My thoughts on this new finding? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
"The consumption of BW [bottled water] is associated with heightened risk for certain health conditions," such as:
- hypertension (+5% increased risk)
- diabetes (+9%)
- GI ulcers (+21%)
- kidney stones (+17%)
1/10
This was a very large cross-sectional study that looked at a national population, conducted by Italy's census agency. They controlled for covariates including socioeconomic status, age, and gender, then clustered and stratified the population as appropriate.
Solid methods!
2/10
Analysis is *conceptually* straightforward:
- They built models to understand how bottled water + EACH confounding variable interacts to impact health outcomes.
- They combined those models into one big model to analyze all the variables together for each possible outcome.
3/10
In this sample, slightly over half of the population usually drank bottled water. Bottled water consumption was also associated with lower socioeconomic status (less education, less economic resources), showing that this is yet ANOTHER issue where wealth=health.
4/
For all four of the examined health outcomes, individuals with any one of those conditions (diabetes, ulcers, kidney stones, hypertension) were more likely than not to regularly consume bottled water.
Moreover, although the difference wasn't significant for hypertension...
5/
The prevalence of bottled water consumption was higher among individuals with these chronic conditions than among individuals without these chronic conditions—even after controlling for sex, age, economic resources, education, BMI, smoking, alcohol, and physical activity.
6/
Here's how you interpret the stats (using ulcers stats):
- The higher prevelance of BW drinkers among those with ulcers is statistically significant (unlikely to be due to random variation).
- BW drinkers are 21% more likely to have ulcers than someone who doesn't drink BW.
7/
What's it mean? First, note that these results don't show a *causal* link, only a *strong association* between habitual BW consumption and these chronic conditions.
Not *causal* = Maybe people with these conditions consume BW because of their condition, or simply prefer BW!
8/
Importantly, these results generally line up with what we would expect to see, however, based on previous research. Micro- and nanoplastics have been found to cause all kinds of issues with biological tissues in vitro!
9/10
Bottled water "has been found to be a possible major source of exposure" to microplastics. "Policymakers and public health institutions can no longer delay initiatives aimed at reducing plastic production, consumption, and use..."
I'm genuinely baffled how this is unclear, but this study is in reference to water in disposable plastic bottles.
If something is unclear, I provide the source for clarity! But I also refer to microplastics in the thread, so like... I can't *read* for you!
12/10
I welcome questions and criticisms!
I only take issue with ONE thing: A reply to the first tweet in a thread which asks a question that I made sure to address within the thread (or which is *also* addressed in the screenshot in the first tweet).
Just read the damn thing!
13/10
Some of these replies are absolutely baffling. Holy fuck.
I can't read things for you!
14/10
While I don't know how the specifics of this paper would apply to that situation, it's just generally true that reusable water bottles are better constructed than disposable plastic bottles. Durability is a factor in microplastic concentrations
As with anything, the dose makes the poison. If your organs are exposed to toxins only occasionally, they're more likely to be able to clear out the contaminants and repair any damage than if they were exposed constantly.
Reusable plastics are definitely at the *least concerning* end of the spectrum. A very large portion of the microplastics in a container come from mechanical abrasion (i.e. the friction of the contents), and hard plastics are more resistant to this type of wear!
All else being equal, I’d expect the total plastic particle content of bottled water to be something like
Smart Water [least] < Aquafina (when it’s in the same bottles as Pepsi) < All the super cheap plastic bottles that most bottled water comes in [most]
19/10
Other beverages in plastic containers will likely also contain some level of microplastics, but to a lesser extent if the bottle is better constructed. At the bare minimum, I’m going to avoid bottled water that comes in super cheap bottles with no structural integrity!
20/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
New interdisciplinary review was published on current Long COVID science, with a roadmap for science and policy!
It is written in plain language, so it's worth a read on its own, but I just want to pull out some highlights about what WE DO KNOW into a single thread...
