This Is the Best Way to Protect Against Mosquitos

This article originally appeared on RealSimple.com. 

Whether you live in a warm-weather climate, are planning a tropical vacation, or are just stocking up early for the summer, choosing spray-on insect repellent over “wearable” devices will give you the best protection against mosquitos, says a new study. The research tested the effectiveness of 10 commercial products against Aedes aegypti, the species of mosquito that carries Zika and other viruses.

Sprays that contain DEET and PMD (the chemical name for the oil of lemon eucalyptus) took top honors, say researchers from New Mexico State University. That was no big surprise, since these ingredients are registered with the Environmental Protection Agency and recognized by the Centers for Disease Control as effective at preventing mosquito bites.

Other products—including mosquito bracelets, a wearable sonic repeller, and a citronella candle—were significantly less effective.

[brightcove:5023489027001 default]

For the study, published this week in the Journal of Insect Science, human volunteers wore or used the products, one at a time, in an enclosed space near a cage containing female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. After 15 minutes, researchers noted the mosquitoes’ locations—either close to or far away from the human subject—to see how attracted they were (or weren’t) to the person.

The five spray-on repellents that were tested all provided some protection, althoughCutter Lemon Eucalyptus (30 percent PMD) and Ben’s Tick & Insect Repellent (98 percent DEET) were the most effective. Following the two winners, in order of effectiveness, were All Terrain Kids Herbal Armor (a blend of natural oils), Avon Skin-So-Soft Bug Guard Plus Picaridin (which contains the active ingredient picaridin), and Repel Sportsmen Max Formula (40 percent DEET).

Three bracelets containing geraniol oil—Mosquitavert, Mosquito-NO!, and Invisaband—showed no significant protection against mosquito attraction. Neither did the PIC Personal Sonic Mosquito Repeller, which claims to use inaudible sound waves to repel bugs, or the Cutter Citro Guard, a candle containing citronella oil.

“These products advertise that they protect you for several hours or longer, but they definitely fell short,” says Stacy Rodriguez, laboratory manager at the Molecular Vector Physiology Laboratory at NMSU. (One bracelet advertised protection for up to 10 days!) “It’s something that consumers really need to be aware of, that not all wearable devices are trustworthy.”

Citronella hasn’t proven to provide much protection against mosquitoes, says co-author Immo Hansen, PhD, associate professor of molecular vector biology. “And even if bracelets contain other ingredients, they don’t seem to have the dosage to be effective,” he says.

The only wearable that fared well in the test—better than the sprays, actually—was the OFF! Clip-on, a small disk that weighs about six ounces and contains a tiny fan and nebulizer. The device vaporizes and disperses the chemical metofluthrin, and is marketed as providing head-to-toe protection for up to 12 hours.

Avoiding pesky mosquito bites is always a good thing. But at a time when mosquito-borne diseases like Zika, chikungunya, and dengue fever are a serious threat, says Rodriguez, it’s especially important for consumers to use a product that really works.

Make sure you apply bug spray as directed, as well. “A lot of people spray themselves once and think they’re protected for hours,” says Rodriguez. Depending on the product you’re using, she says, that may be true. But some sprays need more frequent application—and activities involving water or sweat can make even the strongest formulas wear off faster.

from Tinnitus Treatment http://ift.tt/2l50PqC via redirected here
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2lufn47

Which DIY Health Tests Are Worth It?

Nobody wants to get the flu this year. The dreaded, head-pounding, body-aching, feverish, nauseating, cough-fest packs equal parts misery and inconvenience.

But nobody wants to get a shot that might be unnecessary or ineffective, either. So, while some experts worry aloud about a 1918-like flu pandemic, most of us—well aware of the risks of getting the virus, from being sneezed on at the office to living with a toddler—are not lining up to get the shot. In fact, only a third of us even bother. The truth is, while the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and most mainstream docs are pushing the flu vaccine, the latest science suggests it just doesnt work very well. So, should you or shouldnt you? Here, the answers to your flu-shot questions.

How effective is the shot?
The flu shot is only as good as the educated guesses of a group of vaccine researchers across the globe. Every February, they try to predict which flu viruses will work their evil during the next fall and winter. Their three top choices are put into the vaccine. The CDC claims that vaccine will be 70 to 90 percent effective against just those strains of flu. “We hope that these smart scientists who get together with the vaccine producers make the right call,” says immunologist Randy Horwitz, MD, medical director of the University of Arizonas School for Integrative Medicine. But sometimes they dont, partly because the virus mutates from year to year. In 2003–2004, the CDC admitted that it completely missed the virulent Fujian flu strain that hit hard that winter.

