I was delighted to see the article below that introduces a drug-free, non-invasive method for managing autism, ADHD, and other conditions in both children and adults. This innovative treatment that provides security and peace of mind for individuals who struggle in social situations that cause them a great amount of stress is a safe, effective option to the hazardous drugs often prescribed such patients. The use of these medications in both adults and children is very alarming, so it is particularly refreshing to see researchers come up with such an excellent alternative that works through the use of a garment that mimics a hug.
Imagine how different our world would be, both for those who suffer from conditions such as autism and for their families and caregivers, if most of the research in the past had been directed towards remedies such as this deep-pressure vest instead of focusing on drugs which seem to help little and burden patients with a number of serious side-effects that often only make their overall condition worse. Most people have bought into the lies that are fed them by the pharmaceutical companies and other parties that support the idea that the answer to illness is a short-term quick "fix" with a chemical that is likely more harmful to the body than beneficial. This is especially true in the area of mental illness, where the use of drugs often turns patients into experimental guinea pigs that end up with a totally unbalanced mind and body after they have been plied with numerous drug cocktails. There must be a better way, and in fact there is. We can only hope that alternative therapies such as this will continue to grow in popularity and influence.
Therapeutic Healing Vest for Children With Autism, ADHD, Anxiety
by Leslee Dru Browning
(NaturalNews) Children with autism and ADHD may soon get anxiety relief from a novel "deep-pressure" vest developed by Brian Mullen at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The vest, which can also be used for adults with mental illness, delivers a "portable hug" called deep pressure touch stimulation (DPTS).
"People with developmental disorders and mental illness are often overwhelmed in everyday environments such as school and the workplace, and solutions available to families and mental health professionals are limited," says Mullen, a doctoral student of mechanical engineering. "This is an alternative therapy that can safely and discreetly provide the treatment they need to function in mainstream society."
To market the vest, Mullen has created a concept business called Therapeutic Systems, which recently won the $50,000 grand prize in the UMass Amherst Technology Innovation Challenge, a competition for the best entrepreneurial technology business plan produced by students, recent alumni and faculty advisors on campus.
Occupational therapists working with children suffering from autism, ADHD and sensory processing disorders have observed that DPTS can increase attention to tasks and reduce anxiety and harmful behaviors by providing different sensory stimuli. DPTS is also part of a growing trend to improve the lives of adults with mental illness by using touch, sound and aroma to influence alertness, attention and their ability to adapt to their surroundings.
Eight clinical studies of the effectiveness and safety of existing weighted blankets and vests that deliver DPTS were conducted by Mullen and his advisor Sundar Krishnamurty, a professor of mechanical and industrial engineering at UMass Amherst. Mullen used that data to design a prototype system for applying DPTS that can be inserted into any commercial vest or jacket with a lining. Initial results of a study with students at UMass Amherst who did not have autism or ADHD showed that participants preferred Mullen's prototype vest, which applies pressure that feels like a firm hug or swaddling, over the current gold standard weighted vest.
Mullen's prototype has several advantages over weighted or elastic garments and toys currently used to apply DPTS in hospitals and schools. "Existing methods provide limited control over the amount of pressure applied and require some oversight by a caregiver," says Mullen. "Their use is also limited because of the lack of literature documenting their safety, and their tendency to make the user stand out in a crowd."
Therapeutic Systems is also starting the initial phase of designing a DPTS blanket to aid with resting and falling asleep. "Falling asleep has been found to be a major problem for many people with mental illness," says Mullen, who adds that an estimated 65 percent of Americans are losing sleep due to stress."
This novel vest, developed by Brian Mullen, is an ingenious idea. Much safer than taking anxiety and sleep medications
Source: University of Massachusetts Amherst(http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/)
About the author:
Leslee Dru Browning is a 6th generation Medical Herbalist & Nutritionist from the ancestral line of Patty Bartlett Sessions; Pioneer Mid-Wife & Herbalist. Leslee practiced Medical Herbalism and Nutritional Healing for over 25 years and specialized in Cancer Wellness along with Chronic Illness. She now devotes her career to teaching people, through her writing, about Natural Healing from An Herbal Perspective.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023585.html
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Beware of Hidden Hazards in Products Labeled "Organic"
It is very upsetting to hear about all the toxins found in many personal care products readily available on the shelves of local grocery and drug stores. However, when a company that has gained a solid reputation as an alternative source for clean, "organic" products is found to be using deceptive marketing that exposes their trusting customers to unwanted health hazards, the sense of betrayal is even greater.
There are some lessons to be learned from this unfortunate situation. We cannot blindly trust that any product marked "organic" or "natural" is truly free from toxins, as these words can be manipulated by unscrupulous manufactures and marketing practices to hide certain chemicals, a process referred to as "greenwashing" in the following article. Today's post discusses some of the ways Whole Foods and other parties have been less than truthful about the composition of some of their products, and it also gives us some things to be aware of when purchasing healthful personal care products so that we can avoid being deceived. Unfortunately, when the almighty buck is at stake, what you see is not always what you get. The really sad thing is that these companies do not have to resort to trickery, as there is an ever-growing market for truly safe products that are not poisonous to the body. We as consumers must be sure to thoroughly do our own research before assuming anything that we buy to put on or into our bodies is actually free of unwanted chemical toxins.
