Tag Archives: Psychiatric diagnosis

Diabetes Drug Linked to Lower Risk of Dementia, Study Finds

Photo: Shutterstock (Shutterstock)

New research this week is the latest to suggest that some drugs meant to treat type 2 diabetes might also help prevent dementia in high-risk groups. The study found that older people who used a relatively older class of antidiabetic medication were less likely to develop dementia than those who used other common antidiabetic drugs. The findings might warrant new clinical trials to confirm the untapped potential of these drugs, the authors say.

Dementia is the progressive and ultimately fatal loss of cognitive function, which steadily impairs a person’s ability to remember, reason, and eventually perform basic tasks like eating. There are several different forms of dementia and many different factors that make people more vulnerable to developing it, including our genetics. One major suspected contributor to dementia risk is type 2 diabetes. And that’s led some researchers to wonder if drugs that can successfully manage diabetes can also lower a person’s risk of dementia.

Unfortunately, the research on this connection has been mixed, with some studies showing that popular diabetes drugs like metformin are linked to a lower risk of dementia, but other studies show no potential benefit. In this new research, the researchers decided to look at a class of diabetes drug that’s received less attention in the field of dementia research, drugs known as thiazolidinediones, or TZDs.

The team analyzed the medical records of over a half million people with type 2 diabetes aged 60 and older who were given care through Veterans Affairs, the largest interconnected healthcare system in the U.S. They compared the long-term outcomes of people who took at least one year of TZDs to people taking other diabetes drugs like metformin and another class of drugs called sulfonylureas. These people were diagnosed free of dementia before they started the medication, and were tracked for an average length of nearly seven years. People taking only metformin were used as the control group since the drug is the most common front-line option for type 2 diabetes and people who haven’t been prescribed medication for their diabetes tend to be healthier than the typical patient.

Over the study period, those taking TZDs alone were 22% less likely to be diagnosed with any form of dementia when compared to those taking only metformin. They also found that these people were 11% less likely to be diagnosed specifically with Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia. Additionally, patients were 57% less likely to develop vascular dementia, which accounts for about 10% of cases. The findings were published Tuesday in BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care.

There can be many different causes of dementia, and it’s likely that any preventive effect from TZDs or other drugs would be complicated as well. But circulation problems are common for diabetes patients and are a known risk factor for vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s, so the researchers argue that TZDs might mainly work to prevent dementia by helping promote healthier circulation.

These results show a correlation between taking TZDs and a lower risk of dementia, but not a definitive cause-and-effect. And TZDs aren’t free of their own concerns. These drugs were developed in the 1990s and are still often used today—but most often as a second-line option. In the mid-2000s, some research suggested that certain TZDs could raise the risk of heart attacks, which led to the Food and Drug Administration attaching a warning label to the TZD drug rosiglitazone. Later studies failed to confirm this connection and the warning label was eventually removed. But more recent research has reignited this debate, and the drugs are still not recommended for patients at higher risk of heart failure.

All that said, the authors say that the findings should spur more research into the potential benefits of these drugs for dementia, including clinical trials. And assuming that they’re validated, the research could inform how doctors treat diabetes patients at high risk of dementia. The team found, for instance, that people taking sulfonylureas alone were actually more likely to develop dementia than those taking metformin or TZDs. If these drugs do somehow increase the odds of dementia, the researchers say, then it might be worth pairing them with metformin or TZDs to offset that risk. The possible effect of TZDs in preventing dementia was also larger in people who were overweight or obese, suggesting that these patients would benefit the most. Other, newer diabetes drugs are also being studied for their potential in preventing dementia.

“Our findings provide additional information to aid clinicians’ selection of [antidiabetic medications] for patients with mild or moderate type 2 diabetes and are at high risk of dementia,” the authors wrote.

Read original article here

Spironolactone May Help Treat Alcohol Use Disorder: Study

Image: Shutterstock (Shutterstock)

A common heart and blood pressure drug could see a second act as a treatment for alcohol use disorder, new government-led research this week suggests. The study has found evidence in both rodents and humans that the medication spironolactone can reduce people’s craving for and consumption of alcohol.

