विज्ञान

Berlin (dpa) – If you're into vegan fish alternatives with seaweed, you may well think you're getting a healthy amount of iodine, as you normally would by eating fish. After all, seaweed is one of the best food sources of the trace element, an essential component of your thyroid gland hormones. Excess iodine can cause thyroid dysfunction, however, with a host of harmful symptoms, such as a rapid heart rate, increased blood pressure, shakiness, diarrhoea and insomnia. With this in mind, German consumer protection advisors wanted to know the iodine content in vegan alternatives to fish/seafood with seaweed. They selected six products on the market – including substitutes for tuna, smoked salmon and caviar – and sent them to a laboratory for testing. This is what they found: One product contained no appreciable amount of iodine, as it was under the detection minimum of 10 micrograms per 100 grams. All of the others had appreciable amounts ranging from 29 to 226 micrograms per 100 grams, three of which could be termed "iodine-rich" (more than 45 micrograms per 100 grams) and therefore serve as a dietary source of the micronutrient. The product with the highest iodine content, a 140-gram tin of a vegan tuna alternative, contained 316 micrograms of iodine, the consumer protection advisors report, noting that the amount exceeds the recommended daily intake. By comparison, 140 grams of tinned tuna contains between 21 and 28 micrograms. Undoubtedly not all consumers are aware that certain vegan substitutes have large amounts of iodine, they say, warning that ingesting high concentrations on a regular basis – for example by eating the aforementioned vegan tuna alternative daily – can disrupt normal thyroid function. The recommended maximum daily intake of iodine is about 600 micrograms – from all sources together, such as iodized salt, fish, dietary supplements and, yes, seaweed products. Although a product's list of ingredients shows whether it contains seaweed, this says nothing about the iodine content, the consumer advisors point out. This depends on the type of seaweed (such as kelp, nori, kombu or wakame), the amount used and natural fluctuations. They add that specifying iodine content is required only when manufacturers label products as "rich in iodine" or an "iodine source," or the content exceeds 2,000 micrograms per 100 grams dry weight. Neither was true of any of the products tested. Nevertheless, consuming normal servings of vegan fish alternatives with seaweed – as in the case of the tuna substitute – can lead to unwitting ingestion of large amounts of iodine, the advisors warn. To be on the safe side, they recommend that people with a thyroid condition query the manufacturer about such products' iodine content before consumption. As for everyone else, the best way to ensure a healthy iodine intake is to eat a balanced diet, in which vegan fish alternatives with seaweed can definitely play a role. The following information is not intended for publication dpa/tmn cwg neb xxde ob arw

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Berlin (dpa) – Some public toilets are so dirty and smelly that many people feel like turning around and running back out the moment they open the cubicle door. But when nature calls, there's usually no choice. Even the most disciplined bladder or bowel has a breaking point – and attempting negotiations rarely ends well. The strategy is often to take a deep breath and push through the disgust. And that reaction is perfectly normal. "Mother Nature doesn't want us humans to become infected with pathogens," says Markus Egert, professor of microbiology and hygiene at Furtwangen University. "That's why we have an innate aversion to two things – corpses and faeces." But how high is the risk of catching a stomach bug in a public toilet? There are no studies showing how many infections actually originate from using public restrooms, Egert says. However, it is certainly possible to encounter potentially harmful germs there – for example if someone with norovirus used the toilet beforehand. With this virus, even a very small amount can be enough to cause an infection. However, one point should reassure many people who worry about sitting on public toilet seats. "Anything that lands on our thighs, trousers or bottom won't make us ill. The germs have to enter our mouths for that to happen," says Egert. In his view, the real risk comes from touching contaminated surfaces in public toilets and then continuing with daily activities without washing your hands properly with soap and water. So it's no surprise that the top advice is to wash your hands after using the toilet – and to do it thoroughly. That means wetting your hands, lathering them with soap for 20 to 30 seconds, rinsing well and drying them completely, preferably with a disposable towel. You can also reduce the amount of germs on your hands while using the restroom. "The trick is to touch as little as possible," says Egert. However, those who carefully cover the seat with toilet paper may want to rethink the ritual. From a hygiene standpoint, Egert says it offers little protection. "The more I fiddle around in the cubicle, the more likely I am to touch things I otherwise wouldn't," he explains. That often means touching the toilet seat and paper repeatedly – especially when the paper slips and needs to be adjusted. For those who absolutely don't want their skin touching the seat, Egert's alternative is what he calls the "ski squat" technique – hovering in a squat above the toilet. Strong thighs help and precision is key – you want your aim true, so everything lands in the bowl, not on the seat. Future users will thank you. A simple way to make your restroom visit more hygienic: close the lid before flushing. It keeps potentially germ-laden droplets from taking flight. A final tip is one most people follow instinctively in public toilets anyway: don't linger. The longer you stay, the more aerosol particles you inhale. Still, Egert adds some reassurance: "I wouldn't hold my breath either." The following information is not intended for publication dpa/tmn rid xxde mls arw

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Autistic kids are at higher risk of suicide. Why don't their parents and doctors know? Many youngsters mask, which can exact a powerful psychological toll on autistic kids, and is strongly correlated with depression, anxiety and suicide. Medics are seeking ways to help. Los Angeles (tca/dpa) – When Anthony Tricarico was diagnosed at 7 with autism spectrum disorder, his parents, Neal and Samara , were told that he might need extra support at school, so they made sure he got it. When doctors suggested therapies for his speech and motor skills, they sought those out too. But when their kind, popular, accomplished boy began to experience depression and suicidal ideation as a teenager, no one told them that the same thinking patterns that powered many of Anthony's achievements might also be amplifying his most harmful thoughts, or that the effort of masking his autism could be hurting his mental health. None of the people or organizations they contacted for help said Anthony might benefit from therapies or safety plans adapted for autistic people, or even that such things existed. They did not say that he might not show the same warning signs as a non-autistic teenager. And only after he died from suicide in May 2024 did the San Diego County couple discover that autistic kids — particularly those like Anthony, whose disability is not immediately apparent from the outside — aremore likely to think about and die from suicide , andat earlier ages , than their neurotypical peers. "Our son has always been different. So why wouldn't how we approach suicide be different?" Neal said. Suicide is aleading cause of death in the US for kids aged 10 to 18. Prevention strategies that take neurodiversity into account could go a long way toward reducing the number of young lives lost too soon. Autism researchers and advocates are working to develop better screening tools and interventions based on the unique strengths and differences of an autistic brain. A crucial first step is educating the people best positioned to help kids when they're in crisis, like parents, counselors, pediatricians and social workers. "These are kids that are experiencing all sorts of heightened risk," said Danielle Roubinov , an associate professor and director of the Child and Adolescent Anxiety and Mood Disorders Program at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill . "We're aware of the need for tailored approaches. We're doing this research. We're trying to get the word out. And [suicidality] is something that is treatable. This is something that responds to intervention." The percentage of US children with an autism diagnosishas risen steadily in recent decades, from 1 in 150 8-year-olds in 2000 to 1 in 31 in 2022. The diagnostic definition haschanged dramatically in that time, inscribing children with a broad range of abilities, needs and behaviors within a single term: autism spectrum disorder. Today, the diagnosis includes children whose autism was previously overlooked because of their propensity for "masking," the act of consciously or unconsciously suppressing autistic traits in order to blend in. For autistic children without intellectual disabilities, like Anthony Tricarico , masking often enables them to participate in mainstream classes or activities. It's also why many children, especially girls, aren't diagnosed with autism until later in childhood. Masking can exact a powerful psychological toll on autistic kids, and is strongly correlatedwith depression, anxiety and suicide. Children across the autism spectrum are far more likely tostruggle with mental health conditions than their allistic, or non-autistic, peers. A2021 study of more than 42,000 caregivers of children ages 3 to 17 found that 78% of autistic children had at least one co-occurring psychiatric condition, compared with 14% of non-autistic kids. Contributing factors include the stress of living in a world that's sensorially overwhelming or socially impenetrable. Lights, noises, smells and crowds that others barely notice may cause incapacitating anxiety. For kids who cope by masking, constantly deciphering and mimicking social responses is often cognitively and emotionally exhausting. "Masking is actually a risk factor of suicide for autistic people," said Lisa Morgan , founder of theAutism and Suicide Prevention Workgroup , who is autistic herself. Autistic people at all agesare more likely to die by suicide than those who aren't