Experiences of racism linked to adult-onset asthma in African-American women
(Boston) - According to a new study from the Slone Epidemiology Center (SEC) at Boston University, African-American women who reported more frequent experiences of racism had a greater likelihood of adult-onset asthma compared to women who reported less frequent experiences.
The study, which currently appears on-line in the journal Chest, was led by Patricia Coogan, DSc, senior epidemiologist at SEC and research professor of epidemiology at Boston University School of Public Health.
This study followed 38,142 African-American women, all of whom are participants in the Black Women’s Health Study (BWHS), between 1997 and 2011. They completed health questionnaires every two years. In 1997 and 2009 they provided information on their experiences of “everyday” racism, like poor service in stores or restaurants, and “lifetime” racism, which was discrimination encountered on the job, in housing and by police.
“This is the first prospective study to show an association between experiences of racism and adult-onset asthma,” said Coogan. “Racism is a significant stressor in the lives of African American women, and our results contribute to a growing body of evidence indicating that experiences of racism can have adverse effects on health.” The hypothesized mechanism linking experiences of racism to asthma incidence is stress and its physiological consequences, particularly effects on the immune system and the airways. “Given the high prevalence of both asthma and of experiences of racism in African Americans, the association is of public health importance,” she added.
I must admit, the timing of this “award” is rather amusingly fortuitous, because it was just on Friday that Andrew Wakefield published a tirade on the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism that is just as misguided, wrong-headed, and inept as anything that Mike Adams, or Teresa Conrick has written entitled Patterns In Chaos: Child Psychiatry, Violence and Autism. In fact, it sounds very much like the anti-psychiatry rants recently written in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown, CT by a deranged gunman named Adam Lanza that I deconstructed last week.
Like Conrick, Wakefield begins by correctly countering the misinformation rampant in the media in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting that Lanza had Asperger’s syndrome and correctly asserting that there is no good evidence of a link between autism or autism spectrum disorders and an increased propensity for violence and mass murder. Unfortunately, Wakefield then does what antivaccinationists do so well and proposes an alternate explanation that involves the same confusion of correlation with causation that Mike Adams and Teresa Conrick fell for, tying them to vaccines:
And for those at risk - young people receiving off-license mind-bending drugs, an urgent overview of individual indication, efficacy, compliance, and adverse effects must be undertaken, funded by the relevant players in the pharmaceutical industry and conducted independently of any other input from them.
Tragically, predictably, there will be more events like that at Sandy Hook Elementary. The vast number of individuals with developmental disorders presages such events. This is not because of their diagnosis, per se, but rather I would suggest, because they may be at increased risk for adverse reactions (due to pre-existing conditions) and are being inappropriately medicated with drugs for which violence is a recognized adverse reaction. These drugs are being prescribed by a “mainstream” medical system that, through clinical neglect, has run dry on alternative treatments for autism spectrum disorders while enjoying Parma’s inducements way too much to look for any.
My opinion is neither mine alone, nor is it new. In attempting to make sense of the “senseless” it offers both tangible reasons and approaches to prevention. It is not enough that our hearts break for those affected; we are compelled to act. Perhaps inevitably, I am left with a mental image of Pharma lobbyists scaling Capitol Hill like an army of Orcs closing on Helm’s Deep. It’s a hideous sight.
The results of several recent studies on the intake of salt have been widely reported in the media for about a year now. The New York Times, USA Today and lesser known papers, CNN, the broadcast networks, and countless news web sites have all covered the story at different times going back to the end of last year.
In a nutshell what the studies have found is that salt in moderation is probably not as bad for you as we have been led to believe in the last couple of decades. They also found that too little salt, just like too much, can also put you at risk of cardiovascular disease. Generally the research concludes that for most people a little more salt than is recommended in current federal health guidelines will not cause adverse effects. However some people really are more sensitive to salt than the general population and need to stay at a reduced intake level.
Okay, now lets get to David Barton’s take on this issue…
You also get the promise of Exodus 15:26 that says now if you do all of the things that I command you, you won’t be stuck with all those diseases I put on the Egyptians, you’ll really be health. And so this is really the basis of healthcare is actually doing your body the way God wants you to do your body. That’s one of the great books out of the 60’s called “None of These Diseases” by Dr. S.I. McMillen who’s just a medical doctor and he said ‘hey, let’s go back and look at what God said about health things in the Bible.” And, my gosh, four thousand, five thousand years later we doctors have finally figured out God got it right.
And I’ll make a speculation on this because I think the Bible is always right on science and science eventually does catch up, we’re going to find out salt is not that bad a deal for you. There’s a reason Jesus made salt a good thing, that we are the salt, we are the light, we’re the preservative. Now anything taken too much is going to be a problem, but I have seen in the last two weeks new studies coming out saying well, it turns out salt is not as bad as we thought it was.
So he is “speculating” on salt based only on his biblical knowledge and not in fact from the very studies he says he has read? Aren’t the studies that have been out for around a year now the only reason he is even discussing this issue to begin with? I do not want to know what type of mental gymnastics it takes to convince yourself that science is wrong and the bible is right and to then use science to try to prove it.
More about that book he is plugging “None of These Diseases” in a page coming soon…