Meditation Appears to Produce Enduring Changes in Emotional Processing in the Brain

A new study has found that participating in an 8-week meditation training program can have measurable effects on how the brain functions even when someone is not actively meditating. In their report in the November issue of Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, investigators at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Boston University (BU), and several other research centers also found differences in those effects based on the specific type of meditation practiced.

"The two different types of meditation training our study participants completed yielded some differences in the response of the amygdala -- a part of the brain known for decades to be important for emotion -- to images with emotional content," says Gaëlle Desbordes, PhD, a research fellow at the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging at MGH and at the BU Center for Computational Neuroscience and Neural Technology, corresponding author of the report. "This is the first time that meditation training has been shown to affect emotional processing in the brain outside of a meditative state."

Several previous studies have supported the hypothesis that meditation training improves practitioners' emotional regulation. While neuroimaging studies have found that meditation training appeared to decrease activation of the amygdala -- a structure at the base of the brain that is known to have a role in processing memory and emotion -- those changes were only observed while study participants were meditating. The current study was designed to test the hypothesis that meditation training could also produce a generalized reduction in amygdala response to emotional stimuli, measurable by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Participants had enrolled in a larger investigation into the effects of two forms of meditation, based at Emory University in Atlanta. Healthy adults with no experience meditating participated in 8-week courses in either mindful attention meditation -- the most commonly studied form that focuses on developing attention and awareness of breathing, thoughts and emotions -- and compassion meditation, a less-studied form that includes methods designed to develop loving kindness and compassion for oneself and for others. A control group participated in an 8-week health education course.

Within three weeks before beginning and three weeks after completing the training, 12 participants from each group traveled to Boston for fMRI brain imaging at the Martinos Center's state-of-the-art imaging facilities. Brain scans were performed as the volunteers viewed a series of 216 different images -- 108 per session -- of people in situations with either positive, negative or neutral emotional content. Meditation was not mentioned in pre-imaging instructions to participants, and investigators confirmed afterwards that the volunteers had not meditated while in the scanner. Participants also completed assessments of symptoms of depression and anxiety before and after the training programs.

In the mindful attention group, the after-training brain scans showed a decrease in activation in the right amygdala in response to all images, supporting the hypothesis that meditation can improve emotional stability and response to stress. In the compassion meditation group, right amygdala activity also decreased in response to positive or neutral images. But among those who reported practicing compassion meditation most frequently outside of the training sessions, right amygdala activity tended to increase in response to negative images -- all of which depicted some form of human suffering. No significant changes were seen in the control group or in the left amygdala of any study participants.

"We think these two forms of meditation cultivate different aspects of mind," Desbordes explains. "Since compassion meditation is designed to enhance compassionate feelings, it makes sense that it could increase amygdala response to seeing people suffer. Increased amygdala activation was also correlated with decreased depression scores in the compassion meditation group, which suggests that having more compassion towards others may also be beneficial for oneself. Overall, these results are consistent with the overarching hypothesis that meditation may result in enduring, beneficial changes in brain function, especially in the area of emotional processing."

Eric Schwartz, PhD, of the BU Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Center for Computational Neuroscience and Neural Technology, is senior author of the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience report. Additional co-authors are Lobsang T. Negi, PhD, and Thaddeus Pace, PhD, Emory University; Alan Wallace, PhD, Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies; and Charles Raison, MD, University of Arizona College of Medicine. The study was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, including an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant to Boston University.

Gaëlle Desbordes, Lobsang T. Negi, Thaddeus W. W. Pace, B. Alan Wallace, Charles L. Raison, Eric L. Schwartz. Effects of mindful-attention and compassion meditation training on amygdala response to emotional stimuli in an ordinary, non-meditative state. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2012

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121112150339.htm

Neanderthals Self-Medicated?

A cave in northern Spain that previously yielded evidence of Neanderthals as brain-eating cannibals now suggests the prehistoric humans ate their greens and used herbal remedies.

A new study of skeletal remains from El Sidrón cave site in Asturias (map) detected chemical and food traces on the teeth of five Neanderthals. (Take a Neanderthal quiz in National Geographic magazine.)

Tartar samples from the 50,000-year-old teeth revealed microscopic plant starch granules, which had cracks indicating the plants had been roasted first. Further chemical analysis revealed compounds associated with wood smoke.

Starch and carbohydrates in the tartar show the Neanderthals ate a variety of plants, but there were surprisingly few traces of meat-associated proteins or lipids.

