I'm often asked if I will work with a client in conjunction with their chemotherapy. My answer is of course, but I wish more people would ask the question does chemotherapy actually work. I came across an interesting article from the folks at Natural News and thought I would pass it on. It's worth taking a look at.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023689.html
5/6/08
Cheatsheet: Phthalates
What is it?
Phthalates are a common industrial chemical used in PVC plastics, solvents, and synthetic fragrances. They've been around since the 1930's, and now they're pretty ubiquitous; when they tested 289 people in 2000, the CDC found phthalates in all of the subjects' blood at surprisingly high levels. They're often referred to as a plasticizer, which we think sounds rather like a kind of exercise to be done on the living-room floor in front of videos hosted by Jane Fonda. But we digress.
What are the possible health effects?
Phthalates are endocrine disruptors linked to problems of the reproductive system, including decreased sperm motility and concentration in men and genital abnormalities in baby boys. (Oh, and did you know that average sperm counts have decreased significantly since the 1940's?) More recently they've also been linked to asthma and allergies.How can I minimize my exposure?
Avoid these, and you'll also be avoiding phthalates:- Nail polish: Dibutyl phthalate is often used to make nail polish chip-resistant. Look for it on the ingredients list, where it may be shortened to DBP.
- Plastics in the kitchen: Take a critical eye to your cupboards. Phthalates may be more likely to leach out of plastic when it's heated, so avoid cooking or microwaving in plastic.
- Vinyl toys: Phthalates are what make vinyl (PVC) toys soft, so don't give them to children. Opt instead for wooden and other phthalate-free toys, especially during that age when they put everything in their mouths!
- Paint: Paints and other hobby products may contain phthalates as solvents, so be sure to use them in a well-ventilated space.
- Fragrance: Diethyl phthalate (DEP) is often used as part of the "fragrance" in some products. Since DEP won't be listed separately, you're better off choosing personal care products, detergents, and cleansers that don't have the word "fragrance" on the ingredients list.
- Vinyl: Vinyl shows up in a lot of different products; lawn furniture, garden hoses, building materials, and items of clothing (like some raincoats) are often sources. Aside from carefully choosing materials when you're making purchases, there is one easy change you can make: switch to a non-vinyl shower curtain. That "new shower curtain" smell (you know the one) is a result of chemical off-gassing, and it means your shower curtain is a source of phthalates in your home.
- Air Fresheners: Just like fragrances in personal care products, most air fresheners contain phthalates.
Where can I learn more?
- Here's a link to Phthalates in the Chemical Index.
- Phthalates were just one of the hormone-disrupting chemicals we found contaminating the San Francisco Bay.
- NRDC has the low-down on phthalates in air fresheners.
- EWG's Jane Houlihan discusses phthalates in children's personal care products.
- Olga explains a recent study linking phthalates to asthma and allergies.
http://www.enviroblog.org/2008/05/cheatsheet-phthalates.htm
4/18/08
Take Action to Get Brita Filters Recycled in US
We're always telling you to filter your water 'round these parts. It's true, a good carbon filter will get rid of most common pollutants (though not all), and they're a lot less expensive than a reverse-osmosis system. But every couple of months or so, you're left with a grit-filled hunk of plastic that can't be recycled. There's nothing to do with an old filter but throw it out -- and that hardly seems eco-friendly.
Unless you live in Europe, where the German company that makes Brita pitcher and faucet-mounted filter systems has created a filter takeback system. Returned, used filters are taken apart and reused or recycled. Unfortunately Clorox, who hold Brita's distribution license in the U.S., has no such program.
Enter the incomparable Beth Terry. In her quest to rid her life of plastic trash, those Brita filters were becoming a roadblock. Apparently she decided the roadblock needed to come down. Now, with a team of concerned citizens from across the country, Beth has created the Take Back the Filter campaign -- because if they can do it in Europe, there's no reason they can't do it here. Go to the website to sign the petition and write a letter to Clorox execs. You can even send your used filters to the Take Back the Filter team, and they'll deliver them en masse to Clorox!
We shouldn't have to choose between clean water and not creating trash. Tell Clorox to Take Back the Filter!
4/17/08
A Deeper Look at Drugs In Our Tap Water
by Cathy Sherman
(NaturalNews) Picture this: Three guys go into a bar. The batender asks, "What'll you have?" "A beer", says the first guy. Second one says, "Whiskey" and turning to the third guy asks, "what about you?" "Oh me, I really need a good strong kick, one with lots of punch to it... Yep, I think this day calls for a big one on tap! Hey bartender, how about some of your tap water!"
It was hard not to hear about the mess our water supply is in; the March AP (Associated Press) story was picked up by almost every media outlet imaginable. Members of a "National Investigative Team" reviewed reports and talked to over 200 officials and scientists for a five-month period. The AP writers' conclusions struck fear into many a thirsty American, who was suddenly told he was drinking urine. Not any urine either, but drug-filled urine, possibly from their neighbor up the road.
The first to feel the effects were the water filter companies, who have received many inquiries from
consumers. Even though a less widely published story came out in 2000 after the U.S. Geological Survey's research, apparently few in the industry have run tests on their products to find out if they could filter out pharmaceuticals. Those that did run checks only tested a few drugs.
The EPA hasn't responded either, as to this day there are still no minimum standards detailing how many parts per million of drugs to water is tolerable. Nor does anyone know the long-term effects on our bodies from drinking such pharmaceutical cocktails on a daily basis. Research on fish and other animals shows many ill effects, which suggests we will be affected as well, if only by eating the fish.
It was pointed out that this problem did not only pertain to the U.S., but recent studies have found similar drugs in the water supplies of Canada, Asia, Australia, Europe, and even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea. Other studies have found them in Brazil and South Africa.
The article also made it clear that bottled water is no solution, as it can pick up the contaminants from the tap water from which it is filtered, or the natural springs from which it is collected. Virtually no water source is safe, since the problem has not yet been thoroughly addressed.
Many opinions and old surveys no longer relevant are cited, but after a critical look at the article, we aren't enlightened much. The writers state that when it comes to water filters, reverse osmosis models do the best job. No evidence for this is given, however.
A little deeper investigation highlighted the problem of antibiotics. Since bacteria can adapt to them and nullify their effectiveness, the constant exposure of antibiotics in the water will give the many bacteria strains ample time to mount their resistance.
There are additional issues to those highlighted by the AP's article. Besides the overwhelming conclusion that our world has become too enamored with pharmaceuticals for our own good, the question still should be asked: Why do most local governments prescribe large doses of one drug equally distributed to every man, woman and child without regard to need and without any scientific basis?
The drug is fluoride. Many readers know it as a chemical waste product of the fertilizer industry that is problematic environmentally in regard to how to dispose of it. So the government and the industry figured out that putting it in our drinking water would solve the problem. For more Natural News articles on fluoride, go to: ((http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearch...) .
Many states voted to require fluoridated water, but in a few states it is up to the local water company. Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water is an example of one group which has actively opposed the fluoridation. They feel that the fluoride itself is bad enough for health, but its negative effects are multiplied because fluoride compounds are contaminated with lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and other toxins.
Not only that, but studies have shown that fluoride can pull lead from pipes and add that to the poisonous mix coming from our taps. That might be the reason fluoride also seems to bring copper and aluminum with it as well as the lead.
