Currently viewing the category: "National Institute of Health (NIH)"

You’ve heard of genetically modified foods? How about genetically modified pathogens? H5N1 to be exact–bird flu, made in the lab. Anybody else get the heebie jeebies from that notion?

The World Health Organization (WHO) released a strongly worded statement today warning against the dangers of the U.S. government-funded pathogenetic engineering information getting into the wrong hands and exposing the world to a potential bioterrorism threat. WHO said it was “deeply concerned about the potential negative consequences” of the study.

“This is not the kind of research that you would want to have out there,” WHO’s top influenza expert, Dr. Keiji Fukuda, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

On the flip side, WHO concerned that all credible scientists should have access to the information. Huh? The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) last week asked scientists at Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands and the University of Wisconsin-Madison to refrain from publishing full details of their work on how to make the H5N1 virus more easily transmissible between humans.

H5N1 rarely infects humans and usually only those who come into close contact with poultry. But among those infected, up to 60% die, and scientists are closely watching the virus for any signs it is becoming more easily transmissible from human to human.

The WHO and the scientific community are concerned about the steps the NIH has taken toward censorship. Many are concerned that this move will keep important information out of the hands of those who may need it, particularly in Asia where preventing a pandemic is of the utmost importance.

Dr. Fukuda reports that WHO has not yet received copies of either group’s research, and he states wisely if not ironically, “I’m hoping that we are privy to as much of the details as possible, but like anybody else one of the questions for us is what kind of information do we need to know.”

Exactly–conundrum 101. It’s a dangerous venture designing pathogens in the lab, but the information gathered, I am certain, will be valuable if need arises to thwart a pandemic. However, there is always an inherent risk when you play with fire; we should know this in the post-Cold War nuclear era. So with plus comes minus, and our need for knowledge can create the very thing we fear–a bird flu pandemic, in this case, but caused by accident or through malicious intent.

If I told you, though, that we can’t escape conflict, would it have meaning? Listen, I’ve got no problem with the scenario as it exists. The U.S. government funding research to understand H5N1 seems as reasonable as doing so for HIV. Naturally, because of the sensitive nature of the information, it must be classified. It would be a fantasy to think that while we have this powerful knowledge and technique called genetic engineering that we wouldn’t use it. I’ve said time and again, genetic engineering is here to stay. What is important is using it wisely.

Somebody is going to try genetically engineering whatever can be imagined–may as well be under the system that’s based in checks and balances (and before you start with the conspiracy stuff, please think of which nation or organization you’d rather have the information). In that regard, I think the U.S. government and NIH have done right by censoring this information. Can’t get nuke building info easily–it shouldn’t be any different for sensitive pathogenic information. Good job U.S.A.

So last post I discussed how all industries have an inherent drive toward sustainability.  It’s only natural–no industry will work to render itself obsolete.  This is my best explanation for the significant rise in ADHD diagnoses over the last decade.  As that industry grows, many mouths are fed, from the diagnosticians, to the experts and researchers, to the drug manufacturers, to the authors, to the critics, and the list goes on and on.

Researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that between 2007-2009, an average of 9% of children between the ages of 5 and 17 were diagnosed with ADHD. This compared with just under 7% between 1998-2000.  Again I ask the question: Are more children being born with this disorder every year?  The genetic explanation is always popular, you know.  Or is it something in the environment?  Video games, social media, what?

Further, researchers have found a narrowing of prevalence among racial groups–that is, whites, blacks and some Hispanic groups are being diagnosed in comparable numbers.  You don’t say?  With Obamacare on its way, you bet I do.

But astute doctors understand that increased numbers do not always tell the whole story.  According to study author, Dr. Lara J. Akinbami, a medical officer with the National Center for Health Statistics, “We don’t have the data to say for certain what explains these patterns, but I would caution against concluding that what we have here is a real increase in the occurrence of this condition.”  Precisely.

“In fact, it would be hard for me to argue that what we see here is a true change in prevalence,” Akinbami added.  “Instead, I would say that most probably what we found has a lot to do with better access to health care among a broader group of children, and doctors who have become more and more familiar with this condition and now have better tools to screen for it. So, this is probably about better screening, rather than a real increase, and that means we may continue to see this pattern unfold.”  Bingo!

You see, better access means “more widely accepted”, and therefore, “reimbursable.”  That is exactly why it is being diagnosed across a broader racial spectrum.  Universal health care means, “every ADHD diagnosis pays.”  No worrying about the uninsured; everybody has the right to have a child labeled ADHD now.  What a magnificent country we live in–equality at its finest.

And “better tools to screen for it” means, “wider, more accepted parameters; acceptance of subjective criteria used by diagnosticians to account for variability, as this is a mental condition.”  So darn near any non-conforming kid is a candidate for ADHD drugs, like Adderall or Ritalin, and the industry continues to sustain itself.  According to the National Institutes of Health, ADHD is the most common behavioral disorder among children.  Well, no shiitake mushrooms–I hope you see it, too.

This is really an interesting phenomenon if you take the time to analyze it.  The industry will keep growing, and it won’t change until parents say, “Enough! No more!”  No more drugging my children, no more labeling them as dysfunctional, no more holding my child back because teachers don’t understand how to inspire him, no more discouraging my kid by assuming something is wrong with him because he doesn’t care about the same things an outdated school system tells him to care about.  It won’t change until parents wake up.

Don’t believe me when I tell you the ADHD industry is growing by keeping itself relevant and sustainable?  We’ll let the good doctor, Akinbami, explain it in her own words:

“Children of ADHD use a lot more health care dollars than their peers, because the condition itself requires a lot of monitoring. And they are also much more likely to have other chronic health care conditions, such as asthma or learning disabilities or conduct diagnoses like conduct disorder, which makes managing them for schools and physicians and parents much more difficult. So, it’s clearly something for public policy experts to be concerned about.”

In other words, “Not done growing.”  I’ll keep opening my big mouth until people get it.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.