Rutgers University – Aug 5, 2020: “The changes in the environment and biodiversity brought on by climate change could be responsible for increases in allergies, autoimmune diseases and autism, according to a Rutgers researcher. Climate change and disruption of the ecosystem have the potential to profoundly impact the human body. Xue Ming, professor of neurology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, who recently published a paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on the effects of climate change on allergies, autoimmunity and the microbiome — the beneficial microorganisms that live on and inside the human body — discusses how the delicate balance of the environment affects conditions such as allergies, autism and immune disorders.”
Rutgers Neurology Prof. Xue Ming: “We must end the destruction of our natural environment, decrease emissions of greenhouse gases and adopt more “green” behavior. With research demonstrating links between the microbiome and autoimmune, inflammatory and neurologic diseases, it is critical that we minimize antimicrobial exposure.”
Could disturbances in gut bacteria affect the autism rate? Prof. Xue Ming: “The loss of biodiversity related to climate change may affect the microbiome, potentially leading to inflammatory, autoimmune and neurologic diseases. Immunologic disorders, such as food allergies, are on the rise. For example, several studies have found that increases in carbon dioxide and temperature are correlated with changes in the composition of the peanut, making it more difficult for the body to adapt immunity.”
Flashback 2014: Heinz funded study: ‘Autism Linked to Man-Made Climate Change’
By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotFebruary 10, 2023 12:29 PM
How Climate Change Affects Allergies, Immune Response and Autism
The changes in the environment and biodiversity brought on by climate change could be responsible for increases in allergies, autoimmune diseases and autism, according to a Rutgers researcher
Climate change and disruption of the ecosystem have the potential to profoundly impact the human body. Xue Ming, professor of neurology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, who recently published a paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on the effects of climate change on allergies, autoimmunity and the microbiome — the beneficial microorganisms that live on and inside the human body — discusses how the delicate balance of the environment affects conditions such as allergies, autism and immune disorders.
How has climate change affected respiratory allergies?
Climate change has worsened respiratory allergic disease and has altered the immune system’s tolerance in responding to toxins, which has led to an increase in the prevalence of immune diseases. People with chronic respiratory allergic disease that affects the nose and eyes, such as asthma and allergies, are at particular risk due to increased exposure to pollen and the increased concentration and distribution of air pollutants.
According to the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology, climate change has both increased the intensity of the pollen season as well as prolonged its duration. Increases in carbon dioxide were shown to lead to an increase in plant reproduction and total pollen levels, especially those plants that thrive at high carbon dioxide concentrations. For example, ragweed pollen has been increasing in concentration, with models predicting that levels will increase by four times within the next 30 years.
Thunderstorms, which have become more frequent due to rising sea temperatures, have been found to increase concentrations of pollen grains at ground level. After absorbing water, these grains can rupture and release allergenic particles that can induce severe asthmatic symptoms in patients with asthma or hay fever.
Climate change has also been linked to increased concentrations and distribution of air pollutants such as ozone, nitric oxide and other volatile organic chemicals. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that these airborne environmental pollutants may be partially responsible for the substantial increase in allergic respiratory disease seen in industrialized countries over the past several decades.
The loss of biodiversity related to climate change may affect the microbiome, potentially leading to inflammatory, autoimmune and neurologic diseases. Immunologic disorders, such as food allergies, are on the rise. For example, several studies have found that increases in carbon dioxide and temperature are correlated with changes in the composition of the peanut, making it more difficult for the body to adapt immunity.
Could disturbances in gut bacteria affect the autism rate?
Disruption of gut bacteria has been linked to neurologic diseases such as multiple sclerosis, autism and Parkinson’s disease. In my own research, I found abnormal amino acid metabolism, increased imbalance between free radicals and antioxidants in the body, and altered gut microbiomes among some patients with autism spectrum disorder.
What steps can be taken to minimize the health risks brought on by climate change?