Not only did our extinct cousins prefer grilling vegetables to steaks, they were also dosing themselves with medicinal plants, according to a team led by Karen Hardy, an archaeologist at the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies in Barcelona.

The cave dwellers' diet was found to include yarrow and chamomile, both bitter-tasting plants with little nutritional value. Earlier research by the same team had shown that the Neanderthals in El Sidrón had a gene for tasting bitter substances.

"We know that Neanderthals would find these plants bitter, so it is likely these plants must have been selected for reasons other than taste"—probably medication, Hardy said in a statement.

"It fits in well with the behavioral pattern of self-medication by today's higher primates, and indeed many other animals."

(See "Chimps Eat Dirt, Leaves to Fend Off Malaria.")

It's impossible to know what cures Neanderthals sought from the plants, but people use them today to treat a variety of ailments, she noted.

"Chamomile is very well known as a herbal treatment for nerves and stress, and for digestive disorders," while yarrow is used to treat colds and fevers and works as an antiseptic, she said.

Veggie-Loving Neanderthals

The research adds to recent findings that question the Neanderthals' reputation as inflexible carnivores—previously cited as a reason why modern humans, able to draw on a wider variety of food sources, gained a competitive edge over their heavy-browed cousins.

"Our results do add to the growing picture of plant consumption by Neanderthals," said Hardy, who worked with archaeological chemistStephen Buckley of the University of York.

(See "Neanderthals Ate Their Veggies, Tooth Study Shows.")

And she sees no reason to view this Spanish population as a veggie-loving anomaly.

"I do not see why they should be unusual," Hardy said.

"It will be very interesting, though, to conduct this type of study on Neanderthal populations living in different environments."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120720-neanderthals-herbs-humans-medicine-science/

Supplements not on an FDA approved list could disappear

Supplements not on an FDA “approved” list could disappear.

The NDI guidance interprets the rules for new supplements. After your protests got the first draft scrubbed, work on a second draft continues at FDA. A second meeting between FDA and “stakeholders”—mostly trade groups, with ANH-USA once again the only grassroots consumer group present—took place on October 16.

As we reported after the first meeting, the New Dietary Ingredients guidelines still pose a major threat. This is because FDA is trying to reaffirm the policies of the original guidance, particularly the elements that could remove huge numbers of supplements from the market.

Much of the meeting was dedicated to a discussion about how to create a list of “grandfathered” dietary ingredients (supplements). These supplements would have been sold prior to 1994, the year the underlying law, DSHEA, was passed and therefore would not require jumping through further regulatory hoops before being sold. The question was: what evidence would be required to show that a supplement was sold prior to 1994?

FDA says such a list won’t necessarily be final, and won’t be the only supplements allowed to be sold. But we could easily conceive of that being the outcome if left to the agency. We are also concerned that FDA wants to set the evidentiary bar so high that many supplements which were definitely sold prior to 1994 still won’t pass.

According to FDA, any of the following is sufficient to prove that a supplement was marketed before DSHEA was passed: an invoice, a bill of lading, a product label, or a catalog, provided it clearly indicates a date. But many companies don’t have this kind of documentation from eighteen years ago! For example, pyridoxamine (a B6 vitamin) was marketed before DSHEA, but no one in the industry has been able to provide the documentation required by FDA. Even signed affidavits from industry members have been inadequate in FDA’s eyes.

What if a dietary ingredient is, and has always been, in our food? Doesn’t that mean it was “marketed” before 1994? Not to the FDA. The supplement must have been separated out of the food, and sold for its own properties. Human beings have consumed the antioxidant resveratrol for millennia because it’s found naturally in the skin of grapes. But no one in the industry has yet been able to prove that resveratrol was marketed as a separate ingredient or was found on the label of a food or supplement before 1994.

The problem is a little different with P5P. P5P is the only form of vitamin B6 that the body can use directly. It’s produced naturally in the body: all other forms of B6, whether in food or in supplement form, must be converted to P5P first; without it we die. Most of us don’t get enough B6 in our diet, and some people lack the enzymes needed to convert pyridoxine into P5P.

There shouldn’t be any problem grandfathering P5P since there is no question that B6 was sold prior to 1994. But the FDA says no. If the form of B6 sold earlier was not P5P, if the label didn’t say P5P, they won’t grandfather it.

As we have previously reported, a drug company, Medicure Pharma, wants sole use of P5P and has petitioned the FDA to ban its use as a supplement entirely. Although Medicure has yet to market a drug made from P5P, it has already petitioned FDA to have the supplement banned now.