In 2005–2006 season, in which the CDC said the match between the vaccine and the virus was good, a strain not included in the vaccine hospitalized 31 children in Houston. Also, two recent studies found that the shot may be less effective for people with weaker immune systems, so its effectiveness can depend on how well your body responds to the vaccine.

Will it make me sick?
Even if it doesnt work, it cant hurt to get the shot, right? For most people that may be true. Millions of vaccinations are administered each year, but since 1991, only about 26,000 adverse events have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Most of those were fever, rash, headaches, hives, or, very rarely, seizures. The most common side effect is swelling at the injection site on your arm. And any bad reactions, thought to be your immune systems way of gearing up after the exposure to dead virus particles in the vaccine, typically ease after a few days. (Manufacturers are required to verify that each batch of vaccine used for injections contains no live flu viruses. But people with egg allergies shouldnt get the shot because the vaccine is manufactured using eggs.)

Still, some researchers arent comfortable with the safety data. Tom Jefferson, MD, coordinator of the Vaccines Field for the Cochrane Collaborative, an international group of researchers, reported last year in the British Medical Journal that he had found only six limited studies on safety after reviewing 206 studies on the vaccine. That, he says, is a surprisingly small number considering the widespread use of the vaccine and its mixed bag of ingredients.

Osteopathic doctor Sherri Tenpenny, author of Vaccines—The Risks, the Benefits, the Choices: A Resource Guide for Parents, cautions that only small populations and short-term info are used to measure safety. Adverse-events reporting, for instance, is done for only 2 to 14 days after an injection—and its voluntary.

Heres another concern: Except for about 8 million doses, the flu vaccine contains a preservative, thimerosal, that is 49 percent mercury, a known neurotoxin. While the latest research seems to disprove any link between thimerosal vaccines and autism in children, the debate still rages, and several states have prohibited the use of thimerosal in childrens vaccines. Yet supplies of mercury-free flu vaccine are limited due to man-ufacturing capacity. If you want to avoid thimerosal, you may have to make a special request to your health-care provider in advance.

 

 

Next Page: Is the nasal vaccine better than the typical shot?

[ pagebreak ]Is the nasal vaccine better than the typical shot?
Hard to say, but the latest news on FluMist may leave you skeptical. Earlier this year the manufacturer, MedImmune, had trouble getting an OK to market the vaccine for kids under 5. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration found ongoing problems at the companys plant in Great Britain—bacterial and fungal contamination as well as the use of a disinfectant banned by the European Union. Eventually, the company fixed the problems and, in September, received approval for the under-5 set.

Unlike the shot, this vaccine contains live but weakened viruses. When inhaled, these viruses can survive in the nose and throat long enough to trigger the immune reac-tion that fights off flu, but will be killed by the higher temperatures in your lower respiratory tract. The CDC does not believe these viruses can mutate into a form that can survive. The nasal vaccine is only approved for healthy children ages 2 to 17 and adults ages 18 to 49 who arent pregnant. (Pregnant women and people with chronic conditions can get the shot.) The nasal vaccine does not have any thimerosal.

Who really needs a shot?
The flu kills. Each year nearly 40,000 people in the United States die from flu complications like pneumonia and heart failure. And more than 200,000 are hospitalized due to flu. The people at highest risk have lowered ?defenses: children ages 6 months to 5 years, pregnant women, people older than 50, and anyone with a chronic condition like asthma, diabetes, and heart or blood disorders. The CDC recommends they all get vaccinated.

But what if youre healthy and are not in a high-risk group? Should you get vaccinated as a charitable act to help prevent spreading the flu to those whore less healthy? Or to prevent a few weeks of potential misery? If you live or work with high-risk people, maybe youll decide that the shot is worth it. You can also gauge your other lifestyle risks. We all know that spending a lot of time in busy public places—like the subway or a gym—boosts your risk of catching the flu. Anyone walking around with the virus can breathe it in your direction. And kids in day care or school are more likely to be exposed to the flu than anyone else. Just the simple act of living with them heightens your risk.

