We talked once last week about the Lancet problem–they have a Chemophobia problem.
Basic problem, Lancet–what’s your marker and what’s your historical perspective? How reliable is the historical information to establish any reliable exposure/effect data. Is the theory in anyway supported by reliable data on exposures and effects?
How can you talk about world wide neurobehavioral disorders without recognizing that there have always been neurobehavioral disorders and they have always been in excess of 5 % of the population, mental illness and mental disabilities, and labeling and diagnosis are driven by agendas and resources available.
What is the basic rate of mental illness, mental retardation, other species of neurobehavioral disorders?
In fact I learned long ago that mental illness is present in as high as 10 percent of the population. So is there an increase given our tendency to over diagnose and identify mental disorders previously uncounted or unrecognized? If we count and sample and then report a higher rate is it only because we are counting and searching and diagnosing? That could be particularly if we are doing sampling then projections.
Here is the info from a recent report of the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration.
Nationally, 44.5 million adults aged 18 or older experienced any mental illness in the past year, corresponding to a rate of 19.7 percent of the adult population.
· Among the states, the highest rate of any mental illness in adults aged 18 or older, occurred in Rhode Island (24.2-percent) while the lowest rate occurred in Maryland (16.7 percent).
· Nationally, 10.4 million adults aged 18 or older (4.6-percent of that population), experienced a SMI in the past year. SMI rates ranged from 3.5-percent in Hawaii to 7.2-percent in Rhode Island.
· Arkansas, Idaho, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia had the highest rates for both SMI and any mental illness.
· Alaska, Maryland, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Virginia had the lowest rates across both measures.
Lancet, excuse me, but since the focus is on neurobehavioral disorders, and there is a factor of environment and nurturing that has nothing to do with chemicals, would it not be premature to blame any trends that are identified as due to chemicals?
But then Lancet is very environmentalist friendly as a medicine journal, even more committed than others to blaming disease and harm on environmental factors. At least that seems to be the case.
Why would medical people assume that chemicals in the environment are causing an epidemic of neurobehavioral disorders?
One thing is sure, the authors of this article are committed to eliminating what they consider any neuro toxin and their proposal for an international clearinghouse is ambitious to a fault. I am awaiting a follow up study on how they can connect neurobehavioral disorders to local chemical exposures in a way that would satisfy the Bradford Hill Rules for Toxicology. No actually I know that they can’t do it, but would be interested to know how they talk themselves around the problem.
Here is the Lancet Article
Lancet Neurol 2014 Mar 01;13(3)330-338, P Grandjean, PJ Landrigan
Review · February 27, 2014
TAKE-HOME MESSAGE
Currently, 10% to 15% of children born worldwide are affected by disorders of neurobehavioral development, and diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder appear to be increasing. Even more pervasive are subclinical decrements in brain function. This systematic literature review is an update from 2006 in which the authors discuss the prevalence of neurotoxins in everyday consumer products to which the developing brain is susceptible. The article looks at clinical and epidemiological studies of neurotoxicity associated with industrial chemicals, which are among the known causes of the global pandemic of neurodevelopmental disorders.
In 2006, six chemicals were determined to have harmful effects on developing brains of children. These were: arsenic and arsenic compounds, lead, methylmercury, (ethanol) toluene, polychlorinated biphenyls. From this review, six more chemicals have been added to the list: fluoride, manganese, tetrachloroethylene, chlorpyrifos, DDT/DDE, and brominated diphenyl ethers. Additionally, the list of 202 chemicals known to cause detrimental neurologic effects to adults increased from 202 in 2007 to 214 in 2013. It would be highly likely that developing brains are also vulnerable to these chemicals.
The authors call for a framework of action and propose strategies to reduce the global negative effects of environmental toxins on prevalence of neurological disease and disability in children.
ABSTRACT
Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.
Lancet Neurol 2014 Mar 01;13(3)330-338, P Grandjean, PJ Landrigan
Review · February 27, 2014
TAKE-HOME MESSAGE
Currently, 10% to 15% of children born worldwide are affected by disorders of neurobehavioral development, and diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder appear to be increasing. Even more pervasive are subclinical decrements in brain function. This systematic literature review is an update from 2006 in which the authors discuss the prevalence of neurotoxins in everyday consumer products to which the developing brain is susceptible. The article looks at clinical and epidemiological studies of neurotoxicity associated with industrial chemicals, which are among the known causes of the global pandemic of neurodevelopmental disorders.
In 2006, six chemicals were determined to have harmful effects on developing brains of children. These were: arsenic and arsenic compounds, lead, methylmercury, (ethanol) toluene, polychlorinated biphenyls. From this review, six more chemicals have been added to the list: fluoride, manganese, tetrachloroethylene, chlorpyrifos, DDT/DDE, and brominated diphenyl ethers. Additionally, the list of 202 chemicals known to cause detrimental neurologic effects to adults increased from 202 in 2007 to 214 in 2013. It would be highly likely that developing brains are also vulnerable to these chemicals.
The authors call for a framework of action and propose strategies to reduce the global negative effects of environmental toxins on prevalence of neurological disease and disability in children.
Beneath the gullible Doctor population is a referring army of people with degrees in Psychology – maybe the easiest degree to earn. They find work where there are “perceived” needs. Schools, colleges, et al. In order to create demand for their “product” the most dire diagnoses are needed and then created. Then these “disorders” are given new important sounding clinical names to enhance the importance and urgency of the problem.
Thereby introducing the “need” for and use of drugs. Which added to the poor education the kids are getting to begin with, gives us a population of inactive zombies who are out of shape, obese, and, unbalanced.
God save our beautiful children – the best of our species. Will G.
I wonder which of those states has the most “doctors” specializing in neurobehavioral disorders. The key phrase here is “diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder appear to be increasing. Even more pervasive are subclinical decrements in brain function.”
So diagnosis is increasing, not incidence, and “subclinical” means “not severe enough to present definite or readily observable symptoms”, so they’re diagnosing children with no apparent symptoms and then wondering why diagnosis are increasing?