Salt may increase risk of stomach cancer by 40%, study suggests

Groan! Another witless attack on salt below. The journal article is here:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10120-024-01502-9

I have written previously on the salt phobia here:

http://jonjayray.com/short/salt.html

And here:

http://jonjayray.com/short/salt2.html

And here:

http://jonjayray.com/saltsum.html

And for what it is worth, I have always been a keen salt user but I had a gastroscopy recently which showed my stomach to be completely normal, which is pretty good for an 80-year-old guy.

OK. On to the latest bit of nonsense. Once again it was an extreme-groups analysis in which they had to throw away half of their data to find something to talk about. So it seems probable that there was in fact NO significant linear relationship between illness and salt consupption.

And it's almost amusing that they found the association only with REPORTS of salt usage not with an estimate of actual salt usage. Bleah!

The one undisputable finding of salt research is that LOW salt can kill you. There is even a name for that: Hyponatremia

A new study might make you think twice before reaching for the salt shaker at your next meal.

Nutritionists from the Center for Public Health at the University of Vienna discovered that people from the UK who added salt to most of their meals were 41 percent more likely to develop stomach cancer than those who used the topping sparingly.

Previous studies in China, Japan and Korea have linked a salty diet to stomach cancer - but this is one of the first to show the link in Westerners.

Though the Austrian study was merely observational, older studies have suggested that excess salt might erode the protective coating on the stomach, causing damage to the tissue there and leading to cancerous mutations.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13401167/additive-increase-risk-stomach-cancer-salty-salt.html

*************************************************

Fresh health warning over ultra-processed foods as 30-year study warns they marginally raise your risk of an early death

The academic source of the article below is:
https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476

Its conclusions are utter rubbish, reflecting the biases of the authors rather than what their data shows. It is an extreme quartile study -- meaning that they had to throw away half of their data before they could show any correlations. And even then only very weak associations were shown in only some cases.

And given the large number of possible correlations examined, an experiment-wise error-rate approach to significance testing should have been used, as in a Bonferroni correction, which would have reduced ALL relationships in this study to a nullity.

The study is good evidence therefore that ultra-processed foods are NOT harmful to you. Pathetic!

Conservatives are used to Leftists ignoring facts in favour of their theories and epidemiologists are much the same. Both groups show a common human tendency to adopt simple generalizations to explain their world. Sadly for us all, reality is complex and unforgiving so simple theories can lead to conclusions that are radically contrary to the truth -- e.g. Affirmative action has not removed black failure and simple foods are not safer than complex ones


Eating too many ultra-processed foods (UPFs) may send you to an early grave, a study suggests.

Ready meals, fizzy drinks and ice creams appear to pose the greatest danger to human health.

Harvard University researchers tracked 115,000 healthy US adults over the course of three decades.

Four per cent more deaths occurred among participants who ate around seven servings of junk a day, compared against a group who ate half as much.

While the risk was only small, the team argued their findings echoed calls to limit certain types of UPFs.

The umbrella term is used to cover anything edible made with colourings, sweeteners and preservatives that extend shelf life.

Ready meals, ice cream and tomato ketchup are some of the best-loved examples of products that fall under the umbrella UPF term, now synonymous with foods offering little nutritional value.

They are different to processed foods, which are tinkered to make them last longer or enhance their taste, such as cured meat, cheese and fresh bread.

Yet dietitians argue this sweeping judgement wrongly fingers 'healthy' options like fish fingers and baked beans.

Ultra-processed foods, such as sausages, cereals, biscuits and fizzy drinks, are formulations made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives.

They contain little or no unprocessed or minimally processed foods, such as fruit, vegetables, seeds and eggs.

The foods are usually packed with sugars, oils, fats and salt, as well as additives, such as preservatives, antioxidants and stabilisers.

Ultra-processed foods are often presented as ready-to-consume, taste good and are cheap.

The new paper adds to growing evidence illustrating the health risks of UPFs, which have been vilified for decades over their observed links to cancer and dementia.

Over the 34-year follow-up period, the researchers recorded 48,193 deaths, including more than 13,000 due to cancer and just over 11,000 attributed to cardiovascular diseases.

However, no specific relationship between total UPF consumption and cancer or heart disease deaths was observed.

Instead, the elevated risk — amounting to an extra 64 deaths per every 100,000 person-years — was only seen for deaths from all causes.

They also found no link between premature death and condiments, sauces and savoury snacks.

Even with sugary drinks and ready meals, the risk was less pronounced after researchers factored in the overall diet quality of the participants, who were quizzed about their eating habits every four years.

The risk was up to 13 per cent for some UPFs.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, the scientists said: 'The findings provide support for limiting consumption of certain types of ultra-processed food for long term health.'

But experts today criticised the research.

Sir David Spiegelhalter, emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Cambridge, said: 'This study shows weak associations of ultra-processed foods with overall mortality.'

Dietitian Dr Duane Mellor, spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association, said: 'It is also noticeable that those who consumed most ultra-processed foods tended to eat few vegetables, fruit, legumes and wholegrain.

'It might not be as simple as that those who ate more ultra-processed foods are more likely to die earlier — it is quite possible that these foods might displace healthier foods from the diet.'

He added: 'Not all groups of UPFs are associated with the same health risks, with sugar and artificially sweetened drinks and processed meats being most clearly associated with risk of an early death.'

Professor Gunter Kuhnle, an expert in nutrition and food science at the University of Reading, said it was 'impossible to know how reliable the results are' because of how the study was carried out.

He said: 'Results, therefore, should be treated with a lot of caution. 'I don't think this study provides evidence suggesting limiting certain foods just because of their level of processing.

'Public health policy should be informed by evidence, and there is very good evidence about the health effects of foods based on their composition — which is largely confirmed by this study.

'In contrast, there is still virtually no robust evidence for an effect of 'ultra-processing' specifically on health.'

The UK is the worst in Europe for eating UPFs, which make up an estimated 57 per cent of the national diet.

They are thought to be a key driver of obesity, which costs the NHS around £6.5billion a year.

Often containing colours, emulsifiers, flavours, and other additives, they typically undergo multiple industrial processes which research has found degrades the physical structure of foods, making it rapid to absorb.

This in turn increases blood sugar, reduces satiety and damages the microbiome - the community of 'friendly' bacteria that live inside us and which we depend for good health.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13395481/ultra-processed-foods-30-year-study-risk-early-death.html

*******************************************************

A study found that chemicals produced when eating junk food raised cancer risk

See below for a less sensationalist report of the research

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/poor-diet-increases-cancer-risk-scientists-uncover-missing-link#Breast-cancer-gene-increases-effect-of-methylglyoxal

Bah! Humbug! The researchers have NO data on junk food consumption. Their apparent link to food seems to be that levels of harm are linked to high glucose intake in some people. But glucose is not specific to junk food. Common table sugar is a compound of glucose and fructose. So if the results mean anything they mean that eating a lot of sweet things of any kind is bad for you if you have certain rare genetic predispositons. That is the sum total of what they apparently show. It tells you NOTHING about junk foods, whatever they may be. If you take it all seriously, people with certain rare genetics should avoid putting sugar in their coffee! Big problem!

Scientists believe they have uncovered a missing link between how eating junk food increases the risk of cancer.

A study in Singapore looked at the effect of methylglyoxal, a compound released when the body breaks down sugary and fatty foods, on a gene that helps fight off tumors.

In a first, the academics found that methylglyoxal was able to temporarily shut off the BRCA2 gene's ability to protect against cancer forming and growing.

Doctors have known for decades that eating junk food is linked to a much higher risk of cancer, even if the person is not obese, but the exact mechanism is still being understood.

It could, at least in part, explain why cancers among young, ostensibly healthy Americans are becoming so prevalent, particularly tumors in the colon.