Is there a shot shortage?
You may remember the panic over vaccine shortages in 2004, when a major flu-vaccine manufacturer, Chiron, was unable to deliver 50 million doses of the vaccine due to bacterial contamination. Some experts speculate that the shortage encouraged people to stay away from the vaccine in the following years. But Curtis Allen, spokesperson for the CDC, says a shortage is unlikely this year. Manufacturers are promising a record number of doses (132 million), although they wont all be available at once.

Whens the best time of year to get vaccinated?
Now, before the flu season really kicks in from December to March, experts say. It takes about two weeks after vaccination for your body to build up enough antibodies to protect you.

Arent I more likely to catch a cold than the flu?
For sure. There are more than 200 cold viruses, they mutate a lot, and virtually everybody comes down with one from time to time. Although the worst colds might feel like the flu, lots of people say they have the flu when they really dont. Two years ago, only 13 percent of people who were tested after reporting flulike illnesses actually had the real thing.

Should I really worry about a flu epidemic?
Nobody really knows. The 1918 pandemic seemed to start like any old flu season, but within a few months the virus had mutated into a monster that killed healthy adults within a day. Like most flus, it may have originated in birds. Thats why experts worry that todays avian flu may turn into a global epidemic. But, un-like the 1918 strain, it hasnt spread readily from person to person. And while the regular flu shot wont protect you against avian flu (its a different strain of the virus), consider this: Researchers are finding that millions of people have been infected with avian flu without suffering serious complications.

from Tinnitus Treatment http://ift.tt/2l1bMMd via redirected here
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2kHUf8o

Real Women Share What Body Positivity Means to Them in Our #WhatIModel Campaign

How to Stop Fat-Shaming Yourself

I hate my cellulite. That cookie is going straight to my hips. You might think it’s no biggie to go low on your looks now and then, but words like these eat away at your confidence and self-worth. “Fat-talk comments are like Velcro; they stick to you, and they can start to become your identity,” says Cynthia Bulik, PhD, professor of eating disorders and nutrition at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. Put a sock in it: The first step is to identify your body-bashing habits. Then replace them with more forgiving and actually accurate thoughts. 

RELATED: 6 Simple Self-Care Tips That Changed My Life

Week 1: Get up close and personal 

“Body bashing can be obvious,” says Bulik (think: I look fat). “But it also manifests in subtler ways.” This week is about being cognizant of fat talk in all its forms. 

Face the mirror: Look at your reflection and note any negative thoughts about your appearance that pop into your head, says Bulik: “The mirror is where fat talk is usually automatic; we tend to focus on flaws.” 

Spot silent fat talk: Next, keep tabs on nonverbal body-bashing habits you do day to day (sucking in your belly, pinching a bat wing). “The term for this is ‘body checking,’” says Bulik. 

Watch for small critical moments: Maybe when you skim menus, you tell yourself, “I really shouldn’t have the burger.” Or other times you think, “I wish I could pull off skinny jeans like that girl.” “Fat talk isn’t just ‘I feel fat,’" says Rebecca Scritchfield, RDN, author of Body Kindness. “It’s all the ways we measure our bodies,” from policing our calories to comparing our looks with someone else’s.

RELATED: 5 Famous Women on How They Stay Body-Positive

Week 2: OK, now act!

This week, replace the negative thoughts with healthier ones—compliments included. Sound cheesy? You’ll get used to it, assures Bulik: “Giving yourself body-positive comments is like getting new glasses. They feel awkward at first, but you get used to them and they start to feel more like a part of you.” 

Play “never would I ever”: Go over that list of fat-talk remarks you made last week and ask whether you would say them to your friend or daughter. “Surprise—the answer is ‘never’ every time,” says Scritchfield. "It’s a wake-up call to show how badly you’re treating yourself and how unhelpful negative self-talk is.” 

Be body neutral: “It’s not realistic for everyone to go from being body negative to positive right away,” says Scritchfield. “You’re allowed to have vulnerable moments, but you have to shift the criticism.” Instead of “I look gross in this dress,” try, “I’m not gross; I’m just not feeling my most confident right now, and that’s OK.” 

Build a library: Think up a whole list of kind thoughts about yourself. Then, when a self-critical one surfaces this week, chase it with something from the list. (The compliments don’t have to be body-related, says Scritchfield: “I give great advice” can be just as effective as “I have awesome boobs.”)

