Currently viewing the category: "News"


depressed-pregnant-woman-300x200Here’s the $64,000 question: When it comes to the alarming increase in children born with autism over the last decade, what seems a more likely factor—a mother’s depression, or taking antidepressant medication while pregnant? Think about that for a minute. Well as coincidence has it, a recent study has just shown a link between a mother’s use of antidepressants during her second and third trimester pregnancy and an increase in the risk of her child developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

The disturbing rise in autism has almost doubled over the last ten years, and everything from vaccinations to exposure to flame retardants have been suspected as being the cause of this increase. But a study published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics (online) this week showed that mothers who had one or more prescription for antidepressants filled during the second or third trimester of the pregnancy had an 87 percent increase having a child with ASD, compared with women who did not take the medications while expecting. And women who took selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a particular class of antidepressants, which includes Zoloft, Prozac and Celexa, had a more than double the risk of having a child with autism. Finally, women who were prescribed more than one class of antidepressant during the final six months of pregnancy had greater than four times the risk of having a child with autism.

understanding-about-autism-spectrum-disorder (Copy)ASD is a neurodevelopmental condition that affects a person’s ability to communicate, interact and behave appropriately with others in social situations; it includes autism, Asperger syndrome or other pervasive developmental disorders. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 1 in 45 children in the United States has autism, and the condition is about five times more common in boys than in girls. The most recent controversy surrounding autism has been fears that the disorder is caused by routine childhood vaccinations, particularly the measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, but recent evidence has shown there to be no association.

In the study, researchers analyzed data collected from all 145,500 pregnancies that occurred in the Canadian province of Quebec over a 20-year period from January 1998 to December 2009, in which mothers had a full-term pregnancy and gave birth to only one baby. They followed up with the children until age ten; 1,054 of the children were diagnosed with ASD. The researchers looked at whether the women in the study had filled a prescription for antidepressants at any time during their pregnancy, or one month before conception.

t1larg.antidepressants.pregnancy.gi (Copy)The analysis found that about 4,700 infants, or 3.2 percent of babies, were exposed to antidepressants at some point during their mothers’ pregnancies. Among these babies, 46 developed autism. But only a mother’s use of antidepressants during the second or third trimester was associated with a greater risk of autism in children (31 exposed infants developed autism). The risk was persistent even after taking into account maternal history of depression. However, there was no increase in ASD risk linked to using antidepressants during early pregnancy.

Antidepressants are not only some of the most prescribed medications within the general population but extending into maternity as well. In fact, 7 to 13 percent of American women are estimated to be taking them while pregnant, according to one study. While previous studies have sought to determine a link between antidepressant use during pregnancy and autism, there have been mixed results. This latest study, however, is the largest of its kind.

“This study is the first to quantify autism risk based on the class of antidepressants used by a woman during pregnancy, and the first to find an increased risk with SSRIs mostly,” said study author Anick Bérard, a professor of pharmacy at the University of Montreal, who specializes in drug use during pregnancy.

fncel-07-00212-g001 (Copy)

Click to enlarge

These results have got some in the psychiatric profession up in arms, and why wouldn’t they be? As some of the most (over)prescribed meds today, antidepressants are the go-to for medical professionals in general, and psychiatrists specifically. Some doctors are going as far as downplaying the findings. Despite the second and third trimesters being critical for fetal brain development, and that serotonin is essential for this process, and also that previous research in animals has hinted at SSRIs altering certain aspects of fetal neurodevelopment, some in the neurosciences think the points are moot. Says Lars Henning Pedersen, Adjunct Associate Professor at Aarhus University in Denmark, these results can largely be explained by other factors, such as the severity of a mother’s depression.

According to Bérard, depression severity is indeed a possible explanation, and  for which the research group is now conducting studies to look at it, She does point out that her recent work shows an association between antidepressant use and autism only, and is not proof of causation. However, to further recommend antidepressants, particularly SSRIs, during pregnancy is dangerous. Says Bérard,

“The common belief that depression can only be treated with antidepressants is false. I would always be very cautious about saying that anything is ‘safe’ during pregnancy. We have to remember that thalidomide was labeled as ‘safe’ for use during pregnancy.”

drugwatch-antidepressants (Copy)

Click to enlarge

The “critical flaw” in the new research, says Roy Perlis, a psychiatric geneticist at Harvard University, is that it doesn’t fully account for the fact that women suffering from psychiatric illnesses already have a greater risk of having children with ASD. Although the authors controlled for maternal depression, “they don’t really have reliable measures of severity,” he says. As a result, there’s no way to tell whether the children were at higher risk because their mothers were taking more drugs or because the women had more severe depression.

