Friday, November 5, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Some More TV News
Can you stand one more blog about television?
An article posted at http://www.themedguru.com/20101011/newsfeature/long-hours-watching-tv-can-harm-child-s-mental-health-study-86140882.html by Silky Chandvani (10/11/10), cites a study that indicates that long hours of screen exposure at an early age might lead to psychological problems.
The study examined 1000 children, all around 10 years of age. Two measuring devises were used. The first was a questionnaire that covered: television viewing time, emotional difficulties, conduct problems, hyperactivity or inattention, friendships, and problems relating to peer groups. The second was an activity monitor that recorded the children’s sedentary time and moderate physical activity over a week’s period.
What did the researchers find?
The children who sat in front of a screen for more than two hours a day scored low on the questionnaires, regardless of how much physical activity in which they otherwise engaged. In addition, these children ran a 60% higher risk of developing psychological problems than those who racked up fewer viewing hours.
The study was published in the November edition of “Pediatrics” and was supported by the World Cancer Research Fund and the National Prevention Research Initiative.
Need I say more?
An article posted at http://www.themedguru.com/20101011/newsfeature/long-hours-watching-tv-can-harm-child-s-mental-health-study-86140882.html by Silky Chandvani (10/11/10), cites a study that indicates that long hours of screen exposure at an early age might lead to psychological problems.
The study examined 1000 children, all around 10 years of age. Two measuring devises were used. The first was a questionnaire that covered: television viewing time, emotional difficulties, conduct problems, hyperactivity or inattention, friendships, and problems relating to peer groups. The second was an activity monitor that recorded the children’s sedentary time and moderate physical activity over a week’s period.
What did the researchers find?
The children who sat in front of a screen for more than two hours a day scored low on the questionnaires, regardless of how much physical activity in which they otherwise engaged. In addition, these children ran a 60% higher risk of developing psychological problems than those who racked up fewer viewing hours.
The study was published in the November edition of “Pediatrics” and was supported by the World Cancer Research Fund and the National Prevention Research Initiative.
Need I say more?
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Warnings Keep Coming, But Is Anybody Listening?
Got a few things to talk about this week. The theme? We keep getting warned about potential issues with medications, the political underpinnings of health care, and dangers regarding products we use and consume, but the warnings are side-notes, buried in the back of the paper, confined to the pages on health books generally dismissed by the mainstream medical community, and on the web – if you know where to look. But, if you’re reading this, then you might want to know a couple of things. In no particular order:
When a new client joins our Center, we always ask if they ever (a) suffered from any form of chronic infection, such as ear infections, sinus infections, etc.; and (b) took antibiotics for extended periods of time. You’d be surprised to learn that the majority of our students answer these questions with a resounding “Yes!”
We ask for two main reasons. First, chronic infections often are a sign of a food allergy (or, if you prefer, a food “aversion”). Simply put, the student is eating something that is triggering an immune response and making them sick. But, food allergies are not the point of this blog -- that’s a whole ‘nother story.
It is the second reason that I’d like to address here. For years, we have known that antibiotics can wreak havoc on the digestive system. This can negatively impact the student’s immune system, since the vast majority (70% to 80%, depending on your reference source) resides in the digestive system. Your immune system, of course, has a direct impact on your overall health, but it also has a major impact on your mood and behavior.
Surprise, surprise. While everyone knows that antibiotic use can upset your stomach, a new study reveals that “repeatedly taking [antibiotics] can trigger long-lasting changes in all those good germs that live in your gut, raising questions about lingering ill effects.” Newsday, 9/14/10 at A33. The article noted that three healthy adults who had not used antibiotics in at least the past year where given low, five-day courses of the antibiotic Cipro, six months apart. The researchers found that the “bacterial diversity” of those three individuals “plummeted as a third to half of the volunteers’ original germ species were nearly wiped out, though other species moved in.”
How could this not affect your immune system?