RELATED: What 5 Olympic Athletes Can Teach You About Body Confidence

Week 3: Pass along the kindness

Fat talk is contagious, warns Scritchfield: "It spreads like a virus of negative energy.” Cultivate more body positivity toward others with these tips. 

Have “no fat talk” zones: Social circles use body bashing as a bonding mechanism, says Bulik. Address the issue head-on when someone initiates it by saying, “Guys, no fat talk. None of that tonight.”

Don’t rush to judge: Catch yourself whenever you open a magazine and think a critical thought, or whenever you’re on the street and silently condemn a stranger’s shape or appearance. “We’re oddly compelled to judge,” says Bulik, who encourages you to call yourself out after each cruel thought. Remind yourself, “This is the kind of thinking that perpetuates fat talk. Not cool.” 

Dish out props: Give at least one genuine compliment every day. “The goal of this is to really work the muscle of thinking with compassion, about yourself and other people, all the time,” says Scritchfield. It just may change the tone of your days. 

from Tinnitus Treatment http://ift.tt/2lcyjUQ via redirected here
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2kvuaOJ

How a Spa Getaway Changed the Way I Deal With Stress

Does the Sound of Noisy Eating Drive You Mad? Here’s Why

This article originally appeared on Time.com

If you’ve ever been tempted to confront someone slurping their soup in a restaurant, or if a person breathing loudly next to you in the movie theater is enough to make your blood boil, then you’re not alone: You’re one of many people suffering from a genuine brain abnormality called misophonia.

Misophonia, a disorder which means sufferers have a hatred of sounds such as eating, chewing, loud breathing or even repeated pen-clicking, was first named as a condition in 2001.

Over the years, scientists have been skeptical about whether or not it constitutes a genuine medical ailment, but now new research led by a team at the U.K.’s Newcastle University has proven that those with misophonia have a difference in their brain’s frontal lobe to non-sufferers.

In an report published in the journal Current Biology, scientists said scans of misophobia sufferers found changes in brain activity when a ‘trigger’ sound was heard. Brain imaging revealed that people with the condition have an abnormality in their emotional control mechanism which causes their brains to go into overdrive on hearing trigger sounds. The researchers also found that trigger sounds could evoke a heightened physiological response, with increased heart rate and sweating.

For the study, the team used an MRI to measure the brain activity of people with and without misophonia while they were listening to a range of sounds. The sounds were categorized into neutral sounds (rain, a busy café, water boiling), unpleasant sounds (a baby crying, a person screaming) and trigger sounds (the sounds of breathing or eating). When presented with trigger sounds, those with misophonia presented different results to those without the condition.

“I hope this will reassure sufferers,” Tim Griffiths, Professor of Cognitive Neurology at Newcastle University and UCL, said in a press release. “I was part of the skeptical community myself until we saw patients in the clinic and understood how strikingly similar the features are.”

“For many people with misophonia, this will come as welcome news as for the first time we have demonstrated a difference in brain structure and function in sufferers,” Dr Sukhbinder Kumar, from the Institute of Neuroscience at Newcastle University and the Wellcome Centre for NeuroImaging at University College London, added. “This study demonstrates the critical brain changes as further evidence to convince a sceptical medical community that this is a genuine disorder.”

from Tinnitus Treatment http://ift.tt/2kaRoI4 via redirected here
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2l6aBt2

Experts Are Seriously Worried About Trump's Science Information Blackout. Here's Why

Early last week, news broke that the Trump administration had issued an information blackout for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency was directed to stop issuing press releases, posting to their social media pages, and speaking to members of the press or directly to the public.

The Boston Globe reported on Tuesday that EPA transition-team member Doug Ericksen expected the communications ban to be lifted by the end of last week. “We’re just trying to get a handle on everything and make sure what goes out reflects the priorities of the new administration,” he said.   

On Thursday, however, USA Today reported that—although a temporary freeze on EPA research grants had been lifted—the “tight control on how the agency communicates with the public through social media and news outlets will remain in place for now.” The EPA has not published any press releases, or updated its Facebook or Twitter pages, since January 20. Calls and emails from Health to the agency’s press office were not immediately returned.

