Could Turmeric Fight Alzheimer's Disease?

Whether you are a celebrity or factory worker, much-loved or infamous, Alzheimer's Disease doesn't care who you are. Like a monster (or a Titan, if you're an anime fan too), it eats everything that makes a person who they are. But even though you can't reason with it, an increasing number of nutritional and herbal medicines are showing potential in the fight against Alzheimer's Disease. One of these may be turmeric, which is rapidly becoming one of the most researched herbal medicines of all time.

Turmeric, more specifically curcumin - its most "active" component - has attracted the attention of researchers after population studies showed that it may reduce the risk of dementia. One study published in 2000 found that Indian people in their 70s had a 4.4 times lower risk of dementia than Americans of the same age. In another of 1,010 Asian people aged 60-93, those who ate curry, even including less than once a month, performed better on the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) than people who didn't eat curry.

So how does it work? One way that curcumin may fight Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is by helping immune cells clear away the brain-damaging amyloid-beta plaque seen in the condition. When immune cells from patients with AD were treated with curcumin and then introduced to amyloid-beta plaque, they were better at eating away the plaque than they were without curcumin. A study on rats also found that curcumin could reduce the growth of immune cells unique to the brain. This is a sign of inflammation, and an excessive amount of these activated cells can worsen AD by producing inflammatory substances that promote plaque and tissue damage. Curcumin has been shown in many studies to fight inflammation by acting on several different pathways. Some steps that it interferes with normally result in the production of multiple inflammatory chemicals, which have a range of damaging effects. It may also fight inflammation caused by amyloid-beta plaques, thus reducing further damage caused by the plaques seen in AD patients. Another ability of curcumin that has been widely researched is its antioxidant effect. Yet more studies have found that it could increase levels of our own antioxidant enzymes, which would otherwise fall with age, and decrease types of oxidative stress that would otherwise increase with age. A small study on three people with AD resulted in cognitive improvements for all of them - one had improved MMSE scores (from 12/30 to 17/30), two got to recognise their family after a year.

If you don't like turmeric, the good news is that dementia rates are actually falling, which may be because of people taking better care of their cardiovascular health. When data from 5,205 participants was analysed from the 1970s to the 2010s, dementia rates fell by 44% over the almost 40 years. The average age at diagnosis also rose from 80 to 85. Another, using data of about 140,000 people, found that dementia rates fell by about 10% from 2006-7 to 2009-10. It is a good thing that people are swapping smoking and hamburgers for gym selfies and green smoothies. I'd rather have my Facebook newsfeed flooded with pictures of those than posts about disease diagnoses. While I would like to see more clinical trials (with more than three people), it looks like turmeric could be another weapon in the fight against age-related diseases such as Alzheimer's.

BPA Exposure May Be Linked to Asthma

Previously I wrote about a new, vegan-friendly alternative to leather made from pineapple leaves. But that's not all it substitutes, as "vegan leather" used to only mean synthetics made from petrochemical products such as PVC, which can contain toxic chemicals including BPA. BPA is an increasingly unpopular chemical, with water bottles using a lack of BPA as a selling point. The most well-known effect of BPA exposure may be hormone disruption, but did you know that it may also increase the risk of asthma?

Just say no. Source: Aney.

Asthma is a chronic respiratory illness that has unfortunately been increasing in incidence. It is characterised by over-sensitive airways, which leads to airflow obstruction, and is inflammatory. Asthma is the third leading cause of hospitalisation for children and teenagers under the age of 15. I used to have asthma, but kicked it at the age of 8 by swimming in a heated pool. Others are not so lucky, as 75% of children still have symptoms of asthma when they reach adulthood. Asthma is caused by an interaction between genes and the environment, including BPA exposure. One study described in a review showed that higher prenatal levels of BPA was linked with a 20% higher risk of wheezing. 657 pregnant women were tested for their BPA levels during the first and third trimester. In another, urinary BPA levels were tested when mothers were 16 and 26 weeks pregnant, as well as at birth. Above average BPA levels was associated with more than double the risk of wheezing at 6 months, but not at three years old. It has also been demonstrated that every 10-fold increase in BPA levels was associated with a 55% increase in the risk of wheezing from birth to 5 years. A study that didn't show that BPA increased the risk of asthma only measured levels of the toxin during the first trimester of pregnancy. However, in two other studies, one involving almost 400 mothers, higher BPA levels 16 weeks into pregnancy was linked with higher risks of wheezing, one showing a 20% increase, the other showing a 79% increase. BPA exposure in childhood may or may not increase the risk of asthma too. One study found a 40-50% increase in asthma in children 3-7 years old. Two others, however, only found an increased risk in girls.

