Diary of Unknown Symptoms

Mystery of the Internal Vibration

Entry for October 22, 2006

1161571460-hr-755

A closer look at my blood request and he is testing my level of B6 pyridoxine, B12 and folic acid. Today I noticed he added something called “Retic Count”, I have no clue what that means…

Retic: Short for reticulocyte.

Reticulocyte: A young red blood cell that usually remains in the bone marrow with only a few venturing out into the circulating blood. The number of reticulocytes in blood rises when red cell production is unusually vigorous, as after a major bleeding episode or after the bone marrow has been suppressed and is regenerating. The reticulocyte is so named because it has a fine reticulum representing ribosomal remains.

High values: A high reticulocyte count may indicate increased production of red blood cells by the bone marrow, which can be caused by bleeding, a move to high elevation, or certain types of anemia resulting in increased destruction of red blood cells (hemolysis).  The reticulocyte count usually rises after successful treatment for pernicious anemia, iron-deficiency anemia, or folic acid deficiency anemia.

Low values: A low reticulocyte count may indicate decreased production of red blood cells by the bone marrow, which can be caused by aplastic anemia or other types of anemia, such as iron-deficiency anemia. A low reticulocyte count can also be caused by exposure to radiation, a long-term (chronic) infection, or by certain medications that damage the bone marrow.

Advertisements

October 22, 2006 Posted by | Health | | Leave a comment

Entry for October 22, 2006

1161557038-hr-754

A new study has linked children who watch TV to Autism. Although the study is vague to the actual cause, I think the link could be related to EMF exposure. My EMF meter shows very high when taking a reading in front of the TV Children tend to watch TV too close and it’s one of the things I’ve noticed with our daughter. I like to turn the TV off whenever she is near it. These days everyone has a plasma screen tv and from what I understand, the EMF is even stronger than the normal televisions.

Here’s the Autism link to EMF:

A Possible Association Between Fetal/neonatal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Increased Incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Robert C. Kane, Ph.D. – February, 2004
 
Summary: Recently disclosed epidemiological data indicate a dramatic increase in the incidence of autism spectrum disorders. Previously, the incidence of autism has been reported as 4-5 per 10,000 children. The most recent evidence indicates an increased incidence of about 1 per 500 children. However, the etiology of autism is yet to be determined. The recently disclosed data suggest a possible correlation between autism incidence and a previously unconsidered environmental toxin. It is generally accepted in the scientific community that radiofrequency radiation is a biologically active substance. It is also readily acknowledged that human exposures to radiofrequency radiation have become pervasive during the past twenty years, whereas such exposures were uncommon prior to that time. It is suggested that fetal or neo-natal exposures to radiofrequency radiation may be associated with an increased incidence of autism.

The article was published in the journal “Medical Hypotheses”, Volume 62, Issue 2 , February 2004, Pages 195-197

————————————————————————————————————

And here’s the Autism link to TV exposure:

A Bizarre Study Suggests That Watching TV Causes Autism

Posted Friday, Oct. 20, 2006

Viewpoint: Childhood vaccines, toxins, genes and now television watching? The alarming rise in autism rates is one of the biggest mysteries of modern medicine, but it’s irresponsible to blame one factor without hard scientific proof

Strange things happen when you apply the statistical methods of economics to medical science. You might say you get dismal science, but that’s a bit glib. You certainly get some strange claims like the contention of three economists that autism may be caused by watching too much television at a tender age. It gets stranger still when you look at the data upon which this argument is based. The as yet unpublished Cornell University study, which will be presented Friday at a health economics conference in Cambridge, Mass., is constructed from an analysis of reported autism cases, cable TV subscription data and weather reports. Yes, weather reports. And yet, it all makes some kind of sense in the realm of statistics. And it makes sense to author Gregg Easterbrook, who stirred the blogosphere this week with an article about the study on Slate, provocatively (and perhaps irresponsibly) titled “TV Really Might Cause Autism.”

The alarming rise in autism rates in the U.S. and some other developed nations is one of the most anguishing mysteries of modern medicine and the source of much desperate speculation by parents. In 1970, its incidence was thought to be just 1 in 2,500; today about 1 in 170 kids born in the U.S. fall somewhere on the autism spectrum (which includes Asperger’s Syndrome), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some of the spike can be reasonably attributed to a new, broader definition of the disorder, better detection, mandatory reporting by schools and greater awareness of autism among doctors, parents and educators. Still, there’s a nagging sense among many experts that some mysterious X-factor or factors in the environment tip genetically susceptible kids into autism, though efforts to pin it on childhood vaccines, mercury or other toxins haven’t panned out. Genes alone can’t explain it; the identical twin of a child with autism has only a 70% to 90% chance of being similarly afflicted.

Enter Michael Waldman, of Cornell’s Johnson Graduate School of Management. He got to thinking that TV watching already vaguely associated with ADHD  just might be factor X. That there was no medical research to support the idea didn’t faze him. “I decided the only way it will get done is if I do it” he says. Waldman and fellow economists Sean Nicholson of Cornell and Nodir Adilov of Indiana University-Purdue were also undeterred by the fact that there are no reliable large-scale data on the viewing habits of kids ages 1 to 3 the period when symptoms of autism are typically identified. They turned instead to what most scientists would consider wildly indirect measures: cable subscription data (reasoning that as more houses were wired for cable, more young kids were watching) and rainfall patterns (other research has correlated TV viewing with rainy weather).