The EPA’s not the only science agency that’s been in the news, either: The Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture were both given temporary gag orders last week, which have since been lifted. It also came to light last week that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had canceled or postponed two conferences planned around the topics of climate change and LGBT youth. (These decisions were made before President Trump took office, the agency says.) 

So what does this mean for our day-to-day health and safety?

RELATED: What Trump’s Presidency Might Really Mean for Public Health

The answer isn’t entirely clear, but public health experts are concerned about the messages being sent to the scientific community—and to American citizens—so far.

“The worry is generated by the administration’s willingness to censor information for what appears to be political purposes,” says Arthur Caplan, PhD, professor of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center. “There’s hinting that there could be requirements to clear things through political operatives before they get released to the public, and this type of thing hasn’t really been done before.” 

Experts have serious concerns about the EPA’s uncertain future, and its policies regarding clean air, clean water, and climate change—all things that inevitably affect human health. But in addition to its research and environmental clean-up efforts, the EPA also communicates with the public about issues directly related to health and safety. For example, its Facebook page includes posts (pre-January 20) about the dangers of wood-smoke inhalation, carbon monoxide poisoning, and radon—a gas that’s present in many homes and causes lung cancer.

If these types of media bans were to extend to other science agencies, the impacts on our health would likely be even greater. The CDC, for example, monitors the spread of illness and disease all over the world. “But this information really only matters to the extent that they are able to communicate it,” says Tara McKay, PhD, assistant professor of medicine, health, and society at Vanderbilt University.

RELATED: 6 Surprising Things That May Disappear With an Obamacare Repeal

“If the CDC notices a big spike in flu hospitalizations, but isn’t able to provide any public messaging or prevention around this because of a gag order, then some people will die from infections that might have been avoided,” she says. “Resources will not be directed to the appropriate prevention, identification, and treatment activities.”

The CDC also plays an important role in decreasing panic around issues that really aren’t as scary as they seem. When Ebola virus was diagnosed in the United States in 2014, for example, the agency provided reassurance that treatment and prevention of transmission were top priorities.

At that time, Donald Trump criticized the government’s approach to the Ebola scare, advocating on Twitter for quarantines and travel bans not supported by scientific research. It's not outlandish to think that, as President, he might similarly go against—or try to change—the CDC’s recommendations in the event of another major health scare, says Caplan.

“If these agencies are seen as untrustworthy or censored, or they can’t get in a fast enough response, it can lead to widespread panic,” he says. That could mean unfair treatment of  people seen as disease risks, he adds, or to a misallocation of resources that would make the situation worse.

“Nobody ever called up Steve Bannon or Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway to find out what to do about Zika; they want to know what the CDC says and they want to know fast,” Caplan continues. “These agencies shouldn’t have to wait to find out what the administration thinks in order to answer factual questions.”

RELATED: Thinking of Getting an IUD? Here’s What to Expect

Similar concerns would apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is tasked with warning the public about dangers posed by foods and medicines currently on store shelves. “We don’t want to worry about whether an E. coli outbreak is being covered up because you don’t want to see certain businesses being damaged, or exaggerated because it comes from a country you don’t like, like Mexico,” says Caplan. 

The good news is, the CDC and FDA still appear to be functioning normally; both organizations are updating their social media sites, and the FDA put out a press release just Friday. And not everyone thinks the existing blackouts are cause for alarm: Last week the New York Times quoted several agency staff members who viewed the Trump directives as a normal part of a presidential transition.

Vox.com also points out that these agencies are protected by scientific integrity policies put in place by the Obama administration. The FDA’s policy, for example, states that staff is allowed to “communicate their personal scientific or policy views to the public, even when those views differ from official Agency opinions.” (As FiveThirtyEight reports, however, there’s also no legal consequence for violating these protections.) 

With the exception of the EPA, there’s been no indication that government agencies won’t be able to continue studying and monitoring imminent health threats, including disease outbreaks and foodborne illnesses. (The EPA’s research projects will reportedly be approved by the administration on a case-by-case basis.)

McKay is more concerned about the second part of both the FDA’s and CDC’s mission: to inform decision-makers about how to address these health concerns, and provide people with information so they can take responsibility for their own health.

“That second part is just as important, if not more so, than the first,” she says. “It does the agency little to know these things are happening and not be able to do or say anything about them.” 

from Tinnitus Treatment http://ift.tt/2kkvZNC via redirected here
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2kOJYIg