'Forever chemicals' make rainwater anywhere around globe unsafe to drink, new study says

Rainwater apparently is no longer safe to drink anywhere on Earth because of "forever chemicals" linked to cancer.

At least that's the findings of a new study, according to a recent story by Morgan McFall-Johnsen on the Business Insider website.

The study, made by a team of environmental scientists at the University of Stockholm, used U.S. contamination guidelines as a baseline. Results were published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. 

The hazardous chemicals — per- and polyfluoroaklyl substances, or PFAS — "have spread throughout the entire atmosphere, leaving no place untouched," the article indicates.

The University of Stockholm has been a site of studies of PFAS for a decade.

According to McFall-Johnsen's piece, there are "thousands of PFAS, all human-made, used in food packaging, water-repellent clothing, furniture, carpets, nonstick coating on pots and pans, fire-extinguishing foams, electronics, and some shampoos and cosmetics."

During manufacturing and daily use, the story continues, "they can be released into the air. They also leach into open water and get aerosolized in sea spray. From there, they spread through the atmosphere and fall back to Earth in rain."

The term "forever chemicals" stems from their lingering a long time before breaking down.

PFAs, the story says, are "a hazard to human health, and peer-reviewed studies have linked them to some cancers, decreased fertility, reduced vaccine response, high cholesterol, and developmental delays in children."

Ian Cousins, PhD

The Insider article quotes Ian Cousins, lead author of the study, a PhD and a professor at the University of Stockholm's department of environmental science, to the effect that, based on the U.S. guidelines, "rainwater everywhere would be judged unsafe to drink." 

Although "in the industrial world we don't often drink rainwater [directly], many people around the world expect it to be safe to drink, and it supplies many of our drinking water sources," the story also quotes Cousins.

Because PFAS "persist for so long and cycle through the planet's oceans, atmosphere, and soil so effectively, the researchers expect levels will continue to be dangerously high," the article underscores.

It is "vitally important," the researchers wrote, "that PFAS uses and emissions are rapidly restricted."

More information about chemicals adding to people's risk of disease can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Ingredient in weedkillers tied to cancer is found in 80% of U.S. urine samples, new study finds

Scientists declare "disturbing" and "concerning" a new study's findings that 80% of urine samples drawn from U.S. children and adults contain a pesticide ingredient linked to cancer. 

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, according to a recent story by Carey Gillam in The Guardian, says glyphosate, the active ingredient in herbicides (including Roundup, the world's best-selling weedkiller), was found in 1,875 samples out of 2,310 tested.

The samples were intended to be representative of the U.S. population, with almost a third of the participants being children between the ages of six and 18.

Professor Lianne Sheppard

Gillam's article quotes Lianne Sheppard, professor at the University of Washington's department of environmental and occupational health sciences, to the effect that she expects "the realization that most of us have glyphosate in our urine will be disturbing to many people."

Sheppard co-authored a 2019 analysis that found glyphosate exposure "increases the risk" of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The amount of glyphosate in human urine, the Guardian story says as it cites research published by University of California San Diego School of Medicine scientists, "has been steadily rising since the1990s when Monsanto Co. introduced genetically altered crops [such as corn and soybeans] designed to be sprayed direction with Roundup."

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, claimed it was not likely to be that. Only last month, in contrast, a federal appeals court ruled the agency needs to give "further consideration" to the risks; that opinion also vacated the agency's safety determination. 

Dr. Philip J. Landrigan

Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, who worked at both the CDC and EPA for years and now directs Boston College's Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, is also quoted by Gillam: "People of all ages should be concerned, but I'm particularly concerned for children. Children are more heavily exposed to pesticides than adult because pound-for-pound they drink more water, eat more food and breathe more air. Also, children have many years of future life when they can develop diseases with long incubation periods such as cancer. This is particularly a concern with the herbicide, glyphosate."