We must end the destruction of our natural environment, decrease emissions of greenhouse gases and adopt more “green” behavior. With research demonstrating links between the microbiome and autoimmune, inflammatory and neurologic diseases, it is critical that we minimize antimicrobial exposure. This may involve altering guidelines for the prescription of antibiotics by medical professionals. In addition, given that the microbiome is directly impacted by our daily environment it is important to regularly immerse ourselves in nature and familiarize ourselves with biodiverse surroundings.
Heinz funded study: ‘Autism Linked to Man-Made Climate Change’– ‘According to a press release from the Heinz Endowments, it appears that the mothers of children with autism spectrum disorder were exposed to a number of man-made chemicals and toxins that are the direct result of man-made climate change and global warming events while pregnant, and this may be responsible for their children developing an ASD.’
They get crazier by the day. Heck, my wife teaches personality psychology. I told her she should seek a grant with a title like “Climate change and how it may cause schizophrenia”. Ask for a million bucks. /sarc
Do a search for schizophrenia and Vitamin B-12.
(Of course going meatless to stop CAGW would tend to make B-12 deficiencies more common, so, maybe not many bucks there.) 😎
Froot Loops are B-12 fortified and that’s why it’s such a healthy government approved food. /s
Seriously, our diets in the U.S. are doing us in.
“schizophrenia and B12” Yep. In UK my wife was diagnosed as schizophrenic, and accused of being a vegan.They all dived for cover when she was eventually diagnosed as having severe neurological pernicious anemia. They refused to provide her records when we requested them when we were leaving the country. They also determined that “leaving the country” was “folie a deux” – two people with the same mental disorder. It is in the records. We managed to get them sent to us in Papua New Guinea, on threat of exposing the holder of the documents for gross hypocrisy in the British press; he was a prominent member of Amnesty International. People sometimes ask “are you ever going back … ” Response usually unprintable.
curious thing? apre covid Ive been diagnosed with low B12 D and iron and yet? i supplement heavily(4kmgD most days) took a multiB a few times a week and eat red meat -am way past the age to lose blood naturally. and oddly a male friend also copped the very same diagnostics on his bloods
That does explain some of the more bizarre rants from dedicated vegans and strict vegetarians.
Only a million? Why not ten or twenty? Consider inflation. Climate change causes that, too. Better be prepared!
Change the title, to be more aggressive: Ask for $2 million, but be willing to settle for $2,000: “How climate change causes schizophrenia and warts”.
Nah oldies get depression from air pollution-
Study finds depression linked to air pollution (msn.com)
Juveniles get it from plant food.
if that was INdoor air pollution from all the stinky fresheners and crud used in hospitals and nursing/aged care it would make sense
So, it’s bad the earth is greening?
So that will be all the plants then
Why do environmentalists hate plants so much they insist on cutting off the plants’ food source?
Why do environmentalists hate plants so much they insist we must eat them all?
Xue Ming should go back to China and fix things there first.
The answer to all your questions is: Because all change is BAD.
Corollary is: Every uncomfortable fact MUST have a scapegoat.
If there has been a meaningful change in pollen counts, does this mean either
A. More pollen is a health threat, so we should try to reduce pollen; OR
B. In earlier decades, CO2 fertilization was so low that pollen counts were depressed, so it is good that pollen is returning to its proper, normal, long term abundance.
I do not know if we should believe A or B but then most experts do not know either.
It is now mostly a costly, huge propaganda game as various greedy parties struggle to get the most money from gullible others.
I put the WWF on my list of the least trust worthy of these competing groups. They steadfastly spread wrong information then never admit to it being wrong. Totalitarianism at work.
Spot on, Geoff
If CO2 was low in the past, I suspect B is closer to the truth
“could”, don’t you love that weasel word? I could win the lottery. OK, the chances are very small because I don’t play the lottery, but I could, and if you don’t agree you are a denier.
Hillary, based on her current looks, could be short in this world.
That crone looks like she’s had loads of fetal cells injected.
Bill on the other hand looks like she is feeding him strychnine with his fruit-loops..