This idea of taking what we cannot live without and turning it into a controlled prescription drug is shocking. But this could only be the beginning. We are concerned this new “approved” list of supplements will be used by drug companies to knock out competition from other supplements effortlessly.

For a supplement to get on the grandfathered list, the FDA says it cannot be “chemically altered”—and the definition of that term was another bone of contention at the meeting. Many grandfathered ingredients, because they now go through different (and often safer) manufacturing processes than they did before 1994, could therefore be considered “chemically altered” by the FDA. So either supplement producers would have to revert to pre-DSHEA manufacturing processes, or else they would no longer be on the grandfathered list! Consumers would get the short end of the stick either way, but the FDA doesn’t care.

As we pointed out when the first draft of the guidance was issued, FDA’s stance is so extreme that a ripe apple would be considered “chemically altered” when compared to an unripe apple! Logic would suggest that the production process should not matter if the end ingredient is basically the same.

In all of this, FDA seems to be targeting new, improved, or technologically advanced supplements, presumably because they see them as potential competitors to drugs. If they keep cutting-edge supplements off the market, drug companies can also make big money by selling the older version of the supplement, as Pfizer does with its Centrum multivitamin that we discussed last week.

Here’s another example of why this question of a grandfathered list is so important. Vitamin E is a powerful antioxidant that prevents cell structure damage, boosts the immune system, reduces cholesterol, lowers the risk of developing cancer, thins the blood, helps skin repair itself, and even strengthens your hair. And everyone “knows” that vitamin E was sold prior to 1994. It currently appears on a trade association’s list of grandfathered dietary ingredients. However, this has not yet been vetted or approved by the FDA. If the proper documentation can’t be found, either vitamin E would be off the grandfathered list, or else some forms of E might be listed and others might not. This is important because different forms of the vitamin work very differently. Vitamin E in the form of mixed tocopherols may prevent breast cancer, among other benefits, whereas the common alpha-tocopherol form may not. Some researchers and integrative doctors actually warn against taking alpha-tocopherol alone because it may interfere with the body’s use of the other forms of vitamin E.

Unfortunately, this information has been buried by the media. All of the research on vitamin E that the media has been reporting—and badmouthing—has used alpha-tocopherols instead of mixed tocopherols, as Dr. Jonathan Wright points out in the current issue of his Nutrition and Healing newsletter.

We are pleased that the FDA is including stakeholders at the NDI guidance redraft meetings. We are pleased that consumers were included by inviting us. But there are reasons to be very watchful. We don’t want a grandfathered list that will not only exclude many supplements actually sold before 1994, but will also make it easier to reject all newer supplements. With vigilance and your help, we won’t let that happen.

http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-grandfathered-ingredients-rule-and-vitamin-e/

Low cholesterol associated with enhanced risk of death in heart failure patients

  Lest you think this is just partisan propaganda, these are real, recorded votes in the House of Representatives [3].

The Republicans seem to have it in for women and not just against health insurance covering reproductive health care, Planned Parenthood’s other services, or privacy for the medical records of victims of rape and incest. The Republicans en-mass voted to repeal protections to stop health insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of gender.

On other consumer protections – forget it. The Republicans are indentured to the worst of their corporate paymasters. The Republicans either do nothing to help or actually push for rollbacks. No minimum wage to give 30 million Americans the same pay workers got back in 1968, adjusted for inflation. The Chamber of Commerce says no. So Boehner and Cantor curtsy.

In a frenzy, House Republicans have voted to repeal the “Affordable Care Act” 33 times. Be assured their hatred for Obamacare is not because they want full Medicare for all. It is because they want to voucherize Medicare and hand patients over to the avaricious Aetnas and the Pfizers who return the favor with campaign cash.

House Republicans rage against any attempts to stop the shipping or outsourcing of American jobs to communist and fascist regimes abroad that know how to keep their workers in powerless penury. Why? Because that is what the non-patriotic U.S. global corporations want them to do. Anything Big Oil wants, it gets– retain big subsidies, tax breaks, weaken pollution restrictions, lease everywhere, and even give relief to oil companies when they damaged the Gulf Coast.

House Republicans have a conflict of interest between their families’ lungs and their corporatized minds. Resolution? Vote to weaken the Clean Air Act, drinking water safety standards, cut funding for these cancer preventing, health protecting programs while pushing for more military weapons and bloated Pentagon budgets. The Republicans went so far as to vote for polluters over children, pregnant women and people who live in nursing homes and assisted-living facilities. These Republicans voted to block the EPA mercury and air toxics standards that the agency estimated would save 12,000 lives every year and prevent more than one million asthma attacks.

