Femalefirst.co.uk reports that Surgeon David Allambym has revealed that smartphones have caused cases of myopia (short-sightedness) among young Britons to surge.Allamby, founder of Focus Clinics, has reported a 35 percent increase of patients with advancing myopia, since the launch of smartphones in 1997, and warns that worsening Myopia in young adults could increase by 50 percent within 10 years. - DNAINDIA
If smartphones have made our lives easier, there is a flip side too -- they cause vision impairment, says a leading laser eye surgeon.
Femalefirst.co.uk reports that Surgeon David Allambym has revealed that smartphones have caused cases of myopia (short-sightedness) among young Britons to surge.Allamby, founder of Focus Clinics, has reported a 35 percent increase of patients with advancing myopia, since the launch of smartphones in 1997, and warns that worsening Myopia in young adults could increase by 50 percent within 10 years. - DNAINDIA
0 Comments
... In late 2010, after a long and unhappy antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease, my newest GP (who's still my doctor today), Chuck de Sieyes, MD, announced that he was referring me to Mansmann: "Because I have no idea what's going on with you, and he's one of the smartest guys around. And frankly, I've had it!" Mansmann had moved to Yarmouth with his wife and kids to be close to his parents, who'd retired in Maine. A third-generation allergist, he worked in his father's allergy clinic, at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, during high school. While in college at Saint Joseph's University, also in Philadelphia, he helped his dad develop two asthma drugs. Later, he headed an allergy and immunology clinic at a West Virginia hospital for 10 years.
Mansmann has a helmet of thick, graying hair and an intensely serious air. After escorting me into an exam room, he sat down across from me and promptly pushed aside my thick medical file. He'd read through it all, he said, but he wanted to hear the story from me. He listened patiently, asking questions every so often: When did my rashes flare? Was the pain an ache in my muscles, or did it feel deeper? Was I worse after I slept or at the end of the day? He seemed, as we spoke, to have all the time in the world. Then, with no pyrotechnics, he offered his theory: "I think it's possible you've developed a reaction to genetically modified corn." Genetically modified corn? Everyone's heard of GMO corn, but I realized I didn't know what it actually was. Mansmann explained that starting in the mid-1980s, the biotechnology giant Monsanto began to genetically alter corn to withstand its herbicide Roundup - the goal being to eradicate weeds but not crops - as well as to resist a pest called the corn borer. These small changes in the DNA of the corn are expressed by the plant as proteins. It's those proteins, Mansmann believes, that can act as allergens, provoking a multisystemic disorder marked by the overproduction of a type of white blood cell called an eosinophil. He swabbed inside my nose with a Q-tip, then placed the results under a microscope. "Take a look," Mansmann said. "See all those pink cells? Those are eosinophils." My nose, it seemed, was chock-full of them. When the immune system is working properly, eosinophils swarm certain invading substances, be they parasites or viruses, and work to eliminate them. Sometimes, however, an allergenic protein may prompt the immune system to release eosinophils. Then, it's as if a faucet gets turned on but can't be turned off - eosinophils just keep coming. Eventually they begin to leave the bloodstream and may infiltrate and damage the GI tract, esophagus, mucous membranes, lungs, the fascial system (the layer of connective tissue that surrounds the muscles, blood vessels, and nerves), and the skin - hence, the avalanche of symptoms. (Some allergists say that the best way to test for a true eosinophilic disorder is to look for the cells in the esophagus and GI tract with an endoscopy. But Mansmann thinks that once you have a preponderance of them in your nasal mucus, they're likely to be elsewhere.) Mansmann's advice was to strip all corn, even that marked organic, from my diet. "It's almost impossible to find a corn source in the United States that doesn't have the [protein] in it," he said. The U.S. government started approving GMO corn and soybeans for sale in the mid-1990s, and today, 88 percent of corn, and 93 percent of soybeans, are the transgenic varieties. Moreover, Mansmann and others contend that due to cross-pollination via winds, birds, and bees, there's no such thing anymore as a GMO-free corn crop. He estimated that it would take from two to four months