Did you hear? The Food Pyramid may be “so politically influenced that it is ineffective.” (check out Newsday, 10/4/10 at A23). “This year, the meat lobby has opposed strict warnings on sodium that could cast a negative light on lunch meats. The milk lobby has contested warnings to cut back on added sugars, lest chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk fall from favor.” Really? You don’t say. And, here I thought the Food Pyramid was a totally objective, science-based guide to eating healthy . . .
So who says Frankenfood is bad for you? Well, a lot of people, actually. According to “This Supermarket ‘Health Food’ Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks,” written By Jeffrey Smith and Posted By Dr. Mercola on October 4, 2010, Biologist Arpad Pusztai; Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences; Embryologist Andrés Carrasco; Epidemiologist Judy Carman; prominent virologist Terje Traavik; and Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow. In one way or another, these researchers and scientists proved that genetically modified foods can be quite harmful. But, each and every one of these individuals was put through a trial by fire. Some were fired from their positions, others had research funding withdrawn, some had their research blocked, and some were even subject to baseless rumors attacking their credibility. See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/04/watch-out-there-are-more-problems-with-genetically-modified-foods-than-youre-allowed-to-know.aspx.
Really, if we can’t trust the companies that are genetically mutilating our food, who can we trust?
When a new client joins our Center, we always ask if they ever (a) suffered from any form of chronic infection, such as ear infections, sinus infections, etc.; and (b) took antibiotics for extended periods of time. You’d be surprised to learn that the majority of our students answer these questions with a resounding “Yes!”
We ask for two main reasons. First, chronic infections often are a sign of a food allergy (or, if you prefer, a food “aversion”). Simply put, the student is eating something that is triggering an immune response and making them sick. But, food allergies are not the point of this blog -- that’s a whole ‘nother story.
It is the second reason that I’d like to address here. For years, we have known that antibiotics can wreak havoc on the digestive system. This can negatively impact the student’s immune system, since the vast majority (70% to 80%, depending on your reference source) resides in the digestive system. Your immune system, of course, has a direct impact on your overall health, but it also has a major impact on your mood and behavior.
Surprise, surprise. While everyone knows that antibiotic use can upset your stomach, a new study reveals that “repeatedly taking [antibiotics] can trigger long-lasting changes in all those good germs that live in your gut, raising questions about lingering ill effects.” Newsday, 9/14/10 at A33. The article noted that three healthy adults who had not used antibiotics in at least the past year where given low, five-day courses of the antibiotic Cipro, six months apart. The researchers found that the “bacterial diversity” of those three individuals “plummeted as a third to half of the volunteers’ original germ species were nearly wiped out, though other species moved in.”
How could this not affect your immune system?
Did you hear? The Food Pyramid may be “so politically influenced that it is ineffective.” (check out Newsday, 10/4/10 at A23). “This year, the meat lobby has opposed strict warnings on sodium that could cast a negative light on lunch meats. The milk lobby has contested warnings to cut back on added sugars, lest chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk fall from favor.” Really? You don’t say. And, here I thought the Food Pyramid was a totally objective, science-based guide to eating healthy . . .
So who says Frankenfood is bad for you? Well, a lot of people, actually. According to “This Supermarket ‘Health Food’ Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks,” written By Jeffrey Smith and Posted By Dr. Mercola on October 4, 2010, Biologist Arpad Pusztai; Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences; Embryologist Andrés Carrasco; Epidemiologist Judy Carman; prominent virologist Terje Traavik; and Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow. In one way or another, these researchers and scientists proved that genetically modified foods can be quite harmful. But, each and every one of these individuals was put through a trial by fire. Some were fired from their positions, others had research funding withdrawn, some had their research blocked, and some were even subject to baseless rumors attacking their credibility. See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/04/watch-out-there-are-more-problems-with-genetically-modified-foods-than-youre-allowed-to-know.aspx.
Really, if we can’t trust the companies that are genetically mutilating our food, who can we trust?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
ADHD: Nutrition versus Meds
Came across an interesting little snippet on an ADHD forum to which I belong. In an attempt to avoid medicating her child, suspected by doctors of having ADHD, a Mom tried to help her son through a nutrition intervention. It is unclear whether she had consulted with anyone about her approach, but what was clear is that the child had an immediate reaction to the intervention – apparently a very bad one which prompted this Mom’s call for help on the forum. Specifically, she indicated that it was as if the child was going through “withdrawal” and after two weeks, she only saw his behavior getting worse.
