Teenagers smoking weed daily far less likely to graduate high school

As the Global Commission on Drug Policy denounces the so-called “war against drugs” as a failure and suggests new approaches prioritising human rights and health, new studies on increased weed use by teenagers show significantly damaging outcomes. Hence the debate about the consequences of adolescent cannabis use is continuing.

The latest research on the subject was published in the British journal The Lancet Psychiatry this month. It was seen that teenagers who smoked weed daily were 60% less likely to graduate high school and far more likely to attempt suicide.

Researchers studied adolescents using marijuana, gathering data on frequency of marijuana use from over 3700 students from Australia and New Zealand and followed their developmental outcomes upto 30 years of age. They found a significant association between frequency of cannabis use during adolescence and most young adult outcomes investigated, even after controlling for potential confounding factors including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, use of other drugs, and mental illness. Teens who smoked weed were seen to have far more negative outcomes then their counterparts who didn't smoke weed, thus supporting the case against marijuana use by adolescents no matter how infrequent.

Here are some excerpts from The Washington Post article  Study: Teens who smoke weed daily are 60% less likely to complete high school than those who never use  by Christopher Ingraham on the research.

In a conference call, study co-author Edmund Sillins said that the relationship between cannabis use and negative outcomes is significant even at low levels of use (e.g., less than monthly), and that "the results suggest that there may not be a threshold where use can be deemed safe" for teens.
According to the study, there are significant relationships between cannabis use and high school graduation, college graduation, suicide attempts, cannabis dependency (not wholly surprising), and other illicit drug use.

The author points aptly out that;
A person who uses cannabis less than monthly would have slightly lower odds of graduating high school or getting a college degree, compared to a person who doesn't use at all. Increased use further decreases this likelihood. On the other hand, a person who uses cannabis monthly would have roughly 4 times the likelihood of becoming dependent on cannabis as a person who doesn't use at all.

(Continue reading)


P.S:
Study: Teens who smoke weed daily are 60% less likely to complete high school than those who never use   
 (Washington Post - Sept 9, 2014)
Young adult sequelae of adolescent cannabis use: an integrative analysis  (September 2014)

Teenage cannabis use and schizophrenia

With the growing wave of legalizing marijuana use across the US, it is important to fully understand the possible consequences of expected increase in it's unrestricted use, specially amongst the youth. A group of scientist at the Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Memorial Hospital have conducted a study which has found a link between teenage Marijuana (Cannabis) use and schizophrenia. This study was published by Schizophrenia Bulletin

The brains of teenagers smoking cannabis daily for about three years showed significant structural changes affecting memory. Some of those changes appear very similar to those seen in the brains of schizophrenics.These youngsters also performed badly when tested on memory tasks, indicating poor memory functioning.


As reported by Marla Paul for Northwestern University on Futurity;

This is the first study to target key brain regions in the deep sub-cortical gray matter of chronic marijuana users with structural MRI and to correlate abnormalities in these regions with an impaired working memory.
Working memory is the ability to remember and process information in the moment and—if needed—transfer it to long-term memory. Previous studies have evaluated the effects of marijuana on the cortex, and few have directly compared chronic marijuana use in otherwise healthy individuals and individuals with schizophrenia.

According to the lead study author Mathew Smith an assistant research professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine; 

“The study links the chronic use of marijuana to these concerning brain abnormalities that appear to last for at least a few years after people stop using it. With the movement to decriminalize marijuana, we need more research to understand its effect on the brain.”

 But in contrast to these findings another study conducted at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, has shown a genetic link between cannabis use and schizophrenia. Kate Kelland  reports for Reuters that;

The results chime with previous studies linking schizophrenia and cannabis, but suggest the association may be due to common genes and might not be a causal relationship where cannabis use leads to increased schizophrenia risk. 

 "We know that cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia. Our study certainly does not rule this out, but it suggests that there is likely to be an association in the other direction as well – that a pre-disposition to schizophrenia also increases your likelihood of cannabis use," said Robert Power, who led the study at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London.

But what become evident from both these recent studies is the clear connection between adolescent use of cannabis and the development of schizophrenia. Therefore it is important for parents to discourage their children from getting swept up in this growing wave of legal recreational use of marijuana. We need to educate ourselves and our children on the very real dangers and consequences of indiscriminate use of marijuana.
 



References:

Teen marijuana use linked with schizophrenia (Futurity-January 3, 2014)

Study finds genetic links between schizophrenia and cannabis use (Reuters-June 24, 2014)

Cannabis-Related Working Memory Deficits and Associated Subcortical Morphological Differences in Healthy Individuals and Schizophrenia Subjects  (Schizophrenia Bulletin-December 15, 2013)

Genetic predisposition to schizophrenia associated with increased use of cannabis (Molecular Psychiatry-June 24, 2014)

Here is why writing by hand should not be forgotten

Post by Health, Wellness and Mindfulness.

The autism vs vaccines controversy

In 1998 an article published in the British Journal The Lancet claimed it found a causal connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Although that article was widely disputed and later retracted, it has left behind a significant following, leading many parents to refuse MMR vaccination for their children. The anti-vaccine groups also stressed on the use of mercury-based preservative Thimerosal in vaccines as a suspected culprit. As a result the government has gradually removed it or reduced it to trace amounts in all vaccines in 2001, in spite of no scientific proof of its possible link to incidence of autism. As explained on the CDC website;

"Over the years, some people have had concerns that autism might be linked to the vaccines children receive. One vaccine ingredient that has been studied specifically is thimerosal, previously used as a preservative in many recommended childhood vaccines. However, in 2001 thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines except for one type of influenza vaccine, and thimerosal-free alternatives are available for influenza vaccine. Evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association between thimerosal and autism. Furthermore, a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism." CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism rates in children.
The IOM also recently conducted a thorough review of the current medical and scientific evidence on vaccines and certain health events that may be observed after vaccination. It released a report in August 2011 on 8 vaccines given to children and adults that found the vaccines to be generally safe and serious adverse events following these vaccinations to be rare."