Animal studies have demonstrated evidence of fluoride's toxic effects on brain tissue. These include brain cell damage, reduced lipid content, impairment in anti-oxidant defense systems, increased aluminum uptake, and the formation of beta-amyloid plaques. These are the plaques which are indicative of Alzheimer's Disease. Maybe this explains why many dogs seem to prefer to drink from puddles than their own tap-filled water dishes.
Complicating the ability to control the level of fluoride is the presence in many rivers of "naturally
occurring fluoride". It has been hard to find research on the source of such "natural" fluoride, but it possibly could come from the same source as the pharmaceuticals, or from fertilized soils along the stream banks.
It appears that, whatever the agenda of the AP for its wide dissemination of the news that the presence of pharmaceuticals in our water supply is alarming, it would have done us all a service if a result is that citizens become more aware of the problems with fluoride.
At least, most kinds of water filters will filter out the fluoride and chlorine in the tap water. A more difficult problem is filtering out the other pharmaceuticals.
In-home filters come in several basic types: Reverse osmosis, carbon filters, and distillation models. Until the levels and standards have been set, comparing the abilities of the different types for filtering out drugs will be difficult.
The Reverse Osmosis (RO) filters have been very successful at filtering out toxins and contaminants and possibly will work for drugs. The problem with them is that they require good water pressure and a large volume of water, 75% of which is wasted.
Not only that, but this waste water takes in the contaminants, resulting in a much more highly condensed brew. This water goes back down the drain and into the water supply and the cycle repeats. The best way to deal with this might be to drain this water into a storage tank to be used for irrigation of one's garden or lawn or drain it directly to an irrigation hose.
Shane Ellison, an organic chemist and author of The Hidden Truth about Cholesterol Lowering Drugs, (www.thepeopleschemist.com) , favors the five-stage RioFlow Reverse Osmosis filter, priced at about $169. When asked if one could safely run the leftover water out to the garden to irrigate fruit trees or veggies, he stated "Cellulose acts as a pretty good filter, stopping drug uptake. But I've never tested this personally. Most plants only take up water and a bit of nitrogen... Using the sun, they then make all the nutritional components 'in-house' so to speak... It's quite miraculous when you consider it..."
Carbon filters are used in a variety of water filters. A few carbon filter systems, depending on the makeup of their filtering material, have been certified for the removal of lead, asbestos, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), cysts, and coliform. The inorganic chemicals would not stick to the carbon, however. Another downside is that carbon filters have to be cleaned often and/or replaced to be effective.
One maker, Aquasana, states "Pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs are virtually all Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs) or Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) and are effectively filtered out by our filters. The coconut shell granulated activated carbon used in all of our filters is recognized by the EPA as the best available technology for the removal of SOCs and VOCs." They failed to mention what happens to the few inorganic chemicals, however.
Distillation units work by steaming the water and separating out the contaminants from the water. This type provides very clean water, but a charcoal filter needs to be incorporated, since toxins like chlorine can both vaporize and re-condense along with the water being cleaned. Beneficial liquid trace minerals will be lost in the distilling process, so they will have to be added back in. Electricity is also required for these units.
The best choice will probably be a combination of reverse osmosis filter augmented by pre- and post-
activated carbon filters. The filter will definitely need several stages and different kinds of filtering media. There is even a product which adds a special ceramic filter to it and attempts to incorporate the best of all three methods. It is the kind that is used by NASA in our space program.
Another consideration is whether or not to filter ALL the water in the residence, or just the drinking water. Whole house systems are expensive, but shower filters are also effective in removing chlorine and other toxins. It is even possible to find filters that work with the tub faucet so bath water can also be chlorine-free.
In the next few months, it can be anticipated that water filter companies will be running tests on the
abilities of their filters to remove pharmaceuticals. Water companies will be fending off questions from consumers and preparing statements. It is doubtful that water companies and cities will be able to improve water quality very quickly.
Since the earlier studies, small pilot programs and one-day pickups of unused drugs have popped up in the Northeast, California, Washington, Florida, and elsewhere.
At least one state, Illinois, is now calling for a testing of water supplies for drugs. Illinois already has a disposal program for unused drugs, in an attempt to cut down the amount disposed of in toilets etc. The Illinois EPA has removed six 30-gallon drums of pharmaceuticals from its pilot program so far.
In this program, recommended by the EPA, solid waste agencies in four locations collect unused drugs from senior centers, retirement complexes, and convalescent centers in their areas. The state EPA collects unused pharmaceuticals at its twice-yearly household hazardous waste collection events. In addition, many hospitals, pharmacies and police departments offer programs to collect and dispose of unwanted drugs.
Maine recently started a four-county program in which pharmaceutical buyers will take home prepaid mailers in which they will send drug leftovers to a way station. From there, most will be picked up for transport to incinerators. Organizers intend to eventually extend the program statewide.
To dispose of unused drugs, the EPA suggests putting them among coffee grounds or kitty litter in a non-permeable container such as a coffee can before bringing them to the collection site. Some drugs should be flushed down the toilet; if so, the label should so indicate.
Montreal plans to be the first large metropolis in the world to disinfect all its waste water using
ozonation, a cutting-edge technology that uses high voltages of electricity to charge oxygen molecules. This produces ozone gas which will remove bacteria, viruses, drugs and industrial chemicals dumped into the St. Lawrence River, partly by a large number of pharmaceutical plants. Although many cities already use ozonation, it has not been done with this large a volume.
In other studies, ozonation with advanced oxidation processes were found effective to reduce or eliminate the drugs in drinking water. Different pharmaceuticals require different levels of ozone applied. Ozonation plus activated carbon filtration is best for more of these. Though ozonation is cheap, the problem with using it alone is that the ozone's effect wears off quickly.
For some drugs, like antibiotics, a good alternative is membrane filtration by RO. Nanofiltration and RO filtration were found effective in Arizona and California studies. Other research found that pre-filtration and final RO filtration was effective. Granular activated carbon combined with RO is even better.
Overall, it can be concluded that ozonation and AOPs (Advanced Oxidation Processes) are promising processes for the efficient removal of pharmaceuticals in drinking water. If all sewage treatment plants added more time for the sludge to sit, the results could be even better, as the sludge-eating micro-organisms would have more time to do their preliminary work.
If manufacturing companies must pay fines for releasing toxins into our environment, it is logical that the pharmaceutical companies should fund the cleanup of drugs from our water supply. Since the likelihood of that happening is doubtful, the consumer will bear the responsibility for providing their own filtering systems so they can feel they are doing the most possible to ensure the greatest health for their families.
Local governments will have to adopt programs such as that in Illinois. After all, the problem left untreated will only get worse. Every drug that gets filtered out re-enters the water supply by one route or another, further compounding the problem.
Researchers have made progress, though more needs to be done to find the least expensive system that will do the necessary job of delivering water that is fit to drink.
Resources:
((http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/ecol...)
(http://planet.wwu.edu/articles/gender-bender.html)
((http://www.mindfully.org/Water/2003/Pha...)
(http://books.google.com/books?)
((http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/...)
((http://www.care2.com/greenliving/carbon...)
(http://www.multipureco.com/appressrelease.pdf)
((http://www.mercola.com/2005/nov/17/phar...)
(http://www.aquaspace.com/)
(http://www.purefilter.net/USRO5-60-QC.asp)
(NaturalNews) Picture this: Three guys go into a bar. The batender asks, "What'll you have?" "A beer", says the first guy. Second one says, "Whiskey" and turning to the third guy asks, "what about you?" "Oh me, I really need a good strong kick, one with lots of punch to it... Yep, I think this day calls for a big one on tap! Hey bartender, how about some of your tap water!"
It was hard not to hear about the mess our water supply is in; the March AP (Associated Press) story was picked up by almost every media outlet imaginable. Members of a "National Investigative Team" reviewed reports and talked to over 200 officials and scientists for a five-month period. The AP writers' conclusions struck fear into many a thirsty American, who was suddenly told he was drinking urine. Not any urine either, but drug-filled urine, possibly from their neighbor up the road.
The first to feel the effects were the water filter companies, who have received many inquiries from
consumers. Even though a less widely published story came out in 2000 after the U.S. Geological Survey's research, apparently few in the industry have run tests on their products to find out if they could filter out pharmaceuticals. Those that did run checks only tested a few drugs.
The EPA hasn't responded either, as to this day there are still no minimum standards detailing how many parts per million of drugs to water is tolerable. Nor does anyone know the long-term effects on our bodies from drinking such pharmaceutical cocktails on a daily basis. Research on fish and other animals shows many ill effects, which suggests we will be affected as well, if only by eating the fish.
It was pointed out that this problem did not only pertain to the U.S., but recent studies have found similar drugs in the water supplies of Canada, Asia, Australia, Europe, and even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea. Other studies have found them in Brazil and South Africa.
The article also made it clear that bottled water is no solution, as it can pick up the contaminants from the tap water from which it is filtered, or the natural springs from which it is collected. Virtually no water source is safe, since the problem has not yet been thoroughly addressed.
Many opinions and old surveys no longer relevant are cited, but after a critical look at the article, we aren't enlightened much. The writers state that when it comes to water filters, reverse osmosis models do the best job. No evidence for this is given, however.
A little deeper investigation highlighted the problem of antibiotics. Since bacteria can adapt to them and nullify their effectiveness, the constant exposure of antibiotics in the water will give the many bacteria strains ample time to mount their resistance.
There are additional issues to those highlighted by the AP's article. Besides the overwhelming conclusion that our world has become too enamored with pharmaceuticals for our own good, the question still should be asked: Why do most local governments prescribe large doses of one drug equally distributed to every man, woman and child without regard to need and without any scientific basis?
The drug is fluoride. Many readers know it as a chemical waste product of the fertilizer industry that is problematic environmentally in regard to how to dispose of it. So the government and the industry figured out that putting it in our drinking water would solve the problem. For more Natural News articles on fluoride, go to: ((http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearch...) .
Many states voted to require fluoridated water, but in a few states it is up to the local water company. Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water is an example of one group which has actively opposed the fluoridation. They feel that the fluoride itself is bad enough for health, but its negative effects are multiplied because fluoride compounds are contaminated with lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and other toxins.
Not only that, but studies have shown that fluoride can pull lead from pipes and add that to the poisonous mix coming from our taps. That might be the reason fluoride also seems to bring copper and aluminum with it as well as the lead.
Animal studies have demonstrated evidence of fluoride's toxic effects on brain tissue. These include brain cell damage, reduced lipid content, impairment in anti-oxidant defense systems, increased aluminum uptake, and the formation of beta-amyloid plaques. These are the plaques which are indicative of Alzheimer's Disease. Maybe this explains why many dogs seem to prefer to drink from puddles than their own tap-filled water dishes.
Complicating the ability to control the level of fluoride is the presence in many rivers of "naturally
occurring fluoride". It has been hard to find research on the source of such "natural" fluoride, but it possibly could come from the same source as the pharmaceuticals, or from fertilized soils along the stream banks.
It appears that, whatever the agenda of the AP for its wide dissemination of the news that the presence of pharmaceuticals in our water supply is alarming, it would have done us all a service if a result is that citizens become more aware of the problems with fluoride.
At least, most kinds of water filters will filter out the fluoride and chlorine in the tap water. A more difficult problem is filtering out the other pharmaceuticals.
In-home filters come in several basic types: Reverse osmosis, carbon filters, and distillation models. Until the levels and standards have been set, comparing the abilities of the different types for filtering out drugs will be difficult.
The Reverse Osmosis (RO) filters have been very successful at filtering out toxins and contaminants and possibly will work for drugs. The problem with them is that they require good water pressure and a large volume of water, 75% of which is wasted.
Not only that, but this waste water takes in the contaminants, resulting in a much more highly condensed brew. This water goes back down the drain and into the water supply and the cycle repeats. The best way to deal with this might be to drain this water into a storage tank to be used for irrigation of one's garden or lawn or drain it directly to an irrigation hose.
Shane Ellison, an organic chemist and author of The Hidden Truth about Cholesterol Lowering Drugs, (www.thepeopleschemist.com) , favors the five-stage RioFlow Reverse Osmosis filter, priced at about $169. When asked if one could safely run the leftover water out to the garden to irrigate fruit trees or veggies, he stated "Cellulose acts as a pretty good filter, stopping drug uptake. But I've never tested this personally. Most plants only take up water and a bit of nitrogen... Using the sun, they then make all the nutritional components 'in-house' so to speak... It's quite miraculous when you consider it..."
Carbon filters are used in a variety of water filters. A few carbon filter systems, depending on the makeup of their filtering material, have been certified for the removal of lead, asbestos, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), cysts, and coliform. The inorganic chemicals would not stick to the carbon, however. Another downside is that carbon filters have to be cleaned often and/or replaced to be effective.
One maker, Aquasana, states "Pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs are virtually all Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs) or Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) and are effectively filtered out by our filters. The coconut shell granulated activated carbon used in all of our filters is recognized by the EPA as the best available technology for the removal of SOCs and VOCs." They failed to mention what happens to the few inorganic chemicals, however.
Distillation units work by steaming the water and separating out the contaminants from the water. This type provides very clean water, but a charcoal filter needs to be incorporated, since toxins like chlorine can both vaporize and re-condense along with the water being cleaned. Beneficial liquid trace minerals will be lost in the distilling process, so they will have to be added back in. Electricity is also required for these units.
The best choice will probably be a combination of reverse osmosis filter augmented by pre- and post-
activated carbon filters. The filter will definitely need several stages and different kinds of filtering media. There is even a product which adds a special ceramic filter to it and attempts to incorporate the best of all three methods. It is the kind that is used by NASA in our space program.
Another consideration is whether or not to filter ALL the water in the residence, or just the drinking water. Whole house systems are expensive, but shower filters are also effective in removing chlorine and other toxins. It is even possible to find filters that work with the tub faucet so bath water can also be chlorine-free.
In the next few months, it can be anticipated that water filter companies will be running tests on the
abilities of their filters to remove pharmaceuticals. Water companies will be fending off questions from consumers and preparing statements. It is doubtful that water companies and cities will be able to improve water quality very quickly.
Since the earlier studies, small pilot programs and one-day pickups of unused drugs have popped up in the Northeast, California, Washington, Florida, and elsewhere.
At least one state, Illinois, is now calling for a testing of water supplies for drugs. Illinois already has a disposal program for unused drugs, in an attempt to cut down the amount disposed of in toilets etc. The Illinois EPA has removed six 30-gallon drums of pharmaceuticals from its pilot program so far.
In this program, recommended by the EPA, solid waste agencies in four locations collect unused drugs from senior centers, retirement complexes, and convalescent centers in their areas. The state EPA collects unused pharmaceuticals at its twice-yearly household hazardous waste collection events. In addition, many hospitals, pharmacies and police departments offer programs to collect and dispose of unwanted drugs.
Maine recently started a four-county program in which pharmaceutical buyers will take home prepaid mailers in which they will send drug leftovers to a way station. From there, most will be picked up for transport to incinerators. Organizers intend to eventually extend the program statewide.
To dispose of unused drugs, the EPA suggests putting them among coffee grounds or kitty litter in a non-permeable container such as a coffee can before bringing them to the collection site. Some drugs should be flushed down the toilet; if so, the label should so indicate.
Montreal plans to be the first large metropolis in the world to disinfect all its waste water using
ozonation, a cutting-edge technology that uses high voltages of electricity to charge oxygen molecules. This produces ozone gas which will remove bacteria, viruses, drugs and industrial chemicals dumped into the St. Lawrence River, partly by a large number of pharmaceutical plants. Although many cities already use ozonation, it has not been done with this large a volume.
In other studies, ozonation with advanced oxidation processes were found effective to reduce or eliminate the drugs in drinking water. Different pharmaceuticals require different levels of ozone applied. Ozonation plus activated carbon filtration is best for more of these. Though ozonation is cheap, the problem with using it alone is that the ozone's effect wears off quickly.
For some drugs, like antibiotics, a good alternative is membrane filtration by RO. Nanofiltration and RO filtration were found effective in Arizona and California studies. Other research found that pre-filtration and final RO filtration was effective. Granular activated carbon combined with RO is even better.
Overall, it can be concluded that ozonation and AOPs (Advanced Oxidation Processes) are promising processes for the efficient removal of pharmaceuticals in drinking water. If all sewage treatment plants added more time for the sludge to sit, the results could be even better, as the sludge-eating micro-organisms would have more time to do their preliminary work.
If manufacturing companies must pay fines for releasing toxins into our environment, it is logical that the pharmaceutical companies should fund the cleanup of drugs from our water supply. Since the likelihood of that happening is doubtful, the consumer will bear the responsibility for providing their own filtering systems so they can feel they are doing the most possible to ensure the greatest health for their families.
Local governments will have to adopt programs such as that in Illinois. After all, the problem left untreated will only get worse. Every drug that gets filtered out re-enters the water supply by one route or another, further compounding the problem.
Researchers have made progress, though more needs to be done to find the least expensive system that will do the necessary job of delivering water that is fit to drink.
Resources:
((http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/ecol...)
(http://planet.wwu.edu/articles/gender-bender.html)
((http://www.mindfully.org/Water/2003/Pha...)
(http://books.google.com/books?)
((http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/...)
((http://www.care2.com/greenliving/carbon...)
(http://www.multipureco.com/appressrelease.pdf)
((http://www.mercola.com/2005/nov/17/phar...)
(http://www.aquaspace.com/)
(http://www.purefilter.net/USRO5-60-QC.asp)
About the author
Cathy Sherman is a freelance writer with a major interest in natural health and in encouraging others to take responsibility for their health. She can be reached through www.devardoc.com.Toxic Chemicals in Our Makeup
Breast cancer rates are rising all over the world, not just in the U.S. A recent World Health Organization report states that the disease has dramatically risen in the last 20 years, in some countries even doubling. The projection for Europe is that one in 10 women will develop breast cancer. One of the ways to reduce the disease is to remove dangerous, hormone disrupting chemicals that we are exposed to through cosmetics.
In the U.S. the main advocates for safe cosmetics are the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, founded by numerous environmental and public health organizations, including EWG. In Europe, health campaigners, including ChemTrust, have recently called for a Europe-wide ban on certain chemicals found in cosmetics and pesticides, to help cut rising rates of the disease. A study by Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, the head of toxicology at the University of London's School of Pharmacy, states:
"We will not be able to reduce the risk of breast cancer without addressing preventable causes, particularly exposure to chemicals."
The time of the belief in breast cancer as an inevitable and inherited disease is long gone. We are exposed to chemicals that cause preventable exposures, but without laws to protect public health, consumers unfortunately have to try to shop their way out of this problem. A good way to start is by checking out EWG’s Skin Deep cosmetics database.
4/11/08
Phthalate-induced asthma: Gasping for breath
The smell of a new car, that new shower curtain odor, and those off-gassing carpets recently installed in your office have one thing in common: these consumer products contain plastics chemicals that can become volatile, spread through air and hit our olfactory systems. And we are accustomed to consider such chemical smells a good thing. Who wouldn't like to have the status symbol of a new car, volatile chemicals and all?
It turns out that the “plastic smell” is not quite so innocuous as people used to believe. One of the most common plastic materials is PVC, polyvinylchloride, which is used extensively for covering of interior building surfaces, food wrappers, water pipes, and many other applications. On its own, PVC is a pretty rigid material; its flexibility is achieved by addition of plasticizers, especially a family of chemicals called phthalates. We have already heard many concerns about phthalates in cosmetics and in children’s toys because these chemicals pose great risks to development of reproductive system in baby boys.
However, an article published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives highlights a new, previously unforeseen systemic danger of phthalates as allergy-inducing chemicals.
Two scientists at the Institute of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Birmingham conducted a thorough analysis of research literature on allergy and asthma and identified 41 papers that indicated a likely link between phthalates and these illnesses. Our review of the literature further identified 4 more studies, now bringing the total to 45. These 45 studies include research in animals, case studies of occupational exposure, and broad-range epidemiological studies in people of different ages. Is it time to sit up and take notice?
- Seventeen different animal studies demonstrated that phthalates from PVC products can prompt development of allergy. In these studies, phthalates increase production of IgE antibodies and immune signaling molecules that are associated with allergies and asthma attacks.
- Nine articles reported cases of occupational asthma related to PVC fumes. For example, PVC-linked asthma has been observed in meat-packing workers, workers employed in production of artificial leather, and fire-fighters exposed to fumes from residential fires involving now-ubiquitous plastic laminates.
- Finally, nineteen articles described epidemiological studies that show an association between PVC fumes and asthma and respiratory symptoms. Most worrisome, five of these studies unambiguously demonstrated the effects in children where phthalate exposure in the home is linked to the risk of asthma and allergies.
EWG has repeatedly called for governmental action on phthalates, such as risk assessment and setting of regulatory limits and phase out programs. In addition to established reproductive toxicity of these chemicals, a huge body of research evidence now confirms that exposure to phthalates in homes and work increases the risk of asthma and allergies both in children and in adults. It is now time for quick and decisive action. Children's health -- in fact, all of our health -- cannot wait.
Photo by PhylB.
http://www.enviroblog.org/2008/04/phthalateinduced-asthma-gaspin-1.htm
3/25/08
Promoting Vaccination, Fear, Hate & Discrimination
http://vaccineawakening.blogspot.com/
The discrimination begins, always, with the majority in a society pointing the finger at a minority for somehow endangering the public health and welfare. Individuals in the minority group are singled out as different - ethnically, biologically, spiritually, morally - from the majority. The human impulse to fear, judge, marginalize or eliminate those different from the rest has left a blood soaked trail winding throughout the entire history of man from the Great Inquisition to the Holocaust; from the killing fields of Cambodia to Rwanda, Serbia and Tibet; while the persecution of those with leprosy, TB, AIDS, mental illness, and handicaps continues in every society.
It was with a heavy heart that I read the March 21 New York Times article, "Public Health Risk Seen as Parents Reject Vaccines." Then I waded through the venomous comments posted on the NY Times website attacking parents of vaccine injured autistic children and those supporting informed consent to vaccination, specifically legal exemptions.