Tina responded privately to her offering advice and insight into the situation. Among other things, she noted that, as we always tell the parents here at the center, while the “withdrawal” like symptoms may be upsetting, the fact that her child had a definitive response to a new intervention is usually a very positive sign. At a minimum, it shows a clear sensitivity related toward that intervention (in this case, what the child was eating), and that usually means you’re looking in the right direction. The trick now is to figure out the proper approach.
Moreover, as we always tell parents, whenever trying a new intervention, many times things tend to get worse before they get better – especially behaviors. The child literally feels very different, the body is physically affected, and the child’s mind and body must adapt. This can be rough, and lead, at least in the beginning, to worse behaviors.
Finally, like anything else, it takes time to adjust to new interventions. Unlike medication, nutrition intervention takes time. This is especially so if the gut is affected or you are addressing a deficiency. Simply put, it takes time for the body to heal.
Another gentleman on the forum (we’ll call him “Biff”) had a different response. Posted on the forum: give up the diet and give him meds.
Guess who had the right approach?
It turns out that not long after Biff’s post, Mom gave us an update. It took a couple of weeks, but she stuck with the dietary intervention and was now seeing very positive results. In particular, she noted that her son was “calmer,” “focus[ing] longer,” and experiencing “less sensory break downs.”
Tina 1: Biff O
Tina responded privately to her offering advice and insight into the situation. Among other things, she noted that, as we always tell the parents here at the center, while the “withdrawal” like symptoms may be upsetting, the fact that her child had a definitive response to a new intervention is usually a very positive sign. At a minimum, it shows a clear sensitivity related toward that intervention (in this case, what the child was eating), and that usually means you’re looking in the right direction. The trick now is to figure out the proper approach.
Moreover, as we always tell parents, whenever trying a new intervention, many times things tend to get worse before they get better – especially behaviors. The child literally feels very different, the body is physically affected, and the child’s mind and body must adapt. This can be rough, and lead, at least in the beginning, to worse behaviors.
Finally, like anything else, it takes time to adjust to new interventions. Unlike medication, nutrition intervention takes time. This is especially so if the gut is affected or you are addressing a deficiency. Simply put, it takes time for the body to heal.
Another gentleman on the forum (we’ll call him “Biff”) had a different response. Posted on the forum: give up the diet and give him meds.
Guess who had the right approach?
It turns out that not long after Biff’s post, Mom gave us an update. It took a couple of weeks, but she stuck with the dietary intervention and was now seeing very positive results. In particular, she noted that her son was “calmer,” “focus[ing] longer,” and experiencing “less sensory break downs.”
Tina 1: Biff O
Saturday, September 4, 2010
ADHD, Adderall and Lindsay Lohan
So, heard the latest? I am not making this up.
Adderall May Have Unhinged Lindsay Lohan (8/20/2010 12:30 AM PDT by TMZ Staff)
Lindsay Lohan's Adderall dependence -- the result of a medical misdiagnosis -- may have been the reason she went off the rails.
[T]he docs at the UCLA rehab facility believe Lindsay was misdiagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ... and then prescribed Adderall to treat the phantom affliction.
Dr. Joe Haraszti -- a prominent L.A. addiction specialist [states that] people who take Adderall when they don't need it can experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine.
Dr. Haraszti tells us ... people who unnecessarily take Adderall can display manic symptoms ... "and often do things like 'driving around until all hours of the morning ... smoking heavily ... tweeting ... and texting all night long." The doc adds, "They can become very impulsive."
"The doc also notes that people in that situation "might then complain of insomnia and then take Ambien or other sleep aids to help fall asleep ... it's a vicious cycle."
Dr. Marc Kern -- another addiction expert -- tells us alcohol abuse is also very common among patients who take Adderall.
Dr. Kern tells us, 'The Adderall counteracts the sedative side effects of alcohol use … making these people often drink more than someone who does not take the drug."