The 2012 National Immunization Survey  found that about 90% of children aged 19 to 35 months completed recommended vaccinations and less than 1% received no vaccines at all. But it also highlighted the fact that rates are varied by states and regions therefore leaving some areas vulnerable to outbreaks of measles and other vaccine preventable diseases. The resurgence of measles and whooping cough (Pertussis) in recent years after decades of almost complete extinction could possibly be the distressing consequence of an increasing number of parents refusing the MMR vaccine on grounds of its possible association to autism. 

As explained by Puneet Kollipara in The Washington Post article How the anti-vaccine movement is endangering lives (May 5, 2014).

A measles outbreak that struck a Texas megachurch community late last summer sickened 21 people. And just recently, at least 16 people got sick during a measles outbreak in Ohio. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported 13 measles outbreaks so far in 2014 -- the most since 1996.

According to an article in JAMA News;

Overall, among 140 US residents who acquired measles, 117 (84%) were unvaccinated, and 11 (8%) had unknown vaccination status. Of those who were unvaccinated, 92 (79%) had philosophical objections to vaccination, and 15 cases (13%) occurred among infants younger than 12 months who were not eligible for vaccination.


Besides leading to prevention and saving lives, these vaccines are also economically beneficial, as pointed out by Kuneet Kollipara;

A new study from CDC researchers led by Anne Schuchat analyzed what happened to disease rates as childhood vaccination rates increased starting in the early 1990s. The researchers used these findings to model the resulting effect over the kids' lifetimes. In the analysis, the researchers factored in most routine vaccines recommended for children below age 6 (among them the MMR and whooping cough vaccines). Their findings: Routine childhood vaccinations given between 1994 and 2013 will save 732,000 lives and prevent 322 million cases of illness and 21 million hospitalizations over the course of the children's lifetimes. 

In 2009 alone, the researchers determined, each $1 spent on vaccines and their administration yielded $10 in benefits to society. And the vaccinations from 1994-2013, the researchers found, will save society a net $1.38 trillion, both directly (by reducing health expenses) and indirectly (via the economic activity that is saved from avoided illnesses). That's almost 10 percent of the U.S. economy's gross domestic product.

In the end vaccines may not be without fault but there is no clear cut evidence to their causal link to autism. And they are definitely effective and save lives if given to a significant percentage of the population.



References:
How the anti-vaccine movement is endangering lives (The Washington Post-May 5, 2014).

Vaccine Safety: Concern about Autism (CDC)

Vaccination Rates for US Children Remain Generally High, But Measles Outbreaks Underscore Shortfalls in Some Regions(JAMA News Spetember 2013) 

The serious and difficult outcomes of saving extremely premature babies.

According to the CDC 1 in every 8 babies born in the US is preterm (birth of an infant prior to 37 weeks of pregnancy). 35% of all infant deaths in 2009 were because of preterm related causes of death. The US health care system spent about $26 billion on preterm births in 2005.
But the statistic that should be raising concern is that 'preterm birth is also a leading cause of long-term neurological disabilities in children.'

With modern medicine and all our advances in medical sciences, we have made it possible to save babies born at 22-23 weeks of gestation.  But preterm births are associated with some serious short term and long term complications. Not only do these prevent the child from living a normal healthy life they can take a severe toll on the family and the community. 

In the article 'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms' reporter Tracy McVeigh covers the story of Alexia Pearce mother of a three years old son who was born prematurely at 23 weeks and now lives a difficult life with cerebral palsy and chronic lung disease. Alexia loves her son deeply yet she asks if "we are always right to save premature babies". Here are excerpt of the story;

Alexia Pearce looks at her three-year-old son Nathan every day and feels the same rush of guilt. Guilt that she chose to let him live when he was born too early, just 23 weeks into her pregnancy. "If I'd known then what I know now about what extremely premature babies have to go though, I would not have chosen that for my little boy.

"I would have wanted them to give him to me and for him to pass away in my arms. I find the whole issue of what he has been put through, what he continues to be put through, very difficult. I feel very guilty that I took that decision, postponing the inevitable."

"He can't walk or talk. He's oxygen dependent, although hopefully that might change. He has chronic lung disease, cerebral palsy and global developmental delay. He has diabetes inspidus and his thermostat is a bit wonky so he gets hot and cold."
It is, says Pearce, a great taboo to wonder if she should have let her son go when he was born so fragile and weak, but one that she feels strongly that she should break. "More people need to be aware of what these little chaps go through," she said.
"I have no regrets that what has happened has happened. Now this most gorgeous little thing is here and I absolutely adore him. I am so glad I have got to know him. But that doesn't stop me knowing that all I have done is postpone the inevitable. He's not expected to live a very long life. I don't think he'll make it to his teens. He's so frail.

While the latest figures show that 39% of babies born at 24 weeks are now surviving with help from medical advances, the chances of those children suffering no serious ill-effects in later life are low – around six in 100.Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.
Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.
"You hear about 'miracle babies' or 'little fighters' and people have such a romantic view about premature babies – 'Oh, there's an incubator for a little while and then they go home and everything is rosy'. It's not."

"Obviously every life deserves a chance, every life. But you wouldn't put an adult through that. You wouldn't put an animal through it. If an adult required that level of medical intervention then someone would be taking the family aside and suggesting gently that the machines are switched off."
Pearce had no warning of her own premature birth, brought about by a sudden complication in the pregnancy, a placental abruption, and had none of the risk factors – she doesn't drink or smoke, isn't obese and her first son, Dominick, now five, was born at full term.

