Tag Archives: levine

Can’t eat gluten? Pesticides and nonstick pans might have something to do with it, study says

It seems like everyone knows someone with a sensitivity to gluten — a protein mixture found in cereal grains, like wheat and barley. A third of all Americans say they avoid products with gluten in them, and grocery store shelves are overflowing with gluten-free products that didn’t exist a decade ago.

For roughly 1 percent of the planet’s population, eating gluten triggers a genetic immune response called celiac disease that has wide-ranging consequences. The disease’s symptoms range from mild, like diarrhea, fatigue, gas, to severe. Think nausea and vomiting, osteoporosis, infertility, neurological problems, and even the development of other autoimmune diseases.

The root causes of celiac disease have largely stumped epidemiologists. But a study out Tuesday by researchers from New York University establishes a link between the disease and two groups of manmade chemicals: pesticides and a compound known as PFAS, which is often found in products around the house. It might help explain why some people who are susceptible to celiac disease end up developing it when others don’t. The researchers analyzed the levels of toxic chemicals in the blood of 90 children, 30 of whom had recently been diagnosed celiac. They found that those with high levels of pesticides in their blood were twice as likely to develop the disease.

“Our study establishes the first measurable tie-in between environmental exposure to toxic chemicals and celiac disease,” Jeremiah Levine, a coauthor and a professor of pediatrics at NYU Langone Medical Center, said.

Ben Lebwohl, director of clinical research at Columbia University’s Celiac Disease Center, said the results should be treated with caution. “There are a number of limitations that prevent us from drawing sweeping conclusions,” he said in an email to colleagues on Tuesday. He pointed out that the study only looked at children who had already been diagnosed with celiac. “Children who get diagnosed are likely different in important ways related to health care utilization and socioeconomics, which may be associated with these pollutant levels.”

But Lebwohl said the research added to a growing body of work that suggest that environmental factors increase the risk of gluten intolerance. The study, he said, “mandates follow-up work.”

Levine and the other researchers also tested for toxic chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances found in nonstick cookware and fire retardant and have been linked to multiple types of cancer and other harmful diseases. The study was conducted on subjects under the age of 21 because children and young adults are uniquely vulnerable to chemicals that may disrupt immune function.

They uncovered some surprising results. Young females exposed to higher-than-normal levels of non-stick chemicals like PFAs were five to 9 times more likely to have the disease than children exposed to lower concentrations of those chemicals (women make up a majority of celiac cases worldwide). Young males with elevated blood levels of fire-retardant chemicals were twice as likely to be diagnosed with celiac compared to children with lower levels of fire retardants in their blood.

Some of the chemicals have been out of commission for years. “We found that kids were susceptible across the board to a particular pesticide that had already been phased out of most uses,” Leonardo Trasande, a co-author of the study and a professor of environmental medicine at NYU, told Grist. “That speaks to the fact that we have legacy effects of synthetic chemicals that were used decades ago.”

Trasande said more research and a larger sample size is needed to determine whether those chemicals directly cause the disease and whether they’re linked to other autoimmune disorders. But the study lends more support to those calling for stricter regulation of toxic chemicals and pesticides.

“We do need a more rigorous structure for regulating these chemicals in the first place,” Trasande said.

In the meantime, he suggests a few steps to help reduce exposure at home: Open the windows and use a wet mop to collect organic pollutant dust from furniture and electronics that might still carry flame retardants. Avoid using non-stick pots and pans. Trasande suggests replacing them with cast iron or steel. And finally, avoid athletic wear that’s over-treated with chemicals. “You don’t really need oil-resistance in athletic materials,” he said, “you just need to repel sweat.”