That is, pretty much, word for word, the article about Ms. Lohan, ADHD and Adderall. Now, let’s play a game. How many things are terribly wrong about the information contained in this article?
Here are my top three:
1. How is someone like Lindsay Lohan “misdiagnosed?” One would assume that she has access to the best medical practitioners around, right? So, are her doctors so inept that they could not diagnose a “disorder” that affects anywhere from 8% to 15% (or more, depending upon your information source) of the population?
Or, is it more likely, that the “disorder” is so vaguely defined, subjectively diagnosed, and misunderstood, both in its manifestation and causes, that it too difficult to diagnose correctly?
In either event, if Ms. Lohan is truly misdiagnosed, either through her doctors’ lack of skill or the inherent vagueness of this “disorder,” how do we know that our kids are not also being misdiagnosed?
2. “[P]eople who take Adderall when they don't need it can experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine.”
Ah, this one’s a bit trickier. Yes, people who take Adderall “can experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine.” No issue there. That’s because Adderall, Ritalin, and the like ARE IN THE SAME CHEMICAL FAMILY AS COCAINE AND METHAMPHETAMINE!! (in fact, Ritalin’s real name is “methyiphenidate”). And, like cocaine, they are all Schedule II controlled substances! (see http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html).
Thus, “like cocaine, Ritalin is a powerful stimulant that increases alertness and productivity. Ritalin and cocaine also look and act the same. Both have a similar chemical structure.” http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/issues/ritalin.html
So, what’s terribly wrong with this statement? First, Adderall affects EVERYONE the same way, whether you have ADHD or not! That’s why you can’t use the drug’s so-called effectiveness as a diagnostic tool. So, when you give your “ADHD” kid Adderall, he/she may “experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine,” including as
“Dr. Haraszti tells us … manic symptoms ... and impulsiv[ity]."
And lets not forget what Dr. Kern has to say: “alcohol abuse is also very common among patients who take Adderall.”
3. Just a headcount – how many of you parents out there were told either that (a) ADHD was very difficult to properly diagnose; or (b) that drugs like Ritalin and Adderall are class II controlled substances, just like cocaine, with a similar chemical structure as cocaine, that can cause “manic symptoms, impulsivity, and/or alcohol abuse”?
I’ll bet you were told, like me, these drugs were perfectly safe, with few if any side-effects. And, if your son/daughter had diabetes, you’d give him/her insulin, wouldn’t you?
Adderall May Have Unhinged Lindsay Lohan (8/20/2010 12:30 AM PDT by TMZ Staff)
Lindsay Lohan's Adderall dependence -- the result of a medical misdiagnosis -- may have been the reason she went off the rails.
[T]he docs at the UCLA rehab facility believe Lindsay was misdiagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ... and then prescribed Adderall to treat the phantom affliction.
Dr. Joe Haraszti -- a prominent L.A. addiction specialist [states that] people who take Adderall when they don't need it can experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine.
Dr. Haraszti tells us ... people who unnecessarily take Adderall can display manic symptoms ... "and often do things like 'driving around until all hours of the morning ... smoking heavily ... tweeting ... and texting all night long." The doc adds, "They can become very impulsive."
"The doc also notes that people in that situation "might then complain of insomnia and then take Ambien or other sleep aids to help fall asleep ... it's a vicious cycle."
Dr. Marc Kern -- another addiction expert -- tells us alcohol abuse is also very common among patients who take Adderall.
Dr. Kern tells us, 'The Adderall counteracts the sedative side effects of alcohol use … making these people often drink more than someone who does not take the drug."
That is, pretty much, word for word, the article about Ms. Lohan, ADHD and Adderall. Now, let’s play a game. How many things are terribly wrong about the information contained in this article?
Here are my top three:
1. How is someone like Lindsay Lohan “misdiagnosed?” One would assume that she has access to the best medical practitioners around, right? So, are her doctors so inept that they could not diagnose a “disorder” that affects anywhere from 8% to 15% (or more, depending upon your information source) of the population?
