Missed cues on anthropogenic causes of human disease, new insights into climate change and suppression of objective science

Some recent posts on the AgeofAutism.com website concerning autism and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and perhaps chemical causation intrigued me enough to do some additional reading.

Specifically, the link  AofA polio/DDT published in 2011 caused me to embark on a rather circuitous path that eventually led to investigation of human health developments since the 1970/1980’s time frame.  There is a curious apparent synergy that also coincides with a former Mons@nto researcher quickly being placed in an editorial position at Elsevier after the Seralini paper (2012) attracted considerable attention, negative press and eventual retraction. It has curious and unnerving similarities to the processes which led to the Wakefield 1998 Lancet paper retraction and continued lawsuits,

My Reading Sequence:

1. Janine Roberts (initial polio/DDT connections, 2004)
2. Jim West (pre Roberts version of polio causality, 2003)
2A MS Biskind and Scobey papers (1949-1953)
2B Rachel Carson (Silent Spring, 1962)

3. Blaxill/Olmsted (AofA polio/DDT connection, 2011
4. BlaxillOlmsted (CA polio cases, 2014 -1)
5. Blaxill/Olmsted (CA polio cases 2014 -2)
6. Blaxill/Olmsted (CA polio cases 2014-3, link unreachable- to be updated)

7. Temekes (2012-2013 neonicotinoid pesticide PPT/information)
8. Seralini (2012, retracted paper linking glyphosate w/ mammalian health effects)
8A. Seralini 2012-13 (2014 comments to reviewers, answers to questions)

9.   Samsel and Seneff (2013 glyphosate and human health Entropy paper)
10. Seneff (W A Price Conference Feb 2014 powerpoint)

11. Mason 2014 data on glyphosate/worldwide human health

Each one of these links represents an interesting body of collective knowledge which has deep implications about human health degradation, economics,  and global ecosystem dysfunctioning, including climate change.

Suggestion: Seneff powerpt (10), Samsel & Seneff (9), Mason (11), and then go from there.
Dietary revisions as needed: go organic, gluten free, perhaps medication revisions, sunlight, exercise regimen, limited vaccination(s).

A plug for additional evaluations of performances in professional cycling

A plug for additional evaluations of performances in professional cycling

7/16/2013
In an attempt to put another layer of contextual nuance in play here, I’ll weigh in with a perspective that has developed over the last 20yrs of watching professional cycling and a lifetime of watching professional / Olympic sports.  I am frequently a reader / follower of varied discussion forums (esp. CyclingNews (CN) Clinic forum], a cycling fan, a passionate cyclist and antidoping/clean-fair sport advocate.

Groups like the Clinic /CN Forum, generally the thoughtful posters there, and folks that post things to their blogs/webpages serve an extremely useful purpose.  If one is reasonably diligent, it becomes possible to glean varied perspectives about sport, doping, clean/dirty performances, spin, new techniques, etc.  Much of this information dissemination occurs somewhat non linearly or disjointedly, sometimes in real time, and maybe in an altogether adversarial/nonsanitary fashion.  However, all in all, discussion fora do provide context, and often comedic relief, about ideas regarding competitive cycling or sport.

Additionally, it becomes another affair to put Armstrong into proper context link with his peers & predecessors.  And another matter entirely to assess whether the faster average speeds we’ve seen in the last 60 or so years link can be attributed to PED use, equipment innovations, training, distance reductions and/or some combination(s) thereof.

Armstrong and his layers of lawyers were often very clever, resourceful and
persistent in suppressing results or report translations. Apparently, Dave Brailsford (a principal at Team SKY), & BC seem to have taken this tact- promising transparency, promising but delaying data release, or plain obfuscation, so when we here write SSDD about much of this- it’s because this appears altogether strongly familiar.

So, I am calling you out, Dave, to release data (particularly pre 2011 data) & methods so that we as the public can evaluate your team’s performances since right now it appears ‘highly suspicious’.  In the absence of a response, we can utilize other methods to derive power & performance data.

Additionally, SKY’s been very smart in ‘controlling the message’ regarding their use of or TUE of PEDs currently suspected and training methodologies.  In the case of Armstrong et al, the Reasoned Decision Report & varied confessions served as ample evidence regarding ~15-20 yrs worth of his illegitimate performances, AND, I imagine, a fair amount of information was garnered from forums.  Yes, I suppose we were ‘entertained’ by the sport/spectacle for the last 20yrs.  At least I was at the time, but now viewing varied performances (with now added perspective) from the 1990’s thru the 2000’s, I see them for what they are: namely a PED-enhanced circus that now requires a significant suspension of disbelief & discounting of facts to enjoy on any rational/defensible level.  Just because we don’t like Froome, Contador, Valverde, Martin, etc for whatever reasons- some legitimate and others pure ‘dislike’ is no reason to defacto discount facts or information because they don’t fit into our neat tidy boxes.  Groups like Change Cycling (CCN) and Antoine Vayer’s article, while not particularly enlightening to folks that have followed cycling for awhile, offer a way forward and put different performances thru the years into a type of perspective & allow for some historical context/comparison.  It perhaps puts another element that requires some degree of scrutiny- hopefully something that grassroots groups like CCN hope to do.

