Organization established by treaty between governments
POPULARITY
6 episodes with international agency
3 episodes with international agency
2 episodes with international agency
2 episodes with international agency
2 episodes with international agency
2 episodes with international agency
2 episodes with international agency
2 episodes with international agency
3 episodes with international agency
Send us a textSend me feedback hereDr. Bobby begins with a walk through his local deli, which sparked a deeper investigation into what actually goes into processed meats. He outlines how processed meats are defined by the USDA as those altered through salting, curing, or smoking for preservation, dating back to Paleolithic food practices. The real concern, he explains, lies in compounds like nitrates (NO3) and nitrites (NO2), which can convert into nitrosamines, a group of chemicals potentially linked to colorectal cancer.Citing the American Institute for Cancer Research and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Dr. Bobby notes that processed meats have been labeled carcinogenic, with consumption linked to an increased cancer risk. However, he contrasts this with a weak recommendation from the Nutritional Recommendations Consortium, which found low-certainty evidence that processed meat increases cancer risk, suggesting most people could continue their usual consumption patterns.He scrutinizes observational studies like the UK Biobank study and a meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 2.5 million participants, both hinting at a modest increased risk but fraught with methodological flaws such as poor adjustment for confounders like diet, exercise, and lifestyle habits.The conversation deepens with the Shanghai study that found nitrate-related cancer risk only in individuals with low vitamin C intake, pointing to the potentially protective effects of antioxidants. Supporting this, Dr. Bobby highlights that 70% of dietary nitrates come from vegetables like spinach and beets, which are associated with lower cancer risk, adding nuance to the nitrate debate.And it gets more paradoxical—beetroot juice rich in nitrates has been shown in 75 randomized controlled trials to lower blood pressure by up to 7 points systolic, rivaling medication.To put things into perspective, Dr. Bobby crunches the numbers: if processed meats raise colorectal cancer risk by 13%, your lifetime risk might increase from 4% to 4.4%—a marginal difference. In real terms, out of 1,000 people who completely avoid processed meats, only four might avoid colorectal cancer.Other additives like sodium erythorbate and sodium ascorbate appear non-problematic at normal levels, and while sodium may raise blood pressure in salt-sensitive individuals, it's not linked to cancer risk—explored further in Episode 27.Dr. Bobby closes with a pragmatic and humor-tinged "bacon hack": since vitamin C may counteract the formation of harmful nitrosamines, consider enjoying your bacon with a glass of orange juice—a personal theory grounded in biochemical plausibility but not tested.Takeaways: If you enjoy processed meats, the absolute cancer risk appears minimal based on current evidence. Leafy vegetables, despite their high nitrate content, are protective—likely due to vitamin C and other antioxidants. To balance pleasure and prudence, pair your bacon with a side of vitamin C, and above all, remember: wellne
The IARC Perspective on the Effects of Policies on Reducing Alcohol Consumption New England Journal of Medicine In 2020, alcohol use was responsible for over 740,000 new cancer cases worldwide. In response, The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a two-part handbook assessing the effectiveness of public policy measures in reducing alcohol-related cancer risk. The report found that reducing or stopping alcohol consumption lowers the risk of certain cancers and that several policy interventions, such as increasing alcohol taxes; setting minimum pricing; restricting sales by time, place, and age; implementing total sales bans; and enacting strong marketing restrictions, effectively reduce alcohol consumption. Government-run alcohol monopolies and coordinated national strategies were also associated with decreased use. However, bans on alcohol discounts produced inconsistent results. These findings align with the WHO's Global Alcohol Action Plan and SAFER initiative, highlighting the importance of targeted, enforceable strategies to reduce alcohol-related harm globally. Read this issue of the ASAM Weekly Subscribe to the ASAM Weekly Visit ASAM
Visuals: https://getbehindthebillboard.com/episode-88-hermeti-balarinEpisode #88 features the charming, uber-talented Hermeti Balarin, joint CCO at W+K London.Hermeti works with his wife Ana, who was Behind the Billboard guest no. 9, which means the Balarin's are our first ever married couple on the show
A safe alternative to clinician-administered tests, the self-test for HPV can help prevent cervical cancer. Synopsis: Every first Wednesday of the month, The Straits Times helps you make sense of health matters that affect you. HPV or the human papillomavirus is a common virus that is sexually transmitted, and while most HPV infections clear on their own, persistent infections with high-risk types can lead to cervical cancer. In March 2025, the Society for Colposcopy & Cervical Pathology of Singapore (SCCPS) published an updated set of national cervical cancer screening guidelines. The guidelines now recommend HPV self-sampling as an option to traditional cervical cancer screening methods. In Singapore, cervical cancer is currently the 11th most common cancer in women, with 309 new cases and 172 deaths in 2023, according to data from the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Information Centre on HPV and Cancer. However, cervical cancer is one of the most preventable and treatable forms of cancer, as long as it is detected early and managed effectively, said the World Health Organisation (WHO). It aims to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem by 2030, with the following strategy: Vaccinate 90 per cent of girls with preventive HPV vaccines by age 15; Screen 70 per cent of women with a high-performance test like HPV DNA screening by age 35, and again by age 45; Treat 90 per cent of women who have precancerous cells in the cervix or cervical cancer. In this episode, senior health correspondent Joyce Teo speaks to Dr Felicia Chin, an obstetrician and gynaecological oncologist at Gynae Onco Partners about HPV DNA self-testing, what it entails, and who should screen for cervical cancer. Until late last year, Dr Chin was a senior consultant at KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital. She sits on the SCCPS committee. Highlights (click/tap above) 1:54 Explaining the various tests for cervical cancers 3:14 Guidelines for cervical cancer screening in Singapore 4:32 How does HPV self-sampling work? 5:23 Difference between a self-test and a pap smear 13:42 Cervical cancer symptoms Read Joyce Teo's stories: https://str.sg/JbxN Host: Joyce Teo (joyceteo@sph.com.sg) Produced and edited by: Amirul Karim & Eden Soh Executive producers: Ernest Luis and Lynda Hong Follow Health Check Podcast here and get notified for new episode drops: Channel: https://str.sg/JWaN Apple Podcasts: https://str.sg/JWRX Spotify: https://str.sg/JWaQ Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg --- Follow more ST podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 ST Podcasts website: http://str.sg/stpodcasts ST Podcasts YouTube: https://str.sg/4Vwsa --- Get The Straits Times app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX --- #healthcheckSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A safe alternative to clinician-administered tests, the self-test for HPV can help prevent cervical cancer. Synopsis: Every first Wednesday of the month, The Straits Times helps you make sense of health matters that affect you. HPV or the human papillomavirus is a common virus that is sexually transmitted, and while most HPV infections clear on their own, persistent infections with high-risk types can lead to cervical cancer. In March 2025, the Society for Colposcopy & Cervical Pathology of Singapore (SCCPS) published an updated set of national cervical cancer screening guidelines. The guidelines now recommend HPV self-sampling as an option to traditional cervical cancer screening methods. In Singapore, cervical cancer is currently the 11th most common cancer in women, with 309 new cases and 172 deaths in 2023, according to data from the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Information Centre on HPV and Cancer. However, cervical cancer is one of the most preventable and treatable forms of cancer, as long as it is detected early and managed effectively, said the World Health Organisation (WHO). It aims to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem by 2030, with the following strategy: Vaccinate 90 per cent of girls with preventive HPV vaccines by age 15; Screen 70 per cent of women with a high-performance test like HPV DNA screening by age 35, and again by age 45; Treat 90 per cent of women who have precancerous cells in the cervix or cervical cancer. In this episode, senior health correspondent Joyce Teo speaks to Dr Felicia Chin, an obstetrician and gynaecological oncologist at Gynae Onco Partners about HPV DNA self-testing, what it entails, and who should screen for cervical cancer. Until late last year, Dr Chin was a senior consultant at KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital. She sits on the SCCPS committee. Highlights (click/tap above) 1:54 Explaining the various tests for cervical cancers 3:14 Guidelines for cervical cancer screening in Singapore 4:32 How does HPV self-sampling work? 5:23 Difference between a self-test and a pap smear 13:42 Cervical cancer symptoms Read Joyce Teo's stories: https://str.sg/JbxN Host: Joyce Teo (joyceteo@sph.com.sg) Produced and edited by: Amirul Karim & Eden Soh Executive producers: Ernest Luis and Lynda Hong Follow Health Check Podcast here and get notified for new episode drops: Channel: https://str.sg/JWaN Apple Podcasts: https://str.sg/JWRX Spotify: https://str.sg/JWaQ Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg --- Follow more ST podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 ST Podcasts website: http://str.sg/stpodcasts ST Podcasts YouTube: https://str.sg/4Vwsa --- Get The Straits Times app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX --- #healthcheckSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ariana Znaor (Cancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France) discusses her Review on cancer surveillance in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: a 10-year IARC-WHO EMRO collaboration.Tell us what you thought about this episodeContinue this conversation on social!Follow us today at...https://twitter.com/thelancet & https://Twitter.com/TheLancetOncolhttps://instagram.com/thelancetgrouphttps://facebook.com/thelancetmedicaljournalhttps://linkedIn.com/company/the-lancethttps://youtube.com/thelancettv
The ties between U.S. foreign aid and American agriculture run deep — or at least used to. The U.S. International Agency for Development, or USAID, is the largest provider of humanitarian food aid in the world. Much of that aid comes from U.S. farmers, whose corn, wheat and rice is sold in bulk to the government for USAID's programs. What happens now if those programs end? Link to Jordan Schermerhorn's research of USAID ties by state.Related episodes: The gutting of USAID (Apple / Spotify) A 'Fork in the Road' for federal employees (Apple / Spotify) Trump threatens the grim trigger (Apple / Spotify) For sponsor-free episodes of The Indicator from Planet Money, subscribe to Planet Money+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Music by Drop Electric. Find us: TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Newsletter. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy
Stacey Norman and J Sbu chatted with two oncologists from Netcare Parklands Hospital to commemorate World Cancer Day. This year's theme is United by Unique. This theme is aimed at highlighting individualised, patient-centred care in the fight against cancer. World Cancer Day noted that behind every diagnosis is a unique human story. “Cancer is more than just a medical diagnosis, it's a deeply personal matter,” their website reads. This year's theme looks at how fully integrating an individual's unique needs with compassion and care can lead to healthy outcomes. The campaign looks at various aspects of patient-centred cancer care and how a difference can be made in treatment. This a three-year campaign aimed at not just raising awareness but also taking action. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) projects that by 2050, there will be an astounding 35 million additional instances of cancer worldwide.
When we think about the deleterious effects of poor sleep, cardiovascular and cognitive/psychological consequences typically come first to mind. One of the less obvious and less understood effects is that of cancer which was listed as a probably carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2007. Since that time, there has been considerable efforts to understand the role plays in cancer. In this episode we will:Evaluate the original research looking at sleep and cancer riskList the cancer types commonly associated with poor/inadequate sleepHighlight studies that cast doubt on this relationshipReview factors related to sleep and shift work that might influence riskSpeculate on possible mechanisms that lead to carcinogenicityTouch upon steps one can take to lessen cancer risk associated with poor sleepProduced by: Maeve WinterMore Twitter: @drchriswinter IG: @drchriwinter Threads: @drchriswinter Bluesky: @drchriswinter The Sleep Solution and The Rested Child Thanks for listening and sleep well!
- Volatility and CIA Operations (0:00) - Assassination Details and Gun Expertise (2:05) - Biden's Potential Pardons and Bitcoin Discussion (7:45) - Gold Backs and AI Tools (17:30) - Peter Hotez's Threat and Global Chaos (18:52) - AI Tools and Natural News (33:19) - EMF Exposure and Protection (58:06) - Practical Tips for EMF Protection (1:12:10) - International Agency for Research on Cancer and EMF Exposure (1:19:45) - Sponsor Introduction and Faraday Bag Features (1:22:58) - Global Political and Social Unrest (1:26:23) - Health Concerns and Regulatory Issues (1:28:49) - Practical Tips for Reducing EMF Exposure (1:32:21) - Natural Light and Artificial Light Concerns (1:35:53) - Product Solutions and Practical Applications (1:39:54) - Nutritional Solutions for EMF Exposure (1:42:53) - Final Thoughts and Closing Remarks (1:47:37) For more updates, visit: http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport NaturalNews videos would not be possible without you, as always we remain passionately dedicated to our mission of educating people all over the world on the subject of natural healing remedies and personal liberty (food freedom, medical freedom, the freedom of speech, etc.). Together, we're helping create a better world, with more honest food labeling, reduced chemical contamination, the avoidance of toxic heavy metals and vastly increased scientific transparency. ▶️ Every dollar you spend at the Health Ranger Store goes toward helping us achieve important science and content goals for humanity: https://www.healthrangerstore.com/ ▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html ▶️ Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport ▶️ Join Our Social Network: https://brighteon.social/@HealthRanger ▶️ Check In Stock Products at: https://PrepWithMike.com
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Link to Petition to Mandate Continued Medicare Coverage for Rural Home Telehealth Visits Beyond 2024 Guidelines for Alcohol Consumption Vary Markedly by Country Show Notes: Dr. Karin Cesario, a hepatologist (liver specialist), delves into the significant health risks associated with alcohol consumption, particularly highlighting the heightened dangers during the holiday season. Her discussion underscores the absence of a safe alcohol intake level and links alcohol to serious health issues, including cancer, liver disease, and heart conditions. Key Points: Health Risks of Alcohol: Alcohol is classified as a group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Even moderate drinking, previously considered acceptable, is now questioned. Healthy lifestyle choices, like a balanced diet and exercise, are encouraged over alcohol consumption. Cultural and Physiological Factors: Differences in cultural consumption patterns and definitions of drinking levels are explored. The interplay of type 2 diabetes, obesity, and specific surgeries (e.g., Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) with liver disease is discussed. Women and those with certain health conditions are at increased risk of liver damage. Alcohol-Related Health Crisis: The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated alcohol consumption, leading to more alcohol-related deaths and liver transplants. Alcohol's role as a carcinogen is underreported compared to other substances like opioids. Need for Awareness and Intervention: Emphasis on greater awareness through higher taxes, better education, and screening for alcohol use disorders. Healthcare providers are urged to promote early intervention and responsible consumption. Treatment and Recovery: The potential for liver recovery through alcohol cessation is highlighted. Success stories of patients overcoming addiction underscore the importance of individualized counseling and supportive environments. Limited pharmacological treatments make therapy and rehabilitation crucial, focusing on self-motivation and addressing underlying mental health issues. Familial and Personal Influences: Family history of alcoholism does not predetermine one's future; abstaining is achievable. Personality traits and environmental factors influence risk of addiction. Conclusion: The discussion underscores the profound impact of alcohol on health and the importance of increasing awareness and resources for support and recovery. Dr. Cesario's insights aim to inform and encourage responsible choices, early intervention, and the pursuit of healthier lifestyles.
There are dangers lurking in our food that affect your health and the health of our entire society, and you should know about them. In this episode, get the highlights from two recent Congressional events featuring expert testimony about the regulation of our food supply, as well as testimony from the man who is soon likely to be the most powerful person in our national health care system. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Joe Rogan Episodes The Joe Rogan Experience. The Joe Rogan Experience. The Joe Rogan Experience. The Joe Rogan Experience. Ron Johnson Scott Bauer. January 3, 2023. AP News. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Daniel Cusick. October 28, 2024. Politico. Rachel Treisman. August 5, 2024. NPR. Susanne Craig. May 8, 2024. The New York Times. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. FDA “Generally Recognized as Safe” Approach Paulette M. Gaynor et al. April 2006. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Paulette Gaynor and Sebastian Cianci. December 2005/January 2006. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Glyphosate September 20, 2023. Phys.org. Lobbying and Conflicts of Interest OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. LinkedIn. Shift from Democrats to Republicans Will Stone and Allison Aubrey. November 15, 2024. NPR. Helena Bottemiller Evich and Darren Samuelsohn. March 17, 2016. Politico. Audio Sources September 25, 2024 Roundtable discussion held by Senator Ron Johnson Participants: , Author, Good Energy; Tech entrepreneur, Levels , Co-founder, Truemed; Advocate, End Chronic Disease , aka the Food Babe, food activist Jillian Michaels, fitness expert, nutritionist, businesswoman, media personality, and author Dr. Chris Palmer, Founder and Director, Metabolic and Mental Health Program and Director, Department of Postgraduate and Continuing Education, McLean Hospital; Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School Brigham Buhler, Founder & CEO, Ways2Well Courtney Swan, nutritionist, real food activist, and founder of the popular platform "Realfoodology" , Founder and CEO, HumanCo; co-founder, Hu Kitchen Dr. Marty Makary, Chief of Islet Transplant Surgery, Professor of Surgery, and Public Policy Researcher, Johns Hopkins University Clips Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: When discussing improvements to US healthcare policy, politicians from both parties often say we have the best healthcare system in the world. That is a lie. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: Every major pillar of the US healthcare system, as a statement of economic fact, makes money when Americans get sick. By far the most valuable asset in this country today is a sick child. The pharma industry, hospital industry, and medical school industry make more money when there are more interventions to perform on Americans, and by requiring insurance companies to take no more than 15% of premiums, Obamacare actually incentivized insurance companies to raise premiums to get 15% of a larger pie. This is why premiums have increased 100% since the passage of Obamacare, making health care the largest driver of inflation, while American life expectancy plummets. We spend four times per capita on health care than the Italians, but Italians live 7.5 years longer than us on average. And incidentally, Americans had the highest life expectancies in the world when I was growing up. Today, we've fallen an average of six years behind our European neighbors. Are we lazier and more suicidal than Italians? Or is there a problem with our system? Are there problems with our incentives? Are there problems with our food? 46:15 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: So what's causing all of this suffering? I'll name two culprits, first and worst is ultra processed foods. 47:20 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: The second culprit is toxic chemicals in our food, our medicine and our environment. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: The good news is that we can change all this, and we can change it very, very, very quickly, and it starts with taking a sledgehammer to corruption, the conflicts in our regulatory agencies and in this building. These conflicts have transformed our regulatory agencies into predators against the American people and particularly our children. 80% of NIH grants go to people who have conflicts of interest, and these scientists are allowed to collect royalties of $150,000 a year on the products that they develop at NIH and then farm out to the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA, the USDA and CDC are all controlled by giant for-profit corporations. Their function is no longer to improve and protect the health of Americans. Their function is to advance the mercantile and commercial interests of the pharmaceutical industry that has transformed them and the food industry that has transformed them into sock puppets for the industry they're supposed to regulate. 75% of FDA funding does not come from taxpayers. It comes from pharma. And pharma executives and consultants and lobbyists cycle in and out of these agencies. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: Money from the healthcare industry has compromised our regulatory agencies and this body as well. The reality is that many congressional healthcare staffers are worried about impressing their future bosses at pharmaceutical companies rather than doing the right thing for American children. Today, over 100 members of Congress support a bill to fund Ozempic with Medicare at $1,500 a month. Most of these members have taken money from the manufacturer of that product, a European company called Novo Nordisk. As everyone knows, once a drug is approved for Medicare, it goes to Medicaid, and there is a push to recommend Ozempic for Americans as young as six, over a condition, obesity, that is completely preventable and barely even existed 100 years ago. Since 74% of Americans are obese, the cost of all of them, if they take their Ozempic prescriptions, will be $3 trillion a year. This is a drug that has made Novo Nordisk the biggest company in Europe. It's a Danish company, but the Danish government does not recommend it. It recommends a change in diet to treat obesity and exercise. Virtually Novo Nordisk's entire value is based upon its projections of what Ozempic is going to sell to Americans. For half the price of Ozempic, we could purchase regeneratively raised organic agriculture, organic food for every American, three meals a day and a gym membership for every obese American. Why are members of Congress doing the bidding of this Danish company instead of standing up for American farmers and children? Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: For 19 years, solving the childhood chronic disease crisis has been the central goal of my life, and for 19 years, I have prayed to God every morning to put me in a position to end this calamity. I believe we have the opportunity for transformational, bipartisan change to transform American health, to hyper-charge our human capital, to improve our budget, and I believe, to save our spirits and our country. 1:23:10 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Our next presenter, Dr. Marty Makary also bears a few scars from telling the truth during COVID. Dr. Makary is a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University. He writes for The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, and is the author of two New York Times best selling books, Unaccountable and The Price We Pay. He's been an outspoken opponent of broad vaccine mandates and some COVID restrictions at schools. Dr. Makary holds degrees from Bucknell University, Thomas Jefferson University and Harvard University. Dr. Marty Makary: I'm trained in gastrointestinal surgery. My group at Johns Hopkins does more pancreatic cancer surgery than any hospital in the United States. But at no point in the last 20 years has anyone stopped to ask, why has pancreatic cancer doubled over those 20 years? Who's working on that? Who's looking into it? We are so busy in our health care system, billing and coding and paying each other, and every stakeholder has their gigantic lobby in Washington, DC, and everybody's making a lot of money, except for one stakeholder, the American citizen. They are financing this giant, expensive health care system through their paycheck deduction for health insurance and the Medicare excise tax as we go down this path, billing and coding and medicating. And can we be real for a second? We have poisoned our food supply, engineered highly addictive chemicals that we put into our food, we spray it with pesticides that kill pests. What do you think they do to our gut lining and our microbiome? And then they come in sick. The GI tract is reacting. It's not an acute inflammatory storm, it's a low grade chronic inflammation, and it makes people feel sick, and that inflammation permeates and drives so many of our chronic diseases that we didn't see half a century ago. Who's working on who's looking into this, who's talking about it? Our health care system is playing whack a mole on the back end, and we are not talking about the root causes of our chronic disease epidemic. We can't see the forest from the trees. Sometimes we're so busy in these short visits, billing and coding. We've done a terrible thing to doctors. We've told them, put your head down. Focus on billing and coding. We're going to measure you by your throughput and good job. You did a nice job. We have all these numbers to show for it. Well, the country is getting sicker. We cannot keep going down this path. We have the most over-medicated, sickest population in the world, and no one is talking about the root causes. Dr. Marty Makary: Somebody has got to speak up. Maybe we need to talk about school lunch programs, not just putting every kid on obesity drugs like Ozempic. Maybe we need to talk about treating diabetes with cooking classes, not just throwing insulin at everybody. Maybe we need to talk about environmental exposures that cause cancer, not just the chemo to treat it. We've got to talk about food as medicine. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): So, Dr Makary, I've got a couple questions. First of all, how many years have you been practicing medicine? Dr. Marty Makary: 22 years. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): So we've noticed a shift from decades ago when 80% of doctors are independent to now 80% are working for some hospital association. First of all, what has that meant in terms of doctors' independence and who they are really accountable too? Dr. Marty Makary: The move towards corporate medicine and mass consolidation that we've witnessed in our lifetime has meant more and more doctors are told to put their heads down, do your job: billing and coding short visits. We've not given doctors the time, research, or resources to deal with these chronic diseases. 1:32:45 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Dr. Casey Means is a medical doctor, New York Times Best Selling Author, tech entrepreneur at Levels, an aspiring regenerative gardener and an outdoor enthusiast. While training as a surgeon, she saw how broken and exploitative the health care system is, and led to focus on how to keep people out of the operating room. And again, I would highly recommend everybody read Good Energy. It's a personal story, and you'll be glad you did. Dr. Casey Means: Over the last 50 years in the United States, we have seen rapidly rising rates of chronic illnesses throughout the entire body. The body and the brain, infertility, obesity, type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes, Alzheimer's, dementia, cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, migraines, mental illness, chronic pain, fatigue, congenital abnormalities, chronic liver disease, autism, and infant and maternal mortality all going up. Americans live eight fewer years compared to people in Japan or Switzerland, and life expectancy is going down. I took an oath to do no harm, but listen to these stats. We're not only doing harm, we're flagrantly allowing harm. While it sounds grim, there is very good news. We know why all of these diseases are going up, and we know how to fix it. Every disease I mentioned is caused by or worsened by metabolic dysfunction, a word that it is thrilling to hear being used around this table. Metabolic dysfunction is a fundamental distortion of our cellular biology. It stops our cells from making energy appropriately. According to the American College of Cardiology, metabolic dysfunction now affects 93.2% of American adults. This is quite literally the cellular draining of our life force. This process is the result of three processes happening inside our cells, mitochondrial dysfunction, a process called oxidative stress, which is like a wildfire inside our cells, and chronic inflammation throughout the body and the gut, as we've heard about. Metabolic dysfunction is largely not a genetic issue. It's caused by toxic American ultra processed industrial food, toxic American chemicals, toxic American medications, and our toxic sedentary, indoor lifestyles. You would think that the American healthcare system and our government agencies would be clamoring to fix metabolic health and reduce American suffering and costs, but they're not. They are deafeningly silent about metabolic dysfunction and its known causes. It's not an overstatement to say that I learned virtually nothing at Stanford Medical School about the tens of thousands of scientific papers that elucidate these root causes of why American health is plummeting and how environmental factors are causing it. For instance, in medical school, I did not learn that for each additional serving of ultra processed food we eat, early mortality increases by 18%. This now makes up 67% of the foods our kids are eating. I took zero nutrition courses in medical school. I didn't learn that 82% of independently funded studies show harm from processed food, while 93% of industry sponsored studies reflect no harm. In medical school, I didn't learn that 95% of the people who created the recent USDA Food guidelines for America had significant conflicts of interest with the food industry. I did not learn that 1 billion pounds of synthetic pesticides are being sprayed on our food every single year. 99.99% of the farmland in the United States is sprayed with synthetic pesticides, many from China and Germany. And these invisible, tasteless chemicals are strongly linked to autism, ADHD, sex hormone disruption, thyroid disease, sperm dysfunction, Alzheimer's, dementia, birth defects, cancer, obesity, liver dysfunction, female infertility and more, all by hurting our metabolic health. I did not learn that the 8 billion tons of plastic that have been produced just in the last 100 years, plastic was only invented about 100 years ago, are being broken down into micro plastics that are now filling our food, our water, and we are now even inhaling them in our air. And that very recent research from just the past couple of months tells us that now about 0.5% of our brains by weight are now plastic. I didn't learn that there are more than 80,000 toxins that have entered our food, water, air and homes by industry, many of which are banned in Europe, and they are known to alter our gene expression, alter our microbiome composition and the lining of our gut, and disrupt our hormones. I didn't learn that heavy metals like aluminum and lead are present in our food, our baby formula, personal care products, our soil and many of the mandated medications, like vaccines and that these metals are neurotoxic and inflammatory. I didn't learn that the average American walks a paltry 3500 steps per day, even though we know based on science and top journals that walking, simply walking 7000 steps a day, slashes by 40-60% our risk of Alzheimer's, dementia, type two diabetes, cancer and obesity. I certainly did not learn that medical error and medications are the third leading cause of death in the United States. I didn't learn that just five nights of sleep deprivation can induce full blown pre-diabetes. I learned nothing about sleep, and we're getting about 20% less sleep on average than we were 100 years ago. I didn't learn that American children are getting less time outdoors now than a maximum security prisoner. And on average, adults spend 93% of their time indoors, even though we know from the science that separation from sunlight destroys our circadian biology, and circadian biology dictates our cellular biology. I didn't learn that professional organizations that we get our practice guidelines from, like the American Diabetes Association and American Academy of Pediatrics, have taken 10s of millions of dollars from Coke, Cadbury, processed food companies, and vaccine manufacturers like Moderna. I didn't learn that if we address these root causes that all lead to metabolic dysfunction and help patients change their food and lifestyle patterns with a united strong voice, we could reverse the chronic disease crisis in America, save millions of lives, and trillions of dollars in health care costs per year. Instead, doctors are learning that the body is 100 separate parts, and we learn how to drug, we learn how to cut and we learn how to bill. I'll close by saying that what we are dealing with here is so much more than a physical health crisis. This is a spiritual crisis we are choosing death over life. We are we are choosing death over life. We are choosing darkness over light for people and the planet, which are inextricably linked. We are choosing to erroneously believe that we are separate from nature and that we can continue to poison nature and then outsmart it. Our path out will be a renewed respect for the miracle of life and a renewed respect for nature. We can restore health to Americans rapidly with smart policy and courageous leadership. We need a return to courage. We need a return to common sense and intuition. We need a return to awe for the sheer miraculousness of our lives. We need all hands on deck. Thank you. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): I'm not letting you off that easy. I've got a couple questions. So you outlined some basic facts that doctors should know that truthfully, you could cover in one hour of an introductory class in medical school, yes. So why aren't we teaching doctors these things? Dr. Casey Means: The easy thing to say would be, you know, follow the money. That sounds sort of trite, but frankly, I think that is the truth, but not in the way you might think that, like doctors are out to make money, or even medical schools. The money and the core incentive problem, which is that every institution that touches our health in America, from medical schools to pharmaceutical companies to health insurance companies to hospitals offices, they make more money when we are sick and less when we are healthy. That simple, one incentive problem corrodes every aspect of the way medicine is thought about. The way we think about the body, we talked about interconnectedness. It creates a system in which we silo the body into all these separate parts and create that illusion that we all buy into because it's profitable to send people to separate specialties. So it corrodes even the foundational conception of how we think about the body. So it is about incentives and money, but I would say that's the invisible hand. It's not necessarily affecting each doctor's clinical practice or the decision making. It's corroding every lever of the basics of how we even consider what the human body is and what life is. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): In your book, you do a really good job of describing how, because of the specialization of medicine, you don't see the forest for the trees. The fact is, you do need specialized medicine. I mean, doctors can't know it all. So I think the question is, how do we get back to the reward for general practitioners that do focus on what you're writing about? Dr. Casey Means: I have huge respect for doctors, and I am incredibly grateful for the American health care system, which has produced miracles, and we absolutely need continue to have primary care doctors and specialists, and they should be rewarded highly. However, if we focused on what everyone here is talking about, I think we'd have 90% less throughput through our health care system. We would be able to have these doctors probably have a much better life to be honest. You know, because right now, doctors are working 100 hours a week seeing 50, 60, 70 patients, and could actually have more time with patients who develop these acute issues that need to be treated by a doctor. But so many of the things in the specialist office are chronic conditions that we know are fundamentally rooted in the cellular dysfunction I describe, which is metabolic dysfunction, which is created by our lifestyle. So I think that there's always going to be a place for specialists, but so so many, so much fewer. And I think if we had a different conception for the body is interconnected, they would also interact with each other in a very different way, a much more collaborative way. And then, of course, we need to incentivize doctors in the healthcare system towards outcomes, not throughput. 1:46:25 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Our next presenter is Dr. Chris Palmer. Dr. Palmer is a Harvard trained psychiatrist, researcher and author of Brain Energy, where he explores a groundbreaking connection between metabolic health and mental illness. He is a leader in innovative approaches to treating psychiatric conditions, advocating for the use of diet and metabolic interventions to improve mental health outcomes. Dr. Palmer's work is reshaping how the medical field views and treats mental health disorders. Dr. Chris Palmer: I want to build on what Dr. Means just shared that these chronic diseases we face today. Obesity, diabetes, fatty liver, all share something in common. They are, in fact, metabolic dysfunction. I'm going to go into a little bit of the science, just to make sure we're all on the same page. Although most people think of metabolism as burning calories, it is far more than that. Metabolism is a series of chemical reactions that convert food into energy and building blocks essential for cellular health. When we have metabolic dysfunction, it can drive numerous chronic diseases, which is a paradigm shift in the medical field. Now there is no doubt metabolism is complicated. It really is. It is influenced by biological, psychological, environmental and social factors, and the medical field says this complexity is the reason we can't solve the obesity epidemic because they're still trying to understand every molecular detail of biology. But in fact, we don't need to understand biology in order to understand the cause. The cause is coming from our environment, a toxic environment like poor diet and exposure to harmful chemicals, and these are actually quite easy to study, understand, and address. There is no doubt food plays a key role. It provides the substrate for energy and building blocks. Nutritious foods support metabolism, while ultra processed options can disrupt it. It is shocking that today, in 2024, the FDA allows food manufacturers to introduce brand new chemicals into our food supply without adequate testing. The manufacturer is allowed to determine for themselves whether this substance is safe for you and your family to eat or not. Metabolism's impact goes beyond physical health. I am a psychiatrist. Some of you are probably wondering, why are you here? It also affects mental health. Because guess what? The human brain is an organ too, and when brain metabolism is impaired, it can cause symptoms that we call mental illness. It is no coincidence that as the rates of obesity and diabetes are skyrocketing, so too are the rates of mental illness. In case you didn't know, we have a mental health crisis. We have all time prevalence highs for depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, deaths of despair, drug overdoses, ADHD and autism. What does the mental health field have to say for this? Well, you know, mental illness is just chemical imbalances, or maybe trauma and stress that is wholly insufficient to explain the epidemic that we are seeing. And in fact, there is a better way to integrate the biopsychosocial factors known to play a role in mental illness. Mental Disorders at their core are often metabolic disorders impacting the brain. It's not surprising to most people that obesity and diabetes might play a role in depression or anxiety, but the rates of autism have quadrupled in just 20 years, and the rates of ADHD have tripled over that same period of time. These are neuro developmental disorders, and many people are struggling to understand, how on earth could they rise so rapidly? But it turns out that metabolism plays a profound role in neurodevelopment, and sure enough, parents with metabolic issues like obesity and diabetes are more likely to have children with autism and ADHD. This is not about fat shaming, because what I am arguing is that the same foods and chemicals and other drivers of obesity that are causing obesity in the parents are affecting the brain health of our children. There is compelling evidence that food plays a direct role in mental health. One study of nearly 300,000 people found that those who eat ultra processed foods daily are three times more likely to struggle with their mental health than people who never or rarely consume them. A systematic review found direct associations between ultra processed food exposure and 32 different health parameters, including mental mental health conditions. Now I'm not here to say that food is the only, or even primary driver of mental illness. Let's go back to something familiar. Trauma and stress do drive mental illness, but for those of you who don't know, trauma and stress are also associated with increased rates of obesity and diabetes. Trauma and stress change human metabolism. We need to put the science together. This brings me to a key point. We cannot separate physical and mental health from metabolic health. Addressing metabolic dysfunction has the potential to prevent and treat a wide range of chronic diseases. Dr. Chris Palmer: In my own work, I have seen firsthand how using metabolic therapies like the ketogenic diet and other dietary interventions can improve even severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, sometimes putting them into lasting remission. These reports are published in peer reviewed, prestigious medical journals. However, there is a larger issue at play that many have talked about, medical education and public health recommendations are really captured by industry and politics, and at best, they often rely on weak epidemiological data, resulting in conflicting or even harmful advice. We heard a reference to this, but in case you didn't know, a long time ago, we demonized saturated fat. And what was the consequence of demonizing saturated fat? We replaced it with "healthy vegetable shortening." That was the phrase we used, "healthy vegetable shortening." Guess what was in that healthy vegetable shortening? It was filled with trans fats, which are now recognized to be so harmful that they've been banned in the United States. Let's not repeat mistakes like this. Dr. Chris Palmer: So what's the problem? Number one, nutrition and mental health research are severely underfunded, with each of them getting less than 5% of the NIH budget. This is no accident. This is the concerted effort of lobbying by industry, food manufacturers, the healthcare industry, they do not want root causes discovered. We need to get back to funding research on the root causes of mental and metabolic disorders, including the effects of foods, chemicals, medications, environmental toxins, on the human brain and metabolism. Dr. Chris Palmer: The issue of micro plastics and nano plastics in the human body is actually, sadly, in its infancy. We have two publications out in the last couple of months demonstrating that micro plastics are, in fact, found in the human brain. And as Dr. Means said, and you recited, 0.5% of the body weight, or the brain's weight, appears to be composed of micro plastics. We need more research to better understand whether these micro plastics are, in fact, associated with harmful conditions, because microplastics are now ubiquitous. So some will argue, well, they're everywhere, and everybody's got them, and it's just a benign thing. Some will argue that the most compelling evidence against that is a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine a few months ago now, in which they were doing routine carotid endarterectomies, taking plaque out of people's carotid arteries. Just routinely doing that for clinical care, and then they analyzed those plaques for micro plastics. 58% of the people had detectable micro plastics in the plaques. So they compared this 58% group who had micro plastics to the ones who didn't, followed them for three years, just three years, and the ones who had micro plastics had four times the mortality. There is strong reason to believe, based on animal data and based on cell biology data, that microplastics are in fact, toxic to the human body, to mitochondrial function, to hormone dysregulation and all sorts of things. There are lots of reasons to believe that, but the scientists will say, we need more research. We need to better understand whether these micro plastics really are associated with higher rates of disease. I think people are terrified of the answer. People are terrified of the answer. And if you think about everything that you consume, and how much of it is not wrapped in plastic, all of those industries are going to oppose research. They are going to oppose research funding to figure this out ASAP, because that will be a monumental change to not just the food industry but our entire economy. Imagining just cleaning up the oceans and trying to get this plastic and then, more importantly, trying to figure out, how are we going to detox humans? How are we going to de-plasticize human beings? How are we going to get these things out? It is an enormous problem, but the reality is, putting our heads in the sand is not going to help. And I am really hopeful that by raising issues and letting people know about this health crisis, that maybe we will get answers quickly. Dr. Chris Palmer: Your question is, why are our health agencies not exploring these questions? It's because the health agencies are largely influenced by the industries they are supposed to be regulating and looking out for. The medical education community is largely controlled by pharmaceutical companies. One and a half billion dollars every year goes to support physician education. That's from pharmaceutical companies. One and a half billion from pharmaceutical companies. So physicians are getting educated with some influence, large influence, I would argue, by them, the health organizations. It's a political issue. The NIH, it's politics. Politicians are selecting people to be on the committees or people to oversee these organizations. Politicians rely on donations from companies and supporters to get re-elected, and the reality is this is not going to be easy to tackle. The challenge is that you'll get ethical politicians who say, I'm not going to take any of that money, and I'm going to try to do the right thing and right now, the way the system is set up, there's a good chance those politicians won't get re-elected, and instead, their opponents, who were more than happy to take millions of dollars in campaign contributions, will get re-elected, and then they will return the favor to their noble campaign donors. We are at a crossroads. We have to decide who are the constituents of the American government. Is it industry, or is it the American people? 2:09:35 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Calley Means the co-founder of Truemed, a company that enables tax free spending on food and exercise. He recently started an advocacy coalition with leading health and wellness companies called End Chronic Disease. Early in his career, he was a consultant for food and pharma companies. He is now exposing practices they used to weaponize our institutions of trust, and he's doing a great job doing interviews with his sister, Casey. Calley Means: If you think about a medical miracle, it's almost certainly a solution that was invented before 1960 for an acute condition: emergency surgical procedures to ensure a complicated childbirth wasn't a death sentence, sanitation procedures, antibiotics that insured infection was an inconvenience, not deadly, eradicating polio, regular waste management procedures that helped control outbreaks like the bubonic plague, sewage systems that replaced the cesspools and opened drains, preventing human waste from contaminating the water. The US health system is a miracle in solving acute conditions that will kill us right away. But economically, acute conditions aren't great in our modern system, because the patient is quickly cured and is no longer a customer. Start in the 1960s the medical system took the trust engendered by these acute innovations like antibiotics, which were credited with winning World War Two, and they used that trust to ask patients not to question its authority on chronic diseases, which can last a lifetime and are more profitable. But the medicalization of chronic disease in the past 50 years has been an abject failure. Today, we're in a siloed system where there's a treatment for everything. And let's just look at the stats. Heart disease has gone up as more statins are prescribed. Type 2 diabetes has gone up as more Metformin is prescribed. ADHD has gone up as more Adderall is prescribed. Depression and suicide has gone up as more SSRIs are prescribed. Pain has gone up as more opioids are prescribed. Cancer has gone up as we've spent more on cancer. And now JP Morgan literally at the conference in San Francisco, recently, they put up a graph, and they showed us more Ozempic is projected to be prescribed over the next 10 years, obesity rates are going to go up as more is prescribed. Explain that to me. There was clapping. All the bankers were clapping like seals at this graphic. Our intervention based system is by design. In the early 1900s, John D. Rockefeller using that he could use byproducts from oil production to create pharmaceuticals, heavily funded medical schools throughout the United States to teach a curriculum based on the intervention-first model of Dr. William Stewart Halsted, the founding physician of Johns Hopkins, who created the residency-based model that viewed invasive surgical procedures and medication as the highest echelon of medicine. An employee of Rockefeller's was tasked to create the Flexner Report, which outlined a vision for medical education that prioritized interventions and stigmatized nutritional and holistic remedies. Congress affirmed the Flexner Report in 1910 to establish that any credentialed medical institution in the United States had to follow the Halsted-Rockefeller intervention based model that silos disease and downplay viewing the body as an interconnected system. It later came out that Dr. Halsted's cocaine and morphine addiction fueled his day long surgical residencies and most of the medical logic underlying the Flexner Report was wrong. But that hasn't prevented the report and the Halsted-Rockefeller engine based brand of medicine from being the foundational document that Congress uses to regulate medical education today. Calley Means: Our processed food industry was created by the cigarette industry. In the 1980s, after decades of inaction, the Surgeon General and the US government finally, finally said that smoking might be harmful, and smoking rates plummeted. We listened to doctors in this country. We listened to medical leadership, and as smoking rates plummeted, cigarette companies, with their big balance sheets, strategically bought up food companies, and by 1990 the two largest food companies in the world were Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, two cigarette companies. These cigarette companies moved two departments over from the cigarette department to the food department. They moved the scientists. Cigarette companies were the highest payers of scientists, one of the biggest employers of scientists to make the cigarettes addictive. They moved these addiction specialists, world leading addiction specialists, to the food department by the thousands. And those scientists weaponized our ultra processed food. That is the problem with ultra processed food. You have the best scientists in the world creating this food to be palatable and to be addictive. They then moved their lobbyists over. They used the same playbook, and their lobbyists co-opted the USDA and created the food pyramid. The Food Pyramid was a document created by the cigarette industry through complete corporate capture, and was an ultra processed food marketing document saying that we needed a bunch of carbs and sugar. And we listened to medical experts in this country, the American people, American parents. Many parents who had kids in the 90s thought it was a good thing to do to give their kids a bunch of ultra processed foods and carb consumption went up 20% in the American diet in the next 10 years. The Devil's bargain comes in in that this ultra processed food consumption has been one of the most profitable dynamics in American history for the health care industry. As we've all just been decimated with chronic conditions, the medical industry hasn't. Not only have they been silent on this issue, they've actually been complicit, working for the food industry. I helped funnel money from Coca Cola to the American Diabetes Association. Yeah. 2:31:40 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Next presenter will be Brigham Buhler. Brigham is the Founder and CEO of Ways2Well, a healthcare company that provides personalized preventive care through telemedicine, with a strong background in the pharmaceutical industry. Brigham is focused on making healthcare more accessible by harnessing the power of technology, delivering effective and tailored treatments. His vision for improving health outcomes has positioned him as a leader in modern patient centered healthcare solutions. Brigham Buhler: We hear people reference President Eisenhower's speech all the time about the military industrial complex, but rarely do we hear the second half of that speech. He also warned us about the rise of the scientific industrial complex. He warned us, if we allow the elite to control the scientific research, it could have dire consequences. 2:36:30 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): I'm going to call an audible here as moderator, I saw that hopefully the future chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Mike Crapo from Idaho, came into the room. I asked Mike to share his story. He used to wear larger suits, let's put it that way. But he went down the path of the ketogenic diet, I believe. But Mike, why don't you tell your story? And by the way, he's somebody you want to influence. Chairman of Senate Finance Committee makes an awful lot of decisions on Medicare, Medicaid, a lot of things we talked about with Ozempic, now the lobbying group try and make that available, and how harmful, I think, most people in this room think that might be so. Senator Crapo, if you could just kind of tell us your story in terms of your diet change and what results you had. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID): Well, first of all, let me thank you. I didn't come here to say anything. I came here to listen, but I appreciate the opportunity to just have a second to tell you my personal story. I'll say before I do that, thank you for Ron Johnson. Senator Johnson is also a member of the Finance Committee, and it is my hope that we can get that committee, which I think has the most powerful jurisdiction, particularly over these areas, of any in the United States Congress, and so I'm hopeful we can get a focus on addressing the government's part of the role in this to get us back on a better track. 2:54:35 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Vani Hari, known as the Food Babe -- they wrote that for me, that wasn't me, that's my not my nickname -- is a food activist, author and speaker committed to improving food quality and safety. She has built a powerful platform through her blog advocating for transparency in food labeling and the removal of harmful chemicals from processed food. Her activism has spurred significant change in the food industry, encouraging consumers to make healthier, more informed choices, while prompting companies to adopt cleaner practices. Vani Hari: Our government is letting US food companies get away with serving American citizens harmful ingredients that are banned or heavily regulated in other countries. Even worse, American food companies are selling the same exact products overseas without these chemicals, but choose to continue serving us the most toxic version here. It's un-American. One set of ingredients there, and one set of ingredients here. Let me give you some examples. This is McDonald's french fries. I would like to argue that probably nobody in this room has not had a McDonald's french fry, by the way, nobody raised their hand during the staff meeting earlier today. In the US, there's 11 ingredients. In the UK, there's three, and salt is optional. An ingredient called dimethyl polysiloxane is an ingredient preserved with formaldehyde, a neurotoxin, in the US version. This is used as a foaming agent, so they don't have to replace the oil that often, making McDonald's more money here in the United States, but they don't do that across the pond. Here we go, this is Skittles. Notice the long list of ingredient differences, 10 artificial dyes in the US version and titanium dioxide. This ingredient is banned in Europe because it can cause DNA damage. Artificial dyes are made from petroleum, and products containing these dyes require a warning label in Europe that states it may cause adverse effects on activity and attention in children, and they have been linked to cancer and disruptions in the immune system. This on the screen back here, is Gatorade. In the US, they use red 40 and caramel color. In Germany, they don't, they use carrot and sweet potatoes to color their Gatorade. This is Doritos. The US version has three different three different artificial dyes and MSG, the UK version does not and let's look at cereal. General Mills is definitely playing some tricks on us. They launched a new version of Trix just recently in Australia. It has no dyes, they even advertise that, when the US version still does. This is why I became a food activist. My name is Vani Hari, and I only want one thing. I want Americans to be treated the same way as citizens in other countries by our own American companies. Vani Hari: We use over 10,000 food additives here in the United States and in Europe, there's only 400 approved. In 2013, I discovered that Kraft was producing their famous mac and cheese in other countries without artificial dyes. They used Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 here. I was so outraged by this unethical practice that I decided to do something about it. I launched a petition asking Kraft to remove artificial dyes from their products here in the United States, and after 400,000 signatures and a trip to their headquarters, Kraft finally announced they would make the change. I also discovered Subway was selling sandwiches with a chemical called azodicarbonamide in their bread in other countries. This is the same chemical they use in yoga mats and shoe rubber. You know, when you turn a yoga mat sideways and you see the evenly dispersed air bubbles? Well, they wanted to do the same thing in bread, so it would be the same exact product every time you went to a Subway. When the chemical is heated, studies show that it turns into a carcinogen. Not only is this ingredient banned in Europe and Australia, you get fined $450,000 if you get caught using it in Singapore. What's really interesting is when this chemical is heated, studies show that it turns into a carcinogen. Not only is this ingredient banned, but we were able to get Subway to remove azodicarbonamide from their bread in the United States after another successful petition. And as a bonus, there was a ripple effect in almost every bread manufacturer in America followed suit. For years, Starbucks didn't publish their ingredients for their coffee drinks. It was a mystery until I convinced a barista to show me the ingredients on the back of the bottles they were using to make menu items like their famous pumpkin spice lattes. I found out here in the United States, Starbucks was coloring their PSLs with caramel coloring level four, an ingredient made from ammonia and linked to cancer, but using beta carotene from carrots to color their drinks in the UK. After publishing an investigation and widespread media attention, Starbucks removed caramel coloring from all of their drinks in America and started publishing the ingredients for their entire menu. I want to make an important point here. Ordinary people who rallied for safer food shared this information and signed petitions. Were able to make these changes. We did this on our own. But isn't this something that the people in Washington, our elected politicians, should be doing? Vani Hari: Asking companies to remove artificial food dye would make an immediate impact. They don't need to reinvent the wheel. They already have the formulations. As I've shown you, consumption of artificial food dyes has increased by 500% in the last 50 years, and children are the biggest consumers. Yes, those children. Perfect timing. 43% of products marketed towards children in the grocery store contain artificial dyes. Food companies have found in focus groups, children will eat more of their product with an artificial dye because it's more attractive and appealing. And the worst part, American food companies know the harms of these additives because they were forced to remove them overseas due to stricter regulations and to avoid warning labels that would hurt sales. This is one of the most hypocritical policies of food companies, and somebody needs to hold them accountable. Vani Hari: When Michael Taylor was the Deputy Commissioner of the of the FDA, he said, he admitted on NPR, we don't have the resources, we don't have the capabilities to actually regulate food chemicals, because we don't have the staff. There's no one there. We are under this assumption, and I think a lot of Americans are under this assumption, that every single food additive ingredient that you buy at the grocery store has been approved by some regulatory body. It hasn't. It's been approved by the food companies themselves. There's 1000s of chemicals where the food company creates it, submits the safety data, and then the FDA rubber stamps it, because they don't have any other option. 3:09:15 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): So our next presenter is Jason Karp. Jason is the founder and CEO of HumanCo, a mission driven company that invests in and builds brands focused on healthier living and sustainability. In addition to HumanCo, Jason is the co-founder of Hu Kitchen, known for creating the number one premium organic chocolate in the US. My wife will appreciate that. Prior to HumanCo, Jason spent over 21 years in the hedge fund industry, where he was the founder and CEO of an investment fund that managed over $4 billion. Jason graduated summa cum laude from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. 3:11:10 Jason Karp: I've been a professional investor for 26 years, dealing with big food companies, seeing what happens in their boardrooms, and why we now have so much ultra processed food. Jason Karp: Having studied the evolution of corporations, I believe the root cause of how we got here is an unintended consequence of the unchecked and misguided industrialization of agriculture and food. I believe there are two key drivers behind how we got here. First, America has much looser regulatory approach to approving new ingredients and chemicals than comparable developed countries. Europe, for example, uses a guilty until proven innocent standard for the approval of new chemicals, which mandates that if an ingredient might pose a potential health risk, it should be restricted or banned for up to 10 years until it is proven safe. In complete contrast, our FDA uses an innocent until proven guilty approach for new chemicals or ingredients that's known as GRAS, or Generally Recognized as Safe. This recklessly allows new chemicals into our food system until they are proven harmful. Shockingly, US food companies can use their own independent experts to bring forth a new chemical without the approval of the FDA. It is a travesty that the majority of Americans don't even know they are constantly exposed to 1000s of untested ingredients that are actually banned or regulated in other countries. To put it bluntly, for the last 50 years, we have been running the largest uncontrolled science experiment ever done on humanity without their consent. Jason Karp: And the proof is in the pudding. Our health differences compared to those countries who use stricter standards are overwhelmingly conclusive. When looking at millions of people over decades, on average, Europeans live around five years longer, have less than half our obesity rates, have significantly lower chronic disease, have markedly better mental health, and they spend as little as 1/3 on health care per person as we do in this country. While lobbyists and big food companies may say we cannot trust the standards of these other countries because it over regulates, it stifles innovation, and it bans new chemicals prematurely, I would like to point out that we trust many of these other countries enough to have nuclear weapons. These other countries have demonstrated it is indeed possible to not only have thriving companies, but also prioritize the health of its citizens with a clear do no harm approach towards anything that humans put in or on our bodies. Jason Karp: The second driver, how we got here, is all about incentives. US industrial food companies have been myopically incentivized to reward profit growth, yet bear none of the social costs of poisoning our people and our land. Since the 1960s, America has seen the greatest technology and innovation boom in history. As big food created some of the largest companies in the world, so too did their desire for scaled efficiency. Companies had noble goals of making the food safer, more shelf stable, cheaper and more accessible. However, they also figured out how to encourage more consumption by making food more artificially appealing with brighter colors and engineered taste and texture. This is the genesis of ultra processed food. Because of these misguided regulatory standards, American companies have been highly skilled at maximizing profits without bearing the societal costs. They have replaced natural ingredients with chemicals. They have commodified animals into industrial widgets, and they treat our God given planet as an inexhaustible, abusable resource. Sick Americans are learning the hard way that food and agriculture should not be scaled in the same ways as iPhones. 3:16:50 Jason Karp: They use more chemicals in the US version, because it is more profitable and because we allow them to do so. Jason Karp: Artificial food dyes are cheaper and they are brighter. And the reason that I chose to use artificial food dyes in my public activist letter is because there's basically no counter argument. Many of the things discussed today, I think there is a nuanced debate, but with artificial food dyes, they have shown all over the world that they can use colorants that come from fruit. This is the Canadian version. This is the brightness of the Canadian version, just for visibility, and this is the brightness of artificial food dyes. So of course, Kellogg and other food companies will argue children prefer this over this, just as they would prefer cocaine over sugar. That doesn't make it okay. Calley Means: Senator, can I just say one thing? As Jason and Vani were talking, it brought me back to working for the food industry. We used to pay conservative lobbyists to go to every office and say that it was the "nanny state" to regulate food. And I think that's, as a conservative myself, something that's resonated. I just cannot stress enough that, as we're hopefully learned today, the food industry has rigged our systems beyond recognition. And addressing a rigged market is not an attack on the free market. Is a necessity for a free market to take this corruption out. So I just want to say that. 3:21:00 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Our next presenter is Jillian Michaels. Ms. Michaels is a globally recognized fitness expert, entrepreneur, and best selling author. With her no nonsense approach to health, she's inspired millions through her fitness programs, books and digital platforms, best known for her role on The Biggest Loser, Michaels promotes a balanced approach to fitness and nutrition and emphasizing long term health and self improvement. Jillian Michaels: The default human condition in the 21st century is obese by design. Specific, traceable forms of what's referred to as structural violence are created by the catastrophic quartet of big farming, big food, Big Pharma, and big insurance. They systematically corrupt every institution of trust, which has led to the global spread of obesity and disease. Dysfunctional and destructive agricultural legislation like the Farm Bill, which favors high yield, genetically engineered crops like corn and soy, leading to the proliferation of empty calories, saturated with all of these toxins that we've been talking about today for three hours, it seems like we can never say enough about it, and then this glut of cheap calories provides a boon to the food industry giants. They just turn it into a bounty of ultra processed, factory-assembled foods and beverages strategically engineered to undermine your society and foster your dependence, like nicotine and cocaine, so we literally cannot eat just one. And to ensure that you don't, added measures are taken to inundate our physical surroundings. We're literally flooded with food, and we are brainwashed by ubiquitous cues to eat, whether it's the Taco Bell advertisement on the side of a bus as you drive to work with a vending machine at your kids school, there is no place we spend time that's left untouched. They're omnipresent. They commandeer the narrative, with 30 billion worth of advertising dollars, commercials marketed to kids, with mega celebrities eating McDonald's and loving it, sponsored dietitians paid to promote junk food on social media, utilizing anti-diet body positivity messaging like, "derail the shame" in relation to fast food consumption, Time Magazine brazenly issuing a defense of ultra processed foods on their cover with the title, "What if altra processed foods aren't as bad as you think?" And when people like us try to sound the alarm, they ensure that we are swiftly labeled as anti-science, fat shamers, and even racists. They launch aggressive lobbying efforts to influence you. Our politicians to shape policy, secure federal grants, tax credits, subsidy dollars, which proliferates their product and heavily pads their bottom line. They have created a perfect storm in which pharmaceuticals that cost hundreds, if not 1000s per month, like Ozempic, that are linked to stomach paralysis, pancreatitis and thyroid cancer, can actually surge. This reinforces a growing dependence on medical interventions to manage weight in a society where systemic change in food production and consumption is desperately needed and also very possible. These monster corporations have mastered the art of distorting the research, influencing the policy, buying the narrative, engineering the environment, and manipulating consumer behavior. Jillian Michaels: While I have been fortunate enough to pull many back from the edge over the course of my 30 year career, I have lost just as many, if not more, than I have saved. I have watched them slip through my fingers, mothers that orphan their children, husbands that widow their wives. I have even watched parents forced to suffer the unthinkable loss of their adult children. There are not words to express the sadness I have felt and the fury knowing that they were literally sacrificed at the altar of unchecked corporate greed. Most Americans are simply too financially strained, psychologically drained and physically addicted to break free without a systemic intervention. Attempting to combat the status quo and the powers that be is beyond swimming upstream. It is like trying to push a rampaging river that's infested with piranhas. After years of trying to turn the tide, I submit that the powers that be are simply too powerful for us to take on alone. I implore the people here that shape the policy to take a stand. The buck must stop with you, while the American people tend to the business of raising children and participating in the workforce to ensure that the wheels of our country go around. They tapped you to stand watch. They tapped you to stand guard. We must hold these bad actors accountable. And I presume the testimonials you heard today moved you. Digest them, discuss them, and act upon them, because if this current trend is allowed to persist, the stakes will be untenable. We are in the middle of an extinction level event. The American people need help. They need heroes. And people of Washington, your constituents chose you to be their champion. Please be the change. Thank you. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): There was one particular piece of legislation or one thing that we could do here in Washington, what would it be? Jillian Michaels: Get rid of Citizens United and get the money out of politics. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Okay. 3:37:00 Calley Means: To the healthcare staffers slithering behind your bosses, working to impress your future bosses at the pharmaceutical companies, the hospitals, the insurance companies, many of them are in this building, and we are coming for you. 3:37:25 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Next up is Ms. Courtney Swan. Ms. Swan is a nutritionist, real food activist, and founder of the popular platform, Realfoodology. She advocates for transparency in the food industry, promoting the importance of whole foods and clean eating. Courtney is passionate about educating the public on the benefits of a nutrient dense diet, and she encourages sustainable, chemical-free farming practices to ensure better health for people and the planet. Courtney Swan: Our current agriculture system's origin story involves large chemical companies -- not farmers, chemists. 85% of the food that you are consuming started from a patented seed sold by a chemical corporation that was responsible for creating agent orange in the Vietnam War. Why are chemical companies feeding America? Corn, soy and wheat are not only the most common allergens, but are among the most heavily pesticide sprayed crops today. In 1974 the US started spraying our crops with an herbicide called glyphosate, and in the early 1990s we began to see the release of genetically modified foods into our food supply. It all seems to begin with a chemical company by the name IG Farben, the later parent company of Bayer Farben, provided the chemicals used in Nazi nerve agents and gas chambers. Years later, a second chemical company, Monsanto, joined the war industry with a production of Agent Orange, a toxin used during the Vietnam War. When the wars ended, these companies needed a market for their chemicals, so they pivoted to killing bugs and pests on American farmlands. Monsanto began marketing glyphosate with a catchy name, Roundup. They claimed that these chemicals were harmless and that they safeguarded our crops from pests. So farmers started spraying these supposedly safe chemicals on our farmland. They solved the bug problem, but they also killed the crops. Monsanto offered a solution with the creation of genetically modified, otherwise known as GMO, crops that resisted the glyphosate in the roundup that they were spraying. These Roundup Ready crops allow farmers to spray entire fields of glyphosate to kill off pests without harming the plants, but our food is left covered in toxic chemical residue that doesn't wash, dry, or cook off. Not only is it sprayed to kill pests, but in the final stages of harvest, it is sprayed on the wheat to dry it out. Grains that go into bread and cereals that are in grocery stores and homes of Americans are heavily sprayed with these toxins. It's also being sprayed on oats, chickpeas, almonds, potatoes and more. You can assume that if it's not organic, it is likely contaminated with glyphosate. In America, organic food, by law, cannot contain GMOs and glyphosate, and they are more expensive compared to conventionally grown options, Americans are being forced to pay more for food that isn't poisoned. The Environmental Working Group reported a test of popular wheat-based products and found glyphosate contamination in 80 to 90% of the products on grocery store shelves. Popular foods like Cheerios, Goldfish, chickpea pasta, like Banza, Nature Valley bars, were found have concerning levels of glyphosate. If that is not alarming enough, glyphosate is produced by and distributed from China. In 2018, Bayer bought Monsanto. They currently have patented soybeans, corn, canola and sugar beets, and they are the largest distributor of GMO corn and soybean seeds. Americans deserve a straight answer. Why does an agrochemical company own where our food comes from? Currently, 85 to 100% of corn and soy crops in the US are genetically modified. 80% of GMOs are engineered to withstand glyphosate, and a staggering 280 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed on American crops annually. We are eating this roundup ready corn, but unlike GMO crops, humans are not Roundup Ready. We are not resistant to these toxins, and it's causing neurological damage, endocrine disruption, it's harming our reproductive health and it's affecting fetal development. Glyphosate is classified as a carcinogen by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is also suspected to contribute towards the rise in celiac disease and gluten sensitivities. They're finding glyphosate in human breast milk, placentas, our organs, and even sperm. It's also being found in our rain and our drinking water. Until January of 2022, many companies made efforts to obscure the presence of GMOs and pesticides in food products from American consumers. It was only then that legislation came into effect mandating that these companies disclose such ingredients with a straightforward label stating, made with bio engineered ingredients, but it's very small on the package. Meanwhile, glyphosate still isn't labeled on our food. Parents in America are unknowingly feeding their children these toxic foods. Dr. Don Huber, a glyphosate researcher, warns that glyphosate will make the outlawed 1970s insecticide DDT look harmless in comparison to glyphosate. Why is the US government subsidizing the most pesticide sprayed crops using taxpayer dollars? These are the exact foods that are driving the epidemic of chronic disease. These crops, heavily sprayed with glyphosate, are then processed into high fructose corn syrup and refined vegetable oils, which are key ingredients for the ultra processed foods that line our supermarket shelves and fill our children's lunches in schools across the nation. Children across America are consuming foods such as Goldfish and Cheerios that are loaded with glyphosate. These crops also feed our livestock, which then produce the eggs, dairy and meat products that we consume. They are in everything. Pick up almost any ultra processed food package on the shelf, and you will see the words, contains corn, wheat and soy on the ingredients panel. Meanwhile, Bayer is doing everything it can to keep consumers in the dark, while our government protects these corporate giants. They fund educational programs at major agricultural universities, they lobby in Washington, and they collaborate with lawmakers to protect their profits over public health. Two congressmen are working with Bayer right now on the Farm Bill to protect Bayer from any liability, despite already having to pay out billions to sick Americans who got cancer from their product. They know that their product is harming people. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Couple questions. So you really have two issues raised here. Any concern about just GMO seeds and GMO crops, and then you have the contamination, Glycosate, originally is a pre-emergent, but now it's sprayed on the actual crops and getting in the food. Can you differentiate those two problems? I mean, what concerns are the GMO seeds? Maybe other doctors on t
HEALTH NEWS · Eat This to Think Better for the Next Six Hours -- and Beyond · Americans over 40 could live extra 5 years if they were all as active as top 25% of population, modeling study suggests · Exposure to marijuana in the womb may increase risk of addiction to opioids later in life, study finds · Maternal stress linked to increased early onset epilepsy in children · Gut microbiome found to play key role in chronic disease progression · Chewing xylitol gum linked to decrease in preterm birth Russian scientists make alarming 5G discovery Cellphone radiation has led to changes in the brain tissue of lab rats Controlled exposure to the 5G radiation spectrum has resulted in changes to the brain tissue of laboratory rats, according to a team of scientists from Tomsk State University (TSU) in Russia. Ever since the introduction of 5G cellphone infrastructure, there have been concerns about its potential health effects. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified the 5G radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) as a “possible” human carcinogen, but no conclusive research has emerged either way. “We decided to find out what the effect of non-ionizing radiation is on rodents of different ages,” Natalia Krivova, lead researcher at the TSU's Biology and Biophysics Research Institute, said in a statement this week. TSU scientists experimented on male Wistar rats, preferred by scientists for having similar reactions to external stimuli as humans. They tested three different age groups: 5-6 week old rats (corresponding to human adolescents), 10-11 week old (human adults age 40 and up) and rats aged 17-18 weeks (humans 65 and older). All were exposed to RF-EMF frequencies for five weeks, which is equivalent to about four years of human lifespan. The study showed no outward changes between the rats exposed to the radiation and the control group. “However, a more detailed study of the rats' brain tissue after exposure to the 5G antenna revealed a significant change in the ratio of antioxidants and oxidants,” Krivova said. It is still unclear whether the changes will lead to positive or negative changes in the rats' cognitive abilities, or whether their bodies will somehow compensate for the disruption, she added, calling for further research into the subject. The Tomsk study represents the first time scientists have been able to measure the radiation absorption rate on caged rodents, according to the university. The TSU radiophysics team led by Professor Sergey Shipilov designed the 5G antenna for the experiment, and a team led by postgraduate student Ramdas Mazmanazarov developed a method for measuring the absorption rate. Their work was published earlier this year in the journal Applied Sciences. The study was part of the International Electromagnetic Field Project, initiated by the World Health Organization (WHO) to obtain science-based and objective answers to questions of public concern about the possible health risks from 5G electromagnetic fields. According to Krivova, the next stage of research is intended to study female rats and investigate how 5G radiation might affect their offspring, if funding can be secured.
NB: This episode was recorded BEFORE Tony Hinchcliffe appeared at Donald Trump's Madison Square Garden rally Stay tuned to the end of the episode for Ali's and Asif's takes on Tony Hinchcliffe's jokes from the rally. Today, the discuss Tony Hinchcliffe and his podcast ‘Kill Tony' (5:43). They discuss Tony Hinchcliffe's background, his start in comedy and the influence of Jeff Ross and Joe Rogan. Ali then describes the premise of ‘Kill Tony' and the concept of one-minute sets. Then Ali asks Asif about the evidence as to whether cell phones cause cancer (29:59). Asif talks about the type of radiation that cell phones emit and how in the past how in the past, the The International Agency for Research on Cancer, the WHO's cancer agency, classified radio wave / cell phone exposure as a possible carcinogen to humans in 2011. He then talks about the most recent review from the WHO which found no connection between cellphone use and brain cancer. He also discusses the lack of evidence for Bluetooth and cell phones towers causing cancer. Finally, he discusses the “real” health danger from cell phones. At 49:53 Ali and Asif discuss Tony Hinchcliffe's appearance at Donald Trump's Madison Square Garden rally. The opinions expressed are those of the hosts, and do not reflect those of any other organizations. This podcast and website represents the opinions of the hosts. The content here should not be taken as medical advice. The content here is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and because each person is so unique, please consult your healthcare professional for any medical questions. Music courtesy of Wataboi and 8er41 from Pixabay Contact us at doctorvcomedian@gmail.com Follow us on Social media: Twitter: @doctorvcomedian Instagram: doctorvcomedian Show Notes: Comedian Peng Dang 'shocked' by Tony Hinchcliffe's racial slur: 'Asian people are still getting attacked': https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2021/05/13/comedian-tony-hinchcliffe-under-fire-racial-slur-peng-dang/5070632001/ Comedian Tony Hinchcliffe dropped by agents after calling Chinese comic Peng Dang racist slur on stage: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/tony-hinchcliffe-peng-dang-wme-b1846845.html Cell Phones and Cancer Risk: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet Cellular (Cell) Phones: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html Do cellphones cause brain cancer? A WHO review of 63 studies finds no link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2024/09/03/cellphones-cancer-risk-radiation/ No link between mobile phones and brain cancer, WHO-backed study says: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/no-link-between-mobile-phones-brain-cancer-who-led-study-says-2024-09-03/ Bonus Notes: The Rise of Techno-authoritarianism: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/03/facebook-meta-silicon-valley-politics/677168/ Where J.D. Vance Gets His Weird, Terrifying Techno-Authoritarian Ideas: https://newrepublic.com/article/183971/jd-vance-weird-terrifying-techno-authoritarian-ideas
In this special World Sight Day episode, Steven and Zoe are joined by Caroline Casey, President of the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness (IAPB), and Seth Ginsberg, President of the Global Healthy Living Foundation (GHLF). Together, they explore the critical importance of eye health, especially for those living with chronic diseases like thyroid eye disease and diabetes. Caroline and Seth discuss global initiatives, innovative campaigns like "Love Your Eyes," and how advocating for better eye health can transform lives. Tune in as we raise awareness for blindness prevention, highlight the need for regular eye checkups, and share valuable insights on how chronic conditions can impact vision. Among the highlights in this episode: 01:17: Caroline Casey introduces herself, sharing her story as an advocate for eye health and her role as President of IAPB 01:51: Seth Ginsberg gives a brief overview of GHLF, explaining how the organization supports patients with chronic illnesses, including those facing vision impairment due to chronic conditions 02:37: Caroline explains the mission of World Sight Day, highlighting the global attention it brings to blindness, eye health, and vision impairment 03:45: Seth discusses the connection between chronic diseases and eye health, emphasizing how conditions like thyroid disorders and diabetes can affect vision 05:47: Caroline describes IAPB's initiatives, including the "Love Your Eyes" campaign and efforts to provide eye care to children and workers globally 09:51: Seth highlights GHLF's work on thyroid eye disease, detailing GHLF's resource hub in Australia and how they aim to empower patients to manage their condition To find all of GHLF's resources on thyroid eye disease, visit: https://ghlf.org.au/thyroideyedisease/ 12:44: Caroline underscores the importance of regular eye checkups, especially for those using devices that strain the eyes, and encourages listeners to take action on World Sight Day 15:40: Seth shares how advocacy empowers patients, explaining the importance of speaking up about symptoms and advocating for better treatments and health care access 18:47: Caroline explains the challenges in making eye health a global priority, highlighting the importance of integrating eye care into primary health care systems 21:32: Seth offers final thoughts, urging listeners to take care of their vision and seek regular eye checkups, especially if they have chronic health conditions 23:38: Caroline and Seth encourage listeners to make a pledge to prioritize eye health, reiterating the importance of advocacy and self-care for both eye health and chronic conditions 24:12: What our hosts learned from this episode To learn more about IAPB, visit: https://www.iapb.org/ Contact Our Hosts Steven Newmark, Chief of Policy at GHLF: snewmark@ghlf.org Zoe Rothblatt, Director of Community Outreach at GHLF: zrothblatt@ghlf.org A podcast episode produced by Ben Blanc, Associate Director, Digital Production and Engagement at GHLF. We want to hear what you think. Send your comments in the form of an email, video, or audio clip of yourself to podcasts@ghlf.org Catch up on all our episodes on our website or on your favorite podcast channel.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today is a round up episode from our visit to the 2024 Emergency Services ShowIn todays episode i speak with John Lord & Robbie Burns about snowmed codes. All NHS healthcare providers in England must now use SNOMED CT for capturing clinical terms within electronic patient record systems. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales also have programmes of work underway. After thoroughly reviewing the available scientific literature, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified occupational exposure as a firefighter as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), on the basis of sufficient evidence for cancer in humans. This is supported by an ever-increasing raft of research, including the biomonitoring research study of UK firefighters, conducted by Professor Anna Stec and her team at the University of Central Lancashire and Lancashire Teaching Hospital. This work was commissioned by the Fire Brigades Union. It has been identified that regular health monitoring and early detection can play a vital role in protecting the health and lives of firefighters. Find out more about SNOWMED codes HEREFind a letter to share with your GP about SNOWMED CODES HEREWe only feature the latest 200 episodes of the podcast on public platforms so to access our podcast LIBRARY, every Debrief & document CLICK HEREPODCAST GIFT - Get your FREE subscription to essential Firefighting publications HEREA big thanks to our partners for supporting this episode.GORE-TEX Professional ClothingMSA The Safety CompanyPATROL STORE UKIDEXHAIX FootwearGRENADERIP INTO Podcast ApparelLyfe Linez - Get Functional Hydration FUEL for FIREFIGHTERS, Clean no sugar for daily hydration. 80% of people live dehydrated and for firefighters this costHibern8 - a plant based sleep aid specially designed to promote a restful night's sleep and awaken you feeling refreshed and energisedPlease support the podcast and its future by clicking HERE and joining our Patreon Crew
High Fructose Corn Syrup's Profits over Health: Richard Gale & Gary Null PhD Progressive Radio Network, July 24, 2024 There is an unseen culprit hiding in the shadows. It is a toxic poison contained in many of the foods and beverages that we commonly eat. A toxin that has been implicated in causing cancer, diabetes, heart disease, lowered cognitive function, addiction, depression, and obesity. The magicians and alchemists of the corporate food industry have cleverly disguised this ingredient and sing its praises. If you are waiting for mainstream media to undertake an in-depth investigative report on this topic you will be waiting a long time. Back in 2015 Tufts University's department of nutritional sciences conducted a study published by the American Heart Association that documented the annual rates of global deaths directly due to over-consumption of beverages with high sugar content. The results estimated that 184,000 adults die annually from sugary drinks. Dr. Gitanjali at Tufts analyzed data documenting sugar-related deaths across 51 countries between 1980 and 2010. Deaths were compiled according to cardiovascular disease, diabetes and various cancers. Based upon the data, the study concluded that sugar contributed to 45,000 annual deaths from cardiovascular disease, 13,000 deaths from diabetic complications, and 6,450 deaths related to cancer. Credit Suisse's Research Institute published a scathing report that brought sugar's health risks into sharper focus. The study revealed that upward to 40% of American healthcare expenditures could be directly tied to overconsumption of sugar in the average American diet. Today, the US' national addiction to sugar contributes to $1 trillion in healthcare costs annually, which includes coronary heart disease, diabetes and metabolic syndrome. There are numerous studies published in reliable peer-reviewed medical journals associating sugar with each of these life threatening diseases. As far back as 1971, I began writing about the hazards of sugar. In 2002, my documentary Seven Steps to Perfect Health was premiered on PBS stations. During a special appearance on one station's fund drive, I poured sugar out of a bag. The amount I poured equaled the number of teaspoons that an average American teenager consumes daily. My general counsel, David Slater, verified the quantity by proper measurement according to scientific food and diet data. After the initial airing of this special, I was informed by the station's program director that they could not rebroadcast the performance, even though it was the most successful program during the fund drive. I was informed that the station had received harsh criticism from the sugar industry. The program director explained that the information I presented about sugar's dangers, even though I provided full scientific verification of the facts, ran up against the president of the station board Sharon Rockefeller. I was told she had received a phone call from a sugar-lobbying group representing soft drink makers and sugar manufacturers. Therefore the station made the decision to pull my program. I was never asked to return to the station. Not surprisingly, a subsequent investigation revealed Sharon Rockefeller sat on Pepsi's board at the time, one of America's largest manufacturers of sweetened soft drinks. That was my first personal encounter with the political forces supporting sugar. I wrote letters to the sugar industry, the station board and Sharon Rockefeller contesting their suppression of my program and their claim that sugar was unrelated to the declining health of Americans. They were presented with dozens of peer-reviewed studies. However in recent decades, the sweetener industry has undergone a dramatic transformation with the introduction and widespread adoption of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) throughout our food system. This shift from traditional cane sugar, which dominated my criticism earlier, to fructose corn sugars has led to deep human health and environmental concerns due to its economic benefits for food manufacturers. High fructose corn syrup was developed in the late 1960s by Japanese scientists who discovered a method to convert glucose from cornstarch into fructose using enzymes. This innovation was spurred by the need to find a cheaper and more versatile sweetener as an alternative to the more labor-intensive production of traditional cane sugar. HFCS is made by milling corn to produce cornstarch. The starch is then hydrolyzed into glucose by adding the enzyme alpha-amylase. Finally the glucose is further processed into fructose. The result is a syrup that typically contains 42-55 percent fructose, with the rest being glucose. Some methods can produce fructose as high as 90 percent. Today, HFCS production has been so optimized that it has become the most cost-effective and efficient means to produce sweeteners. Monsanto's genetically modified Round-Up Ready corn, enabling the use of more toxic herbicides and pesticides, has now made HFCS the cornerstone of the sugar industry. However, the shift to HFCS has been fundamentally driven by economics and the agro-chemical industry and has absolutely nothing to do with creating a healthier sugar. Since corn is one of the most extensively cultivated crops in the United States, which is heavily subsidized by the government, it has provided an enormous, inexpensive supply of the raw material needed for HFCS production. In addition, the enzymatic conversion process can result in a high yield of sweetener from a relatively small amount of corn. HFCS is now a ubiquitous ingredient that permeates our entire modern food supply. Starting in the 1980s, the introduction of HFCS has gradually displaced traditional sweeteners such as natural cane sugar, glucose and honey. According to the USDA, HFCS can cost up to 50% less than cane and other traditional sugars. This cost differential is particularly significant in industries where sweeteners constitute a major portion of production costs such as in soft drinks, artificial fruit juices, sweet baked goods, snack foods and candy, breakfast cereals, condiments and sauces, sweetened dairy products such as yoghurt and ice cream, and a large variety of processed canned and prepared meals. A study published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that HFCS accounts for over 40% increase of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages. Having a purview of the distribution of different sugars in the American diet helps to illustrate the dominance of HFCS in the food system. Approximately 45 percent of added sugars in the American diet come from HFCS and an additional 2 percent from pure fructose. Between 35-40 percent of sweeteners derive from sucrose, the common table sugar made from sugarcane and sugar beets -- the latter now being genetically modified. The production process involves crushing the plant material to extract the juice, which is then purified, concentrated, and crystallized to produce table sugar. Not to be confused with HFCS, corn syrup is largely glucose and represents about 10-15 percent of the nation's sugar intake. It is the most common sugar used in baked goods and candy. Lactose and galactose each account for about 4-5 percent of consumed sugars. However they are typically not added sugars to foods but naturally present in all dairy products. Finally, honey, which at one time was a common food ingredient, today only accounts for about 1-2 percent of sweeteners. Moreover, according to FDA testing, a lot of commercial honey found in grocery stores has been adulterated with HFCS and other sweeteners, such sucrose derived from cane and GMO beet sugars and artificial honey-flavored imitators. A general estimate is that 20-30 percent of honey sold is impure. Back in the 1970s and 1980s when I frequently railed publicly against the sugar industry and the health risks of processed table sugar that then completely dominated the food industry, I would never have imagined that sucrose would be gradually replaced by HFCS. This replacement accelerated after the emergence of genetically modified (GM) corn. As noted above, the vast majority of HFCS produced in the United States, the world's larger corn producer globally, is derived from genetically modified (GM) corn. Estimates suggest that around 85-90% of the corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that approximately 85-90% of HFCS is derived from GM corn. As many court cases and exposes of corruption in the agro-chemical industry have cone to light, GM corn has dire implications for the production and consumption of HFCS, especially considering the associated health risks linked to the use of toxic herbicides such as glyphosate. Research has linked glyphosate to various health issues, including cancer. A decade ago, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen"; today, it is no longer probable but a medical fact. Several studies have detected glyphosate residues in food products containing HFCS. A study published in Environmental Health found glyphosate residues in a variety of food products, highlighting the widespread contamination of the food supply with this herbicide. In addition to glyphosate's carcinogenic potential, the toxin has also been shown to disrupt endocrine function and it has been implicated in gut dysbiosis, an imbalance in the gut microbiome. This disruption can lead to a range of health problems, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and other gastrointestinal disorders. Research published in Current Microbiology indicates that glyphosate exposure can alter the composition of the gut microbiota, leading to adverse health outcomes. HFCS and traditional sugars like table sugar differ significantly in their composition and metabolic effects. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of equal parts glucose and fructose, while HFCS is a mixture of free glucose and fructose, with the fructose content higher than that in sucrose. This difference in composition affects how the body metabolizes these sugars. Briefly, HFCS poses more serious health risks than sucrose. The free fructose in HFCS is absorbed more rapidly than the bound fructose in sucrose, leading to quicker spikes in blood sugar and insulin levels. In addition, the high fructose content in HFCS places a greater burden on the liver, leading to increased fat production and storage, contributing to fatty liver disease and metabolic disorders. In contrast, the balanced glucose-fructose composition of sucrose is metabolized more evenly, posing lower risks. However, it is crucial to realize that excessive or even moderate consumption of any form of sugar can be detrimental to health. Extensive research has linked the consumption of HFCS to a range of adverse health effects. Key among these is metabolic disorders and cardiovascular diseases. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism found that high consumption of HFCS is associated with an increased risk of developing metabolic syndrome, which includes conditions such as obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. These conditions collectively elevate the risk of heart disease and stroke. HFCS has been directly implicated in America's obesity epidemic due to its high fructose content, which is metabolized differently than glucose. Fructose is primarily processed in the liver, where it can be converted into fat more readily than glucose. This process can lead to increased fat accumulation and insulin resistance, both of which are risk factors for obesity and type 2 diabetes. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition highlighted that high HFCS consumption is correlated with an increased risk of obesity and diabetes, particularly in children and adolescents. HFCS intake also leads to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Unlike glucose, which is metabolized by all cells in the body, fructose is metabolized almost entirely in the liver. High levels of fructose overwhelms the liver's capacity to process it, leading to fat accumulation and liver damage. Research published in Hepatology has shown a strong correlation between HFCS consumption and the progression to more severe liver diseases, such as cirrhosis and liver cancer. Recent evidence reveals that HFCS has detrimental effects on cognitive function and mental health. Studies indicate that fructose impairs insulin signaling in the brain, which is crucial for maintaining cognitive functions. A study in the Journal of Physiology found that high-fructose diets can lead to insulin resistance in the brain, potentially increasing the risk of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's. Additionally, high sugar diets, including those high in HFCS, have been linked to mood disorders, such as depression and anxiety, as detailed in a review in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. HFCS and other fructose-rich sugars can have profound adverse effects on the gut and digestive system. These sugars are known to disrupt the normal functioning of the gastrointestinal tract, contributing to various digestive disorders and altering the gut microbiome. Fructose, unlike glucose, is not directly absorbed by the body. It requires a specific transporter, GLUT5, to be taken up by the intestinal cells. Fructose interferes with these transporters, leading to malabsorption. Unabsorbed fructose travels to the large intestine, where it undergoes fermentation by gut bacteria. This process produces gases such as hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane, which cause bloating, gas, and abdominal pain leading to malabsorption and the intestine's inability to absorb fructose efficiently. The gut microbiome, a complex community of trillions of microorganisms living in the digestive tract, is crucial for maintaining digestive health, immune function, and overall well-being. High intake of fructose negatively affects this delicate balance. Studies have shown that diets high in fructose can lead to an imbalance in the gut microbiota composition. This imbalance is characterized by a decrease in beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli and an increase in harmful bacteria like Clostridia and Enterobacteria. A study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that high fructose levels increase intestinal permeability, also known as "leaky gut." This condition allows harmful substances, such as toxins and bacteria, to pass from the gut into the bloodstream, triggering inflammation and contributing to the development of various diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Inflammatory bowel disease, which includes conditions like Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, is exacerbated by promoting inflammation and altering the gut microbiota. A study in the journal Gut reported that reducing fructose intake improved symptoms in individuals with IBS, suggesting a direct link between fructose consumption and IBS symptom severity. Finally we need to also consider the catastrophic effects of HFCS on children. Children are particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with HFCS due to their higher consumption levels relative to their body weight. According to data from the CDC, the average American child consumes approximately 12-16 teaspoons of added sugars per day, a significant portion of which comes from HFCS. This high intake is largely driven by the consumption of sweetened beverages, snacks, and processed foods that are marketed specifically to children. The high consumption of HFCS among children is a major contributor to the rising rates of childhood obesity and metabolic disorders. Studies have shown that children who consume high levels of sugary beverages and snacks are more likely to develop obesity, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes. A study published in Pediatrics found that children who consume sugary drinks daily are at a significantly higher risk of developing obesity compared to those who consume them less frequently. There is also growing concern about the impact of HFCS on children's cognitive development and behavior. High sugar diets have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other behavioral issues in children. A study in the Journal of Attention Disorders found that excessive sugar consumption, including HFCS, exacerbates symptoms of ADHD and impair cognitive functions such as memory and learning. A deeper look at the politics of the sugar industry reveals that huge sums are being doled out by the government to support and subsidize sugar companies. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, health journalist Alexandra Wexler explains that American taxpayers are currently responsible for shelling out $280 million to cover the cost of loans from the USDA which sugar producers are unable to pay back. Given the undeniable evidence demonstrating the toxicity of HFCS and other commercial sugars and their enormous toll on the wellbeing of Americans, why is it that our health agencies and elected officials are not calling for an urgent overhaul of existing policies, which graciously support the domestic sugar industry to poison the population? Where is the outrage over bailing out the purveyors of what is likely the most dangerous staple in the American diet? For our answers we must follow the money-trail.
In this podcast episode, editors and co-hosts Maria Cohut and Yasmin Nicola Sakay discuss whether having tattoos can increase the risk of different types of cancer, particularly blood cancer, as recent evidence from a Swedish cohort has suggested. Special guest Dr. Milena Foerster, who researches the link between tattoos and cancer at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO), explains what we do and do not know about this association.In Conversation is a Healthline Media original podcast. This episode was produced by Flamingo Media for Medical News Today.
In career development, we often dont realise how the little steps we take along the way can all cumulatively lead us to our desired path. In today's episode we chat to Jude Stern, Head of Knowledge Management at the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness on her journey into an aspect of healthcare development underpinned by advocacy, educational innovation and research in the field of global eye health. Eager for More? Here are some Next STEPS: >>> Book a 10min Complimentary Call https://calendly.com/lbcp/complimentary-call >>> Join our free Facebook Community https://www.facebook.com/groups/897241125152990/ >>> Sign up for our monthly newsletter lifebeyondclinicalpractice.getresponsesite.com >>> Rate and Review the show on Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/life-beyond-clinical-practice-healthcare-careers-career-change-professional-growth-career-goals-career-transition/id1713086617 Liked this episode? Then you'll likely enjoy listening to this one too! https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/30-finding-your-niche-as-a-health-professional/id1713086617?i=1000653158493 Music credit Artist: tubebackr Tracks: 'Mango' and 'Chill With Me' Free download links: https://hypeddit.com/tubebackr/mango https://hypeddit.com/tubebackr/chillwithme
About Dr. Monica Jong Dr. Monica Jong is the Global Director of Professional Education, Myopia at Johnson& Johnson Vision where she leads practitioner education initiatives around the world to support evidence-based myopia management.She was the former Executive Director of the International Myopia Institute, an organization she helped co-found. In this role Monica led the development of white papers and key initiatives to bring consensus to the field of myopia management by bringing together leading researchers, clinicians, educators, policy-makers and public health experts. Today these key white papers are utilized by peak health bodies and professional eye care associations worldwide.Monica has published numerous peer reviewed articles in high impact journals in the areas of epidemiology, high myopia and clinical trials. She co-created the first global online education program in myopia at the Brien Holden Vision Institute. She was also the scientific secretary of the WHO meeting on myopia in 2015 and co-authored the WHO report on the Impact of Myopia and High Myopia. Monica was the former secretary of the Refractive Error Working group of the International Agency for Prevention of Blindness (IAPB) and contributed to position papers and advocacy initiatives in refractive error.Monica has practiced optometry in private and corporate, rural and urban settings as well as public health. She is passionate about research and education and continues to mentor graduate students from developing and developed countries. Monica has presented at more than 400 global scientific and practitioner meetings. Monica like to keep physically and mentally fit byalso practicing Muay Thai, the art of eight limbs while spending time with her two children.