Or, is it more likely, that the “disorder” is so vaguely defined, subjectively diagnosed, and misunderstood, both in its manifestation and causes, that it too difficult to diagnose correctly?
In either event, if Ms. Lohan is truly misdiagnosed, either through her doctors’ lack of skill or the inherent vagueness of this “disorder,” how do we know that our kids are not also being misdiagnosed?
2. “[P]eople who take Adderall when they don't need it can experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine.”
Ah, this one’s a bit trickier. Yes, people who take Adderall “can experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine.” No issue there. That’s because Adderall, Ritalin, and the like ARE IN THE SAME CHEMICAL FAMILY AS COCAINE AND METHAMPHETAMINE!! (in fact, Ritalin’s real name is “methyiphenidate”). And, like cocaine, they are all Schedule II controlled substances! (see http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html).
Thus, “like cocaine, Ritalin is a powerful stimulant that increases alertness and productivity. Ritalin and cocaine also look and act the same. Both have a similar chemical structure.” http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/issues/ritalin.html
So, what’s terribly wrong with this statement? First, Adderall affects EVERYONE the same way, whether you have ADHD or not! That’s why you can’t use the drug’s so-called effectiveness as a diagnostic tool. So, when you give your “ADHD” kid Adderall, he/she may “experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine,” including as
“Dr. Haraszti tells us … manic symptoms ... and impulsiv[ity]."
And lets not forget what Dr. Kern has to say: “alcohol abuse is also very common among patients who take Adderall.”
3. Just a headcount – how many of you parents out there were told either that (a) ADHD was very difficult to properly diagnose; or (b) that drugs like Ritalin and Adderall are class II controlled substances, just like cocaine, with a similar chemical structure as cocaine, that can cause “manic symptoms, impulsivity, and/or alcohol abuse”?
I’ll bet you were told, like me, these drugs were perfectly safe, with few if any side-effects. And, if your son/daughter had diabetes, you’d give him/her insulin, wouldn’t you?
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Boston Marathon, The Long Island Marathon, and Hearing Loss
Hi All!
Yes, it’s been a while. And, any rumors that you might have heard suggesting that I haven’t blogged because I was embarrassed that I didn’t finish the Boston Marathon are completely untrue. And, I know I said I would blog a bit more consistently (sorry! Just lost track of time), and I am absolutely sure you are all dying to know how I did in the Boston Marathon, so, here’s the scoop.
(Hopefully, you recognize the tongue in cheek tone of the previous sentence. I’m pretty sure you’ve heard no rumors about me, and that you really don’t care about the Marathon. That’s just me.
Funny, I had a long talk with Tina about Facebook. She wanted me to set up an account (and a Twitter account, too!) for Spark, but I just don’t get it. What is the purpose of Facebook? Does Facebook actually serve society?
Tina pointed out that if you’re offering useful information, or networking to find resources, then the answer is “yes.”
But, don’t most people just give their “status,” post pictures of their vacation/party/pets, “poke people,” write on someone’s wall, or whatever else it is you do on Facebook?
Really, isn't Facebook just about publishing yourself?
I don’t personally think I’m all that interesting. But, the last time I blogged, I did mention that I was training for the Marathon, so, to anyone who read the last blog and is the least bit curious . . . )
I finished the Boston Marathon, ran a negative split (which means I ran the second, harder half of the race (the part with “Heartbreak Hill”) faster than the first part, and managed to qualify for the 2011 Boston Marathon. So, I guess I did good.
Two weeks later, I ran the Long Island Marathon. Probably not the smartest thing I ever did. And, it was ridiculously hot and windy, to boot -- two things that make distance running a really bad experience. The race was great until mile 21 when both my legs completely cramped up, but, remembering what I tell the kids at the center – “the race ain’t over till it’s over” -- I struggled on for five more miles. Somehow, despite slowing down dramatically over those last miles, I managed to run my best time ever, again qualifying for Boston, and took third place for my division (I even got a little award to prove it!). So, I guess I did good.
And, if I can help it, I’m never running another marathon again.
Now, on to more interesting things.