Read more:

Can’t eat gluten? Pesticides and nonstick pans might have something to do with it, study says

Posted in Accent, alo, Eureka, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can’t eat gluten? Pesticides and nonstick pans might have something to do with it, study says

My Interview With a Pediatrician Who Thinks Vaccines Are "Messing With Nature"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The waiting room at Pediatric Alternatives in Mill Valley, a town in the affluent hippie enclave of Marin County, California, is a far cry from the drab doctors’ offices I remember from childhood. Instead of old copies of Highlights magazine and a few sticky Legos, there’s a veritable Montessori classroom’s worth of appealing toys: wholesome-looking wooden blocks, stacks of picture books, and even a ride-on Radio Flyer fire engine. For parents, there are bookshelves stocked with Moosewood cookbooks and herbal remedies and tomes about how French people get their children to eat. Black-and-white portraits of grinning kids line the walls. Even the patients and their parents look great: trim moms in yoga pants, a giggling, pigtailed preschooler playing with a sticker, an elementary-school girl holding an American Girl book. No one seems to have so much as a runny nose.

This scene isn’t the only impressive thing about Pediatric Alternatives. The practice’s five physicians have impeccable credentials, having trained and completed residencies at some of the nation’s top medical schools and institutions. Several are fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Given all this, it might surprise you to learn that one of Pediatric Alternatives’ policies is extremely unorthodox: It suggests that families delay certain childhood immunizations—in some cases for years past the age recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—and forego others entirely. A little less than 20 percent of the families the practice treats choose not to vaccinate at all. The rest use a modified vaccine schedule.

While the American Academy of Pediatrics discourages alternative vaccine schedules, it doesn’t forbid them for its members. And the insurers that contract with Pediatric Alternatives—which include Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Aetna, and Cigna—haven’t raised any protest. As Aetna puts it, “We don’t dictate care.” The California Department of Health simply requests that “parents ensure their children are immunized according to the schedule recommended by their physician.” The state of California, meanwhile, makes it relatively easy to opt out of vaccines: Parents are not required to follow the federally recommended schedule, and those who wish to skip shots entirely need only obtain the signature of their child’s pediatrician. (Rules vary in other states. See our map.)

If these top-shelf pediatricians and the regulatory bodies that oversee them are willing to allow customized immunization plans for each patient, then is there a possibility they are onto something? Could it be that much of what we’ve heard about the importance of timely vaccines is wrong?

While it’s almost unheard of for a pediatrics practice to make alternative vaccine schedules part of its official policy, skipping immunizations is far from unusual among parents in Marin County. Kindergartners here have one of the nation’s lowest vaccination rates, so it’s probably no coincidence that the county also has the second-highest rate of pertussis (whooping cough) in California.

On a recent Wednesday, Stacia Kenet Lansman, the founder and lead physician of Pediatric Alternatives, greets me warmly. A veteran pediatrician with 20 years of experience, she has a slight frame, shoulder-length gray hair, and a kind of favorite-aunt vibe about her. Her manner is friendly and she smiles often. It’s easy to picture her comforting a sick child.

Seated across from me in her exam room, Kenet Lansman sums up her professional trajectory: After attending the Tufts University School of Medicine, she took a pediatrics residency at Children’s Hospital Oakland. In 1996, she moved to Marin and began seeing patients in a local pediatrics office. It didn’t take her long to notice a disconnect between her schooling and her practice: During her residency, she treated sick children, but the kids she saw in Marin were, for the most part, healthy. Her job, she decided, was to keep them that way. She began to study alternative medicine and was influenced by the work of Deepak Chopra and Andrew Weil.

In 1998, she founded Pediatric Alternatives, with the goal of combining Western medicine with nontraditional methods like homeopathy, herbalism, and dietary treatments. This approach, she hoped, would “start children and families out with healthy habits and routines so that they are more likely to stay healthy.” The practice flourished. Today, she and four other physicians at Pediatric Alternatives treat somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 patients from around the Bay Area.

Kenet Lansman tells me she would never deny any vaccine to parents who request it for their child. But she does share her personal beliefs with her patients: She fears that vaccines have contributed to the recent uptick in autoimmune disorders and other chronic conditions. “I think we’re just messing with nature, and we really don’t know what we’ve created,” she says. “We’ve reduced or largely eliminated many infectious diseases. But in their place, we have an epidemic of chronic illnesses in children. The incidence of asthma, allergies, and autism spectrum disorders has dramatically increased since the 1990s. And the reason for this we don’t know. But my concern is that vaccines have played a role.”