autistic. That disparity begins early. One2024 meta-analysis found that some 10% of autistic children and teens had attempted suicide, a rate more than twice that of non-autistic peers. Their struggles are often invisible. Neal and Samara had never heard of masking. They saw how Anthony thrived on schedules and sameness. He rose precisely at 5 am for a long workout, chugged the same protein shake afterward, took a shower at 7 am on the dot. At the time they thought he was extremely disciplined; they believe now it was also Anthony's way of fulfilling his need for routine and predictability, a common autistic trait. They also saw that he preferred to keep his diagnosis a secret. In middle school, Anthony announced that he no longer wanted any accommodations for his autism: no more individualized education program, no more behavioral therapy, no more telling new friends or teachers about his diagnosis. "It's my belief he just wanted all that to go away, and to just be like everyone else," Neal said. The pandemic hit Anthony hard. He couldn't work out at his favorite spots or fish, a beloved pastime. Other kids might have defied the closures and gone anyway, but Anthony followed rules with inflexible intensity, Neal said, especially the ones he set for himself. His mental health started to decline. In 2022, during his freshman year, Neal and Samara learned that Anthony told a friend he was having thoughts of suicide. They called the California suicide hotline , where a volunteer told them to contact his school. A counselor determined that since Anthony didn't have a plan, he wasn't at immediate risk. When Neal and Samara asked him about it, he sounded almost dismissive. It was fleeting, he said. It wasn't real. It's impossible to know Anthony's true thoughts. What is known is that suicidal ideationcan look very different in autistic kids. About a decade ago, psychiatrist Dr. Mayank Gupta started noticing an uptick in a particular type of patient at the western Pennsylvania inpatient facilities in which he worked: bright children from stable home environments who began having serious suicidal thoughts in early adolescence. They showed few of the typical youth-suicide risk factors, like substance use or histories of neglect. A surprising number had autism diagnoses. At the time, Gupta associated autism with behaviors like minimal verbal communication and noticeable differences in body language or eye contact. Nothing in his training or continuing education discussed the breadth of the autism spectrum, or how it might relate to children's mental health. He searched the literature, and was stunned to findhow much published work there was on autism and suicide. "In the last seven to eight years, there's been more and more evidence, and more and more research," he said. But not enough of it has made its way to the local psychologists, psychiatrists and pediatricians that parents are most likely to turn to for help with a struggling child. Adults often assume that a child who can speak fluently on a variety of subjects can explain their thoughts and feelings with a similar level of insight. But up to 80% of autistic kidshave alexithymia , or difficulty identifying and describing one's own internal emotional state. For this reason, "it makes sense that all of the interventions that have been designed for a neurotypical youth probably aren't going to translate in the same way to autistic youth," said Jessica Schwartzman , an assistant professor of pediatrics at USC's Keck School of Medicine a…

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

A long lecture, a loud party or simply a cold – and suddenly your voice is hoarse or gone altogether. What exactly happens when you lose your voice and how to get it back. Berlin (dpa) – Raspy. Breathy. Strained. Weak. When you're hoarse, sending a voice message, presenting a project at a meeting, dictating an address to your car's navigation system, or simply having a phone call can be difficult. "We're a communicative society, and voice plays a major role in people's jobs too. So having it fail you due to hoarseness isn't just unpleasant, it's a big problem," says Dr Christopher Bohr, head of the Clinic and Policlinic for Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Medicine at Regensburg University Hospital in Germany. It's a problem many of us have had, if only on occasion. Here are answers to some pertinent questions: How and why does hoarseness occur? Your voice is produced by airflow from your lungs – which act like a pair of bellows – upwards through your trachea (windpipe) to your larynx (voice box). There it meets two bands of tissue, your vocal folds ("cords"), which open when you breathe but close when you speak, causing them to vibrate and create sound waves. Your vocal tract – pharynx (throat), oral cavity (mouth) and nasal cavity – then filters the sound waves, shaping your voice, its timbre and pitch. "Your voice is in good working order when your vocal folds are highly flexible and completely open and close," Bohr says. "If this isn't the case, you become hoarse." Hoarseness can occur when inflammation makes your vocal folds swell and lose flexibility. Vocal nodules, polyps or cysts on the folds can also disturb airflow and hence their vibrations. In short, says Bohr, "anything that hinders the opening and closing of the vocal folds can cause hoarseness." Common culprits include colds, laryngitis or overuse of your voice, for instance by trying to carry on a conversation in a loud pub or make yourself heard teaching a classroom of noisy children. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a chronic condition in which stomach acid rises into your oesophagus (food pipe), is another possible cause of hoarseness. Smoking, regular alcohol consumption and inhalation of large amounts of dust can irritate your larynx and vocal folds as well. What can you do to treat hoarseness? Since hoarseness results from your vocal folds' loss of flexibility, it's important to restore it as far as possible. You can do this by keeping them moist, for instance with hyaluronic acid tablets or salty lozenges. They increase salt levels in your saliva, thereby increasing moisture in the folds' cells. Saline solution inhalations can be beneficial too. And be sure to drink plenty of water, or perhaps warm tea with camomile, which has an anti-inflammatory effect, or sage, which moisturizes. The most effective measure, however, is probably to rest your voice. If this is impossible, say, because you've got an important appointment when you'll need to speak, it might be a good idea to warm up your voice a little beforehand – but go easy on it. "Clearing your throat or whispering doesn't help at all," says Bohr. "On the contrary, it only further irritates your already irritated vocal folds. Whispering puts a lot of strain on them." It's best to speak in a middle vocal register and natural, low volume. Something else to keep in mind: "If you feel phlegm build-up on your vocal folds, coughing is gentler than clearing your throat," says Dr Antoniu-Oreste Gostian, head physician in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology at St Elisabeth Hospital in Straubing, Germany. When is hoarseness reason to see a doctor? If it lasts longer than three or four weeks, you should definitely try to determine the cause and rule out a serious condition, such as cancer of the larynx. "When detected early, cancer of the larynx is now nearly 100% curable," Bohr says. So make an appointment with an ENT physician. Can you strengthen your voice through training? Yes. Using your voice better can reduce strain on your larynx and vocal folds. "If your voice isn't resilient enough for your job or private life, you should get a thorough voice diagnosis," says Gostian. The first place to turn is a specialist in phoniatrics, who, with a speech therapist, can work out a tailored treatment plan for you. You can also do some simple voice exercises on your own. "Softly hum a melody, or try the LAX VOX method, which involves humming through a straw into a glass of water," suggests Bohr. Strange though it may sound, it's quite effective. Can your mental state affect your voice? Yes, psychological factors sometimes play a role in hoarseness. A classic example is psychogenic aphonia, a disorder in which a person, due to psychological or emotional stress, either fully loses their voice or can only speak in a hoarse whisper. Incidentally, someone's emotional state can be read in their voice. By analyzing parameters such as pitch, volume and speech rate, modern artificial intelligence (AI) systems can gauge how tense or excited a person is. When you're excited, the pitch of your voice is often higher because muscles in your larynx contract, stretching your vocal folds and making them tauter, which causes them to vibrate faster. When you're relaxed, your voice is usually lower. The following information is not intended for publication dpa/tmn coi bzl rid nhr xxde ob arw

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Ultra-processed foods – such as ice cream, processed meats, crisps, mass-produced bread, some breakfast cereals, biscuits, many ready meals and fizzy drinks – are a leading cause of the "chronic disease pandemic", say the authors of a new study. London (PA Media/dpa) – Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are a leading cause of the “chronic disease pandemic” linked to diet, with food firms putting profit above all else, global experts have warned. Writing in The Lancet medical journal, 43 scientists and researchers joined forces to argue that UPFs are “displacing” fresh foods and meals, worsening diet quality, and are linked to multiple chronic diseases. They said: “The key driver of the global rise in UPFs is the growing economic and political power of the UPF industry, and its restructuring of food systems for profitability above all else. “The industry comprises UPF manufacturers at its core, but also a broader network of co-dependent actors who collectively drive the production, marketing and consumption of UPFs.” UPFs have been linked to poor health, including an increased risk of obesity, heart disease, cancer and early death. Examples of UPFs include ice cream, processed meats, crisps, mass-produced bread, some breakfast cereals, biscuits, many ready meals and fizzy drinks. UPFs often contain high levels of saturated fat, salt, sugar and additives, which experts say leaves less room in people’s diets for more nutritious foods. UPFs also tend to include additives and ingredients that are not used when people cook from scratch, such as