“Climate change has worsened respiratory allergic disease and has altered the immune system’s tolerance in responding to toxins”
Now add that to [and bear in mind CH4 carries no allergens…]
“” One population study in the Netherlands showed gas cooking was correlated with increased risk of asthma in children. This study used meta-analysis, a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies to improve the detection of associations. The authors concluded:
children living in a home with gas cooking have a 42% increased risk of having current asthma, a 24% increased risk of lifetime asthma and an overall 32% increased risk of having current and lifetime asthma.””
Correlation, as any decent scientist knows, is not causation. But it does sound like it might be.
“It’s not actual research on children. It is a meta-analysis of previously published (and ignored) studies
The study results, including the component studies, are weak statistical associations
Asthma is an allergic disease. There are no allergens in natural gas. So the study has no biological plausibility.
The claim that gas stoves are responsible for 12% of childhood asthma – an epidemiologic concept called “attributable risk” – is entirely bogus because epidemiological studies can only be used to associate exposures with disease. They cannot be used to determine risk of disease because (1) the underlying data is not representative of the population; and (2) epidemiologic studies are just statistics (i.e., correlation is not causation) and cannot be used by themselves to determine cause-and-effect relationships.”
Can anybody name a MSM journalist who has questioned any of it?
“Your gas stove is polluting your own home. Go electric”
Can anybody name a MSM journalist
Stuart Richie is a new science journalist on the UK i newspaper. He wrote a two page article on Jan 20th entitled ‘Gas cookers: turning the heat down on a health risk scare’
He’s since written a lengthy article ‘Red meat bad for you? What a carve up!’ (21st Jan) and a shorter one entitled ‘Time is up for the Doomsday Clock’ (26th Jan)
Nothing on climate change yet but he is definitely a breath of fresh air!
Maybe the REAL plague is hypochondria.
Is that a rhetorical statistical challenge?
How many vaccinations do American children get?
But climate change is the problem……… 🙄
Most vaccinations for American children are multiple vaccines combined into one dose.
‘Climate change could be responsible’ for ‘Autism
Agreed … look at Greta, she’s a prime example !!
I thought the Eastern nations were light years ahead of us in terms of STEM. This article eases my concerns
Not sure of your point, I thought the writer was American.
New Jersey is an Eastern nation, from a certain point of view.
If the claim was true the prevalence of allergies and autism should increase moving from colder climate zones to warmer zones. Where is the evidence that this is true?
The opposite can also be argued, depending on data and disease selected.
Multiple Sclerosis has a greater incidence in the colder North American climates (or did when I studied the subject). Is this due to the climate? Or do people spend more time indoors exposed to domestic allergens? Why do people carry their disease risk with them (up to a certain age) when they migrate? What is the genetic component?
Smart people spent years considering the many possible and unlikely answers before some idiot decided to add global warming to the list.
MS and all autoimmunes are more prevalent in white nth european races and descendants. lack of sun n Vit D would be a big part I reckon
sicklecell anemia gives you a resistance to Malaria, I forget what the RA/autoimmunes is supposed to help against but theres some buggly it does
people were advised to move to aus to get better with lung issues once. and research done in aus showed farm kids around dirt animals and every kind of plant/weed/tree pollens were FAR lower on the asthma diagnosis.
overly clean homes full of chemicals antimicrobial everything from birth onwards worry about allergies is actually causing them by removing the early yrs challenge to the immune system to train it
ie just like the 2yr shutdown now has kids all over crook from normal colds and RSV that usually is handled well
If ‘climate’ were responsible for these medical conditions, then the people who live in the ‘worst’ climate would be predominantly ‘sick’, and the ones who live in the ‘best; climate would have no such diseases. We would all know where NOT to live. Let’s see, how many climate zones are there? Well, that would be 5 major ones, and about 14 total. Which zone is not hospitable to people? Well, gee, people live in all of them. Which one has the most of these medical conditions? Wonder if the author could produce a graph of these diseases vs the climate zone they live in.
You are asking for rational analysis — which you are NOT going to get. Climate change is a doomsday fad, the latest of many, set up as a “Heads I win, tails you lose,” game by professional alarmists who are making a handsome living by terrifying the peons with worst-case scenarios, and demanding sacrifices to Gaia, the Sky Dragon, and several lesser gods who have been cast as vengeful deities.