Cycling has, if I understand correctly, the UCI & WADA along with the Biopassport to screen athletes for PEDs or adverse blood /urine profiles.  However, to my knowledge there isn’t _any_ type of objective evaluation about performances so that one can put them into some type of context.  Short of the links provided above, there appear to be some well researched pieces of information, articles or forums where the performances become more thoughtfully and rigorously evaluated.

Why is there no current physiological evaluation (besides time) for putting the performances into context?  Brailsford et al seems to feel that the sporting public would be unable to ‘understand’ or might misuse the data.  However, I imagine that an objective group with specialties in human physiology & performance, along with folks having an understanding of what compounds are contained in an athletes TUE, might be able to put much what we’re seeing into some type of context.  I imagine that the Clean Cycling group was likely headed in that direction to a degree.  In the absence of some type of objective oversight, I suppose that debate in the CN Clinic will  have to suffice and periodic perspectives from folks like Vaughters, Ashendon, Kimmage/Walsh, Lemond, etc might enhance our collective understanding.

I, for one, started out as a ‘believer” in Froome/Contador/ Armstrong/Landis/Ullrich/Vino/Hamilton/Riis/etc in cycling because they seemed genuinely elite athletes, and to a certain degree they were supremely talented. However, I imagine the more we read and find out about how these varied professional businesses operate, it becomes clearer that results help drive sponsorship dollars and endorsements in a strange vicious cycle. Unfortunately, these athletes or their teams/federations appear to have turned increasingly to chemical means to maintain their fitness, status, place in the peleton, public accolades, whatever. As one cyclist (Fignon?) or journalist put it – ‘these drugs have made racehorses out of donkeys’; and therein lies the problem.

In the case of Froome, I needed to suspend disbelief over both his current & recent performances in 2013, and his rather remarkable career trajectory thus far that they are indeed legitimate.  Apparently, Paul Kimmage’s tweet put it more succinctly with the “when elephants fly, I’ll have seen everything’ remark.  When was the last time a cyclist (& really team) held such a high level of form over such a long time & against competitors that likely dope? Competitors include Saxo, Movistar, etc- these teams nearly uniformly have cyclists that have been popped for doping, have DSs that competed in the EPO-era (1990s) and/or have staff long engaged in performance enhancement(s).  I don’t recall such a spring season to stage racing-long peak- that, in itself, appears suspicious & requires explanation- probably the 1990’s.  I believe a poster here in the Clinic calculated Froome’s watts/kg for Ax3 & Mt Ventoux.  Apparently, no real dropoff in performance occurred and his power numbers were few percent higher than current competitors & his times were at levels that approach/beat cyclists from an era in which a high degree of the peloton was significantly doped. So whether he’s using old school EPO/bloodbags or new school AICAR, GW1516, Telmsartan, Gas6 doping techniques, it doesn’t matter since it’s all performance enhancing.

We can argue issues of drafting, wind direction, etc all we want, but mostly his/Sky’s relative performances and fatigue on the part of his primary competitors illustrate a fundamental paradigm shift (IMO) between old-school doped vs ‘super-doped’/’gene-doped’/’training-cleanish’ performance.  Froome’s attacks seemed surrealistic & require some additional insights from physiologists/blood passport evaluators/etc.  He appears now able to attack, ride with no significant loss in power output (ie, fatigue curve slope is shallower than competitors), recovers within a short time and then attack again- riding fairly well known (doping) cyclists right off his wheel.  The Rope-a-Dope with Quintana after dropping Contador (on Mt Ventoux), Froome’s ITT performance and his spring performances now require some significant adjustment about athletic understanding and training for endurance sports (if done cleanly), objective evaluation of data, and (relative to a likely semi-mostly-partially doped peloton) a proper explanation of techniques taken to achieve these remarkably consistent results.  This would, for me anyway, allow a recalibration of belief once more in cycling as a sport rather than the ‘wrestling on wheels version’ we’ve now seen for the last 20 yrs.