preservatives, emulsifiers and artificial colours and flavours. Writing in The Lancet, the global team said that, although some countries have brought in rules to reformulate foods and control UPFs, “the global public health response is still nascent, akin to where the tobacco control movement was decades ago”. They said government policy, including in high income countries like the UK, has done little to change the “commercial and structural determinants of the problem”, instead focusing on consumer responsibility, industry partnerships, and voluntary self-regulation in industry, such as when companies replace sugar in some foods with sweeteners, or reduce fat. “This policy inertia reflects the co-ordinated efforts of the industry to skew decision making, frame policy debates in their interest, and manufacture the appearance of scientific doubt,” they said. They argue that the main barrier to policies to protect health is “industry’s corporate political activities, coordinated transnationally through a global network of front groups, multi-stakeholder initiatives, and research partners, to counter opposition and block regulation.” These activities include direct lobbying, “infiltrating government agencies”, and filing lawsuits, they added. The experts argue that the “continuing rise of UPFs in human diets is not inevitable” and, while research into their effects continues, this should not delay policies aimed at promoting diets based on whole foods. The dietary share of UPFs remains below 25% in countries such as Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and across Asia, but it is 50% in the US and UK, the research said. Action is needed now to tackle UPFs directly rather than relying on current measures, it added. Professor Chris Van Tulleken, from University College London, one of the authors, told a press briefing there had been a “three-decade history of reformulation by the food industry”. He added: “We took the fat out first, then we took the sugar out. We replaced the sugar with the sweeteners, the fats with gums. These products have been extensively reformulated and we have seen obesity, particularly obesity in childhood and other rates of diet-related disease persistently go up in line with reformulation. “This is not a product level discussion. The entire diet is being ultra-processed. “And remember that built into the definition of ultra-processed food is its purpose. Its purpose is for profit. And so as long as you’re reformulating, if your purpose is still profit, you’re unlikely to cause positive health outcomes.” Several experts commenting on the Lancet papers called for more, better quality research into the impact of UPFs, adding that current studies have shown a link with poor health but not a direct cause. Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University, said “it seems to me likely that at least some UPFs could cause increases in the risk of some chronic diseases (certainly not all – there’s little evidence of an increase in cancer risk, for instance). “But this certainly doesn’t establish that all UPFs increase disease risk. “There’s still room for doubt and for clarification from further research.” He said he was not advocating that no public health action about UPFs is taken until all the research gaps have been filled but said there was a need for “transparency” about “what we have good evidence for and what we don’t.” Professor Jules Griffin, from the University of Aberdeen, said the authors had shown “a wide range of chronic diseases are associated with increased consumption of ultra-processed foods” but “association may not be causation, as the authors freely admit”. The following information is not intended for publication pa dpa coh

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Washington (dpa) – It's something well familiar to many who have tried to muster up the motivation to head to the pub after a few joints. But there is now also hard evidence that smoking weed can lead people to drink less alcohol, say the team behind new research. In a study led by Brown University researchers, volunteers were given a mix of marijuana of varying potency levels and placebos – after which they were "offered servings of their preferred alcoholic beverage on a tray" or the option of cash in lieu. Participants were less inclined to take a drink if they had smoked a joint rather than a placebo, the researchers found, cautioning that the results "don’t mean that cannabis should be recommended as a therapeutic substitute for alcohol." "Cannabis reduced the urge for alcohol in the moment, lowered how much alcohol people consumed over a two-hour period and even delayed when they started drinking once the alcohol was available," Jane Metrik, a psychiatry professor, describing the team's findings. The authors warned that "cannabis itself can be addictive and that — just as is the case is for alcohol — there is risk for progressing to problematic use of cannabis, as well." Published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the research was based on a series of laboratory visits by 157 participants described as heavy drinkers who smoke cannabis at least twice a week. The following information is not intended for publication dpa spr coh