But Bérard states that her group’s study shows that the link between antidepressants and autism is above and beyond its increase in risk associated with maternal depression alone. The results showed mother’s depression to be associated with only 20 percent greater autism risk. Bérard’s opinion is that, “Given the mounting evidence showing increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome with antidepressant use during pregnancy, our study shows that depression should be treated with other options (other than antidepressants) during this critical period.”

So what do you think? Is severity of depression more likely a potential cause of the near doubling of ASD over last decade? Or is it the increased use of antidepressants among pregnant women? Maybe it is neither; maybe it is just changing guidelines and better diagnosis and recognition. Heck it may even be that antidepressants actually help the fetus of a depressed mother, at least this possibility has been posed by psychiatrist Jay Gingrich at Columbia University. What do you think? You better think about it seriously,  folks, especially if you are planning to have family. Informed decisions bring the greatest certainty – exactly what you want with every decision possible when having a baby. A good pregnancy is a calm pregnancy, and that’s the best you can ask for.


tall vs shortDid you ever watch the Brady Bunch? Do you remember when Bobby was stressing over being small, and he just could not see any upside to his little boy frame? And then he fit through the meat locker window, saving his and Greg’s life, and in a flash he was enlightened. Well turns out there’s another benefit along with passing through tight spaces that grows with each centimeters (cm) of height NOT developed: it lowers the risk of developing cancer. You heard right, being tall seems to increase one’s cancer risk. At least that is the word out of today’s meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology held in Barcelona.

Researchers, who have not published their findings in any medical journal, say they conducted the biggest study of its kind looking at at birth, health and military records of 5.5 million people born between 1938 and 1991. What they found was that as height increases over a certain baseline, 1 meter or 3 foot 3 inches (3’3), cancer risk increased every 10 cm, by 10 percent in men and 18 percent in women. While nothing has been published, these results do seem to confirm the findings of other studies like a 2013 U.S. study, looking at women only, which found a 13 percent higher risk of developing certain cancers for each 10 centimeters of height.

Breast-CancerAlong with the increased cancer risk, the current study found that for every extra 10 cm, a woman also had a 20-percent higher risk of breast cancer, while there was a jump of 30 percent for every 10 cm in melanoma risk for both genders. A 180 cm woman (5’11) would be about a third more likely to contract cancer than a woman of 170 cm (5’7). Not every expert agrees with the potential height-cancer link, however, as some question the methodology of the study, while doubting the strength of the link, pointing out a much greater cancer association with genetics and obesity. Skeptics also believe that any link might be attributable to growth hormone, which could be affecting both traits.

“It sounds an odd relationship at first glance, but it is actually very plausible that the risk of cancer in a person should be related to the number of cells in their body, since that determines the number of cells ‘at risk’,” Dorothy Bennett, a scientist at University of London said in comments issued by the Science Media Centre.

healthy for all sizesSkeptics wish to emphasize that these results should not have tall people worrying about contracting cancer. I agree. Scientific inquiry into everything has value on many levels, but causing unnecessary stress is not one of them. Nobody wants or needs to have the risks associated with uncontrollable traits hanging over their heads, yet science shows what it shows; what can we do? It’s a tough situation really—an access to truth, yes, but unpleasant findings nonetheless. My feeling is just be grateful for the information so that you can monitor yourself throughout your lifetime as you age, and perhaps an inspiration to pick up the health regimen a bit. Hey, we can all do better than what we are doing now, and I even believe that striving for and achieving better fluctuates constantly throughout our lifetime too, so now is as good a time as any. If you are tall: start juicing, get lots of vitamin D (yes, even in the face of these findings on melanoma – adequate sun exposure is waaaaay more important than any melanoma fear, just sun smartly), take omega 3’s, drink lots of water, eat moderately, sleep plentifully, and so on, and you should be fine.

And before Bobby Brady gets too big for his britches, understand that shorter people were not found to be without risk—they just had a lower risk, but risk all the same. So people of all shapes and sizes need to take part in the same behaviors I have described above. Listen these are good habits no matter who practices them, and frankly, I would rather spend my time focusing on all the health enhancing stuff I can do, and less worrying on which of my traits increases which risks. I mean, life is a freakin’ risk, darnit. Just do the right things and you should be fine.

