Poison
now browsing by category
Arsenic in Water: A Hidden Heart Health Threat
Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/11/12/arsenic-in-drinking-water.aspx
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola November 12, 2024
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- Long-term exposure to arsenic in drinking water, even at levels below regulatory limits, may increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases, particularly ischemic heart disease, as highlighted by the California Teachers Study
- Arsenic exposure leads to oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction, which are key contributors to heart disease, emphasizing the need for stricter regulatory standards
- The mechanisms by which arsenic causes damage include mitochondrial impairment and enzyme disruption, such as binding to sulfhydryl groups and substituting for phosphorus in biological reactions
- Strategies to limit arsenic exposure are important for health, including testing drinking water, making dietary adjustments and using cooking methods that reduce arsenic content in foods like rice
- Recognizing the diverse impacts of arsenic on health is essential for developing effective public health strategies to mitigate its risks
Could the arsenic in your drinking water be silently increasing your risk of heart disease? According to a recent study published in Environmental Health Perspectives,1 this alarming possibility is more than just a hypothesis — it’s a reality that warrants your attention.
Cardiovascular disease remains one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide.2 While much focus has been placed on factors like smoking, arsenic exposure from drinking water is emerging as a significant, yet underrecognized, contributor. This toxic element, naturally occurring in the Earth’s crust, has found its way into water supplies in various regions, including parts of the U.S., posing a hidden threat to heart health.
You might assume that existing regulatory limits on arsenic in water are sufficient to protect your health. However, the California Teachers Study challenges this assumption by revealing that even arsenic levels below the federal maximum contaminant level of 10 micrograms per liter (µg/L) elevate the risk of ischemic heart disease.3
This research highlights a critical gap in our current safety standards, suggesting what is deemed “safe” may not be protective against long-term cardiovascular risks.
California Teachers Study Links Arsenic in Water to Increased Heart Disease Risk
Long-term exposure to arsenic in drinking water significantly raises the risk of ischemic heart disease among women, according to a recent study. This research, conducted within the California Teachers Study cohort, tracked nearly 100,000 participants over more than two decades.
The findings revealed that women exposed to arsenic levels between 5 to 10 micrograms per liter had an 18% to 20% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease compared to those with exposure below 1 microgram per liter.4 As mentioned, even arsenic concentrations below the federal maximum contaminant level of 10 micrograms per liter were linked to increased heart disease risk.
The study also explored how arsenic affects your body. It was found that arsenic exposure leads to oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction. Oxidative stress occurs when there’s an imbalance between free radicals and antioxidants in your body, causing damage to cells. Endothelial dysfunction refers to the impaired function of the inner lining of blood vessels, which is important for maintaining vascular health.
These two factors play significant roles in the development of atherosclerosis, a condition where arteries become clogged with fatty substances, and high blood pressure, both of which are major contributors to heart disease.
Moreover, the research underscores the necessity for stricter regulatory standards on arsenic levels in drinking water. The current limits are not sufficient to prevent long-term cardiovascular risks, especially considering that a large portion of the population may be exposed to arsenic levels that pose a health threat. This study highlights the urgent need to reassess and lower the acceptable arsenic concentrations in public water supplies to better safeguard public health.
By identifying arsenic as a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease, this study paves the way for new policies and interventions aimed at reducing arsenic exposure in communities. Ensuring cleaner water supplies and raising awareness about the sources and effects of arsenic will help mitigate the risks associated with this toxic element, ultimately protecting and improving heart health on a broader scale.5
Arsenic’s Mechanisms of Damage are Diverse and Impactful
Another study found that arsenic disrupts numerous essential enzymes in your body by binding to sulfhydryl groups. These groups are involved in the proper functioning of many enzymes that facilitate vital biochemical reactions. When arsenic attaches to these groups, it alters the enzyme’s structure and impairs its ability to work correctly, leading to a breakdown in various metabolic processes.6
Arsenic also substitutes for phosphorus in many biological reactions. Phosphorus is an essential component of ATP, DNA and other molecules that are vital for cellular energy and replication.7 By mimicking phosphorus, arsenic interferes with these critical functions, causing widespread cellular dysfunction. This substitution damages the integrity of DNA and disrupts energy production, which leads to cell death and contributes to the development of chronic diseases.8
Mitochondrial function is another area severely affected by arsenic exposure. Mitochondria, often referred to as the powerhouses of the cell, are necessary for generating the energy required for cellular functions.9 Arsenic impairs mitochondrial function by inhibiting key enzymes involved in the energy production cycle. This inhibition leads to decreased energy availability for cells, forcing them to work inefficiently and increasing the production of harmful byproducts like free radicals.10
In addition to disrupting enzymes and mitochondrial function, arsenic-induced oxidative stress damages proteins, lipids and DNA, which results in inflammation and contributes to the onset of various degenerative diseases, including heart disease, cancer and arthritis.11
These diverse mechanisms highlight the extensive impact arsenic has on your body. By interfering with fundamental biological processes, arsenic not only disrupts individual cellular functions but also contributes to the development of a wide range of chronic health conditions.12
Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now
Strategies to Limit Arsenic Exposure
Regular testing of drinking water helps ensure arsenic levels do not exceed safety standards. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration advises testing in the spring or early summer to detect potential contamination early and recommends using appropriate filtration methods to remove arsenic from water sources.13
In addition to monitoring water quality, adopting a varied and nutritious diet plays a significant role in minimizing arsenic exposure.14 Consuming a wide range of healthy foods not only provides essential nutrients but also reduces the accumulation of contaminants that may be present in specific food items. This balanced approach to eating supports overall health while mitigating the risks associated with arsenic exposure.
Moreover, specific strategies further lower arsenic intake from certain foods. For example, cooking rice by using excess water and draining it reduces arsenic content by up to 60%, although this method may also decrease some nutritional value.15 Parents should be mindful of infants’ diets, ensuring that rice cereal is not the sole grain source to prevent excessive arsenic exposure in young children.
By implementing these strategies, individuals can significantly reduce their arsenic exposure, thereby lowering the associated health risks.16 Regular testing, dietary diversity and mindful cooking practices are key steps in maintaining a safe and healthy environment free from harmful levels of arsenic.
Solutions to Reduce Arsenic in Drinking Water
To safeguard your heart health from arsenic exposure in drinking water, consider the following steps:
1. Install a reverse osmosis system — Reverse osmosis (RO) systems are highly effective at removing arsenic from your water supply. These systems use a semipermeable membrane to filter out arsenic and other contaminants, ensuring that the water you consume is clean and safe. By investing in an RO system for your home, you significantly reduce your exposure to harmful arsenic levels.
2. Regularly test your water quality — Use a home water testing kit or have your water analyzed by a certified laboratory to keep track of arsenic concentrations. Regular testing allows you to take timely action if arsenic levels rise, ensuring that your water remains safe for consumption.
3. Choose safe drinking water alternatives — If arsenic levels in your local water supply remain high despite filtration efforts, consider alternative sources for drinking and cooking water. Water from a trusted local source, such as a natural spring, may provide a safer option.
Protect Your Heart by Managing Arsenic Exposure
Arsenic in drinking water poses a significant risk to heart health, even at levels below current safety standards. Studies have shown that long-term exposure to arsenic increases the likelihood of developing ischemic heart disease by disrupting essential bodily functions.
Remember, arsenic primarily enters drinking water and certain foods, such as rice, which absorb arsenic more easily than other crops. Installing a reverse osmosis system can also effectively remove arsenic from your water. Regular water quality testing and choosing safe drinking water alternatives further minimize the risk of arsenic-related heart disease.
Taking proactive steps, such as maintaining a varied diet and using proper water filtration methods, empowers you to safeguard your health. By addressing arsenic exposure, you’ll significantly reduce your risk of heart disease and enhance your overall well-being.
- 1, 3, 4, 5 Environmental Health Perspectives October 23, 2024, Volume 132, Issue 10
- 2 BMJ 2011;342:d2431
- 6, 7, 8, 12 Oncotarget. 2017 Jan 18;8(14):23905-23926
- 9, 10, 11 World J Transl Med. Aug 12, 2014; 3(2): 96-111
- 13, 14, 15, 16 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, What You Can Do to Limit Exposure to Arsenic
GM Children: Film Unveils ‘Monstrous’ Child Deformities
Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/08/genetically-modified-children.aspx
The original Mercola article may not remain on the original site, but I will endeavor to keep it on this site as long as I deem it to be appropriate.
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked July 08, 2023
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- “Genetically Modified Children” film exposes how Philip Morris and Monsanto have exploited impoverished farmers since 1966, when the Argentinian government authorized the use of GMO crops to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller
- Tobacco farmers in Argentina are forced to use a multitude of dangerous agrochemicals in order to grow a crop that’s certifiable by U.S. tobacco company Philip Morris
- An increasing number of children are being born with severe birth defects and deformities in Argentina
- The film interviews Dr. Hugo Gomez Demaio and Dr. Mario Barrera, who are dedicated to highlighting and treating the link between agrochemicals and birth defects
- The film features anti-agrochemical activist Sofia Gatica, who is renowned for her work in tracking abnormal rates of cancer, kidney disease and other ailments linked to aerial spraying of glyphosate on GMO soy crops
Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published August 25, 2018.
The shocking film “Genetically Modified Children” unveils the horrors of decades of chemical-intensive agricultural practices in Argentina, where the majority of crops are genetically modified (GM) and routinely doused in dangerous agrochemicals, and the chokehold big tobacco companies such as Philip Morris and chemical and seed giants have on poverty-stricken farmers desperate to earn a living.
The film, produced by Juliette Igier and Stephanie Lebrun, shows the devastating health effects the region’s agricultural sector is having on children,1 an increasing number of whom are being born with monstrous physical deformities. Some of the children’s cases are so severe that, without a medical intervention, will result in death before the age of 5.
The film begins with the crew traveling from North Argentina in the Province of Misiones to the Brazilian frontier, an agricultural region that was one of the nation’s first to begin growing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the mid-’90s.
Featured in the film is Ricardo Rivero, regional head of the local electricity company. He learned that the reason families cannot pay their bills is because often they are taking care of a sick or handicapped child, and receiving no assistance from the Argentinian government.
The film shows them visiting the humble home of a tobacco farmer where they meet Lucas Texeira, a 5-year-old boy with an incurable genetic skin disease. The family believes it was caused by the mother’s exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller early on in her pregnancy. No one told her it was toxic, she says.
The genetic mutation that caused her son’s condition left him with no pores in his skin, which means he doesn’t perspire. The heat from his body stays inside, causing him severe and painful itching that leads to frequent crying spells. Mr. Texeira expresses his sadness over Lucas’ condition, as well as his fears that he could have another child in the future with a similar deformity.
Agrochemicals Lead to Rise in Birth Defects, Deformities
Like many families in rural Argentina, the Texeiras have grown GM tobacco on their land for years, using a number of various agrochemicals required to produce a crop that’s certifiable by Philip Morris, an American multinational cigarette and tobacco manufacturing company (a division of Altria Company since 2003).
Philip Morris provides farmers GM burley tobacco seeds for the manufacturer of light tobacco cigarettes. Each year, Argentinian farmers are forced to use more than 100 different chemicals in order to grow the perfect-looking tobacco crop — that is, if they hope to make any money.
The Texeira family is no exception. For more than a decade, they have treated their tobacco plants with glyphosate and other agrochemicals — and without any protection. However, after seeing a rise in birth defects among the community’s children, including in their own child, they began to fear for their safety and moved off their farmland, away from the toxic chemicals.
“It’s not easy, but you have to live the life you have,” said Mr. Texeira. “Thank God, Lucas’ problem is just his skin. He’s healthy and can eat. He eats almost anything.” Lucas is a miracle, says the film’s narrator. In this region, there’s a disproportionate number of children born with deformities.
300 Million Liters of Glyphosate Are Applied Each Year
GM crops first entered the country through the Misiones Province of Argentina after the government authorized their use from 1996 onward, a decision based solely on studies conducted by Monsanto, and with no contradicting research.
For more than two decades the land was sprayed with glyphosate and other agrochemicals, contaminating the region’s soil and water. By 2013, more than 24 million hectares2 (59.3 million acres) of GM crops were grown in Argentina, including soy, maize, cotton and tobacco.
Mounting scientific evidence connecting the rise in miscarriages, birth defects and cancer to GMOs and agrochemicals did not dissuade the Argentinian government from subsidizing GM crops. Perhaps, that decision is due in part to the 35% in taxes Argentina receives from GMO soy exports.
Despite the dangers, no one warned tobacco farmers of the risks. In fact, the opposite was true. Farmers in the Misiones province were inundated with various forms of marketing, including commercials from chemical companies insisting agrochemicals were the key to prosperity.
Television advertisements touted the benefits of Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, including its ability to kill everything except for GMOs. The marketing worked. Today, more than 300 million liters (79.2 million gallons) of glyphosate are dumped each year onto more than 28 million hectares (69.1 million acres) of land in Argentina.3
Download this Article Before it Disappears
Total Desertion
The film shows the crew visiting the home of another sick child. Lucas Krauss was born with congenital microcephaly. He suffers from epilepsy, delayed motor and mental development, multiple muscular atrophy and numerous other related pathologies.
The first doctor the family consulted said their son’s condition was due to a lack of oxygen; however, the neurologist had a different opinion. At first, he agreed and said it was due to a lack of oxygen; however, when they pressed him further he admitted that a lack of oxygen was not the only cause, but he refused to say what he believed the true cause was of Lucas’ condition. They wouldn’t even run medical tests, said the boy’s mother.
The family understands that Lucas’ condition, as well as many others in the community, is likely tied to the agrochemicals used to farm tobacco. But the family can’t quit the trade because it’s the main source of income in their area, and most importantly, it’s the only sector that provides social security for its workers. Without the financial aid of the tobacco industry, the father fears he will be unable to care for his special needs son.
“The whole family feels discriminated against because it seems that society doesn’t want to see their reality,” said Rivero. “His parents don’t ask anything for themselves. They’re not asking for anything out of the ordinary. It’s just that the responsible parties — the state is the responsible one for these children’s problems — and it’s not taking responsibility and there’s total desertion.”
In 2010, things started to move. Lawyers from the U.S. traveled to Misiones to visit the families of severely handicapped children. One of their stops included the home of 17-year-old William Nuñez, who was born severely handicapped.
He can’t walk or talk, and has to be fed through a feeding tube in his stomach. The family has received no aid from the government for the medical treatment William needs. Instead, they have learned on their own how to care for their disabled child.
Ignorance and Exploitation
The Nuñez family says they were visited by American lawyers four or five times in a sixth-month period, as well as a handful of doctors from the U.S. and Mexico. The Nuñez family were told that they were not at fault for using agrochemicals, and that they could be awarded up to $3 million for William’s case.
The attorneys asked the family to sign a contract with a commitment not to discuss their case with anyone. Up until now, they have respected the contract. But they haven’t heard from the lawyers in over four years and don’t want to keep quiet any longer.
Next the film introduces a man named Emilio, the son of a tobacco farmer who has created an independent labor union to contend with the two tobacco companies in the region, which often take the side of Big Tobacco.
Tobacco farming is a tough job, says Emilio, adding that people suffer a lot because they work all year long, and the financial incentive is not great. Emilio describes the tobacco industry in San Jacinto, Argentina as a slavery system, one encapsulated by ignorance and exploitation.
The film crew visits a warehouse where all of the region’s tobacco farmers come to sell their product. The farmers’ tobacco crop is transported here at the end of the growing cycle, which includes the sowing, treating, harvesting, drying and sorting. This is the only place they can sell their crop, says Emilio. The film crew is there on the day the farmers learn the value of their year’s work.
“It’s when you get happy or get angry, because if it went well, you know that you’ll be able to buy what you need or what you dreamed about when you were working for it. So, you’ll find out here,” says Emilio.
The crop must meet strict standards set by the cooperative, which inspects each bale in the blink of an eye. They examine the texture, breadth and the color of the leaves. Tobacco in its natural state would never pass the test — only the use of agrochemicals can ensure a good result.
Big Tobacco Dominates the Industry
The film interviews one of the farmers about his feelings on his earnings. He says he received 11,575 Mexican pesos (or about $610 U.S. dollars) for 975 kilos of tobacco. That’s about $3.50 per pound of tobacco. It’s a low price, he says. “To me, it seems like a total rip-off. It’s unfair.”
The farmers say their income was especially low this year as result of the expensive chemical inputs they are forced to use. The chemical companies charge them in U.S. dollars, but they pay in pesos, says one frustrated farmer, adding that he has no way out of the business because he can’t risk losing his social security.
Big Tobacco dominates the industry in San Jacinto, Argentina. It dominates to such an extent that companies like Philip Morris have completely changed tobacco farming. Today, farmers are enslaved by the companies that produce and sell the agrochemicals required to grow a crop that can be certified by Philip Morris.
The film crew manages to capture footage inside a warehouse where farmers go to buy pesticides. Tall stacks of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides line the walls — all of it handled with bare hands.
Among the insecticides is a chemical manufactured by Bayer called Confidor, which contains the insecticides clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and methiocarb,4 all of which, except for methiocarb, belong to a class of bee-killing pesticides known as neonicotinoids, which were banned on all crops grown outdoors in Europe.5
Poison Is a Recurrent Word in Argentina
Before leaving the region, the film crew makes one last stop to visit 50-year-old Raul Gomez, who has created a list of all the chemicals he has had to handle over the past two decades, most of which are now banned due to their toxicity. Gomez is concerned about having to keep the chemicals on his property, most of which are too dangerous for him to dispose of.
He says he was told someone would come and take them, but no one has, so he built shacks to store them. Gomez says he believes he was definitely a guinea pig in that he was forced to work with such dangerous poisons without any knowledge of the implication to his or his family’s health.
He and other farmers say the question isn’t if they will become ill, but when. Everyone in this region has poison running through their bodies, he says, and while he doesn’t feel it now, in a few years he may. “That’s how it is. The consequences come later.”
Next the film crew travels to Posadas, the capital of the Province of Misiones, where doctors are considering a terrifying hypothesis: Exposure to agrochemicals may actually modify the human genome.
They meet 73-year-old Dr. Hugo Gomez Demaio, head of the neurosurgery service at the Pediatric Hospital of Posadas, and Dr. Mario Barrera, neurosurgeon at the Medical School of Nordeste. (Both institutions are in Buenos Aries). The doctors are dedicated to highlighting and treating the link between glyphosate exposure and other agrochemicals and birth defects caused by DNA damage.
Over the years, Demaio has witnessed an increasing number of children suffering from malformations. “These are no more empirical observations, but an inescapable statistic that he has drawn up with his successor, Dr. Barrera,” says the film’s narrator. One hundred percent of these children with severe deformities will die before the age of 5 if they do not have a medical intervention, says Demaio.
The film shows two little girls suffering from hydrocephalus, a condition linked to an abnormality affecting the X chromosome. Hydrocephalus is the buildup of fluids deep within the brain. The excess fluids put pressure on the brain causing damage to brain tissue. Symptoms of hydrocephalus include an unusually large head, a rapid increase in the size of the head and a bulging spot on top.6
‘They Have the Money and We Have the Illness’
The mothers of the two little girls with hydrocephalus say they were exposed to agrochemicals, but indirectly. While agrochemicals were not stored in their home, they say they were exposed to them through the contaminated clothing of their male family members who farm tobacco. The women would wash the men’s clothing in a nearby creek, which also served as their source of drinking water.
Demaio says exposure to agrochemicals may cause genetic damage that’s transmitted to an individual’s offspring, causing a modification of genetic heritage. Barrera explains:
“Even if the entire local environment is contaminated, it does not mean that all children will become sick. But when the father is exposed to herbicides, they are absorbed into the body and alter his DNA. He then passes that genetic mutation on to his children.”
In the beginning, Demaio and Barrera worked alone, but soon other doctors who had made similar observations joined them in their work. In 2009, they published results showing miscarriages and congenital defects among newborns were six times higher than normal, and cancers in small children were five times more common than elsewhere.7
The doctors say the agrochemicals pass from mother to child and cause damage within the first 28 days of pregnancy, resulting in monstrous deformities that are difficult to repair. The most common expression is myelomeningocele,8 a birth defect of the backbone and spinal cord. It’s the most severe lesion of the central nervous system that one can still live with.
Demaio says the Argentinian government refuses to listen to him, so he has dedicated his time to educating young people at universities, many of whom have grown up in tobacco farming families and around pesticides, but know very little about them.
They were told agrochemicals are safe, and necessary, to feed people. “They have the money and we have the illness,” says Demaio, referring to the chemical companies and the profits they’ve earned on unsuspecting farmers forced in a chemical-reliant trade.
A David Versus Goliath Battle
The film crew visits the lawyers in their office in Bueno Aires, the ones who never followed up after visiting the families four years ago. They were not very knowledgeable about the case, so the film crew visits the New York office for which the attorneys had worked on the file years ago.
They speak with Steven J. Phillips of the Phillips & Paolicelli LLP office, which specializes in defending children from toxic products. Phillips says he believes he has a strong case against Monsanto and Philip Morris. Monsanto designed and sold glyphosate to people in South America under conditions in which it knew there would be pregnant women mixing the chemicals.
Monsanto knew it was extremely dangerous but sold the stuff anyway and made a ton of money, said Phillips. Philip Morris insisted the farmers grow the tobacco in a specific way that included the use of glyphosate, and if they didn’t, Philip Morris wouldn’t buy the tobacco. So, the farmers had no choice.
“If you force someone to behave in a way that’s dangerous, mislead them about it, and then their children get hurt, then that’s a reason to bring them to court,” said Phillips. While the attorneys recognize the battle as being a David versus Goliath type, they also know that the truth is on their side.
The truth often prevails, as is the case in the guilty verdict in the landmark Monsanto trial. A jury in San Francisco, California, awarded plaintiff Dewayne Johnson $289 million in damages after determining his cancer was caused by exposure Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller.9 Organic Consumers Association (OCA) reports:
“The jury’s decision was unanimous: Monsanto was guilty of manufacturing and selling a product that caused Johnson’s cancer. What’s more, the company knew its product could cause cancer — and yet it intentionally hid that fact from Johnson and the public.”
The case is eerily similar to that of the farmers and their families who are suffering from exposure to agrochemicals, including glyphosate, in Argentina. And the tobacco farmers aren’t alone in their battle. There’s another region in Argentina that has become the symbol in the fight against agrochemicals.
Cordoba, the Realm of the Transgenic Soybean
The film crew travels to Cordoba, Argentina’s second most important city, and the last stop in their investigation. Cordoba is characterized for its planting of transgenic soy and where glyphosate is applied from above through aerial spraying.
The town is littered with anti-Monsanto graffiti. In 2012, a historical verdict10 was delivered in Cordoba when a farmer and the owner of a crop-dusting plane were sentenced to three years in prison for illegal aerial spraying. They had been spraying glyphosate within 2,500 meters of a densely, populated area.
The film introduces anti-agrochemical activist Sofia Gatica, who cofounded Mothers of Ituzaingo,11 a group of moms working to stop the indiscriminate agrochemical use that has poisoned the region’s children. Gatica lost her own infant daughter to kidney malformation, and her son lost his ability to walk following exposure to a local agrochemical fumigation.
Gatica is recognized for her work in tracking the abnormal rates of cancer, kidney disease and other conditions in areas close to where glyphosate was applied to GMO soy crops. The Mothers of Ituzaingo had blood tests done on their kids and found that 3 in 4 children living in their community had agrochemicals in their blood, including pesticides, chromium, lead and arsenic.
Hoping to get help from the government, the group presented the results to Argentinian officials, who told them they would only improve the water if the families signed away their right to sue for the water contamination.
Gatica has repeatedly been threatened and physically assaulted for her efforts in fighting the chemical companies. On one occasion in 2014, she was threatened with a gun and told by a man that if she didn’t stop protesting against Monsanto, he would “blow her brains out.”
Making Progress
Despite the uphill battle, Mothers of Ituzaingo and other activists have made good progress. As the OCA reports:12
“In 2008, Argentina’s president ordered the minister of health to investigate the impact of pesticide use in Ituzaingó. A study was conducted by the Department of Medicine at Buenos Aires University and the results corroborated with the research the mothers had done linking pesticide exposure to the many health issues experienced by people in the community.
Gatica also succeeded in getting a municipal ordinance passed that prohibited aerial spraying in Ituzaingó at distances of less than 2,500 meters from residences.
And, in a huge victory, a 2010 Supreme Court ruling banned agrochemical spraying near populated areas and reversed the burden of proof — now the government and soy producers have to prove the chemicals they are using are safe, instead of residents having to prove that the spraying is making them sick.”
Despite the victories, people living in Argentina and other regions saturated with GMOs and agrochemicals have a long, hard road ahead. In 2021, according to a systematic review of the scientific literature published between 2006 and 2018, it was estimated that 385 million cases of unintentional, acute pesticide poisoning (UAPP) occur annually worldwide.13 But agrochemicals are worth $40 billion per year, and are projected to reach $308 billion in value by the year 2025.14
Will the world’s multinational chemical companies ever sacrifice profits to protect public health? Only time will tell; however, the solution likely lies in the legal system, which is making strides around the world to protect the public from harmful agrochemicals.
- 1 CBS News October 22, 2013
- 2 GM Watch February 18, 2015
- 3 Buenos Aires Times January 13, 2018
- 4 Change.org July 9, 2017
- 5 Nature International Journal of Science April 27, 2018
- 6 Mayo Clinic
- 7 Inter Press Service August 16, 2008
- 8 NIH Stat Pearls. Meningocele
- 9 Organic Consumers Association August 14, 2018
- 10 Bloomberg Law August 23, 2012
- 11 Madres de Ituzaingo blog July 30, 2011
- 12 Organic Consumers Association July 17, 2018
- 13 BMC Public Health. The Global Distribution of Acute Unintentional Pesticide Poisoning: Estimations Based on a Systematic Review. October 27, 2021
- 14 Grand View Research June 2017
Secret Push to Bury Paraquat’s Link to Parkinson’s Disease
Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/14/paraquat-parkinsons.aspx
The original Mercola article may not remain on the original site, but I will endeavor to keep it on this site as long as I deem it to be appropriate.
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked June 14, 2023
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- Paraquat is an herbicide and registered desiccant that has been used on American farms since 1964. A desiccant is a chemical that speeds up the ripening of the crop and dries it out, which facilitates harvesting and allows it to be harvested sooner than were the crop left to dry naturally
- Fifty countries have banned paraquat due to its extreme toxicity and adverse effects on health. A single sip is lethal to a human. A considerable body of evidence also links paraquat to Parkinson’s disease
- As of mid-March 2023, 2,998 lawsuits filed by farmers with Parkinson’s disease had been consolidated in Illinois federal court. The first bellwether trial is scheduled to begin in October 2023. Class actions have also been filed with state courts in California, Florida, Pennsylvania and Washington. The first state court trial is scheduled to begin in September 2023 in California
- The discovery process has unearthed a trove of documents showing Syngenta knew as early as the 1960s that paraquat posed neurological risks and kept the evidence from regulators
- Research shows paraquat becomes exponentially more hazardous in combination with plant lectins, as the lectins help shuttle paraquat into your brain, where it induces the neuronal degeneration seen in Parkinson’s disease. Many of the foods treated with paraquat are high-lectin foods, such as peas, beans and potatoes, so strive to buy organic whenever possible
Paraquat is an herbicide and registered desiccant that has been used on American farms since 1964. A desiccant is a chemical that speeds up the ripening of the crop and dries it out, which facilitates harvesting and allows it to be harvested sooner than were the crop left to dry naturally.
Desiccation is also used to improve profits, as farmers are penalized when the grain contains moisture. The greater the moisture content of the grain at sale, the lower the price they get.
While 50 countries have banned paraquat due to its extreme toxicity and adverse effects on health (a single sip is lethal to a human1), the chemical remains legal in the U.S., provided farmers receive training on its application. Proper application doesn’t ensure its safety, however, as recent lawsuits by thousands of farmers make clear.
Paraquat Linked to Parkinson’s Disease
A considerable body of evidence2 links paraquat to Parkinson’s disease and, as of mid-March 2023, 2,998 lawsuits filed by farmers with Parkinson’s disease had been consolidated in Illinois federal court. The first bellwether trial is scheduled to begin in October 2023.3
The farmers are suing Syngenta, the lead manufacturer, and Chevron, a key distributor, arguing the herbicide caused their disease, and that the manufacturer was aware of this risk and concealed it from the public.
The discovery process has unearthed a trove of documents4 showing Syngenta has indeed known that paraquat poses neurological risks and feared the possibility of lawsuits for decades.
Most of the paraquat lawsuits are taking place in Illinois federal court, but class actions have also been filed with state courts in California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The first state court trial is scheduled to begin in September 2023 in California.5 As reported by the Miller & Zois law firm, which is handling paraquat cases in all 50 U.S. states:6
“Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of the brain that affects primarily the motor system, the part of the central nervous system that controls movement.
The characteristic symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are its ‘primary’ motor symptoms: resting tremor; bradykinesia (slowness in voluntary movement and reflexes); rigidity; and postural instability. There is currently no cure for Parkinson’s disease.
Existing treatments do not slow or stop their progression; such treatments are capable only of temporarily and partially relieving motor symptoms. These treatments also have unwelcome side effects the longer they are used.
Paraquat is a toxic chemical that is a highly effective plant killer. Unfortunately, the same properties that make paraquat toxic to plant cells also make it highly damaging to human nerve cells and create a substantial risk to anyone who uses it.
Oxidative stress is a major factor in — if not the precipitating cause of — the degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons which is the primary pathophysiological cause of Parkinson’s disease.
Paraquat is designed to injure and kill plants by creating oxidative stress, which causes or contributes to causing the degeneration and death of plant cells. Similarly, Paraquat injures and kills animals by creating oxidative stress, which causes the degeneration and death of animal cells.
The causal link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease is well established. Hundreds of animal studies involving various routes of exposure have found that paraquat creates oxidative stress that results in pathophysiology consistent with that seen in human Parkinson’s disease.
Many epidemiological studies have also found an association between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease, including multiple studies finding a two- to five-fold or greater increase in the risk of Parkinson’s disease in populations with occupational exposure to paraquat compared to populations without such exposure.”
Attorneys working on these cases have also highlighted recent research7 linking paraquat exposure to end stage renal disease,8 so it’s possible that the litigation effort against Syngenta might expand even further.
Syngenta Obfuscated the Evidence
In a June 2, 2023, article9 in The Guardian, journalist and author Carey Gillam reviews evidence from the paraquat lawsuits showing Syngenta has known about the chemical’s risk to human health for decades, and went out of its way to bury that evidence.
Some of the research10 out there suggests lifetime exposure to paraquat raises your risk of Parkinson’s by as much as 250% (odds ratio 2.5), primarily through oxidative stress. In the 2020 book, “Ending Parkinson’s Disease: A Prescription for Action,” four leading neurologists also cite paraquat as a causative factor for the condition.11
Not surprisingly, Syngenta relied on the same strategies developed and perfected by the tobacco industry in years past. While independent researchers kept linking paraquat to Parkinson’s disease, Syngenta sowed doubt by maintaining the evidence was “fragmentary” and “inconclusive,” even though it wasn’t.
Indeed, internal documents obtained during the discovery process reveals Syngenta knew that paraquat accumulated in the human brain and could permanently impair the central nervous system.12,13,14 As reported by Gillam:15
“Though it worked to publicize research that supported paraquat safety, Syngenta kept quiet about a series of in-house animal experiments that analyzed paraquat impacts in the brains of mice, according to company records and deposition testimony.
Scientists who study Parkinson’s disease have established that symptoms develop when dopamine-producing neurons in a specific area of the brain called the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc) are lost or otherwise degenerate. Without sufficient dopamine production, the brain is not capable of transmitting signals between cells to control movement and balance.
The Syngenta scientist Louise Marks did a series of mouse studies between 2003 and 2007 that confirmed the same type of brain impacts from paraquat exposure that outside researchers had found. She concluded that paraquat injections in the laboratory mice resulted in a ‘statistically significant’ loss of dopamine levels in the substantia nigra pars compacta.”
Download this Article Before it Disappears
Jeopardizing Human Health for Profit
The company withheld these and other internal research results from regulators and denounced the validity of independent science showing neurological effects.
Worse, when Syngenta met with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials in 2013 to update the agency on its internal research, the company claimed studies showed paraquat, even at high doses, did NOT reduce dopamine-producing neurons, directly contradicting Marks’ findings.16
Similarly, in a follow-up presentation to the EPA in 2017,17 Syngenta claimed that paraquat had “no effect” in the brain and that a “causal relationship between paraquat and Parkinson’s was not supported.”
During a recent deposition, Dana Dixon, lead for product safety operations at Syngenta, was asked point blank if the information presented to the EPA was a lie. Dixon claimed they were “not hiding” Marks’ results, but rather chose to “focus on other studies” that refuted it.18
Syngenta ‘Swat Team’ Beat Down Negative Reports
At one point, Syngenta also worked behind the scenes to keep a highly regarded scientist involved in the study of Parkinson’s off the EPA’s advisory panel, and internal documents show company officials wanted to make sure the effort could not be traced back to them.19
As reported by Gillam, Syngenta also had a special “swat team” tasked with the immediate rebuttal of any new reports of adverse effects:20
“… files reveal an array of tactics, including enlisting a prominent UK scientist and other outside researchers who authored scientific literature that did not disclose any involvement with Syngenta …
[M]isleading regulators about the existence of unfavorable research conducted by its own scientists; and engaging lawyers to review and suggest edits for scientific reports in ways that downplayed worrisome findings.
The files also show that Syngenta created what officials called a ‘Swat team’ to be ready to respond to new independent scientific reports that could interfere with Syngenta’s ‘freedom to sell’ paraquat.
The group, also referred to as ‘Paraquat Communications Management Team,’ was to convene ‘immediately on notification’ of the publication of a new study, ‘triage the situation’ and plan a response, including commissioning a ‘scientific critique.’
A key goal was to ‘create an international scientific consensus against the hypothesis that paraquat is a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease,’ the documents state.”
In internal company documents from 2003, Syngenta officials discussed the need for a “coherent strategy across all disciplines focusing on external influencing, that proactively diffuses the potential threats that we face,” including influencing the future work by external researchers.
They also hired external scientists to write papers in support of paraquat without disclosing their relationship with the company. Ghostwriting scientific studies was also a tactic employed by Monsanto, to hide known dangers associated with its Roundup herbicide.
Lawyers Played Central Role in Obfuscation of Evidence
As detailed by Gillam, corporate defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolff also appears to have played a central role in the obfuscation of evidence. He instructed Syngenta scientists on how to take notes and manage communications to ensure the company would be able to claim attorney-client privilege in the case of litigation.
For example, action notes taken were to be labeled “Work Product Doctrine Material Confidential” and carry an attorney-client privilege statement.21 Wolff also had an active role in editing various scientific statements, reports and presentations to hide or downplay negative internal findings.
For example, a 2009 internal presentation by a company scientist on paraquat and Parkinson’s disease was reviewed by Wolff, who objected to a statement that said a majority of cases were related to environmental causes. Instead, Wolff suggested the presentation state that the “great majority of PD cases are idiopathic or of unknown cause.”
In another case, Wolff recommended removing the written admission that paraquat caused loss of neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta from a scientific slide show, and instead only mention it verbally during the presentation. As reported by Gillam, the heavy involvement of lawyers is also straight out of the tobacco industry’s dirty playbook:22
“The involvement of lawyers with the scientists at Syngenta appears similar to highly criticized practices by the tobacco industry in the 1970s and ’80s that downplayed the dangers of smoking, said Thomas McGarity, former EPA legal adviser and co-author of the 2008 book titled ‘Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research.’
‘It looks like the paraquat maker has adopted nearly every strategy we outlined in our book about bending science,’ McGarity said. ‘Science matters. We have to be able to depend on science,’ he said.
‘When it is perverted, when it is manipulated, then we get bad results. And one result is that pesticides that cause terrible things like Parkinson’s remain on the market.’”
Lectins in Food Shuttle Paraquat Into the Brain
Disturbingly, animal research shows paraquat becomes exponentially more hazardous in combination with plant lectins. The cruel irony here is that paraquat is widely used as an herbicide and desiccant on lectin-rich crops in particular, including wheat, soybeans, potatoes, cereal grains and beans.
Plant lectins help shuttle paraquat into your brain, where it induces the neuronal degeneration seen in Parkinson’s disease.
According to the study23 in question, published in the journal NPJ Parkinson’s Disease in 2018, plant lectins help shuttle paraquat into your brain, where it does the most damage. As reported by the authors:
“Increasing evidence suggests that environmental neurotoxicants or misfolded α-synuclein generated by such neurotoxicants are transported from the gastrointestinal tract to the central nervous system via the vagus nerve, triggering degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc) and causing Parkinson’s disease (PD).
We tested the hypothesis that gastric co-administration of subthreshold doses of lectins and paraquat can recreate the pathology and behavioral manifestations of PD in rats …
These data demonstrate that co-administration of subthreshold doses of paraquat and lectin induces progressive, L-dopa-responsive parkinsonism that is preceded by gastric dysmotility. This novel preclinical model of environmentally triggered PD provides functional support for Braak’s staging hypothesis of idiopathic PD.”
Here again, we see the central role of the substantia nigra pars compacta, the very area of the brain that Syngenta scientist Marks found to be adversely impacted by paraquat. What’s more, the combination of paraquat and lectins could well be the underlying mechanism behind “idiopathic” Parkinson’s, which Wolff wanted listed as the primary “cause.”
Paraquat in Food Supply Puts Your Health at Risk
This also means that farmers aren’t the only ones at risk. Direct exposure is only one way by which paraquat can cause harm. Ingestion through food is the other, and oftentimes, that food is also high in lectins, which multiplies the danger. Reporting on the 2018 findings, Medical News Today wrote:24
“[P]araquat, once in the stomach, causes alpha-synuclein to be misfolded and then helps it travel to the brain. Scientists believe that alpha-synuclein runs along the vagus nerve, which itself runs between the stomach and the brain.
In fact, recent studies have shown that the vagus nerve has a direct connection with the substantia nigra, making it a prime suspect in Parkinson’s disease. This direct link also helps explain why digestive problems often precede the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s by several years.
To investigate, the researchers fed rats small doses of paraquat for 7 days. They also fed them lectins … As expected, they identified Parkinson’s-related changes … As study co-author Prof. Thyagarajan Subramanian explains:
‘We were able to demonstrate that if you have oral paraquat exposure, even at very low levels, and you also consume lectins … then it could potentially trigger the formation of this protein — alpha-synuclein — in the gut. Once it’s formed, it can travel up the vagus nerve and to the part of the brain that triggers the onset of Parkinson’s disease.’
This series of experiments demonstrates how the interplay between two ingested compounds can conspire to create and then transport toxic protein structures from the gut to the brain.”
Take-Home Message
The take-home message here is that foods treated with paraquat may be just as hazardous as direct exposure on a farm. Paraquat is considered one of the “best” drying options for legumes in particular, which are also particularly high in lectins.
As a result, many foods that vegetarians and vegans rely on may pose significant health hazards — and in more ways than one, as lectins are also problematic in and of themselves. In February 2022, I posted an interview with Dr. Steven Gundry, author of “The Plant Paradox,” in which we reviewed the health hazards of lectins.
As explained by Gundry, plant lectins can wreak havoc on your health by attaching to your cell membranes, causing inflammation, damage to your nerves and cell death. Some can also interfere with gene expression and disrupt endocrine function.
So, while lectins can cause severe health problems in and of themselves, by spraying paraquat on lectin-rich crops, those crops are made exponentially more hazardous, as the lectins act as transport vehicles for the toxic herbicide.
You can reduce lectin concentration by pressure cooking, for example, but if you’re starting out with contaminated food, you’re dealing with extra-toxic kinds of lectins. To avoid or at least minimize these hazards, it’s important to buy organic beans, peas, potatoes and other high-lectin foods from a reputable source, ideally a local farmer you can trust.
The other take-home message from all this is that chemical companies are among the least trustworthy sources out there. Like Monsanto before them, Syngenta officials have spent decades hiding the dangers of paraquat, while untold numbers of people got sick, suffered and died.
As noted by Bruce Blumberg, professor of developmental and cell biology at the University of California, Irvine, in response to the revelations about Syngenta’s obfuscation of evidence:25
“It is highly unethical for a company not to reveal data they have that could indicate that their product is more toxic than had been believed. [These companies are] trying to maximize profits and they jeopardize public health, and it shouldn’t be allowed. That is the scandal.”
- 1 EPA Paraquat Risk Message
- 2 NIH February 11, 2011
- 3, 5 Drug Watch April 18, 2023
- 4, 13 The New Lede Paraquat Papers Media Library
- 6, 8 Lawsuit Information Center Paraquat Lawsuit June 1, 2023
- 7 Environmental Health December 12, 2022; 21 Article number 127
- 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22 The Guardian June 2, 2023
- 10 Environmental Health Perspectives June 2011; 119(6): 866-872
- 14 The New Lede Paraquat Papers October 20, 2022
- 17 Paraquat Research Program Update February 6, 2017
- 19, 25 The Guardian October 20, 2022
- 23 NPJ Parkinsons Disease 2018; 4: 30
- 24 Medical News Today December 10, 2018
The Surprising Health Benefits of Methylene Blue
Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/04/17/methylene-blue-health-benefits.aspx
The original Mercola article may not remain on the original site, but I will endeavor to keep it on this site as long as I deem it to be appropriate, and will not be bullied into removing it.
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked April 17, 2022
Sorry, this video no longer available…
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- Methylene blue helps mitochondrial respiration and improves brain energy metabolism. By doing that, it can improve cognitive performance and prevent neurodegeneration
- Methylene blue is the parent molecule for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, off-patent drugs commonly used to treat not only malaria but also COVID-19
- Emergency rooms around the world use it, as it’s the only known antidote for metabolic poisons causing methemoglobinemia, which is when a metabolic poison interferes with the transport of oxygen in hemoglobin
- Methylene blue is a hormetic drug, so low doses have the opposite effect of high doses
- Low doses, 0.5 mg to 1 mg per kilo of bodyweight, are recommended for nonacute, longer-term treatments. Uses include the prevention and treatment of dementia, post-stroke and other brain injuries, cognitive enhancement, and the general optimization of health if you’re already healthy
In this interview, Francisco Gonzalez-Lima, Ph.D., discusses a really powerful strategy to improve your mitochondria, which generate the vast majority of the energy your cells produce from food.
Gonzalez-Lima is an expert on methylene blue, which helps mitochondrial respiration and improves brain energy metabolism. By doing that, it can improve cognitive performance and prevent neurodegeneration.
“With methylene blue, we have been able to show all of those [benefits],” Gonzalez-Lima says. “Our group was the first to map the effects of methylene blue in the brain of humans and show its effects on improving brain metabolism, blood flow and memory function.”
What Is Methylene Blue?
Methylene blue is the parent molecule for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, off-patent drugs commonly used to treat not only malaria but also COVID-19. Best known as a fish tank antiseptic and textile dye for blue jeans, it was actually the first synthetic drug in modern history, developed in 1876. Since then, we’ve discovered it has many really important medicinal benefits.
The first medical application of methylene blue was for malaria. In 1890, Paul Ehrlich, a scientist at the famous Charité Hospital in Berlin, Germany, discovered methylene blue inhibits an enzyme that weakens the malaria parasite.
One of the first antipsychotic medications was also made from methylene blue. Other drugs developed from or with it include antibiotics and antiseptics. In the past, it was commonly used to treat urinary tract infections. It’s also been used as an antiviral agent in blood used for transfusions.
To this day, methylene blue is found in every hospital in the world, as it’s the only known antidote for metabolic poisons (any poison that interferes with oxygen transport or displaces oxygen, either from the blood or from the mitochondria).
For example, if you’re admitted for carbon monoxide poisoning, they’ll give you methylene blue intravenously. Cyanide is another example. The only known antidote for cyanide poisoning is methylene blue. It’s also been speculated that methylene blue might be useful in the treatment of acute lung infections such as SARS-CoV-2.
Importantly, methylene blue is a hormetic drug, which means that low doses have the opposite effect as high doses. For example, it’s primarily used in emergency rooms at the upper dosage limit (3 milligrams to 4 mg per kilo of bodyweight) for methemoglobinemia, which is when a metabolic poison interferes with the transport of oxygen in hemoglobin, by the iron in hemoglobin being oxidized to +3 rather than its normal reduced +2 state.
However, if you take too high a dose, you produce methemoglobinemia. At dosages in between, there’s no effect. Likewise, while low dosages have an antioxidant effect, high doses are pro-oxidative and can kill bacteria and tumor cells.
Methylene Blue, an Antioxidant and Energy Producer
Gonzalez-Lima’s research has primarily focused on low-dose benefits for nonacute purposes over the longer term — such as neuroprotective benefits and cognitive enhancement. While it has several mechanisms of action, a unique feature is that it acts on the level of electrons. He explains:
“Our body uses electrons as part of the electron transport chain that happens inside mitochondria, and these electrons, moved along through the mitochondria, are generated from electron donors that we produce by the foods that we eat.
All the foods that we eat, the only way they contribute to energy is by producing electron donors. They donate these electrons to the electron transport inside the mitochondria. The ultimate electron acceptor in nature is oxygen. That’s why the process of removing electrons from a compound is referred to as oxidation.
In mitochondria, this process is called oxidative phosphorylation. The electron transport is coupled with the phosphorylation of adenosine to eventually produce the adenosine triphosphate molecule (ATP). Methylene blue is an electron cycler. It’s an autooxidizing compound.
So, methylene blue donates its electrons directly to the electron transport chain, it obtains electrons from surrounding compounds, and maintains oxygen consumption and energy production. By doing this, it helps oxygen to be fully reduced into water.
So, it becomes two things that are often not found together. It acts as an antioxidant, because oxygen is neutralized into water by donating electrons to the electron transport, and it produces energy, because when the electron transport pumps are moving along oxidative phosphorylation, you have an increase in ATP formation.
Oftentimes, we have things that improve energy metabolism, but then they lead to oxidative stress. In the case of methylene blue, that’s not the case.
You can increase oxygen consumption rates, increase ATP production for energy metabolism, and at the same time reduce oxidative stress which, of course, will lead to reduction in oxidative damage at the level of mitochondria, then at the level of the other parts of the cells, and eventually membranes of the cells, and reactions that are cascades of this oxidative damage.”
Basically, as an electron cycler, methylene blue acts like a battery, but unlike other compounds that do the same thing, it doesn’t cause damaging oxidation in the process. If anything interferes with oxygenation or cellular respiration, such as cyanide, methylene blue is able to bypass that point of interference through electron cycling, thus allowing mitochondrial respiration, oxygen consumption and energy production to function as it normally would.
Improved Mitochondrial Respiration Improves Health, Cognition
Methylene blue can also be helpful in instances where you have impaired blood flow that prevents the delivery of oxygenated hemoglobin to the tissues. In this case, methylene blue helps counteract the reduced blood flow by optimizing the efficiency of mitochondrial respiration.
Healthy blood flow is particularly important for brain function, and many older people have chronic hypoperfusion that contributes to neurodegeneration and memory problems. These issues, Gonzalez-Lima says, can be prevented by methylene blue.
In summary, inside the electron transport chain in your mitochondria are five complexes, the primary purpose of which is to conduct the electrons generated from food, primarily carbohydrates and fat, in the form of acetyl CoA. Sometimes the electron transport chain gets blocked or impaired, and methylene blue is able to bypass such blockages.
When you’re perfectly healthy, low doses of methylene blue will enhance oxygen consumption, mitochondrial respiration and ATP production above baseline, basically optimizing the whole system. So, it acts as a metabolic enhancer and not just an antidote for metabolic poisons and other inhibitory processes.
The most important complex, Cytochrome c Oxidase, which catalyzes the reaction of oxygen becoming water, is blocked by cyanide. But methylene blue can insert electrons wherever there is a blockage.
What’s more, when you’re perfectly healthy, low doses of methylene blue will enhance oxygen consumption, mitochondrial respiration and ATP production above baseline, basically optimizing the whole system. So, it acts as a metabolic enhancer and not just an antidote for metabolic poisons and other inhibitory processes.
Methylene blue’s action on mitochondrial respiration is also coupled with biochemical upregulation of your oxygen consumption machinery in general, and hemodynamic processes that increase local blood supply to tissues.
And, as detailed by Gonzalez-Lima in the interview, this upregulation remains even after the methylene blue is expelled from your system (primarily through urination unchanged as your body minimally metabolizes it), and over time, it can actually increase the number of mitochondria. In your brain, this will benefit cognition, as your brain is the most energy-dependent organ in your body.
Methylene blue also activates the Nrf2 pathway. Nrf2 is a transcription factor that, when activated, goes into the cell’s nucleus and binds to the antioxidant response element (AREs) in the DNA. It then induces the transcription of further cytoprotective enzymes such as glutathione, superoxide dismutase catalase, glutathione peroxidase, phase II enzymes, heme-1 oxygenase and many others.
Methylene Blue for Brain Health
Perhaps one of the most revolutionary benefits of methylene blue is for the prevention and treatment of dementia, neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, and neural injuries caused by stroke and traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). This is particularly important as the COVID jabs have radically increased strokes. As explained by Gonzalez-Lima:
“Any process where increasing oxygen-based energy production plays a major role, methylene blue will have a role to play. One of the first studies we did that was very impressive [was on] a model in the eye. The reason we used the eye was because the retina in animals is readily accessible so that we can inject into the retina.
Rotenone [a broad-spectrum pesticide and Complex 1 inhibitor] inhibits mitochondrial respiration, subsequently there is atrophy and degeneration of the retinal layer, which is very dramatic. If methylene blue is on board, we can prevent this process because the mitochondrial respiration can continue, so the tissue is not affected.
This was a model called an optic neuropathy due to mitochondrial defects. It’s the most common form of blindness in younger people, so we did this to verify in vivo that [methylene blue] could have this neuroprotective effect. Then we did it in other things like brains. We found a similar phenomenon …
Methylene blue can be protective in ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. We’ve also published a study with a hypoxia. In other words, we reduced the amount of oxygen delivered to the animals, and we could use an fMRI, noninvasively, in the animals to see that we were able to increase the amount of cerebral metabolic rate for oxygen consumption in the presence of methylene blue under hypoxic conditions.
With respect to dementia, by the time you see the tau protein inside neurons, those neurons are metabolically, essentially, dead, so it is too late. By acting on that, you cannot recover the metabolic machinery and the health of the neurons.
So, those neurons are not rescued in any way that is functionally meaningful. Generally speaking, biomarkers are not good therapeutic targets because they may or may not have any causal relationship with the disease.”
In biohacker circles, low-dose methylene blue is used as a nootropic, meaning a compound that helps improve cognitive function. However, while some promote sublingual or buccal application (under your tongue or on the inside of your cheek), the best way is to swallow it, as the acid in your stomach makes it more bioavailable.
Urinary Tract Infections in the Elderly
In my mind, this is one of the most important uses: It is a highly effective agent against urinary tract infections (UTIs). Many elderly are put on antibiotics, which disrupts their microbiome. Methylene blue was used for many decades at a dose of 65 mg per day and was even sold in pharmacies as Urolene Blue.
Since your body doesn’t really metabolize it, it is excreted by your kidneys into your bladder where it reaches very high concentrations over time and becomes a potent oxidant stress that kills virtually any pathogen in the bladder. Plus, it has the additional “side effect” of improving brain health and reducing dementia. In my mind, it is reprehensible medical malpractice not to use methylene blue in UTIs in the elderly. It clearly is the safest and most effective drug of choice.
Contraindications
While methylene blue is very safe, there are some contraindications. One is G6PD deficiency, which is also a contraindication for high-dose ascorbic acid treatments, which could be deadly. Methylene blue is also a mild monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitor, so taking high doses with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant could potentially lead to serotonin syndrome, which is not good. The risk of this, however, is very small. Gonzalez-Lima explains:
“With respect to the warning about the SSRIs, the problem is not methylene blue but the amount of SSRI. The problem was in a specific application of methylene blue where they use it for parathyroid surgery as a stain …
To my knowledge, there’s never been more than five cases, where the patients were anesthetized, and they still had SSRIs [in their system], and they did repeated flushing in the open neck with methylene blue, which exceeded these doses that we have been talking about.
The U.S. FDA reacted with this warning. But this has been reviewed by both surgeons and pharmacologists at the Mayo Clinic, and they wrote a rebuttal paper where they indicate that there is no evidence to suggest oral methylene blue has any interaction with the therapeutic dosing of serotonergic compounds, especially SSRIs, and that this was something that happened under these specific [surgical] conditions.
Canada limits the warning to that particular application, but our FDA went beyond that to any kind of serotonergic drug. I think there is absolutely no evidence for oral methylene blue having interactions in this low-dose range with any SSRIs.
And when they talk about the MAO inhibitor function, it really only works as an MAO inhibitor in the higher concentration of the higher dose range, not the low-dose range. So, the effects of methylene blue as an antidepressant — only to a very limited extent, if you repeat it cumulative treatments — can be due to any kind of a MAO inhibitor role.
In addition, it is due to its metabolic enhancing function, so it antagonizes some of the depression symptoms like the low energy that is experienced with depression. So yes, it is effective to reduce symptoms of depression. Unfortunately, this warning is going to make some physicians scared of using it in combination with SSRIs.”
Dosing Suggestions
As mentioned, methylene blue is a hormetic, so low dosages have the opposite effect of high dosages. While every possible dose response has not been tested, as a general guideline, the benefits Gonzalez-Lima discusses in this interview are based on dosages between 0.5 milligram per kilogram of bodyweight to 4 mg per kg. He admits lower doses may work but he hasn’t tested them.
For an acute treatment, the upper limit is between 3 mg to 4 mg per kg, which is typically the range given as an IV antidote for methemoglobinemia. For nonacute, more long-term treatment, 0.5 mg to 1 mg per kg per day works better. It has a half-life of 12 to 13 hours, so once-a-day dosing is fine. He gives the following example of how methylene blue has been used in the treatment of fears and phobias:
“One of the processes in which a memory formation can be used therapeutically is when you form a memory to extinguish fear. Individuals who have a phobia, you can expose them to the specific situation that is involved in the phobia, and there is a learning called extinction learning that happens that you extinguish your response.
In that situation, we only give methylene blue once after this extinction learning to facilitate the process of memory consolidation. What happens after you go through the learning is the process of consolidation, which requires energy.
So, by facilitating the energy availability during the consolidation phase, which happens over a number of hours, then the next time [you’re exposed to fear-evoking stimuli, you’ve] consolidated that extinction memory more effectively.
We’ve done this also with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), where you use prolonged exposure therapy. In that situation, you can give the methylene blue after different sessions where you see that there is a good extinction learning.
In other words, where people are learning through exposure to reduce their fear levels, that’s when you want to reinforce that therapeutic learning by giving them the methylene blue right after the session.”
For brain health, nootropic effects and the prevention or treatment of dementia, 0.5 mg to 1 mg per kg per day (or when needed) is the dose Gonzalez-Lima recommends and uses.
How to Select a High-Quality Product
Last but not least, selecting the correct product is of crucial importance, in addition to getting the dosing right. There are three basic types of methylene blue: industrial, chemical and pharmaceutical-grade.
The only version you’ll want to use medicinally is pharmaceutical-grade. Do not ingest methylene blue from the pet store that is meant for fish tanks. Industrial-grade methylene blue has lots of impurities, and typically contain only 10% to 25% methylene blue.
Chemical or laboratory grade, which is used for staining purposes on laboratories, has a much higher purity, but it’s still not suitable for medicinal purposes as it typically has heavy metal contaminants like lead, cadmium and arsenic. Over time, the impurities can accumulate in your body, resulting in toxicity.
Pharmaceutical grade is 99%+ pure. This is the kind used when injected intravenously for antidote purposes, or used orally. These products will be marked USP, which stands for United States Pharmacopeia.
According to Gonzalez-Lima, USP is better in terms of purity than the European pharmaceutical grade, which has fewer requirements. Taking the methylene blue with some ascorbic acid (vitamin C) facilitates absorption. You won’t find methylene blue at your local pharmacy but many compounding pharmacies can obtain the pharmaceutical grade.
“Ascorbic acid is a way to facilitate the cycling of methylene blue by promoting its reduction,” he explains. Considering the importance of mitochondrial health, methylene blue appears to be a simple and remarkably effective way to improve your overall health and cognitive function.
The Curious Case of Polio, DDT and Vaccines
Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/02/17/curious-case-of-polio-ddt-and-vaccines.aspx
The original Mercola article may not remain on the original site, but I will endeavor to keep it on this site as long as I deem it to be appropriate, and will not be bullied into removing it.
Analysis by Tessa Lena February 17, 2022
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- We are told that the science on polio is settled — but it may not be the case
- There are scientists who believe that polio-like symptoms could be caused by toxic substances, including pesticides
- At the time of its popularity, DDT was considered not only “safe and effective” but also good for the prevention of polio
- However, the opposite could be true, and DDT could have been a major contributing factor to the “polio epidemic”
This story is about polio, pesticide poisoning as a possible cause of it, and the meaning of science. We are taught that the science on polio has been settled — but is it so? And what if the world is far more complex than we think, and “the science” is not settled at all?
How Do We Know That Something Is Really True?
Being human comes with interesting epistemological challenges, especially at a time like today. We believe that we have a grip on reality — but our history is usually written by the winners — and the winners have a tendency to create their own reality that serves their own interests and convictions — and to propagate that reality with vengeance, insisting that it’s “the truth.”
We are born into a world where our parents and teachers often live off assumptions that are not necessarily true. Naturally, we inherit many of their assumptions — and then end up either carrying the torch and internalizing the manufactured reality — or waking up one day, realizing that we’ve been lied to, and shaking our heads in disbelief as we try to figure out if any of what of we’ve been taught was true. Many of us can relate to that liberating and interesting experience of awakening!
Sometimes, the answers are readily available once we look — and sometimes, we learn that even the breadcrumbs leading to the truth have been carefully swept away over decades or centuries — and so we have to just be humble and patient, use our instincts, our heads and our hearts, do our best, and pray that one day, we may know the truth.
Being human is an exercise in patience and humility, that’s for sure! With that in mind, let’s look at the curious case of polio, DDT and other pesticides, and vaccines.
The Official Story of Polio
We all know the official story of polio: In the early 20th century, a polio epidemic showed up in the affluent West, and it was bad.
Then in 1954, the Salk Institute came up with a great polio vaccine — and hooray! The epidemic was stopped, and the people were no longer getting polio. Problem solved! Vaccines save lives! (Therefore, it is immoral, unthinkable and despicable to ever doubt any vaccines. Any questions? Hope not. Case closed.) But is it really closed, or is there room for debate?
First, let’s examine the official theory about the onset of the polio epidemic that accidentally reveals a “bug” in modern science where the scientists go after fixing one thing — assuming they know better than nature — and then break something else that they have not quite thought through. And so then they “patch” it, and break something else, and so on.
And at each turn, there is usually someone promoting each patch as the greatest thing in the world — while insisting that only a fool would consider unwrapping this “cabbage” of fixes and asking the village yokel question: “Is it possible that we haven’t quite thought things through at the very first turn, and should we maybe finally think it through at long last, and change our approach accordingly?”
So here is the official theory of why polio outbreaks started happening, as told on HistoryOfVaccines.org:
“Polio reached epidemic proportions in the early 1900s in countries with relatively high standards of living, at a time when other diseases such as diphtheria, typhoid, and tuberculosis were declining. Indeed, many scientists think that advances in hygiene paradoxically led to an increased incidence of polio.
The theory is that in the past, infants were exposed to polio, mainly through contaminated water supplies, at a very young age. Infants’ immune systems, aided by maternal antibodies still circulating in their blood, could quickly defeat poliovirus and then develop lasting immunity to it.
However, better sanitary conditions meant that exposure to polio was delayed until later in life, on average, when a child had lost maternal protection and was also more vulnerable to the most severe form of the disease.”
“Move Fast and Break Things”?
While this is only a theory, albeit an official one — and there are other theories we are about to explore — let me dare ask a village yokel question and just leave it out there: Is it possible that nature has things put together pretty well — and that “moving fast and breaking things” is a strategy that tends to backfire?
And while technology can be wonderful when used in balance, is it possible that it’s due to the destruction and poisoning of our environment — and our bodies, and our spiritual foundations, and our nurturing relationships — that we’ve become intoxicated, stressed out, prone to diseases, and dependent on industrial-strength “boosters” to stay in one piece?
Is it possible that if we got to the root of it and stopped poisoning our environment with such fervor, we’d be much healthier? Is it possible, at least as a thought experiment?
Poliomyelitis-like Symptoms Caused by Poisoning
In 1951, Dr. Ralph R. Scobey published an article in Archives of Pediatrics, titled “Is the public health law responsible for the poliomyelitis mystery?” (NIH link).
In the article, Dr. Scobey investigated the evidence showing the contagiousness (or not) of poliomyelitis — and talked about how the research into complex causes of the disease had been decapitated once the “official” opinion was declared. Among other things, he stated the following:
“Unlimited poliomyelitis research ceased abruptly when this disease was legally made a communicable disease. However, definite progress toward a solution to the problem was being made before the public health law made poliomyelitis a germ or virus disease. For example, it was reported by toxicologists and bacteriologists that poliomyelitis could be produced both by organic and inorganic poisons as well as by bacterial toxins.
The relationship of this disease to beriberi was also being given consideration. However, these investigations lost support when a germ or virus came to be considered by some to be the full and final answer to the problem. Funds for poliomyelitis research were from then on designated for the investigation of the infectious theory only.
There are today many investigators who have strong evidence contradicting the infectious theory. Vitamin and mineral deficiency, poison, allergy and other theories are being presented to explain the mystery, but these men, because of the public health law and the limited ability to obtain funds or cooperation from any source cannot work freely on the problem of cause of poliomyelitis.
At one time or another the classical dietary deficiency diseases, beriberi and pellagra, and even sunstroke, have been considered to be communicable infectious diseases. If by law any one, or all of these diseases, had been made a reportable communicable disease, it is obvious that today it would legally be a germ disease and a search for the causative germ might still be in progress.
If beriberi and pellagra had been made reportable communicable diseases, it is conceivable that the epochal studies on vitamins by Funk and subsequent workers could have been ignored in the search for the infectious agent as the etiological factor in these diseases. The progress of medicine would have been seriously retarded.
The time is long past due for careful reappraisal of the poliomyelitis problem and for many capable workers with various opinions regarding the cause of the disease to be given the opportunity to work and the funds with which to work. The implications of the public health law that poliomyelitis is an infectious communicable disease must be reconsidered if progress is to be made.”
The Rockefeller Brand
In his article, Dr. Scobey also mentioned that in 1911, Sachs [Sachs, B.: Am. J. Obst. & Gynec., 63: 703-710, April 1911] indicated that “Our present knowledge of the possible methods of contagion is based almost entirely upon the work done in this city at the Rockefeller Institute” and that children afflicted with the disease were kept in general hospital wards and that not a single one of the other inmates of the wards of the hospital was affected with the disease — which of course contradicted the “viral” theory of polio.
I would also like to point out the fact that the Rockefeller family, in general, has in many ways set the foundations of modern medicine as we know it — by funding specifically the research that they favored, medical school curricula that helped them shape the medical thinking in a way that would help them make the most money, and so on. There is a reason why today’s petrochemicals-based medicine has earned the nickname of “Rockefeller medicine“!
A Disclaimer
To me, the conversation about causes of polio is not about the hardcore debate about the germ theory vs. the terrain theory, it’s about truth in all its complexity. As a human being, I am at peace knowing that I don’t know the “final answer” to that important question. I think that “instant gratification” is not very helpful in science!
Thus, on my end, I am willing to listen to all sides — and keep listening, making my working theories, and changing my mind as many times as I want if good evidence presents itself. I suspect that both theories may explain a part of reality, and that with some wisdom, we can eventually figure out the balance. But in order to figure it out at any point, we need to be talking honestly and openly — and that’s exactly what’s not happening in today’s official scientific discourse!
More on Polio and Poisoning
In 1952, Dr. Scobey published a detailed “meta-analysis” titled, “The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis And Obstructions To Its Investigation.” (NIH link), in which he looked at a broad range of studies and analyses that existed on the topic of polio — and he concluded that there seemed to be a causal relationship between polio outbreaks and consumptions of certain agricultural products, potentially linking polio to pesticide poisoning (for example, lead and arsenic compounds during this pre-DDT period.). Among other things, he noted:
“Paralysis, resulting from poisoning, has probably been known since the time of Hippocrates (460-437 B.C.), Boerhaave, Germany, (1765) stated: “We frequently find persons rendered paralytic by exposing themselves imprudently to quicksilver, dispersed into vapors by the fire, as gilders, chemists, miners, etc., and perhaps there are other poisons, which may produce the same disease, even externally applied.”
In 1824, Cooke, England, stated: “Among the exciting causes of the partial palsies we may reckon the poison of certain mineral substances, particularly of quick silver, arsenic, and lead. The fumes of these metals or the receptance of them in solution into the stomach, have often causes paralysis.””
“DDT Is Good For Me-e-e”
There was a time when DDT was advertised as “safe and effective.” It was supposed to be an extremely effective pesticide, and “the experts” recommended that DDT should be spayed everywhere. One of the “benefits” was preventing polio!
Parents sent their children to run after the trucks spraying DDT and also sprayed DDT everywhere in the house — clearly with the best of intentions, for the health of their kids and the household. Reminds you of anything? Take a look at the Time Magazine issue from June 30, 1947, that ran the following ad:
To my senses, these DDT advertisements were so incredibly hypnotizing because they were selling a fantasy: getting something for nothing. And they were making it sounds “scientific” and “respectable!” Here is this thing, they said, that kills pests like a murderer — but is entirely healthy for humans! Here’s your convenience! Here is your victory march over nature!
And this commercial below called DDT a “threat to insect’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” and “a handful of concentrated death”:
And here is a famous commercial that featured a civilized entomologist “selling” African tribesmen on the greatness of DDT. The skeptical tribesmen were depicted as your familiar village yokels, and one of their ridiculous, unscientific fears described in the video was that DDT could be poisonous.
DDT as a Possible Cause of Polio
There is a theory that DDT poisoning was a major contributor to paralysis diagnosed as polio. The timeline supports it, and it is one of those cases where I have to humbly accept not knowing the definitive answer at this very second.
The Salk vaccine was introduced in 1954. DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972. Polio was officially eradicated in the U.S. in 1979. (The vaccine-derived version of polio (!) is reported to be spreading now in developing countries, and, according to ABC News, “More polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virus.“)
In 2021, Ryan Matters published an excellent, in-depth article called, “mRNA ‘Vaccines,’ Eugenics, and Push for Transhumanism,” in which he looked at the link between polio and DDT, among other things. (I very highly recommend reading his entire article.)
“One crop pesticide in widespread use at the time was DDT, a highly toxic organochlorine that was widely publicized as being “good for you”, but eventually banned in 1972. In 1953, Dr Morton Biskind published a paper in the American Journal of Digestive Diseases pointing out that:
‘McCormick (78), Scobey (100-101), and Goddard (57), in detailed studies, have all pointed out that factors other than infective agents are certainly involved in the etiology of polio, varying from nutritional defects to a variety of poisons which affect the nervous system.’
The danger of toxic pesticides, including DDT, and their disastrous effects on the environment were illustrated by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, Silent Spring.
In more recent times, researchers, Dan Olmstead, co-founder of the Age of Autism, and Mark Blaxil conducted two brilliant investigations into the polio epidemics of the 20th century, reaching a similar conclusion to Scobey and Biskind, namely that the disease was caused by the widespread use of neurotoxic pesticides such as arsenite of soda and DDT.
Although Salk’s vaccine was hailed as a success, the vaccine itself caused many cases of injury and paralysis. And though there does appear to be a convincing correlation between the timing of the vaccine and the reduction in polio cases, as all good scientists know, causation doesn’t equal correlation, especially considering the fact that DDT was phased out, at least in the US, over the same period.”
An Indirect (and Sometimes Direct) Connection to Eugenics
In his article, Ryan Matters also pointed out the fact that “Dr Salk’s polio research was funded by the mother of Cordelia Scaife May, an heiress to the Mellon family banking fortune who idealized Margaret Sanger and later joined the board of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation,” and who supported compulsory sterilization as a means to limit birth rates in developing countries.
Notably, May was also was on the board of the Population Council, an organization founded by John D. Rockefeller III focused on population reduction. The passion of the wealthiest families for population control (under their leadership) and eugenics is not a conspiracy theory. It’s been thoroughly documented even in the mainstream media.
As far as Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood, in her 1932 “Plan for Peace,” she advocated for “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring,” as well as for “giving certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”
By the way, according to Matters, in 1995, the Population Council collaborated with the WHO on their fertility regulating vaccines.
Food for Thought?
So let me just say that as much as vaccines — like any other medicine — can be of great use when done well, with integrity, and without fanaticism — the general topic of vaccines is a little less rosy and a little more murky than any one of us would want to believe in an ideal world. It all depends on who runs and programs and how — and the instinctive, history-based apprehensions of the village yokels are not without cause!
In conclusion, I will say that having the same group of people who have historically been big fans of eugenics now run both the official transition to what they call “the Fourth Industrial Revolution” and the global “health response” doesn’t make me feel relaxed. It’s a little unlikely that they have since repented and are now trying to help us.
I mean, yeah, miracles happen — and I want to believe in the goodness of people — but they still seem to be saying that we’ll be eating cockroach meat for our own good, so I don’t know …
About the Author
To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.
Study Links Tylenol Consumption with Risk Taking
© 15th September 2020 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter
Reproduced from original article:
www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/study-links-tylenol-consumption-risk-taking
Posted on: Tuesday, September 15th 2020 at 9:15 am
Written By: GreenMedInfo Research Group
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2020
The psychological side effects of acetaminophen, aka Tylenol, continue to mount, with research showing users are more likely to make risky decisions. When coupled with past research linking this supposedly safe pain reliever to blunted empathy and emotions, the widespread social effects on society could be immense
Acetaminophen, commonly known by its brand name Tylenol, is one of the most commonly used medications worldwide — and research suggests it could be causing users to engage in more risky behaviors.[1] In the U.S. alone, acetaminophen can be found in more than 600 prescription and over-the-counter drugs and is taken by 23% of — or 52 million — Americans each week.[2]
Many don’t think twice about popping a Tylenol or two to relieve a headache, reduce a fever or ease minor aches and pains or cold and allergy symptoms, but research continues to reveal that this supposedly “safe” pain reliever has more risks than many people realize. Among them are surprising effects on psychological processes such as behavior and perception, including altering willingness to take risks.
Considering that so many people take acetaminophen on a daily basis, even slight changes in risk-taking behaviors “could have important effects on society,” study co-author Baldwin Way, an associate professor of psychology at The Ohio State University, noted in a press release.[3]
Acetaminophen Makes People More Likely to Take Risks
The study involved 189 college students, who took a standard recommended adult dosage of 1,000 milligrams (mg) of acetaminophen or a placebo. They were then asked to rate the riskiness of activities such as bungee jumping, taking a skydiving class, walking home alone at night in an unsafe area and starting a new career in your mid-30s.
Those under the influence of acetaminophen rated these activities as less risky than those who took a placebo. “Acetaminophen seems to make people feel less negative emotion when they consider risky activities — they just don’t feel as scared,” Way said.[4]
In a second part of the study, 545 college students took part in a computer task intended to measure risk-taking behavior. The students had to click a button to inflate a balloon in order to earn money. The bigger the balloon, the more money they would receive, but if the balloon got too big and burst, they would lose their money.
As in the first study, those who took acetaminophen took more risk, pumping the balloons more times and earning more burst balloons, than those who took a placebo. “If you’re risk-averse, you may pump a few times and then decide to cash out because you don’t want the balloon to burst and lose your money,” Way said. “But for those who are on acetaminophen, as the balloon gets bigger, we believe they have less anxiety and less negative emotion about how big the balloon is getting and the possibility of it bursting.”[5]
It’s previously been suggested that those with increased risk-taking on these types of computer-simulated tasks may be more likely to engage in risky behaviors in real-life as well, including using drugs and alcohol, stealing and driving without a seatbelt.[6]
Acetaminophen Blunts Empathy, Positive and Negative Emotions
While potentially increasing risky behaviors, acetaminophen has also been found to blunt both positive and negative emotions. In this way, Way and colleagues revealed in 2015 that over-the-counter acetaminophen provides relief from “pain and pleasures alike,” essentially dampening users’ ability to experience emotionally pleasurable sensations.[7]
The next year, in 2016, Way and colleagues found acetaminophen to be an “empathy killer,”[8] as it reduced users’ empathy in response to others’ pain. Because empathy plays an important role in prosocial and antisocial behaviors, acetaminophen-induced alterations in empathy could be having broad social side effects.[9]
In a 2019 study, Way and colleagues again compared acetaminophen to a “social analgesic,” stating that it blunts “social pain” by reducing the activity of the anterior insula and anterior cingulate brain regions, which are associated with emotional awareness and motivation.[10] Even positive empathy was blunted by the drug.
When people were given 1,000 mg of acetaminophen, then read scenarios about uplifting experiences of other people, the acetaminophen reduced personal pleasure and empathic feelings directed toward others, once again suggesting that the widespread use of acetaminophen could be having a negative effect on prosocial behavior on a societal level.[11]
Acetaminophen has also been found to cause an “inhibition of evaluative processing,”[12] meaning it could alter your ability to make decisions and cause you to react slower or miss errors that you would spot otherwise.[13]
Acetaminophen Is ‘Not Particularly Effective’ or Safe
Acetaminophen’s reputation as a “safe and effective” painkiller is increasingly being called into question, and anyone who uses it should be aware that in addition to psychological effects, acetaminophen is linked to serious physical adverse effects.
GreenMedInfo.com has compiled 236 studies related to acetaminophen’s toxicity, and a European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy editorial concluded, “We have considerable evidence that as well as not being particularly effective, neither is it particularly safe.”[14] Some of the health risks linked to acetaminophen use include:[15]
- Increased mortality
- Cardiovascular adverse events, including heart attack, stroke and fatal coronary artery disease
- Gastrointestinal adverse events, including gastroduodenal ulcers and upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage
- Acute liver failure necessitating transplantation
- Abnormal liver function
What’s more, acetaminophen has been shown to be ineffective for treating back pain, “practically ineffective” for arthritis and “in the least effective quartile of drugs” for treating postoperative pain. It’s also only modestly effective for migraines and tension-type headaches, while no evidence shows that it works to relieve pain related to cancer, menstrual cramps, rheumatoid arthritis or the neck.[16]
Considering its significant risks — including psychological risks that are only beginning to be understood and explored–and questionable effectiveness, it makes sense to try nontoxic, natural pain relief options first — of which there are hundreds to choose from.
References
[1] Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, nsaa108, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa108, https://academic.oup.com/scan/advance-article/doi/10.1093/scan/nsaa108/5897711
[2] Consumer Healthcare Products Association, Acetaminophen https://www.chpa.org/Acetaminophen.aspx
[3] Ohio State News September 8, 2020 https://news.osu.edu/a-pain-reliever-that-alters-perceptions-of-risk/
[4] Ohio State News September 8, 2020 https://news.osu.edu/a-pain-reliever-that-alters-perceptions-of-risk/
[5] Ohio State News September 8, 2020 https://news.osu.edu/a-pain-reliever-that-alters-perceptions-of-risk/
[6] Ohio State News September 8, 2020 https://news.osu.edu/a-pain-reliever-that-alters-perceptions-of-risk/
[7] Psychological Science April 10, 2015 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797615570366
[8] Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016 Sep; 11(9): 1345-1353. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015806/
[9] Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016 Sep; 11(9): 1345-1353. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015806/
[10] Front Psychol. 2019; 10: 538. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6455058/
[11] Front Psychol. 2019; 10: 538. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6455058/
[12] Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Volume 11, Issue 6, June 2016, Pages 899-906, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw023, https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/11/6/899/2224073
[13] Science Alert April 12, 2016 https://www.sciencealert.com/tylenol-may-make-it-harder-for-users-to-spot-errors-says-study
[14] European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy Volume 23, Issue 4 https://ejhp.bmj.com/content/23/4/187
[15] European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy Volume 23, Issue 4 https://ejhp.bmj.com/content/23/4/187
[16] European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy Volume 23, Issue 4 https://ejhp.bmj.com/content/23/4/187
The GMI Research Group (GMIRG) is dedicated to investigating the most important health and environmental issues of the day. Special emphasis will be placed on environmental health. Our focused and deep research will explore the many ways in which the present condition of the human body directly reflects the true state of the ambient environment.
Pediatric Drug Poisoning Is on the Rise
Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/02/26/pediatric-medication-toxicity.aspx
February 26, 2020
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- Between 2001 and 2008, 453,559 children aged 5 or younger were admitted to a health care facility following exposure to a potentially toxic dose of a pharmaceutical drug
- Between 2001 and 2008, unintentional drug poisonings in children aged 5 and younger rose 22%
- Prescription medications were responsible for 71% of serious injuries, with opioids, sedative-hypnotics and cardiovascular drugs topping the list of drugs causing serious harm
- 51.5% of unintentional drug poisoning cases in children involved drugs accessed as a result of having been removed from its original childproof packaging
- In 49.3% of cases involving attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medications and 42.6% of cases involving an opioid, the drug was left out in the open
Aside from causing a wide variety of side effects in those who take medications, the widespread routine use of pharmaceuticals also pose a serious risk to children who get their hands on them.
As of 2016, nearly half of the U.S. population were on at least one medication.1,2 Twenty-four percent used three or more drugs, and 12.6% were on more than five different medications.3 According to the 2016 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 73.9% of all doctor’s visits also involved drug therapy.4
As one would expect, drug use dramatically increases with age. As of 2016, 18% of children under 12 were on prescription medication, compared to 85% of adults over the age of 60. While this trend is troubling enough, with prescription drugs now being a staple in most homes, the number of children suffering accidental poisoning is also on the rise.
Medications Pose Serious Risks to Young Children
According to a 2012 article5,6 in The Journal of Pediatrics that reviewed patient records from the National Poison Data System of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, 453,559 children aged 5 or younger were admitted to a health care facility following exposure to a potentially toxic dose of a pharmaceutical drug between 2001 and 2008.
In that time, drug poisonings rose 22%. Ninety-five percent of cases were due to self-exposure, meaning the children got into the medication and took it themselves, opposed to being given an excessive dose by error.
Forty-three percent of all children admitted to the hospital after accidentally ingesting medication ended up in the intensive care unit, and prescription (opposed to over-the-counter) medications were responsible for 71% of serious injuries, with opioids, sedative-hypnotics and cardiovascular drugs topping the list of drugs causing serious harm. As noted by the authors:7
“Prevention efforts have proved to be inadequate in the face of rising availability of prescription medications, particularly more dangerous medications.”
Keep All Drugs in Childproof Containers
If you’re older, you may recall your parents or grandparents would have a lockable medicine cabinet where drugs were stored. Few people keep their medications in locked cabinets or boxes these days, failing to realize the serious risk they pose to young children.
The hazard is further magnified if you sort your medications into easy-open daily pill organizers rather than keeping each drug in its original childproof container.
A 2020 paper8,9 in The Journal of Pediatrics, which sought to “identify types of containers from which young children accessed solid dose medications during unsupervised medication exposures” found 51.5% involved drugs accessed as a result of having been removed from its original childproof packaging.
Remarkably, in 49.3% of cases involving attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medications and 42.6% of cases involving an opioid, the drug was not in any container at all when accessed. In other words, the child found the pill or pills just laying out in the open. In 30.7% of all cases where a child ingested a drug, the exposure involved a grandparent’s medication. As noted by the authors:
“Efforts to reduce pediatric SDM [solid dose medication] exposures should also address exposures in which adults, rather than children, remove medications from child-resistant packaging.
Packaging/storage innovations designed to encourage adults to keep products within child-resistant packaging and specific educational messages could be targeted based on common exposure circumstances, medication classes, and medication intended recipients.”
Teen Drug Overdoses Are Also on the Rise
While infants are notorious for putting anything and everything in their mouth, making them particularly vulnerable to accidental drug exposures, drug overdoses, particularly those involving opioids and benzodiazepines, are also becoming more prevalent among teens with access to these drugs.
According to a 2019 study10 published in the journal Clinical Toxicology, 296,838 children under the age of 18 were exposed to benzodiazepines between January 2000 and December 2015. Over that time, benzodiazepine exposure in this age group increased by 54%. According to the authors:11
“The severity of medical outcomes also increased, as did the prevalence of co-ingestion of multiple drugs, especially in children ages 12 to <18 years. Nearly half of all reported exposures in 2015 were documented as intentional abuse, misuse, or attempted suicide, reflecting a change from prior years …
Medical providers and caretakers should be cognizant of this growing epidemic to avoid preventable harm to adolescents, young children, and infants.”
A similar trend has been found with opioids. A 2017 study12 looking at prescription opioid exposures among children and adolescents in the U.S. between 2000 and 2015 found:
“Poison control centers received reports of 188,468 prescription opioid exposures among children aged<20 years old from 2000 through 2015 … Hydrocodone accounted for the largest proportion of exposures (28.7%), and 47.1% of children exposed to buprenorphine were admitted to a health care facility (HCF).
The odds of being admitted to an HCF were higher for teenagers than for children aged 0 to 5 years or children aged 6 to 12 years. Teenagers also had greater odds of serious medical outcomes … The rate of prescription opioid-related suspected suicides among teenagers increased by 52.7% during the study period.”
Commonsense Precautions
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promotes and supports the Up and Away and Out of Sight campaign, which centers “around several simple, data-driven actions that parents and caregivers can take to prevent medication overdoses in the children they care about and care for.”13 These commonsense precautions include the following:14
- Store your medications (and supplements) in their original packaging in a place your child cannot reach. Don’t store medications in your nightstand, purse or end table where little hands are likely to explore and find them. Any medication stored in the refrigerator should be in childproof packaging. Also make sure drugs are safely stored in areas your child visits frequently, such as a grandparent’s house or a baby sitter.
- Put all medications away after each use.
- Make sure to relock the safety cap after each use.
- Teach your children about medicine safety; never tell them medicine is “like candy” in order to get them to take it.
- Remind guests to place bags, purses and coats that have medicine in them in a safe place while visiting.
What to Do in Case of Accidental Drug Exposure
Be sure to keep the Poison Help number in your phone, and make sure your baby sitter or caregiver has it. In the U.S., the Poison Help number is 800-222-1222. If you suspect your child has taken a prescription or OTC medication, even if he or she is not yet exhibiting symptoms, call the Poison Help line immediately.
If you’re unsure what medication your child may have taken, call 911 or the emergency number in your area for transportation to the nearest medical facility. Although your child may appear fine in the initial minutes, this can rapidly change. You want to start treatment as soon as possible to reduce the risk of permanent damage or potential death.
Remember to bring with you the names of any medications your child may have accidentally ingested, as well as any medications your child has taken in the past 24 hours as prescribed by their doctor, any allergies they have, and any changes or symptoms you may have observed.
Unfortunately, symptoms of a medication overdose can vary widely, depending on the drug, dosage and age of the child. That said, symptoms of an overdose may include:15
| Nausea | Vomiting or diarrhea |
| Drooling or dry mouth | Convulsions |
| Pupils that grow larger or shrink | Sweating |
| Loss of coordination and/or slurred speech | Extreme fatigue |
| Yellow skin or eyes | Flu-like symptoms |
| Unusual bleeding or bruising | Abdominal pain |
| Numbness | Rapid heartbeat |
Should your child exhibit any of the following symptoms, call 911 (in the U.S.) immediately:16
| Won’t wake up | Can’t breathe |
| Twitches or shakes uncontrollably | Displays extremely strange behavior |
| Has trouble swallowing | Develops a rapidly spreading rash |
| Swells up in the face, including around the lips and tongue |
Opioid Epidemic Takes Toll on Pediatric Population
It’s crucial to realize that many drugs can be life threatening to a young child, even in low doses. This is particularly true for opioids and buprenorphine, a drug used to treat opioid dependence. As noted in a 2005 paper17 on opioid exposure in toddlers:
“Ingestions of opioid analgesics by children may lead to significant toxicity as a result of depression of the respiratory and central nervous systems. A review of the medical literature was performed to determine whether low doses of opioids are dangerous in the pediatric population under 6 years old.
Methadone was found to be the most toxic of the opioids; doses as low as a single tablet can lead to death. All children who have ingested any amount of methadone need to be observed in an Emergency Department (ED) for at least 6 h and considered for hospital admission.
Most other opioids are better tolerated in ingestions as small as one or two tablets. Based on the limited data available for these opioids, we conclude that equianalgesic doses of 5 mg/kg of codeine or greater require 4 to 6 h of observation in the ED.
Data for propoxyphene and all extended-release preparations are limited; their prolonged half-lives would suggest the need for longer observation periods. All opioid ingestions leading to respiratory depression or significant central nervous system depression require admission to an intensive care unit.”
Similarly, a 2006 paper18 on the adverse effects of unintentional buprenorphine exposure in children noted that:
“Buprenorphine in sublingual formulation was recently introduced to the American market for treatment of opioid dependence. We report a series of 5 toddlers with respiratory and mental-status depression after unintentional buprenorphine exposure.
Despite buprenorphine’s partial agonist activity and ceiling effect on respiratory depression, all children required hospital admission and either opioid-antagonist therapy or mechanical ventilation …
The increasing use of buprenorphine as a home-based therapy for opioid addiction in the United States raises public health concerns for the pediatric population.”
The take-home message here is that as drug treatment increases and becomes ever-more prevalent among all age groups, the risk of unintentional exposure increases as well. Toddlers will stick just about anything in their mouth, and young children will often not recognize there’s a difference between pills and candy.
As parents and caregivers, we simply must take the necessary precautions to keep all medications in a safe place, well out of reach of curious hands. Failure to safeguard your medications can have profoundly tragic consequences, so please, do not take this matter lightly.
- 1, 3, 4 CDC.gov Therapeutic Drug Use Data 2013-2016
- 2 CDC.gov NCHS Data Brief No. 334, May 2019
- 5 The Journal of Pediatrics February 2012; 160(2): 265-270.el
- 6 New York Times September 16, 2011
- 7 The Journal of Pediatrics February 2012; 160(2): 265-270.el, Conclusions
- 8 The Journal of Pediatrics January 28, 2020; pii: S0022-3476(19)31706-8 (PDF)
- 9 The Journal of Pediatrics January 28, 2020; pii: S0022-3476(19)31706-8
- 10 Clinical Toxicology October 15, 2019; DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2019.1674321
- 11 Clinical Toxicology October 15, 2019; DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2019.1674321, Results and Conclusion
- 12 Pediatrics 2017 Apr;139(4). pii: e20163382
- 13 CDC.gov Medication Safety Program
- 14 Upandaway.org
- 15, 16 Healthgrades.com, Warning Signs of Medication Overdose in Kids
- 17 J Emerg Med. 2005 Jul;29(1):77-84
- 18 Pediatrics 2006 Oct;118(4):1746-51