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Beijing (dpa) – People unconsciously blink in time with the rhythm of music they are listening to, according to a study published in PLOS Biology by researchers in China. "We found that people’s spontaneous eye blinks fall in step with the musical beat — even without being told to move," said co-author Yi Du of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, sharing her surprise at the phenomenon. "What surprised us most was how reliably a 'small-movement' like blinking locks to the beat — it’s a tiny action that reveals a deep coordination between hearing and action, which we did not expect at all," Yi Du was quoted as saying. For the investigation, the team analysed the behaviour of 123 young adults while they listened to Bach chorales. None of the participants had musical training. The researchers measured their brain activity and eye movements, and found that blinking was linked to a neural response to the rhythm. They interpreted this as an indication that the brain closely tracks the structure of sounds, but only when attention is directed at the music. In a further experiment, participants had to detect a red dot on a screen while listening, and the result was that blinking no longer kept time. The researchers attributed this to the musical patterns being processed less strongly. The following information is not intended for publication dpa pls yyzz n1 may

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

The long-debunked theory that childhood vaccines cause autism has returned to the spotlight, fueled by the rise of prominent anti-vaccine activists nearly three decades after its initial spread. Where did the “vaccines cause autism” theory come from? Dallas (tca/dpa) – In the late 1990s, a theory gripped parents around the world: What if childhood vaccines — particularly the combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine — cause autism? Nearly three decades later, the debunked theory has gained renewed prominence in parallel with the rise of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a long-time anti-vaccine activist who now serves as the US health secretary. Scientists, medical providers and medical researchers are clear on this: Vaccines do not cause autism. To those tuning into the vaccine debate now, it can feel like scientists are dismissing the theory without considering it. But there’s a reason. There has already been a mountain of research investigating vaccines and debunking any connection with autism. Scientists have reached a consensus on this one. Here’s how. Where did the “vaccines cause autism” theory come from? The idea that vaccines cause autism, or at least the popularity of that idea, can be traced to a 1998 research paper. In that paper, then-physician Andrew Wakefield and his co-authors hypothesized that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine could trigger a combination of gastrointestinal problems and neurodevelopmental “regression” consistent with autism. Wakefield, who is British, published the article in the well-respected scientific journal The Lancet. The paper had a dozen co-authors. (That paper, and Wakefield himself, have since been resoundingly discredited. But let’s take this in chronological order.) The paper, in its initial form, had numerous red flags, including a small sample size of 12 children. Additionally, the paper itself did not claim to actually prove the connection. “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described,” the article says. “Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.” Even with the original paper’s caveats and limitations, the theory captured the public attention and was simplified to the idea that vaccines cause autism. Researchers and medical professionals have pointed to the paper as one major cause of dropping childhood vaccination rates. The scientific community took note of the paper, too, and responded in the way that science should: By testing the hypothesis again and again. Did other scientists *really* look into Wakefield’s idea? In the years after the Wakefield paper, researchers around the world embarked on studies to look for any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. David Amaral — the founding research director at the MIND Institute at UC Davis, an autism research center — has worked in autism research since the late 1990s, around the same time as the Wakefield paper’s publication. He remembers the flurry of research triggered by the vaccine theory. There was a 1999 epidemiological study in the U.K., published in the same journal that published Wakefield’s paper the year before. There was a 2001 study in California. There was a 2002 study of more than half a million children in Denmark. There was another 2002 study of more than half a million children, this time in Finland. These four examples are just a sampling of the studies on vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders. There have been many other studies, too. The Autism and Science Foundation has compiled a lengthy list that includes at least 11 additional research studies and analyses related to vaccines and autism. Dr. Jake Scott, a Stanford Medicine professor and an infectious disease specialist, has spearheaded a compilation of randomized controlled trials — which are often cited as the gold standard of research — related to vaccines and vaccine safety. That spreadsheet, Scott wrote in early September federal testimony, has catalogued more than 1,700 studies. “If vaccines caused a wave of chronic disease, our safety systems – which can detect 1-in-a-million events – would have seen it,” Scott wrote in his testimony. “They haven’t.” What did those other studies find? A number of the studies conducted after the Wakefield paper focused on rates of autism among children who had been vaccinated and children who hadn’t. If the MMR vaccine — or another vaccine — did cause or increase the risk of autism, then there should be higher rates of autism among vaccinated children. This was a reality that Wakefield and his co-authors directly addressed in their original paper. “If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome,” the paper says, “a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988.” Scientists and researchers had the same thought. “If there was a link between the vaccines, you should at least see some signal,” Amaral said. “You should see some evidence of it.” But, in follow-up study after follow-up study, researchers found no such evidence. The 1999 UK study authors wrote that their “analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism.” “This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism,” said the authors of the massive Denmark study. And on and on. The studies repeatedly came back with the same conclusion: No evidence of a link between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. That matters because, in the scientific world, a single study cannot prove anything. When a researcher finds a new or important link, other researchers set off on the task of replicating that finding. This is to ensure that the link really does exist, that it wasn’t a mistake by the original researcher, a poorly designed study or simply a fluke. (Spoiler alert: That scientific process also aims to root out deliberate research fraud.) It is only when a finding can be repeated by other researchers that the scientific community reaches “consensus” and agrees that a hypothesis does, indeed, appear to be true. When other researchers set out to validate — or replicate — Wakefield’s study, they couldn’t. It was a death knell for Wakefield’s hypothesis. Dr. Jason Terk, a pediatrician in North Texas, started practicing in 1998, the same year the Wakefield paper was published. “In good faith, the medical community tried to answer the question and it was a very clear answer,” Terk said, “that there was no evidence to support the connection that was raised by this paper.” Even after extensive research, scientists tend to be hesitant to frame anything as an absolute. If there’s a hair’s width opening for a possible other explanation, researchers tend to hedge their statements, to leave room for that extraordinarily unlikely other explanation. In the case of vaccines and autism, though, researchers have come as close to absolute proof as they can. “There is literally no evidence that vaccines cause autism,” said Katherine Meltzoff, a University of California, Riverside professor and autism researcher. “It’s been studied and restudied and restudied almost infinite times since the initial, fraudulent 1998 paper came out.” What happened to Wakefield and his paper? As evidence mounted against Wakefield’s hypothesis and his 1998 paper, The Lancet investigated allegations that the paper’s results may have been fabricated or otherwise manipulated. In 2004, 10 of the 12 co-authors retracted the interpretation of the original data in the paper. Six years after that, the journal retracted the entire article, citing “false” statements in the study, including in how the authors recruited patients. The British medical board, called the General Medical Council, looked into the situation, too. In a report, the council detailed numerous instanc…

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Amsterdam (dpa) – Getting a good night's rest may not be the highest priority on your checklist before a run, with many hoping a good diet and proper stretching will help them reach a new personal best. But new research shows that for elite runners and any of the millions of people worldwide who jog regularly, the standard eight hours not only boosts performance but could also be key to preventing the sprains and strains and tears that running can lead to. A new survey of 425 runners found that those reporting shorter sleep times or broken sleep "were nearly twice as likely to sustain an injury" as those who had a restful night between the sheets. The study offers "compelling evidence that sleep is a critical yet often overlooked component of injury prevention," according to Jan de Jonge of Eindhoven University of Technology and the University of South Australia, who carried out the research with Toon Taris of Utrecht University. Published in the journal Applied Sciences, the results should put to bed what de Jonge said is the tendency for runners to place sleep at "the bottom of the list" below preparation such as nutrition and stretching. "Our research shows that poor sleepers were 1.78 times more likely to report injuries than those with stable, good quality sleep, with a 68% likelihood of sustaining an injury over a 12-month period," de Jonge said, describing the findings as "a