More information about disease studies can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Bans on abortion are complicating access to drugs for cancer, arthritis, ulcers, other diseases

Some chronically ill women, because of legal bans on abortion, are facing questions about critical medications that could be used to end a pregnancy.

That conclusion is drawn in a story by Katie Shepherd and Frances Stead Sellers in yesterday's editions of The Washington Post.

"The sudden imposition of anti-abortion laws [after the reversal of Roe v. Wade] has left patients, doctors and pharmacists wading through a minefield of treatments and legal and ethical dilemmas related to women's health care — even in situations…that have nothing to do with pregnancy," Shepherd and Sellers write.

Medicines that treat conditions from cancer to autoimmune disease to ulcers, the piece notes, "can also end a pregnancy or cause birth defects and, as a result, "doctors and pharmacists in more than a dozen states with strict abortion restrictions must suddenly navigate whether and when to order such drugs because they could be held criminally liable and lose their licenses for prescribing some of them to pregnant women."

Even if they could show their patients suffer from conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, the Post story goes on, "some doctors worry they could be prosecuted for prescribing such drugs to a patient with an unintended pregnancy."

Such patients, Shepherd and Sellers continue, "are also at greater risk because they can no longer seek abortions in their home states should they accidentally become pregnant while taking such drugs — no matter how grievous the injuries to the developing fetus."

Dr. Traci Poole

The article quotes Dr. Traci Poole, faculty member at Belmont University College of Pharmacy in Nashville and a practicing pharmacist, as asking, "If you are of childbearing age, are you going to be denied medications that could potentially interfere with a pregnancy?"

The story also says that physicians and pharmacists acknowledge "being blindsided by the speed of changes to state laws," and say they're making change to their practices to protect themselves against liability.

CVS and Walgreens and other major drugstore chains are instructing employees to delay filling prescriptions until they can validate their use to ensure they'll not be used to terminate pregnancies.

The Shepherd-Sellers article also quotes Jack Resneck Jr., president of the American Medical Association, who told federal lawmakers last month that doctors "have been placed in an impossible situation — trying to meet their ethical duties to place patient health and well-being first, while attempting to comply with vague, restrictive, complex, and conflicting state laws that interfere in the practice of medicine and jeopardize the health of patients."

More information about laws and their unintended consequences is available in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Women with cancer diagnoses — and docs — face tough choices because top court discarded Roe

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's eliminating abortion rights validated half a century ago in the Roe v Wade decision, pregnant women with cancer diagnoses may face wrenching choices.

Doctors as well are now facing difficult decisions.

That's the conclusion of a recent story by Gina Kolata in The New York Times, which headlines the piece with: "Urgent questions arise about how care of pregnant women with cancer will change in states where women are unable to terminate pregnancies."

Kolata's piece notes that "if the life of a fetus is paramount, a pregnancy can mean a woman cannot get effective treatment of her cancer. One in a thousand women who get pregnant each year is diagnosed with cancer, meaning thousands of women are facing a serious and possibly fatal disease while they are expecting a baby."

Dr. Clifford Hudis

The article quotes Dr. Clifford Hudis, chief executive officer at the American Society of Clinical Oncology, to the effect that "if a doctor can't give a drug without fear of damaging a fetus, is that going to compromise outcomes? It's a whole new world."

The Times story explains that cancer drugs are dangerous for fetuses in the first trimester, and while older chemotherapy drugs are safe in the second and third trimesters, "the safety of the newer and more effective drugs is unknown and doctors are reluctant to give them to pregnant women."

Some 40 percent of women who are pregnant and have cancer have breast cancer, but many other cancers occur in pregnant women: blood cancers, cervical and ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, melanoma, brain cancer, thyroid cancer and pancreatic cancer.

Moreover, the story says, "women with some types of cancer, like acute leukemia, often can't continue with a pregnancy if the cancer is diagnosed in the first trimester. They need to be treated immediately, within days, and the necessary drugs are toxic to a fetus."