"Birth and death are the most natural processes a body can go through and Nathan's birth and treatment was so far removed from that. Strange birth, choices to be made, difficult bonding. I had to wait six weeks to hold my son and when I did he was still attached to a ventilator and I had many nurses around me. It was all so clinical."
An advocate or counsellor figure would, she feels, help the mother think more clearly about the situation.

But for Alexia Pearce, it's important for families to fully understand too that the difficult times do not end when the baby leaves the incubator. "When you go into labour that early, nobody is a winner," she said. "I'm not saying stop people from having their premature baby resuscitated. I'm not saying babies shouldn't be saved. I am saying that the myth that there is a happy ever after needs to be explored and it's important that we talk about it.

(Read Complete Article)

References:
'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms' (The Guardian/The Observer)
CDC Reproductive Health- Preterm Births 
Preterm Births- Complications (Mayo Clinic) 

Neurodevelopmental, Health, and Family Outcomes for Infants Born Preterm

(NCBI- National Center for Biotechnology Information)

A surge in antimicrobial resistance reported by WHO

The constant increase in the incidence of antimicrobial resistant infections is now becoming a major concern for the WHO. According to their recent report on 'Antimicrobial Resistance' this is a very real threat to global public health.
In recent decades the world has been aware of the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria and has been trying to promote responsible use of antibiotic treatment in an effort to counteract this rise. But it is the first time that the WHO has warned of a much more serious problem since antimicrobial resistance covers a much broader spectrum of microbes (eg. parasites, fungi, and viruses).

If such a resistance is seen the world over, effective treatment of even common infection may be difficult or impossible. According to the report;

Infections caused by resistant microorganisms often fail to respond to the standard treatment, resulting in prolonged illness, higher health care expenditures, and a greater risk of death.
As an example, the death rate for patients with serious infections caused by common bacteria treated in hospitals can be about twice that of patients with infections caused by the same non-resistant bacteria. For example, people with MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, another common source of severe infections in the community and in hospitals) are estimated to be 64% more likely to die than people with a non-resistant form of the infection.


Although this kind of resistance to antimicrobial is being seen more around the world. Unfortunately not only do many of these cases go unreported, but often the infections last longer, leaving the patients infectious for a much longer time period , thus increasing the risk of further spreading the infection to others.

The report also highlights another consequence of AMR (Antimicrobial resistance), when infections fail to respond to first line of drugs, doctors have to resort to more aggressive therapies which are far more expensive, patients need medical supervision for a longer duration and hospital stays are also prolonged. All together these factors significantly increase the health care costs.

According to the report, the economic outcome can be damaging;

The growth of global trade and travel allows resistant microorganisms to be spread rapidly to distant countries and continents through humans and food. Estimates show that AMR may give rise to losses in Gross Domestic Product of more than 1% and that the indirect costs affecting society may be more than 3 times the direct health care expenditures. It affects developing economies proportionally more than developed ones. 

Some of the noteworthy resistances being seen globally are:

Resistance in Bacteria

WHO’s 2014 report on global surveillance of antimicrobial resistance reveals that antibiotic resistance is no longer a prediction for the future; it is happening right now, across the world, and is putting at risk the ability to treat common infections in the community and hospitals. Without urgent, coordinated action, the world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era, in which common infections and minor injuries, which have been treatable for decades, can once again kill.

Resistance in Tuberculosis

Globally, 6% of new TB cases and 20% of previously treated TB cases are estimated to have MDR-TB, with substantial differences in the frequency of MDR-TB among countries. Extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB, defined as MDR-TB plus resistance to any fluoroquinolone and any second-line injectable drug) has been identified in 92 countries, in all regions of the world.

Resistance in Malaria

The emergence of P. falciparum resistance to artemisinin in the Greater Mekong subregion is an urgent public health concern that is threatening the ongoing global effort to reduce the burden of malaria. Routine monitoring of therapeutic efficacy is essential to guide and adjust treatment policies. It can also help to detect early changes in P. falciparum sensitivity to antimalarial drugs.

Resistance in HIV

At the end of 2011, more than 8 million people were receiving antiretroviral therapy in low- and middle-income countries to treat HIV. Although it can be minimized through good programme practices, some amount of resistance to the medications used to treat HIV is expected to emerge. 

There is no clear evidence of increasing levels of resistance to other classes of HIV drugs. Of 72 surveys of transmitted HIV drug resistance conducted between 2004 and 2010, 20 (28%) were classified as having moderate (between 5% and 15%) prevalence of resistance.

Resistance in Influenza

Several countries have developed national guidance on their use and have stockpiled the drugs for pandemic preparedness. The constantly evolving nature of influenza means that resistance to antiviral drugs is continuously emerging.
By 2012, virtually all influenza A viruses circulating in humans were resistant to drugs frequently used for the prevention of influenza (amantadine and rimantadine). However, the frequency of resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir remains low (1-2%). Antiviral susceptibility is constantly monitored through the WHO Global Surveillance and Response System.


How can this surge be slowed down?

According to the WHO report, this rise in AMR is the result of a multiple factors. 
Here are some suggestions it provides in the report:

People

• using antibiotics only when they are prescribed by a certified health professional;
• completing the full treatment course, even if they feel better;
• never sharing antibiotics with others or using leftover prescriptions.

Health Care Workers And Pharmacists

• enhancing infection prevention and control;
• prescribing and dispensing antibiotics only when they are truly needed;
• prescribing and dispensing the right antibiotic(s) to treat the illness.

Policymakers 

• strengthening resistance tracking and laboratory capacity;
• strengthening infection control and prevention;
• regulating and promoting appropriate use of medicines;
• promoting cooperation and information sharing among all stakeholders.

Policymakers, Scientists and Industry

• fostering innovation and research and development of new vaccines, diagnostics, infection treatment options and other tools. 

In the end what is the WHO doing to counteract AMR? 
 
In 2014, WHO published its first global report on surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, with data provided by 114 countries.
WHO is guiding the response to AMR by:

• bringing all stakeholders together to agree on and work towards a coordinated response;
• strengthening national stewardship and plans to tackle AMR;
• generating policy guidance and providing technical support for Member States;
• actively encouraging innovation, research and development.

 

















References:
WHO Report on Antimicrobial Resistance (Updated April 2014)
Detect and Protect Against Antibiotic Resistance Budget Initiative (CDC)

WHO report: Antibiotic resistance happening right now all over the world (The Independent-April 30, 2014)

The damage caused by bullying persists much longer then the bullying itself

According to a longitudinal British study just published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the detrimental effects of bullying can lasts for decades and influence a person's socioeconomic status, social relationships, often leading to a poorer quality of life as far out as in their 50s.
As reported by the researchers of the study;

The impact of bullying victimization was not limited to indicators of adult health. Children who  were frequently bullied had lower educational levels at midlife, and men in the labor market were  more likely to be unemployed and to earn less than their peers. Social relationships in adulthood were affected too; children who were bullied were at increased risk of living without a spouse or partner at age 50, were less likely to have met up with friends in the recent past, and were less  likely to have access to social support if they were sick. Bullying victimization also affected adult well-being; being bullied was associated with lower perceived quality of  life at age 50 and lower satisfaction with life so far. Cohort members who had been frequently bullied also anticipated less life satisfaction in the years to come. When  controlling for childhood confounders, bullying victimization became marginally associated with unemployment (for men), net pay (for men), and meeting friends in the  last 2 weeks. All other associations remained significant.
 
In this study data was collected from almost 98% of all births in one week of 1958 in Scotland, England and Wales, leading to about 18,000 participants. Subsequent follow-up were then carried out at age 7, 11 and 16 years in their childhood, and then at ages 23, 33, 42, and 50 years in adulthood. To assess presence and frequency of bullying during childhood researchers interviewed parents. Whereas the psychological distress resulting in adult life was assessed through various standardized test.

It is clear from these observations that in addition to effectively reducing incidents of childhood bullying efforts must be made to minimize its effect on mental, emotional and physical.

To learn more about bullying and to find help please check Stopbullying.gov


References:
Adult Health Outcomes of Childhood Bullying Victimization: Evidence From a Five-Decade Longitudinal British Birth Cohort (American Journal of Psychiatry)
Mental And Physical Toll Of Bullying Persists For Decades (Health News from NPR)
 

Several studies find further evidence of detrimental effects caused by marijuana smoking

Since this wave of legalization of use of recreational marijuana is spreading gradually but surely to more and more states in the United States, more and more studies funded by medical institutions and organizations are reporting on the very real dangers of frequent marijuana use. I am going to highlight only a few of the studies published on the subject in various medical journals in the past few years.

Journal of Neuroscience (April 16, 2014)

This study conducted by researchers from Harvard University and Chicago's Northwestern Medicine group, using a small sample of 40 individuals between the ages of 18-25 has shown that smoking cannabis ( also known as marijuana) once or twice a week can lead to major changes in brain areas associated with emotions and motivation.

In an article on this study, "Smoking cannabis could change the part of the brain dealing with motivation, according to one new study" published in The Independent ( April 16th 2014), health reporter Charlie Cooper writes;

The researchers used neuroimaging techniques to analyze the brains of cannabis users and non-users.

They found that the nucleus accumbens was unusually large in the cannabis users, while the amygdala also had noticeable abnormalities.
Anne Blood, assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School said that the areas affected were "core, fundamental structures of the brain".
"They form the basis for how you assess positive and negative features about things in the environment and make decisions," she said.
The severity of abnormalities in these regions of the brain was directly related to the number of joints a person smoked per week, according to the study, published in the Journal of Neuroscience on Wednesday. The more joints a person smoked, the more abnormal the shape, volume and density of the brain regions, but the effect was noticeable even in those who smoked once or twice a week.
However, experts in the UK said that the study group was small and that more research was needed over a longer timescale to establish whether cannabis smoking caused the unusual brain features, or whether people with such brain features were more likely to smoke cannabis in the first place.
Around one million people aged between 16 and 24 use cannabis in the UK per year, according to the charity DrugScope. Its use has been reported to cause anxiety and paranoia in some users and in rarer cases may be a trigger for underlying mental health problems.
Dr Michael Bloomfield, clinical research fellow at the UK's Medical Research Council (MRC), said that the study added to the MRC's own research which found that heavy cannabis use in adolescence is associated with changes in chemical connections in the brain.

Schizophrenia Bulletin ( December 16, 2013)

Yet another study conducted by Northwestern Medicine and mainly funded by The National Institute of Mental Health and National Institute of Drug Abuse, has shown that heavy use of marijuana (daily for 3 years) in teen years can lead to abnormal changes in the brain structure related to memory. The teens in the study performed poorly on memory tasks.
According to lead study author Matthew Smith, an assistant research professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, " The study links the chronic use of marijuana to these concerning brain abnormalities that appear to last for at least a few years after people stop using it, with the movement to decriminalize marijuana, we need more research to understand its effect on the brain."
Chronic use of marijuana may contribute to changes in brain structure that are associated with having schizophrenia, the Northwestern research shows. Of the 15 marijuana smokers who had schizophrenia in the study, 90 percent started heavily using the drug before they developed the mental disorder. Marijuana abuse has been linked to developing schizophrenia in prior research.