Thirty years ago (maybe longer), the main dynamic seemed to involve amphetamines, steroids, and bronchial dilators which were good for short term classics-type events. Now it is HGH, rEPO/CERA, blood transfusions, steroid/hormone patches, plasma volume expanders, oxygen uptake extenders, recombinant hemoglobin, etc and which convey long lasting effects upon physiological performance and endurance. I am currently at a loss as to how to understand lengthy TUE lists in terms of performance. Additionally, many of the things these athletes take also help elude doping controls or pass tests; these amendments also may cause as yet unknown health problems. Doping, unfortunately pervasive in many sports and at multiple levels (pro-masters-college-high school-weekend warriors), creates issues since many/some/most athletes cannot afford or wish to take the pharmacy of drugs necessary to not only just compete but to win and get that endorsement or sponsorship or medal or t-shirt/cheap trinket. And that is why fundamentally, the debate on PEDs in sport/sport biz matters- it, for the most part has tended to be an unlevel playing field with respect to money, fair competition and results.  SKY simply appears to be the latest well-moneyed, perhaps agency-protected version of this.

These amendments to enhance performance have, at times, made it seem as though
these were ‘extraordinary’ or ‘superhuman’ or ‘physiologically impossible’. I
believe that is why Lemond ( VO2 max mid 90s) has such a problem with
Armstrong (reported VO2 max 75-82) and likely Contador. They both climbed
certain parts of TdF HC climbs considerably faster than Lemond had, apparently
‘effortlessly and ahead of (for Armstrong) known dopers (eg Ullrich, Mayo,
Hamilton, maybe Virenque). For Lemond and a lot of others, these feats should
be physiologically impossible (based on known facts) without doping.

Froome’s rise appears as though he’s somehow superseded his natural physiological limits in relatively short order.  That is, a few years ago when he was peloton fodder & finishing minutes back in many MTF races, he had VO2max(1) and watts/kg(1).  Over the last few years, he’s raised this (apparently ‘cleanly’) to VO2max(2) and watts/kg(2) through the use of sophisticated training techniques, weight loss, etc.  Additionally, he’s done this while apparently overcoming some kind of severe parasitic disease that requires significant chemotherapy (perhaps ameliorated by enhanced use of corticosteroids) and his dropping off the map bloodpassport-wise for significant parts of the season- only to magically regain form in time for stage racing season.  The fact that British Cycling has apparently (read this in a post) been handing out TUEs rather indiscriminantly and Sky’s been rather cagey in varied responses for data release suggests that there’s a lot of unavailable information which would help in the understanding & context of current performances.

The irresponsibility of varied journalists/oversight agencies to thoroughly investigate or report on these issues, fundamental intellectual laziness of many fans, and the disjointed nature of many testing national/international bodies in how they report & share information has compounded the problem as well.  Additionally, due to the inability of testing groups to consistently / reliably catch violators and a proper understanding of varied clean/doped performances, it appears as though it may be time to enforce some kind(s) of objective arbiters in these kinds of endurance events.  The forum clinic (varied threads) does serve as a unique fashion in the sense that there’s a realtime messy evaluation but perhaps something along the lines of a WADA/Bloodpassport/ data evaluation objective aggregate group appears needed.  To rely on a teams “trust us, we’re clean” or lack of institutional oversight (ie, UCI), the next best option appears online forums where there appears to be legitimate sharing/evaluation/semiobjectivity without the agenda-injecting monetary aspect.
Postscript: the new frontiers in PED use, evaluation of performance

Gas6 – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2176185/
http://www.vib.be/en/news/Pages/Progress-toward-an-alternative-for-EPO—Gas6-offers-remedy-where-EPO-fails-today.aspx

Power evaluations Vayer – performances 1990-present>> putting ‘not normal’ performances into context
http://www.joomag.com/magazine/alternativ-editions-not-normal/0269766001370594539
Power evaluation- http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/biking/Analysing-Froomes-Performance.html?page=all

Cytocrhrome C oxidase (COXc) doping http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22cycling%22%22cytochrome+C+oxidase%22+%22doping%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=d-DdUeCVNtKy4APkt4GIDQ&ved=0CCgQgQMwAA

TID triiodothrionine (T3) use & endurance athletes
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22thyroid+hormone%22+%22triiodothyronine%22%22endurance+athletes%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,6&as_ylo=2009&as_vis=1

Clean performances exceed doped ones:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/clean-performances-to-surpass-doped.html

AICAR, GW1516, & Telmsartan – new genetic doping agents
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22aicar%22%22froome%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#client=firefox-a&hs=WqC&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22aicar%22%22use+in+endurance+sports%22&oq=%22aicar%22%22use+in+endurance+sports%22&gs_l=serp.3…12306.18190.0.18829.29.28.0.0.0.15.348.5843.0j18j8j2.28.0….0…1c.1.19.psy-ab.PFT1fLyTWPo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc&fp=a144351cce8306e3&biw=1363&bih=869

Aicar- endurance sports
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22aicar%22%22endurance+sports%22&btnG=&hl=en&num=20&as_sdt=0%2C6

Change Cycling Now http://www.changecyclingnow.org/

New take on obesity

An interesting read / take on obesity.  The author, Berreby, cites some studies that provide some greater context about how obesity is likely more than genetics of human origin, has some genesis in the everyday chemicals/compounds in our food stream, and the incessant scream of western capitalistic media & 24hr food availability.