The team also noted that the study contradicts a longstanding theory called the knudson's 'two-hit' paradigm, which said that genes like BRCA2 must be completely inactive in the body to raise cancer risk.

These genes are meant to help protect the body against cancer, though patients who inherit faulty copies from their parents have been shown to have an increased risk of certain cancers, such as breast and pancreatic.

Dr Ashok Venkitaraman, study author and director of the National University of Singapore's Centre for Cancer Research, told Medical News Today: '[M]ethylglyoxal triggers the destruction of BRCA2 protein, reducing its levels in cells.'

'This effect is temporary, but can last long enough to inhibit the tumor-preventing function of BRCA2.'

Is THIS what's causing mystery rise in colon cancers among young people? Study points to bacteria in the gut linked to processed food and lack of fiber

Scientists say they may be one step closer to understanding what's driving a mystery rise in colon cancer in young people.

He noted that repeated exposure, such as through eating processed foods and red meat, among others, would increase the amount of damage to genes like BRCA2.'

The team looked at the effect of methylglyoxal on cells from people who had inherited a faulty copy of BRCA2 and were therefore more likely to develop cancer.

They found that methylglyoxal exposure disabled tumor suppression.

'It is well documented that some individuals are at a high risk of developing breast, ovarian, pancreatic or other cancers because they inherit a faulty copy of the cancer-preventing gene — BRCA2 — from their parents,' Dr Venkitaraman said.

'Our recent findings show that cells from such individuals are particularly sensitive to the effects of methylglyoxal, which is a chemical produced when our cells break down glucose to create energy.

'We find that methylglyoxal inhibits the tumor-preventing function of BRCA2, eventually causing faults in our DNA that are early warning signs of cancer development.'

Additionally, Dr Venkitaraman noted that high levels of methylglyoxal are common in people with diabetes and prediabetes.

'Our latest findings show that methylglyoxal can temporarily inactivate such cancer-preventing genes, suggesting that repeated episodes of poor diet or uncontrolled diabetes can "add up" over time to increase cancer risk,' he said.

However, the team cautioned that since the study was carried out in cells rather than people, more research is needed on the topic.

The research adds to a long list of studies suggesting that diet could have an impact on cancer risk, particularly colorectal cancer.

Research from the Cleveland Clinic, for example, found that people under 50 who ate diets rich in red meat and sugar had lower levels of the compound citrate, which is created when the body converts food into energy and has been shown to inhibit tumor growth.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13325199/poor-diet-increases-cancer-risk-young-people-scientists.html

*****************************************

EU Proposals Could Make Swedish Jam Illegal After More Than a Century on the Market

I am not a big jam-eater but I do like Lingon Sylt and always have some around. It is full of vitamins and minerals so would be a real loss if discontinued. Lingonberries are one of the few sources of vitamin C in the Arctic, where they are grown. They keep people in the very far North healthy almost single-handedly

A new proposal from the European Commission aims to make breakfast foods healthier for Europeans by raising the minimum berry content requirements in jam. The proposed regulations, discussed on April 10 and 11, seek to increase the minimum berry content in jams from 35 to 45 grams per hundred grams of product.

The proposal, which is likely to pass, poses significant implications for the Swedish jam industry, potentially altering over a century of culinary tradition.

Björnekulla, a renowned producer with popular offerings like raspberry jam, queen jam, and strawberry jam, finds itself at a crossroads due to these changes, as all the products would fall below the new permitted limit if the law is enacted.
Björnekulla would then face two options: either change their classic recipes or stop labeling their products as jam.

Pär Berglund, CEO of Björnekulla, expressed concerns about potential impacts on taste and pricing.

"More berries and less sugar tend to make the jam more sour. It's not just about compliance; it's about consumer preference," Berglund explained to Sydsvenskan.

Peter Kullgren, Minister of Rural Affairs, clarified that the intention behind the regulation is not to ban existing products but to standardize what qualifies as jam across Europe.

"This ensures that when you buy jam, whether in Sweden or Spain, you're getting the same quality and content," Kullgren stated.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/eu-proposals-could-make-swedish-jam-illegal-after-more-than-a-century-on-the-market/ar-BB1lv37Q

*****************************************

Another pathetic PFAS study

PFAS is a class of chemicals that is totally harmless to humans. But because there is a lot of it around the do-gooders are determined to find something wrong with it. They have been at it for years -- always finding nothing like what they theorize. Attention-whore Erin Brockovich was one of the early players. The latest attempt is below. As usual, no harm from PFAS was found. But they scratched around in their data to find something to talk about

They were, fortunately, honest enough to admit that their reults were inconclusive. But the results were more than inconclusive. They totally vindicated PFAS. I simply quote from the journal article:

"In the overall analyses, no associations were found between PFOA, PFOS, or PFHxS and the clinical lipid measurements when adjusting for age, sex, and education"

Get that: NO ASSOCIATIONS


Toxic chemicals lurking in cookware, make-up and toiletries might be harming the heart, another study suggested today.

Scientists have for years warned about the dangers of perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

Dubbed 'forever chemicals' because they can linger in the environment for hundreds of years, they have been linked to everything from cancer to infertility.

But the latest evidence by Dutch and German researchers suggests that the impact of PFAS on human health could be even greater than suspected.

Tests showed 'clear' signs PFAS led to higher levels of 'harmful' blood lipids, such as cholesterol and other fatty substances.

Excess lipids or fats in the blood can increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes, studies show.

The findings do not prove the chemicals, added to cookware, carpets, textiles and other items to make them more water- and stain-repellant, cause any adverse heart issues because other factors could be at play.

Scientists said the results, however, should serve as a warning that 'there may be no safe levels below which exposure is without health hazard'.

Study author Professor Monique Breteler, director of population health sciences at German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), said: 'We see clear signs of a harmful effect of PFAS on health.

'We have found at the same PFAS concentration in the blood, the negative effects are more pronounced in younger subjects than in older ones.

'Our data shows a statistically significant correlation between PFAS in the blood and harmful blood lipids linked to cardiovascular risk.'

However, she noted: 'The higher the PFAS level, the higher the concentration of these lipids.

'Taken strictly, this is not yet proof that PFAS chemicals cause unfavorable blood lipid profiles.'

PFAS are a class of chemicals that are more properly known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

Famed for their durability and stain resistant properties, they have been used in a host of products from nonstick cookware, to clothes, packaging, cosmetics and even children's toys.

But industries are now moving away from them because of their detrimental impacts.

When PFAS enter the body either through food and water that people eat and drink or by inhaling contaminated air, they can distribute throughout the body in tissues and organs.

PFAS has previously been linked to kidney cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer, among others.

While these links are not definitive and research is ongoing, part of the concern is because PFAS are so ubiquitous in modern life and persist so long in the environment they could infiltrate water supplies, further increasing exposure.

The Government's Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) currently sets a limit of 0.1 micrograms per litre (μg/L) for PFAS in UK tap water, with the body running a specific programme testing for levels in British water supplies.

In their study, researchers at DZNE and Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands analysed blood samples from over 2,500 Dutch men and women aged between 30 and 89.

PFAS were detected in the blood of almost all test subjects.

Professor Breteler added: 'Even if we don't see an immediate health threat for the study participants we examined, the situation is still worrying.

'In the long term, the increased risk may very well have a negative impact on the heart and cardiovascular system.'

The findings, based on three of the most common types of PFAS (PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS) were published in the journal Exposure and Health.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13186847/chemicals-scientists-toxic-PFAS-blood-heart.html

****************************************

Taking two popular supplements after the menopause could raise women's risk of heart attack

I have reproduced above the original headline of the article below. It is totally misleading. The research was high-quality and if you look at the the orignating journal article what you find is that "There was no overall effect on other measures, including all-cause mortality". In other words taking the pills did not help you live longer or shorten your life. The pills increased your risk of heart attacks but reduced your risk of cancer, with the two effects almost perfectly balancing one-another out. So old ladies will not be harmed by those pills. They will live just as long with or without them.