With unseemly fervor, House Republicans want to generally weaken the National Labor Relations Board and labor laws. But when it comes to protecting the lowest tax rates and loopholes for the very wealthy, they are Horatio at the Bridge. When the top two percent engage in financial fraud (credit cards, mortgages and student loans, abuse of seniors) or urge privatizing social security, the Boehners and the Cantors are block-tackling anyone in the House who begs to push law and order for the Rich and Corporate or keep “the security” in social security.

For the poor, let them eat less. Hunger in America is real. But not real enough for the Republicans to stop wanting to cut these food programs. While Republicans campaign against Obama for not doing anything to lower gasoline prices, they are voting against measures to regulate oil and gas speculators who drive up gas prices, a fact recognized by the CEO of Exxon a few years ago in a Senate hearing.

The above are just a sample of what the House Republicans passed or blocked in the House. Even worse are what many of them wanted to summarily abolish, such as the EPA, OSHA, and the IRS. The meat-axe Republicans have trouble telling the public how the important functions performed by these agencies would be handled. The Republicans dismiss the work of health and safety agencies as junk science (e.g. regarding climate change). Fortunately, the Senate has rejected most of their madness.

How do such people get elected? Is it just money and smooth slogans? Is it a lack of competition in rigged districts? Is it a winner-take-all, two-party duopoly where more than half the voters sit out the election? Is it shocking disengagement by the cynical or hopeless public, shorn of any rigorous expectation levels?

For the time being, go to the Democratic House Caucus website [3]. Ponder the fate of our Republic. Ask why we have almost unconditionally given up our enormous sovereign power of “We the People” to those out-of-control, raging members of Congress.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/low-cholesterol-associated-with-enhanced-risk-of-death-in-heart-failure-patients/

Serious birth complications rising in the U.S

Severe complications from childbirth are rare in the U.S., but they are becoming more common, a new government study finds.

Between 1998 and 2009, the rate of serious complications like heart attack, stroke, severe bleeding and kidney failure during or after childbirth roughly doubled among U.S. women, according to researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In 2008-2009, there were 129 cases of severe complications for every 10,000 women who delivered in a hospital. That was up 75 percent from a decade earlier.

At the same time, complications during women's post-delivery hospital stay also rose: There were 29 cases for every 10,000 women - up 114 percent from 10 years before.

Serious complications and deaths from childbirth are still uncommon in the U.S. Over four million women give birth each year, and this study found about 590,000 cases of severe complications over 11 years.

"We don't want to send the message that pregnant women should be afraid," said Dr. William M. Callaghan of the CDC, who led the study.

With this type of study, which used discharge records from U.S. hospitals, it's not possible to tell why childbirth complications rose, Callaghan said.

But it's "well-documented" from other research that more women are giving birth at older ages, are obese, or have certain health conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes, he added.

There are also more young women with serious conditions, like congenital heart defects, who are surviving and having children.

"The characteristics of the pregnant population are changing," Callaghan said, so it's not unexpected that rates of certain complications might rise.

Another recent CDC study found that minority women are at particular risk. Between 1993 and 2006, minority women accounted for 41 percent of all births nationwide, but 62 percent of all pregnancy-related deaths.

Black women were at greatest risk. For every 100,000 babies born to African Americans, 32 to 35 mothers died. That was roughly four times the rate among white mothers.

Heart problems were the most common cause of death. And in this latest study, Callaghan's team found that one childbirth complication - the need for cardiac surgery during or after delivery - showed a "dramatic" rise over time.

It was still rare: In 2008-2009, just under 5 per 10,000 women needed a heart procedure during delivery, for example. But that was up 75 percent from a decade before.

Callaghan said the bottom line for women is to be as healthy as possible before pregnancy. Losing weight if you are obese, and getting high blood pressure and diabetes under control, are some ways to do that.

If you have existing medical conditions, like heart disease, it's even more important to see your doctor before pregnancy, Callaghan said.

"Not all complications can be avoided, of course," he said. "But the best outcomes happen when a woman is as healthy as possible going into pregnancy."

He added that some women with pre-existing medical conditions may need to see an obstetrician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies.

"Most women do fine," however, Callaghan said. "And even most women with significant disease before pregnancy do fine."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/23/us-birth-complications-idUSBRE89M1AL20121023

Reasons to End Our War on Germs Before it Kills Us All

Western civilization guards its health as if constantly menaced by a giant public toilet handle. That's because we know how to read statistics, like we carry between two to 10 million bacteria from fingertip to elbow, or that germs can stay alive for up to three hours. As the Food and Drink Federation of Great Britain cheerfully points out [3], there can be as many germs under your ring as there are people in Europe.