Spironolactone has been in the medicine cabinet for decades, having first been discovered in the late 1950s. It’s a type of steroid primarily used for its diuretic effect, meaning that it induces the loss of water and sodium through increased urine production. It’s long been used to reduce fluid build-up brought on by conditions like heart failure and kidney disease, lowering the risk of later serious complications; it’s also used in combination with other drugs to reduce high blood pressure.

Over the years, it’s become apparent that spironolactone is useful for other health problems beyond these indications. Because it can block the production of androgen hormones linked to excess oil production, for instance, it’s sometimes used to treat acne in women (in men, it causes low testosterone levels that aren’t worth the side effects). And some research has started to show that the receptors inhibited by spironolactone may also play a role in driving people’s consumption of alcohol. If that’s the case, then the drug could help people suffering from alcohol use disorder—a chronic condition with few treatments.

To better understand the drug’s potential, researchers at the National Institutes of Health decided to study its effects on mice and rats that were made to become inebriated or dependent on alcohol. They found that increasing doses of spironolactone led to corresponding lower levels of alcohol consumption among both kinds of rodents, male and female, and without possible adverse effects like a reduced appetite for food and water.

A second part of the research analyzed the medical records of patients treated through Veterans Affairs, the country’s largest integrated health care system. Compared to similarly matched control patients who weren’t taking the drug, VA patients on spironolactone for other conditions reported greater reduced alcohol use afterward. And this reduction was largest in people who reported the highest levels of alcohol use before going on the drug, as well as in people who took the highest doses of spironolactone.

These findings, published Tuesday in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, aren’t the sort of definitive proof needed to approve spironolactone as a new treatment for alcohol use disorder. But the different lines of evidence make a strong case that it’s now worth spending the time and resources to find out for sure, the authors say.

“These are very encouraging findings,” said study author George Koob, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, in a statement from the NIH. “Taken together, the present study argues for conducting randomized, controlled studies of spironolactone in people with alcohol use disorder to further assess its safety and potential efficacy in this population, as well as additional work to understand how spironolactone may reduce alcohol drinking.”

There are three approved medications for alcohol use disorder. Only two of these drugs, naltrexone and acamprosate, are considered effective front-line treatments (the third drug, disulfiram, causes symptoms like nausea when a person tries to drink and is usually only recommended as a last resort). So, more treatments are certainly needed for this difficult-to-manage condition. It’s estimated that 14.5 million Americans struggle with alcohol use disorder, defined as a chronic physical and emotional dependence on alcohol that harms themselves and others. But less than 10% of sufferers have received any treatment in the past year, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Read original article here

Poor Dental Health Linked to Greater Dementia Risk: Meta-Analysis

Image: Shutterstock (Shutterstock)

A healthy mouth may just help keep the brain healthy as well, new research out this week suggests. The study, a broad review of the existing evidence, found that poor dental health was linked to a later higher risk of cognitive decline and dementia. This increased risk was especially apparent for those missing some or all of their teeth.

Many studies have indicated that the health of our teeth and gums can influence the body elsewhere, including the brain. But other studies have been less conclusive, and there remains much uncertain about the strength and direction of this relationship. It’s possible, for instance, that the link can be explained by people developing poor dental health as a result of their early dementia, instead of the other way around—an example of something scientists call reverse causality.

In new research by a team from the University of Eastern Finland, they sought to conduct an updated meta-analysis of the evidence so far, one that would try to account for these gaps in knowledge. They collected and analyzed 47 longitudinal studies that tracked people’s oral and brain health over time, looking specifically at those who hadn’t been diagnosed with dementia at the start of the study.

Ultimately, they found that people with poor oral health were 23% more likely to eventually develop some amount of cognitive decline, and 21% more likely to develop dementia. And of the various measures of oral health studied, they also found that tooth loss in particular was independently associated with cognitive decline and dementia.

“Poor periodontal health and tooth loss appear to increase the risk of both cognitive decline and dementia,” the authors wrote in their paper, published Thursday in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

They caution that the evidence they examined is still limited and has many caveats, so it’s hard to draw firm conclusions. Many of the studies looked at different groups of people (some only included people over 65) or tracked them for different periods of time, while others may have had methodological problems in their design. But the authors say theirs is the largest review of its kind to date. They also tried to account for reverse causality in a separate analysis, and found that it could explain some but not all of the connection seen here.