of living without corn for the eosinophils to cycle out of my body, and almost a year before I'd feel entirely like myself. While I quickly discovered that blaming GMO foods for any kind of health problem is controversial in the medical and biotech worlds, what's beyond debate is the increase in the incidence of autoimmune disorders such as type 1 diabetes, lupus, and celiac disease, as well as of allergies. As for the latter, the National Health Interview Survey found, for instance, that since 1999, the number of children with foodallergies has jumped by 50 percent, and those with skin allergies by 69 percent (and the increase isn't merely a by-product of fuller reporting by parents, experts say). Allergenic eosinophilic disorders, however, aren't counted in that data. They were first identified about 20 years ago, according to a pioneer in the field, Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, a professor at University of Cincinnati medical school and director of an affiliated center for eosinophilic disorders. "We're in the midst of an allergy and autoimmune epidemic," Rothenberg told me on the phone, "and the environment is the black box." Mansmann's GMO theory was "interesting," he went on, before quickly adding that "no one in conventional medicine will have the data" to prove it. Back in 2011, though, I was desperate enough that I was willing to try the diet Mansmann recommended. After all, how hard could it be to give up corn? The answer was: way harder than I imagined. Corn was my Waldo, popping up everywhere: in tea bags, juice, and cheese culture; it lined my "to go" coffee cups and plastic bags of frozen vegetables; it coated my store-bought apples and was on the bottom of restaurant pizza - almost everything my family used, no matter how piously natural and organic, had corn in it. It came under the guise of dozens of names like "xanthan gum," "natural flavors," "free-flowing agents," "vitamin E," "ascorbic acid," "citric acid," and "cellulose," to name a few. Almost daily, I'd find a new culprit. "Damn, this toothpaste is full of corn!" Then: "Wait, our dish soap is made from corn!" Or: "Oh my God, iodized salt has dextrose in it!" Not to mention the corn that is fed to animals whose meat and eggs I ate, whose milk I drank. I had to restrict my diet, Mansmann said, to vegetables, grains other than corn, grass-fed beef and dairy, wild fish, and game (if I was game). My husband and I threw ourselves into the corn-free diet with gusto: We began baking all our bread, we learned how to make our own flour tortillas and sweet treats like muffins and cakes. By luck, we met an intrepid farmer raising corn-free chickens (harder than you might guess, because chickens have literally been bred to get fat fast on corn). We eschewed anything premade and began gathering foods from local sources we could trust. I stopped taking every medicine or supplement with corn in it (which was most of them). Wherever I went, I took my own stainless-steel coffee cup. The first thing I noticed was that my skin rashes began to dissipate. Then, slowly, my body stopped aching, and I could walk or even jog easily, for the first time in years. I started to have more energy, and I slept better at night. The head cold went away - poof - and I wasn't going through a box of tissues a day. My hands became less stiff. I realized, in retrospect, that my frozen hands had been the hardest symptom to tolerate: I could barely button my son's small shirts or apply a Band-Aid, which made me feel useless as a mother. Almost four months later, in late May, I felt pretty much like my old self. I was so startled by my physical well-being that I didn't know how to enjoy it. Each night I'd go to bed preparing myself for the possibility that I might wake up sick again the next morning. Could GMO corn really be my problem? Could this blessed state really last? I couldn't let go; I had to know more. I decided to visit Rothenberg and his team of researchers endeavoring to crack open the black box... Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/news/The_Bad_Seed_The_health_risks_of_genetically_modified_corn/91712#ixzz2aicDbYi9 Bisphenol a (BPA) is the widely used chemical found in many plastics, food can linings, and even on US dollars and receipts. Known as an endocrine-disrupting chemical that mimics the hormone estrogen, BPA has been linked to numerous negative health effects in countless studies. The worst part? While the Food and Drug Administration considered banning the chemical in March of 2012, the ban was denied, and BPA continues to be ubiquitous. So what exactly does mean? It means the entire U.S. is still subjected to the chemicals negative effects.
