another ridiculous debate with a doctor (who happens to be my sister)

[Guest guest]

I sent her this article " FDA pulls DMSA and hope from children with autism and

ADHD by Dr. C. L'Hommedieu " which someone posted on this list and here

was my sister's response (typical medical doctor, sigh)

 

" Just wondering if you've come across any evidence for the connection

between lead and the conditions Dr.L'Hommedieu mentions above.  He

alludes to an " association " between them, which is difficult to

interpret and as we both know far from cause and effect - it could be

just a nice coincidence or could be spot on - who knows.  He loosely

ties " inhibition of enzymes needed for neurotransmitters " (due to

lead

presumably) with epilespy - yet epilepsy is incredibly complex,

defined as far as I'm aware as " the recurrent paroxysmal transient

disturbance of brain function due to disturbance of electrical

activity in the brain, where the disturbance is unrelated to infection

or acute cerebral insult " - i.e. the predominant abnormality being

disturbance in electrical activity not specifically associated with

disturbance in neurotransmitters - in fact I haven't heard of

neurotransmitter imbalance at all in epilepsy - which of course

doesn't mean it's not true but with all the medication aimed at

rebalancing neurotrasmitters you'd think the drug companies would be

onto that if it were the case - that's me being a conspiracist against

evil drug companies

I'm wondering what sort of evidence he has to make such claims and

would be interested in any research he may have been involved in. "

 

So here is my response to her. I wonder what others may have responded to her??

 

" Well that is a very tricky thing to answer precisely because the answer is so

complex and goes beyond the limits of science.

 

The one thing you have to remember is that, despite how we like to differentiate

ourselves from our environment and from other animals, especially mammals, on

our planet, we are all linked in complex ways.

 

For over 30 years now, environmentalists and biologists have been studying how

introdcution of toxins from man-made activity has impacted our environment and

animals.

 

See these sources as just examples, though if you were to research it you would

literally get over a million hits (this is not new knowledge, I even learned

about this from my high school environmental studies class):

 

http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/health.html

http://www.lead.org.au/lanv1n2/lanv1n2-8.html

http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/pb-en.htm

 

Now...the negative effects of man-made toxins on animals and environmental

ecosystems (with chemicals such as lead, mercury, arsenic - while found in trace

amounts in nature, but extremly high levels are typically linked to the dumping

of these toxins into the enviroment by man or from man made activity, such as

the case with lead and car exhaust) are not disputed among biologists and

environmentalists...and because we are (in as much as we like to think we are

not) linked to the environment, after all we are mammals, we are animals,

accepting that we are also impacted by these toxins that are man made is complex

and involves politics, social dynamics (i.e. typically research,even the

research I am sending below is linked to social-economic status due to many

factors including exposure, education, etc), economics, lobbying by special

interest groups, etc....

 

Furthermore, we cannot take complex biological systems (including the human

body) and expect that logical scientific deductions, such as cause and

effect, to be applicable. This is because there is simply so much that we don't

know about how the body works, than what we do know.  Yes science can give us

clues, but it certainly cannot even come close to providing all the answers.

 

Also, since is very limited precisely because it is politically and economically

charged and as Boyd Haley is often quoted as saying (the chemist whose area of

research is in mercury

and the effects on our environment and the human body), there is good science

and bad science, and hence good medicine and bad medicine.

 

I don't know much about psychiatry, but I know enough about obstetrics that I

can say with certainty that it is one of the least evidence based areas of

medicine, and I really wonder if we can say the same for psychiatry considering

there is so much we don't know.

 

There is a lot of research that completely goes against current obstetrical

practices in the US (vs countries like Sweden and Findland, which have the

highest safety records of birth and incidently are the most hands off, most

births occuring at home with midwives). Henci Goer published one book that is

composed of studies with findings that go against pretty much all routine

obstetrical care in the U.S. (titled " Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities:

A Guide to the Medical Literature " ).