We are a culture of germaphobes, spending [4] as much as $930 million on antibacterial chemicals and $2.4 billion on soap at the end of the last decade. But is it possible that our war against germs is doing more harm than good?

Antibacterial or antimicrobial products do have a place in our society: in hospitals, on the surgeon’s table, in your nurse’s hands. But stationed in our handbags, waiting to be daily lathered up at the first touch of a subway pole? Not so much. Studies show that some antimicrobial products not only contain potential hormonal disruptors, but they are enabling superbugs to breed beyond our ability to smite them. Here are five reasons you should trade in some of your antibacterial sprays, gels and liquid soaps for just plain old soap and water.

1. Triclosan. For more than 30 years, triclosan has been used in hand soaps, cosmetics, deodorants, toothpastes, clothes, detergents, and more. The Centers for Disease Control reports [5] that triclosan is found in the urine of nearly 75 percent of people tested. Otherstudies [6] have shown it to be in the breast milk and blood samples of the general population. It is marketed [6] under other names such as Microban, Irgasan DP-300, Lexol 300, Biofresh, Ster-Zac, Cloxifenolum, and more.

So now that we know we’re likely hosting triclosan like Times Square hosts tourists, let’s look at its safety. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently does not list triclosan as a hazardous ingredient; however, in light of several recent studies showing adverse effects in animal testing, the FDA is currently reviewing this position. Triclosan is shown [7] to alter hormone regulation in frogs, resulting in altered behavior and possible infertility. A recent study in 2012 revealed [8] that triclosan is “linked with muscle function impairments in humans and mice, as well as slowing the swimming of fish.”

Liquid soap manufacturers, which as the New York Times points out [9], represent half of the $750 million market for liquid hand soaps in the United States, continue to claim triclosan has no harmful effects on humans. But while companies such as Dial [10] keep using the questionable antimicrobial, others, such as Colgate-Palmolive, have started to replace tricolsan with different ingredients.

2. Natural selection. So imagine you’re slathering your hands with antibacterial soap. While most of the bacteria on your skin reacts like it's Armageddon, a few remain. These hardy bacteria—now resistant to your soap—adapt and mutate to successfully ward off your next sudsy assault on their existence. Microbiologists refer [11] to this process as “selection,” and several studies show [12] that it’s causing some bacteria to resist antibiotics.  

Then you get a bacterial infection, and your doctor prescribes antibiotics. As Discovery Health points out, “some antibacterial agents go after the same physiology of bacteria that prescription antibiotics do.” This means that if the bacteria making you sick already has a resistance to antibacterial agents because of previous exposure, it’s not going to work as well or at all. Think of it this way—do you really want superbugs playing out War of the Worlds in your body?

3. They are harming our ecosystem. The Natural Resources Defense Council shares [7] that triclosan and its close cousin triclocarban “are found in high concentrations in sediments and sewage sludge where they can persist for decades.” Further, triclosan is one of the most frequently detected chemicals found in U.S. streams. The hormonal disruptions it enables are thought to be damaging the reproductive health of certain fish. Meanwhile, some experts [13] are concerned about the additional exposure to humans eating contaminated fish.

4. They are making us sick. It turns out our war on germs is having an ironic side effect—in some cases, it’s actually making us sick. Because our bodies no longer need to fight germs like they did in bubonic times, studies show that some children are developing allergies. Apparently, allowing our bodies to rarely detect germs has made them more sensitive to everyday substances, like pollen and dust.

Marc McMorris is a pediatric allergist at the University of Michigan Health System. As he told [14] LiveScience, “As a result, the immune system has shifted away from fighting infection to developing more allergic tendencies.” Studies show that allergy rates in Americans from 1988 to 1994 are two to five times higher that rates from 1976 to 1980.  

5. Soap and water works just as well. Why do colds, viruses and plagues spread in the first place? As much as we’d like to blame[15] it on Gwyneth Paltrow shaking hands with a Chinese chef and then cheating on Matt Damon (as took place in the film Contagion), it’s largely because we of the so-called civilized world don’t like to wash our hands. In fact, as many as half of all men and a quarter of women fail to wash their hands [3] after they have been to the bathroom.

As it turns out, what we learned in kindergarten is true—the CDC urges [16] us to wash our hands with soap and water to prevent the spread of germs. But we do not need said soap to contain antibacterial agents. The FDA shares [17] that it has no evidence that antibacterial soaps containing triclosan provide any extra health benefits.