Breast cancer is slowly becoming one of the many well-known negative outcomes induced by BPA exposure. In fact, over 130 studies have confirmed the link between bisphenol A and to ailments like breast cancer, obesity, and reproductive problems. Ironically, the popular nonprofit Susan G. Komen for the Cure partners with many bottled water companies for their For the Cure races across the nation. The problem, obviously, is that most of these plastic bottles contain BPA. While girls typically enter into puberty (or have in the past, at least) at just over ten years of age, studies show that this age has fallen by more than a year within only one generation. Some girls are even seeing breasts at 7 years old. Although there are other factors to consider, BPA may be to blame as well. After examining 1,151 girls between the ages of 6 and 8 in the United States over a two year period, researchers found that multiple chemical classes were detected at high levels within the girls urine. About one-third of the girls went through puberty prematurely. Our research shows a connection between chemicals that girls are exposed to on a daily basis and either delayed or early development. While more research is needed, these data are an important first step in evaluating the impact of these common environmental agents in putting girls at risk, lead researchers Dr Mary Wolff said. Some research has linked both BPA and phthalates to a disorder known as atherosclerosis. This disorder, which is the hardening of the arteries through the buildup of plaques, negatively impacts blood flow and ultimately increases your risk of heart disease. Shocking, the research is not the first of its kind. One team also found that individuals with higher levels of bisphenol-a in their urine were more than twice as likely to suffer from coronary heart disease than those with lower levels. 4. 5. Infertility in Males and Females Bisphenol a has been found to be adversely affecting male genital development, subsequently leading to compromised fertility health. One study examined the effects of BPA on the distance between the genitalia and the anus in males, known as the Anogenital distance (AGD). AGD is very important biologically for a number of reasons, and plays a prominent role in the health of ones fertility. Researchers found that parental exposure to BPA during pregnancy was associated with shortened AGD in male offspring. In other words, high level BPA exposure led to offspring with AGD defects. AGD has been linked to fertility in males, making BPAs negative impact on the male reproductive system noteworthy. Men with an AGD lower than the median, which sits around 52 mm (2 in), have seven times the chance of being sub-fertile as compared to those with a longer AGD. But males arent the only ones suffering; BPA has been linked to reproductive issues in women as well. In one study, researchers found that BPA caused reproductive problems that can affect women, including abnormal egg development. The eggs of fetuses exposed to BPA had difficulty forming follicles, which ultimately increases the risk of eggs dying before maturation. Additionally, the researchers observed other abnormalities, showing signs that they would carry too many chromosomes as a result of not dividing during development. This could lead to miscarriages or disorders like Down Syndrome. 6. Sparks Multiple Negative Brain Alterations Further adding on to BPAs long list of negative effects, some research has also found that the chemical disrupts a gene responsible for proper nerve cell function, ultimately leading to compromised brain development. Researchers of the study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, discovered that BPA could damage central nervous system development by disrupting a gene called Kcc2. Our study found that BPA may impair the development of the central nervous system, and raises the question as to whether exposure could predispose animals and humans to neurodevelopmental disorders, study researcher Dr. Wolfgang Liedtke, M.D., Ph.D., said. Another study found that exposure to bisphenol-A early in life can spark changes in gene expression. The changes occur in a part of the brain called the amygdala, which can lead to increased levels of anxiety. The study abstract states: Early life exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA), a component of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, alters sociosexual behavior in numerous species including humans. The present study focused on the ontogeny of these behavioral effects beginning in adolescence and assessed the underlying molecular changes in the amygdala. Last, but certainly not least, BPA may be one of many factors responsible for the obesity epidemic. One study found that high BPA exposure is associated with obesity in the general adult population in the U.S. Another study, examining BPA concentrations in the urine of kids aged 6 to 19, found that obese children made up 22% of individuals with the highest BPA levels in their urine. About 10% of kids who had the lowest BPA concentration in their urine were obese. Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/news/7_nasty_effects_of_BPA_Bisphenol_The_toxic_chemical_in_many_plastics/90815#ixzz2YgC5Kz1Z If you have stomach problems or gastrointestinal problems, a new study led by Dr. Judy Carman may help explain why: pigs fed a diet of genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation compared to those fed non-GMO diets. In males, the difference was even more pronounced: a 400% increase. (For the record, most autistic children are males, and nearly all of them have severe intestinal inflammation.)
The study was conducted on 168 young pigs on an authentic farm environment and was carried out over a 23-week period by eight researchers across Australia and the USA. The lead researcher, Dr. Judy Carman, is from the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Kensington Park, Australia. The study has now been published in the Journal of Organic Systems, a peer-reviewed science journal. The study is the first to show what appears to be a direct connection between the ingestion of GMO animal feed and measurable damage to the stomachs of those animals. Tests also showed abnormally high uterine weights of animals fed the GMO diets, raising further questions about the possibility of GMOs causing reproductive organ damage. Proponents of corporate-dominated GMO plant science quickly attacked the study, announcing that in their own minds, there is no such thing as any evidence linking GMOs to biological harm in any animals whatsoever. And they are determined to continue to believe that, even if it means selectively ignoring the increasingly profound and undeniable tidal wave of scientific studies that repeatedly show GMOs to be linked with severe organ damage, cancer tumors and premature death. "Adverse effects... toxic effects... clear evidence" The study was jointly announced by GM Watch and Sustainable Pulse. Lead author of the study Dr. Judy Carman stated, "We found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture." The following photo shows one of the pig intestines fed a non-GMO diet vs. a pig intestine fed a GMO diet. As you can see from the photo, the pig fed the GMO diet suffered severe inflammation of the stomach: The study adds to the weight of scientific evidence from others studies which show that rats fed a diet of GMOs grow horrifying cancer tumors and suffer premature death. A scientific study published last year concluded that eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide was linked with rats developing shockingly large tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. That study was also criticized by corporate GMO trolls who argued that scientists should not show pictures of rats with large cancer tumors caused by GMOs because the pictures scare consumers into being afraid of GMOs. Here are some of the pictures they don't want you to see, taken right from the public announcement of the study: That study also found that rats fed GM corn suffered severe kidney damage as well as shockingly high rates of premature death. Why weren't these studies done before GMOs were unleashed into the global food supply? The GMO biotech industry was able to escape any meaningful regulation of GMOs in the United States by (ridiculously) claiming GMOs were substantially no different from non-genetically engineered crops. "They're all the same!" we were told. And the USDA bought it. So how did Monsanto patent its GM corn, then? You're not supposed to be able to patent something unless it's uniquely different. Thus, the very fact that Monsanto has acquired patents on its GMO crop varieties is proof that the company itself believes its seeds are different. And what's different about Monsanto's GM corn? It produces a deadly insecticide grown right into every kernel. That insecticide, of course, is what kills insects that try to eat the crop. And how does it kill those insects? It fatally damages their digestive systems. That same insecticide stays inside the corn even as the crop is turned into animal feed... or corn chip snacks... or flaked corn breakfast cereal. This pig stomach inflammation study suddenly provides yet more credible evidence that GMOs are unfit for human consumption and may be causing severe damage to the digestive systems of both humans and mammals. Naturally, the GMO industry and all its paid online trolls, on-the-take "scientists" and multi-million dollar P.R. machine will try to viciously attack this study from every angle. They absolutely hate real science when that science calls into question their poisonous, deadly seeds and genetic pollution. That's why you won't read this news anywhere in the mainstream media -- the same media that utterly discredited itself a few weeks ago when it pretended the hugely successful global March Against Monsanto never even took place. NOTE TO THE SELLOUT CORPORATE MEDIA: You have zero credibility remaining. Virtually no one believes what you print. Everyone knows you have sold out your editorial agenda to Big Pharma, Monsanto, weapons manufacturers and the surveillance state. The reason why alternative media like GM Watch and Natural News is rising while your own numbers keep plummeting is because we print the real news that really matters on liberty, food freedom, farm freedom, health freedom and self-reliance. Maybe if you stopped intentionally lying to your readers on a daily basis while censoring important news on grassroots liberty, you might see some readers return to your publication... -DiscloseTV Learn more: Explanation of the key findings of the Judy Carman study: http://gmojudycarman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Clear-English-exp... Full scientific paper: http://gmojudycarman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Full-Paper.pd... Background