In other words, while there might be a real cause-and-effect link between poor oral health and dementia, it will take more well-done research to better understand the specifics of this relationship, including the exact mechanisms behind it. Some scientists theorize, for instance, that the bacteria found in people with gum disease can help trigger or accelerate the complex chain of events that leads to dementia. The team behind this paper also notes that losing teeth could harm the aging brain by depriving people of familiar sensations. And there are likely other factors that can negatively affect both the mouth and brain at the same time, such as nutritional deficiencies.

Of course, keeping your mouth in good shape already has plenty of benefits, including for heart health. So even if there’s still a lot left to be studied here, it’s yet another reason to brush your teeth every day and to see a dentist regularly. The authors also point out that more has to be done to ensure that people can get access to good dental care throughout their lives.

“Given the impact of cognitive deterioration on periodontal health, oral health professionals are well-placed to track and intervene in early changes in periodontal health and oral self-care, but only if dental healthcare services are sustained over time and adequate oral health support is provided in the home setting when deterioration in self-care is identified,” they wrote.

Read original article here

The Differences Between Just Overeating and a Binge Eating Disorder

Photo: Tero Vesalainen (Shutterstock)

With so much of our culture hyper-focused on what a person eats (and what a person weighs), it can be hard to define what “overeating” actually is—and when that overeating becomes a bigger problem. Do you simply have a big appetite, or are you actually struggling with an eating disorder? Here’s how to decipher the differences between regular overeating and the more serious binge eating disorder.

What is binge eating disorder?

According to the National Eating Disorders Association, binge eating disorder is severe and can be life-threatening but is also treatable. It’s characterized by recurrent episodes of eating large quantities of food. This is typically done very quickly and to the point of feeling uncomfortable. Other characteristics of BED include a feeling of loss of control during the binge and shame or guilt after it. Notably, bulimia involves unhealthy compensatory measures like purging after a binge, while BED does not.

BED is recognized in the DSM-5, but its addition to the diagnostic manual as its own disorder is relatively recent. Prior to 2013, it was considered a subtype of OSFED, or “other specified feeding and eating disorder.” Now, it’s the most common eating disorder in America.

Diagnostic criteria include the following:

  • Eating within a discrete time period an amount of food that is definitely larger than what most people would eat in that time period under similar circumstances
  • A sense of lack of control over eating during the episode
  • Eating more rapidly than normal, eating until feeling uncomfortably full, eating large amounts when not hungry, eating alone because of embarrassment over how much is being consumed, and feeling disgusted, depressed, or guilty afterward (note that three of these must be present for a diagnosis)
  • Marked distress regarding bingeing
  • The binge occurs, on average, at least once a week for three months
  • The binge eating is not associated with inappropriate compensatory behaviors like purging and does not occur exclusively during the course of bulimia nervosa or anorexia nervosa

How is binge eating disorder different from overeating?

According to Healthline, BED is a medical condition, and overeating is not. BED is also associated with other psychological symptoms like depression and anxiety.

Another primary difference between the two is the feeling of distress or shame that comes with BED and its related behaviors. If you occasionally overeat, but you don’t feel distressed or guilty about it afterward, it’s unlikely you have BED. Next time you overeat, take note of what is going on. If you are doing it alone to hide your behavior, feeling out of control when it’s happening, and feeling ashamed afterward, you could have BED and should consider talking to a mental health professional.

(Here is how to find a good therapist even if you don’t have insurance, and here are warning signs your child may have BED.)

What can be done about BED?

If you end up with a diagnosis, here’s what you need to know: First, getting the diagnosis is a good thing, as BED can cause health complications like asthma, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure in addition to mental health problems like depression and anxiety.

Second, there are treatments available. Typically, people with BED will be treated with some kind of psychotherapy or counseling and there will be a medical or nutritional component, too. To figure out what kind of treatment you need, your mental health professional will consider emotional factors and the severity of your BED. Therapy can help address the underlying causes of the disorder, and medicine can help regulate your eating habits.

Read original article here

In a First, Scientists Used Personalized Brain Stimulation to Successfully Treat a Person’s Severe Depression

For some people with difficult-to-treat depression, a personalized, implanted device for the brain might provide relief when nothing else can, a new case study published Monday suggests. Researchers claim, for the first time, to have used custom-fitted deep brain stimulation to substantially alleviate a patient’s decades-long bout with severe depression. Though there are many questions about the feasibility of this technology on a large scale, they hope this could turn out to be an incredible advancement in the field.