“Study: 1 in 5 US teenagers has slight hearing loss”, August 17, 2010 by The Associated Press / CARLA K. JOHNSON (AP Medical Writer). This article, reported in Newsday, cites to a study that found “[a] stunning one in five teens has lost a little bit of hearing, and the problem has increased substantially in recent years.”
What could be causing this? Well, isn’t it obvious?
“Some experts are urging teenagers to turn down the volume on their digital music players, suggesting loud music through earbuds may be to blame — although hard evidence is lacking. They warn that slight hearing loss can cause problems in school and set the stage for hearing aids in later life.”
Specifically, the researchers found the most of the hearing loss was "slight," defined as inability to hear at 16 to 24 decibels. As the article put it, “[a] teenager with slight hearing loss might not be able to hear . . . his mother whispering ‘good night.’"
And, clearly, there would be an impact on attention and learning. As noted, “[t]hose with slight hearing loss ‘will hear all of the vowel sounds clearly, but might miss some of the consonant sounds’ such as t, k and s.” It’s kind of hard to learn and pay attention when you can’t hear the teacher correctly. "Although speech will be detectable, it might not be fully intelligible." See Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.
There’s no question that hearing issues, like any other sensory issue, can cause problems. (That is why we incorporate an auditory training program at Spark (see www.thelisteningprogram.com).
None of this should come as a surprise. What is shocking to me is that the “experts” can only “suggest” that digital devices and earbuds “may” be to blame because “hard evidence is lacking.”
This, in spite of a spike in hearing loss, and a 2010 Australian study that linked use of personal listening devices with a 70 percent increased risk of hearing loss in children!
Are you kidding me?? If the study concluded that playing music too loudly directly into our ear canals caused minor hearing loss, would digital music player manufactures go ballistic because they might lose some sales, or heaven forbid, be sued?
Yes, it’s been a while. And, any rumors that you might have heard suggesting that I haven’t blogged because I was embarrassed that I didn’t finish the Boston Marathon are completely untrue. And, I know I said I would blog a bit more consistently (sorry! Just lost track of time), and I am absolutely sure you are all dying to know how I did in the Boston Marathon, so, here’s the scoop.
(Hopefully, you recognize the tongue in cheek tone of the previous sentence. I’m pretty sure you’ve heard no rumors about me, and that you really don’t care about the Marathon. That’s just me.
Funny, I had a long talk with Tina about Facebook. She wanted me to set up an account (and a Twitter account, too!) for Spark, but I just don’t get it. What is the purpose of Facebook? Does Facebook actually serve society?
Tina pointed out that if you’re offering useful information, or networking to find resources, then the answer is “yes.”
But, don’t most people just give their “status,” post pictures of their vacation/party/pets, “poke people,” write on someone’s wall, or whatever else it is you do on Facebook?
Really, isn't Facebook just about publishing yourself?
I don’t personally think I’m all that interesting. But, the last time I blogged, I did mention that I was training for the Marathon, so, to anyone who read the last blog and is the least bit curious . . . )
I finished the Boston Marathon, ran a negative split (which means I ran the second, harder half of the race (the part with “Heartbreak Hill”) faster than the first part, and managed to qualify for the 2011 Boston Marathon. So, I guess I did good.
Two weeks later, I ran the Long Island Marathon. Probably not the smartest thing I ever did. And, it was ridiculously hot and windy, to boot -- two things that make distance running a really bad experience. The race was great until mile 21 when both my legs completely cramped up, but, remembering what I tell the kids at the center – “the race ain’t over till it’s over” -- I struggled on for five more miles. Somehow, despite slowing down dramatically over those last miles, I managed to run my best time ever, again qualifying for Boston, and took third place for my division (I even got a little award to prove it!). So, I guess I did good.
And, if I can help it, I’m never running another marathon again.
Now, on to more interesting things.
“Study: 1 in 5 US teenagers has slight hearing loss”, August 17, 2010 by The Associated Press / CARLA K. JOHNSON (AP Medical Writer). This article, reported in Newsday, cites to a study that found “[a] stunning one in five teens has lost a little bit of hearing, and the problem has increased substantially in recent years.”