strong reminder that how well you rest is just as important as how hard you train." "When sleep is disrupted or insufficient, the body's ability to repair tissues, regulate hormones and maintain focus diminishes, all of which can increase injury risk," de Jonge explained. "Sleep quality and sleep duration are both important, but quantity often provides the bedrock," de Jonge and Taris concluded in their paper, calling for a good night's rest to be "recognized not only as a recovery tool, but also as a potential predictor of injury vulnerability in recreational sports." According to the University of South Australia, while more than 600 million worldwide are recreational runners and likely are healthier for it, 90% of them are likely to get injured at some point. The ensuing downtime ends up "costing the world economy millions of dollars each year in work absences and medical expenses," the university said. The following information is not intended for publication dpa spr coh

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Could your diet be increasing your cancer risk? New research has linked ultra-processed foods like pre-packaged sandwiches, crisps, soft drinks, frozen pizzas and oven chips to early bowel changes in women. London (PA Media/dpa) – Women who consume high amounts of ultra processed food (UPFs) are at higher risk of developing a potential precursor to bowel cancer, a new study suggests. Experts said that the study provides insight on how diet can influence early changes in the bowel. Writing in the journal Jama Oncology, experts said that women who regularly eat more servings of UPFs – such as processed sauces, crisps, processed meats and many ready meals – are at a significantly higher risk of developing a growth in the bowel called an adenoma. These growths are a type of polyp and are not cancerous, but they can develop into cancer over a long period of time. Most bowel cancers develop from an adenoma. Researchers have been trying to discover the reason behind a rise in bowel cancer cases among younger adults. According to Cancer Research UK (CRUK), incidence rates of bowel cancer among people aged 25-49 have increased by 62% since the early 1990s. The new study examined information on thousands of nurses in the US who were tracked from 1991 through to 2015. Information on UPF intake was gathered using food surveys taken every four years. Researchers studied 29,105 women with an average age of 45. Among these women, 1,189 cases of early-onset adenomas were identified, according to the study, which was funded by Cancer Grand Challenges – a global research initiative founded by Cancer Research UK and the National Cancer Institute in the US. Those with the highest consumption of UPFs were 45% more likely to have these early-onset adenomas, compared to those with the lowest consumption of UPFs. Those who ate the highest proportion of UPFs ate around 9.9 portions a day. CRUK said a typical diet of this many servings of UPFs could include: one bowl of sweetened breakfast cereal, one slice of white toast with margarine or jam, a flavoured yoghurt cup or breakfast bar for breakfast; a pre-packaged supermarket sandwich, a packet of crisps and a can of coke or flavoured drink for lunch; a frozen pizza or oven chips and chicken nuggets with ketchup and mayonnaise on the side for supper and an evening treat of ice cream or biscuits. Those who ate the fewest UPFs consumed an average of 3.3 servings each day. “These data highlight the important role of UPFs in early-onset colorectal tumorigenesis and support improving dietary quality as a strategy to mitigate the increasing burden of early-onset colorectal cancer,” the authors wrote. Dr Andrew Chan, lead author of the study, from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in the US, said: “We’re seeing more cases of bowel cancer in younger adults, and we still don’t understand why. “Our research is exploring possible factors such as diet, lack of exercise and disruption to the gut microbiome, which may all play a role. “Our study suggests these foods could be linked to a higher risk of developing polyps. However, more research is needed to confirm this link. “This means looking at larger and more diverse groups of people and investigating how the body responds to these foods to understand their role in early changes in the bowel.” Cancer Grand Challenges scientific committee chairman and Cancer Research UK’s chief clinician, Professor Charles Swanton, said the study helps “shed light on how diet and other factors are associated with gut health and changes in the bowel linked to cancer risk”. Fiona Osgun, head of health information at Cancer Research UK, added: “While this study doesn’t directly measure cancer risk, it offers useful insight into how diet might influence early changes in the bowel that sometimes lead to cancer. “Our diets are shaped by the world around us, from food prices, marketing and local availability. “This can make healthy choices harder. We need broader changes – from food policy to public health initiatives – to make healthier diets more accessible for everyone. “Our overall diet matters more for cancer risk than any single food type.” The following information is not intended for publication pa dpa coh

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)