Another important inaccuracy is that the pills are not usually taken "to stave off the effects of menopause". HRT is used for that. The pills in this case are used to prevent crumbling bones. So the pills may give some comfort without killing you. That sounds like good news to me

Taking two popular supplements after the menopause could raise women's risk of heart attack, according to major 20 year study
US researchers followed more than 30,000 women for two decades
They found that those who took certain supplements had raised heart risk

Taking supplements to stave off the effects of menopause could leave you more vulnerable to cardiovascular disease, according to a landmark study involving 36,000 women.

Researchers from The US National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute looked at the health outcomes of roughly 18,000 women who took daily calcium and vitamin D pills for seven years - all of whom were between the ages of 50 and 79.

They followed the women up 20 years later, and compared the incidence of heart disease and cancer to a group of a similar number who didn't take supplements in their later years.

The results, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, showed that those who'd taken the pills - which are said to strengthen bones - had a six percent higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, compared to the other group.

However, those in the supplement arm of the study were also seven percent less likely to die from cancer.

Notably, the authors said the increased risk of cancer was only seen in those who had been taking supplements in their younger years, before the study launched.

This is the largest randomized trial of women using these supplements, according to the study's authors.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wellness-us/article-13184253/menopause-supplements-risk-heart-attack.html

******************************************

Ultraprocessed foods are 'harmful to EVERY part of the body'

The academic journal article behind this report is

https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310

Its title is:

"Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses"

The BMJ tends to be rather opinionated

I suppose I should see this report as a brave endeavour but I am instead inclined to find it hilarious. It is a meta-analysis of meta-analyses. The big flaw with meta analyses is what is excluded. In one analysis of a topic that I had often written on, only two of about 100 of relevant papers by me were included in the analysis. Which two? The only ones that had something favourable to say about the conclusions the authors drew! Huge bias towards confirmatory research is well known. I am glad that I have survived to age 80 so that I can continue to point that out

And the present report quite properly admits that they gave more weight to some reports than others. But to which reports did they give most weight? Ones that they found most "convincing". So the selection of what to rely on had a clear and admitted subjective element. And since their conclusions are very congenial to the conventional wisdom about diet, we can be pretty sure that they were more easily convinced by reports that were congenial to the conventional wisdom about diet. They simply joined the crusade about the evils of highly processed food. Their article probably tells us more about what they believed than what is the case.

For many years I have had the pernicious habit of reading journal articles right through rather than adopting the academic vice of relying only on the abstract. And it is amazing how often the conclusions correspond much more closely to the initial hypothesis than to what was actually found as reported in the "Results" section. Reports relying on extreme quintiles for their analysis are almost all suspect of that.

So a wagon of sodium chloride could well accompany any reading of this report


Diets high in ultra-processed food may be harmful to every part of the body, a major review of research found.

Eating a lot of foods such as ready meals, sugary cereals and mass-produced bread is linked to an increased risk of 32 health problems including cancer, type 2 diabetes and mental health disorders.

Often high in fat, salt and sugar and low in vitamins and fibre, researchers found 'convincing' evidence higher consumption was associated with a 50 per cent greater risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke.

In the biggest analysis of evidence to date involving 10million people, researchers found those eating the most had between a 40 and 66 per cent increased risk of dying from heart disease.

They were also significantly more likely to be diagnosed with obesity, lung conditions and sleep problems.

Likening it to tobacco, they said 'public policies and actions are essential' to curb intake and called on public health officials to urgently develop guidelines and 'best practice' for ultra processed foods.

In a linked editorial, they suggest foods are clearly labelled when 'ultra-processed'.

UPFs refers to items which contain ingredients people would not usually add when they were cooking homemade food.

These additions might include chemicals, colourings, sweeteners and preservatives that extend shelf life.

Restrictions should be placed on advertising and sales 'prohibited in or near schools and hospitals,' they say.

Governments need to adopt national dietary guidelines recommending varieties of minimally processed foods, they say, while taking steps to make freshly prepared meals cheaper and more accessible to all.

The UK is the worst in Europe for eating ultra-processed foods, making up an estimated 57 per cent of the national diet.

They are thought to be a key driver of obesity, which costs the NHS around £6.5billion a year.

Often containing colours, emulsifiers, flavours, and other additives, they typically undergo multiple industrial processes which research has found degrades the physical structure of foods, making it rapid to absorb.

This in turn increases blood sugar, reduces satiety and damages the microbiome - the community of 'friendly' bacteria that live inside us and which we depend for good health.

Food additives like non-nutritive sweeteners, modified starches, gums and emulsifiers also seem to affect the microbiome, levels of gut inflammation and metabolic responses to food which may also increase risk of heart attack and stroke.

An umbrella review conducted by academics in Australia analysed 14 review articles published in the last three years which associated consumption with poor health outcomes.

Evidence was graded as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak or no evidence.

There was convincing evidence higher intake was linked to a 50 per cent greater risk of death from cardiovascular disease, a 12 per cent greater risk of type 2 diabetes, and a 48-53per cent greater risk of developing anxiety.

There was 'highly suggestive' evidence that eating more ultra-processed foods can increase chances of dying from any cause by a fifth, according to findings published in the BMJ.

This was also the case for when it came to obesity, type 2 diabetes, sleep problems and dying from heart disease, which all showed between a 40 to 66 per cent heightened risk.

Researchers from Deakin University, Australia, also found a 22 per cent greater risk of developing depression and a 21 per cent greater risk of death from any cause.

The evidence between UPF intake and asthma, gastrointestinal health, some cancers, and intermediate cardiometabolic risk factors remains limited, they said.

In an accompanying editorial, academics from Sao Paolo, Brazil said: 'Overall, the authors found that diets high in ultra-processed food may be harmful to most—perhaps all—body systems.'

They wrote: 'No reason exists to believe that humans can fully adapt to these products.

'The body may react to them as useless or harmful, so its systems may become impaired or damaged, depending on their vulnerability and the amount of ultra-processed food consumed.'

They added: 'It is now time for United Nations agencies, with member states, to develop and implement a framework convention on ultra-processed foods analogous to the framework on tobacco.'

Further research to determine the different mechanisms by which these foods impact health is also vital, they said, but should not delay policymakers from making urgent changes.

Scientists said there were limitations to the study, including inconsistent data collection methods in the original research.

Commenting on the findings, Gunter Kuhnle, Professor of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Reading, said: 'Many studies also show that people who consume a lot of ultra-processed foods also have an unhealthy lifestyle and therefore a higher risk of disease.

'Although many studies attempt to adjust for this, it is virtually impossible to do so completely.'

A government spokesperson said: ‘We are taking strong action to encourage healthier food choices and to tackle obesity – recognising that it is the second biggest cause of cancer and costs the NHS around £6.5billion a year – while respecting the importance of individual choice.

‘We have introduced calorie labelling on food sold in restaurants, cafes and takeaways to empower people to make informed personal choices about their lifestyle, and thanks to our salt reduction programme, the amount of salt in food has fallen by around 20 per cent.

‘Pre-packed foods are required to set out a variety of information to aid shoppers – including a list of ingredients and nutritional data.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13135781/processed-foods-cigarettes-expert-cancer-heart-lung-disease.html

**************************************************

‘The situation has become appalling’: fake scientific papers push research credibility to crisis point

Once again this destruction can be traced to the Left. If "there is no such thing as truth", why not put out false claims about global warming, vaccine safety, sexual mutilation of minors and all the rest. No credibilty without replication must now be the watchword

Tens of thousands of bogus research papers are being published in journals in an international scandal that is worsening every year, scientists have warned. Medical research is being compromised, drug development hindered and promising academic research jeopardised thanks to a global wave of sham science that is sweeping laboratories and universities.