Caught a great piece on Prime Time News L.A. tonight regarding local farmers markets in Southern California (see video below).  Get this: A number of vendors at the farmers markets are selling non-local, mass produced fruits and vegetables that they pick up at large wholesale produce warehouses in downtown L.A.  And some have been found to be pushing pesticide-laden produce despite advertising their products as pesticide-free.  Ah ha ha ha ha…that’s a gas.  Is anybody surprised?

To sell at farmers markets vendors are supposed to provide locally grown produce.  To be licensed, the farms must be registered with the farmers markets, and their location registered on the permit.  Guess what?  Many are lying and registering their dirt lots as farms.  NBC Prime Time News L.A. did an investigative report, visiting several falsely registered farms and finding something interesting.

Jesse Frutos, owner and operator of Frutos Farms, which sells produce at seven different farmers markets in LA and Orange counties, including Century City farmers market, the Larchmont market and the Buena Park market was busted at his dirt lot in Cypress.  When questioned at one of the markets, he claimed that all his produce was grown at his farm in Cypress, the one registered with the State of California.  NBC paid him a visit and he was forced to admit that none of the produce he sells is actually grown on the dirt lot.  Way to go, Jesse.  The news crew followed his truck on market days and caught him buying the produce at a big downtown warehouse, where they sold produce coming from as far away as Mexico.  Local, you know?

“You are selling some things at farmers markets that you didn’t grow, that you got at wholesale produce markets?”

Jesse admitted, “Yes.”
Another vendor, Juan Uriostegui, who sells produce at the West Hollywood farmers market on Mondays, claims to grow his produce at his farm in Redlands, in San Bernardino County.  NBC paid him a visit with officer Allan Lampman of the San Bernardino Department of Agriculture in tow.  Guess what? Lampman asked Uriostegui to show him where he was growing broccoli, but all the farmer could show him was a patch of dry dirt. “I’m looking at the fields, saying, ‘I don’t think you grew that broccoli,'” Lampman said.

Uriostegui has been busted and fined before for selling produce he hasn’t grown.  But hey, farmers markets are great places to flip produce and turn a profit.  Call Frutos and Uriostegui brokers.  Unfortunately, they are misleading their customers.

NBC also purchased strawberries from five different vendors claiming to carry pesticide-free goods.  When tested, three of the five actually contained pesticides.  One vendor called “The Berry Best,” owned by Mary Ellen Martinez, which sells at the Torrance farmers market was questioned and told that her pesticide-free strawberries were found to have four different pesticides on them, said she didn’t know how that might have happened.  She thought perhaps that pesticides used at a neighboring farm drifted over to her produce, but according to the testing lab that would be impossible due to the concentrations found on her best berries.

This is no surprise to me since I know that the more popular a trend becomes, the more likely it will be infiltrated by shysters–a lesson for everybody to do their homework.  I can say if this is happening in Los Angeles, it is most definitely happening in farmers markets across the country.  So it’s a good idea to practice diligence and do one’s own research.  It would probably be a good idea for the farmers markets themselves to conduct periodic investigations.

One farm that came out glowing—and my wife confirms its legitimacy too, as she takes our children there to pick fresh berries—was Underwood Farms in Moorpark.  They sell produce at 14 local Los Angeles markets, all grown on their family farm.

So get smart—ask questions and take no vendor’s mere presence at a local farmers market for granted.  They might be selling you something you can get a your local supermarket for much less, and pulling the wool over your eyes with regard to their pesticide-free status.  Thank you Prime Time News L.A. for some top-notch investigative reporting.

View more news videos at: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/video.

A very intelligent lady posed an excellent question to me the other day. After asking me what my message to the world is, she said, “Don’t you think that the medical profession should have a hand in changing health care?” I said, “Most certainly, but I don’t think that on its own it can ever change the mind-frame immersed in this non-health system.”Let’s take a step back and talk about what I mean. Obviously, this conversation started because of the celebrated, but not yet passed, health care reform bill. The young lady wanted to know my opinion on this historic measure. Truth is, I don’t really care one way or the other what happens with regard to a national health care policy. Doesn’t change a thing as far as I can see. Politically speaking, though, it was a victory of grand proportions. Obamacare achieved what had been unattainable for more than 60 years–a nationalized American health care law. Bravo!

But from a health perspective, is this really the change we’ve been waiting for? Is this momentous piece of legislation going to improve the health of all Americans? Doubt it. No, more directly: Obamacare might give more Americans medical insurance, but it will worsen health, period!