Dr. Eric Winer, director of the Yale Cancer Center, is also quoted: "In my view, the only medically accepted option is termination of the pregnancy so that lifesaving treatment can be administered to the mother."

Some oncologists, Kolata's story continues, "say they are not sure what is allowed if a women lives in a state like Michigan, which has a law that criminalized most abortions but permits them to save the life of a mother."

Dr. N. Lynn Henry

In that regard, still another physician, N. Lynn Henry, an oncologist at the University of Michigan, says that "we can't prove that the drugs caused a problem for the baby, and we can't prove that withholding the drugs would have a negative outcome."

In other words, the story goes on to attribute to unnamed doctors, "complications from pregnancy — a miscarriage, a premature birth, birth defects or death — can occur whether or not a woman with cancer takes the drugs. If she is not treated and her cancer gallops into a malignancy that kills her, that too might have happened even if she had been given he cancer drugs."

A law professor and bioethicist at Harvard, I. Glenn Cohen, projects — according to the story— that "we are putting physicians in a terrible position. I don't think signing up to be a physician should mean signing up to do jail time."

Additional information about chemotherapy can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

New study confirms that breast and brain cancer cells easily migrate to body's 'sweet spots'

Cancer cells do extremely well in body's so-called sweet spots, new research shows.

According to a recent story by Lee Bullen of Zenger News in Newsweek magazine, a group of researchers led by the University of Minnesota Twin Cities have "shed new light on how cancer thrives."

Previous studies, the article says, showed that cancer cells — which can "sense the stiffness of the environment they are in, from hard bone and tough muscle to soft, fatty tissue" — have a sweet spot "of stiffness…where they can move faster."

The latest study, published in the scientific journal "Nature Materials," indicates that the sweet spot is "a just-right Goldilocks spot somewhere in the middle."

David Odds, PhD

Bullen's story quotes David Odde, PhD and professor at the university's Department of Bio-medical Engineering, as saying that "this discovery challenges the current thinking in the field, which is that cells only move toward stiffer environments. I think that this finding will change how people think about this phenomenon."

He added, "We're basically decoding how cancer cells invade tissue, they don't just move randomly. They actually have particular ways in which they like to move, and if we can understand the, we may be better able to trip them up."

The researchers had analyzed both breast and brain cancer.

More research information is available in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

U.S. judge OKs refunds for customers in suit that says Monsanto masked Roundup's cancer risks

A federal judge has tentatively approved small refunds for customers in a lawsuit accusing Roundup's manufacturer of hiding cancer risks.

According to a recent story by Bob Egelko in The San Francisco Chronicle, buyers of the weed killer in recent years would be eligible for 20% refunds. 

The amount would be minuscule, however — between 50 cents and $33, depending upon the amounts of 19 versions of the herbicide purchased "during a period determined by the statute of limitations in their state."

Gillian Wade

As an example, the story cites California, the state in which the ruling jurist, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of San Francisco, resides. 

There, Egelko's article quotes Gillian Wade, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, as saying, the judgment would mean a refund based on "one product per year for the last five years if they no longer have a receipt or other proof of purchase, and more products if they have such documentation."

The proposed settlement calls for Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, the giant agribusiness that makes Roundup, to pay between $23 million and $45 million, depending on the claims. Of that amount, the Chronicle story says, "up to 25% would go to attorneys for legal fees and costs, and the rest to customer refunds."

Despite Chhabria's ruling, which seemingly validates the nationwide settlement of the lawsuit accusing Monsanto of false advertising, the company continues to describe the product "as perfectly safe."

Egelko's story notes that Monsanto still cites the weed killer's "approval since 1991 by the U.S, Environmental Protection Agency. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, classified the herbicide's main ingredient, glyphosate, as a probable cause of human cancer in 2015. And the EPA has now offered to allow California to place cancer warning labels on Roundup sold in the state."