 

I'm only using obstetrics as an example of bad medicine (in this case good

science and bad medicine,though often times when you have a politically charged

topic like the use of thermisol in vaccines, you can see examples of both bad

science and bad medicine, as Boyd Haley goes into great detail and I would

strongly recommend reading some of his research findings that I sent you earlier

on).  It is interesting that while publically, the government has denied the

dangers of thermisol or dental amalgams to human health, thermisol was slowly

removed from vaccines. So all of a suddan, while still denying that thermisol

injured millions of children, they just removed it. Similarly, the FDA now cites

warnings against the use of dental amalgams, but quietly, without making a big

public fuss about it.

 

So you have to wonder why do these things not make big news?? Why not admit that

thermisol is in fact dangerous to human health (especially to a developing

newborn's brain), why not admit that amalgams are dangerous to human health

(even the amount of mercury found in one amalgam filling can kill off an entire

lake of fish - I don't know the exact numbers but there is a study somewhere on

my computer that calculates precisely how much mercury it takes to kill all the

fish of a lake of a certain volume). The point is there is  A LOT of research

being done on man produced heavy metals and the enviroment, on man produced

heavy metals and the effects on animals, etc...........but when it comes to

heavy metals and the effect on people,research is more behind because it is

politically, socially and economically charged).

 

Also, the problem with cause and effect type of studies is that they assume that

the human body is mechanical and follows the mechanistic rules, which it often

does not. Even the medical model of isolating organs and studying x organ and z

effect on x organ can only take your knowledge so far,because it is beyond human

knowledge to know exactly how the human body works holistically, how the effects

of z, while not direct on organ y, can still be found but not measured in a

quantitative manner, that doesn't mean there aren't any effects.

 

It is rather ridiculous to study organs in isolation with each other, just as it

is ridiculous to think that human beings are immune to the effects of the man

produced toxins in the enviroment, as if we are somehow magically isolated from

our environment.

 

But that is the limit of science so why put down science? It is not infallible

precisely because it is limited by human knowedge and interpretation, which is

finite. I don't think science can provide us with all the answers but I don't

expect it to and I have worked with enough scientists when I was doing my

undergrad in biochem (before I switched to joint english and biology) to know

that most scientists also see science as providing us with only limited

knowledge. There is much more we don't know and science often just gives us more

questions rather than providing us with straight forward answers.

 

Of course that doesn't stop the medical community and the pharmaceutical

companies from using the rhetoric of science to assert their authority.  Most

pharmaceutical funded studies are not done nearly long enough, and do not answer

nearly enough questions to satisfy questions of safety, hence why so many drugs

are put on the market only to be later recalled.

 

 So really, I just don't think your cause and effect arguement applies, because

for it to apply we would have to be mechanical beings rather than the complex

beings that we are.

 

Yes, of course it is difficult to prove scientifically just what effects are

caused by certain toxins - because that entails isolating all the other

variables, which just doesn't happen in the natural world. Life does not exist

in a vaccuum as it does in a science lab.

 

That doesn't mean these links are not there. If you take science to be the

ultimate truth, then you are putting man into the position of being all knowing,

which is just simply ridiculous. We are merely trying to grasp our extremly

complex world and we are not even close to understanding just how this world, or

how we exactly function in harmony with other animals and our environment.

 

What really irks me about psychiatrists is that they would rather just say, such

and such a disease or behaviour (i.e. scizophrenia) happens, but we don't know

why, we just know that x drug seems to help, and the benefits outweigh the side

effects, without ever getting to the root cause.

 

So I really wonder, why are doctors and psychiatrists SO quick to dismiss

environmental effects, in particular toxins?

 

How is it that we can be immune (yet not animals) to the effects of these

toxins, that are present in a greater concentration than ever in human history

due to the scientific/technological revolution?

 

Is it precisely because the question is so complex that doctors would rather not

bother?

 

Is it precisely because this would entail in excepting that our science,and

hence understanding of our world, even our man-made world is limited and  beyond

our abilty/knowledge to comprehend?

 

I can certainly understand that it IS just easier to give someone a pill and

call it a day without getting at the root cause.

 

I can certainly understand that it is far simpler to not pose these questions,

for to pose these questions is to undermine our own authority over the world and

over our own existance.

 

But none the less, there are many scientists world wide who are still trying to

answer these questions, so good for them.