So What Should We Use?

Luckily, there are many products out there which do not have worrisome studies attached to their ingredients lists. Plain soap and water are your best friends in the fight against colds and flu. Start reading ingredient labels, weeding out anything with triclosan and triclocarban. If you need to wash your hands and nary a sink or soap dish is to be found, use antibacterial gels that contain alcohol as the primary germ-fighting ingredient. According to the CDC [16], they should work well if they contain at least 60% alcohol and your hands are not visibly dirty.

And if you really want to go natural (and have some extra dollars to spend), consider a line of clean (so to speak) soaps. Tracy Perkins, creator of the handmade soap company Strawberry Hedgehog [18], uses essential oils in her line. As she tells AlterNet, “essential oils derived directly from plants are powerfully antibacterial on their own, and used in appropriate dilution they are much gentler than the harsh antibacterial detergents available on the market.” 

So the next time you find yourself reaching for your antibacterial spray, ask yourself “to triclosan or not to triclosan?” And then wash the heck out of your hands with simple soap and water.

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/5-reasons-end-our-war-germs-it-kills-us-all

Fracking Poisoning Families at Alarming Rate: Report

Residents living near gas fracking sites suffer an increasingly high rate of health problems now linked to pollutants used in the gas extraction process, according to a new report released Thursday.

The study, conducted by Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project, pulled from a survey of 108 Pennsylvania residents in 14 counties, and a series of air and water tests. The results showed close to 70 percent of participants reported an increase in throat irritation and roughly 80 percent suffered from sinus problems after natural gas extraction companies moved to their areas. The symptoms intensify the closer the residents are to the fracking sites.

"We use water for nothing other than flushing the commode," said Janet McIntyre referring to the now toxic levels of water on her land, which neighbors a fracking site. McIntyre said her entire family, including their pets, suffered from a wide array of health problems including projectile vomiting and skin rashes, indicative of other families' symptoms in the areas surveyed. Other symptoms include sinus, respiratory, fatigue, and mood problems.

"Twenty-two households reported that pets and livestock began to have symptoms (such as seizures or losing hair) or suddenly fell ill and died after gas development began nearby,” the report finds.

After taking water and air samples, Earthworks detected chemicals that have been linked to oil and gas operations and also directly connected to many of the symptoms reported in the survey on the resident's properties. This study showed a higher concentration of ethylbenzene and xylene, volatile compounds found in petroleum hydrocarbons, at the households as compared to control sites.

“For too long, the oil and gas industry and state regulators have dismissed community members’ health complaints as ‘false’ or ‘anecdotal’,” said Nadia Steinzor, the project’s lead author. “With this research, they cannot credibly ignore communities any longer.”

According to a separate report released earlier this month, EPA regulators are having trouble keeping up with the "rapid pace" of shale oil and gas development, due to a lack in resources, staff, data and a number of legal loopholes.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/19-2

Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, court rules.

A landmark court case has ruled there is a link between using a mobile phone and brain tumours, paving the way for a flood of legal actions.

By Richard Alleyne

The Telegraph UK, 19 Oct 2012

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9619514/Mobile-phones-can-cause-brain-tumours-court-rules..html

Innocente Marcolini, 60, an Italian businessman, fell ill after using a handset at work for up to six hours every day for 12 years.

Now Italy's Supreme Court in Rome has blamed his phone saying there is a "causal link" between his illness and phone use, the Sun has reported.

Mr Marcolini said: "This is significant for very many people. I wanted this problem to become public because many people still do not know the risks.

"I was on the phone, usually the mobile, for at least five or six hours every day at work.

"I wanted it recognised that there was a link between my illness and the use of mobile and cordless phones.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Mobile phone users face ‘brain tumour pandemic’ 

   15 Jun 2010

• Mobile phones cause 'five-fold increase in brain cancer risk' 

   30 Jun 2011

• Mobile phones and wi-fi 'do not cause cancer' 

   18 Sep 2012

"Parents need to know their children are at risk of this illness."

British scientists have claimed there is insufficient evidence to prove any link to mobiles.

But the respected oncologist and professor of environmental mutagenesis Angelo Gino Levis gave evidence for Mr Marcolini — along with neurosurgeon Dr Giuseppe Grasso.

They said electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile and cordless phones can damage cells, making tumours more likely.

Prof Levis told The Sun: "The court decision is extremely important. It finally officially recognises the link.

"It'll open not a road but a motorway to legal actions by victims. We're considering a class action."