As reported in 'Heavy marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory'

by Eureka Alert online science news service;

"The abuse of popular street drugs, such as marijuana, may have dangerous implications for young people who are developing or have developed mental disorders," said co-senior study author John Csernansky, M.D., chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Memorial Hospital. "This paper is among the first to reveal that the use of marijuana may contribute to the changes in brain structure that have been associated with having schizophrenia."
Chronic marijuana use could augment the underlying disease process associated with schizophrenia, Smith noted. "If someone has a family history of schizophrenia, they are increasing their risk of developing schizophrenia if they abuse marijuana," he said.
While chronic marijuana smokers and chronic marijuana smokers with schizophrenia both had brain changes related to the drug, subjects with the mental disorder had greater deterioration in the thalamus. That structure is the communication hub of the brain and is critical for learning, memory and communications between brain regions. The brain regions examined in this study also affect motivation, which is already notably impaired in people with schizophrenia.
"A tremendous amount of addiction research has focused on brain regions traditionally connected with reward/aversion function, and thus motivation," noted co-senior study author Hans Breiter, M.D., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Warren Wright Adolescent Center at Feinberg and Northwestern Memorial. "This study very nicely extends the set of regions of concern to include those involved with working memory and higher level cognitive functions necessary for how well you organize your life and can work in society."


Journal of Chemical Research in Toxicology (May 18, 2009)

The study Dr. Michael Bloomfield mentions was conducted by  Leicester University’s Rajinder Singh, Jatinderpal Sandhu, Balvinder Kaur, Tina Juren, William P. Steward, Dan Segerback and Peter B. Farmer from the Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group, Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine and Karolinska Institute, Sweden. This research was funded by MRC, European Union Network of Excellence (ECNIS) and Cancer Research UK. The findings were published in the Journal of Chemical Research in Toxicology.
In this case researchers found "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that could potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.  

Lead author Dr Singh said:
“There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke. It is known that tobacco smoke contains 4000 chemicals of which 60 are classed as carcinogens. Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied. It is less combustible than tobacco and is often mixed with tobacco in use. Cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.” 
The authors added: “It is well known that toxic substances in tobacco smoke can damage DNA and increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Scientists were unsure though whether cannabis smoke would have the same effect. Our research has focused on the toxicity of acetaldehyde, which is present in both tobacco and cannabis.”
The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to damage DNA has significant human health implications especially as users tend to inhale more deeply than cigarette smokers, which increases respiratory burden.
"These results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the researchers conclude, "implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development."

Although in each case marijuana use supporters will argue the sample sizes are too small or the study was biased, the results of each of these researches were very real. If anything further promotion of the idea that recreational use of marijuana is completely harmless should be discouraged more aggressively.


References:

Cannabis Use is Quantitatively Associated with Nucleus Accumbens and Amygdala Abnormalities in Young Adult

Recreational Users (The Journal of Neuroscience-April 16, 2014)

Smoking cannabis could change the part of the brain dealing with motivation, according to one new study(The Independent April 16, 2014)
Cannabis use increases cancer risk study suggests (MRC News & Publications)
Marijuana May Hurt The Developing Teen Brain(Health News NPR-March 3, 2014)
Heavy Marijuana Use Alters Teenage Brain Structure(Psychology Today-March 30, 2014)

Heavy marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory (Northwestern University on Eureka Alert-December 16, 2013)

Cannabis-Related Working Memory Deficits and Associated Subcortical Morphological Differences in Healthy Individuals and Schizophrenia Subjects (Schizophrenia Bulletin- Published 12/15/13) 

Evaluation of the DNA Damaging Potential of Cannabis Cigarette Smoke by the Determination of Acetaldehyde Derived N²-Ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine Adducts(Chemical Research in Toxicology-May 18, 2009)

 

How much benefit do we really get from Organic food?

Most people myself included tend to think of organic foods as healthier and safer. But that may not always be the case, points out Tamar Haspel in her recent article in The Washington Post's Health and food section. To make it simple she simply gives the evidence on the nutrition and contamination of both organic and conventional foods such as milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish. Here is a short excerpt of the article;

Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.

Organic or conventional? It’s a choice many grocery shoppers are faced with, over and over. The price difference is easy to see; it’s right there on the product. The quality difference is much harder. Is the organic milk better for your kids? Is the conventional lettuce more likely to carry pathogens?

Leave aside for the moment whether organic agriculture is better for the planet and whether organic livestock have better lives, although there’s a strong case for both of those arguments. Leave aside flavor, too, because it’s subjective and variable. What motivates many organic buyers, particularly the parents of small children, is health benefits, and there are two questions: Do organics do us more good (in the form of better nutrition), and do they do us less harm (in the form of fewer contaminants and pathogens)? 

Milk 
 
Nutrition: Compared with conventional milk, organic milk has higher levels of omega-3 fats, which protect against heart disease and may decrease the risk of depression, stroke, cancer and other diseases, but the quantities are too small to be very meaningful. (It takes 11 quarts of organic milk to equal the omega-3s in four ounces of salmon.) Milk’s omega-3 content is a function of the cow’s diet, and higher levels reflect more grass. (A few other nutritional differences between organic and conventional milk have been studied, but there isn’t enough research to draw conclusions.)
Contamination: Neither organic nor conventional milk contains antibiotics. By law, every truckload of milk, organic and conventional, is tested for veterinary drugs, including antibiotics, by trained dairy workers. Any load that tests positive is pulled out of the food supply.
Hormones: The issue with milk is that many conventionally raised dairy cows, unlike organic ones, are injected with bovine growth hormone (BGH, the synthetic version of which is called either recombinant bovine growth hormone, rBGH, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST) to increase their milk production.Both organic and conventional cows have IGF-I in their milk, but cows that get hormone treatment may have more of it.
The use of rBGH has fueled concerns among some parents about giving milk to children, but the FDA report concluded that “consumption by infants and children of milk and edible products from rBGH-treated cows is safe.”
Bottom line: Organic milk has higher omega-3 fat levels, but probably not enough to make a difference. Exposure to pesticides, contaminants or hormones is not a significant risk in either organic or conventional milk.
 
Produce

Nutrition: Many studies have compared the vitamins, minerals, macronutrients and other compounds in organic and conventional produce, and a 2012 review concluded that the results were all over the map. The one exception was that the phosphorus content of organic produce is higher, although the review, done by Stanford University scientists, calls that finding “not clinically significant.”
Contamination: There are two issues for foods that grow in the ground: pesticides and pathogens. There is widespread agreement that organic produce, while not pesticide-free, has lower residue levels and fewer pesticides.
Carl Winter, a toxicologist at the University of California at Davis, says that the Environmental Protection Agency, working from animal research and factoring in the special sensitivities of human subgroups such as babies and children, has found that lifetime risk of adverse health effects due to low-level exposure to pesticide residue through consumption of produce is “far below even minimal health concerns, even over a lifetime.” 
As for pathogens, the 2012 Stanford review found that E. coli contamination is slightly more likely in organic than conventional produce.
The best strategy to reduce risk from produce isn’t to buy either organic or conventional. Rather, it’s to cook your food.
Bottom line: While there may be no significant nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce, organic does have lower levels of pesticide residue. However, there isn’t universal agreement on the risk those residues pose.
 
Meat
 
Nutrition: As with milk, the main issue here is omega-3 fats. Some organic meat and poultry have more of them than conventional products do. The reason is diet: Animals that eat more grass have lower fat levels overall and higher omega-3 levels than animals fed more grain.
Although measurements of omega-3 fats in beef vary, the numbers are low and substantially below what can be found in a serving of salmon.
Contaminants: The USDA randomly tests carcasses for residues of pesticides, contaminants and veterinary drugs including antibiotics. In 2011, it screened for 128 chemicals, and 99 percent of the tested carcasses were free of all of them.
It found a few with residue violations and a similar small number with residue within legal limits (mostly of arsenic and antibiotics). Although the USDA doesn’t report organic and conventional separately, contaminant risk overall is extremely low.
The bigger concern is pathogens. Studies of bacterial contamination levels of organic and conventional meat show widely varying results. These findings suggest that organic meat may be slightly more likely to be contaminated, possibly because no antibiotics are used. But conventional meat is more likely to be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But the risk in meat overall was essentially the same. And whether meat is conventional or organic, the solution is adequate cooking.
Bottom line: Grass-fed beef has a slight edge over grain-fed because of higher omega-3 levels, but the amounts are probably too small to affect human health.

Eggs
 
Nutrition: As with milk and meat, the omega-3 levels of eggs are affected by the hens’ diet and can be increased by pasturing or diet supplementation for either organic or conventional hens. Eggs high in omega-3s are generally labeled.
Contaminants: There’s very little research on contaminants in eggs. The 2012 Stanford review concluded that there is “no difference” in contamination risk between conventional and organic eggs.
Bottom line: There are no significant differences affecting health between organic and conventional eggs.  

Fish
 
The USDA has not issued any organic standards for farmed fish or shellfish, but several overseas organizations have. (Because there’s no way to control the diet of wild fish, “organic” doesn’t apply.) Canadian standards prohibit antibiotics and hormones, restrict pesticides and set criteria for acceptable feed. There’s not enough research comparing organic and conventional fish to draw any conclusions about their health benefits.


Reference:
Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.


(The Washington Post- Health, Science and Environment 07/04/14)

Fats are not the enemy

Allison Aubrey presented a case for adding some fat to our diets on  NPR's Morning Edition as few weeks back.

Fats have been the target of most of the popular dietary plans. They are looked upon as the enemy to any healthy lifestyle. But is that justifiable and right?

It is well documented that saturated fats can raise the LDL ( Low-density lipoprotein)in the blood, which is the so-called bad cholesterol. Whereas on the other end, plant-based fats such as those found in nuts and olive oil are actually beneficial to our heart health and can help reduce the risk of heart disease. Yet it seems the risks might be more then the benefits, leading most of us to minimize fats intake whenever trying to eat healthy.

Thus the task of  convincing most of us to bring some ats back into our diets is a tough one.
Here is an excerpts of what experts had to say to Allison Aubrey on the subject;

"Fat was really the villain," says , who is chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. And, by default, people "had to load up on carbohydrates."
But, by the mid-1990s, Willett says, there were already signs that the high-carb, low-fat approach might not lead to fewer heart attacks and strokes. He had a long-term study underway that was aimed at evaluating the effects of diet and lifestyle on health.
"We were finding that if people seemed to replace saturated fat — the kind of fat found in cheese, eggs, meat, butter — with carbohydrate, there was no reduction in heart disease," Willett says.
Willett submitted his data to a top medical journal, but he says the editors would not publish his findings. His paper was turned down.
"There was a lot of resistance to anything that would question the low-fat guidelines," Willett says, especially the guidelines on saturated fat.
Willett's was eventually published by a British medical journal, the BMJ, in 1996.

But here's where it gets interesting: "We've learned that carbohydrates aren't neutral," explains , an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School.
"[Carbs] were the base of the pyramid," says Mozaffarian. The message was "eat all carbohydrates you want."
Americans took this as a green light to eat more refined grains such as breads, processed snack foods and white pasta.
"But carbohydrates worsen glucose and insulin — they have negative effects on blood cholesterol levels," he says. The thinking that it's OK to swap saturated fats for these refined carbs "has not been useful advice."
He says it's clear that saturated fats can raise LDL cholesterol, the bad cholesterol. But that's only one risk factor for heart disease.
There's now evidence that — compared with carbs — saturated fat can raise HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol) and lower trigylcerides in the blood, which are both countering effects to heart disease, he says.
"When you put all of this together," says Mozaffarian, what you see is that saturated fat has a relatively neutral effect compared with carbs. He says it's "not a beneficial effect but not a harmful effect. And I think that's what the recent studies show." He points to a of studies published in 2010.
He also points to a highly publicized that concludes there's no convincing evidence to support the dietary recommendations to limit saturated fat.
The in that paper have created quite a bit of controversy. For instance, the American Heart Association it stands by its recommendations to limit saturated fat.


Although these new points of view don't say 'Go ahead and load up on fats' they do make it clear that fats should not be excluded from our diets completely. Maybe moderation is a good way to go with all diets. 

 
References:
Rethinking Fat: The Case For Adding Some Into Your Diet (NPR)

 

No such thing as right-brained or left-brained

Remember all those quizzes meant to figure out whether you are left-brained or right-brained? Well, researchers have just declared them all useless since there is no such thing as left-brained or right-brained.
Although distinct skills have been attributed to whichever hemisphere is dominant for ages and seemed to make sense but sadly they have no scientific basis according to a two year research completed by neuroscientists at University of Utah. The study published in the Plos One Journal is based on a two years long study involving scanning the brains of more then a 1000 individuals between the ages of 7-29 while performing such simple tasks such as lying quietly or reading. These scans were used to measure these individuals' brain functional lateralization meaning the specific mental functions occurring on each side of the brain. For accuracy functional lateralization was measured for each pair of 7266 regions of the grey matter.
Analysis of the data collected as a result lead to the conclusion
" An individual brain is not “left-brained” or “right-brained” as a global property, but that asymmetric lateralization is a property of individual nodes or local subnetworks, and that different aspects of the left-dominant network and right-dominant network may show relatively greater or lesser lateralization within an individual. If a connection involving one of the left hubs is strongly left-lateralized in an individual, then other connections in the left-dominant network also involving this hub may also be more strongly left lateralized, but this did not translate to a significantly generalized lateralization of the left-dominant network or right-dominant network. Similarly, if a left-dominant network connection was strongly left lateralized, this had no significant effect on the degree of lateralization within connections in the right-dominant network, except for those connections where a left-lateralized connection included a hub that was overlapping or close to a homotopic right-lateralized hub."

(Read Complete Article)








References:

An Evaluation of the Left-Brain vs. Right-Brain Hypothesis with Resting State Functional Connectivity Magnetic Resonance Imaging(PLOS ONE Journal-August 2013)

Despite what you've been told, you aren't 'left-brained' or 'right-brained' (The Guardian- Nov 2013) 

Vitamin E and Selenium supplements may increase risk of cancer

With this increasing obsession with fitness and health the use of supplements such as vitamins, minerals, and herbal has increased exponentially. The increased efforts to stay healthy are good news but the fact that a huge majority of individuals do not even know what supplement to take or not to take, many end up losing any benefit and incur more damage to their health then advantage.

Recent clinical trials have shown that the unnecessary use of certain dietary supplements can lead to far more serious problems then known before. Such a study conducted in the US has shown that the high levels of the mineral Selenium can lead to a 91% increased risk for high grade cancer.
According to the the study leader Dr. Alan Kristal (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre, Seattle)"These supplements are popular – especially vitamin E – although so far no large, well-designed and well-conducted study has shown any benefits for preventing major chronic disease.
"Men using these supplements should stop, period. Neither selenium nor vitamin E supplementation confers any known benefits, only risks."

This adverse effect appeared only when men with already high levels took the selenium supplement and not in men who originally had low levels. It was also noted that Vitamin E also increased the risk of cancer almost doubling it in men who had low level of selenium.

This study was a follow-up of Select (selenium and vitamin E cancer prevention trial), which originally recruited more than 35,000 men to see if the supplements could help prevent prostate cancer. The main goal of the trial was to prove whether selenium and vitamin E supplements actually prevented prostrate cancer. It was concluded "SELECT was initially planned for a minimum of seven years and a maximum of 12 years of participants taking supplements, plus follow-up observation after the men finished taking their supplements. However, the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) for the trial met on September 15, 2008, to review SELECT study data and found that selenium and vitamin E, taken alone or together did not prevent prostate cancer. The committee also determined that it was unlikely selenium and vitamin E supplementation would ever produce a 25 percent reduction in prostate cancer incidence, as the study was designed to show. Based on their recommendation, with SWOG and NCI agreement, SELECT participants were told in October 2008 to stop taking their study supplements." (National Cancer Institute)

The Select trial suggested that Vitamin E intake may have more detrimental effects then initially thought, whereas the outcome of overuse of selenium was still disputed hence the follow up study.     "In 2011, data showed that men taking vitamin E alone had a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer, but men taking vitamin E plus selenium did not.  If men had low selenium levels at the start of the trial, the selenium supplement may have counteracted a negative effect of the vitamin E supplement." (Select study - NCI)

The results of this follow-up study have shown a clear relation between selenium and vitamin E supplements and the increased risk of prostrate cancer.
"In an analysis published in 2014, men who had high levels of selenium at the start of the trial, as assessed by measures of selenium in their toenail clippings, had almost double the chance of developing a high-grade prostate cancer if they took the selenium supplement compared to men with low levels of selenium at the start of the trial.  This finding was unexpected, as previous studies had shown that men with low levels of selenium had an increased risk of prostate cancer that was reduced with supplements (11, 12).  Additionally, men with low levels of selenium at the start of the trial had double the chance of developing a high-grade prostate cancer if they took the vitamin E supplement."
(National Cancer Institute)

A detailed article on the latest results was published on February 21st 2014 in The Guardian, titled

Some vitamin supplements raise risk of cancer in men, research shows.

P.S:

References:

Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) (National Cancer Institute)
Some vitamin supplements raise risk of cancer in men, research shows. (The Guardian)

A Survey for all parents of teenagers : Monitoring the Future 2013 Survey Results

I am sharing some informational posters on NIDA ( National Institute on Drug Abuse) to help all parents better understand the degree to which our kids are exposed to drugs and how prevalent the use of illicit drugs in youngsters is. Knowledge and information are power, the more we understand the seriousness of this problem, the less likely we will be to support such crazy legislation as the legalization of Marijuana. Please if you come across this post, do share it with your teenagers and middle schoolers.

Description: Monitoring the Future is an annual survey of 8th, 10th, and 12th-graders conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, under a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health. Since 1975, the survey has measured drug, alcohol, and cigarette use and related attitudes in 12th-graders nationwide. Eighth and 10th graders were added to the survey in 1991. Overall, 41,675 students from 389 public and private schools participated in the 2013 survey.

Description: Last Two Decades of Alcohol, Cigarette, and Illicit Drug Use*
*Past 30 day use.
This graphic illustrates past 30 day alcohol, cigarette, and illicit drug use among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders from 1993 through 2013. In general, alcohol and cigarette use has decreased, and illicit drug use, which declined in the late 1990s and early 2000s, has been increasing in recent years.

Description: Marijuana: As Perceived Harm Drops, Use Goes Up
* Past-year use in 12th graders.
Three points in time are shown—1993, 2003, 2013— for marijuana use and the perception of risk (saw great risk in smoking marijuana occasionally) among 12th graders.

 Description: 60% of high school seniors do not view regular marijuana use as harmful, which is nearly double from 20 years ago. The potency of marijuana, as measured by THC content, has steadily increased over the last few years, which means that daily use of today’s marijuana may have greater health consequences than use of marijuana from 10 to 20 years ago.

Description: Prescription/Over-the-Counter vs. Illicit Drugs
After marijuana, prescription and over-the-counter medications account for most of the top drugs abused by 12th graders in the past year.

Description: Abuse of Some Synthetic Drugs is Down.
These are substances that are chemically similar to and/or mimic the effects of illicit drugs. This year, 7.9% of high school seniors reported past-year use of K2/Spice (sometimes called synthetic marijuana), down from last year’s number of 11.3%. Past-year use of the substances called “bath salts” was low for all three grades - at or below 1%.

P.S:Monitoring the Future 2013 Survey Results(NIDA)

The truth about addiction; ruthless, honest, and extremely insightful....

"The mind of a heroin addict: the struggle to get clean and stay sober" on The Guardian is a collection of comments by recovering sober addicts and some using addicts on how they struggle and how Philip Seymour Hoffman's death from heroin overdose after 23 years of sobriety affected them. 

As I read this post, I was not only shocked and troubled by the very truthful and blatantly honest responses but also got a better understanding of how they struggle or relapse and how terribly hard it is to fight the addict inside them. I am not totally unaware of what goes into rehabilitation, I worked with addicts during my one year psychiatry job. Yet I found these comments revealing and poignant. 

One of the comments which stood out to me was by Danny from Ireland, who has been ten years sober; "My father died from addiction, we lost a cousin, I myself had numerous overdoses and helped prevent siblings from OD-ing (all of who are now clean thanks to the process of one addict helping another that Russell Brand spoke of). Hearing about Hoffman affects me the same way as if it were a friend. I didnt know he was an addict untill he died, but when I heard of his story and addiction I immediatly identified with him. We work the same way in our minds. I know what happened to him before he picked up. I know how he felt. I'm pretty sure it started the same way most relapses do. "

Read all the responses...

Some drug facts in the US:

According to NIDA ( National Institute on Drug Abuse) "Illicit drug use in America has been increasing. In 2012, an estimated 23.9 million Americans aged 12 or older—or 9.2 percent of the population—had used an illicit drug or abused a psychotherapeutic medication (such as a pain reliever, stimulant, or tranquilizer) in the past month. This is up from 8.3 percent in 2002. The increase mostly reflects a recent rise in the use of marijuana, the most commonly used illicit drug."

 Most people use drugs for the first time when they are teenagers. There were just over 2.8 million new users (initiates) of illicit drugs in 2012, or about 7,898 new users per day. Half (52 per-cent) were under 18.

More than half of new illicit drug users begin with marijuana. Next most common are prescription pain relievers, followed by inhalants (which is most common among younger teens).

In 2009, there were nearly 4.6 million drug-related Hospital Emergency Department (ED) visits nationwide. These visits included reports of drug abuse, adverse reactions to drugs, or other drug-related consequences. Almost 50 percent were attributed to adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals taken as prescribed, and 45 percent involved drug abuse.

The majority of drug-related ED visits were made by patients 21 or older (80.9 percent, or 3,717,030 visits). Of these, slightly less than half involved drug abuse. Patients aged 20 or younger accounted for 19.1 percent (877,802 visits) of all drug-related visits in 2009; about half of these visits involved drug abuse.

In 2009, almost one million visits involved an illicit drug, either alone or in combination with other types of drugs. The rates of ED visits involving cocaine, marijuana, and heroin were higher for males than for females. Rates for cocaine were highest among individuals aged 35–44, rates for heroin were highest among individuals aged 21–24, stimulant use was highest among those 25–29, and marijuana use was highest for those aged 18–20.

 Illicit drug use among teenagers remains high, largely due to increasing popularity of marijuana. Marijuana use by adolescents declined from the late 1990s until the mid-to-late 2000s, but has been on the increase since then. In 2013, 7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana in the past month, up from 5.8 percent, 13.8 percent, and 19.4 percent in 2008. Daily use has also increased; 6.5 percent of 12th graders now use marijuana every day, compared to 5 percent in the mid-2000s.

P.S:

The mind of a heroin addict: the struggle to get clean and stay sober

Trends and Statistics on Addiction (NIDA)