Deep brain stimulation, or DBS, is already successfully used to help manage neurological conditions including Parkinson’s disease and certain types of seizures. The concept behind DBS is to transmit electrical impulses to balance out the erratic patterns of brain activity associated with the target condition, hopefully eliminating or reducing the person’s symptoms. These impulses are sent out through electrodes implanted in the brain, regulated by a device typically implanted somewhere else in the body, much like how a heart pacemaker works.

DBS for depression has been a ripe area of study, since there do seem to be noticeable differences between the brains of people diagnosed with depression and those who are not. But so far, the evidence for its benefits has been inconsistent, with patients having varying responses to it. In recent years, scientists at the University of California, San Francisco have been working on ways to improve DBS, such as by finding possibly more relevant areas of the depressed brain to stimulate. Based on that earlier research, they’ve developed their own unique DBS technique, which they call personalized closed- loop neurostimulation.

In a new study published Monday in Nature Medicine, they detail how their method appears to have successfully treated a 36-year-old woman who had been living with depression since childhood. And at a press conference held late last week, the patient herself—identified as Sarah—testified to the almost instantaneous relief she experienced after starting the treatment.

“When I first received stimulation, the ‘aha’ moment occurred, I felt the most intensely joyous sensation, and my depression was a distant nightmare for a moment,” said Sarah, whose depression had become more severe in recent years, to the point where she felt constant suicidal ideation. “The expression made me realize that my depression was not a moral failing. It was a disorder that could be treated, and there was hope for my recovery.”

The method is said to work by first finding the specific brain activity patterns associated with a patient’s depressive state and then fine-tuning the impulses needed to counteract them. After that’s established, the patient is outfitted with a device that can detect when these moments of erratic brain activity show up and automatically send stimulation to the brain. This is in contrast to typical DBS, which involves sending impulses all the time or at fixed intervals of the day, like before bed. In Sarah’s case, the dysfunctional brain activity involved the ventral striatum, a crucial player in decision making, as well as the amygdala, an important regulator of our emotional response, particularly fear and anxiety.

The authors caution that this is only a single case and that Sarah’s experience should be only seen as a proof of concept. It will take more research to see if this treatment can be successfully replicated. Even if it can be, Sarah’s treatment took a lot of resources and time to calibrate—efforts that will make it hard right now for this technology to become widely available to patients with depression. Though the device itself is commercially available, the treatment would likely be expensive, with the researchers estimating a cost of about $30,000, based on existing costs for DBS.

“In order for this to help more people, it’s going to require simplification,” said study author and UCSF researcher Edward Chang in a response to a question from Gizmodo about the long-term future of this treatment. “But we also see a lot of opportunity for thinking about how technology, for example, can be used to help and minimize or reduce the amount of manual work and labor that’s required to do these really exhaustive analyses that were part of this trial.”

Study author and UCSF researcher Katherine Scangos said that the discoveries made by her team could pay off in other ways, even before this technology is able to be scaled up.

“We identified, through this trial, some fundamental properties about the brain—that the brain is understandable, that brain organization and function can be reliably identified,” Scangos said. “And so we think these findings about the brain will be available to the general public and help us develop new personalized depression treatments, with a focus on brain circuits.”

Scangos’ colleagues are already studying if it’s possible to non-invasively stimulate the brain circuitry specifically associated with a person’s depression, she added.

As for Sarah, her symptoms of depression did start to return in the time between the first stimulation sessions and the implanting of the permanent device. But once it was implanted and turned on, Sarah again felt immense and continued relief—enough to finally apply the skills she had learned in therapy earlier, she said. Now a year into the treatment, she added, her depression remains at bay and she feels able to “rebuild a life worth living.”

More: DARPA’s Brain Chip Implants Could Be the Next Big Mental Health Breakthrough—Or a Total Disaster

Read original article here

Why is Gen Z Developing a Tic Disorder? The Out-of-Touch Adults’ Guide To Kid Culture

This week, the kids are spreading a tic-disorder through social media, pretending to get arrested, and using furry-porn to fight COVID disinformation. Everything is extremely normal.