Last year the annual number of papers retracted by research journals topped 10,000 for the first time. Most analysts believe the figure is only the tip of an iceberg of scientific fraud.

“The situation has become appalling,” said Professor Dorothy Bishop of Oxford University. “The level of publishing of fraudulent papers is creating serious problems for science. In many fields it is becoming difficult to build up a cumulative approach to a subject, because we lack a solid foundation of trustworthy findings. And it’s getting worse and worse.”

The startling rise in the publication of sham science papers has its roots in China, where young doctors and scientists seeking promotion were required to have published scientific papers. Shadow organisations – known as “paper mills” – began to supply fabricated work for publication in journals there.

The practice has since spread to India, Iran, Russia, former Soviet Union states and eastern Europe, with paper mills supplying ­fabricated studies to more and more journals as increasing numbers of young ­scientists try to boost their careers by claiming false research experience. In some cases, journal editors have been bribed to accept articles, while paper mills have managed to establish their own agents as guest editors who then allow reams of ­falsified work to be published.

“Editors are not fulfilling their roles properly, and peer reviewers are not doing their jobs. And some are being paid large sums of money,” said Professor Alison Avenell of Aberdeen University. “It is deeply worrying.”

The products of paper mills often look like regular articles but are based on templates in which names of genes or diseases are slotted in at random among fictitious tables and figures. Worryingly, these articles can then get incorporated into large databases used by those working on drug discovery.

Others are more bizarre and include research unrelated to a journal’s field, making it clear that no peer review has taken place in relation to that article. An example is a paper on Marxist ideology that appeared in the journal Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine. Others are distinctive because of the strange language they use, including references to “bosom peril” rather than breast cancer and “Parkinson’s ailment” rather Parkinson’s disease.

Watchdog groups – such as Retraction Watch – have tracked the problem and have noted retractions by journals that were forced to act on occasions when fabrications were uncovered. One study, by Nature, revealed that in 2013 there were just over 1,000 retractions. In 2022, the figure topped 4,000 before jumping to more than 10,000 last year.

Of this last total, more than 8,000 retracted papers had been published in journals owned by Hindawi, a subsidiary of the publisher Wiley, figures that have now forced the company to act. “We will be sunsetting the Hindawi brand and have begun to fully integrate the 200-plus Hindawi journals into Wiley’s ­portfolio,” a Wiley spokesperson told the Observer.

The spokesperson added that Wiley had now identified hundreds of fraudsters present in its portfolio of journals, as well as those who had held guest editorial roles. “We have removed them from our systems and will continue to take a proactive … approach in our efforts to clean up the scholarly record, strengthen our integrity processes and contribute to cross-industry solutions.”

But Wiley insisted it could not tackle the crisis on its own, a message echoed by other publishers, which say they are under siege from paper mills. Academics remain cautious, however. The problem is that in many countries, academics are paid according to the number of papers they have published.

“If you have growing numbers of researchers who are being strongly incentivised to publish just for the sake of publishing, while we have a growing number of journals making money from publishing the resulting articles, you have a perfect storm,” said Professor Marcus Munafo of Bristol University. “That is exactly what we have now.”

The harm done by publishing poor or fabricated research is demonstrated by the anti-parasite drug ivermectin. Early laboratory studies indicated it could be used to treat Covid-19 and it was hailed as a miracle drug. However, it was later found these studies showed clear evidence of fraud, and medical authorities have refused to back it as a treatment for Covid.

“The trouble was, ivermectin was used by anti-vaxxers to say: ‘We don’t need vaccination because we have this wonder drug,’” said Jack Wilkinson at Manchester University. “But many of the trials that underpinned those claims were not authentic.”

Wilkinson added that he and his colleagues were trying to develop protocols that researchers could apply to reveal the authenticity of studies that they might include in their own work. “Some great science came out during the pandemic, but there was an ocean of rubbish research too. We need ways to pinpoint poor data right from the start.”

The danger posed by the rise of the paper mill and fraudulent research papers was also stressed by Professor Malcolm MacLeod of Edinburgh University. “If, as a scientist, I want to check all the papers about a particular drug that might target cancers or stroke cases, it is very hard for me to avoid those that are fabricated. Scientific knowledge is being polluted by made-up material. We are facing a crisis.”

This point was backed by Bishop: “People are building careers on the back of this tidal wave of fraudulent science and could end up running scientific institutes and eventually be used by mainstream journals as reviewers and editors. Corruption is creeping into the system.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point

*********************************************************

Sleep divorce isn't just a trend — new scientific research backs the separate beds theory

I have been practicing this for many years, amid some disapproval. So I am glad that science has caught up with me. I am now apparently an exemplar, not a pariah. I am however a very restless sleeper so I had little choice in the matter

New research from the University of Michigan finds that it’s actually more beneficial for couples to sleep apart than together, if a disruption-free eight hours is the goal.

The news comes as more and more couples are opting out of conventional, shared bed sleeping arrangements, with celebrities like Cameron Diaz pushing to end the stigma around sleeping in other rooms.

Called a “sleep divorce,” one in three Americans are keeping the sheets to themselves for improved health — and for sake of their relationships, a recent survey by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine found.

That correlates directly to the number of U.S. citizens not getting enough sleep, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We know that poor sleep can worsen your mood, and those who are sleep deprived are more likely to argue with their partners,” said Dr. Seema Khosla, a pulmonologist and spokesperson for the AASM.

“Getting a good night’s sleep is important for both health and happiness, so it’s no surprise that some couples choose to sleep apart for their overall well-being.”

https://nypost.com/2023/12/29/lifestyle/why-science-says-separate-beds-or-sleep-divorce-is-the-right-move/

**********************************************

New study reveals very bad news for bread lovers

The Chinese authors of this study deserve credit for a very careful and thorough study. In the end, however the results are no different from less well-contolled previous studies: Weak effects. All the relationships were marginal, meaning that it would be a rare person who suffered ill effects from (say) eating bread. A bread enthusiast living to be 100 could be expected

There are few things in this world as comforting as a fresh piece of bread straight from the oven.

Spread with some lashings of butter, a dollop of jam or a scrape of vegemite, most of us have grown up with this delicious snack and many enjoy it as part of our daily diet.

While most of us can admit that consuming nothing but bread may leave us with more vitamin deficiencies that a scurvy-riddled pirate, we may not realise the impact our carboholic tendencies are having on our health.

According to a brand new study featured in Nutrients medical journal, the humble loaf of white bread has sadly been found to increase the risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as bowel cancer, regardless of genetic factors.

Alcohol was also found to be a contributing factor in a person’s chance of developing this cancer, in addition to the other negative impacts of the drug.

Researchers from the Zhejiang University School of Medicine in China analysed 139 dietary factors and their impact on the risk of developing bowel cancer.

The 118,210 participants from the UK Biobank cohort completed online questionnaires about their food intake.

Following up with their clients after an average of 12.8 years, researchers identified that both white bread and alcohol increased the risks of bowel cancer, while six other vitamins and minerals – fibre, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, manganese, and carbohydrate – decreased the risk of developing CRC.

The study found that the overall risk was influenced by both a mix of some genetic characteristics, as well as diet and lifestyle habits.

“After a mean follow-up of 12.8 years, we identified 1466 incidents of CRC among 118,210 UK participants,” the study read.

“Of these, 842 were colon cancer and 359 were rectal cancer. The mean age of the 1466 CRC patients was 55.87 years and almost 44.6% of the study population was male.

“Compared to the general population, CRC cases were more likely to be male and white, older, and less educated, and to have a higher TDI (tolerable daily intake), more family history of bowel cancer, a high BMI, less physical activity, more smoking, and a higher prevalence of diabetes at baseline.”