 

I am personally of the opinon that it is silly that we need scientists to valid

common sense observations (if x and y toxin are having  r and s effects on other

mammals, how much of a stretch is it that they would have SOME (not necessarily

the same) effect on humans?).

 

I also wouldn't hold my breath in having science come up with the answers as to

how do we treat autism, and do vaccines contribute to autism? If I had an

autistic child and my choice was to wait until science " proved " that my child

could be helped by using a very safe sulfer compound, such as DMSA, I wouldn't

wait for those answers from the scientific community, my child would not have

that much time. That there are hundreds of children who have been helped by DMSA

for lead poisoning and other heavy metal poisoning (from vaccines or otherwise)

is indication enough that you have to wonder why the government sponcered

scientists haven't been investigating these questions. It is much easier to just

say these parents and scientists who do support them (such as Boyd Haley, Andy

Cutler, etc) are quacks than to examine an area of science/medicine that is

completely vested econmically and politically.

 

Why would I give so much power (such as the fate over my child's ultimate

health) to the government or to doctors who with or without their knowledge,

have such a political and economical gain in an area such as vaccinations? (To

their credit, most doctors aren't aware that vaccines are politically and

economically charged - they just simply see it as good medicine and don't

question it).

 

So back to the question of lead and psychiatric symptoms. Luckily, lead is one

of the most studied toxins, precisely because it is the least politically and

economically charged (unlike mercury, which is found in amalgam fillings and was

used as an ingredient in many vaccines until recently).  Because lead

contamination is generally attributed to things like toys from china, old paint,

and car exhaust, it is much safer to do research on lead, than it would be to do

research into mercury, where you would have special interest groups with lots of

lobbying power and very powerful attornies on their side.

 

So here is one site that cites a study where lead is linked to schizophrenia:

 

http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/13252/lead-poisoning.html

 

" However, a s Hopkins report by Tomas Guilarte stated " It has been known for

some time that lead is a potent inhibitor of the NMDA receptor, a protein known

to play an important role in brain development and cognition. In this study we

demonstrate that lead exposure decreased the amount of NMDA receptor gene and

protein in a part of the brain called the hippocampus. " They found that children

who had been exposed to high levels of lead in the womb were more than twice as

likely to go on to develop schizophrenia. "

 

Incidently, the same article points to the links of siezures and lead poisoning:

" The symptoms of lead poisoning include neurological problems, such as reduced

IQ, nausea, abdominal pain, irritability, insomnia, excess lethargy or

hyperactivity, headache and, in extreme cases, seizure and coma. "

 

Here is an article that sites scientists who have been doing research on lead

and violent behaviour:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/28/science/sci-lead28

 

" In the first of the new studies, environmental health research Kim N. Dietrich

of the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine studied 250 of the original

group, correlating their lead levels with adult criminal arrest records from

Hamilton County, Ohio.

They found that 55% of the subjects (63% of males) had been arrested, and that

the average was five arrests between the ages of 18 and 24.

The higher the blood lead level at any time in childhood, the greater the

likelihood of arrests. “The strongest association was with violent criminal

activity – murder, rape domestic violence, assault, robbery and possession of

weapons,” Dietrich said. "

 

Another article here explores the relationship between lead poisoning and

antisocial behavior:

 

http://www.calisafe.org/_disc1/00000032.htm  " University of Pittsburgh researcher

Dr. Herbert Needleman, professor of child psychiatry and pediatrics, examined

the bone lead levels of 216 youths convicted in a juvenile court and 201 non-

delinquent controls from high schools in Pittsburgh. " Of all the causes of

juvenile delinquency, lead exposure is perhaps the most preventable, " said

Needleman. " These results should be a call to action for legislators to protect

our children by requiring landlords to not simply disclose known instances of

lead paint in their properties, but to remove it. " These reports join a growing

body of evidence linking lead to health, cognitive and behavioral problems in

children. In the U.S., almost a million children under the age of six suffer

from lead poisoning. "

 

" Lead exposure can cause permanent damage to the brain and other organs.