Some New York Times readers simply engaged in adolescent name-calling, angrily accusing parents of being "stupid" for questioning the wisdom of doctors in positions of authority and "selfish" for wanting to make informed vaccine choices:
"I'm so tired of these morons who refuse to vaccinate their children. It's stupid and selfish and, as usual, the kid suffers because of an hysterical, paranoid mother. What we need is a vaccine against paranoid conspiracy theory nuts. Oh, yeah....and by all means, let's trust a primary care doc from Arizona rather than the AAP and CDC. After all, what does some pinhead in private practice know that the best trained, most informed academic docs at some backwater like Johns Hopkins or CHOP or Children's Boston know, anyhow."
Others ridiculed parents for having faith in God but not in medical science, doctors and the safety of vaccines:
"The irrational decisions of adults, including parents and even physicians, supported by superstition, faith and magical beliefs, rather than data, evidence and proof, cannot stand in the way of science's obligation to create new knowledge to protect the members of a society, especially its most vulnerable members."
"Western religion's relationship with God requires a scapegoat. Since the Satan bit is worn a little thin they have once again decided that science and technology are to blame for all man's evils. As a civilized society we have given far too much deference to religion. Those not wishing to participate should simply not be included in schools, hospitals, etc. Not allowing their children to participate is the cruelist of abuse and should be removed from their "care."
"The parents whose personal beliefs cause them to fail to vaccinate their children should be seen clearly for what they are - child abusers. They are as monstrous as people that allow their children to die because they are convinced that if their god wants their children to live, he'll take care of it."
"Science is not infallible but it works. No one doubts that savagely beating a kid and offering "religious beliefs" as a pretext is a crime. These parents are doing the same thing. They should be prosecuted for endangering the health of their children - and ours."
The idea that the unvaccinated should be made "outcasts" in society and kept in isolation or even banned from being able to go out in public was a popular one:
"To those who demand an exemption, the choice should be clear and simple. No vaccine, no attendance at any public venue, schools in particular. Let these leaches live up in the woods as hermits."
" Parents of immunized children should not allow their children to play with [unvaccinated children]. Being an outcast is a powerful tool to use against these very selfish people."
Doctors defending their belief in vaccination weighed in, too, calling for elimination of the unvaccinated from society:
"As an epidemiologist who believes in the power and strength of herd immunity, I would like to ask these people who forgo vaccination to politely leave the herd."
Several more suggested the unvaccinated be publicly branded and forced to reveal their vaccination history to all who come in contact with them:
"Those making this decision [to not vaccinate their children] should be ineligible for access to public schooling. They should also be mandated to inform any and all people with whom they come into contact of their lack of vaccinations. They should also sign a waiver to any public or insurance pool funding for treatment of avoidable disease and/or long term damage caused by contraction of that disease."
"Should parents get to decide what happens to their child, even when that decision flies in the face of all evidence? Yes. But then should I have a right to know who these children are, so that I can keep my own child away from them? Indeed, I think I should......"
Another went further, calling for hospital and medical care to be denied to the unvaccinated:
"They should not be permitted in clinics and hospitals, where immunocompromised children and adults have the right to safety. No exception, whether based on religious faith or just garden-variety ignorance and superstition."
Several others believe mothers and fathers with unvaccinated children should be not only be charged with a crime but have their children taken from them:
"This should be a reason to notify CPS so that they can remove these children from parents who endanger their lives. This should be a crime."
There was a call for legislators who vote for vaccine exemptions to be punished:
"The parents who unilaterally decide to withhold immunization from their children should be sent to jail. The legislators who voted to condone this behavior should be identified and subjected to recall."
And some wanted to see parents and their unvaccinated children physically harmed:
.....Fine, so long as these parents are forcibly exposed to the illnesses themselves. And if their children either die, or are permanently injured, criminal charges should be laid. Then we'll see how much they still believe in their voodoo- science......"
Like sharks in a feeding frenzy, they gave public witness to their fear and loathing of fellow human beings who do not believe, think or act as they do.
I could not help but think of the children and parents forced to line up last November at a Maryland County Courthouse patrolled by armed police with dogs, a stark reminder that the parents were under threat of imprisonment and fines for failing to show schools proof that their children got chicken pox and hepatitis B shots.
I remembered the news report out of Belgium last month describing how a State court had sentenced mothers and fathers to five months in prison and a $4,000 fine because their children had not gotten vaccinated.
I thought of the persecution of Andrew Wakefield, M.D., who is being punished by his British colleagues for daring to report an association between the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and neuroimmune dysfunction, including inflammatory bowel disease and autism. Like when the heads of heretics were impaled upon stakes on the Tower of London as a warning for all to see, the Wakefield inquisition is a spectacle designed to persuade all doctors contemplating questioning the safety of current mass vaccination policies to remain silent.
And then I thought of the Jewish orphan from Philadelphia, whose DNA I inherited from several generations back, and whose lineage in my mid-west Protestant family was not known to me for many years. Her blood is my blood, her genes belong to me just as the Norwegian and Scottish-Irish genes that predispose me and my children to autoimmunity and vaccine reactions are part of who I am.
I wondered how many of the readers of that New York Times article, who spewed fear, prejudice and hate into cyberspace and urged discrimination against and punishment of the unvaccinated, remembered that we are who we are because of the genetic strengths and vulnerabilities inherited from our mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers going back generations and generations.
I come from a family of doctors and nurses, physical therapists and social workers, historians and soldiers, artists and writers, pastors and farmers, public administrators and builders; feminists and teachers, who have made the world a little better because they were allowed to live. And all through our family there is a history of autoimmunity, including rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid disease, diabetes, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, severe allergies to foods, prescription drugs and pollen, and vaccine reactions.
My mother died of lupus two years ago this week, her body unable to protect itself from self. A nurse who once took care of polio victims at Mayo Clinic, she left three children and 11 grandchildren, all of whom carry her genes.
We do not choose the genes we inherit that make us the unique individuals we each are, as different from one another as we are similar within the human species.
My mother would have gladly laid down her life for any one of her children or grandchildren in order to protect them from harm, as I and countless other mothers around the world would do. The biological imperative, which prompts mothers and fathers to willingly sacrifice their lives to ensure their children survive, dictates we do that in order to ensure the survival of the human race.
For what is the human race but a collection of individuals from individual families living in different communities, all joined together to make up the whole of humanity? When any one life is devalued and deemed expendable, by extension, the well being and integrity of the whole is compromised.
Individual health IS public health.
Vaccine policies issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) do not recognize the potential biological vulnerability of my family and many other families to be harmed by vaccination. It does not matter if we have a vaccine injured child: CDC and AAP policies turned into law by state legislators do not provide for vaccine injured children or the siblings of vaccine injured children to be medically exempt from vaccination. Children, who have had seizures and other health deterioration after vaccination, often do not qualify for medical exemptions.
In the past quarter century, the numbers of vaccines the CDC and AAP insist that children must get has increased from 23 doses of 7 vaccines to 48 doses of 14 vaccines by age six without any large, credible studies proving it is safe for all children. How many of those genetically vulnerable to repeated atypical manipulation of the immune system through forced multiple vaccine use are among the highly vaccinated American children who are chronically ill and disabled today: 1 in 6 learning disabled; 1 in 9 asthmatic; 1 in 150 developing autism?
The doctors in charge at the CDC and AAP have refused, for more than a quarter century, to acknowledge the existence of a growing number of vaccine injured children and so they have refused to identify and screen out children biologically vulnerable to vaccine-induced brain and immune system dysfunction. One-size-fits-all vaccine policies and state laws have become a de facto selection of the genetically vulnerable for sacrifice. It is a very small step from that kind of societal thinking to the prisons, concentration camps and killing fields that stand as chilling testimony to the human impulse to dehumanize others in order to control, exploit or eliminate them.
Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel has said "When you take an idea or a concept and turn it into an abstraction, that opens the way to take human beings and turn them, also, into abstractions."
Individuals harmed by vaccines are not abstractions. They are human beings who deserve to be spared a lifetime of suffering rather than being thrown under the bus to prop up forced mass vaccination policies that fail to acknowledge biodiversity within the family of man.
In the face of a medical community committed to the utilitarian rationale that a minority of human beings can be sacrificed in service to the majority, the only way parents can protect children from being injured or killed by vaccines is by the free exercise of non- medical legal exemptions for deeply held religious or conscientious beliefs.
Doctors inside and outside of government, who have instilled fear of and discrimination against parents with vaccine injured children, bear responsibility for the hate and prejudice expressed on the New York Times website last week. It is a wake-up call for all Americans who cherish freedom and the human right to make informed, voluntary medical decisions that involve a risk of injury or death.
***********************************************************
"The very success of immunizations has turned out to be an Achilles' heel," said Dr. Mark Sawyer, a pediatrician and infectious disease specialist at Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego. "Most of these parents have never seen measles, and don't realize it could be a bad disease so they turn their concerns to unfounded risks. They do not perceive risk of the disease but perceive risk of the vaccine." Dr. Sawyer and the vast majority of pediatricians believe strongly that vaccinations are the cornerstone of sound public health. Many doctors view the so-called exempters as parasites, of a sort, benefiting from the otherwise inoculated majority.....While the picture of an unvaccinated child was once that of the offspring of poor and uneducated parents, "exempters" are often well educated and financially stable, and hold a host of like-minded child-rearing beliefs. Vaccine skeptics provide differing explanations for their belief that vaccines may cause various illnesses and disorders, including autism. Recent news that a federal vaccine court agreed to pay the family of an autistic child in Georgia who had an underlying mitochondrial disorder has led some skeptics to speculate that vaccines may worsen such conditions. Again, researchers say there is no evidence to support this thesis. Alexandra Stewart, director of the Epidemiology of U.S. Immunization Law project at George Washington University, said many of these parents are influenced by misinformation obtained from Web sites that oppose vaccination. "The autism debate has convinced these parents to refuse vaccines to the detriment of their own children as well as the community," Ms. Stewart said." - Jennifer Steinhauer, The New York Times (March 21, 2008) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/21vaccine.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin3/21/us/21vaccine.html?hp
"Two sets of parents in Belgium were recently handed five month prison terms for failing to vaccinate their children against polio. Each parent was also fined 4,100 euros ($8,000)....The parents can still avoid prison - their sentences were delayed to give them a chance to vaccinate their children. But if that deadline also passes without their children receiving the injections, the parents could be put behind bars.....The polio vaccine is the only one required by Belgian law. Exceptions are granted only if parents can prove their children might have a bad physical reaction to the vaccine.....Aside from Belgium, only France makes polio vaccinations mandatory by law. In the United States, children must be vaccinated against many diseases including polio, but most states allow children to opt out if their parents have religious or "philosophical" objections. In the U.S. state of Maryland, prosecutors and school officials in one county threatened truancy charges against parents who failed to vaccinate their children.....People who refuse to be vaccinated are "free riders," Harris said. "They can only afford to refuse the vaccine because they are surrounded by people who have fulfilled their obligations to the community." - Maria Cheng, Associated Press (March 12, 2008) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_he_me/polio_vaccine_prisonp/20080312/ap_on_he_me/polio_vaccine_prison
"One of the most reprehensible weapons being wielded in the witch-hunt against Wakefield is the claim that anyone who gives any credence whatever to his concerns is responsible for the incidence of measles amongst children whose parents are as a result too frightened to give them the MMR vaccination. There are two obvious points to make in response to this piece of moral blackmail: 1) the whole panic could have been avoided by offering single measles, mumps and rubella jabs rather than the triple MMR, and 2) it is surely just as important as avoiding cases of measles mumps and rubella to avoid causing the kind of catastrophic damage to the brain and gut displayed by the children at the heart of this controversy. And there is a further and quite appalling point to note. This whole saga started because parents of such children found that their family doctors were dismissing out of hand their children's gut and brain problems, accordingly refusing to alleviate their suffering. Now, as a direct result of the animosity towards Wakefield that has been whipped up - and the fear that any doctor who suggests he might be right will similarly find him or herself at the receiving end of the medical establishment's fist - children exhibiting this combination of gut and brain damage are finding it difficult to obtain treatment." - Melanie Phillips, The Spectator (March 21, 2008) http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/568226/the-wakefield-witchhunt.thtmlillips/568226/the-wakefield-witchhunt.thtml posted by Barbara Loe Fisher @ 7:16 AM
by Barbara Loe Fisher
The discrimination begins, always, with the majority in a society pointing the finger at a minority for somehow endangering the public health and welfare. Individuals in the minority group are singled out as different - ethnically, biologically, spiritually, morally - from the majority. The human impulse to fear, judge, marginalize or eliminate those different from the rest has left a blood soaked trail winding throughout the entire history of man from the Great Inquisition to the Holocaust; from the killing fields of Cambodia to Rwanda, Serbia and Tibet; while the persecution of those with leprosy, TB, AIDS, mental illness, and handicaps continues in every society.
It was with a heavy heart that I read the March 21 New York Times article, "Public Health Risk Seen as Parents Reject Vaccines." Then I waded through the venomous comments posted on the NY Times website attacking parents of vaccine injured autistic children and those supporting informed consent to vaccination, specifically legal exemptions.
Some New York Times readers simply engaged in adolescent name-calling, angrily accusing parents of being "stupid" for questioning the wisdom of doctors in positions of authority and "selfish" for wanting to make informed vaccine choices:
"I'm so tired of these morons who refuse to vaccinate their children. It's stupid and selfish and, as usual, the kid suffers because of an hysterical, paranoid mother. What we need is a vaccine against paranoid conspiracy theory nuts. Oh, yeah....and by all means, let's trust a primary care doc from Arizona rather than the AAP and CDC. After all, what does some pinhead in private practice know that the best trained, most informed academic docs at some backwater like Johns Hopkins or CHOP or Children's Boston know, anyhow."
Others ridiculed parents for having faith in God but not in medical science, doctors and the safety of vaccines:
"The irrational decisions of adults, including parents and even physicians, supported by superstition, faith and magical beliefs, rather than data, evidence and proof, cannot stand in the way of science's obligation to create new knowledge to protect the members of a society, especially its most vulnerable members."
"Western religion's relationship with God requires a scapegoat. Since the Satan bit is worn a little thin they have once again decided that science and technology are to blame for all man's evils. As a civilized society we have given far too much deference to religion. Those not wishing to participate should simply not be included in schools, hospitals, etc. Not allowing their children to participate is the cruelist of abuse and should be removed from their "care."
"The parents whose personal beliefs cause them to fail to vaccinate their children should be seen clearly for what they are - child abusers. They are as monstrous as people that allow their children to die because they are convinced that if their god wants their children to live, he'll take care of it."
"Science is not infallible but it works. No one doubts that savagely beating a kid and offering "religious beliefs" as a pretext is a crime. These parents are doing the same thing. They should be prosecuted for endangering the health of their children - and ours."