We’re talking Neo-pagan religiosity — NOT science.
Forelock-tugging, groveling supplicants are NOT going to admit they’ve been had. The big shots who made them do it are NOT going to give up their gravy train.
There’s only one thing causing everything – Ma Nature is getting old.
She stumbles now and again as might be expected, but manages to get up and keep going for a few more (1,000’s of) years. Mere blinks in the geologic time-frame.
We have a name for those stumbles: Ice Ages
Quote:”The long-term erosion rates are also one to four orders of magnitude lower than the assumed 1 mm yr–1 soil loss tolerance value assigned to these locations by the U.S. Department of Agriculture”
There comparing the Pleistocene (2.5 Million yrs to 11,000 yrs ago) to the present day.
See the numbers (1 to 4) they mention.
Those are orders of magnitude.
We are consuming soil between 10 and 10,000 times faster than Ma Nature ever did
Big hugs and kisses to John Deere, also Herr Haber and Bosch.
Only the abstract Paywall
When it comes to the disorders mentioned, a low level would be occurring anyway because of Erosion.
Recall Hippocrates words: 90% of all disease come from poor nutrition
i.e Poor quality food.
Not any deficiency of Quantity or lack of calories – deficiency of Quality.
Where it gets unimaginably worse, send your love & gratitude to Monsanto
As if low nutrient food coming out low nutrient soils wasn’t bad enough, Glyphosate renders whatever is in there unavailable.
it locks up the nutrients.That’s how it works as a weedkiller.
Thing is, it’s not actually A Weedkiller (Number 1 lie) – it is a Growth Regulator.
Usual rules apply: The poison is in the dose
Number 2 lie by Monsanto was/is that it ‘degrades upon contact with the soil‘
That would make a nice epitaph for the human race – there could hardly be A Bigger Porky in all of history.
So, after application to one crop in one year, it waits in the soil and is taken up by the next crop. But no-one really notices because it is not a ‘killer’
The farmer notices but all he does is slap on some more Nitrogen and marks down the requirement to be due to Climate Change.
Does anyone see a problem there?
No matter, the Glyphosate is taken up whatever crop comes next, and next and next and up to ten times next and, in due course, finishes up inside whoever eats it.
Where it does what it does: Locks up nutrients and regulates growth.
Now you see the problem, you just read about it thanks to the lovely Xue Ming ##
wrap up warm
## With a name like that, is she real or is she what you do in virtual meetings and webinars
BBC:”GP concerns over rise in signs of malnutrition
They’re a bit slow on the uptake are Quacks ain’t they – is that what you call (small c) conservative?
or are they lacking in nutrients also?
As a chemist, can I ask for the name and formula of the single chemical to which you object in Monsanto’s Roundup or whatever is its local name?
Can you advise if studies of its health effects have been reported?
If so, what adverse effects were reported?
(My past reading failed to reveal any significant human health concern.)
from looking at soils in a lab I can tell you roundup soils have so little life I damn near went blind looking for it, earthworms etc all low to none
and roundup variants can use ANY carriers and other chem with zero label to show wtf is in it
makers assured us it was fine to ingest because humans didnt have the “pathway” in the gut it affected in bugs
they found we actually DO
meanwhile usda and fda upped the per kilo doses they found acceptable(because the grains etc are coated IN the dust from use as knockdown before harvest etc and constant use buildup in soils)
find me ANY chemical that magically vanishes, ever..it may be unable to kill weeds after soil contact but whatever chem is in it is STILL there, in some form in the soils
Never saw it affect bugs as used by farms here in the USA.
Wrong again, Peta.
Keeping in mind that “A typical field half-life of 47 days” appears to be an average calculated from some research papers, not an actual tested lengths of time.
That same research references glyphosate toxicity where they’ve sprayed/fed/dosed rabbits, dogs, rats and even people haven’t discovered negative health effects at very large dose rates.
The only laboratories that allegedly discovered injurious effects from Glyphosate are WHO connected and they refuse to share their data, test methods, calculations, people involved, etc.
What a clever way to get yourself a guaranteed long-term grant…
A vaxxxine, or vaccines, or some other systemic insult, administered in quick succession? Take two Ibuprofens and call me in the morning.
That said, carbon is a first-order forcing of global warming or geo-inflammation, perchance cranial inflation, which socially justifies planned personhood.
No, carbon isn’t. I think you were referring to carbon dioxide.
Climate change causes everything . . . everything BAD, that is.
We need look no further. Entire fields of research can be dismantled. If someone has post-nasal drip, beats his wife, has mood swings, can’t stop drinking, forgets to change the oil in his car until it throws a rod, or his geraniums wilt, we know the answer — CLIMATE CHANGE.
Global warming scaremongering has certainly dulled the brains of most leftists
People who are leftist had dull brains to begin with. Why would anyone align themselves with the political thinking that has caused more murdering worldwide than any other?
Slightly to the side of this topic but very much related. I’ve been asking ChatGBT some questions around human population and industrialisation and the responses are as expected:
 I asked:
“Is Industrialisation good?”
ChatGBT response (extract)
“On the one hand, industrialization has brought about many benefits, such as increased productivity and economic growth, improved standards of living, and advancements in technology and medicine. It has also played a key role in the development of modern society and has helped to reduce poverty and improve access to resources and opportunities for many people around the world.
On the other hand, industrialization has also had negative consequences, including environmental degradation, increased income inequality, and the exploitation of workers. It has also resulted in the displacement of people and the destruction of traditional ways of life, particularly in developing countries.
In conclusion, industrialization is a complex process with both positive and negative impacts, and the assessment of its effects as “good” or “bad” can depend on one’s values and beliefs, as well as the specific context in which industrialization is taking place.”
(In other words Industrialisation is neither good nor bad as it depends personal opinions and beliefs)
 I asked:
“What are the solutions to too many people on the planet?”
“There is no single solution to the issue of human population growth and its impact on the planet. However, there are a number of measures that can be taken to help address the challenges posed by a growing population and the impacts of human activity on the environment. Some of the solutions that have been proposed include:
Family planning and reproductive health: Providing access to family planning services and reproductive health care can help to reduce population growth by empowering individuals and couples to make informed decisions about the number and spacing of their children.
Education and empowerment of women: Educating and empowering women, particularly in developing countries, can help to reduce population growth by improving health, reducing poverty, and promoting gender equality.
Sustainable development and resource management: Adopting sustainable development practices, such as using renewable energy sources and managing natural resources more efficiently, can help to reduce the impacts of human activity on the environment and ensure that resources are available for future generations.
Climate change mitigation: Addressing climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is critical to mitigating the impacts of a growing population and ensuring a sustainable future for all.
Collaboration and cooperation: Addressing the challenges posed by a growing population and the impacts of human activity on the environment requires collaboration and cooperation between individuals, communities, governments, and organizations at all levels.
In conclusion, there is no single solution to the issue of human population growth and its impact on the planet. However, a combination of measures, including family planning and reproductive health, education and empowerment of women, sustainable development and resource management, climate change mitigation, and collaboration and cooperation, can help to address the challenges posed by a growing population and ensure a sustainable future for all.”
Industrialization has “increased income inequality, …”. Because in the pre-industiral age, income was more equal – between serfs/peons and the Lords.
It is mind blowing that anyone considers ChatGBT spouting Marxist ideology as some kind of ‘intelligence’. This is no better than one of those teenage Chinese Revolutionary Guards from the Cultural Revolution.
programming brought to you by the WEF
My impression is, that the time for scientific research is more based on the search for BS ideas, what else could be attributed to CC than for real research on scientific basics.
There are easy projects and there are hard projects. Like every endeavor of human life, the easy has much more appeal to the majority.
Defund those idiots!
Could, would, should. Monkeys *could* fly out of my arse. If “climate change” causes all those awful side effects, Miami should be littered with the bodies of all the people who move there from Chicago. That’s a far more extreme climate change than even the author is suggesting has occurred globally. Thunderstorms are a lot more frequent in Florida than in Illinois, but unless you’re waving a 9-iron around on the Blue Monster, no one sane would conclude that you’re at increased risk of anything but a lightning strike. This is one of those “not even wrong” articles.
Another person supposedly paid to do science who has attached themselves to propaganda and politics instead.
Climate change causes increasing flights of Chinese Spy Balloons. There were never any before 1850.
Ummm … Climate change to date: A slightly warmer and wetter world and CO2 fertilization leading to global plant growth and longer growing seasons. No increase in adverse weather statistics.
The tradeoff: Food security vs more allergies. Guess which I would choose.
So she appears to be suggesting that northern hemisphere dwellers should expect worsening allergies and autoimmune disease if, in general, they move 100 miles south. In locations with a high average temperature gradient (e.g., coasts and mountainous areas), moving just a few miles inland or a short hike downhill would be harmful to your health. Woe unto those who vacation or retire to warm, sunny climes. They’ll die before they have time to unpack their bags.
”could be” “have the potential” – translation: she hasn’t a clue, but she says you have to love those climate-impacts research dollars. Keep ‘‘em coming.
Why not stick to things we know? Such as: we now know that climate change causes the private parts of royalty to be frozen solid. Much more interesting.
“People with chronic respiratory allergic disease that affects the nose and eyes, such as asthma, …” Sorry, I’ve got allergic asthma, and it has never, ever, affected my nose or eyes. Person hasn’t a clue.
When I first saw the headline for this article I thought it was meant as sarcasm. After all the premise that global warming causes autism and auto-immune disease is so absurd on its face I figured it was meant to illustrate how ridiculous global warming claims have become. Then I started reading the article and realized that this professor of neurology was actually making the claim for real.
When I was younger university professors were respected and university research (except for Sociology – but that’s another story) was the gold standard. But now you have a professor of neurology at Reutgers New Jersey Medical School publishing a serious scientific article in a scientific journal making a ridiculous claim, an article that sixty years ago wouldn’t even have appeared in Mad Magazine. How science has changed! How the universities have lowered their standards.
I went to University in the 60s. I ran into a few professors who immediately attacked, and others whose eyes glazed over and they pretended that nothing had be asked, if presented with any observations that their favorite theories might not be completely true. I can’t say how prevalent such behavior was because I interacted with only a small subset of the total.
Anyway, the point is that it isn’t something new or particularly related to any current religion. Committed believers have always existed, perhaps especially in positions of some power. The range of their committed beliefs is quite large.
This woman is a crackpot. So is she saying increased CO2 is only beneficial to undesirable organisms and organisms we like aren’t effected? Beneficial organisms sit placidly on the sidelines while monstrous bad organisms wreak havoc on poor mankind. She needs her doctorate revoked.
Isn’t all life competition?
If change is in the air, balances are likely to be upset. What was once beneficial from a certain point of view may now become detrimental from that same viewpoint.
Bafflegab, while trying to sound important and knowledgeable. Use every buzzword possible while inferring science was involved and blame climate change, somewhere.
Anthropogenic global warming…is there nothing it cannot do?
Continue to find and publish the absolute madness of prior, and current “climate” related nuttiness.
the much pilloried Dr Andrew Wakefield stated that the vaccines for MMR affected the GUT BIOME and he found that altered biome in kids with autism.
he didnt say the vax caused autism but that it affected the gut and kids with odd gut bacteria seemed to have more autism disorders
of course the gut biome was scarcely even admitted to exist at the time he was researching, let alone be admitted to have an effect.
now? its also linked to parkinsons as this ..person…also threw in
this…person..can claim climate causes it and shes egg and tomato free
funny old clown world were living in
now if shed stated multiple/repeated and ever growing vaccine assaulting immune systems as soon as kids are born(hepB) and lousy processed diets sugar the horrific chemical mix called formula and the rest were a cause? shed be right , not the abysmal idiot shes showing to be
I don’t know the quality of Wakefield research, but the critics of the “antivax” study usually are pathetic: