neurotoxins Archives - Amazing Health Advances

The Best Source of Resveratrol

AHA Publisher — Wed, 09 Feb 2022 08:00:04 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – Is there any benefit to resveratrol? If so, should we get it from wine, grapes, peanuts, or supplements? “Alcohol is a neurotoxin which can cause brain damage…[and] can cause cancer,” so perhaps the “consumption of alcohol…cannot be considered a healthy lifestyle choice” since it’s an addictive carcinogen. Cancer is only killer number two, though. Killer number one is heart disease, so what about the “French paradox”? Doesn’t moderate drinking protect against cardiovascular disease? I discuss this in my video Flashback Friday: The Best Source of Resveratrol. As I’ve explained before, apparently there is no French paradox. It seems to have all just been a scam. That’s what started the whole “resveratrol fiasco,” though. During an episode on “60 Minutes,” it was suggested the red wine component resveratrol may account for the French paradox, and research took off. Even after it turned out there was no French paradox, research continued unabated, culminating in more than 10,000 scientific publications to date. What did researchers find? “After more than 20 years of well-funded research, resveratrol has no proven human activity.” “One salient theme that consistently arises throughout this voluminous body of work underscores the fact that data from human studies regarding any biological effects of resveratrol is sorely lacking, despite its popularity as an over-the-counter nutritional supplement.” In fact, “the hype in the popular media regarding resveratrol…may indeed turn out to be nothing more than a slight-of-hand marketing device using…non-human research as a cover.” As you can see at 1:36 in my video, some studies are based on laboratory animal studies at massive doses—tens of milligrams of resveratrol per pound. If you do the math, this is how “various ‘experts’ claim that a daily dosage of 1 g/d is effective for treatments of diverse disorders in humans.” So how much red wine do you have to drink to get a gram of resveratrol a day? Why, just 5,000 cups a day. Not a fan of red wine? Don’t worry. You can just have a couple thousand gallons of white wine a day, 5,000 pounds of apples or grapes, 50,000 pounds of peanuts, a couple thousand pounds of chocolate, or nearly a million bottles of beer. A million bottles of beer on the wall. A million bottles of beer. Take one down and pass it around, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall…. It doesn’t help matters when a “leading researcher on the beneficial properties of resveratrol…has been found guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data,” throwing the whole field into turmoil. “Wine is good for those…who sell it!” The resveratrol fiasco is not the only time dietary supplements have failed to fulfill their promise. “Notable examples” include beta-carotene pills and fish oil capsules. Studies in the 1990s showedtaking beta-carotene in pill form actually increased cancer risk, and, in 2013, the thinking shiftedon fish oil supplements from “No Proof of Effectiveness” to “Proof of No Effectiveness.” “The main lesson we should learn is that what makes biological sense and works in test tubes and animals does not always operate in humans.” “Resveratrol is one of approximately 25,000 components identified from food to date,” after all. Thinking in terms of whole foods “may be a better approach for health and disease prevention.” Instead of consuming just one chemical in wine extracted from grapes, why not eat the whole grape? “[F]or the prevention of diseases, the [whole] dietary grape seems to be the best-case scenario.” Key Takeaways Alcohol is a neurotoxin that can cause brain damage and our number-two killer, cancer, but what about the so-called French paradox of moderate drinking protecting against cardiovascular disease, our number one killer? During an episode of the television show “60 Minutes,” it was suggested that resveratrol, a component in red wine, may account for the French paradox, but it has been dismissed as a hoax. Despite that, research has continued and more than 10,000 scientific papers have been published to date. Resveratrol has been found to have “no proven human activity,” and “the hype in the popular media regarding resveratrol…may indeed turn out to be nothing more than a slight-of-hand marketing device using…non-human research as a cover.” Indeed, some animal studies used massive doses of tens of milligrams of resveratrol per pound to claim that a daily dosage of 1 g/d is an effective treatment of diverse human disorders, but you would need to drink 5,000 cups of red wine to get a single gram of resveratrol. Other dietary supplements have also been found unable to fulfill their promises, such as beta-carotene pills and fish oil capsules. Beta-carotene in pill form has been found to increase, not decrease, cancer risk, and there is no proof of effectiveness with fish oil supplements. “The main lesson we should learn is that what makes biological sense and works in test tubes and animals does not always operate in humans.” Rather than consuming just one chemical in wine extracted from grapes, why not eat the whole grape? Surprised about the French paradox? Learn more in What Explains the French Paradox?. Can resveratrol supplements do more harm than good? Check out Resveratrol Impairs Exercise Benefits. In health, Michael Greger, M.D. This article has been modified. To read the original article click here.