The idea that the unvaccinated should be made "outcasts" in society and kept in isolation or even banned from being able to go out in public was a popular one:
"To those who demand an exemption, the choice should be clear and simple. No vaccine, no attendance at any public venue, schools in particular. Let these leaches live up in the woods as hermits."
" Parents of immunized children should not allow their children to play with [unvaccinated children]. Being an outcast is a powerful tool to use against these very selfish people."
Doctors defending their belief in vaccination weighed in, too, calling for elimination of the unvaccinated from society:
"As an epidemiologist who believes in the power and strength of herd immunity, I would like to ask these people who forgo vaccination to politely leave the herd."
Several more suggested the unvaccinated be publicly branded and forced to reveal their vaccination history to all who come in contact with them:
"Those making this decision [to not vaccinate their children] should be ineligible for access to public schooling. They should also be mandated to inform any and all people with whom they come into contact of their lack of vaccinations. They should also sign a waiver to any public or insurance pool funding for treatment of avoidable disease and/or long term damage caused by contraction of that disease."
"Should parents get to decide what happens to their child, even when that decision flies in the face of all evidence? Yes. But then should I have a right to know who these children are, so that I can keep my own child away from them? Indeed, I think I should......"
Another went further, calling for hospital and medical care to be denied to the unvaccinated:
"They should not be permitted in clinics and hospitals, where immunocompromised children and adults have the right to safety. No exception, whether based on religious faith or just garden-variety ignorance and superstition."
Several others believe mothers and fathers with unvaccinated children should be not only be charged with a crime but have their children taken from them:
"This should be a reason to notify CPS so that they can remove these children from parents who endanger their lives. This should be a crime."
There was a call for legislators who vote for vaccine exemptions to be punished:
"The parents who unilaterally decide to withhold immunization from their children should be sent to jail. The legislators who voted to condone this behavior should be identified and subjected to recall."
And some wanted to see parents and their unvaccinated children physically harmed:
.....Fine, so long as these parents are forcibly exposed to the illnesses themselves. And if their children either die, or are permanently injured, criminal charges should be laid. Then we'll see how much they still believe in their voodoo- science......"
Like sharks in a feeding frenzy, they gave public witness to their fear and loathing of fellow human beings who do not believe, think or act as they do.
I could not help but think of the children and parents forced to line up last November at a Maryland County Courthouse patrolled by armed police with dogs, a stark reminder that the parents were under threat of imprisonment and fines for failing to show schools proof that their children got chicken pox and hepatitis B shots.
I remembered the news report out of Belgium last month describing how a State court had sentenced mothers and fathers to five months in prison and a $4,000 fine because their children had not gotten vaccinated.
I thought of the persecution of Andrew Wakefield, M.D., who is being punished by his British colleagues for daring to report an association between the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and neuroimmune dysfunction, including inflammatory bowel disease and autism. Like when the heads of heretics were impaled upon stakes on the Tower of London as a warning for all to see, the Wakefield inquisition is a spectacle designed to persuade all doctors contemplating questioning the safety of current mass vaccination policies to remain silent.
And then I thought of the Jewish orphan from Philadelphia, whose DNA I inherited from several generations back, and whose lineage in my mid-west Protestant family was not known to me for many years. Her blood is my blood, her genes belong to me just as the Norwegian and Scottish-Irish genes that predispose me and my children to autoimmunity and vaccine reactions are part of who I am.
I wondered how many of the readers of that New York Times article, who spewed fear, prejudice and hate into cyberspace and urged discrimination against and punishment of the unvaccinated, remembered that we are who we are because of the genetic strengths and vulnerabilities inherited from our mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers going back generations and generations.
I come from a family of doctors and nurses, physical therapists and social workers, historians and soldiers, artists and writers, pastors and farmers, public administrators and builders; feminists and teachers, who have made the world a little better because they were allowed to live. And all through our family there is a history of autoimmunity, including rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid disease, diabetes, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, severe allergies to foods, prescription drugs and pollen, and vaccine reactions.
My mother died of lupus two years ago this week, her body unable to protect itself from self. A nurse who once took care of polio victims at Mayo Clinic, she left three children and 11 grandchildren, all of whom carry her genes.
We do not choose the genes we inherit that make us the unique individuals we each are, as different from one another as we are similar within the human species.
My mother would have gladly laid down her life for any one of her children or grandchildren in order to protect them from harm, as I and countless other mothers around the world would do. The biological imperative, which prompts mothers and fathers to willingly sacrifice their lives to ensure their children survive, dictates we do that in order to ensure the survival of the human race.
For what is the human race but a collection of individuals from individual families living in different communities, all joined together to make up the whole of humanity? When any one life is devalued and deemed expendable, by extension, the well being and integrity of the whole is compromised.
Individual health IS public health.
Vaccine policies issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) do not recognize the potential biological vulnerability of my family and many other families to be harmed by vaccination. It does not matter if we have a vaccine injured child: CDC and AAP policies turned into law by state legislators do not provide for vaccine injured children or the siblings of vaccine injured children to be medically exempt from vaccination. Children, who have had seizures and other health deterioration after vaccination, often do not qualify for medical exemptions.
In the past quarter century, the numbers of vaccines the CDC and AAP insist that children must get has increased from 23 doses of 7 vaccines to 48 doses of 14 vaccines by age six without any large, credible studies proving it is safe for all children. How many of those genetically vulnerable to repeated atypical manipulation of the immune system through forced multiple vaccine use are among the highly vaccinated American children who are chronically ill and disabled today: 1 in 6 learning disabled; 1 in 9 asthmatic; 1 in 150 developing autism?
The doctors in charge at the CDC and AAP have refused, for more than a quarter century, to acknowledge the existence of a growing number of vaccine injured children and so they have refused to identify and screen out children biologically vulnerable to vaccine-induced brain and immune system dysfunction. One-size-fits-all vaccine policies and state laws have become a de facto selection of the genetically vulnerable for sacrifice. It is a very small step from that kind of societal thinking to the prisons, concentration camps and killing fields that stand as chilling testimony to the human impulse to dehumanize others in order to control, exploit or eliminate them.
Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel has said "When you take an idea or a concept and turn it into an abstraction, that opens the way to take human beings and turn them, also, into abstractions."
Individuals harmed by vaccines are not abstractions. They are human beings who deserve to be spared a lifetime of suffering rather than being thrown under the bus to prop up forced mass vaccination policies that fail to acknowledge biodiversity within the family of man.
In the face of a medical community committed to the utilitarian rationale that a minority of human beings can be sacrificed in service to the majority, the only way parents can protect children from being injured or killed by vaccines is by the free exercise of non- medical legal exemptions for deeply held religious or conscientious beliefs.
Doctors inside and outside of government, who have instilled fear of and discrimination against parents with vaccine injured children, bear responsibility for the hate and prejudice expressed on the New York Times website last week. It is a wake-up call for all Americans who cherish freedom and the human right to make informed, voluntary medical decisions that involve a risk of injury or death.