How do I know? Simple. Medical care is not health care. Emotional non-thinkers think it is. Fine. It’s not and I can prove it. Medical care is sick care–it excels in saving lives. Saving lives is not health care. For the ignorant mind that scoffs at the notion, then certainly medical insurance is right up there with cell phones and Nikes as something every American must posses–because that’s equality. Equality has nothing to do with health. Health is not a right, it is a condition; more accurately, it is self-administered, self-regulated condition. The same morons that believe medical insurance equals health don’t really care about health or health care at all–it’s ideological for them. My foolish party politics are better than your’s are. Nya, nya, nya, nya, nya, nya.

So what would real health care reform look like? It would actually involve improving health (go figure). Should the medical profession have a hand in this? Yes, but they will never seriously push it, because there ain’t no money in healthy people (we can all do that for next to nuttin’). There’s a vested interest in sick people, even if it’s not talked about or simply part of the professional unconscious.

And for all the BS about doctors getting back to their roots and caring for people, well, that’s pure rhetoric. When doctors can’t earn enough to pay their student loans AND turn a profit, you’ll see law school applications go through the roof. Mark my words.

*Note: I will dedicate the rest of the month of March to showing exactly why health care reform isn’t about health. Dare to read and learn, disputers.


Governments don’t lie, do they? Nah. Political parties lie, right? Especially the one you disagree with–they always lie. And your party never lies, right? Governments don’t lie, no way.

Well, one lie hard to pass off for very long is the scientific lie. One such lie is about the efficacy of the flu vaccine. This is one of my staunchest issues, and I’ll never shut up about it: Flu shots are bull turds!

A recent interview with prestigious epidemiologist and flu-vaccine researcher for the Cochrane Collaboration in Britain, Tom Jefferson uncovers exactly why we must question the utility of the flu vaccine (not to be confused with swine flu or H1N1 vaccine), despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) new public health campaign in the U.S. encouraging vulnerable patients–particularly the elderly–to “protect yourself and the ones you love against flu: GET VACCINATED!”

According to Mr. Jefferson, when a systematic review of ALL studies on the efficacy of flu vaccines was conducted, the findings were inconclusive. In other words, they didn’t show effectiveness or non-effectiveness one way or the other. The governments of the U.S., Britain, Australia and Germany, however, as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) use a “citation bias” when evaluating flu vaccines, which essentially means they cite studies that agree with their viewpoint, and ignore (or fail to cite) studies that show no effect or disagree with their agenda. What do you know? Keep that in mind Global Warmers.

This isn’t news to me as I’ve pointed out in several posts(here, here, here, here, and here) the use of selective science. This method of subjective objectivity has been running rampant in today’s science, particularly the health sciences. It’s shameful, and buyer beware: You better check many sources when trying to get the truth these days.

He goes on to say that bigger and better studies on flu vaccinations are needed, but somehow governments are largely ignoring this. An “extraordinary situation,” Mr. Jefferson calls it. Not if you understand modern politics, sir.

He believes, as I do, that effective and provable methods for preventing the spread of flu are simple hygienic practices like hand-washing, wearing gloves and masks (a little weird but effective), and distancing oneself from infected people. Duh! And here’s one of my own, not mentioned by Mr. Jefferson: How about just catching the flu? I don’t mean actively seek it out, but being ill has its benefits, you know.

Too avant-garde? OK, then just try washing your your hands. Mr. Jefferson states,

“There is solid evidence that [hygienic practices] work against all [flu viruses], not just specific strains [unlike the flu vaccine, as it is designed]. They are culturally acceptable and cheap, and they reduce transmission rates of other viruses too. A great American, Stephen Luby of the CDC, has published a study from Karachi, Pakistan, that found that physical interventions are lifesavers. He should receive a Nobel Prize for his work, but I’m sure he never will.

I’m sure he will not, either–no money in simple hygiene. But oodles in useless vaccines.

Mr. Jefferson concludes that he is not antivaccination (and neither am I); he has five children, all of them vaccinated. As he says, childhood vaccines have strong evidence to back up their effectiveness, unlike the annual flu shot. “I am not antivaccine. I am anti–poor evidence,” he says.

Bravo! Nothing more refreshing than a scientist dedicated to the truth. Sounds weird, I know, since science is the investigation of truths of the universe. But that’s the way it goes when politics get involved in any endeavor. When it comes to your health, you better find the truth for yourself, because you won’t get it from the government. Governments lie.

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