The settlement is separate from the tens of thousands of suits filed against Monsanto and Bayer by people diagnosed with cancer after spraying Roundup, the world's most popular weed killer, on their crops. San Francisco Bay Area juries alone already have awarded damages of $133 million in three of those cases, and just recently the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of Monsanto's appeal of the award to one of the plaintiffs, Edwin Hardeman, a former school groundskeeper in Benicia who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's disease in 2015.

Chhabria's ruling, the judge emphasized, doesn't hinder any customer's right to sue for any illness or other harm caused by the weed killer.

He is scheduled to finalize his approval of the refunds in January.

Information on other lawsuits related to diseases can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Docs wary about study showing cancer drug might cut Covid deaths for patients in hospitals

A new study found that an experimental cancer drug reduces death in hospitalized Covid patients by 55 percent.

According to a story this week by Carl Zimmer in The New York Times, however, some experts are cautious about over-interpreting the results of the study.

Veru, the Miami company that developed the drug, sabizbulin, has applied to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency authorization to use it.

Dr. Ilan Schartz

The story quotes Dr. Ilan Schwartz, infectious disease expert at the University of Alberta who wasn't involved in the study, as saying, "This looks super-impressive. We have a small number of treatments for patients with a severe disease that improve mortality, but another treatment that can further reduce deaths would be very welcome."

He cautioned, though, that the clinical trial was relatively small — only 134 patients receiving the drug while 70 got a placebo over a course of 60 days — and said he'd "welcome large and independent confirmatory studies."

Researchers hypothesize, among other things, that the drug, which is taken in pill form, helps Covid patients fight potentially life-threatening lung inflammation.

Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota, also cautioned about the impact of the study. He suggested the large 45 percent mortality rate in the placebo control group might be a sign the study was too small to draw firm conclusions. The death rate, he was quoted as saying, "jumps out at me as rather high."

In addition, he observed, "trials which are stopped early routinely overestimate the effect." He predicted a similar fate as what happened with the drug molnupiravir, which initially appeared to reduce the risk of hospitalization from Covid by 50 percent but settled for a more realistic figure of 30 percent in the final analysis.

More information on clinical trials can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, its author, aimed at male caregivers.

Top U.S. court rejects Roundup maker's appeal of decision that the weed killer causes cancer

The U.S. Supreme Court has let a $25 million verdict against Bayer, parent company of Monsanto, manufacturer of the popular weed killer Roundup, stand. 

The original jury found that Monsanto, the giant agribusiness that manufactures the pesticide, had failed to warn about cancer risks to those using the product.

The top court's decision not to intervene means not only that the decision in the suit brought by Edwin Hardeman, who was diagnosed in 2015 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, can remain intact but the way is cleared for thousands of similar lawsuits against Bayer. 

A story by Ann E. Marimow in an edition of The Washington Post this week notes that the "Biden administration had urged the court to deny the company's [stance], a departure from the Trump administration's position."

Hardeman's suit alleged that his use of Roundup for more than two decades caused his cancer and that Monsanto, which Bayer purchased in 2018, failed to warn about the risks associated with the active ingredient, glyphosate.

After an international research group in 2015 classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans," the state of California demanded a warning label on Roundup, the nation's most widely used weed killer — in opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency's repeatedly concluding that "glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans."

Two years ago, according to the story, "Bayer agreed to pay more than $10 billion to settle tens of thousands of potential U.S. claims" but it admitted no wrongdoing. It also said it was moving toward alternate ingredients to "manage litigation risk in the U.S. and not because of safety concerns."

Judge Michelle Friedland

Just days before the Supreme Court ruling about the Hardeman suit, "a separate ruling from the 9th Circuit ordered the EPA to reconsider its finding in 2020 that glyphosate did not pose 'any unreasonable risk to man or the environment,'" Marimow's article reports. As a part of the unanimous decision, Judge Michelle Friedland writes that the Trump-era opinion "was not supported by substantial evidence" and didn't meet the agency's "legal obligations for reviewing environmental impact."

More information on court battles over carcinogenics can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.