World Health Organization study links mobile phone use with enhanced risk of brain and other tumours

Posted By Dr John Briffa On October 27, 2009 @ 8:00 pm In Uncategorized

Mobile phones are undeniably convenient, but that fat that they emit electromagnetic radiation means that they have at least some potential to affect individuals who use them. For a long time, the party line was that mobile phones are safe. This is a message the industry has been particularly keen to cultivate. However, at least some evidence suggests otherwise. In a blog last year (which you can read [1] here), I wrote about a study which found that mobile phone use was associated with an increased risk of gliomas (the most common form of brain tumour) and acoustic neuromas (benign tumours that grow on the nerve responsible for hearing).

This week, I came across a [2] newspaper report of a World Health Organization (WHO) study which raises further doubts about the safety of mobile phones. The study involved interviewing almost 13,000 from 2000-2004 over 13 countries. The study has yet to be published (it is due for publication later this year), but this report about it claims that:

6 of 8 studies found an increased risk of glioma associated with mobile phone use

2 of 7 studies found an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with long-term mobile phone use

One study found an increased risk of tumours of the parotid gland (a salivary gland in the side of the face near where mobile phones are held) associated with heavy mobile phone use

The results, though not entirely conclusive, clearly have concerned the WHO. Its head, Dr Elisabeth Cardis, is quoted as saying “In the absence of definitive results and in the light of a number of studies which, though limited, suggest a possible effect of radiofrequency radiation, precautions are important.”

There is particular concern regarding use by children, as their thinner skulls are less likely to shield the brain from harmful frequencies. However, I suggest, whatever age you happen to be, that you use your mobile phone (if you have one) as infrequently as possible, and for as short a time as possible when you do. Also, one thing I personally do is to make as much of my mobile phone communication via SMS/text. Getting over some important communication in a few words of text can be quicker and just as good as phone call quite often.

---

Article printed from Dr Briffa’s Blog: http://www.drbriffa.com

URL to article: http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/10/27/world-health-organization-study-links-mobie-phone-use-with-enhanced-risk-of-brain-and-other-tumours/

URLs in this post:
[1] here: http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2008/09/22/mobile-phone-use-associated-with-increased-risk-of-brain-tum
ours/

[2] newspaper report: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/6420093/Long-term-use-of-mobile-phones-may-be-li
nked-to-cancer.html

_____________________________________________________________________________  Norma Bridge Dip ION, FdSc, mBANT, NTC registered Practitioner  Essentia Nutrition  www.essentianutrition.co.uk +44 (0)7791 890 541    

Adverse effects of drugs are “neglected, restricted, distorted and silenced”

Posted By _Dr John Briffa_ On October 30, 2009 @ 11:50 am In _Food and
Medical Politics_ _
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/10/30/adverse-effects-of-drugs-are-neglected-restricted-distorted-and-silenced/print/#comments_controls>_

When someone takes a medicine, it is generally in the hope that it will
do some good. However, whether it does or doesn't is only half of the
story: even the seemingly most innocuous of drugs can have adverse
effects on health. In an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine,
Dr John Ioannidis of University of Ioannina School of Medicine in
Greece, makes the point that adverse effects from drugs are "neglected,
restricted, distorted, and silenced" [1].

Dr Ioannidis' editorial starts by making the point that new drugs often
offer little in the way of benefit over existing treatments. This means
that knowledge of their risk profile is essential to be able to make
informed choices regarding therapy.

The editorial focuses on an analysis of relevant studies which appears
in the same edition of the journal [2]. In this analysis 133 studies
published in 'high-impact' journals (the most widely-read and respected
journals) were assessed in terms of the adverse effect reporting. This
analysis showed that "some trials gave absolutely no information on
harms, severity was often undefined or vaguely defined, and half the
trials reported no information on withdrawal of patients owing to harms.
Only 13% reported the reasons why patients withdrew owing to adverse
events, information that is of prime clinical relevance."

Dr Ioannidis also makes the point some trials limit their reporting of
adverse effects to 'statistically significant' results. The problem is,
the most serious adverse effects are generally very rare, and studies
may not be large (powered) enough to define serious adverse effects as
'statistically significant'. Dr Ioannidis claims that the statements
such as "no significant differences were found" are misleading. I made a
similar point some time ago in the blog post [1] here
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2008/05/23/the-limited-value-of-statistical-significance-in-the-real-world/>.

Dr Ioannidis draws our attention to the fact that randomised controlled
trials on drugs are primarily used to assess effectiveness, not risk. He
asks whether this is perhaps the accepted norm as a result of "conflicts
of interest and marketing". Dr Ioannidis ends by suggesting that the
mission of randomised control trials may need to change to include
better understanding of the potential harms of medication.

*References:*

1. Ioannidis JPA. Adverse Events in Randomized Trials: Neglected,
Restricted, Distorted, and Silenced. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(19):1737-1739

2. Pitrou I, et al. Reporting of Safety Results in Published Reports of
Randomized Controlled Trials. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(19):1756-1761

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Dr Briffa's Blog: *http://www.drbriffa.com*

URL to article:
*http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/10/30/adverse-effects-of-drugs-are-neglected-restricted-distorted-and-silenced/*

URLs in this post:
[1] here:
*http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2008/05/23/the-limited-value-of-statistical-significance-in-the-real-wo
rld/*

_____________________________________________________________________________

Norma Bridge
Dip ION, FdSc, mBANT, NTC registered Practitioner
Essentia Nutrition
www.essentianutrition.co.uk
+44 (0)7791 890 541

Study Shows Ingredient in Breast Milk Protects Babies’ Intestinal Health

Researchers from Queen Mary, University of London have found an ingredient in human breast milk helps protect and repair the intestines of newborn babies.

 

Scientists have recently found that colostrum, the breast milk produced in the first few days after birth contains particularly high levels of an ingredient called pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor (PSTI).  This ingredient is present in breast milk after this initial period, but the study results showed it to be seven times more concentrated in the samples of colostrum they tested.  PSTI is not found in formula milk.

 

PSTI is normally found in the pancreas and acts as a protective agent from being damaged by the digestive enzymes it produces.  Research shows that it plays a similarly protective role in the gut.

 

In the study, the researchers looked at the effects of PSTI on human intestinal cells.  When damage was inflicted on the intestinal cells in the laboratory, the researchers found that PSTI stimulated the cells to move across the damaged area forming a 'natural protective plaster'.  PSTI also prevented further damage by preventing the intestinal cells from self-destructing.  Research shows that PSTI could reduce damage by up to 75%. 

 

The team of researchers at Queen Mary, University of London was led by Professor Ray Playford of Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry.  He commented:

 

"We know that breast milk is made up of a host of different ingredients and we also know that there are a number of health benefits for babies who are breast-fed."

 

"This study is important because it shows that a component of breast milk protects and repairs the babies delicate intestines in readiness for the onslaught of all the food and drink that are to come."

 

"It reinforces the benefits of breast feeding, especially in the first few days after birth."

 

Sources:

 

Marchbank et al. Pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor as a najor motogenic and protective factor in human breast milk.  Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, 296: G697-G703, 2009

www.sciencedaily.com

--   _____________________________________________________________________________  Norma Bridge Dip ION, FdSc, mBANT, NTC registered Practitioner  Essentia Nutrition  www.essentianutrition.co.uk +44 (0)7791 890 541    

Children’s Confectionary Intake Linked to Aggression in Adulthood

An interesting new study published in the October issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry has found that children who eat sweets and chocolate on a daily basis are more likely to display violent behaviour as adults.

 

Researchers from Cardiff University looked at data from almost 17,500 participants in the 1970 British Cohort Study.  Results significantly showed that 10 year olds who had a daily intake of sweets and chocolate were more likely to have been convicted for violence by the age of 34.

 

This is the first study of its kind to look at the long-term effects of diet in childhood on adult behaviour.

 

The researchers found that 69% of the study participants who were violent at the age of 34 consumed confectionary daily during childhood compared to 42% who were non-violent.

 

Commenting on possible explanations for this link, lead researcher, Dr Simon Moore commented, "Our favoured explanation is that giving children sweets and chocolate regularly may stop them learning how to wait to obtain something they want.  Not being able to defer gratification may push them towards more impulsive behaviour, which is strongly associated with delinquency".

 

They concluded: "This association between confectionary consumption and violence needs further attention.  Targeting resources at improving children's diet may improve health and reduce aggression".

 

Sources:

 

Moore SC, Carter LM and Van Goozen SHM.  Confectionary consumption in childhood and adult violence.  British Journal of Psychiatry, 195: 366-367

 

www.sciencedaily.com