***********************************************************
"The very success of immunizations has turned out to be an Achilles' heel," said Dr. Mark Sawyer, a pediatrician and infectious disease specialist at Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego. "Most of these parents have never seen measles, and don't realize it could be a bad disease so they turn their concerns to unfounded risks. They do not perceive risk of the disease but perceive risk of the vaccine." Dr. Sawyer and the vast majority of pediatricians believe strongly that vaccinations are the cornerstone of sound public health. Many doctors view the so-called exempters as parasites, of a sort, benefiting from the otherwise inoculated majority.....While the picture of an unvaccinated child was once that of the offspring of poor and uneducated parents, "exempters" are often well educated and financially stable, and hold a host of like-minded child-rearing beliefs. Vaccine skeptics provide differing explanations for their belief that vaccines may cause various illnesses and disorders, including autism. Recent news that a federal vaccine court agreed to pay the family of an autistic child in Georgia who had an underlying mitochondrial disorder has led some skeptics to speculate that vaccines may worsen such conditions. Again, researchers say there is no evidence to support this thesis. Alexandra Stewart, director of the Epidemiology of U.S. Immunization Law project at George Washington University, said many of these parents are influenced by misinformation obtained from Web sites that oppose vaccination. "The autism debate has convinced these parents to refuse vaccines to the detriment of their own children as well as the community," Ms. Stewart said." - Jennifer Steinhauer, The New York Times (March 21, 2008) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/21vaccine.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin3/21/us/21vaccine.html?hp
"Two sets of parents in Belgium were recently handed five month prison terms for failing to vaccinate their children against polio. Each parent was also fined 4,100 euros ($8,000)....The parents can still avoid prison - their sentences were delayed to give them a chance to vaccinate their children. But if that deadline also passes without their children receiving the injections, the parents could be put behind bars.....The polio vaccine is the only one required by Belgian law. Exceptions are granted only if parents can prove their children might have a bad physical reaction to the vaccine.....Aside from Belgium, only France makes polio vaccinations mandatory by law. In the United States, children must be vaccinated against many diseases including polio, but most states allow children to opt out if their parents have religious or "philosophical" objections. In the U.S. state of Maryland, prosecutors and school officials in one county threatened truancy charges against parents who failed to vaccinate their children.....People who refuse to be vaccinated are "free riders," Harris said. "They can only afford to refuse the vaccine because they are surrounded by people who have fulfilled their obligations to the community." - Maria Cheng, Associated Press (March 12, 2008) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_he_me/polio_vaccine_prisonp/20080312/ap_on_he_me/polio_vaccine_prison
"One of the most reprehensible weapons being wielded in the witch-hunt against Wakefield is the claim that anyone who gives any credence whatever to his concerns is responsible for the incidence of measles amongst children whose parents are as a result too frightened to give them the MMR vaccination. There are two obvious points to make in response to this piece of moral blackmail: 1) the whole panic could have been avoided by offering single measles, mumps and rubella jabs rather than the triple MMR, and 2) it is surely just as important as avoiding cases of measles mumps and rubella to avoid causing the kind of catastrophic damage to the brain and gut displayed by the children at the heart of this controversy. And there is a further and quite appalling point to note. This whole saga started because parents of such children found that their family doctors were dismissing out of hand their children's gut and brain problems, accordingly refusing to alleviate their suffering. Now, as a direct result of the animosity towards Wakefield that has been whipped up - and the fear that any doctor who suggests he might be right will similarly find him or herself at the receiving end of the medical establishment's fist - children exhibiting this combination of gut and brain damage are finding it difficult to obtain treatment." - Melanie Phillips, The Spectator (March 21, 2008) http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/568226/the-wakefield-witchhunt.thtmlillips/568226/the-wakefield-witchhunt.thtml
1/16/08
Third Leading Cause of Death in US
"Pharmaceuticals, as packaged by modern medicine, are the third leading cause of death in this country... they are useless, because most of the medication they are using is to cover up symptoms and signs and complications of dehydration in the human body. The human body manifests dehydration by a series of symptoms and signs, perceptive symptoms of dehydration -- in other words, brain senses dehydration, or tiredness when you haven't done a good day's work, or first thing in the morning when you want to get up out of bed and you're tired, you can't get up -- that is a sign of dehydration. Then anger, quick reaction, depression, these are all signs of dehydration, when the brain has very little energy from hydroelectricity to cope with the information or take action. These are some of the perceptive signs of dehydration. Then the body has its drought management program, which are allergies, hypertension, diabetes, and also immune diseases." This from an interview with the world's authority on water, the Author of "The Water cure", Dr. Batmanghelidj
1/4/08
Are We Really Living Longer?
There was an interesting comment in Weston A. Price's latest Wise Traditions Magazine: "Are We Really Living Longer?" "An astute member has sent us some interesting statistics about centenarians [people 100 years old & over]. From a video segment recent aired on Nova, we learn that one 1 in 10,000 Americans will live to age 100.
Don’t buy into the fallacy that we are living longer because of modern medicine. It just simply is not true. It makes us feel better to say it while making our poor diet and lifestyle choices. The better question to ask would be, “Is our quality of life any better?”
Dietary Guidelines
If you look at the human body as a furnace and food as the fuel you will gain a better understanding of the following guidelines. The main concern is the ash (or waste) that is left in the body once the food is burned for fuel. The more alkaline the ash, the more life enhancing the fuel. The more acidic the ash, the more disease is created. If the ph level in the body is too acidic for more than 3-4 hours, you die. In order to survive, your body is forced to leech calcium from your bones to neutralize the ph level. The key is to avoid acid forming foods and flood your body with nutrient dense whole foods. You should always make every effort to eat your foods as close to the way they grow in nature as possible. Your diet should consist of 70% raw, 20% cooked and 10% crap foods.
**Your food should be made and consumed with love and joy**
What to Eat:
Fresh, whole and raw vegetables
Dried (beans, peas, and fruit if it is not processed)
Frozen (flash-frozen is best)
______________________________________________________________________________
What not to eat:
Most foods above this line leave an alkaline ash. The foods listed below leave an acidic ash in the body. Certain substances are not compatible with good health and should be eliminated from any diet designed to promote good health. Look at the following list- if you are consuming any (or all) of these on a regular basis, you may want to consider replacing those items with a more health enhancing, whole food alternative.
Coffee- one cup of organic decaf a day is ok (unless your condition is critical but remember the darker the roast the more rancid the bean)
Refined, white flour- look for stone ground, whole grain flour
Refined sugar- consider rice bran syrup, honey or stevia
Alcohol- all kinds – yes even red wine
Black teas – most herbal teas are ok but look out for natural flavors/MSG
All carbonated beverages – including sparkling water
Ice cream- in fact most people should avoid ALL dairy products while healing
Chocolate
Black pepper- use cayenne or other chili peppers
Table salt- use sea salt
Trans fatty acids & hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils- no exceptions
Saturated fats
Artificial sweeteners
Meats:
Meat- it should be considered a condiment and not the staple of the meal. Your meats need to be ‘clean’ meats raised without drugs or hormones and be grass fed. (www.WestonAPrice.org is a great source to find a local farm to you). You should NEVER eat fried meat.
- Eat small portions (no more than 3-5 ounces at a time) and not out of a can.
- Avoid at all costs eating ‘white foods’ with meat. (Bread pasta, white rice, white potatoes…) If you eat meat and rice together you are turning your meat into sugar, adding 15 hours to your digestive process, and rolling out the welcome mat to parasites!
- To offset the acid ash left when the body burns animal proteins eat 5 times the amount of greens to the animal protein at the same meal.
- Fish- fresh salmon or other cold water fish (only fresh caught nothing farm raised)
- Fowl- fresh pheasant, free range chicken or turkey, quail
- Red Meat- grass fed with no antibiotics or hormones.
Avoid the following:
- Pork
- Shrimp
- Crab
- Lobster
- Oysters
- Other scavenger or carnivorous animals.
All of your nuts, seeds and grains should be organic and raw. Before eating them you do need to prepare them to activate the dormant enzymes so that you can digest them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)