on Dr. Judy Carman: http://www.gmojudycarman.org www.GMwatch.org www.SustainablePulse.com Summary of the evidence against GMOs: www.GMOevidence.com More details on the Seralini study on GMOs and rats: www.GMOseralini.org Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/news/GMO_feed_turns_pig_stomachs_to_mush_Shocking_photos/89738#ixzz2WBruRYkz With less than a year until the Affordable Care Act starts to really kick in, there is a growing concern the group of people who are most needed to make the plan work properly are the ones most likely opt out. One of the key promises of the ACA has always been that it would lower costs for health insurance. The trick to making that happen was to get everyone to buy health care, which is why the law came with an individual mandate. In the run-up to the law's passage (and after) there was a lot of heated argument about how forcing people to buy something they don't want is un-American, but the Supreme Court upheld the mandate idea on the grounds that it's just a new kind of tax. Buy health insurance or pay the tax. Your choice. There is one little-discussed flaw, however, the could turn out to be the fatal one: The government doesn't really want people to pay the tax. In order for the plan to work, we need some people (especially young, healthy people) to pay more into the health care exchanges than they receive in services for the risk pool math to work. Yet, there are concerns that penalty or not, the people who can't afford or don't want to pay for health care won't be sold on the government-sponsored health exchanges which are meant to supplement more-expensive private insurance. Some are also arguing that the cost to buy insurance on the exchanges will be far greater than Obamacare supporters have predicted. If that's the case, then the penalty just might not be high enough. In the first year, the tax is the higher of $95 or 1 percent of your income (so $400 for someone making $40,000). The rate increases each year, to a max of the greater of $695 or 2.5 percent in 2016 (or $1,000 for someone with $40,000 of income). If you're one of the few that pays very little under the current system — the young and healthy; or the uninsured, who currently pay $0 — then your costs are definitely going up. The ACA will provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, but again, most citizens are either unaware of that fact, don't know if they will eligible, or are completely confused about to apply. (Constant predictions of bureaucratic nightmares from the bill's opponents don't help matters.) It's easy to see then why their instinct is to opt out entirely. A recent survey claims that many as 10 percent of people are planning to skip insurance and pay the penalty. More than 60 percent think they won't be able to afford it, and most have no idea what they will do come January 1, 2014. Only 19 percent said they expect to have coverage in place by the deadline. The Los Angeles Times spoke to several young people who say they have no plans to buy insurance at all, because they think that they "never get sick." In addition, by allowing young, single people to stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26, the ACA also created a huge pool of healthy young people who won't be in the market for the exchange plans because they just don't need it yet. But for those young people who are facing the penalty, why would they prefer to fork over that money to the government (and get nothing in return) as opposed to just buying health insurance? One reason is people don't know how to buy coverage. The exchanges that are being created to offer more and better alternatives to private coverage don't exist yet. They sound confusing and the costs are currently unknown or in dispute. At The New Republic Jonathan Cohn does a pretty good job of tearing down a lot of the predictions about inflated costs, but in the end even he is forced to admit that, yes, some healthy people will pay more for insurance than they do right now. But many more sick people (some of whom are currently young and healthy) will probably pay less. That's the bargain we're making to ensure that (as a country) we get better health coverage. Cohn elaborates: As Aaron Carroll wrote the other day, Obamacare involves real trade-offs: Higher-income people have to pay higher taxes, the health care industry has to endure lower payments from Medicare, and—yes—some young, healthy, affluent people have to pay more for private insurance. Those of us who support the law believe that's a worthwhile price to pay to help achieve universal coverage, given the lack of politically viable alternatives. There are other potential benefits the plan, as well, aside from just the money. But again, in order to maximize those benefits for everyone, we need everyone to play along. Even the people who won't see the benefits right away, if ever. Too many people waiting until they were old and sick to join the health insurance market is how we got into this mess in the first place. After all, almost every healthy person in the world will one day become a sick person. And the line between well and ill is a pretty thin one.
|