What could be causing this? Well, isn’t it obvious?
“Some experts are urging teenagers to turn down the volume on their digital music players, suggesting loud music through earbuds may be to blame — although hard evidence is lacking. They warn that slight hearing loss can cause problems in school and set the stage for hearing aids in later life.”
Specifically, the researchers found the most of the hearing loss was "slight," defined as inability to hear at 16 to 24 decibels. As the article put it, “[a] teenager with slight hearing loss might not be able to hear . . . his mother whispering ‘good night.’"
And, clearly, there would be an impact on attention and learning. As noted, “[t]hose with slight hearing loss ‘will hear all of the vowel sounds clearly, but might miss some of the consonant sounds’ such as t, k and s.” It’s kind of hard to learn and pay attention when you can’t hear the teacher correctly. "Although speech will be detectable, it might not be fully intelligible." See Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.
There’s no question that hearing issues, like any other sensory issue, can cause problems. (That is why we incorporate an auditory training program at Spark (see www.thelisteningprogram.com).
None of this should come as a surprise. What is shocking to me is that the “experts” can only “suggest” that digital devices and earbuds “may” be to blame because “hard evidence is lacking.”
This, in spite of a spike in hearing loss, and a 2010 Australian study that linked use of personal listening devices with a 70 percent increased risk of hearing loss in children!
Are you kidding me?? If the study concluded that playing music too loudly directly into our ear canals caused minor hearing loss, would digital music player manufactures go ballistic because they might lose some sales, or heaven forbid, be sued?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Pesticides and ADHD -- What's next?
Once again, I repeat myself. It seems to be happening a lot lately. I guess the more "new" research comes out, the more support there is for what we always knew (some would say "suspected").
Today, we're talking about the "new" research that has linked pesticide use to the occurrence of ADHD. I quote "new" because pesticide use has long been a suspected link to disorders such as ADHD.
For the record, the list of research-backed, possible contributing factors discussed in our seminars over the past ten years includes: undetected/unrecognized "giftedness," sleep issues, emotional issues (including divorce, bullying, academic pressure/anxiety), food sensitivities, digestive disorders, dietary deficiencies, lack of breast feeding, environmental insults (including thimerosal, mercury, lead, aluminum, pesticides, household chemicals/cleaners/detergents, industrial chemicals), electromagnetic radiation (power lines, microwaves, cell phones), overuse of antibiotics, too much television, computers, and video game use, and physical/mental underdevelopment.
Quite the list, huh?
What's more, I, for one, long ago stopped thinking of ADHD as separate and apart from autism spectrum disorders, and I know some researchers also believe that ADHD is a part of the spectrum. Indeed, given the overlap of symptoms, the massive co-morbidity of ADHD and ASD, and the similar rise in the number of cases over time, how can ADHD not be part of the spectrum? And, if it is part, then it must share the same potential causes . . .
Ah, but these thoughts differ greatly from the medical theories (and I say theories, because despite what any doctor says, no one knows what's really causing the problems) that point to genetics and a clear dividing line between ADHD and ASD.
I suppose that on some level it would be nice if ADHD/ASD was purely genetic. Then, no one could be blamed, no fingers will be pointed, no one has to give up anything. If it's genetic, then it's no one's fault.
We wouldn't have to change our lifestyles; we wouldn't have to change our diets; we wouldn't have to give up our microwaves and cell phones; we wouldn't have to get more exercise; we could keep getting all our meds and vaccines; keep our houses clean and our lawns bug and weed free.
Moreover, if it's genetic, and ADHD is a separate animal unto itself, we have FDA approved medications for it's treatment (see my previous posts re: thoughts about medication). There are no such medically approved treatments for autism, however. So, if ADHD is truly a part of ASD, what would be the impact re: medications?
I'm truly afraid it isn't so. By now, pretty much everyone has stopped trying to argue that these disorders are purely genetic or that the horrific rise in diagnoses is due to "better recognition" or "changing definitions." No, even the government is looking for possible environmental causes.