Misagh Karimi, M.D., a medical oncologist and colorectal cancer specialist, was not involved in the study but offered his reaction to its results.

“The findings of this study reaffirm the well-established connection between lifestyle and dietary choices and the prevention of colorectal cancer,” he told Fox News.

“These findings emphasise the critical importance of adopting a healthy lifestyle and dietary habits, which include limiting alcohol consumption and choosing a diet rich in high-fibre foods to mitigate the risk of cancer.”

While the doctor praised the study for involving a large amount of people, he pointed out that it was focused on a European population and further studies might be needed.

“This study also stands out because of its size and design,” Dr Karimi said.

“It involved a large sample population of 500,000 middle-aged people, a long follow-up period and a comprehensive assessment of dietary factors.

“As the researchers state, analysis was limited to a European population. To ensure the applicability of these findings to diverse populations, further studies are needed to validate these results on a wider population.”

Bowel cancer was the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia in 2018, according to Cancer Australia.

In 2020, bowel cancer was the second most common cause of cancer death in Australia, with 5354 (2847 males and 2507 females).

Some common symptoms include a change in bowel habits, blood in stools, abdominal pain, cramping, bloating, weight loss, lumps in the rectum, unexplained fatigue and blood in the urine.

Earlier this year, another study published in the PNAS journal from a research team in Hangzhou, China, found that hot chips and other deliciously fried carbohydrate-laden foods may have a negative impact on mental health.

The study found that these types of meals may be linked to higher rates of anxiety and depression, with the impact found to be more pronounced in “young men, and younger consumers in general”.

The research demonstrate that the frequent consumption of fried foods – especially fried potatoes – was linked with a 12 per cent higher risk of anxiety and a 7 per cent higher risk of depression, compared to people who did not eat fried foods.

However, nutrition experts explained that the results are preliminary, and it is not necessarily clear whether the fried foods were driving mental health issues, or people experiencing symptoms of depression or anxiety turned to fried foods for comfort.

Fried potatoes specifically were found to have a 2 per cent increase in risk of depression over “fried white meat”, such as fried chicken.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/diet/new-study-reveals-very-bad-news-for-bread-lovers/news-story/fe3676a56a2b016b27f075d11eec4651

****************************************************

"Healthy" eating won't save you

The study below is very desperate to come to politically correct conclusions. They looked at extreme quintiles only, which means that they ignored the majority of their data. And even after that they found only minute Hazard Ratios.

The real conclusion of the study is that "healthy" eating confers no health benefits. It is doubtlful if anyone knows what healty eating is. There have been many records of people thriving on quite extreme diets -- Traditional Eskimos, for instance

Healthy Eating Patterns and Risk of Total and Cause-Specific Mortality

Zhilei Shan, MD et al.

Question Is there an association between Dietary Guidelines for Americans–recommended dietary patterns with total and cause-specific mortality?

Findings In this cohort study of 75 230 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2020) and 44 085 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2020), greater adherence to several healthy eating patterns was associated with a lower risk of death. These associations were consistent in different racial and ethnic groups, including Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White individuals.

Meaning These findings support the recommendations of Dietary Guidelines for Americans that multiple healthy eating patterns can be adapted to individual food traditions and preferences.

Abstract
Importance The current Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend multiple healthy eating patterns. However, few studies have examined the associations of adherence to different dietary patterns with long-term risk of total and cause-specific mortality.

Objective To examine the associations of dietary scores for 4 healthy eating patterns with risk of total and cause-specific mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study included initially healthy women from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; 1984-2020) and men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS; 1986-2020).

Exposures Healthy Eating Index 2015 (HEI-2015), Alternate Mediterranean Diet (AMED) score, Healthful Plant-based Diet Index (HPDI), and Alternate Healthy Eating Index (AHEI).

Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were total and cause-specific mortality overall and stratified by race and ethnicity and other potential risk factors.

Results The final study sample included 75 230 women from the NHS (mean [SD] baseline age, 50.2 [7.2] years) and 44 085 men from the HPFS (mean [SD] baseline age, 53.3 [9.6] years). During a total of 3 559 056 person-years of follow-up, 31 263 women and 22 900 men died. When comparing the highest with the lowest quintiles, the pooled multivariable-adjusted HRs of total mortality were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) for HEI-2015, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) for AMED score, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89) for HPDI, and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.77-0.82) for AHEI (P < .001 for trend for all). All dietary scores were significantly inversely associated with death from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory disease. The AMED score and AHEI were inversely associated with mortality from neurodegenerative disease. The inverse associations between these scores and risk of mortality were consistent in different racial and ethnic groups, including Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White individuals.

Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of 2 large prospective cohorts with up to 36 years of follow-up, greater adherence to various healthy eating patterns was consistently associated with lower risk of total and cause-specific mortality. These findings support the recommendations of Dietary Guidelines for Americans that multiple healthy eating patterns can be adapted to individual food traditions and preferences.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2800411

**************************************************

Two major studies reveal devastating effect of PFAS and food additives on male and female sexual health: From sperm damage to smaller testicles, early menopause and ovary cysts

Oh dear! Another meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies fed into it and there are a number of problems with that. A big problem is selection bias -- using only those studies with conclusions that suit you. I have seen a meta-analysis that omitted around 100 "inconvenient" articles. It was in an area that I know particularly well

That mostly arises when a popular hypothesis is under examination. The analysts are very lenient at using studies that confirm the popular idea but very sniffy about including studies that contradict the same theory.

And the hypothesis here is just such a fashionable one. It just seems so obvious. How can a pervasive industrial chemical that we all consume one way or another NOT be bad? People have been trying for decades to prove that PFAS and BPA are bad for you. But the data is unco-operative. No effect or a barely significant effect is the normal finding. Pesky!

And, knowing the literature, I am sure that the confirmatory studies that they fed into this analysis were ones with marginal magnitude. Such studies rarely survive exact duplication and really should at best be regarded as disconfirming the hypothesis. In summary, PFAS and BPA can NOT be shown as bad for you. Sorry about that


In recent years concerns about the contaminants in our foods and everyday products have made headlines due to their links to cancers.

But a growing body of research suggests the microscopic molecules also have a devastating effect on fertility and may be contributing to America's 'baby bust'.

In two new reviews of scientific literature, researchers from across the globe looked at the impact of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on male and female reproductive health.

They found these substances can cause infertility, genital malformations, lower sperm count and quality, early menopause and an increased risk of breast and testicular cancers.

EDCs include PFAS but also pesticides, phenols, a group of chemicals found in toys and dental products; phthalates, a group of chemicals in food packaging; parabens, a group of chemicals used as food preservatives; and triclosan, an antimicrobial agent used in soaps and hand sanitizers.

Some primary sources of PFAS and other contaminants include plastic food containers, makeup, cleaning sprays, medications, contaminated food and pollution of water and air.

Researchers from Vietnam, India, New Zealand and the United States reviewed more than 300 sources of information, including previous experimental studies and data from national and international health monitoring databases, as well as animal studies.

In the review of the impact on women, the team looked at studies that had analyzed levels of and exposure to contaminants and tested and evaluated placenta, urine, blood, hormone levels and tissues.

Researchers found exposure to Bisphenol A, or BPA, can lead to a decline in the development and quality of eggs and an increased risk of implantation failure, when fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterine lining correctly, frequently resulting in pregnancy loss.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), a leading contributor to infertility, and a risk factor for endometrial cancer and diabetes, has also been linked to BPA exposure.

BPA is a type of plastic used to make plastic dinnerware, car parts, toys, beverage containers and CDs.

Exposure to phthalates, compounds in soaps, shampoos, lubricating oils and plastic packaging, was associated with a reduced probability of pregnancy and lower-quality eggs.