This week in mystery ailments: Gen Z girls are developing tics and no one knows why

Gen Z is developing “Tourette’s-like tics” at an alarming rate, and no one is sure why. These rapid-onset tic-like behaviors are so widespread, researchers are calling it “a parallel pandemic.”

Unlike traditional Tourette’s, which is largely suffered by males and generally presents at around age six, the subjects of this new disorder are almost exclusively girls and women between the ages of 12 and 25. They also present more complex tics than most people with Tourette’s, including, “hitting/punching self or family members, clicking, whistling, repeating a wide range of random and/or bizarre words or phrases, and blurting out obscenities.”

Many think the phenomena is a kind of mass sociogenic illness (it would have been called “mass hysteria” in the past). The theory is that denizens of TikTok and YouTube make videos of themselves ticcing, then viewers develop those same tics. Many TicTokers’ tics include blurting out the word “beans,” a behavior first seen on influencer Evie Field’s TikTok, an influencer who’s internet-famous for detailing her Tourette’s symptoms and seizure disorders. According to experts, 18 months of staying inside, plus the stress of COVID, may be contributing factors too.

If you want to dive down the rabbit hole of what might be a mass sociogenic illness spread via social media or might be kids acting goofy for clicks (the opinion of my teenage niece), check out some of these “TicTokhashtags—unless you’re afraid (beans) of developing tics of your own.

TikTok trend of the week: White dudes pretending to be arrested

While the young ladies of TikTok are spreading tics to one another, the young gentlemen are pretending to get arrested. It started with “thirst-trap” TikToker Gage Bills. (Thirst traps are a whole thing where good-looking guys make vids for women to drool over, like a post-modern version of 1950’s TV show The Continental.) In the video, Bills reenacts a scene from Netflix’s Outer Banks. Dressed in a tank top, Gage is slammed against a wall while lights flash, he then stares hunkily at the camera and mouths “I love you.”

Whether this is erotic or cringe-inducing depends on your point of view, but either way, over 21 million people watched it. This led to imitations, parodies, and a ton of “OMG, you dorks are so corny” comments.

Along with revealing the tastelessness and class/race-privilege obliviousness of white dudes, the POV arrest trend also reveals the huge gulf in talent between working actors and online-influencers. I’m glad they have a hobby, but these TikTok dudes couldn’t land a gig on a Canadian soap opera.

This week on Reddit: Anti-vax sub banned, furry porn destroys Ivermectin, ghouls celebrate COVID

There is so much COVID-related drama on Reddit. Last week, users and moderators called for the ban of vaccine disinformation subreddit r/nonewnormal. Reddit responded by saying it would not ban the board to preserve important “dissent and debate.” This week, Reddit pulled a 180, banned NNN, and clarified its policy on COVID denialism. Really sticking by your ideals, Reddit.

In other Reddit-COVID news: r/ivermectin, a board dedicated to the idea that people should fight COVID by taking a de-worming medicine usually given to livestock, was overrun with users posting porn images of sexy horses, horsemen, and horsewomen. The influx of furry porn drowned out all the healthy dissent and debate, earned the sub a “not safe for work” designation, and eventually a site-wide quarantine. This is a win for the nation’s angry “Just get vaccinated already, you dumb-dumbs” majority as well as furries everywhere.

Meanwhile, COVID subreddit “Herman Cain Award” is blowing up on Reddit. The board is a celebration of “I-told-ya-so” with users gleefully submitting the anti-mask and vaccine Facebook posts of COVID deniers, followed by their coronavirus death notices. It’s dark, morbid, and sad, but I gotta admit it’s funny that 90 percent of dead COVID-deniers are overweight white guys with bloatees and Oakley’s.

More COVID news: Joe Rogan tests poz

In related instant karma, after publicly downplaying the necessity of the vaccine in the past, lunkheaded podcast host Joe Rogan announced he has COVID.

“Just to be cautious, I separated from my family, slept in a different part of the house, and throughout the night I got fevers and sweats. And I knew what was going on,” Rogan said in a video posted on Instagram. “So I got up in the morning, got testedand turns out I got covid.”