But, here's the rub. At their heart, these disorders are the result of some sort of neurological underdevelopment or impairment. Something in the brain simply did not develop as it should have. Thus, by definition, anything that could ultimately adversely affect neurological development could be a cause. How is anyone to find the single, "this is it," cause?
Worse, the combination of different insults would surely produce far greater harm than the individual insults could. How can one study all the possible combinations?
No, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. All these "disorders," from speech and language delays to ADHD to ASD, are all part of the spectrum, sharing similar causes (and of course, a genetic predisposition to such harm). The resulting diagnosis is nothing more than our poor attempt to specifically label the ultimate degree and manifestation of the harm that has been caused.
Ultimately, we will realize and admit that this explosion of disorders really is some one's fault -- ours, as a society. We truly need to step back, honestly evaluate the safety and impact of all our modern conveniences, medicines, foods, and social environment, and do something about it instead of just relying on a bunch of pills.
Today, we're talking about the "new" research that has linked pesticide use to the occurrence of ADHD. I quote "new" because pesticide use has long been a suspected link to disorders such as ADHD.
For the record, the list of research-backed, possible contributing factors discussed in our seminars over the past ten years includes: undetected/unrecognized "giftedness," sleep issues, emotional issues (including divorce, bullying, academic pressure/anxiety), food sensitivities, digestive disorders, dietary deficiencies, lack of breast feeding, environmental insults (including thimerosal, mercury, lead, aluminum, pesticides, household chemicals/cleaners/detergents, industrial chemicals), electromagnetic radiation (power lines, microwaves, cell phones), overuse of antibiotics, too much television, computers, and video game use, and physical/mental underdevelopment.
Quite the list, huh?
What's more, I, for one, long ago stopped thinking of ADHD as separate and apart from autism spectrum disorders, and I know some researchers also believe that ADHD is a part of the spectrum. Indeed, given the overlap of symptoms, the massive co-morbidity of ADHD and ASD, and the similar rise in the number of cases over time, how can ADHD not be part of the spectrum? And, if it is part, then it must share the same potential causes . . .
Ah, but these thoughts differ greatly from the medical theories (and I say theories, because despite what any doctor says, no one knows what's really causing the problems) that point to genetics and a clear dividing line between ADHD and ASD.
I suppose that on some level it would be nice if ADHD/ASD was purely genetic. Then, no one could be blamed, no fingers will be pointed, no one has to give up anything. If it's genetic, then it's no one's fault.
We wouldn't have to change our lifestyles; we wouldn't have to change our diets; we wouldn't have to give up our microwaves and cell phones; we wouldn't have to get more exercise; we could keep getting all our meds and vaccines; keep our houses clean and our lawns bug and weed free.
Moreover, if it's genetic, and ADHD is a separate animal unto itself, we have FDA approved medications for it's treatment (see my previous posts re: thoughts about medication). There are no such medically approved treatments for autism, however. So, if ADHD is truly a part of ASD, what would be the impact re: medications?
I'm truly afraid it isn't so. By now, pretty much everyone has stopped trying to argue that these disorders are purely genetic or that the horrific rise in diagnoses is due to "better recognition" or "changing definitions." No, even the government is looking for possible environmental causes.
But, here's the rub. At their heart, these disorders are the result of some sort of neurological underdevelopment or impairment. Something in the brain simply did not develop as it should have. Thus, by definition, anything that could ultimately adversely affect neurological development could be a cause. How is anyone to find the single, "this is it," cause?
Worse, the combination of different insults would surely produce far greater harm than the individual insults could. How can one study all the possible combinations?
No, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. All these "disorders," from speech and language delays to ADHD to ASD, are all part of the spectrum, sharing similar causes (and of course, a genetic predisposition to such harm). The resulting diagnosis is nothing more than our poor attempt to specifically label the ultimate degree and manifestation of the harm that has been caused.
Ultimately, we will realize and admit that this explosion of disorders really is some one's fault -- ours, as a society. We truly need to step back, honestly evaluate the safety and impact of all our modern conveniences, medicines, foods, and social environment, and do something about it instead of just relying on a bunch of pills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