The post The Best Source of Resveratrol appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Childhood Brain Tumors Linked to Mother’s Exposure to Pesticides

AHA Publisher — Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:00:03 +0000

UCLA Fielding School of Public Health via Newswise – LOS ANGELES (April 2, 2021) – Research published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research suggests that exposure during pregnancy to a wide variety of pesticides may lead to the development of central nervous system tumors during childhood. And the increased risk of these tumors – estimated as much as twice to 2.5 times higher for some pesticides – occurs even if the mother is not a farmworker, but lived as much as 2.5 miles (4000 meters) away from the field where the pesticides are sprayed, researchers found. “Exposure to certain pesticides, simply through residential proximity to agricultural applications during pregnancy, may increase the risk of childhood central nervous system tumors,” said Dr. Beate Ritz, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health (FSPH) professor of epidemiology and of environmental health sciences, one of the co-authors. “Policy interventions to reduce pesticide exposure in individuals residing near agricultural fields should be considered to protect the health of children.” The research – “Residential Proximity to Pesticide Application as a Risk Factor for Childhood Central Nervous System Tumors” – is being published in an upcoming edition of the peer-reviewed journal Environment Research, and is available on-line. Pesticides have been investigated as possible risk factors for childhood cancer since the 1970s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified more than 100 as possible or probable carcinogens, based on toxicological and epidemiological data. “Many pesticides are neurotoxicants, and have even been found in cord blood, indicating placental transfer of these toxins to the developing fetus,” said co-author Shiraya Thompson, an epidemiology MS candidate at FSPH. “This, in turn, suggests prenatal pesticide exposure may increase childhood brain cancer risk.” This latest work, however, is the first study to track exposure and estimate risks of 77 separate and specific pesticides, said co-author Dr. Julia Heck, associate dean for research at the University of North Texas College of Health and Public Service and an associate professor of epidemiology at FSPH. “This study is the first, to our knowledge, to estimate effects for a large number of specific pesticides in relation to CNS tumor subtypes,” Heck said. “Our results suggest that exposure to specific pesticides may best explain the results of previous studies that reported relationships between broader pesticide types and central nervous system tumors.” The research team, from UCLA, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and the University of Southern California, all in Los Angeles, and the University of North Texas, analyzed cases of childhood central nervous system tumors in California between 1998 and 2013, with a focus on those living near agricultural fields. “California’s agricultural work force numbers more than 800,000, according to state estimates,” said Dr. Christina Lombardi, a co-author and epidemiologist with the Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “In addition to the negative health effects of pesticides on workers there are large numbers of pregnant women and young children living adjacent to treated fields who may experience detrimental health effects as well.” Their findings include that three types of cancers – medulloblastoma, ependymoma, and astrocytoma – are associated with specific pesticides, and the pesticides inuron, thiophanate-methyl, and triforine are possibly carcinogenic, among others. Because pesticides are often applied to fields and orchards from the air, the study makes clear that while California’s agricultural workforce are the most at risk, any expectant mother who lives in a community adjacent to agricultural land is as well, said co-author Dr. Myles Cockburn, with the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine. “This transition from farmland to residential neighborhoods is abrupt across California, and, of course, constantly changing as farmland is developed,” Cockburn said. “The simplest way to mitigate these risks are by reductions in exposure to pesticides, through restrictions as aerial spraying and air blast that lead to increased drift, and by farming methods that decrease reliance on pesticides.” Methods: Cancer cases in children ages 0 to 5 years were drawn from California Cancer Registry records for 1988-2013 and matched to their birth certificates using name, date of birth, and social security number when available. The team achieved 89% matching success; most of the remaining 11% were likely born out of state. Researchers also excluded birth addresses outside of California; exposure information was not available for these locations, since most states do not require pesticide use reporting. The team limited analyses to the time period when full residential addresses were available on the electronic dataset of birth certificates (1998-2011). Because of the focus on rural areas, the present study was restricted to those mothers living during pregnancy within 2.5 miles (4000 meters) of an agricultural field to which at least one pesticide was applied. The final study population consisted of 387 cases of all astrocytoma (combined), 119 cases of diffuse astrocytoma, 256 cases of pilocytic astrocytoma, 123 cases of ependymoma, 157 cases of medulloblastoma, and 123,158 controls. Possible carcinogens were selected per the U.S. EPA’s classifications, and prenatal exposure was assessed according to pesticides reported by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reporting system. To read the original article click here.

The post Childhood Brain Tumors Linked to Mother’s Exposure to Pesticides appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.