Research shows that children with elevated blood lead levels are seven times

more likely to drop out of school and twice as likely to lose a few years in

language acquisition. Prior studies by Needleman linking lead exposure to lower

IQ scores, short attention spans and poor language skills helped prompt

nationwide government bans on lead from paint, gasoline and food and beverage

cans. But there are still a number of ways in which children, and adults, may be

exposed to lead. Most children who suffer from lead poisoning are exposed to

invisible lead dust that is released when older paint is peeling, damaged or

disturbed, or by eating chips of lead paint. Drinking water that comes from lead

pipes or lead soldered fittings can expose children to lead, as can breathing

air contaminated by the lead smelting, refining and manufacturing industries "

 

This link discusses an interesting article on how an enriching environment can

protect the brain against lead exposure, which would explain again, why

social-economic status plays a role in environmental toxin poisoning and related

behavioural problems

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/D/200114426.html

 

(Another example that throws off any cause and effect arguments - when you have

to study a topic such as heavy metal poisoning from an interdisciplinary

approach - economic, political, social, biological, biochemical, medical,

enviromental, any kind of cause and effect relationships become just mere

threads in a complex web).

 

Here is just one mere example of how incredibly limited science is to

understanding these complex relationships in biological beings:

 

" Although lead is the most studied of hundreds of known or suspected neurotoxic

air pollutants, other heavy metals, pesticides, and organic solvents also cause

neurobehavioral dysfunction. Expanded research in behavioral neurotoxicology is

urgently needed. Changes in mood, cognition, and behavior are endpoints that

need to be evaluated in addition to cancer rates or mortality data and may be

more common. In various studies, increased levels of air pollutants are

accompanied by increased psychiatric emergency calls and hospital admissions,

behavior changes, and a lessened sense of well-being. Irritating odors and

cigarette smoke have been found to increase aggressive behavior, and to decrease

helping behavior and altruism, leading to a degradation of social interaction. "  

http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm "

[Guest guest]

Good for you!!! I definately want you on my side in battle and I

understand that sometimes it is difficult to set other's straight...I

had a disagreement with a long time friend of mine because she is a

nurse and thinks she is right! We all need to be able to show our

compassion for what we are doing with our children to help them as

the medical system has little medically to offer our children.

>

> I sent her this article " FDA pulls DMSA and hope from children with

autism and ADHD by Dr. C. L'Hommedieu " which someone posted

on this list and here was my sister's response (typical medical

doctor, sigh)

>  

> " Just wondering if you've come across any evidence for the

connection

> between lead and the conditions Dr.L'Hommedieu mentions above.  He

> alludes to an " association " between them, which is difficult to

> interpret and as we both know far from cause and effect - it could

be

> just a nice coincidence or could be spot on - who knows.  He loosely

> ties " inhibition of enzymes needed for neurotransmitters " (due to

> lead

> presumably) with epilespy - yet epilepsy is incredibly complex,

> defined as far as I'm aware as " the recurrent paroxysmal transient

> disturbance of brain function due to disturbance of electrical

> activity in the brain, where the disturbance is unrelated to

infection

> or acute cerebral insult " - i.e. the predominant abnormality being

> disturbance in electrical activity not specifically associated with

> disturbance in neurotransmitters - in fact I haven't heard of

> neurotransmitter imbalance at all in epilepsy - which of course

> doesn't mean it's not true but with all the medication aimed at

> rebalancing neurotrasmitters you'd think the drug companies would be

> onto that if it were the case - that's me being a conspiracist

against

> evil drug companies

> I'm wondering what sort of evidence he has to make such claims and

> would be interested in any research he may have been involved in. "

>  

> So here is my response to her. I wonder what others may have

responded to her??

>  

> " Well that is a very tricky thing to answer precisely because the

answer is so complex and goes beyond the limits of science.

>  

> The one thing you have to remember is that, despite how we like to

differentiate ourselves from our environment and from other animals,

especially mammals, on our planet, we are all linked in complex ways.

>  

> For over 30 years now, environmentalists and biologists have been

studying how introdcution of toxins from man-made activity has

impacted our environment and animals.