The Obesity Era
As the American people got fatter, so did marmosets, vervet monkeys and mice. The problem may be bigger than any of us’…
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/being-human/david-berreby-obesity-era/

Missing are maybe some key insights about climate change (earlier spring & later winters, competitor dieoff) [see Flannery’s take on climate change] contributing to bigger animals and perhaps the entry to our food stream of things like high fructose corn syrup which corresponds nicely to a start of the current obesity epidemic. ALso, the fact that a virus (AD-36, also reported as ADV-36 in most peer reviewed literature) may be a cofactor. Maybe, this also suggests that a vaccine (cool- just what we all need, more vaccinations) has been in development (search “ADV-36” “virus””patents”). This virus- more active when, or contributing to, immune inflammatory responses (Na & Nam http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/205/6/914.full), appears associated with respiratory infections & targets various tissues associated with adipose (fat) cells.

Key Pts
1. A report by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co predicted in May 2012 that ‘health and wellness’ would soon become a trillion-dollar global industry.

2….it’s obvious who is to blame for this frightening global blanket of lipids: it’s us, choosing over and over again, billions of times a day, to eat too much and exercise too little.

3.The personal choice theory & big government’s response: Michael Bloomberg, recently put it, defending his proposed ban on large cups for sugary drinks: ‘If you want to lose weight, don’t eat. This is not medicine, it’s thermodynamics. If you take in more than you use, you store it.’

4. The alternative ‘no personal responsibility’ theory: Yet the scientists who study the biochemistry of fat and the epidemiologists who track weight trends are not nearly as unanimous as Bloomberg makes out. In fact, many researchers believe that personal gluttony and laziness cannot be the entire explanation for humanity’s global weight gain.

‘The previous belief of many lay people and health professionals that obesity is simply
     the result of a lack of willpower and an inability to discipline eating habits is no longer 
     defensible.’’ Berraby

‘Virtually in every population of animals we looked at, that met our criteria, there
was the 
same upward trend,’ David Allison, biostatistician at U Alabama, Birmingham

5. Yet a number of researchers have come to believe, as Wells himself wrote earlier this year in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, that ‘all calories are not equal’. The problem with diets that are heavy in meat, fat or sugar is not solely that they pack a lot of calories into food; it is that they alter the biochemistry of fat storage and fat expenditure, tilting the body’s system in favour of fat storage. Wells notes, for example, that sugar, trans-fats and alcohol have all been linked to changes in ‘insulin signalling’, which affects how the body processes carbohydrates. This might sound like a merely technical distinction. In fact, it’s a paradigm shift: if the problem isn’t the number of calories but rather biochemical influences on the body’s fat-making and fat-storage processes, then sheer quantity of food or drink are not the all-controlling determinants of weight gain. If candy’s chemistry tilts you toward fat, then the fact that you eat it at all may be as important as the amount of it you consume.

We are, of course, surrounded by industrial chemicals. According to Frederick vom Saal, professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri, an organic compound called bisphenol-A (or BPA) that is used in many household plastics has the property of altering fat regulation in lab animals.

Vaccines didn’t & probably won’t save us – look at the data

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics
Source:  http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
     An interesting perspective on the incidence of childhood disease over the last 200 years for UK, US & Australia.  Diseases were well on the decline due to better public health practices, water treatment, and wealth increases in these countries.  Measles and mumps vaccinations, in particular, had been identified  as unnecessary by UK in late 1970’s- at least it was being questioned.
download pdf

Where is the science showing potential dangers from excess vaccinations &
what would be the likely immune/neurological responses?
Blaylock 2008 has an interesting article & viewpoint with 105 references.

US Gov’t has been quietly settling many vaccine-caused neurological damage cases
What would be interesting to know is why aren’t the companies that make these vaccines being held liable.

 Andrew Wakefield’s Responses Published -from childhealthsafety:
“rubella virus is one of the few known causes of autism.” US Center for Disease Control.
“FAQs (frequently asked questions) about MMR Vaccine & Autism”  [ED 8/Apr/12: This is the web archive of the CDC page – you will need to search in or scroll down the page to see the text.  As papers cited on the original page by the CDC as evidence for no link with the vaccine have been steadily discredited it seems the CDC has decided to remove the page and it seems someone has been deleting the archived versions of the page from the web archive too].
Journal references:
1. Chess, S. Autism in children with congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1, 33-47 (1971).
2. Chess S. Follow-up report on autism in congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1977;7:69 –81
3. Ziring PR. Congenital rubella: the teenage years. Pediatr Ann. 1997;6: 762–770

 

Walker et al, 2013 New Publication showing autism &  gut issues, appears to be a solid study.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058058&representation=PDF