Surprising no one, Rogan revealed he’s treating the disease with horse-deworming medicine along with other drugs, a practice to which the medical community has emphatically said “neigh.”

Viral video of the week: Milk crate challenge meets gender reveal

A video posted by @SamSanders on Twitter this week mashes two recent viral genres—gender reveals and the milk crate challenge—with hilariously disastrous results. As is expected with the genre, the crate-daredevil climbs his personal Everest only to fall, spilling the blue powder everywhere and revealing that it is going to be a boy. Smelling a bamboozle, I forwarded the clip to my wife, who knows everything.

“As a professional costumer and a mom, I’m sure the woman’s pregnancy belly isn’t real,” she said. “The whole thing is obviously fake. But, as a comedian, that video is hilarious.”

This week in personal opinions: DaBaby still exists

I don’t have a place for this in my column, but I wanted to point you to this video of DaBaby’s “Essence” video. If I didn’t scour the earth for things kids like, I probably would have missed DaBaby altogether—I’m outside of the target market for sure. I don’t want that to happen to you though.

 



Read original article here

Processed Meat Linked to Increased Dementia Risk, Study Finds

Photo: Joe Raedle (Getty Images)

People’s love of processed meat might come back to bite them in the long run, new research from the UK suggests. The study found a link between greater consumption of processed meat and higher rates of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia. At the same time, it also found a possible link between eating unprocessed meats and a lower risk of dementia.

Processed meats such as bacon, jerky, and hot dogs don’t exactly have a reputation for being healthy in the first place. Other research has suggested that diets high in these foods are linked to chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some types of cancer. Some studies have even pointed to a link between processed meats and the increased risk of neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as episodes of bipolar depression.

There’s been mixed evidence that a diet high in meat could raise a person’s risk of dementia in their later years. But according to the authors of this new study, published Monday in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there’s been less work to separate out the possible dementia risk from different types of meats (processed versus not) and whether genetics may play a role in that risk.

The study relied on population data from the UK Biobank, an ongoing research project that’s collected health and genetic information from around a half million residents, ages 40 to 69, between 2006 and 2010. As part of the project, volunteers filled out a questionnaire about their diet at the start of their enrollment and in periodic online surveys for up to 16 months after. Because of the UK’s nationalized health system, the researchers were then able to track the health outcomes of these participants, including whether they developed or died from dementia.

About 2,900 cases of dementia were diagnosed in the entire group, during an average eight-year follow-up period. And when the researchers tried to account for people’s diets, they found a clear association between processed meat and the risk of dementia, but they didn’t see the correlation when it came to other types of meat.

For example, the associated risk of dementia rose by 44% for every 25 grams of processed meat eaten daily. But there was no significant link found between dementia risk and total meat consumption or between dementia risk and a person’s daily intake of chicken. Meanwhile, the associated risk of dementia actually declined slightly for those who regularly ate unprocessed red meat (cooked beef, veal, pork, etc.). The risk of dementia increased for those who carried the APOE ε4 genetic variation, as expected, but this risk wasn’t affected by meat consumption.

“Our findings suggest that consumption of processed meat may increase risk of incident dementia, and unprocessed red meat intake may be associated with lower risks,” the authors wrote.

Nutritional studies like this one have their limitations, of course. For instance, they can’t show a direct cause-and-effect relationship between any two things, only a correlation. Studying people’s diets is hard in general, since we aren’t the greatest at remembering what and how much of any given food we eat regularly. And of course, a person’s diet at 40 or 50 might still change significantly between then and the time of their dementia diagnosis years or decades later.

Any single study shouldn’t be seen as the final verdict on a topic. More research will have to be done to tease out the potential effects of a diet high in processed meats on our dementia risk and how these diets may be causing it. That said, as mentioned earlier, this wouldn’t be the first study tying processed meats to worsening health. So while the specifics still need to be worked on, it’s likely in many of our best interests to cut down on bacon or sausage anyway.

“Worldwide, the prevalence of dementia is increasing and diet as a modifiable factor could play a role,” said lead author Huifeng Zhang, a PhD student from the University of Leeds’ School of Food Science and Nutrition, in a statement released by the UK-based university. “Our research adds to the growing body of evidence linking processed meat consumption, to increased risk of a range of non-transmissible diseases.”

Read original article here