Lo and behold, Waldman and colleagues found that reported autism cases within certain counties in California and Pennsylvania rose at rates that closely tracked cable subscriptions, rising fastest in counties with fastest-growing cable. The same was true of autism and rainfall patterns in California, Pennsylvania and Washington State. Their oddly definitive conclusions: “Approximately 17% of the growth in autism in California and Pennsylvania during the 1970s and 1980s was due to the growth of cable television” and “just under 40% of autism diagnoses in the three states studied is the result of television watching due to precipitation.”

Result of? Due to? How can these researchers suggest causality when no actual TV watching was ever measured? “The standard interpretation of this type of analysis is that this is cause and effect” Waldman insists, adding that the 67-page study has been read by “half a dozen topnotch health economists.”

Could there be something to this strange piece of statistical derring-do? It’s not impossible, but it would take a lot more research to tease out its true significance. Meanwhile, it’s hard to say just what these correlations measure. “You have to be very definitive about what you are looking at” says Vanderbilt University geneticist Pat Levitt. “How do you know, for instance, that it’s not mold or mildew in the counties that have a lot of rain? “How do you know, for that matter, that as counties get more cable access, they don’t also get more pediatricians scanning for autism? Easterbrook, though intrigued by the study, concedes that it could be indoor air quality rather than television that has a bearing on the development of autism. On a more biological level there’s this problem, says Drexel Univeristy epidemiologist Craig Newschaffer: “They ignore the reasonable body of evidence that suggest that the pathologic process behind autism probably starts in utero” i.e., long before a baby is born.

The week also brought a more definitive, though less splashy finding on the causes of autism, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. A team led by Levitt found that a fairly common gene variation one that’s present in 47% of the population is associated with an increased risk of autism. People with two copies of the gene have twice the average risk of autism; those with one copy face a slightly increased risk. The gene is intriguing because it codes for a protein that’s active not only in the brain the organ most affected by autism but also in the immune system and the gastrointestinal tract, two systems that function poorly in many people with autism. Levitt estimates that anywhere from five to 20 genes may underlie the vulnerability to autism. There are probably many routes to the disorder, involving diverse combinations of genes and noxious environmental influences. Could Teletubbies be one of them? Conceivably, but more likely the trouble starts way before TV watching begins.

With reporting by Alice Park/New York

October 22, 2006 Posted by | Health | , , | Leave a comment

Entry for October 22, 2006

PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY

Eating Tuna Safely

This table provides guidelines on how much canned tuna it is safe to eat, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. While mercury poses the most serious health threat to children and women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, others may also wish to use this list as a guide.

If you weigh: Don’t eat more than one can every:
White Albacore Chunk Light
20 lbs 10 weeks 3 weeks
30 lbs 6 weeks 2 weeks
40 lbs 5 weeks 11 days
50 lbs 4 weeks 9 days
60 lbs 3 weeks 7 days
70 lbs 3 weeks 6 days
80 lbs 2 weeks 6 days
90 lbs 2 weeks 5 days
100 lbs 2 weeks 5 days
110 lbs 12 days 4 days
120 lbs 11 days 4 days
130 lbs 10 days 4 days
140 lbs 10 days 3 days
150+ lbs 9 days 3 days
Source: Food and Drug Administration test results for mercury and fish, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s determination of safe levels of mercury.

October 22, 2006 Posted by | Health | , | Leave a comment

Entry for October 22, 2006

Since I started eating healthier I’ve been eating tuna at least once a week. I’ve always known that it’s one of the things that I eat that always makes me feel better but I’ve always had different reasons for thinking it had an effect on me.

First, I thought it was niacin. Secondly, I suspected magnesium and now, I discover that tuna is high in vitamin B6. So it was probably the comination of all three. We’ve all heard about the dangers of mercury in tuna so…Dr. Google?

Albacore:

According to FDA health standards, you can safely eat 5.7 ounces of Albacore tuna per week (assuming that every can of tuna has an average amount of mercury*). That’s almost a full can of tuna. Albacore tuna has three times as much mercury as light tuna.

Light Tuna:

According to FDA health standards, you can safely eat 16.6 ounces of Light tuna tuna per week (assuming that every can of tuna has an average amount of mercury*). That’s 2 and three quarters cans of tuna.

FDA scientists have established a daily limit for mercury and have tested hundreds of cans of tuna for the metal, but they have not told women of childbearing age how much tuna they can eat and not endanger their children.

FDA’s safe dose is measured in grams of mercury per kilogram of person per day. All we need is your weight and it is a simple math problem to determine how much tuna you can eat safely.

The calculations presented here assume that you eat no other seafood at all. The FDA recommends up to 12 ounces a week of a variety of fish. If you eat other seafood, the amount of tuna that you can eat safely will be less than calculated here.

*EWG recommends that women of childbearing age and children under 5 not eat albacore tuna at all, because a significant portion of albacore tuna has very high mercury levels. People eating this tuna will exceed safe exposure levels by a wide margin.

So is there anything I can do about the mercury?

Mineral Replacement

It is important to have a generally healthy mineral base. The body works better with toxic metals than no metals at all. Enzymes have certain binding sites that require a metal for them to perform their function as a catalyst. When you are deficient in magnesium, sodium, zinc and other minerals, the body does not let go of the toxic metals very easily.

Selenium and zinc are particularly important trace mineral in mercury detoxification and should be used for most people.

October 22, 2006 Posted by | Health | , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: