; the tick was negative.

We provide the first report of I. scapularis parasitizing a raptor in Canada and, likewise, the first account of this tick species attached to the oral cavity of a bird. Moreover, this bird parasitism is the first documentation of a tick on a falconid bird in Canada.

Free, full text (pdf file, 502KB):
http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.11158/saa.22.2.5

A Bug for Alzheimer’s?

https://aeon.co/essays/how-microbial-infections-might-cause-alzheimers-disease

Please read the article above, written by Melinda Wenner Moyer, edited by Pam Weintraub.

A brief summary:

Robert Moir, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, believes that beta-amyloid, a key player in Alzheimer’s, might be a good guy who is actually protecting the brain from pathogens.

This idea is coming from numerous corners of the world and has been labeled ‘pathogen hypothesis.’ Others pointing this out are pathologist Alan MacDonald, neuropathologist Judith Miklossy, and microbiologist Tom Grier.

Moir has published mouse studies showing that their brains create amyloid plaques within hours of contracting infections and they actually kill pathogens.

This observation flies in the face of accepted dogma about beta-amyloid and it is rarely discussed in AD groups.

A meta-analysis of 25 published studies has shown that infected folks are 10 times more likely to develop AD, leading international researchers to co-sign an editorial begging others to consider pathogens in relation to AD.

But, the cabal isn’t having it. Moir’s 2016 paper was rejected six times without even a review before finally getting the nod.  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/01/13/lyme-science-owned-by-good-ol-boys/

The author reminds the reader that infections in the brain are nothing new and a short list of them includes: Syphillis, Herpes simplex encephalitis, tick borne disease, HIV, Toxoplasma gondii, Chlamydia pneumoniae, HSV-1, and Zika.

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/04/10/bugs-causing-alzheimers/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/06/03/borrelia-hiding-in-worms-causing-chronic-brain-diseases/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/08/09/dr-paul-duray-research-fellowship-foundation-some-great-research-being-done-on-lyme-disease/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-michael-conner/man-diagnosed-with-als-di_b_8891262.html

The journalist also points out that pathogen causation is not proven and that Alzheimer’s patients might be prone to infection but that some studies suggest the infections came first. She also says that the majority of folks suggesting the ‘pathogen hypothesis’ do not feel the infections work alone but rather can cause a domino effect that over time can accumulate causing AD.

And lastly, if beta-amyloid causes AD then removing these plaques should get rid of symptoms, but when 145 beta-amyloid-reducing drugs were tested, not one slowed progression of the disease.

Once again, proving a science cabal exists, Moir recounts how at a Korean conference, attendees were asked to raised hands if they thought infections played a part in AD and a majority of hands went up.

“Ten years ago, it would have been four guys in a corner, all huddled together, not talking to anyone else,” Moir says.

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/01/02/fake-science/

Isn’t that sad?