Why would a commonly used product cause diseases such as asthma? It's legal, so it must be safe, right? Well, even though BPA only has a six-hour half-life in the body, we are often in contact with it so much that little to no accumulation wouldn't make much difference. Many people also habitually use the same type of products, I have "my brand", you have "your brand". The way that BPA may cause asthma is by interfering with immune function, which may explain the mixed results in research. It may swing the immune response in favour of the T-helper 1 (Th1) cells; in naturopathic circles Th1 dominance is known to put our patients at risk of certain illnesses. Th2 dominance comes with its own risks. Others have shown that BPA could create Th2 dominance. BPA may increase the production of pro-allergic immune chemicals such as IL-4 and IgE, which tell a type of immune cell to start an inflammatory response. BPA may also cause oxidative stress, which has been known to promote diseases (including general aging) for many years. The well-known effects of oxidative stress is why popular health magazines and websites will tell you to drink green tea and eat brightly-coloured fruit and vegetables. It was the first thing I ever heard to do with antiaging, which was why even at 14 I drank green tea more than soft drinks. Overall, while human studies show mixed findings, because of individual differences, there is now more evidence, more reasons to avoid BPA.

Pineapple Leather Anyone?

Every day, more people are turning towards healthy, environmentally-friendly alternatives to products which, to put it bluntly, do result in death and destruction. Polluted air and oceans; the killing of animals; the use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals; and the resulting effects on our health are so last year. Life-friendly alternatives are coming into fashion, one of these being "leather" made from pineapple leaves.

Leather expert Carmen Hijosa invented the non-woven pineapple leather, trademarked as Pinatex, in response to the problems with conventional leather production. Unlike cotton, no additional land, water or other resources are required to produce it, as pineapple leaves are typically a waste product. It also gives farmers extra income, which is much-needed in many regions where crops such as pineapples are grown. Where most of the cotton plant is left to die after harvesting, pineapple leather means that all parts of the pineapple plant are used. As well as being sustainable, biodegradable and reusable, the "leather" is very versatile, as it can be cut, molded, painted, dyed, oiled, waterproofed and stitched. Cotton can use up to 20,000 litres of water per kilogram, and conventional farming of the plant is responsible for over 25% of all insecticide and 12% of all pesticide use.

Stylish. Source: TR2HG

Leather, whether it's real or synthetic, is no better. You are not just killing an animal; even if you do eat meat it is a cause for concern, since toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde are used in its production.  The chromium used to produce leather has been found to cause cancer and other issues in both the animals where it is dumped, and in the humans who work with it. When inhaled, chromium increases the risk of asthma, bronchitis, respiratory polyps, enlarged lymph nodes and pharyngitis. It can also cause erosive ulcerations in the skin that do not heal. As for cancers, chromium is now known to cause lung, nasal, testicular, bladder and pancreatic cancer. In fact, Germany has banned the use of the most dangerous form of chromium, Cr+6, in leather production since 2010.

Synthetic leather is usually made from plastic, which comes from petroleum, a finite resource that can become all sorts of toxins. Sometimes, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is involved, a product that contains phthalates among other chemicals. PVC also frequently contains the increasingly unpopular BPA, and is used in making a wide range of products from shoes to catheters to toys. Because of the chlorine content, dioxins are released when PVC is manufactured, burnt or landfilled, and at least one of the dioxins is a carcinogen. Phthalates, BPA and dioxins are also endocrine disruptors, which negatively affect hormone production and activity. With manufacturing and often use of both conventional and synthetic leather being harmful to producers and consumers, why not switch to plant-based substitutes?

More Research Links Bras and Breast Cancer

Every October, Breast Cancer Awareness Month comes around, when "early detection" is promoted as the only way to protect yourself against breast cancer. Fortunately for many women, not wearing a bra may be one of the true best protections, according to two recent studies from Kenya and Brazil.

The link between wearing a bra and breast cancer is not new. The 1990s book Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras described research showing that women who did not wear bras had the same risk of breast cancer as men. The tighter a bra is, and the longer it is worn, increases breast cancer risk all the way up to a 100 times higher risk for women who wear bras 24/7. How could wearing a bra possibly be harmful, when all girls are taught to wear them (often against their will) from puberty? Bras may inhibit toxin removal by restricting the blood vessels and lymphatic system. More than 88% of breast drainage depends on the axillary lymph nodes. When disease-causing microbes invade the body, pro-inflammatory chemicals produced by the immune cells and the often toxic fragments of dead microbes must be cleared away, otherwise they are likely to cause more damage (how could the "liver and kidneys" argument used by skeptics possibly have any use there?).

Caution! Don't wear tight bras to bed.