She has a policy of giving only one vaccination at a time, and only when a child is completely healthy. “I believe that the detoxification pathways in the body can be overwhelmed by too many vaccines given on one day,” she explains.

Pediatric Alternatives prioritizes childhood vaccines based on the perceived risk of a kid acquiring a given disease. “We live in a very healthy community,” Kenet Lansman says. “The incidence of these illnesses are very low, not only here, but nationwide. And so it’s safe to do a modified vaccine schedule, in my opinion.”

She does adhere to the federal schedule for certain shots: She encourages parents to get their children the DTaP shot—which protects against pertussis, diphtheria, and tetanus—during the child’s first year. She also recommends that babies get vaccinated for meningitis—which is dangerous and very contagious—when they are a few months old.

On the other end of the spectrum are diseases Kenet Lansman considers extremely low-risk for babies. For instance, she reasons that her patients have virtually no chance of catching hepatitis B, which is generally only transmitted through sex and intravenous drug use, “not something babies are commonly engaging in”—she advises parents to forego that vaccine altogether. She also suggests skipping the varicella (chicken pox) and rotavirus vaccines, because those diseases are not life-threatening for the vast majority of children. While she doesn’t list the polio vaccine among the shots she believes patients should skip, she tells parents that the risk of children contracting polio in the United States these days is essentially nonexistent.

And then there are diseases that fall into a grayer area: The risk is not high, but it’s not zero, either. For these, Kenet Lansman recommends a delayed schedule. Because the incidences of measles, mumps, and rubella in the Bay Area are very low, she suggests that parents put off the MMR vaccine for their kids, unless they are traveling to a place where these diseases are endemic. The federal guidelines recommend MMR at age one; Pediatric Alternatives typically waits until age three to administer the shot.

The main reason for the delay, Kenet Lansman says, is that she still believes there could be a link between vaccines and autism. She acknowledges that the scientific community has rejected this theory, yet she says she has seen children from her own practice who begin to show signs of autism shortly after being vaccinated. “My feeling is that if there is any risk that the vaccine is associated with autism, we should delay the vaccine during this vulnerable developmental window,” she says.

Several times during my visit, Kenet Lansman mentions that in her 16 years of offering alternative vaccination schedules, not one of her patients has come down with a vaccine-preventable disease. What’s more, she adds, she has noticed that patients in her practice actually seem healthier than most of their peers. “Our office tends to be quiet during flu season,” she says.

I have to admit she has a point. Where the risk of catching measles or mumps is practically zero, if there’s any possibility at all that vaccines could contribute to chronic health problems, then why not use them judiciously?

For a reality check, I call up some outside experts, including Alanna Levine, a pediatrician in Orangeburg, New York, and a spokeswoman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, to ask what they thought of this boutique approach to immunizations. “My blood is boiling right now,” Levine replies. “I think that policy is dangerous. I think it puts children at risk when they are most vulnerable.”

Saad Omer, a professor of public health and vaccine expert at Emory University, holds a similar view. “There is a reason why we give vaccines to young children,” he says. “That’s because the risk of disease is higher for certain age groups. You want to give vaccines as early as possible to protect the child. If you delay, you are leaving the most vulnerable period for the child open.”

While Omer declined to comment on Pediatric Alternatives specifically, he points out that the group that comes up with the official vaccination recommendations is interdisciplinary; the resulting schedule reflects the perspectives of epidemiologists, microbiologists, policy experts, and others, in addition to pediatricians. “There is a reason why the advisory committees make schedules—not an individual,” he tells me.

Omer adds that he considers it very risky to vaccinate only against diseases that are prevalent in a particular community. “Most practices don’t have a community surveillance system,” he says. “They don’t know whom these kids interact with or where they will travel. Infectious diseases are by nature infectious, so it’s not just individual behavior that matters. It’s everyone’s vaccinations.”

The concept that a critical mass of vaccinated people shields the rest is known as “herd immunity.” Within every community, there are people—mostly infants under one year of age and people with compromised immune systems—who can’t tolerate vaccines. And there are others whose vaccines may have worn off, or for whom a particular vaccine never elicited a strong immune response. The pertussis vaccine, for example, has a relatively low rate of effectiveness: It confers immunity on just 80 percent of people who receive it. “Anyone could end up not being protected,” Omer says. “So their protection depends on other people’s behavior.”

Paul Offit, a vaccine expert and chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, tells me he often encounters parents who are afraid that too many vaccines will overwhelm their child’s immune systems. But the contents of the vaccine, he says, are nothing compared to all the germs one encounters daily. “The shots are a drop in the ocean of what your body does every single day,” he says. “It looks bad, because the kid is stressed out, but it is certainly not actually bad.”

Still, I wonder, how much can an individual pediatrics office matter? Even if Pediatric Alternatives’ vaccine practices aren’t ideal, would a few thousand unvaccinated toddlers in California really bring about an epidemic? Maybe not, says Omer. But if the alternative-schedule trend catches on, we could be in trouble. Beyond the skipped vaccines, the one-shot-per-visit policy means more visits to the doctor, “so the parents have to take more time off to bring the child to get the vaccines,” he adds. That creates more chances for missed appointments—which means more undervaccinated children.

Pediatric Alternatives is hardly the only practice offering modified vaccine schedules. Dr. Robert Sears popularized the practice with his 2007 book, The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for your Child. A quick search of the Berkeley Parents Network, a local community forum, turned up recommendations for a handful of Bay Area pediatricians who don’t insist that their patients stick to the official schedule. A 2012 study in the journal Pediatrics found that the percentage of children in greater Portland, Oregon, receiving two or fewer immunizations per doctor visit tripled between 2006 and 2009, leading the authors to conclude that Portland parents had increasingly chosen to delay their children’s vaccines. A 2011 University of Michigan survey found that nationwide, 13 percent of parents use an alternative immunization schedule.

Not all pediatricians who offer delayed vaccines do so out of concerns about the shots’ safety. Some simply see the alternative schedules as a compromise. Janet Perlman, a pediatrician with offices in Oakland and Berkeley, figures late immunizations are better than no immunizations. “I will do anything to get the vaccines in,” she tells me. “I just want to get the kids vaccinated.”

But Levine, the New York pediatrician I spoke with, has a different approach: If parents won’t stick to the schedule, she just won’t treat their children. In the 11 years she has practiced, she’s had to convince many hesitant parents that vaccines are safe. “It’s a long conversation,” she says. “It takes time. But it is worth it, because most of the time, if you really listen to what their concerns are and address them, they end up vaccinating on time.”

At the end of my visit to Pediatric Alternatives, I found that I liked Dr. Kenet Lansman. I could tell that she was bright and caring and open-minded, and most impressively, she tried to think creatively about how to keep her patients healthy. She’s right that there is an epidemic of chronic autoimmune illnesses and autism among children, and a mounting body of research suggests that our aggressive pursuit of germs—both in our environment and in the human body—might have something to do with it: When we kill disease-causing germs, the theory goes, we kill beneficial bacteria, as well, making our bodies’ defense systems go haywire.

But there is no research supporting the notion that vaccines contribute to autoimmune disorders or autism—and plenty of evidence showing that diseases like measles can be deadly. By deviating from the scientifically proven vaccine schedule, Kenet Lansman is playing a dangerous game. No matter what she believes about children in her practice being exceptionally healthy, the threat of catastrophic infectious diseases is real—and outbreaks are very hard to predict.

So far this year, there have been confirmed clusters of measles in the United States—36 cases in California and 20 in New York City. The unvaccinated patients of Pediatric Alternatives don’t live in a bubble. People travel. Consider this scenario: A patient of Kenet Lansman catches measles from a visitor from a part of the world where measles is still endemic. He then spreads it to his neighbor’s newborn, who isn’t old enough to be immunized, or to the kid at school whose immune system is weak because she is going through chemo.

This scenario isn’t far-fetched. During the 2010 pertussis outbreak, 10 babies in California died of the disease.

I was glad to hear that none of Kenet Lansman’s patients have contracted vaccine-preventable diseases yet. I just hope her luck does not run out.

Link:

My Interview With a Pediatrician Who Thinks Vaccines Are "Messing With Nature"

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on My Interview With a Pediatrician Who Thinks Vaccines Are "Messing With Nature"

Solar Power May Not Be As Expensive As You Think

If misconceptions such as cost or locale have kept you from embracing solar power, you may want to take a second look. Photo: Shutterstock

If worries about cost have kept you from embracing solar power, we have some pretty awesome news: Going solar may be less expensive than you think, and a group of tech-loving entrepreneurs is out to prove it to the nation.

“At this point, in 14 states plus the District of Columbia, solar is simply cheaper, cleaner power in any possible configuration,” says David Levine, CEO and founder of Geostellar, a web-based modeling tool that shows how much every home in America would save by going solar.

“In the rest of the country, with a little bit of work, it’s certainly still cleaner and it’s just as cheap.”

Check out this list of busted solar myths to see if going solar is right for your home and budget. With the potential to shrink carbon emissions for your energy needs down to zero, it certainly couldn’t hurt to find out.

Myth No. 1: Going solar is too expensive

With solar rebates, leasing options and a significant drop in the cost of solar panels, this myth is definitively busted for almost all Americans.

“The misconception around cost I think is enormous,” says Nick Yecke, vice president of marketing for Geostellar. “In a lot of places across the country it makes positive financial sense for people to go solar.”

Geostellar’s solar estimator tool provides an insight into your home’s solar particulars utilizing your street address, including cost savings, potential power generated and what type of eco-impact a solar set-up could have in your part of the country. Try the tool out yourself:

Installing a solar power system can cost as little as $0 down, while saving money on your electricity bills. A quick search on Geostellar will show you just how much you’ll save by going solar, along with rebates and financing options available in your area.

This screenshot of Geostellar’s mapping tool shows how solar potential can vary – even for residents of the same block. Photo: Geostellar

Myth No. 2: Solar panel prices will continue to fall

Solar panel prices are expected to fall a bit more. But on the flipside, utility prices are expected to increase and have already risen by 13.5 percent on average since 2006.

Additionally, funding for rebate programs is not guaranteed very far into the future. In a few years, rebates could be much smaller and panels may only cost a few dollars less, so holding out for a better deal may cost you in the long-run.

“Basically, our system tells you if it’s the right time [to go solar],” Levine says of Geostellar. “We know this is about your home, and we’re going to put the best algorithms in place that include the pricing of different suppliers so you can make that decision.”

Myth No. 3: Going solar will decrease my home’s resale value

Nope! A 2011 study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that solar installations actually increase a home’s resale value.

The homes sampled in the study – located in San Diego and Sacramento – saw values increase by an average of 3.5 percent after going solar.

Myth No. 4: Going solar will increase my property taxes

Unlike other home improvements, such as a new deck, gazebo or swimming pool, solar installations are exempt from property taxes in many states.

Installing solar panels in these states will save you some cash on your energy bill and increase your home’s resale value without costing more on taxes.

Myth No. 5: I don’t live in a warm state, so solar isn’t for me

This is is possibly one of the biggest misconceptions about solar power, but you don’t need to live in an arid desert or a sunny beach town to make solar cost-effective.

Surprisingly, Illinois gets 80 percent of the sun hours that Miami gets every year, and Boston is actually an even better candidate for solar power than sunny Atlanta, the Geostellar team points out.

All things considered, the amount of money you’ll save on solar doesn’t vary state by state, region by region or even block by block. Solar potential is based on a number of factors – from the slope of your roof to the trees in your backyard – and can vary greatly for homes even in the same neighborhood.

“The bottom line is…we’ve now put three years of work into giving you the right answer without dealing with all that stuff,” Levine says of Geostellar’s mapping tool. “There’s no reason not to type in your address.”

Editor’s Note: Earth911 teams up with affiliate marketing partners to help keep our lights on and the waste-fighting ideas flowing. Geostellar is one of these partners.

earth911

Link to article – 

Solar Power May Not Be As Expensive As You Think

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, solar panels, solar power, Thermos, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Solar Power May Not Be As Expensive As You Think