Mr Marcolini's tumour was discovered in the trigeminal nerve — close to where the phone touched his head.

It is non-cancerous but threatened to kill him as it spread to the carotid artery, the major vessel carrying blood to his brain.

His face was left paralysed and he takes daily morphine for pain.

Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch, which campaigns for more research on mobile use, said: "This is an interesting case and proves the need for more studies.

"People should limit mobile and cordless use until we know more."

The World Health Organisation urged limits on mobile use last year, calling them a Class B carcinogen.

But a spokesman for Britain's Health Protection Agency said: "The scientific consensus is that mobile phones do not cause cancer."

International radiation biology expert Michael Repacholi said: "Studies show no evidence of cancer. But if you are worried, use a headset, hands-free or loudspeaker."

Media lawyer Mark Stephens said the verdict could "open the floodgates" — even though there is no direct obligation on British courts to follow the Italians' lead.

He said: "It is possible people will begin legal action here, but I think the chances of success are less. I think they'll join any class action in Italy."

Michelle Roberts - Typhoid vaccine failure warning

Typhoid fever is uncommon in England, with an estimated 350 cases occurring each year

More than 700,000 people recently immunised against typhoid may not have full protection because of a dud vaccine that has now been recalled, say experts.

Manufacturer Sanofi Pasteur MSD has recalled 88% of its stock - 16 batches - of Typhim Vi vaccine because tests found some samples were too weak.

Anyone immunised with the vaccine since January 2011 could be affected.

Officials stress that the vaccine was safe and posed no health threat.

But it could mean as many as 729,606 people who potentially received the affected vaccine are not fully immunised against typhoid, according to the body that regulates drugs in the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Anyone who has been to a typhoid region of the world and has a fever, abdominal pain and vomiting should contact a healthcare professional”

End Quote A spokeswoman from the MHRA

Read More:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19873171

GM Wheat May Damage Human Genetics Permanently

The Australian government, in the form of its science research arm, is joining Agribusiness profiteering by designing a GM wheat that could kill people who eat it & be inherited by their children.

by Heidi Stevenson

We have not yet seen the worst damage that genetic engineering may do. Australia's governmental agency, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), is developing a wheat species that is engineered to turn off genes permanently.

Professor Jack Heinemann at the University of Canterbury's Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety  has studied the wheat's potential. Digital Journal reports that he says¹:

What we found is that the molecules created in this wheat, intended to silence wheat genes, can match human genes, and through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes. The findings are absolutely assured. There is no doubt that these matches exist.

The implications are clarified by Professor Judy Carman of Flinders University:

If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat—well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five.

Silencing the equivalent gene in humans that is silenced in this genetically modified wheat holds the potential of killing people. But it gets worse. Silenced genes are permanently silenced and can be passed down the generations.

Silenced Genes

The wheat genes involved are called SEI. The specific sequences of those genes are being termed classified confidential information. CSIRO, which is part of the Australian government, is developing a commercial application, but refuses to divulge the information that's most significant to the people of Australia! The government is apparently more interested in profits than in the people's safety.

Dr. Heinemann was asked to provide his opinion of CSIRO's genetic engineering on wheat plants and produced the report "Evaluation of risks from creation of novel RNA molecules in genetically engineered wheat plants and recommendations for risk assessment"². He discusses the nature of the genetic entities that are being played with and explains how they can affect human health.

RNA is similar to DNA, which is the molecule that carries genetic inheritance. There are several types of RNA, but a particular group called double stranded RNA (dsRNA) is of concern. Heinemann writes:

dsRNAs are remarkably stable in the environment. Insects and worms that feed on plants that make dsRNA can take in the dsRNA through their digestive system, where it remains intact.

He delineates research documenting that once dsRNA is taken through an animal's skin or digestive tract, it can wreak havoc. It circulates throughout the body and has been known to be amplified or cause a secondary reaction that:

... leads to more and different dsRNAs ("secondary" dsRNAs) with unpredictable targets.

Heinemann points out that a silencing effect on a gene, once initiated, can be inherited. Though it's known to happen, little is yet known about the process.

dsRNA is known to be a tough molecule. It survives readily, even through digestion. Worse, though, it's known to pass into the body through digestion. Then, as Dr. Heinemann writes:

Once taken up, the dsRNA can circulate throughout the body and alter gene expression in  the animal.