Additional impacts in women seen in the previous studies, include early menopause, an increased risk of breast cancer, endometriosis, which can lead to infertility, and metabolic syndrome, which increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

These harmful substances can also result in longer menstrual cycles and early onset of puberty, which has been linked to depression, substance abuse, sexual assault and adult breast cancer.

The EDC group of PFAS has been linked to a reduction in a mother's lactation period, the timeframe that a woman produces breast milk, and researchers found a type of pesticide led to shortened menstrual cycles, which can affect reproduction.

During pregnancy, exposure to EDCs has been linked to maternal obesity, high blood pressure and preeclampsia, a life-threatening blood pressure condition.

Studies have also shown mixed results on EDC exposure and preterm birth.

Based on their results, researchers strongly advocate for eating organic food and avoiding plastics and canned foods and beverages.

Data also supports avoiding fast food, following a vegetarian diet, changing personal care products and reducing dust.

Using stainless steel or glass bottles and containers, as well as cardboard wrapping instead of plastic packaging and avoiding plastic utensils and non-stick cookware will also help reduce exposure to contaminants.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12635823/pfas-water-reproductive-health-infertility-menopause.html

***********************************************

The PFAS panic continues

See below. As usual, only the weakest effects were oberved, consistent with no stable real effects. The study had its amusing side. Rather a lot of substances correlated with the alleged effect, including a form of acetic acid. Acetic acid is the key ingredient of vinegar. So might vinegar delay puberty onset in girls? Could be on these figures!

Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Associations with Pubertal Onset and Serum Reproductive Hormones in a Longitudinal Study of Young Girls in Greater Cincinnati and the San Francisco Bay Area

Susan M. Pinney et al.

Abstract

Background:
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), endocrine disrupting chemicals with worldwide exposure, cause changes in mammary gland development in rodents. A few human studies report delay in pubertal events with increasing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) exposure, but to our knowledge none have examined reproductive hormone levels at thelarche.

Methods:
In a cohort of Greater Cincinnati (GC) and San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) girls recruited at 6–8 years of age, clinical examinations were conducted annually or semiannually with sequential Tanner staging. PFAS concentrations were measured in the first serum sample of 704 girls. In 304 GC girls, estradiol (E2), testosterone (T), and dihydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) were measured in serum at four time points around puberty. Relationships between PFAS and age at thelarche, pubarche, and menarche were analyzed using survival and structural equation models. The association between PFAS and reproductive hormones was assessed using linear regression models.

Results:

Median PFOA serum concentrations in GC were higher than in the U.S. population. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard models [adjusted for race, body mass index (BMI)], increasing serum log-transformed PFOA was associated with a delay in pubarche [hazard ratio equals 0.83hazard ratio (HR)=0.83
; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.99] and menarche (hazard ratio equals 0.04HR=0.04; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.25).

Structural equation models indicated a triangular relationship between PFOA, BMI percentile, and the age at the pubertal milestone. Increased PFOA had a statistically significant direct effect of delay on all three milestones, as did BMI. Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDeA), and 2-(N
-methyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamido) acetic acid (Me-PFOSA-AcOH) also were associated with later thelarche, and Me-PFOSA-AcOH also with later pubarche. PFOA was inversely associated with DHEAS (E1), and T concentrations at 6 months prior to puberty.

Conclusions:
PFAS may delay pubertal onset through the intervening effects on BMI and reproductive hormones. The decreases in DHEAS and E1 associated with PFOA represent biological biomarkers of effect consistent with the delay in onset of puberty.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP11811

*******************************************************

'Gender-bending' chemical found in food and plastic bottles now linked ADHD and autism

The logic here is obscure. Are they saying that BPA causes autism? If so they are going beyond the evidence. It could equally be that autism causes difficulty with BPA. And wherever the cause may lie, no evidence of harm from it is offered

A toxin found in food, drinks and other everyday items lingers longer in the bodies of kids with autism and ADHD, a study suggests.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical compound that has been dubbed a 'gender-bending' chemical because of its ties to hormonal and sexual problems.

Now, researchers from Rowan University and Rutgers University in New Jersey have found that kids with autism and ADHD cannot expel BPA from their bodies as quickly as neurotypical kids. BPA has been linked to both conditions previously, though this is the first to find that kids with ADHD and autism have a harder time eliminating the chemical.

The researchers also believe increased BPA exposure may increase the risk of developing these conditions but admit it is not clear how that works.

But the new link is bound to reignite calls to clamp down on the amount of BPA allowed in products in America, which has some of the most lax rules in the Western world.

Earlier this year, European officials drastically reduced the maximum amount of BPA by 20,000 times after finding that millions of people are likely consuming too much of the dangerous chemical. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows much higher levels.

The US also has some of the highest autism and ADHD rates in the world, with rates of autism in particular increasing by 52 percent since 2017.

The study, published last month in the journal PLOS One, measured detoxification efficiency- how quickly the body eliminates chemicals like BPA- in 66 children with autism, 46 with ADHD, and 37 neurotypical children. The participants were three to 16 years old.

In order to determine how much BPA they purged, researchers collected urine samples from each child between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., which were then frozen. The team also measured the children's dietary and vitamin intake.

They found that children with autism are 10 percent less able to eliminate BPA from their bodies, while kids with ADHD are 17 percent less able to purge the chemical.

Dr T Peter Stein, professor at the Roman-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine and lead study author, said this compromised ability to clear BPA and other pollutants from the body is 'the first hard biochemical evidence of what the linkage is between BPA and the development of autism or ADHD.'

'We were surprised to find that ADHD shows the same defect in BPA detoxification.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12614847/Gender-bending-chemical-BPA-linked-ADHD-autism.html

**********************************************

Soft drinks make you depressed?

Fer Chrissake! Why is rubbish like this still being published? No hint of demographic controls. Poor people have worse health and drink more junk drinks. That is all that was going on in this "study". No causal link was shown

In a study recently published in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers found that the risk of depression was directly and proportionally correlated with the amount and frequency of consuming sugar- sweetened carbonated beverages (SSCBs). This association was independent of age, sex, and the presence or absence of preexisting diabetes in the study participants.

SSCBs are drinks with high concentrations of added sugar. High intake of SSCBs is a key factor in the global obesity epidemic and has been linked to an increased risk for cardiometabolic disease.

The negative impacts of SSCBs have been attributed to the large quantities of high-fructose corn syrup and added sugar, which increase serum triglyceride levels and dietary glycemic load, leading to insulin resistance (IR). Epidemiological studies have potentially linked metabolic disorders, IR, and depression.

Other research has confirmed that individuals with a predisposition for obesity and diabetes have a higher prevalence of depression than those with normal glucose metabolism.

Small-scale cross-sectional studies have investigated the association between SSCBs and depression. However, these studies have focused on the combined effects of SSCBs, glycemic status, and IR, with mixed results.

For the present study, a team of researchers led by Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in Korea used a longitudinal study approach to investigate the association between SSCB consumption and the risk of developing depressive symptoms. Their analyses were designed to eliminate the confounding impacts of glycemic status and IR, thereby elucidating the independent effects of SSBCs.

The researchers analyzed the risk of depression according to the consumption of SSCB in 87,115 working-aged Koreans who responded to Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale.

Clinical and biochemical data was collected from hospital records supplemented with a health-related behavior questionnaire. The questionnaire recorded physical activity levels, health behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption), and educational status.

Fasting blood glucose was recorded at each follow-up session to evaluate subjects’ glycemic status, which was classified into normal glycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes mellitus (DM). This classification was based on the homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) model.

A semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used to evaluate and classify subjects’ SSCB consumption, both in terms of quantity (expressed in serving sizes where one serving = 200 mL) and frequency (per week).