>  

> See these sources as just examples, though if you were to research

it you would literally get over a million hits (this is not new

knowledge, I even learned about this from my high school

environmental studies class):

>  

> http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/health.html

> http://www.lead.org.au/lanv1n2/lanv1n2-8.html

> http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/pb-en.htm

>  

> Now...the negative effects of man-made toxins on animals and

environmental ecosystems (with chemicals such as lead, mercury,

arsenic - while found in trace amounts in nature, but extremly high

levels are typically linked to the dumping of these toxins into the

enviroment by man or from man made activity, such as the case with

lead and car exhaust) are not disputed among biologists and

environmentalists...and because we are (in as much as we like to

think we are not) linked to the environment, after all we are

mammals, we are animals, accepting that we are also impacted by these

toxins that are man made is complex and involves politics, social

dynamics (i.e. typically research,even the research I am sending

below is linked to social-economic status due to many factors

including exposure, education, etc), economics, lobbying by special

interest groups, etc....

>  

> Furthermore, we cannot take complex biological systems (including

the human body) and expect that logical scientific deductions, such

as cause and effect, to be applicable. This is because there is

simply so much that we don't know about how the body works, than what

we do know.  Yes science can give us clues, but it certainly cannot

even come close to providing all the answers.

>  

> Also, since is very limited precisely because it is politically and

economically charged and as Boyd Haley is often quoted as saying (the

chemist whose area of research is in mercury

> and the effects on our environment and the human body), there is

good science and bad science, and hence good medicine and bad

medicine.

>  

> I don't know much about psychiatry, but I know enough about

obstetrics that I can say with certainty that it is one of the least

evidence based areas of medicine, and I really wonder if we can say

the same for psychiatry considering there is so much we don't know.

>  

> There is a lot of research that completely goes against current

obstetrical practices in the US (vs countries like Sweden and

Findland, which have the highest safety records of birth and

incidently are the most hands off, most births occuring at home with

midwives). Henci Goer published one book that is composed of studies

with findings that go against pretty much all routine obstetrical

care in the U.S. (titled " Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities:

A Guide to the Medical Literature " ).

>  

> I'm only using obstetrics as an example of bad medicine (in this

case good science and bad medicine,though often times when you have a

politically charged topic like the use of thermisol in vaccines, you

can see examples of both bad science and bad medicine, as Boyd Haley

goes into great detail and I would strongly recommend reading some of

his research findings that I sent you earlier on).  It is interesting

that while publically, the government has denied the dangers of

thermisol or dental amalgams to human health, thermisol was slowly

removed from vaccines. So all of a suddan, while still denying that

thermisol injured millions of children, they just removed it.

Similarly, the FDA now cites warnings against the use of dental

amalgams, but quietly, without making a big public fuss about it.

>  

> So you have to wonder why do these things not make big news?? Why

not admit that thermisol is in fact dangerous to human health

(especially to a developing newborn's brain), why not admit that

amalgams are dangerous to human health (even the amount of mercury

found in one amalgam filling can kill off an entire lake of fish - I

don't know the exact numbers but there is a study somewhere on my

computer that calculates precisely how much mercury it takes to kill

all the fish of a lake of a certain volume). The point is there is  A

LOT of research being done on man produced heavy metals and the

enviroment, on man produced heavy metals and the effects on animals,

etc...........but when it comes to heavy metals and the effect on

people,research is more behind because it is politically, socially

and economically charged).

>  

> Also, the problem with cause and effect type of studies is that

they assume that the human body is mechanical and follows the

mechanistic rules, which it often does not. Even the medical model of

isolating organs and studying x organ and z effect on x organ can

only take your knowledge so far,because it is beyond human knowledge

to know exactly how the human body works holistically, how the

effects of z, while not direct on organ y, can still be found but not

measured in a quantitative manner, that doesn't mean there aren't any

effects.

>  

> It is rather ridiculous to study organs in isolation with each

other, just as it is ridiculous to think that human beings are immune

to the effects of the man produced toxins in the enviroment, as if we

are somehow magically isolated from our environment.

>  

> But that is the limit of science so why put down science? It is not

infallible precisely because it is limited by human knowedge and

interpretation, which is finite. I don't think science can provide us

with all the answers but I don't expect it to and I have worked with

enough scientists when I was doing my undergrad in biochem (before I

switched to joint english and biology) to know that most scientists

also see science as providing us with only limited knowledge. There

is much more we don't know and science often just gives us more

questions rather than providing us with straight forward answers.

>  

> Of course that doesn't stop the medical community and the

pharmaceutical companies from using the rhetoric of science to assert

their authority.  Most pharmaceutical funded studies are not done

nearly long enough, and do not answer nearly enough questions to

satisfy questions of safety, hence why so many drugs are put on the

market only to be later recalled.

>  

>  So really, I just don't think your cause and effect arguement

applies, because for it to apply we would have to be mechanical

beings rather than the complex beings that we are.

>  

> Yes, of course it is difficult to prove scientifically just what

effects are caused by certain toxins - because that entails isolating

all the other variables, which just doesn't happen in the natural

world. Life does not exist in a vaccuum as it does in a science lab.

>  

> That doesn't mean these links are not there. If you take science to

be the ultimate truth, then you are putting man into the position of

being all knowing, which is just simply ridiculous. We are merely

trying to grasp our extremly complex world and we are not even close

to understanding just how this world, or how we exactly function in

harmony with other animals and our environment.

>  

> What really irks me about psychiatrists is that they would rather

just say, such and such a disease or behaviour (i.e. scizophrenia)

happens, but we don't know why, we just know that x drug seems to

help, and the benefits outweigh the side effects, without ever

getting to the root cause.

>  

> So I really wonder, why are doctors and psychiatrists SO quick to

dismiss environmental effects, in particular toxins?

>  

> How is it that we can be immune (yet not animals) to the effects of

these toxins, that are present in a greater concentration than ever

in human history due to the scientific/technological revolution?

>  

> Is it precisely because the question is so complex that doctors

would rather not bother?

>  

> Is it precisely because this would entail in excepting that our

science,and hence understanding of our world, even our man-made world

is limited and  beyond our abilty/knowledge to comprehend?

>  

> I can certainly understand that it IS just easier to give someone a

pill and call it a day without getting at the root cause.

>  

> I can certainly understand that it is far simpler to not pose these

questions, for to pose these questions is to undermine our own

authority over the world and over our own existance.

>  

> But none the less, there are many scientists world wide who are

still trying to answer these questions, so good for them.

>  

> I am personally of the opinon that it is silly that we need

scientists to valid common sense observations (if x and y toxin are

having  r and s effects on other mammals, how much of a stretch is it

that they would have SOME (not necessarily the same) effect on

humans?).

>  

> I also wouldn't hold my breath in having science come up with the

answers as to how do we treat autism, and do vaccines contribute to

autism? If I had an autistic child and my choice was to wait until

science " proved " that my child could be helped by using a very safe

sulfer compound, such as DMSA, I wouldn't wait for those answers from

the scientific community, my child would not have that much time.

That there are hundreds of children who have been helped by DMSA for

lead poisoning and other heavy metal poisoning (from vaccines or

otherwise) is indication enough that you have to wonder why the

government sponcered scientists haven't been investigating these

questions. It is much easier to just say these parents and scientists

who do support them (such as Boyd Haley, Andy Cutler, etc) are quacks

than to examine an area of science/medicine that is completely vested

econmically and politically.

>  

> Why would I give so much power (such as the fate over my child's

ultimate health) to the government or to doctors who with or without

their knowledge, have such a political and economical gain in an area

such as vaccinations? (To their credit, most doctors aren't aware

that vaccines are politically and economically charged - they just

simply see it as good medicine and don't question it).

>  

> So back to the question of lead and psychiatric symptoms. Luckily,

lead is one of the most studied toxins, precisely because it is the

least politically and economically charged (unlike mercury, which is

found in amalgam fillings and was used as an ingredient in many

vaccines until recently).  Because lead contamination is generally

attributed to things like toys from china, old paint, and car

exhaust, it is much safer to do research on lead, than it would be to

do research into mercury, where you would have special interest

groups with lots of lobbying power and very powerful attornies on

their side.

>  

> So here is one site that cites a study where lead is linked to

schizophrenia:

>  

> http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/13252/lead-

poisoning.html

>  

> " However, a s Hopkins report by Tomas Guilarte stated " It has

been known for some time that lead is a potent inhibitor of the NMDA

receptor, a protein known to play an important role in brain

development and cognition. In this study we demonstrate that lead

exposure decreased the amount of NMDA receptor gene and protein in a

part of the brain called the hippocampus. " They found that children

who had been exposed to high levels of lead in the womb were more

than twice as likely to go on to develop schizophrenia. "

>  

> Incidently, the same article points to the links of siezures and

lead poisoning: " The symptoms of lead poisoning include neurological

problems, such as reduced IQ, nausea, abdominal pain, irritability,

insomnia, excess lethargy or hyperactivity, headache and, in extreme

cases, seizure and coma. "

>  

> Here is an article that sites scientists who have been doing

research on lead and violent behaviour:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/28/science/sci-lead28

>  

> " In the first of the new studies, environmental health research Kim

N. Dietrich of the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine

studied 250 of the original group, correlating their lead levels with

adult criminal arrest records from Hamilton County, Ohio.

> They found that 55% of the subjects (63% of males) had been

arrested, and that the average was five arrests between the ages of

18 and 24.

> The higher the blood lead level at any time in childhood, the

greater the likelihood of arrests. " The strongest association was

with violent criminal activity – murder, rape domestic violence,

assault, robbery and possession of weapons, " Dietrich said. "

>  

> Another article here explores the relationship between lead

poisoning and antisocial behavior:

>  

> http://www.calisafe.org/_disc1/00000032.htm  " University of

Pittsburgh researcher Dr. Herbert Needleman, professor of child

psychiatry and pediatrics, examined the bone lead levels of 216

youths convicted in a juvenile court and 201 non- delinquent controls

from high schools in Pittsburgh. " Of all the causes of juvenile

delinquency, lead exposure is perhaps the most preventable, " said

Needleman. " These results should be a call to action for legislators

to protect our children by requiring landlords to not simply disclose

known instances of lead paint in their properties, but to remove it. "

These reports join a growing body of evidence linking lead to health,

cognitive and behavioral problems in children. In the U.S., almost a

million children under the age of six suffer from lead poisoning. "

>  

> " Lead exposure can cause permanent damage to the brain and other

organs. Research shows that children with elevated blood lead levels

are seven times more likely to drop out of school and twice as likely

to lose a few years in language acquisition. Prior studies by

Needleman linking lead exposure to lower IQ scores, short attention

spans and poor language skills helped prompt nationwide government

bans on lead from paint, gasoline and food and beverage cans. But

there are still a number of ways in which children, and adults, may

be exposed to lead. Most children who suffer from lead poisoning are

exposed to invisible lead dust that is released when older paint is

peeling, damaged or disturbed, or by eating chips of lead paint.

Drinking water that comes from lead pipes or lead soldered fittings

can expose children to lead, as can breathing air contaminated by the

lead smelting, refining and manufacturing industries "

>  

> This link discusses an interesting article on how an enriching

environment can protect the brain against lead exposure, which would

explain again, why social-economic status plays a role in

environmental toxin poisoning and related behavioural problems

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/D/200114426.html

>  

> (Another example that throws off any cause and effect arguments -

when you have to study a topic such as heavy metal poisoning from an

interdisciplinary approach - economic, political, social, biological,

biochemical, medical, enviromental, any kind of cause and effect

relationships become just mere threads in a complex web).

>  

> Here is just one mere example of how incredibly limited science is

to understanding these complex relationships in biological beings:

>  

> " Although lead is the most studied of hundreds of known or

suspected neurotoxic air pollutants, other heavy metals, pesticides,

and organic solvents also cause neurobehavioral dysfunction. Expanded

research in behavioral neurotoxicology is urgently needed. Changes in

mood, cognition, and behavior are endpoints that need to be evaluated

in addition to cancer rates or mortality data and may be more common.

In various studies, increased levels of air pollutants are

accompanied by increased psychiatric emergency calls and hospital

admissions, behavior changes, and a lessened sense of well-being.

Irritating odors and cigarette smoke have been found to increase

aggressive behavior, and to decrease helping behavior and altruism,

leading to a degradation of social interaction. "  

http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm "

>

>