In the Brazilian study, 152 women with breast cancer and 152 controls were interviewed about their bra usage and other factors thought to influence breast cancer risk. Breastfeeding, number of children, age at first period, menopause, family history and alcohol consumption had no significant relation to breast cancer risk. However, women who wore bras for more than 16 hours a day had a 2.79 times higher risk of breast cancer compared to women who wore bras for less than 8 hours a day. Women who wore bras with a higher "stretch percentage", that is, their bras had to stretch more to fit them, also had a higher risk. When stretch percentage was multiplied by time, a value of over 300 was linked with a 2.27 times higher risk of breast cancer compared to a value of less than 150. Wearing a bra to bed was seen in a much greater percentage of women with breast cancer, at a rate of 36% instead of 7%. Smoking was associated with a 78% greater risk of breast cancer, while hormone replacement therapy seemed to have a weak inverse risk in this study. While this was "just" an interview, the women involved were of a lower socio-economic class, and so would not own as many bras; bra-wearing habits do not tend to change much either.

The Kenyan study involved 684 women in total, more than double that of the Brazilian study. Intensity of bra use, diet, occupation, area of residency, hormonal contraceptive use and family history were all associated with breast cancer risk. Marital status had no sway over a woman's risk. It was stated that a quarter of the women didn't wear bras at all, or only for special occasions, while 10% of those with cancer wore their bras all day, including to bed. "I know this will raise some heat within cancer circles, but this is a competent epidemiological study which has yielded indisputable scientific data", said Professor Abinya, who led the study.

More research may be needed to draw definite conclusions, but the currently available studies certainly vindicate those who choose not to wear bras.

European Study Favours Raw Milk

Whether or not raw milk is safe to drink has been a controversial issue for many years, particularly in countries with more nanny-state tendencies (why I'm "not allowed" to recommend it, apparently we're all small children here). However, a study published in early 2015 showed that babies given raw cow's milk instead of UHT formula actually had a reduced risk of common infections, such as colds and ear infections.

This study, known as the PASTURE study, followed 983 babies from five countries for the first year of their lives. They came from rural areas in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, France and Finland. Even though most European societies discourage raw milk consumption, many farming families who can produce their own still drink it. The invention of refrigerators, plus the freshness, are most likely factors contributing to the lack of tuberculosis, listeriosis etc. seen in these families. Pasteurisation was invented in the 1860s, while refrigerators appropriate for home use were invented in the 1910s. Like human breast milk, however, cow's milk may contain beneficial constituents such as antibodies which assist the immune system.

In this study, parents were instructed to record what types of milk their babies consumed and the occurrence of infections from week 8 to week 53. There were very few "missing values" in the diaries given out, and as most infections are not reported to doctors, parents' reporting was more likely to be accurate. UHT milk was used as a control, with pasteurised milk, boiled fresh milk and raw milk all compared in terms of infection incidence. Raw milk was the most protective against infections, with a 29% reduced risk of rhinitis (runny nose); a 23% lower risk of respiratory infections; a 31% reduced risk of fever and an impressive 86% reduced risk of ear infections. Boiled, fresh farm milk was associated with a 22% and 35% lower risk of respiratory infections and fever respectively, similar to raw milk. However, there was only an 18% lower risk of rhinitis and a 46% reduced risk of ear infections. Compared to UHT milk, pasteurised milk only reduced the risk of fever, by 31%. Only raw milk was linked with a significantly lower level of an inflammatory marker known as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP). Babies who were given raw milk had 34% lower levels of hsCRP, regardless of infection or how long they were breastfed. Higher levels of hsCRP are linked with increased risk of obesity, respiratory impairments such as asthma and blood lipid profiles that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

There were other factors that also affected the risk of infection in the babies studied. Having older siblings was associated with a higher risk of infections, especially ear infections where there was more than double the risk. Living on a farm was linked with a 11-25% lower risk of infections. Parental history of atopic conditions (e.g. eczema) was only associated with a 21% higher risk of rhinitis and a 12% higher risk of respiratory infections. Surprisingly (based on what many mothers are told), a Caesarean birth was not significantly associated with higher risk of any infection.

Four Uses for Geranium Oil

Making your own skincare products, and other products for use around the home, can be a fun way to be more self-sufficient or start a business, and is often an essential step towards reducing your exposure to toxic chemicals. One essential oil that you should consider for your recipes is the oil of rose geranium (Pelargonium graveolens), a plant with more than just a pretty face. Geranium essential oil is distilled from the leaves, not flowers, and with many similar properties to rose oil, can be a cheaper alternative.

One property of geranium essential oil may be the ability to help prevent allergic reactions. A preclinical study showed that geranium oil inhibited the degranulation of mast cells. Mast cells are a type of immune cell involved in the inflammatory allergic response, and degranulation is one of the steps in the allergic response. Citronellol, the main phytochemical in geranium oil, was also able to prevent mast cells from producing tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) during exposure to antibodies. TNF-a is an inflammatory substance with often destructive effects. Another primary component of geranium essential oil is geraniol. While it cannot reduce TNF-a production according to one study, it was able to increase production of an anti-inflammatory substance known as interleukin-10.

Pretty P. graveolens. Source: Allgau

Geranium essential oil may also be able to reduce the pain seen in post-herpetic neuralgia. A clinical trial involving 30 patients showed that geranium oil was able to significantly reduce both spontaneous and evoked pain, an effect which was dependent on the dose. A dose-dependent effect means that the treatment is more likely to be responsible for the effect. While topical use of capsaicin (found in chillis) can take two weeks to relieve pain, geranium essential oil was able to do so in minutes. One of the patients in the study was almost bed-ridden because of the severity of her pain, but with continued use of geranium oil she was able to resume a normal life! A limitation of this study was that patients were only observed for an hour, as pain relief was still increasing after the 60-minute point. Some also found the oil irritating at higher concentrations, so be careful if you are sensitive.

Geranium oil may even be a useful ingredient in natural tick repellents, well, if one of the ticks in your area is Amblyomma americanum (the lone star tick). Certain components of P. graveolens essential oil were able to repel this species of tick up to a success rate of 90%! The most effective was 10-epi-gamma-Eudesmol, which was comparable to DEET when tested. However, it may be best to use geranium as a part of your tick repellent recipe, instead of replacing the other ingredients that already work for you.

Finally, geranium essential oil could even be used to control mites in the home, if the species Dermatophagoides farinae and D. pteronyssinus are common where you live. Interesting Latin fact: "Dermatophagoides" means something along the lines of "skin eater", but this would only be dead skin that's already fallen off you. The most effective components of geranium essential oil were geraniol and beta-citronellol; they were even more effective than DEET!
Overall, many essential oils such as geranium have many uses, it all depends on what is best for you and your home on an individual basis.

Paraplegics Learn to Walk With Technology

Even today, most people would tell you that once someone suffers a spinal cord injury, they won't walk again. Thankfully, the Walk Again Project has proven otherwise, with a new study published in Scientific Reports on the 11th of August. All eight patients, all with injuries over three years old, participating in the trial experienced neurological improvements.

How did they do it? Patients underwent a multi-phase rehabilitation program over 12 months, with total training time reaching 1,958 hours over all eight patients. The first stage took 178.5 hours on average, where they had to make a virtual reality set of legs walk and sleeves on their arms provided sensory feedback. This was repeated for another 30 hours while standing. Participants "passed" these stages when EEG readings could pick up that their brains remembered how to walk. Then the real walking began: first with a robotic exoskeleton and body weight support (BWS) on a treadmill (109 hours); then BWS on the ground (51 hours); then just the exoskeleton and a treadmill (143 hours); and finally just the exoskeleton (70 hours). A total of 581.5 hours.

VR headsets have improved too. Source: Minecraftpsyco

After months of training, sensory and motor improvements were found in all patients. On average, the Zone of Partial Preservation (ZPP), which is the spinal levels retaining some sensory function, improved by 5 levels. Some improvements, such as the ability to sense where their legs were and what they were doing, only began to appear after several months. Clinical improvement of motor function also took months to appear. All patients also improved in the Walking Index (WISCI). One went from a score of 0 to 6; another went from 1 to 5; another three improved from 1 to 6; two went from 6 to 9 and the last patient went from a score of 6 to 12. What does this mean? A score of 0 means no ability to walk; 1 means able to walk with parallel bars, braces and two people for under 10 metres; a score of 6 means the patient can walk a walker, braces and the help of one person for 10 metres; 9 means walking with a walker and braces for 10 metres and a score of 12 means the ability to walk with two crutches and braces. The reductions in improvements that most patients saw after taking a break for 30 days were quickly reversed.

Taking long breaks reversed some of the improvements, but could they ever be permanent? Other research on people learning to read Braille on weekdays showed that their brains' "maps" for the Braille-reading fingers initially grew during the week, but shrunk back to "normal" by Mondays. The "map" sizes on Monday didn't start to keep growth until six months, and then slowly improved over the next four months. In terms of hours of practice, it was 600 hours - two to three hours a day, five days a week for 10 months. This is similar to the paraplegic patients' training time, but walking may take longer to be permanently re-learned. Maybe home-based programs, so people with spinal injuries could train every day, would be best to prevent the setbacks caused by breaks. There are already exoskeletons available for purchase, with variety of products going up and costs going down; however suitability comes down to the individual's needs. In conclusion, there is hope, practical hope, for people suffering from spinal cord injuries, and it's happening now.