No Labels has No Candidates and is No More | One Suit, Two Suit, Red Suit Defamation Suit Filed against Missouri Lawmakers | Wisconsin Voters Restrict Themselves | Iowa State Senate Favors Chemical Creators over Citizens | Missouri House Speaker Investigation Continues | Tennessee woman sues over abortion access | Kansas Newspaper Raid Investigation Wrapping UpSOURCES: The Missouri Independent, KMBC news, Iowa Capital Dispatch, Kansas Reflector, St Louis Post-Dispatch, and The GuardianSHOW NOTES3 Missouri State Senators Suedhttps://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/04/three-missouri-state-senators-sued-for-defamation-over-posts-about-chiefs-parade-shooting/https://www.kmbc.com/article/olathe-kansas-man-wrongly-identified-as-chiefs-parade-shooter-sues-3-missouri-lawmakers/60388311Three Missouri Republicans – including one running for statewide office – are being sued for defamation over social media posts incorrectly identifying a Kansas man as an undocumented immigrant and the shooter at the Kansas City Chiefs' Super Bowl victory celebration.On Tuesday, Denton Loudermill of Olathe, Kansas, filed federal lawsuits against state Sens. Rick Brattin of Harrisonville, Denny Hoskins of Warrensburg and Nick Schroer of Defiance. Loudermill last week filed a similar complaint against U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee. The four lawsuits are almost identical in their allegations against, which involve the lawmakers using social media platforms to repost a photo of Loudermill in handcuffs shortly after the shooting. “The publication of the false representation that plaintiff was an ‘illegal alien' and a ‘shooter' was not made in good faith nor was it made by defendant with any legitimate interest in making or duty to make such assertions,” the lawsuit against Brattin states. Wisconsin Voters Vote To Limit Voting… No Seriouslyhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/04/wisconsin-amendments-harmful-voting-elections?CMP=Share_iOSApp_OtherWisconsin voters enshrined in the state constitution on Tuesday two amendments that election officials and voting rights advocates worry will hurt election administration in the state.The first bans election offices from accessing private grants – a source of revenue that election officials relied on in 2020 to run elections during the pandemic and have since used to stock voting equipment in polling places.During the 2020 elections, election offices across the country – already chronically underfunded – accessed grants from the Center for Tech and Civic Life, a non-profit organization funded by Mark Zuckerberg, the Meta CEO, and his wife, Priscilla Chan. The grants were doled out with the explicit purpose of funding Covid-19 mitigation in polling places, and election offices used the money for things like personal protective equipment and to set up drive-through, contactless voting. Iowa Senate Says “Suck It Up” to folks hurt by mega corporation chemicalshttps://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/04/02/iowa-senate-votes-to-limit-lawsuits-over-roundup-other-farm-and-lawn-chemicals/A bill that would partially shield the maker of a widely used agricultural and lawn herbicide from lawsuits over its health effects was adopted by the Iowa Senate on Tuesday.Senate File 2412 would protect Bayer against claims it failed to warn people about the potential health effects of Roundup so long as its product is labeled as required by federal regulators.The legislation would apply to all domestic producers of herbicides and pesticides, but eliminating the failure-to-warn claims is part of Bayer's public strategy to “manage and mitigate the risks of Roundup litigation,” according to its website.The company hopes the U.S. Supreme Court decides that the claims are overruled by federal law, which the company predicts “could largely end the Roundup litigation.” But a federal appeals court rejected that argument in February.Bayer says about 167,000 lawsuits have been filed by people who claim their exposure to Roundup caused ailments such as cancer, often non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The herbicide has been used to kill weeds for about four decades. The litigation has cost the company billions of dollars.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said Roundup's primary ingredient, glyphosate, is not likely to cause cancer in humans and that it poses no health risks “when used in accordance with its current label.” But in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”Missouri House Speaker Plocher, Now Candidate for Secretary of State, Narrows Focushttps://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/investigation-of-missouri-s-house-speaker-zeroes-in-on-lobbyist-aides-and-advisers/article_f77bc748-f203-11ee-8b90-d33ac8c58ed3.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitterAn investigation of the leader of the Missouri House appears to be focused on his efforts to steer an $800,000 state contract to a software vendor.Meeting for the seventh time since launching a probe into House Speaker Dean Plocher, the House Ethics Committee was expected to take closed-door testimony Wednesday from a handful of aides and advisers.If Plocher appears, it would mark his second time before the bipartisan panel, which has hired an investigator to conduct interviews and help prepare a report outlining any findings.Among those on the schedule is Rod Jetton, whom Plocher hired as his chief of staff last year as the scandal was unfolding. Jetton told the Post-Dispatch Wednesday he was not sure what information the committee wanted from him. Tennessee Woman Sues State Over Abortion Restrictionshttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/04/tennessee-abortion-ban?CMP=Share_iOSApp_OtherJanuary 2023, whenever Kathryn Archer took her young daughter out to the local playground in Nashville, Tennessee, strangers often noticed her visibly pregnant stomach and wanted to make small talk.“When are you due?” they would ask Archer. “Do you know if you're having a boy or a girl?” “Oh, I bet your daughter's so excited to be a big sister.”Archer did not know how to tell them the truth: in early January, Archer's fetus had been diagnosed with several serious anomalies that made a miscarriage likely. If Archer did give birth, her baby could only be treated with surgeries and lifelong help – pain that Archer was unwilling to put a newborn through. Without those surgeries, which the infant might not survive, Archer's baby would die shortly after birth.But due to Tennessee's near-total abortion ban, Archer could not terminate her pregnancy in her home state and, instead, had to wait more than three weeks for an appointment at an out-of-state abortion clinic.“I don't want to confide in a stranger that I'm having to get an abortion because my baby can't survive outside of my womb and I can't get the care that I need as soon as I need it,” Archer recalled thinking. “Those three weeks were really bizarre, challenging, painful – beyond what it needed to be.”Investigation Into Marion Co. Raid That Killed Former Publisher in Kansas Is Winding Uphttps://kansasreflector.com/2024/04/02/colorado-authorities-wrapping-up-investigation-into-marion-police-who-raided-kansas-newspaper/The Colorado Bureau of Investigation is nearly finished with its inquiry into potential criminal activity surrounding the raid on the Marion County Record last year and will turn over findings to special prosecutors later this month, state authorities said Tuesday.The announcement comes a day after the Marion County Record filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking damages for alleged violations of civil rights.Melissa Underwood, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, said Riley County Attorney Barry Wilkerson and Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett would determine whether to file criminal charges against journalists, law enforcement officers or anyone else. @TheHeartlandPOD on Twitter and ThreadsCo-HostsAdam Sommer @Adam_Sommer85 (Twitter) @adam_sommer85 (Post)Rachel Parker @msraitchetp (Threads) Sean Diller (no social)The Heartland Collective - Sign Up Today!JOIN PATREON FOR MORE - AND JOIN OUR SOCIAL NETWORK!“Change The Conversation”Outro Song: “The World Is On Fire” by American Aquarium http://www.americanaquarium.com/
No Labels has No Candidates and is No More | One Suit, Two Suit, Red Suit Defamation Suit Filed against Missouri Lawmakers | Wisconsin Voters Restrict Themselves | Iowa State Senate Favors Chemical Creators over Citizens | Missouri House Speaker Investigation Continues | Tennessee woman sues over abortion access | Kansas Newspaper Raid Investigation Wrapping UpSOURCES: The Missouri Independent, KMBC news, Iowa Capital Dispatch, Kansas Reflector, St Louis Post-Dispatch, and The GuardianSHOW NOTES3 Missouri State Senators Suedhttps://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/04/three-missouri-state-senators-sued-for-defamation-over-posts-about-chiefs-parade-shooting/https://www.kmbc.com/article/olathe-kansas-man-wrongly-identified-as-chiefs-parade-shooter-sues-3-missouri-lawmakers/60388311Three Missouri Republicans – including one running for statewide office – are being sued for defamation over social media posts incorrectly identifying a Kansas man as an undocumented immigrant and the shooter at the Kansas City Chiefs' Super Bowl victory celebration.On Tuesday, Denton Loudermill of Olathe, Kansas, filed federal lawsuits against state Sens. Rick Brattin of Harrisonville, Denny Hoskins of Warrensburg and Nick Schroer of Defiance. Loudermill last week filed a similar complaint against U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee. The four lawsuits are almost identical in their allegations against, which involve the lawmakers using social media platforms to repost a photo of Loudermill in handcuffs shortly after the shooting. “The publication of the false representation that plaintiff was an ‘illegal alien' and a ‘shooter' was not made in good faith nor was it made by defendant with any legitimate interest in making or duty to make such assertions,” the lawsuit against Brattin states. Wisconsin Voters Vote To Limit Voting… No Seriouslyhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/04/wisconsin-amendments-harmful-voting-elections?CMP=Share_iOSApp_OtherWisconsin voters enshrined in the state constitution on Tuesday two amendments that election officials and voting rights advocates worry will hurt election administration in the state.The first bans election offices from accessing private grants – a source of revenue that election officials relied on in 2020 to run elections during the pandemic and have since used to stock voting equipment in polling places.During the 2020 elections, election offices across the country – already chronically underfunded – accessed grants from the Center for Tech and Civic Life, a non-profit organization funded by Mark Zuckerberg, the Meta CEO, and his wife, Priscilla Chan. The grants were doled out with the explicit purpose of funding Covid-19 mitigation in polling places, and election offices used the money for things like personal protective equipment and to set up drive-through, contactless voting. Iowa Senate Says “Suck It Up” to folks hurt by mega corporation chemicalshttps://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/04/02/iowa-senate-votes-to-limit-lawsuits-over-roundup-other-farm-and-lawn-chemicals/A bill that would partially shield the maker of a widely used agricultural and lawn herbicide from lawsuits over its health effects was adopted by the Iowa Senate on Tuesday.Senate File 2412 would protect Bayer against claims it failed to warn people about the potential health effects of Roundup so long as its product is labeled as required by federal regulators.The legislation would apply to all domestic producers of herbicides and pesticides, but eliminating the failure-to-warn claims is part of Bayer's public strategy to “manage and mitigate the risks of Roundup litigation,” according to its website.The company hopes the U.S. Supreme Court decides that the claims are overruled by federal law, which the company predicts “could largely end the Roundup litigation.” But a federal appeals court rejected that argument in February.Bayer says about 167,000 lawsuits have been filed by people who claim their exposure to Roundup caused ailments such as cancer, often non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The herbicide has been used to kill weeds for about four decades. The litigation has cost the company billions of dollars.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said Roundup's primary ingredient, glyphosate, is not likely to cause cancer in humans and that it poses no health risks “when used in accordance with its current label.” But in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”Missouri House Speaker Plocher, Now Candidate for Secretary of State, Narrows Focushttps://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/investigation-of-missouri-s-house-speaker-zeroes-in-on-lobbyist-aides-and-advisers/article_f77bc748-f203-11ee-8b90-d33ac8c58ed3.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitterAn investigation of the leader of the Missouri House appears to be focused on his efforts to steer an $800,000 state contract to a software vendor.Meeting for the seventh time since launching a probe into House Speaker Dean Plocher, the House Ethics Committee was expected to take closed-door testimony Wednesday from a handful of aides and advisers.If Plocher appears, it would mark his second time before the bipartisan panel, which has hired an investigator to conduct interviews and help prepare a report outlining any findings.Among those on the schedule is Rod Jetton, whom Plocher hired as his chief of staff last year as the scandal was unfolding. Jetton told the Post-Dispatch Wednesday he was not sure what information the committee wanted from him. Tennessee Woman Sues State Over Abortion Restrictionshttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/04/tennessee-abortion-ban?CMP=Share_iOSApp_OtherJanuary 2023, whenever Kathryn Archer took her young daughter out to the local playground in Nashville, Tennessee, strangers often noticed her visibly pregnant stomach and wanted to make small talk.“When are you due?” they would ask Archer. “Do you know if you're having a boy or a girl?” “Oh, I bet your daughter's so excited to be a big sister.”Archer did not know how to tell them the truth: in early January, Archer's fetus had been diagnosed with several serious anomalies that made a miscarriage likely. If Archer did give birth, her baby could only be treated with surgeries and lifelong help – pain that Archer was unwilling to put a newborn through. Without those surgeries, which the infant might not survive, Archer's baby would die shortly after birth.But due to Tennessee's near-total abortion ban, Archer could not terminate her pregnancy in her home state and, instead, had to wait more than three weeks for an appointment at an out-of-state abortion clinic.“I don't want to confide in a stranger that I'm having to get an abortion because my baby can't survive outside of my womb and I can't get the care that I need as soon as I need it,” Archer recalled thinking. “Those three weeks were really bizarre, challenging, painful – beyond what it needed to be.”Investigation Into Marion Co. Raid That Killed Former Publisher in Kansas Is Winding Uphttps://kansasreflector.com/2024/04/02/colorado-authorities-wrapping-up-investigation-into-marion-police-who-raided-kansas-newspaper/The Colorado Bureau of Investigation is nearly finished with its inquiry into potential criminal activity surrounding the raid on the Marion County Record last year and will turn over findings to special prosecutors later this month, state authorities said Tuesday.The announcement comes a day after the Marion County Record filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking damages for alleged violations of civil rights.Melissa Underwood, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, said Riley County Attorney Barry Wilkerson and Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett would determine whether to file criminal charges against journalists, law enforcement officers or anyone else. @TheHeartlandPOD on Twitter and ThreadsCo-HostsAdam Sommer @Adam_Sommer85 (Twitter) @adam_sommer85 (Post)Rachel Parker @msraitchetp (Threads) Sean Diller (no social)The Heartland Collective - Sign Up Today!JOIN PATREON FOR MORE - AND JOIN OUR SOCIAL NETWORK!“Change The Conversation”Outro Song: “The World Is On Fire” by American Aquarium http://www.americanaquarium.com/
WHO has released new global cancer figures, showing stark inequities in preventing and treating cancer, with rising numbers of cases and cancer-related deaths expected to affect the countries least equipped to cope.In this episode of "Let's Talk Cancer", Isabelle Soerjomataram, researcher and epidemiologist at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO's cancer branch, analyses and interprets these global cancer trends. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
About a week ago, the World Health Organization released a shocking projection. Specifically, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (which is a sub-agency of the WHO) they released a report which projected a 77 percent increase in the number of cancer cases (worldwide) by the year 2050.
When I was in my 20s I bought into the idea that drinking in moderation was “good” for me. And why wouldn't I? Red wine was being marketed as a “health” food. Articles and research being circulated claimed that drinking red wine would give me health benefits ranging from lowering bad cholesterol, regulating blood sugar, reducing my risk of cancer, keeping my brain sharp, my heart healthy, my body slim and that red wine could even treat the common cold! Don't believe me? If you search “Is Red Wine Good For Me?”, this article will pop up just under one by Web MD: 10 Health Benefits Of Drinking Red Wine That Will Keep You Healthy. It's full of sketchy science and claims that have been disproven in the last decade and was shared by…(wait for it)...a winery The truth is that alcohol is a toxic, psychoactive, and dependence-producing substance and has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer decades ago – this is the highest risk group, which also includes asbestos, radiation and tobacco. And now that an analysis of decades of research on alcohol's negative effects on your brain and body have forced the news media to report that Moderate Drinking Has No Health Benefits it's time to turn our attention to what actually can make our bodies healthier: nutrition. Here's the headline you need to know Not only is embracing an alcohol-free lifestyle a positive health choice, but nutrition can help you reduce alcohol cravings and heal your body from damage caused by alcohol. I asked Dr. Brooke Scheller, author of "How to Eat to Change How You Drink," to dive into the science behind how nutritional choices can curb cravings to drink, heal your gut, improve your mood and support your journey to sobriety. 3 Ways I Can Support You In Drinking Less + Living More Join The Sobriety Starter Kit, the only sober coaching course designed specifically for busy women. My proven, step-by-step sober coaching program will teach you exactly how to stop drinking — and how to make it the best decision of your life. Save your seat in my FREE MASTERCLASS, 5 Secrets To Successfully Take a Break From Drinking Grab the Free 30-Day Guide To Quitting Drinking, 30 Tips For Your First Month Alcohol-Free. Connect with me for free sober coaching tips, updates + videos on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest and TikTok @hellosomedaysober. Connect with Casey McGuire Davidson To find out more about Casey and her coaching programs, head over to www.hellosomedaycoaching.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Majoriteten av dödsfallen av cancer i Afrika söder om Sahara drabbar kvinnor, framför allt unga kvinnor. Men med hjälp av ättiksprit och bättre kunskap hos män hoppas forskarna kunna vända trenden Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. Det är Lancet-kommissionen med fler än 50 forskare som visar att många unga kvinnor på den afrikanska kontinenten drabbas av bröstcancer och livmoderhalscancer. Att upptäcka cancrarna tidigt menar forskarna skulle kunna göra att nästan hälften av cancerdödsfallen i Afrika söder om Sahara skulle kunna undvikasÄttikssprit kan leda till upptäckt av livmoderhalscancerLancet-kommissionen menar bland annat att vinäger, ättikssprit, kan hjälpa till att vända trenden för livmoderhalscancer. Det handlar om en billig och enkel metod där celler från livmoderhalsen kan doppas i vinäger, ättikssprit, och vätskan ändrar då färg. Det är ett billig sätt att screena för livmoderhalscancer.Flera länder har även infört HPV-vaccinering för flickor. Det land som har varit bättre än flera höginkomstländer är Rwanda.Män kan hjälpa till mot bröstcancerMen även män kan vara med och lära sig hur knölar känns i brösten. Det är information som forskarna hoppas ska leda till snabbare upptäckt av bröstcancer.Att bryta stigmat om att inte våga prata om förändringar i bröstet är också viktigt, menar kommissionären Beatrice Addai.Trippelnegativ cancerUnga kvinnor drabbas i högre grad av bröstcancer i afrikanska länder. Det beror på genetiken, och där forskaren ännu inte vet varför personer med afrikansk ursprung får bröstcancer vid yngre ålder än annars. Det drabbas bland annat om en trippelnegativ cancer, som gör att hormonbehandlingar inte fungerar. Ökad kunskap om hur man själv kan upptäcka knölar är en väg att minska dödligheten. En annan form av cancer som också kan drabba yngre kvinnor på den afrikanska kontinenten är phyllodes tumör ( se bild nr 2).Stor Lancet-kommission mot cancerMedverkar i Vetenskapsradion Hälsa gör flera av de 54 kommissionärerna i Lancets kommission om cancer i Afrika söder om Sahara. Wil Ngwa, professor och röntgenläkare verksam i Storbritannien och vid Harvarduniversitet i USA samt ledare för Lancets 54-hövdade cancerkommission för Afrika söder om Sahara. Andra kommissionärer är Beatrice Wiafe Addai, cancerkirurg och chef för ett privatsjukhus i Ghana och bland annat ordförande i afrikanska cancerforsknings- och utbildningsorganisationen AORTIC och ordförande för Breast Care International, Lawrencia Dsane, gynekolog i Nederländerna och verksam i Ghana, epidemiolog Iacopo Baussano vid International Agency for Research on Cancer hos Världshälsoorganisationen.Deltagare vid cancerkonferensen var bland annat studenten i globalhälsa Marie Christelle Igihozo och socionomen Christella Nsimire Karekezi.Programmet är en återutsändning från 23 september i fjol.Producent och programledare Annika ÖstmanAnnika.Ostman@sverigesradio.se
The Adweek Agency of the Year 2023 winners have finally been crowned.The awards program saw agency entries painstakingly chosen by Adweek's editorial team. Leading the judges was Adweek's managing editor, brands and agencies, Jameson Fleming.This week on the podcast, he joins community editor, Luz Corona, and Europe brands editor, Rebecca Stewart, to discuss the selection process, as well as what makes a winning agency and the one piece of advice he'd give to any shop hoping to make the cut in 2024.He also discusses the anatomical, eye-catching cover designed by GUT Buenos Aires, which scored a double whammy this year; taking home Breakthrough Agency of the Year and International Agency of the Year.Other winners included:Global Agency of the Year: OgilvyMulticultural Agency of the Year: The CommunityU.S. Agency of the Year: MischiefU.S. Midsize Agency of the Year: Colle McVoyU.S. Small Agency of the Year: AltoAre you looking to take your media strategy to the next level and make an impact with millions of customers? Walmart Connect harnesses the massive reach of America's number one retailer.¹ They can help you connect with Walmart's 139MM weekly online and in-store customers², to find the ideal audience for your message, at scale. Walmart Connect offers media solutions for advertisers of all sizes, on and off Walmart's digital properties and in their stores. From cost-effective Sponsored Search and self-serve Display ads on Walmart's site and app, to connected TV and offsite media across web and social, to in-store activations and live events, Walmart Connect can help you deliver the right content to the right Walmart customer at the right step of their shopping journey. Their Closed-loop Measurement uses Walmart's proprietary customer purchase data to track the impact of your campaign on sales, not just on Walmart's site and app, but also in their stores. For some campaigns, they can even provide rest-of-market data that tracks the impact on sales at other retailers. Visit WalmartConnect.com today and see how they can help connect you more meaningfully with Walmart customers. Sources: ¹ Fortune, August 2023. ²Walmart internal data, January 2023. No endorsement of third-party data sources. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this episode, Sujani sits down with public health physician Dr. Arunah Chandran. They discuss Arunah's clinical work and how she became interested in the field of public health, her work at the Ministry of Health of Malaysia and experience moving to France to work with the IARC, and share job application tips for those interested in working with international organizations. You'll LearnThe clinical encounters that led Arunah to becoming involved in the field of public health What additional training Arunah went through to become a public health physicianArunah's research and work in noncommunicable diseases and women's health with the Ministry of Health in MalaysiaFinding different job opportunities within the same company or systemAdvice on how to figure out if you should seek an additional degree or notArunah's work with the IARC and her experience moving to a different country for workTips on applying for jobs with international organizations and the benefits of keeping a log of values and responsibilities you have had at every positionToday's GuestPublic health medicine specialist, with experience in clinical medicine, health systems, NCD policies, public health operations, and clinical research. Led national policy response for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and cancers in Malaysia. Currently, focused on implementation and evaluation of affordable and equitable integrated multi-cancer early detection package to improve cancer outcomes in resource-constrained settings. Initially trained as a physician, I have a double Masters in Public Health and Medical Aesthetics/Anti-aging as well as a doctorate in Public Health (Epidemiology).ResourcesConnect with Arunah on LinkedIn Learn more about the International Agency for Research on Cancer Listen to the previous episode on the Public Health Resume and CVSupport the showJoin The Public Health Career Club: the #1 hangout spot and community dedicated to building and growing your dream public health career.
Does the most widely used weed killer in the world cause cancer? On October 3, 2023, Film Movement and Fathom Events invite audiences to discover for themselves with a special one-night only nationwide theatrical release of INTO THE WEEDS, which follows the story of groundskeeper Lee Johnson and his fight for justice against agrichemical giant Monsanto (now Bayer, which bought the company in 2018), the manufacturer of the weed killer, Roundup. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate – the active ingredient in Roundup – as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” A year later, Johnson filed a lawsuit claiming that Ranger Pro, a commercial-grade variant of Roundup, was a substantial contributing factor in causing his Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Johnson's was the first “bellwether case” in a mass tort against Monsanto involving tens of thousands of plaintiffs: gardeners, golfers, farmers, groundskeepers, and ordinary people, following and trusting the instructions on the label. Director Jennifer Baichwal (Manufactured Landscapes, Anthropocene: The Human Epoch) seamlessly blends together interviews, testimonials, trial footage, news coverage, and vérité, the film follows the progression of this groundbreaking lawsuit, while also stepping back to consider the systemic impact of glyphosate-based herbicides on human health, our food systems, and the biodiversity of our planet. For more go to: intotheweedsimpact.com Check out: filmmovement.com/into-the-weeds
Dr. Mahdi Sheikh and Dr. David Zaridze join Dr. Shannon Westin to discuss how quitting smoking after diagnosis may impact survival in kidney cancer. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Shannon Westin: Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours. This is the podcast where we get in-depth on manuscripts that have been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. As always, I'm your host, Shannon Westin, Gynecologic Oncologist and Social Media Editor for the JCO. And I am so excited to be here today. We are going to be discussing the paper, “Smoking Cessation After Diagnosis of Kidney Cancer Is Associated With Reduced Risk of Mortality and Cancer Progression: A Prospective Cohort Study,” which was published in the JCO on March 29, 2023. And this very intriguing paper, I have two of the major authors from this paper. First is Mahdi Sheikh, who is a scientist and epidemiologist at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization in Lyon, France. Welcome, Dr. Sheikh. Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: Thank you very much, Dr. Westin, and thanks for having us. Dr. Shannon Westin: And then with Dr. Sheikh is Dr. David Zaridze. He is the Director of the Department of Clinical Epidemiology at the N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center in Moscow and also the President of the Russian Cancer Society. We are with greatness today. Dr. David Zaridze: Thank you. Thank you very much. Nice to be with you. Dr. Shannon Westin: Very nice to be with the two of you. So, let's get started. I first wanted to just level set. Could one of you review just the overall incidence of kidney cancer and what proportion of patients with kidney cancer are known to be smokers at diagnosis? Dr. David Zaridze: The figures I'm going to present are rates. They are adjusted to standard world population. Why am I saying that? Because in America you sometimes use adjustment to the US population. These figures will be different from what you are accustomed to see. Okay, incidence of kidney cancer in Russia, in men, 14.1 per 100,000. I compare this with the United States of America, men, 16.5. Very small difference. Women in Russia, 8 per 100,000. In the United States of America, 8.8 per 100,000 of population. Exactly the same. Very close. These rates are sort of high-ish, but there are very high rates, for example, in the Czech Republic, where rates are more than 20 and other Central European countries. In Russia, kidney cancer mortality in men is 6 per 100,000. In USA, 3 per 100,000. In women in Russia, 1.9. In the United States, 1.3. I would say that there is a difference in mortality in men, not much in women. The incidence of kidney cancer is increasing in Russia sharply, sharply. Since 1990 it has increased - it's tripled. It increased from 5 per 100,000 in 1990 to 14 per 100,000 in 2019. Mortality is stable or declining. This is suggesting that kidney cancer is overdiagnosed in Russia and probably elsewhere. But this is not a problem of our discussion now. The frequency of the prevalence of smoking in kidney cancer patients. It is estimated that 15% to 20% of patients with kidney cancer smoke. In Russia, we have results only from our study. 18% of patients smoked at admission to our cancer center. Dr. Shannon Westin: Got it. Okay, good. Well, that's really helpful, especially to those of us that don't take care of patients with kidney cancer every day. It helps us just understand. And I guess the next question is what do we know about the impact of tobacco cessation on the risk of kidney cancer? So you were talking about that increasing incidence. How does tobacco cessation impact that? Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: Tobacco smoking is a known risk factor for kidney cancer and an estimated 17% of the kidney cancer burden worldwide can be attributed to tobacco smoking. There is a recent meta-analysis of 56 studies that was published a few years ago that clearly showed a dose-response relationship between smoking and kidney cancer, meaning that the more cigarettes a day you smoke, the risk of kidney cancer will go up. For example, the risk that was shown for five cigarettes per day was 20%. It goes up until 70% for 30 cigarettes per day. And also with a duration, the more years you smoke, the risk for kidney cancer will go higher. However, the good news is that when you quit smoking, there is strong evidence that the risk for developing kidney cancer will be lower compared to if you continue smoking. And there is some evidence that shows again dose-response relationship, meaning that the more years you spend in quitting smoking, the lower your risk would be for developing kidney cancer compared to if you continue smoking. So this is not only about renal cancer or kidney cancer but also true about many other cancer sites as well. Dr. Shannon Westin: Okay, that's super helpful. And then I guess prior to your study that we're about to talk about, did we have any information on what happens when patients quit smoking after their diagnosis? Any limitations to those data that were available? Dr. David Zaridze: You mean the data which was prior our study? You know, the negative effect of smoking after diagnosis has been shown nearly three decades ago. The information exists already for thirty years, but it was largely ignored not only in clinical practice but also in clinical trials. And I have to stress that in clinical trials this information is still ignored. I came across these studies and decided to review them some time ago. All they were case-control studies and to my knowledge, none of them assessed the effect of quitting smoking. I decided to review these studies and included this review in my book, Smoking: A Major Cause of Cancer, which was published in 2012 and was dedicated to Professor Richard Doll's anniversary. In fact, this was a stimulus for the study we are discussing. And in fact, the component of this study we are discussing today was built in and baked into the existing cohort study to which we added the active follow-up component for assessing the changes in smoking habit and disease status. Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: If you review the evidence, before publishing this study just like a few years ago, we find that there are many studies published talking about the effects of smoking cessation on cancer survival. However, as David mentioned when you go deep into these studies, you'll find a lot of limitations. First of all, most of these studies are retrospective studies, which means that either case-control or retrospective course that patients developed the outcome, and then some investigators came to see their records to assess or ask family members before they developed the outcomes. There are a lot of biases with these types of studies. And with the epidemiologic study, perspective study that we did, has less limitations compared to retrospective ones. Another one is that when we go into the study you see, they only assess a small number of patients, small sample size. Some studies just assess 10 smokers, some assess like 30. By this study we try to assess a large number of smokers who quit smoking after diagnosis. Another limitation is that– First, let's see what exposure and what setting we are talking about. We're talking about smoking which is a very dynamic behavior. People quit smoking and they relapse smoking and they quit smoking and so on. So if you access this exposure for only a limited time, for example, for one year, then you may miss what happens after that which results in misclassification of some of the participants. So repeated assessment was not done in other studies that we did here in this study. Another one, you are talking about special setting patients who are diagnosed with cancer. These patients have special circumstances, they have treatments, they have family support, they might go under the stress of cancer, and all these different stages at diagnosis. And most studies that are available, they didn't account for this. They didn't adjust or they didn't try to understand the role of these compounding factors, as we call it in epidemiology, on that, the thing that we're trying to address. And a prospective study, as I said, long follow-up time. Even the very few prospective studies that were available for other cancer sites that have only one year or maximum two years of follow-up with this type of exposure, so it is important to follow them for a long time. Another thing I would say was exposure assessment. Not only did we repeatedly try to assess exposure among participants, but try to call the people– David and his team who did the study in the field, called the participants and tried to ask the family members and sometimes their physicians about their smoking behaviors. When you go to current evidence you see, mostly smoking behavior was assessed using the record that is available like treatment records or patient records, which again has some limitations if you do not assess exposure among qualified participants. Finally, we're talking about a dynamic behavior in the follow-ups. Some people might change smoking. But there is a very important thing, in this study, we also collect at the time of quitting smoking. There's a very important thing in statistics we call Survivorship Bias, meaning that, if you were assessing an exposure doing the follow-up and if you do not pay attention to this, you will assess an exposure that is a proxy of people who lived longer. Meaning that people have enough time, they have a long time, and those who have longer time, will have more time to quit smoking. And then you will be assessing this, actually, not the exposure, but you're only assessing people who quit smoking, and then whatever you assess, you would end up with a beneficial effect. But if you have the time of quitting smoking and follow up and all these statistical things and lower sample size, you are able to account for this very very important bias in epidemiology. Dr. Shannon Westin: Before we go further, I'd love for just a bit of a description of exactly how you laid out your study to really add to where this data are so limited around survival and tobacco cessation. So maybe review the primary/secondary objectives, basic design, just to make sure our listeners are all on the same page. Dr. David Zaridze: The study has classical prospective cohort design that the study, which was basically a basic study, in which the new component was built in. This study used a user's questionnaire-based exposure assessment and molecular epidemiologic approach. I mean that, in addition to the questionnaire approach, we collected blood and tumor tissues for molecular studies. All patients with kidney cancer admitted to the cancer center were interviewed at admission before receiving any treatment. A structured lifestyle questionnaire was used. Participants were asked about their lifetime smoking history which included questions about the duration and frequency of smoking cigarettes, the average number of cigarettes smoked every day. They were also asked about their lifetime history of alcohol drinking. The questions included questions about exposures to carcinogens other than smoking, and health conditions, including chronic kidney diseases, hypertension, diabetes and so on. Height and weight were measured. Today, this study generated and continues to generate plenty of results and papers published in most prestigious journals such as Nature Genetics, for example. So, as you know, we started from 2012, we started the follow up of the cohort members, we were focusing on Moscow residents and the follow-up includes regular annual contacts with the patients personally or via telephone or with patients' household members, etc. Again, we collected information about changes in smoking behavior and disease status. We also used information from the regional cancer registry to confirm the information obtained from patients. The average period of follow up was eight years. And this is quite a long follow-up. Repeated assessment of smoking status reduces the likelihood that exposure to smoking was misclassified. However, regrettably, the self-reported information on smoking was not supported by biochemical tests, for example, by blood cotinine testing. To my knowledge, this is the only prospective cohort study in patients with cancer, not only with kidney cancer that have collected data on participants' smoking status prospectively for quite a long time. The average follow-up time was eight years. Dr. Shannon Westin: That was incredible. That definitely caught my eye. And I was looking, I was like, “Oh, how many did they lose?” And you guys kept 80-100% of the patients. I just was so impressed by that. And now hearing the mechanisms in which you did that, it makes sense. You were very diligent, multiple ways to contact patients and confirm the data. So you really are to be congratulated for the work that you're able to achieve. Dr. Sheikh, I'd love to hear, you talked a little bit about how some of the studies didn't really think about confounding variables. Can you kind of highlight some of the confounding variables that you all controlled for in order to really assess the impact of the cessation on survival? Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: Thanks to the high-quality data and also the large sample size and the way the study was designed, we were able to adjust for a lot of confounding. So we tried to adjust for all these things. So we used three approaches. The first approach was adjustment. When you ran this in the analysis, we tried a statistical model, we tried to adjust for these confounders like age, sex, treatment, socioeconomic status, smoking intensity, alcohol, and other factors. This is one effect, one approach. The second approach was stratification, meaning that we come and see the effect within people who have been diagnosed with only earlier stage tumors to see if the effect among people with earlier stage tumors differs with the effect that we see among people with higher stage tumors. But again, if you read the paper, you see that we saw the protective effects of smoking cessation on both groups of people, those who were diagnosed at earlier stages and those who were diagnosed at later stages. And also heavy smokers or mild to moderate smokers, again, we tried stratified analysis excluding those heavy smokers and saw the effect, again, among those who were light smokers or moderate smokers and also with the heavy smokers. I want to say that we tried all these types of analytical approaches and we really saw the protective effects across all patient subgroups. Finally, I talked again about the survivorship bias. So we used really strict statistical approaches to address this confounding, and because we had the time of quitting, we had the follow up time and all these things. And, again, whatever we did in the study we still could see the effects of smoking and all this is due to the good design, the large sample size, and the good questionnaire data that we have. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's awesome. I think, of course, now let's get to the bottom line. 40% reported that they quit smoking after diagnosis with none relapsing during the time period. And what did you see was the impact on overall survival as well as cancer-specific survival? Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: So we tried several outcomes - overall survival, cancer-specific survival, but also progression-free survival. And then because we had the large sample size we could assess all this. Interestingly, we saw the effect on all the three outcomes that we assessed. So the overall survival was better among those during the quitting time and also the cancer-specific survival was also better and also progression-free survival was better among all these participants. Dr. Shannon Westin: I think most people that have read this paper - and if you haven't read this paper you should run to read it right now - I really was impressed with that kind of clear benefit across cancer-specific mentality across all subgroups regardless of how much they smoked. So I don't know why you get a sense of like, “Oh, if you smoke a little bit you wouldn't see as big of an impact,” but a very clear impact. And I would love to hear why you think smoking negatively impacts these outcomes. How does the cessation help? This is a perfect time for that. Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: When we review the evidence about how smoking cessation may be beneficial for patients, for the survivorship of patients with cancer, we come to five mechanisms that are suggested in the literature. So the first one can be, is suggested, that is altered cancer biology. Smoke and tobacco smoke contain numerous carcinogens and mutagens. So it has been shown that cancer cells that are exposed to tobacco smoke, they may become more aggressive and the risk of metastasis might go higher and also, angiogenesis and all other effects on the biology of cancer cells. So it may affect the cancer cell biology. Another suggested mechanism might be altered immune response. So tobacco smoking affects the immune system and then the immune response among those who are exposed to tobacco might be affected by tobacco smoking. So their response to the cancer cells but also other bacteria, viruses, and other things might be affected as well. The third possible mechanism suggested altered drug metabolism. It has been shown that tobacco smoke and smoking can affect some of the enzymes that have metabolic responsibilities and metabolism of the drugs. So that can affect the washout period for the drug. It might not stay enough in the blood or vice versa as well. It might affect the toxicity. There is some evidence about this. The fourth mechanism suggested is about increasing treating-related complications or treatment-related complications. People who smoke have delayed wound healing, they have more complications, the surgery, the time they spend at the hospital might be longer. And this is also part of which smoking may affect the outcomes that we saw here. And finally, that is we are talking about tobacco smoking and patients with cancer are human beings with all these systems. So we know that smoking causes damage to the cardiovascular system, to the pulmonary system and also to the lungs and other things. So this is why we see different outcomes are affected by cancer. Dr. David Zaridze: I was impressed by the data that exposure to tobacco smoke condensate induces changes in tumor microenvironment. For example, it inhibits formation of interferons, interferon alpha and gamma, inhibits the migration to tumor microenvironment of the immune cells. The number of CD8+ T lymphocytes, T killers, are significantly lower in the tumor microenvironment of current smokers compared to former smokers and never smokers. And even more interestingly, the number of PD-L1+ cells are also lower in the tumor microenvironment of current smokers than former or never smokers. This is probably very important in terms of effectiveness of impairment by smoking of the immunotherapeutic approaches in cancer treatment. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's very important and we know the microenvironment has a huge impact on just the way the cells respond to treatment and develop resistance and so that makes a lot of sense. Okay, well, this has been amazing and I think one thing that you just said just struck me, Dr. Sheikh, that you've obviously shown this in lung cancer and you're looking at this in other cancers. I guess the question is: What should we be doing? How should we be implementing tobacco cessation efforts across all cancer diagnoses to help all patients that have really any diagnosis of cancer? Dr. David Zaridze: Let me first underline the clinical importance of these results. The benefits from quitting smoking are comparable or even superior to those recorded in the clinical trials of modern kidney cancer treatments such as immune checkpoint inhibitors. I refer to the results of pivotal trials in advanced renal cell cancer in the frontline setting and these results were reported at ASCO Meeting 2023 recently in May. If you compare the results of our study with results of these pivotal trials, it is very impressive. It is clear that our findings strengthen the case for making tobacco cessation treatment a standard part of the routine health care for all people with cancer, however, smoking is still quite high in cancer patients. And I would like to quote Peter Shields who is saying that, in the United States,10% to 50% of cancer patients smoke. As far as Russia is concerned, in our study, 80% of kidney cancer patients smoke, and in our lung cancer study, 58% of cancer patients smoke. The barrier is that the oncologists do not believe or are accepting with a great deal of skepticism the results of our study. They don't believe the idea that anything else besides surgical, radiological, or medical treatment could improve the outlook of cancer patients. It's difficult for them to apprehend. Many of them think that smoking cessation after diagnosis is simply a waste of time. Many patients simply don't know that smoking cessation after diagnosis may be beneficial for them. In addition, they are pessimistic and they feel discouraged to quit smoking, as they might think it is too late. I would like to quote my favorite quote: “Smoking cessation treatment has to become the fourth pillar of cancer treatment, one that could affect cancer treatment outcomes as powerfully as surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy.” This is Dr. Fiore, 2019. Dr. Shannon Westin: Thank you so much. And Dr. Sheikh, anything to add there around cessation efforts? Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: As we saw the results of these studies that smoking cessation is feasible and it is accessible at a minimum cost for many patients, it should really be integrated in the management of patients with cancer. It is feasible, it is cheap, it is accessible. But unfortunately, when we review the evidence we see that only less than half of the physicians, like around 40% of physicians, send the patients to tobacco smoking cessation services. And even some do not discuss this issue. And as David mentioned, they do not know the effect of smoking cessation. So when you go through these studies to find the major barriers, in addition to what David had mentioned, we find two important points. First one is lack of education or experience in providing tobacco cessation interventions among those who deal with patients with cancer. So they do not have the education. And second is lack of available resources for referrals. Now we're not only talking about the United States but also many other countries even high-income countries, we do not see the resources for referrals on smoking cessation services in cancer care settings. The take home message probably from this study and also from these barriers, would be for three groups. First, for the policymakers, we would recommend sustainable funding should be dedicated to tobacco cessation services. As we saw, the effect is huge and seems to be a very big effect and it is cheap so why not implement this smoking cessation service within cancer care settings. And the second one, tobacco treatment training programs for healthcare providers. This is also very, very important that we try to implement this training program in the curriculum of healthcare providers, especially those who deal with cancers and tobacco-related outcomes. And also for physicians, we recommend that physicians should assess and address tobacco use in all patients with cancer. They should talk about this topic and also show the benefits of quitting smoking. And patients with cancer who smoke should be supported to stop smoking at any time and each visit after diagnosis is not like some time pass, as we saw, all patient subgroups could benefit from smoking cessation. This is important. But something also very, very important that we shouldn't forget that cancer itself causes a lot of fear and anxiety and stress. And smoking cessation sometimes may be associated with stress and more anxiety. So it is very, very important to think about this point and provide the psychosocial support to patients who quit smoking. Sometimes they may relapse just because of the fear and anxiety they have. So it's not only showing the evidence, but also supporting these patients, telling them how to do that and also supporting them emotionally and also psychosocially. And finally for the patients, I would like to give this message that we see and we know that it is never too late to quit smoking. As David said, patients may feel like, “It is too late now I've developed cancers,” but no, it's really not too late. And if you quit smoking at any time after diagnosis, you would benefit a lot from smoking cessation. Dr. David Zaridze: In the United States there are guidelines, several guidelines for smoking cessation, specifically for cancer patients because smoking cessation in cancer patients is very different from smoking cessation in general population. In the general population, we more or less succeeded, I would say, and we have to look now at this direction to the smoking cessation in cancer patients. And this is a message to WHO, that countries, members of WHO, based on the recommendation guidelines of WHO, develop their own specific guidelines for smoking cessation in cancer patients. And that should be used in all cancer clinics and that should be a must, absolutely important part of anti-cancer treatment. And as I already told, it should be the fourth pillar in cancer treatment, as treatment, as surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Dr. Shannon Westin: Thank you both. That was such a great discussion, and I hope that we've convinced everyone that this is a critical effort that they need to be addressing every day. I just want to thank everyone who listened. This has been "Smoking Cessation after Diagnosis of Kidney Cancers Associated with Reduced Risk of Mortality and Cancer Progression: A Prospective Cohort Study", again published in the JCO on March 29, 2023. Thank you guys again for listening to JCO After Hours. Please check out our other podcast offerings. You can check them out on the website or wherever you get your podcasts and let us know what you think about the podcast on Twitter. Dr. David Zaridze: Thank you. Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: Thank you very much. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
Join Dr. Debrah Harding, an expert in integrative oncology, as we explore often-ignored cancer risk factors. We'll discuss environmental culprits like heavy metals and chemicals, along with lifestyle choices related to diet and estrogen balance. These elements significantly influence cancer risk and outcomes. Additionally, we'll stress the value of thorough medical forms in spotting these risks and elevating patient care. We'll also address radiation dangers, highlighting a case study. This leads to a broader conversation on electromagnetic effects, risks of phones being held close, and potential harm from earbuds. Take note: The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies certain radio waves as "2B carcinogens." Next, we evaluate the role of naturopathic oncology care in enhancing cancer treatments. We'll clarify misconceptions, spotlighting the significance of the FABNO title. As we conclude, Dr. Harding offers strategies for minimizing pill use and countering supplement fatigue for cancer patients. This episode delivers crucial information for both practitioners and patients.EPISODE CHAPTERS:(0:00:01) - Modifiable Risk Factors for Cancer(0:08:17) - Radiation Exposure and Its Health Impact(0:13:05) - Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity and Its Symptoms(0:24:59) - Naturopathic Medicine in Oncology Care(0:35:11) - Naturopathic Care in Cancer Treatment(0:39:21) - FABNO Certification and Integrative Oncology CareLinks:American Institute for Cancer ResearchNational Association of Environmental MedicineJoin Over 18,000 Leading Medical Professionals and Become a Vibrant Wellness Provider Today!
Have you seen the headlines? Social media and the internet at large are abuzz with the controversy surrounding the well-known artificial sweetener aspartame. The recent classification of aspartame as a possible human carcinogen (category 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has sparked a new wave of discussions, concerns, and media sensationalism. In this episode, Alan Aragon helps unravel the complexities and provide a more balanced perspective on this hot topic. Alan is no stranger to the podcast, but in case you're not familiar with him, he's a nutrition researcher and educator who's been at the forefront of the evidence-based fitness movement for over a decade now and has helped countless fitness enthusiasts, professional athletes, and top coaches, and even influenced my own work. Alan has a knack for translating science into practical application, which you can see for yourself if you check out his research review, which was the first of its kind in 2008. In this podcast, you're going to learn about . . . The latest news and opinions on aspartame and its classification by the IARC The negative connotations associated with artificial sweeteners and why people often overlook their benefits Animal testing on artificial sweeteners and whether the findings can be applied to humans Practical considerations for the consumption of artificial sweeteners, their place in a balanced lifestyle, and how much is safe to consume And more . . . This episode offers valuable insights for anyone interested in artificial sweeteners, diet, and overall health, cutting through the confusion and fear to provide an evidence-based viewpoint. So, click play to listen and learn about aspartame and its effects on health. Timestamps: 0:00 - Please leave a review of the show wherever you listen to podcasts and make sure to subscribe! 06:36 - What is the latest news with aspartame? 13:30 - Do you have an opinion on what is going on with aspartame and the IARC? 18:28 - Do you think the negative findings of aspartame and artificial sweeteners has put a bad connotation on them? and prevents people from looking into the benefits of artificial sweeteners? 27:41 - My award-winning fitness books for men and women: https://legionathletics.com/products/books/ 29:41 - If animal testing shows an increase in cancer risk can that really be applied to humans? 57:16 - Where can people find you and your work? Mentioned on the Show: My award-winning fitness books for men and women: https://legionathletics.com/products/books/ Alan Aragon's Research Review: https://alanaragon.com/aarr/ Alan Aragon's Website: https://alanaragon.com/ Alan Aragon's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thealanaragon/
Have we soured on artificial sweeteners??Recently the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released statements about artificial sweeteners and potential risks to our health. The IARC went as far as to list aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”So, what's all the hubbub about? Are artificial sweeteners actually bad for us? Does data exist to support a link between artificial sweeteners and cancer? Metabolic disease? Any other health concerns?Do we have to stop drinking "sugar-free" beverages? Should we panic??NO!Listen to Your Doctor Friends! Let us help you understand the relevant data, and provide some context. We're your friends. Its what we're here for :)Major points-of-interest (i.e. SWEET SPOTS) in this episode include:Where do artificial sweeteners come from? Are they all "chemicals"?What does the WHO's statement on non-nutritive sweeteners mean? What's the context? What are the data origins which spurred this recommendation?Is there evidence that links artificial sweeteners to cancer? What kind of evidence?How does the IARC classify carcinogenicity of substances? What are examples of substances that are "Group 1- Carcinogenic to Humans" vs "Group 2A and 2B- Probably and Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans, respectively"?What is JECFA? How do they classify substances and determine "safe levels" to consume on a daily basis?What are stevia and monk fruit extract? Are they "better" for us since they're "natural"?What is lycasin and why are the reviews of "Sugarfree Haribo Gummi Bears" so hilarious??For more episodes, limited edition merch, or to become a Friend of Your Doctor Friends (and more), follow this link!Also, CHECK OUT AMAZING HEALTH PODCASTS on The Health Podcast Network(For real, this network is AMAZING and has fantastic, evidence-based, honest health information, and we are so happy to partner with them!) Find us at:Website: yourdoctorfriendspodcast.com Email: yourdoctorfriendspodcast@gmail.com Call the DOCLINE on 312-380-5005 and leave us a message. We will listen and maybe even respond/play it on the show! (Disclaimer: we will not answer specific medical questions or offer medical advice. Consult your healthcare professional with any and all personal health questions.) Connect with us:@your_doctor_friends (IG)@JeremyAllandMD (IG, FB, Twitter)@JuliaBrueneMD (IG)@HealthPodNet (IG)
The WHO's cancer-research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), has decided that the commonly-used sweetener aspartame “possibly causes cancer”. It's been added to a long list of chemicals, activities, and occupations that are in some way carcinogenic. Apparently.But the list is really stupid. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart ask about the point of this list, when after all, the dose makes the poison. Is working a night shift as much of a cancer risk as using aloe vera skin cream? Does it even make sense to ask that question?The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to find insightful essays on science, technology, and human progress. We're very grateful for their support.If you like the sound of The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you'll be able to access some features like chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe right here:Show Notes* The IARC list of carcinogens* The Dynomight explainer on aspartame, its chemical properties, and its safety* The French study of sweeteners and cancer risk* Context on the level of risk* Long review article on the effects of aspartame* Critique of two of the Rammazini Institute's aspartame studies* Tom's Twitter thread on aspartame* Stuart's article on aspartame* Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz's article on aspartame and the IARCCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe
Discover the latest news headlines in the world of health and nutrition!In this episode, we delve into the fascinating world of news headlines, covering topics such as the potential side effects of semaglutide, the controversial status of aspartame, the dangers of energy drinks, the emergence of cultivated meat, and the power of six protective foods in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease.Don't miss out on the opportunity to stay up-to-date and make informed decisions for your overall well-being.Remember, knowledge is power. Listen to Health Bite today and take control of your health journey.Here's What You'll Learn From this Episode:The Truth About Semaglutide, Learn about the potential side effects of a popular weight loss medicationAspartame: Sweet or Deadly? The Surprising Link to Cancer Energy Drinks: Are They Safe? Find out why energy drinks are under scrutiny Lab-Grown Meat: The Future of Food or a Sci-Fi Nightmare? Explore the world of cultivated meat and its implications for the future of food production"Long gone are the days when we can lull ourselves into bottomless sugar-free snacks and sodas just because they are sugar-free, thinking that we are immune to any consequence." - Dr. Adrienne YoudimRecommended Podcast Episodes:131. Food, Fun, and Freedom from Fear of Eating136. Heart-Centered Healing for Health and Wellbeing with Cardiologist Jonathan Fisher137.Mindful Aesthetics with Holistic Plastic Surgeon Emily Hartmann138. Mind-Body Approach to Pain and Mobility/Revolutionize Your Recovery with Dr. Helen Porat139.Manage Menopause Symptoms with Oprah-featured Expert Dr. Heather HirschResources Mentioned:CNN - The news source that reported on the potential side effects of semaglutide (Wegovi and Ozempic) and similar drugs like Menjaro.American Society of Anesthesiologists - The organization that released consensus guidelines suggesting that patients on certain medications, including semaglutide, should hold their medications prior to scheduled surgery.International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) - The agency affiliated with the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed research on aspartame and declared it as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."FDA - The Food and Drug Administration, the regulatory Recommended Resource Hungry for More: Stories and Science to Inspire Weight Loss From the Inside Out by Dr. Adrienne Youdim Download my 5-Step Guide to Redefined Nutrition: Join https://dradrienneyoudim.com/newsletter/ If you love it and you think it is of benefit, please share this podcast with one person that you love. You can also go to https://dradrienneyoudim.com/newsletter/ if you prefer to get information in written form, you can get these tips via newsletter every week.
To start the episode, Ali and Asif discuss the controversy surrounding country singer Miranda Lambert chastising concertgoers for taking selfies (0:48). Then, after a brief digression on Dana Carvey's Joe Biden impression, Asif asks Ali about the surprise hit TV show ‘Jury Duty' (10:32). They discuss the background of the show and how it is a combination of ‘The Office' and ‘The Joe Schmo Show'. They then discuss how the show did not make much of a splash when it first debuted, but then gained buzz via TikTok. Ali and Asif then discuss the show's reception and their thoughts on the show. They then discuss the Emmy nominations the show has received, including James Marsden for best supporting actor…for playing himself. Then the guys RE-discuss artificial sweeteners because of a new press-release issued by the WHO on the possible carcinogenic effects of aspartame (37:45). Asif explains how it was a joint press release, highlighting findings about aspartame are released today by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Overall, Asif explains how the IARC found “limited evidence” for carcinogenicity in humans aand classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans. He then explains that JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg body weight (ie an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake). Asif clarifies how the agencies' statements are "complementary" in that the two groups work differently, and have a different aim: while IARC flags a potential hazard based on even limited evidence, JECFA assesses the real-life risk. A reminder that the pod will be taking a month off in August. Look for new episodes coming your way on Sept 8, 2023! The opinions expressed are those of the hosts, and do not reflect those of any other organizations. This podcast and website represents the opinions of the hosts. The content here should not be taken as medical advice. The content here is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and because each person is so unique, please consult your healthcare professional for any medical questions. Music courtesy of Wataboi and 8er41 from Pixabay Contact us at doctorvcomedian@gmail.com Follow us on Social media: Twitter: @doctorvcomedian Instagram: doctorvcomedian Show notes: Miranda Lambert has a point: https://www.avclub.com/miranda-lambert-scolds-fans-at-show-backlash-1850651000 How Jury Duty Orchestrated the Trial of a Lifetime: https://www.vulture.com/article/jury-duty-interview.html How 'Jury Duty' completely faked a trial in real courtroom with a narcissistic James Marsden: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2023/04/08/jury-duty-feevee-series-fakes-civil-trial-james-marsden/11610571002/ Their Show Flew Under the Radar. TikTok Blew It Up: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/arts/television/jury-duty-freevee.html How Jury Duty became the surprise comedy breakout of the year: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jul/17/show-jury-duty-amazon-freevee-tiktok What is aspartame and what do the new WHO rulings mean? https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/what-is-aspartame-what-do-new-who-rulings-cancer-consumption-mean-2023-07-13/ Opinion: What the WHO aspartame findings mean for your diet: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/21/opinions/aspartame-sweetener-diet-world-health-organization-branca/index.html Does Aspartame Cause Cancer or Is It Safe to Consume? The Latest Evidence About the Artificial Sweetener: https://time.com/6294701/aspartame-cancer-sweetener-studies/ Ninety-sixth meeting - Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA): https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/ninety-sixth-meeting-joint-fao-who-expert-committee-on-food-additives-(jecfa) IARC Monographs Hazard Classification: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/IARC_MONO_classification_2023_updated.png Carcinogenicity of aspartame, methyleugenol, and isoeugenol: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(23)00341-8/fulltext Summary of findings of the evaluation of aspartame at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Programme's 134th Meeting, and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) 96th meeting: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/summary-of-findings-of-the-evaluation-of-aspartame-at-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-(iarc)-monographs-programme-s-134th-meeting--and-the-joint-fao-who-expert-committee-on-food-additives-(jecfa)-96th-meeting
The artificial sweetener aspartame that's widely used in fizzy drinks has just been classified as “possibly” cancer-causing by UN scientists - but there's no cause for alarm.That's the key message from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), whose assessment of aspartame was carried out on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), by an expert panel of nutritional epidemiology and nutritional toxicology scientists.With more details on what these findings mean for all of us, UN News's Daniel Johnson spoke to IARC's Mary Schubauer-Berigan, who's head of the agency's Monographs Programme.
In this week's episode of FUELED, we delve into the World Health Organization's impending announcement to classify aspartame as a possible carcinogen. We'll trace the journey of aspartame, dissect the research behind the decision, and discuss what it means for your health. Discover which common products contain aspartame, and explore healthier alternatives to keep your diet nutritious and sweet. Tune in to arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make informed decisions about your nutritional intake of this common additive.LINKSWorld Health Organization x International Agency for Research on Cancer: Aspartame Q&A | https://bit.ly/43nD2qrCenter for Science in the Public Interest: Summary of Aspartame & Safety Concerns | https://bit.ly/44maHlrIf you would like to advertise or be a guest on the show, please reach out to podcast@yeanetworks.com.
Did you know that pesticide manufacturers deliberately discredit reputable scientists and employ a host of other corrupt practices to protect sales of their products? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn, for her interview with Stacy Malkan, co-founder and managing editor at US Right to Know, a non-profit investigative research group working globally to expose corporate wrongdoing and government failures that threaten our health, environment, and food system. Malkan investigates and reports on pesticide and food industry PR and lobbying operations, and is the lead author of a new report, “MERCHANTS OF POISON: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide - A case study in disinformation, corrupted science, and manufactured doubt about glyphosate.”Malkan reveals the tactics used by pesticide manufacturers (and the food industry) to protect their profits, including efforts to discredit reputable scientists. The report includes a case study of Monsanto's efforts to suppress the findings of an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) panel on cancer concerns associated with the herbicide glyphosate. US Right to Know also shares the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) new report investigating how industry influences health research: https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/how-sponsor-bias-impacts-health-research/Related website: www.usrtk.org
Oncologist Dr David Eades joins Mike to discuss a report created by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a body of The World Health Organisation (WHO) that is due to be released to declare this artificial sweetener a carcinogen.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today's podcast is a continuation of our series exploring the safety of non-sugar sweeteners in both food and beverages. In 2022, the World Health Organization conducted a systematic review of the most current scientific evidence on the health effects of non-sugar sweeteners. This analysis of 283 studies reveals that non-sugar sweeteners can impact health conditions such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, adiposity, bladder cancer, and preterm birth. In 2023, the WHO released a guideline on the use of non-sugar sweeteners based on this 2022 review. Our guests today are Dr. Jason Montez, scientist with the World Health Organization, and technical lead on the systematic review and guideline. And, the director of the Department of Nutrition and Food Safety at the World Health Organization, Dr. Francesco Branca. Interview Summary This is really important work, so let's get right down to it. So, Francesco, let's begin with you. Would you help our listeners understand why the WHO, developed this guideline, and what do you hope to accomplish now? Francesco: So our interest in the topic really came after the release of the WHO Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adults and Children in 2015. That recommendation was, of course, to reduce the amount of sugar to less than 10% of energy, and better if less than 5% for weight control and for dental hygiene. At the time, there was an interest, particularly from the food and beverage manufacturers, to consider the use of non-sugar sweeteners as part of the interventions in reducing sugar intake. This has been taken up by consumers since, and the availability of non-sugar sweeteners has increased. We thought it was important to review the evidence in a systematic manner, and to see whether this move was actually achieving the intended aim to control weight gain. So we thought of looking at non-sugar sweeteners use through the WHO guideline development process. Our hope, first of all, is to make sure that people achieve their intended health benefit, but also to avoid an unintended consequence on health. I remember how much impact that report on sugar had, back when WHO released it. And boy, the same thing seems to be happening with the guideline that We are talking about today. So Jason, can you walk us through the key findings of the systematic review? Jason: Sure. So the top line results of the systematic review are that in short term randomized controlled trials mostly lasting three months or less, those consuming higher amounts of non-sugar sweetener, compared to lower amounts or no non-sugar sweetener, has slightly lower body weight. So around 700 grams. And, slightly lower BMI; about 0.2 units. However, in long-term prospective cohort studies, many with several years of follow-up, body weight was either unchanged, or greater in those consuming higher amounts of non-sugar sweeteners. In addition, associations were also observed between non-sugar sweetener intake and increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and premature mortality. For diabetes, for example, we found about a 25% increase in risk. In RCTs - markers of these diseases - such as blood glucose, insulin, cholesterol, blood pressure, were largely unaffected by non-sugar sweetener use. In addition, we saw an increased risk of bladder cancer coming from case control studies and it was primarily driven by saccharin. Also, a 25% increase in risk of preterm birth in pregnant women in terms of body weight, and the risk of non-communicable diet-related diseases. We essentially have seemingly opposing results between the short-term randomized controlled trials and the long-term cohort studies. Those are really concerning findings. Somebody in their own calculus might say, "Well, I'm willing to accept the risk for those things as long as it helps with my body weight." But, you are talking about greater weight in people using the non-sugar sweeteners. Jason: Right. In terms of long-term impact on body weight, there is not a lot of evidence. This is all coming from cohort studies, and cohort studies have caveats associated with them. But, what we see in those studies is it is either really not much of an positive impact, but we did see some increased risk. For example, there was an increased risk of incident obesity in one study. They looked at people at baseline without obesity using standard WHO cutoffs. Then they followed them up over time. They counted the number of people who transitioned over the obesity threshold, and they found that it was higher in those using non-sugar sweeteners. So there is some evidence, but I think we need additional evidence to be really sure about that in the other associations. So Jason, you alluded to this earlier that there were differences in the health outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials versus observational studies. Can you explain why this might be? Jason: Yes. So it is a bit nuanced and I think a lot of it has to do with the nature of the studies. To really understand this, we need to unpack that high-level evidence a bit. I think I'll start just by talking about what is maybe the elephant in the room and that is reverse causation because it has been frequently invoked as a reason for the associations observed between non-sugar sweeteners and body weight and disease outcomes. Basically, reverse causation suggests that those already at elevated risk of disease initiated or increased the use of non-sugar sweeteners because of their risk status, rather than non-sugar sweeteners leading to the increased risk in otherwise healthier low risk individuals. That would make sense in this case. However, researchers who conducted the individual studies that we included in the review were also well aware of the potential for both reverse causation and residual confounding. Most of them really went to great lengths to minimize the possible interference of these phenomenon and they adjusted extensively for confounding variables and all the lifestyle variables. Quite often, they adjusted for other dietary variables. They looked at body weight, they stratified, and they did sensitivity analysis where they would limit the analysis to individuals with normal body weight. They also removed from the analyses, in some cases, those at risk for disease at baseline. Many of them did a sensitivity analysis where they excluded the first several years of assessing the outcome, just to make sure that someone who wasn't already really at risk to develop a disease right away was not part of the analysis. You know, in some cases the effect was attenuated. But, for the most part, the associations were not affected. Certainly, that is the case for type 2 diabetes. So I think that reverse causation might have contributed, but, really the lengths that the study authors took to address it I calms us a bit in terms of whether or not We are worried about it. It is very helpful to know that. You know, we've gone for years and years thinking that these things are safe, or at the worst have neutral effects. Now the studies are showing the negative effects. Partly, it is just because the science has marched ahead. There are many more studies now. People have been more careful with the design of the studies. More sweeteners have been studied. This seems like just kind of a natural progression of the scientific process. Jason: Yes, that is how it works. We continually add. There is still a lot to look at in terms of the differences. Another really important thing to remember is that in the RCTs, a variety of interventions were employed. A lot of the studies took people who were consuming a normal diet, and they just gave them, for example, a sugar-sweetened beverage, or non-sugar sweetened beverage. They wanted to look at what the effects of a sugar-sweetened beverage are. Very few actually looked at individuals who were habituated to sugar, mostly sugar-sweetened beverages. They then asked study participants to replace the sugar with non-sugar sweetener. When you look at just those small number of studies, the results really get attenuated for both body weight and for BMI. That is another reason why if you look at it that way, the results between the long-term and short-term tend to gravitate towards each other. One last thing - I don't want to overdo it here, but it is important - there are likely big, big differences in terms of how non-sugar sweeteners are used in these highly experimental randomized controlled trial settings and cohort studies, which are really more like real world use. In a randomized controlled trial, you're instructed to do this, or that. Drink this, take that. You get quite a bit of support from the study team. You'll get counseling, follow up, etc. Everyone knows they are in a scientific study. Quite often, they actually know which arm they are in. Whereas in the cohort study, in the real world, people use non-sugar sweeteners in a variety of ways. Sometimes they do it as a conscious replacement for sugars. But quite often, they just consume beverages containing non-sugar sweeteners or foods containing non-sugar sweeteners because they have a diet label on them, and they just perceive that those types of products to be healthy. Sometimes they use them as a way of having something sweeter or something that maybe they shouldn't have later on in the day. It is much more complex in the real world and obviously the real world is how these things are used. So how sweeteners are used also can contribute to these differences between what we see in highly experimental randomized controlled trials and the real world. - [Kelly] So how do these non-sugar sweeteners cause these negative health effects? - [Jason] We don't know for sure. Let me just say that upfront. But we have ideas and the scientific community has ideas. A lot of mechanisms have been put forth to explain how this might be happening. A lot of them are actually linked to the expression of sweet taste receptors. They are expressed in the mouth, obviously, that is how we perceive things to be sweet. But they are also expressed elsewhere in glucose sensing cells, such as the gastrointestinal tract and pancreas. So there are a number of different ways that this might work. There could be effects on taste perception, sweet taste preference, a threshold of sweet taste sensitivity, and eating behavior as it impacts on hunger or appetite. There could be other neural responses. There is this whole discussion about the hedonic response to any sweet taste. Also, there might be release of metabolic hormones, and other biological molecules, in response to non-sugar sweetener intake. Then, of course, There is a lot of buzz around potential alterations to the gut microbiome, which is a really interesting area. But There is a lot of understanding still to be gained there. Also, as noted, in terms of potential mechanism, it could be that the behavioral component we just spoke about, in terms of how people actually use non-sugar sweeteners in the real world, could also contribute to the association between non-sugar sweetener use, and body weight, and disease outcomes. A vast number of effects happen once these things get into the body. So Francesco, let me come back to you. What is WHO recommending? I know some recommendations that have been made are conditional. What does this mean? Francesco: So the recommendation reads that the WHO suggests that non-sugar sweeteners not be used as a means of achieving weight control, or reducing the risk of non-communicable diseases. It is a very simple one. It is basically saying that you're using the sweeteners, but they are not going to help you in weight control, or reducing the risk of that related non-communicable disease. So Kelly, as you said earlier, would I take the risk potentially associated with non-sugar sweeteners if I knew that this would benefit my weight? But in this case, what we are saying is, "Well, look, it is not going to benefit your weight control." We are leaving it there, because the purpose of this review was, particularly, to look at weight control. We were not looking at other aspects of safety - which is actually the task of other regulatory/advisory bodies, although we had to consider in the recommendation when we called the balance of benefits and harm. So here, the recommendation was clearly to say, "Well, you shouldn't use it, because there is no demonstrated benefit, and there might be some harm." Now, WHO can make two types of recommendations. Recommendations can be strong or conditional. The decision on whether to go for the stronger condition is based on a number of factors - certainty in the supporting scientific evidence, and the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences. A strong recommendation is the recommendation for which WHO gathering group is confident that the desirable consequences of implementing the recommendation outweighs the undesirable consequences. In most situations, this would be something that government can take on immediately and use in their policymaking. A conditional recommendation is a situation where the WHO guide group is less certain about that balance between the desirable and undesirable consequences. Therefore, we are basically saying, you need to consider the context, and then decide what to do with this particular recommendation. So, in this case, why did we go for conditional? There is an element related to the balance and the evidence that Jason described earlier on. There is also an issue about short term versus longer-term consumption. We have been trying to explain why not using does not create a problem. The action also depends on the context of use of this particular product. For example, the levels of consumption in different age groups in the population. So, in a sense, our understanding of the issue, is still not complete. We believe that we need to have more science on the topic. We decided to take a bit of a conservative approach. That is why we end up saying conditional, which means we still recommend that people not use non-sugar sweeteners. But in terms of making use with this recommendation, we would like governments to also do their own assessment on how to translate this into policy practice. So Francesco, on one hand, we have sugar being a bad actor and now the replacements for sugars can be bad actors. So how does this get balanced out? Should people go back to sugar? Should they just get used to things being less sweet? How does this work? Francesco: So definitely people should not go back to sugars because we know that consumption of free sugars has been linked to unhealthy weight gain, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and dental caries. We definitely maintain the recommendation that we should limit free sugar intake. But unfortunately, non-sugar sweeteners are not producing a good benefit if we replace them with sugar. What they are saying is that both free sugars and non-sugar sweeteners should be limited. So yes indeed we would need to adjust our own taste to consuming products which are less sweet. We should also ask the producers to reduce the sweetness in their product. So Jason, do you have some thoughts you'd like to share about this? Jason: Yes. Again, from a scientific evidence standpoint, it is interesting. If you look at the literature, and you look at the studies, and we have lots of studies now, and a lot of systematic reviews, and umbrella reviews that really tried to make sense of all of this. But if you look at some of the impacts, associations between sugar intake, and diet-related noncommunicable diseases, especially type 2 diabetes, and you look at the actual magnitude of associations, the increased risk, they are really in line with what they are for non-sugar sweeteners. In fact, some recent modeling published in 2022, modeling in the prospective cohort studies, shows that when you replace sugar with non-sugar sweetener, you basically end up with a no result. Which means that non-sugar sweeteners, at least in terms of type 2 diabetes, are just as bad for you as sugar-sweetened beverages. These studies are all looking at beverages. It is interesting that we have to keep in mind that they may both be bad actors as you indicated, Kelly. What an amazing picture. Francesco, so do you think that non-sugar sweeteners should not be used as a harm reduction mechanism to help people reduce their sugar intake? Francesco: Yes, that is what our recommendation basically says. We are encouraging individuals, but also government, to think of other ways to reduce sugar intake that does not require the use of sweeteners as a replacement. There are ways to do that. I mean, certainly, there are unsweetened variants of the same food or drink. There are alternatives in diet patterns. You don't necessarily have to have a dessert at every meal. You can have fruit. We know that the fruit sugars do not have the same metabolic effect as free sugars. We know that, for example, certain countries, like in the UK have given options to companies to use sweeteners instead, to avoid the sugar levy. Probably, we would ask those countries to have an assessment of what has happened and see whether that policy is still a useful one, or if it should be revised. So Jason, I'd like to ask you about diabetes. Does the recommendations apply to people with diabetes, and can people with diabetes use these non-sugar sweeteners? Jason: I'll tell you, that is a question we are getting a lot of. Our guidance really is for preventing the development of disease, and not for treating, or managing existing disease, including diabetes. In terms of the process, making recommendations for preventing disease is very different than making recommendations for managing disease. Different scientific evidence needs to be reviewed. In the case of diabetes, some of the evidence is overlapping. But we really do need to look at a different body of evidence and a different assessment of potential risks and benefits needs to be made. This is all in the context of a larger plan of treatment, which may also include medication, and other lifestyle changes. Therefore, managing disease requires greater input from clinicians. Something else to remember is that individuals without diabetes do have the option to include some sugar in the diet when something sweet is desired. But for many with diabetes, this isn't really an option. With that said, individuals with diabetes can certainly manage their disease without the use of non-sugar sweeteners. However, such decisions really should be made on an individual basis, and only in consultation with one's healthcare provider. So Jason, let me ask you a question about Stevia in particular. So there are some thinking that because it is natural, unlike the artificial sweeteners, it is somehow different. So why doesn't the recommendation make distinctions between different non-sugar sweeteners? Jason: That is a great question. Although all non-sugar sweeteners have unique chemical structures, and consequently may differ in their sweetness intensity, organoleptic properties, and routes of processing by the body, we don't make a distinction in our guidance between individual sweeteners or between so-called natural sweeteners, like Stevia, and artificial sweeteners. This is because all sweeteners, including sugar, use the same biological pathway when it comes to how we perceive them as sweet tasting, so the sweet taste receptor I mentioned earlier. And, consequently, how they might impact weight and risk of disease. Also relevant is the possibility that we discussed before, which is that people may use these in ways that promote weight gain and disease, irrespective of what type of non-sugar sweeteners being used. We feel that the evidence for a class effect is sufficient to include them together in our recommendation. That is very helpful to know. So Francesco, some organizations, for example, the Food and Drug Administration in the US, have declared over the years that these non-sugar sweeteners are safe for use. If those organizations feel they are safe, then why is WHO recommending that they not be? Francesco: In a sense, it is a different issue. Before any of these compounds are used in food, it has to go through this safety assessment. You mentioned the Food and Drug Administration. FAO and WHO are managing a joint expert committee on food additives that is providing advice to the Codex Alimentarius. And all these bodies, basically what they are saying is, they look at the toxicology of the products and they use animal studies. In some cases, they look at human studies. But they are basically looking at acceptable daily intakes that provide usually short term impacts. We are also encouraging these bodies to consider longer-term epidemiological studies to look at other kinds of effects. For example, at the moment there is a big debate going on because both the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the JECFA, are looking at the safety of aspartame and considering, for example, certain longer term epidemiological human studies. These bodies are talking about certain aspects of safety and looking at the very high levels of intake. Just to give you an example, at the moment the acceptable daily intake for aspartame is about 40 milligrams per kilogram per day, which is 2.8 grams for an average individual. That is about what you would get from 14 cans of a commonly consumed drink. That is a lot. We are saying maybe that is something that can be moderated. So these bodies talk about safe or maximal levels of intake of individual sweeteners. Here, in our recommendation, we are saying this practice of replacing sweeteners with sugars is not going to lead you to improved health gains, but you're getting into an area of risk that even if it is within the agreed safety level, is something that you may want to avoid. That is helpful context. So, what are the policy implications of all this? Francesco: Some countries are already considering giving a warning on the content of non-sugar sweeteners in products. For example, what you have in Mexico. Some countries might decide to give the same warning if it is something that should be at least not encouraged. So that could be a way to do it. Other countries, while using nutrient profiling system, for example, for front of the pack labeling, or for marketing regulation, may decide to include sweeteners in the list of food that should be avoided. That is also happening, again, in South American countries. From our point of view, I think we would really like to give the message that the sweetness of food should be reduced. The same way we are having a dialogue with the food industry about reduction of the sugar content of food, particularly in foods that are intended for young children. We would really like to give a message that we should reduce the content of sweeteners. That is possible. And not relying entirely on sweeteners as an alternative for the reduction of sweetness or, reduction of calories, but really looking at a change in the strategies in peoples' daily diets. Thank you, I appreciate that. You know to the extent one person can be instructed in this, 11 or 12 years ago, or so, I stopped drinking diet beverages because of the very concerns we were talking about today. I just switched over to tea with no sweetener in it at all. I'm completely accustomed to that now and I find it very enjoyable. I also find the things that I used to drink to be completely oversweet now. So people can get calibrated at different levels of sweetness, can't they? Francesco: Absolutely. In a sense, this is the same discussion we've had with salt. I mean our capacity to adapt is there and it happens relatively quickly. People can enjoy foods without having that enormous level of sweetness. As we know, sometimes the excess presence of other salts, or sugar, or sweeteners, is some have a way to cover the lack of good taste from the other ingredients. So good foods and drinks can certainly happen without the unnecessary addition of this compound. Bios Jason Montez is a Scientist in the Department of Nutrition and Food Safety at the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, where he works on the development, dissemination and implementation of nutrition guidance. Prior to joining WHO, Dr Montez was a consultant to WHO and other international organizations and co-founder of a biotechnology start-up. He received a PhD in Biomedical Sciences from The Rockefeller University and MPH from New York University, both located in New York, USA. Francesco Branca is the Director of the Department of Nutrition and Food Safety at the World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva. He graduated in Medicine and Surgery and specialized in Diabetology and Metabolic Diseases at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma. He obtained a PhD in Nutrition at Aberdeen University. He was a senior scientist at the Italian Food and Nutrition Research Institute (INRAN). He was President of the Federation of the European Nutrition Societies from 2003 to 2007. Rios-Leyvraz, Magali; Montez, J. “Health Effects of the Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240046429 WHO guideline on use of non-sugar sweeteners https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073616
O diagnóstico de câncer de pulmão é um choque que pode trazer à tona uma mistura de emoções, como medo, ansiedade e até revolta. Esse câncer é o terceiro mais comum em homens e o quarto mais comum entre as mulheres[1] no Brasil. E o tabagismo é uma das principais causas desse tipo de tumor, embora atinja também, em menor incidência, pessoas que deixaram de fumar e até mesmo aquelas que nunca fumaram. Geralmente são pessoas mais jovens e com alguma alteração genética que fez este câncer se desenvolver. O câncer de pulmão e a revolta são temas do 2º episódio da série de podcasts #Borafalardecâncer, que discute a jornada do paciente. Esta série é patrocinada pela Pfizer e apresentada pela jornalista Rita Lisauskas. Ouça! Abertura [1] Instituto Nacional do Câncer (INCA). Câncer de pulmão — Instituto Nacional de Câncer - INCA (www.gov.br). Acesso em abril de 2023. 2 Instituto Nacional do Câncer (INCA). Câncer de pulmão — Instituto Nacional de Câncer - INCA (www.gov.br). Acesso em abril de 2023. Pergunta 1 Referências: American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2023. Atlanta; American Cancer Society: 2023. Ruano A, Provencio M, Calvo V, et al. Lung cancer symptoms at diagnosis: results of a nationwide registry study. ESMO Open. 2020;5e001021. Pergunta 2 Referências: U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Lung Cancer: Screening. (https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/lung-cancer-screening) Marshall RC, Tiglao SM, Thiel D. Updated USPSTF screening guidelines may reduce lung cancer deaths. J Fam Pract. 2021 Sep;70(7):347-349. Pergunta 3 Referências: American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2023. Atlanta; American Cancer Society: 2023. Malhotra J, Malvezzi M, Negri E, et al. Risk factors for lung cancer worldwide. Eur Respir J 2016;48:889-902. Pergunta 6 Referências: NCCN. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: NSCLC. V3.2022 Pergunta 7 Referências: Marshall RC, Tiglao SM, Thiel D. Updated USPSTF screening guidelines may reduce lung cancer deaths. J Fam Pract. 2021 Sep;70(7):347-349. U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Lung Cancer: Screening. (https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/lung-cancer-screening) Pergunta 8 Referências: 1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN Lung Cancer Facts Sheet 2020. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/fact-sheets-cancers. 2. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2023. Atlanta; American Cancer Society: 2023 Estimativa 2023 : incidência de câncer no Brasil / Instituto Nacional de Câncer – Rio de Janeiro : INCA, 2022 Pergunta 10 Referências: Chevallier M, Borgeaud M, Addeo A, Friedlaender A. Oncogenic driver mutations in non-small cell lung cancer: Past, present and future. World J Clin Oncol. 2021;12(4):217-237. Blachall F. Oncogenic Drivers in Advanced NSCLC: Navigating an Evolving Landscape to Optimise Patient Outcomes. ESMO 2020. Pergunta 11 Referências: NCCN. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: NSCLC. V3.2022 Pergunta 12 Referências: NCCN. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: NSCLC. V3.2022 Pergunta 13 Referências: NCCN. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: NSCLC. V3.2022 CRM: SP85520 PP-UNP-BRA-2261See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Though the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is a probable carcinogen, it remains the most widely used herbicide in the United States. My guest this week, Dr. Chadi Nabhan is here to tell the story behind three court cases that concluded with Roundup maker Monsanto owing large sums to glyphosate users who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Podcast Links for Show notes Download my free eBook 5 Steps to Your Best Garden Ever - the 5 most important steps anyone can do to have a thriving garden or landscape. It's what I still do today, without exception to get incredible results, even in the most challenging conditions. Subscribe to the joegardener® email list to receive weekly updates about new podcast episodes, seasonal gardening tips, and online gardening course announcements. Check out The joegardener® Online Gardening Academy for our growing library of organic gardening courses. Follow joegardener® on Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter, and subscribe to The joegardenerTV YouTube channel.