That is, gene expression can be altered as the result of eating a food with dsRNA altered by genetic engineering. Judy Carman, of Flinders University, who also provided an expert opinion, wrote in "Expert Scientific Opinion on CSIRO GM Wheat Varieties"³:

In fact, employees from the world's largest GM company, Monsanto, have written at least one paper about how to commercially exploit the fact that dsRNA survives digestion in insects, in their attempts to try to control insect pests of plants. That is, the plant is genetically engineered to produce a dsRNA, which insects ingest when they eat the plant; the dsRNA survives digestion in the insect and then silences genes in the insect to stunt its growth and kill it.

There can be no question that dsRNA can be transferred to humans by eating.

The Risks

Heinemann makes these three points:

1. Plant-derived microRNA [a type of dsRNA] precursors have been detected in human blood, thus demonstrating that they can survive the human digestive tract and be passed into the body through it. He emphasizes: "There is strong evidence that siRNAs [a type of dsRNA and the one of particular concern here] produced in the wheat will transfer to humans through food."
2. dsRNA that have been shown to transmit to humans through food have also been shown to survive cooking! He points out: "There is strong evidence that siRNAs produced in the wheat will remain in a form that can transmit to humans even when the wheat has been cooked or processed for use in food."
3. Plant-derived dsRNA was able to silence a human gene in cultured cells. He wrote: "There is strong evidence that once transmitted, siRNA produced in wheat would have the biological capacity to cause an effect."

Judy Carman states succintly:

As a result, there is a chain of evidence to show that there is a risk that the dsRNA from this GM wheat may survive digestion, enter the tissues of people that eat it and silence a gene or genes in those people. There is also evidence that any genetic changes so produced may be stable and become established in many cells of an organ. Furthermore, there a possibility that these changes may be passed-on to future generations.

The wheat genes involved are called SEI. They have extensive similarities with the human GBE gene, which controls glycogen storage. If the GBE gene is defective, it leads to certain death from liver cirrhosis at a very young age. Another defect in the gene results in adult polyglucosan body disease (APBD) in adults over age 40, causing cognitive impairment, pyramidal quadriplegia, peripheral neuropathy, and neurogenic bladder.

Dr. Heinemann investigated and found that sections of the two genes, SEI and GBE, are a perfect match. Because CSIRO is saying that the specific SEI sequence that's modified is classified confidential information, we cannot know for certain what harm might be done to humans. However, it's obvious that shutting down a section of the GBE gene holds the potential of death—yet, Heinemann showed that it's not only possible, it's likely!

Lack of Adequate Risk Assessment

Judy Carman focused more on the lack of appropriate or adequate risk assessment for the modified wheat. She is very concerned that no consideration was given to checking for:

• Whether there are adverse effects on animals or humans who eat it.
• Whether there is any uptake of dsRNA in animals or humans who eat it.
• Silencing of genes in animals or people.
• Silencing of the branching enzyme.
• Toxic effects, such as damage to the liver, kidneys, or any other organ.
• Increase in reproductive problems.
• Whether dsRNA changes are inherited.
• Increased risk of cancer.
• Increased risk of wheat allergies

She is very concerned that the oversight agency, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), and CSIRO "appear not to be looking for any adverse effects in people, but intend to go directly to look for any benefits." She concludes:

It appears that neither organisation has appreciated or properly safety assessed this wheat in the light of the fact that the dsRNA produced in these GM wheat varieties may survive digestion, enter the tissues of the body and silence a gene or genes in the recipient. It also appears that neither organisation has "joined the dots" to appreciate that, of all the genes that could be silenced, the most likely one is a similar branching enzyme in animals and people and that silencing it could seriously impair or even kill those that eat it.

The Australian government appears to have become nothing more than another Agribusiness corporate entity. They're using the people's money to fund a massive profit-making venture in genetic engineering without any consideration for the potential harm that may be done to either the environment or the welfare of the people. Not only are they willing to risk mass deaths from products they're hoping to put on the market, they also seem to have no concern for whether they might be doing permanent damage to generations that follow.

---

Resources

1. Scientists: New GMO wheat may 'silence' vital human genes
2. Evaluation of risks from creation of novel RNA molecules in genetically engineered wheat plants and recommendations for risk assessment
3. Expert Scientific Opinion on CSIRO GM Wheat Varieties
4. CSIRO SEI/SEII SHRNA GM WHEAT FOR PRODUCING GRAINS WITH A LOWER 
   CONTENT OF BRANCHED STARCH MOLECULES, Appraisal of statements by Prof Jack Heinemann and Assoc Prof Judy Carman
5. The GMOs, nature and effect of the genetic modification
6. GBE Antibodies

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/gm-wheat-may-damage-human-genetics-permanently