The participants were categorized into 5 groups by SSCB consumption based on one serving dose. The categories were: never/almost never, < 1 serving/week, 1 ≤ serving/week < 3, 3 ≤ serving/week < 5, and 5 ≤ serving/week.

The CES-D questionnaire was used to evaluate depressive symptoms per week. The questionnaire comprised 20 questions about negative/depressive feelings, with answers ranging from 0 (seldom/never) to 3 (5-7 days a week). If the total score from the CES-D questionaries was 16 or higher, the individual was classified as having depressive symptoms.

Results revealed that 28.9% (25,246) of individuals had SSCB intakes higher than one serving per week. Of these, individuals consuming more than five servings per week depicted more elevated fasting glucose, HOMA-IR, BMI, alcohol consumption, smoking, total calorie intake, education, and hypertension prevalence than other groups.

Over almost six years of follow-up, 14.9% of participants developed depressive symptoms, predominantly from high SSCB intake groups. Statistical analyses adjusted from covariates revealed a repeating trend of proportionally increasing risk of DM with increasing SSCB consumption.

These results were mirrored across sex, BMI, and glycemic status, implying that SSCBs play an independent role in triggering depression, and are not just cofactors in the development of depression along with IR and obesity as suggested by prior studies.

The authors noted that, considering the young age of the study participants (39.5 ± 6.8 years), it is postulated that the adverse effect of SSCB consumption on mental health can begin at an early age. Thus, the results may be evidence to recommend abstaining from SSCB at a young age, they conclude.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/study-links-consumption-of-sugar-sweetened-carbonated-beverages-to-risk-of-depression-ed4b009c

***********************************************

'Gender-bending' chemical found in food and plastic bottles now linked ADHD and autism

The logic here is obscure. Are they saying that BPA causes autism? If so they are going beyond the evidence. It could equally be that autism causes difficulty with BPA. And wherever the cause may lie, no evidence of harm from it is offered

A toxin found in food, drinks and other everyday items lingers longer in the bodies of kids with autism and ADHD, a study suggests.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical compound that has been dubbed a 'gender-bending' chemical because of its ties to hormonal and sexual problems.

Now, researchers from Rowan University and Rutgers University in New Jersey have found that kids with autism and ADHD cannot expel BPA from their bodies as quickly as neurotypical kids. BPA has been linked to both conditions previously, though this is the first to find that kids with ADHD and autism have a harder time eliminating the chemical.

The researchers also believe increased BPA exposure may increase the risk of developing these conditions but admit it is not clear how that works.

But the new link is bound to reignite calls to clamp down on the amount of BPA allowed in products in America, which has some of the most lax rules in the Western world.

Earlier this year, European officials drastically reduced the maximum amount of BPA by 20,000 times after finding that millions of people are likely consuming too much of the dangerous chemical. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows much higher levels.

The US also has some of the highest autism and ADHD rates in the world, with rates of autism in particular increasing by 52 percent since 2017.

The study, published last month in the journal PLOS One, measured detoxification efficiency- how quickly the body eliminates chemicals like BPA- in 66 children with autism, 46 with ADHD, and 37 neurotypical children. The participants were three to 16 years old.

In order to determine how much BPA they purged, researchers collected urine samples from each child between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., which were then frozen. The team also measured the children's dietary and vitamin intake.

They found that children with autism are 10 percent less able to eliminate BPA from their bodies, while kids with ADHD are 17 percent less able to purge the chemical.

Dr T Peter Stein, professor at the Roman-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine and lead study author, said this compromised ability to clear BPA and other pollutants from the body is 'the first hard biochemical evidence of what the linkage is between BPA and the development of autism or ADHD.'

'We were surprised to find that ADHD shows the same defect in BPA detoxification.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12614847/Gender-bending-chemical-BPA-linked-ADHD-autism.html

**********************************************

Will exercise help you live longer?

The article below claims to have found that it will but the hazard ratios they report are so low that if there is an effect it is so tiny as not to be worth the bother. I have reached 80 without ever doing any significant exercise so the findings are no surprise to me. Apologies to the gym bunnies

Prospective Associations of Different Combinations of Aerobic and Muscle-Strengthening Activity With All-Cause, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality

Rubén López-Bueno et al

Question What is the optimal combination of moderate aerobic physical activity (MPA), vigorous aerobic physical activity (VPA), and muscle-strengthening activity (MSA) to reduce the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality?

Findings In this cohort study of 500 705 participants, balanced amounts of MPA, VPA, and MSA combined were associated with a lower risk of mortality. These risk reductions may be greater with aerobic physical activity at higher vigorous and moderate intensities than current recommendations for all-cause and cancer mortality, respectively.

Meaning Balanced levels of MPA, VPA, and MSA combined may be associated with optimal reductions of mortality risk.

Abstract
Importance Studies examining the associations of different combinations of intensity-specific aerobic and muscle strengthening activity (MSA) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality are scarce; the few available estimates are disparate.

Objective To examine the prospective associations of different combinations of moderate aerobic physical activity (MPA), vigorous aerobic physical activity (VPA), and MSA with all-cause, cardiovascular (CVD), and cancer mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants This nationwide prospective cohort study used data from the US National Health Interview Survey. A total of 500 705 eligible US adults were included in the study and followed up during a median of 10.0 years (5.6 million person-years) from 1997 to 2018. Data were analyzed from September 1 to September 30, 2022.

Exposures Self-reported cumulative bouts (75 weekly minutes) of MPA and VPA with recommended MSA guidelines (yes or no) to obtain 48 mutually exclusive exposure categories.

Main Outcomes and Measures All-cause, CVD, and cancer mortality. Participants were linked to the National Death Index through December 31, 2019.

Results Overall, 500 705 participants (mean [SD] age, 46.4 [17.3] years; 210 803 [58%] female; 277 504 [77%] White) were included in the study. Compared with the reference group (doing no MPA or VPA and less than recommended MSA), the category associated with the lowest hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was more than 0 to 75 minutes of MPA combined with more than 150 minutes of VPA and 2 or more MSA sessions per week (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.42-0.59). The optimal combinations for CVD and cancer mortality risk reduction were more than 150 to 225 minutes of MPA, more than 0 to 75 minutes of VPA, and 2 or more MSA sessions per week (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.15-0.57), and more than 300 minutes of MPA, more than 0 to 75 minutes of VPA, and 2 or more MSA sessions per week (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.82), respectively. Adjusted mortality rates represented an approximately 50% lower mortality rate for all-cause and cancer mortality and an approximately 3-fold lower mortality rate for CVD mortality.

Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study demonstrated that balanced levels of MPA, VPA, and MSA combined may be associated with optimal reductions of mortality risk. Higher-than-recommended levels of MPA and VPA may further lower the risk of cancer and all-cause mortality, respectively.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807854

***************************************************

Diet Coke fans warned as more evidence shows it could increase the risk of ‘silent killer’

This "new study" is garbage. No attempt at allowing for demographic confounds was made. It's probably just another proof that poor people have worse health. I append the original journal article below

The new study, published in the Diabetes Journal, found people who consumed artificial sweeteners were more at risk to type 2 diabetes compared with those who didn't.

“The findings strengthen evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives,” the researchers wrote.

“[It also] provides important insights in the context of ongoing worldwide re-evaluation of artificial sweeteners by health authorities.”

The French scientists analysed the diets and health of 105,588 people for nine years.

By the end of the study, 972 participants had developed type 2 diabetes.

The experts found those who consumed between 16 and 18mg of artificial sweeteners per day had a 69 per cent higher chance of developing the condition than those who ate less.

While those who ate and drank aspartame-containing products specifically had a 63 per cent higher chance of developing the disease.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/health/diet-coke-fans-warned-as-more-evidence-shows-it-could-increase-the-risk-of-silent-killer/news-story/cb4abd65327fbe78111dc81bed243bbb

Artificial Sweeteners and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in the Prospective NutriNet-Santé Cohort

Charlotte Debras et al.

OBJECTIVE
To study the relationships between artificial sweeteners, accounting for all dietary sources(total and by type of artificial sweetener) and risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), in a large-scale prospective cohort.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The analyses included 105,588 participants from the web-based NutriNet-Santé study (France, 2009–2022; mean age 42.5 ± 14.6 years, 79.2% women). Repeated 24-h dietary records, including brands and commercial names of industrial products, merged with qualitative and quantitative food additive composition data, enabled artificial sweetener intakes to be accurately assessed from all dietary sources. Associations between artificial sweeteners (total, aspartame, acesulfame potassium [K], and sucralose) and T2D were investigated using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for potential confounders, including weight variation during follow-up.

RESULTS
During a median follow-up of 9.1 years (946,650 person-years, 972 incident T2D), compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners (i.e., above the sex-specific medians of 16.4 mg/day in men and 18.5 mg/day in women) had higher risks of developing T2D (hazard ratio [HR] 1.69; 95% CI 1.45–1.97; P-trend <0.001). Positive associations were also observed for individual artificial sweeteners: aspartame (HR 1.63 [95% CI 1.38–1.93], P-trend <0.001), acesulfame-K (HR 1.70 [1.42–2.04], P-trend <0.001), and sucralose (HR 1.34 [1.07–1.69], P-trend = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS
Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated; however, many sensitivity analyses were computed to limit this and other potential biases. These findings of positive associations between artificial sweetener intakes and increased T2D risk strengthen the evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives. This study provides important insights in the context of on-going reevaluation of artificial sweeteners by health authorities worldwide.

https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/doi/10.2337/dc23-0206/153434/Artificial-Sweeteners-and-Risk-of-Type-2-Diabetes

***************************************************

A Chinese herbal preparation prevents death from Sepsis

Where I grew up in tropical Australia, if you were sick, you went to the doctor but if you were really sick you went to the Chinese herbalist. I have myself benefited from that in my youth. I had persistent test-confirmed glandular fever (mononucleosis) but a Chinese herbal preparation sent it into rapid remission. So I am probably less surprised by the findings below than most. I note that the study was a methodologically strong one, not another useless observational one

Question Is Xuebijing injection (XBJ) effective in reducing mortality in patients with sepsis?

Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 1817 patients with sepsis, the 28-day mortality rate was 18.8% in the XBJ group vs 26.1% in the placebo group, a significant difference.

Meaning Among patients with sepsis, treatment with XBJ, compared with the placebo group, resulted in lower 28-day mortality.

Abstract
Importance Previous research has suggested that Xuebijing injection (XBJ), an herbal-based intravenous preparation, may reduce mortality among patients with sepsis.

Objective To determine the effect of XBJ vs placebo on 28-day mortality among patients with sepsis.

Design, Setting, and Participants The Efficacy of Xuebijing Injection in Patients With Sepsis (EXIT-SEP) trial was a multicenter, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in intensive care units at 45 sites and included 1817 randomized patients with sepsis (sepsis 3.0) present for less than 48 hours. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 2 to 13 were enrolled. The study was conducted from October 2017 to June 2019. The final date of follow-up was July 26, 2019. Data analysis was performed from January 2020 to August 2022.

Interventions The patients were randomized to receive either intravenous infusion of XBJ (100 mL, n = 911) or volume-matched saline placebo (n = 906) every 12 hours for 5 days.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.

Results Among the 1817 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [13.5] years; 1199 [66.0%] men), 1760 (96.9%) completed the trial. In these patients, the 28-day mortality rate was significantly different between the placebo group and the XBJ group (230 of 882 patients [26.1%] vs 165 of 878 patients [18.8%], respectively; P < .001). The absolute risk difference was 7.3 (95% CI, 3.4-11.2) percentage points. The incidence of adverse events was 222 of 878 patients (25.3%) in the placebo group and 200 of 872 patients (22.9%) in the XBJ group.

Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial among patients with sepsis, the administration of XBJ reduced 28-day mortality compared with placebo.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2804120

*******************************************

Aspartame to be declared 'possible carcinogen' by WHO

This is just the latest in a long line of do-gooder attempts to "get" artificial sweeteners. Sugar is bad for you too, of course, so you can't win. And fruit sugar (fructose) is the worst of all, allegedly

I once took on the Aspartame evangelists at some length, linking to many studies that debunked the scare. You can find my posts here. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Sources told Reuters that the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." But historically, the agency's decisions have been controversial and confusing.

Reuters reported that an arm of the World Health Organization will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." (Image credit: Steve Russell / Contributor via Getty Images)
An agency within the World Health Organization (WHO) will soon name the widely used artificial sweetener aspartame a "possible carcinogen," based on a review of 1,300 studies, Reuters reported, citing information from two sources who are knowledgeable about the process.

But don't panic: The arm of the WHO that did the review, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), uses a classification system for possible and known carcinogens that is notoriously confusing and often misleading, Reuters noted. Science writer Ed Yong summed it up well in a 2015 Atlantic article, in which he wrote, "Perhaps we need a separate classification scheme for scientific organizations that are 'confusogenic to humans.'"

Here's what you need to know.

The IARC doesn't analyze how much of a product a person can safely consume before it poses a health risk, according to Reuters. When it comes to aspartame, the answer is a lot: Past assessments suggest that a typical, 150-pound (68 kilograms) person could safely consume the equivalent of the aspartame contained in more than 13 cans of Diet Coke a day.

The arm of the WHO that handles such assessments — the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization's Expert Committee on Food Additives, or JECFA — has ruled on aspartame many times before. In its most recent review, the agency again held that the sweetener is safe to consume and set the acceptable daily intake at zero to 40 milligrams per 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of body weight. That translates to about 2,730 milligrams per day for a 150-pound person.

Again, this recommendation reflects how much aspartame can be consumed before it poses any health risk — not specifically cancer. Various agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have not found any definitive link between aspartame consumption and an increased risk of cancer, the American Cancer Society states.

Interestingly, JECFA is also reviewing the available data on aspartame and will announce its findings July 14, the same day the IARC is expected to rule on the artificial sweetener.

The IARC ranks substances as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic or not classifiable. These classifications serve as a rough way to rank the strength of the evidence linking a substance to cancer in humans; this evidence includes studies of humans, human cells and tissues and lab animals, as well as studies of the substances' similarity to known or probable carcinogens. The rankings aren't related to how much a substance might increase cancer risk, but how conclusively the IARC can say it causes cancer at all.

Tobacco, asbestos and processed meat are all classified as carcinogenic, meaning the IARC determined there's conclusive evidence that they can cause cancer in humans, even though the degree of risk differs among these substances.

The IARC considers glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, a "probable" carcinogen, meaning there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence that it can cause cancer in humans and either sufficient evidence showing it causes cancer in animals or strong evidence that it has similar characteristics to known or probable human carcinogens. (Regulatory agencies have contested the IARC's ruling on glyphosate, Reuters noted.)

For "possible" carcinogens, there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence they can cause cancer in humans but sufficient evidence that they cause cancer in animals or strong evidence that they have carcinogen-like characteristics. In some cases, something can rank as a possible carcinogen if there's "strong" evidence from cell and chemical studies but inadequate evidence in animals and humans.

Sources told Reuters that aspartame will fall into this category, alongside the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with cellphones. (Note that non-IARC authorities have said there's no or insufficient evidence linking cancer to cellphone use.)

Listing aspartame as a possible carcinogen is intended to motivate more research, sources close to the IARC told Reuters. Read more about the IARC's upcoming decision in Reuters.

https://www.livescience.com/health/food-diet/aspartame-to-be-declared-possible-carcinogen-by-who-dont-panic

****************************************************