1/many
This is definitely the definition for Long COVID I'll be explicitly using from now on: Long COVID is "the constellation of post-acute and long-term health effects caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection."
2/
Long COVID "affects nearly every organ system, including the cardiovascular system, the nervous system, the endocrine system, the immune system, the reproductive system, and the gastrointestinal system."
It affects people regardless of age or pre-existing health status.
This review/commentary piece makes one thing extremely clear: We do not yet have ANY STRONG EVIDENCE about how SARS-CoV-2 infection affects PREGNANCY.
The limited evidence shows there IS harm, which may be MITIGATED by vaccination.
Thread... 1/
What is the takeaway? There are three:
- Unanswered questions remain about the effect of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy.
- Evidence shows congenital anomalies MAY be associated with COVID.
- Evidence shows vaccination provides "protection from such anomalies."
2/
Let's be very clear: The current lack of evidence isn't because there is a lack of harm; it is because there is a lack of DATA available to even begin to understand the harm.
There is almost no available data on the impact of COVID on first- and second-trimester pregnancies.
THIS IS BIG. WOW. New paper in PLOS Pathogens has findings about:
- the effect of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on cardiac cells (and mitochondrial dysfunction!),
- a treatment to be investigated, and
- how this is NOT caused by mRNA vaccines!
Buckle up, we're diving in...
1/
[This paper is an uncorrected proof; it's been peer-reviewed, but not copyedited yet.]
A bit of background: syncytia (sin-sih-sha) are giant cells with multiple nuclei that form from the fusion of multiple cells. Viral infections are a common cause of syncytia.
2/
The authors had two motivations for this study:
1. Cardiac complications are a major feature of COVID. 2. Patients with heart failure tend to experience very poor outcomes from COVID.
Really, it hasn't been entirely clear *how* COVID leads to heart failure... until now?
New preprint on the PATHOGENICITY of H5N1 was published yesterday, and... it's not good news, but it's definitely not *terrible* news either!
The delayed, lackluster response to the current outbreak remains DEEPLY concerning.
Here's a summary for a general audience!
1/many
They test three H5N1 isolates. I'll refer to them as:
- Texas: Isolated from worker at Texas dairy farm (A/Texas/37/2024)
- Bovine: Isolated from dairy cow (A/bovine/Ohio/B24OSU-342/2024)
- Vietnam: Isolated from fatal 2004 human infection in Vietnam (A/Vietnam/1203/2004)
2/
This study looked at pathogenicity, which is, basically, the ability of a virus to fuck up your cells, organs, or body, as determined by some measurable indicator of damage.
It's one of those concepts that's so broad that it's useful to include a formal definition:
This isn't a major paper, but it's an interesting jumping-off point for three different topics:
- Accuracy of RATs—in practice
- Understanding what descriptive (incl. Bayesian) statistics mean
- HOW rapid tests work
Here's a thread written for a general audience!
1/
This study was conducted from January 2020 to June 2021 using admission screening swabs from 556 oncology patients at a single hospital in Jerusalem.
The patients in this study were swabbed for both PCR and RAT, allowing for comparison of the detection ability.
2/
The takeaway is simple: The Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) used here had a sensitivity of 69.6%.
Sensitivity is the *true positive* rate. This means that, out of the patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using qRT-PCR testing, only 69.6% were *also* positive on the RAT.
Turns out SARS-CoV-2 RAPIDLY infects the NERVOUS SYSTEM long BEFORE it even enters the bloodstream.
These findings have huge implications! Here's an analysis of the study, written for a general audience. (Sorry in advance!)
1/many
Overall, it's pretty extensive: They examined the productivity of neuronal infection in multiple animal models and multiple neuronal cell cultures, and found productive neuronal infection across the board.
It's also a long one, but we'll pick up the pace as we go!
2/
So, as you may already know, neurological symptoms are actually VERY common when it comes to COVID, with several different types of neurological issues being notable features of Long COVID. There's seriously so much evidence beyond these 13 citations!