And so we have reached the fourth and final episode featuring Professor David Purser, a leading expert in fire toxicity. In this episode, we explore the complexities of nitrogen in fires, the impact of fire retardants on fire atmospheres, and the long-lasting hazards related to the consurgents and carcinogenic properties of smoke. We'll be discussing the different hazard zones associated with fire smoke and the potential risks they pose to people, buildings, and the environment. Discover how fire retardants can lead to higher yields of toxic products, and learn about the acute and chronic exposure risks of fire smoke in various scenarios. Professor Purser also shares his knowledge on the dangers of hazardous materials released in fires, such as organic nitrogen phosphorus materials, metals, mineral fibers, and radioactive polonium.Lastly, we'll delve into the carcinogenic substances found in fire smoke and their classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). From hydrocarbons to ethylene oxide, we'll reveal the potential risks of these toxic compounds and their impact on our health. If you would like to first catch up on previous episodes (highly recommended!): https://www.firescienceshow.com/096-smoke-toxicity-part-1-why-fires-used-to-be-less-toxic-in-1950s-with-david-purser/https://www.firescienceshow.com/097-smoke-toxicity-part-2-asphyxiants-and-irritants-with-david-purser/https://www.firescienceshow.com/105-how-much-smoke-is-made-in-fires-and-how-we-measure-that-with-david-purser/
Red to Green - Food Tech | Sustainability | Food Innovation | Future of Food | Cultured Meat
In May 2019, the husband and wife Alva and Alberta Pilliod won a federal court case against Monsanto. Both of them had developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This cancer causes white blood cells called lymphocytes to grow abnormally throughout the body. The farmers worked decades with the herbicide, which Monsanto claimed is safe to use. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, as a “probable carcinogen.” And this was the basis for the judge's decision to decide in favour of the couple. Bayer AG had to pay a fine of $2 billion because it had acquired Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup. One year after the merger, BAYER's share price was still cut in half. The pharmaceutical giant had signed up for an ever-increasing burden of legal battles. In 2019, 18.000 lawsuits were pending in the US. Most of them due to cancer cases potentially linked to Roundup. For numerous decades, Monsanto marketed their herbicide as safe to use for farmers and individuals. Most regulatory bodies categorize glyphosate as safe, including - Health Canada Why does the International Agency for Research on Cancer come to a different conclusion than all the other agencies? Possibly because they only consider “publicly available and pertinent studies, by independent experts, free from vested interests.” But apparently, the amount of independent studies on glyphosate-based pesticides is rather limited. How can the world's most-used pesticide have so few independent studies? Is this really a coincidence? The full script with all sources for this episode: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VO05Vrh37BUA9UoLnAOSJz1pdCF3tzkl/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115780270029914491641&rtpof=true&sd=true !! Find other sources, key takeaways and links on our blog: https://redtogreen.ghost.io/what-monsanto-teaches-us-about-biotech/ Support Red to Green https://www.patreon.com/RedtoGreen Get funding for your food science research: https://en.raps-stiftung.de/foerderbereiche/lebensmittelforschung More info and links to resources on https://redtogreen.solutions/ Seeds of Science https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Science-Why-Wrong-GMOs/dp/1472946987 Connect with the host, Marina https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/ Connect with the host, Frank https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/ Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes!
Stacy Malkan, co-founder and managing editor of U.S. Right to Know, discusses a report she recently co-authored, Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide (2022) which uncovers astroturfing operations that Monsanto has exacted around the planet to embolden its hold over the agro-chemical industry. Malkan expounds on how Monsanto uses its wealth to saturate its agenda through universities, Nobel laureate scientists, professors, lawyers, and journalists in what she classifies as a “lockstep army.” Discussing California's Proposition 37, a 2012 ballot measure that would have required the labeling of genetically engineered food, Malkan notes how Monsanto threw $45 million in the space of one month in order to saturate media with its propaganda, reversing public support against this measure for which there had previously been 70% public support in favour. Detailing how Monsanto orchestrates its astroturf operations—fake grassroots groups that are intended to look real but which are in reality managed by third-party PR firms to give the veneer of independence—Malkan elaborates how Freedom to Farm was one such operation that emerged in the European Union in the aftermath of the 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) ruling that classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Malkan fleshes out how how this astroturf operation was the creation of the PR firm FleishmanHillard whereby it employed 90 people across the EU “to recruit or look like or create the impression” that Freedom to Farm was a genuine grassroots effort led by farmers who warned of the “threat to farming” posed by restricting the use of glyphosate, when in fact this was all a massive PR theatre. Get full access to Savage Minds at savageminds.substack.com/subscribe
Countless people including Dr. Andrew Huberman, Patrick Bet David, Professor David Nutt, and Mario Aguilar explain why you should stop drinking alcohol."Alcohol is a toxic, psychoactive, and dependence-producing substance and has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer – this is the highest risk group, which also includes asbestos, radiation and tobacco. But people don't want it to be true. Especially the multi-billion dollar alcoholic beverage industry."Special thanks to Huberman Lab, Valuetainment, and London Real.Need to talk to someone? Start here: https://www.aa.org/Speakers:Brian RosePatrick Bet DavidDr. Andrew HubermanDavid NuttMario Aguilar Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Epidemiology Counts from the Society for Epidemiologic Research
Occupational Epidemiology is one of the oldest and most salient areas in Epidemiology. People need to work, so understanding the aspects of the work environment that contribute to health is vital to public health. Exposures are often not confined to the workplace, meaning knowledge generated has wider importance. For example, occupational cohort studies of the health effects of asbestos and diesel exhaust have led to determinations of carcinogenicity by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The knowledge generated about asbestos ultimately lead to banning its use broadly. In this episode, we discuss the field's history and where it stands with Dr. Ellen Eisen, professor at UC Berkeley, who has spent her career advancing our understanding of the impacts of workplace exposures.
How To Build A Multimillion-Dollar International Agency Raman Sehgal is the Founder of several niche companies including ramarketing, a multimillion-dollar international agency that helps companies get noticed in the global life science space. As an entrepreneur, Raman embarked on a business journey that ultimately spanned the Atlantic—from a spare room in the Northeast of England to the bustling streets of Boston, Massachusetts, where he lives today with his wife and three sons. As an author, keynote speaker, podcaster, blogger, Forbes Agency Council member, and guest university lecturer, Raman shares his knowledge, mistakes, and learnings in an honest manner that will hopefully help others' journey. One of his favourite mottos is “sharing is caring, right?”, which is reflected in the impact that his work has on other businesses and individuals alike. Raman just launched his book, The Floundering Founder, which contains 24 lessons to refocus your business and better yourself, and collects the essential tools and learnings that can have the greatest, long-term impact. So from the kid that was best known for selling (and eating) chocolate, crisps and candy in his high school what was the biggest dot that made his journey all make sense? And where does he see the biggest part of floundering that all founders do as they find their place in the business world? Well lets find out as we bring onto the show to start joining up dots with the one and only Raman Sehgal
Videos: Dad STUNS School Board When He Reads Aloud DISGUSTING Book From Library (3:37) RFK : The Real Anthony Fauci Clip (1st clip 5:50 – 2nd Clip 4:37) Dr. Michael Hudson Interview Neil Oliver: We are expected to forget those promising to fix the disaster caused it (10:28) Almonds can help support the gut microbiome, study claims Kings College London, October 31, 2022 A new study finds that eating 56 grams of almonds daily — the equivalent of approximately 46 almonds — can improve gut health by promoting levels of butyrate. The research involved three groups replacing their regular snacks with whole almonds, ground almonds, or an energy-equivalent control muffin. The authors conclude that incorporating almonds into the diet could be a way of increasing fiber intake without triggering gut symptoms. An important player in gut health appears to be butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid that supports the health of the microbiome itself. Dr. Alice Creedon explained to Medical News Today: “Butyrate is important to gut health, as it acts as the primary source of fuel for the cells of the colon, allowing them to function correctly and optimally. It is also involved in signaling to the gut to initiate the process of nutrient absorption.” “In addition,” said Dr. Creedon, “butyrate produced in the gut can enter the bloodstream where it is involved in the regulation of health in other areas of the body, such as the liver, brain, and lungs.” The study demonstrates that eating a healthy handful of almonds each day promotes the production of butyrate. Dr. Creedon's research documents the benefits of eating about 56 grams, or 2 ounces, of almonds daily — that amounts to about 46 almonds. “Butyrate supports the gut barrier, which keeps bacteria and other microbes from entering your blood. In doing so, butyrate can help to reduce inflammation, manage conditions like IBS [irritable bowel syndrome], and decrease gastrointestinal discomfort like bloating. “Butyrate is produced through the fermentation of fiber in the colon. Therefore, increasing fiber in the diet, such as in almonds, increases butyrate levels, which has a positive effect on our gut health,” said Tallman. Additional benefit of omega-3 fatty acids for the clearance of metabolites from the brain Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, October 23, 2022 New research published online in The FASEB Journal suggests that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are found in fish oil, could improve the function of the glymphatic system, which facilitates the clearance of waste from the brain, and promote the clearance of metabolites including amyloid-β peptides, a primary culprit in Alzheimer's disease. To make this discovery, scientists first used transgenic fat-1 mice, which express high endogenous omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in the brain, to investigate the effect of omega-3 PUFAs on the clearance function of the glymphatic system. Compared to the wild-type mice, the fat-1 mice with enriched endogenous omega-3 PUFAs significantly promote the clearance function of the lymphatic system, including the Aβ clearance from the brain. Wild-type mice were supplemented with fish oil, which contains high concentrations of omega-3 PUFAs, and found that fish oil-supplemented mice also improved the clearance function of the glymphatic system compared to the control mice without fish oil supplementation. Omega-3 PUFAs help maintain the brain homeostasis, which may provide benefits in a number of neurological diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, traumatic brain injury, and sleep impairment, among others. “These now-famous fatty acids have been the subject of major studies both in academia and industry. Just when we thought we had heard everything, here is something new, and it is provocative indeed,” said Thoru Pederson, Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. “This study should not turn attention away from the roles of these substances in maintaining vascular health, but neither should they restrict our view. The brain is an extremely vascularized organ, while we might also bear in mind that omega-3 fatty acids may impact neurons, glia, and astrocytes themselves.” Are our brains physically shaped by life experiences? University of Ottawa, 23 October 2022 The notion that an experience external to the body – not something we have ingested, that has been affected by disease or damaged through physical injury – can measurably change the physical properties of an organ as intrinsic to our functioning as the brain is revelatory. But can we prove cause and effect? Tracy Vaillancourt, a psychologist at the University of Ottawa, Canada, who has conducted a range of studies into the emotional and psychological effects of bullying – as well as the neurobiological impact of bullying – finds it frustrating the media, public and policy makers are more inclined to pay attention to research on the subject if researchers can demonstrate biological damage. “When I show that something is biological, it makes headlines,” she told The Boston Globe. “For some reason I think humans are more compelled to believe biological evidence than someone saying, ‘Oh I'm depressed. I don't feel good about this.' I'm hoping that that is a policy changer.” Vaillancourt found that while bullied boys have higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol than their non-bullied peers, bullied girls have much lower levels of cortisol compared with their peers. She also found that bullied teens score less well on tests of verbal memory than their peers, suggesting that the abnormal cortisol levels may be killing neurons in the hippocampus, leading to memory problems. As part of an ongoing, long-term study, Vaillancourt has been following teenagers – some of whom have a history of being bullied by their peers – and assessing their cognitive functioning every 6 months. Vaillancourt is also using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to scan the brains of the teens for evidence of damage to the hippocampus. In a previous study, neuroscientist Martin Teicher scanned the brains of 63 young adults, as part of a study into verbal victimization. Teicher found that, among the subjects who reported being the victims of verbal bullying, there were abnormalities in the corpus callosum. This region of the brain consists of a bundle of fibers connecting the brain's left and right hemispheres and is known to be important in visual processing and memory. The neurons in the corpus callosums of the bullied subjects were found to have less of the myelin coating that boosts communication between brain cells. It has been suggested that these brain abnormalities might make it difficult for victims to process what is happening around them and respond appropriately. It might also explain some of the cognitive impairments associated with being bullied – poor memory, attention and concentration – and could even contribute to the anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts experienced by many victims. The impact of childhood maltreatment, more generally, on neurobiology has been explored in several studies. Previously, the results of neuroimaging studies in abused children have been considered to be inconsistent. The researchers found that the participants who had been exposed to maltreatment exhibited significantly smaller volumes of grey matter in several brain regions. “Childhood maltreatment acts as a severe stressor that produces a cascade of physiological and neurobiological changes that lead to enduring alterations in the brain structure,” says author Joaquim Radua. The researchers found that the participants who had been exposed to maltreatment exhibited significantly smaller volumes of grey matter in several brain regions. ‘Processed meats have same cancer risk as cigarettes' World Health Organization, October 23, 2022 Bacon, ham and sausages have the same cancer risk as cigarettes, according to a report by the World Health Organisation (WHO), a media report said. WHO listed processed meat as a carcinogenic substance, while fresh red meat is also expected to join the encyclopaedia of carcinogens' and is likely to be regarded as bad for health. The classifications, by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, are believed to regard processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans”, the highest of five possible rankings, shared with alcohol, asbestos, arsenic and cigarettes, the daily added. Studies have shown that people who eat a lot of red meat tend to eat fewer plant-based foods that protect against cancer. The WHO report follows a meeting of scientists from 10 countries who reviewed all available evidence. Processed meat is made by smoking, curing, salting, or adding chemicals. Examples include ham, bacon, pastrami and salami, as well as hot dogs and some sausages. Burgers are also expected to be included in the WHO list of carcinogens. Early supplementation may help offset early-life stress on the adult brain University of Amsterdam, October 25, 20229 Early-life stress has been shown to impair learning and memory in later life, but new research, published online in The FASEB Journal, suggests that improved nutrition may help offset the negative effects of this stress. Specifically, using mice, scientists focused on essential micronutrients, including methionine, vitamins B6 and B12, and folic acid, none of which are made by the body and need to be ingested through diet. They found that early-life stress reduces the levels of these nutrients in mouse pups, but supplementation prevented the reduction of methionine levels and even prevented some of the lasting negative effects of early-life stress on later learning and memory in adult offspring. To make their discovery, Korosi and colleagues mimicked a stressful early-life environment during the first week after birth (postnatal days 2-9) for newborn mice and their mothers. Control mice and their mothers were housed in a normal environment. During the stress period, half of the mouse mothers (control and early-life stress) received a standard rodent diet, the other half received a diet that was supplemented with essential micronutrients. The lactating mouse mothers ate the diet and thereby developed elevated micronutrient levels in maternal milk and subsequently in the blood and the brains of their pups. After the initial stress period, all mice received a standard diet and environment. Once the mice became 4 months old, their learning and memory skills were tested in various cognitive/behavioral tasks. Mice that were previously exposed to early-life stress performed worse than control animals and demonstrated poor learning and memory skills. However, stress-exposed mice from mothers that received the supplemented diet performed equally well as the control mice did. “The field of postnatal nutrition has sometimes taken a back seat to research on the maternal-fetal axis, but of course we cannot ever ignore either,” said Thoru Pederson, Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. “Here we see strikingly beneficial cognitive effects of a sound postnatal diet. The nutrients tested were familiar ones, but the results speak for themselves.” Cold Homes Increase The Risk Of Severe Mental Health Problems – New Study University of Adelaide (Australia), October 31, 2022 Concerns about fuel poverty and people not being able to heat their homes adequately are not new in the UK, but these worries have been heightened by significant increases in energy costs and the cost-of-living crisis. And as winter approaches, things are about to get a lot worse. Colder temperatures suppress the immune system. But we know relatively little about the effects on mental health. Our new research shows that living in a cold home is a significant mental health risk. Living in a cold home can affect your mental health in several ways. For many, heating costs are a source of stress and financial strain. Not being able to keep your home and family comfortably warm reduces feelings of control and autonomy over your environment. People who are unable to heat their home often adopt coping mechanisms that limit socialising – for example, not inviting friends over and going to bed early to keep warm. And many people are just worn down by the drudgery of a whole winter of being uncomfortably cold. Using data from a large representative sample of adults in the UK, we followed people over many years and tracked the effect of being unable to keep your home warm on mental health. When people's homes became cold, their risk of severe mental distress significantly increased. For people who previously had no mental health problems, the odds of severe mental distress doubled when they had a cold home, while for those who had some (but not severe) mental health symptoms, the risk tripled . We found these effects even after taking into account many other factors associated with mental health, including income.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