Write down ingredient lists, research them, and ask questions of the manufacturer or distributor. There are some great all-natural, safe personal care products available -- however, you may have to search for them as usually they are from smaller companies not able to compete in places like Whole Foods or the most popular vitamin store. Do your homework and don't allow anything on your skin that is toxic or questionable.
California Suit Against Whole Foods for Carcinogen in Body Care Products, with Corporate Puff Response from CEO John Mackey and the Truth from Nutritionist Cheryl Rounds
"Organic" Mega-merchant Waited Til Only After Suit Was Filed to Remove Offending Body Care Products! Time to Dump Your Shares?
Santa Fe, New Mexico 7/07/2008 03:44 AM GMT (TransWorldNews)
California Suit Against Whole Foods for Carcinogen in Body Care Products
By Ronnie Cummins, Founder, Organic Consumers Association, and Prepared here by Stephen Fox, Managing Editor, Santa Fe Sun News
California Files Lawsuit Against Whole Foods, Avalon, and Others Whose Products Tested Positive for Carcinogenic 1,4-Dioxane in OCA Study
Details are here: http://www.prlog.org/10079593-california-lawsuit-whole-foods-avalon-and-others-with-products-containing-carcinogenic-1-4-dioxane.html
OAKLAND, CA - Reacting in part to a study released by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) in March of this year, but also based on their own testing, the Attorney General of California has filed a major lawsuit against body care household-cleaning product companies whose products recently tested highest for the carcinogenic contaminant 1,4-Dioxane.
Under California's "Proposition 65" consumer products that contain toxic levels of 1,4 Dioxane must have warning labels stating they may cause cancer. 1,4-Dioxane is typically produced as a byproduct when ingredients are ethoxylated with the petrochemical ethylene oxide, a process which has become standard practice for many cleansing and moisturizing products. The suit, California v. Avalon Natural Products (manufacturer of the Alba brand), also names Whole Foods Market California (manufacturer of the Whole Foods 365 brand), Beaumont Products (manufacturer of the Citrus Magic brand), and Nutribiotic.
It is unclear exactly which products manufactured by the aforementioned companies triggered the lawsuit, but all named companies have sold products that tested close to or in excess of 20 parts per million for 1,4-Dioxane in the OCA study released at the Natural Products Expo in Anaheim, CA in March.Last week OCA sent a letter to the four companies named in the California lawsuit to see if they are planning changes to their labeling or product formulations. Only one company responded. In a letter to the OCA, Beaumont Products wrote, "Upon being notified that there was a problem with our product, we verified that the problem existed, then took immediate action." Beaumont has reformulated their products to remove the problematic ingredient, highlighting their dedication to providing safe products, in contrast to the lack of action taken by the other three companies. http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/beaumont.doc)
The California Attorney General (AG) alleges these companies should have put warning labels on products containing high levels of 1,4-Dioxane, stating that they may cause cancer. The lawsuit states, "Plaintiff alleges that each defendant has known since at least May 29, 2004 that the body washes and gels and liquid dish soaps contain, 1,4-dioxane and that persons using these products are exposed to 1,4-dioxane." Per Proposition 65, fines for mislabeled products are as high as $2,500 per day for each violation.
"These companies need to stop treating the inclusion of cancer causing chemicals in their products as 'business as usual' and reformulate before consumer confidence in the natural products and organics industry is permanently damaged," says consumer activist David Steinman who conducted the OCA study and originally exposed the presence of 1,4-Dioxane in baby bubble bath products in his book Safe Trip to Eden and in a February, 2007 press conference with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. The AG's complaint states that California wants "preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions, or other orders prohibiting the defendant(s) from exposing persons within the State of California to 1,4-dioxane without providing clear and reasonable warnings."
"The OCA's 1,4-dioxane study elevated the issue of fake 'natural' and 'organic' brands that utilize petrochemicals in their formulas in March, and now we are seeing labeling enforcement on a scale never seen before," says OCA National Director Ronnie Cummins. "We used an independent laboratory and found that numerous 'natural' and 'organic' brands tested positive for 1,4-Dioxane, a cancer causing contaminant resulting from the petrochemical ethylene oxide being attached to one or more ingredients."
For immediate release: Interviews with David Steinman or Ronnie Cummins can be arranged by contacting Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671.
HERE ARE 3 SHORT VIDEOS THAT EXPLAIN ALL OF THIS, FROM TWO OF THE TOP AMERICANS IN THIS EFFORT, RONNIE CUMMINS OF ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION AND MIKE ADAMS, TOP AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE HEALTH JOURNALIST:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7qe4zfhDLY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwLghr2A7Eo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjwrhK7FyXY
_______________________________________
Response for Whole Foods CEO and Founder, John Mackey, to SunNews query:
We believe that OCA's allegations are inaccurate. We have conducted our own investigation into the allegations that some of our products contain 1,4-dioxane and do not believe that these products represent a health risk or are in excess of California's Proposition 65 Safe Harbor level for 1,4-dioxane. We are cooperating with the California Attorney General's office to resolve these claims as quickly as possible. For shoppers who are looking for alternatives to the products named by the OCA, we carry numerous USDA organically certified personal care products in addition to other products that meet our own Premium Body Care standards. Our standards have been designed utilizing the most current research and resources to evaluate products in key areas of safety, naturalness, efficacy, environmental impact and labeling.
Regards,
Libba Letton, Media Relations, Whole Foods Market
______________________________________
Analysis of California's Whole Foods Lawsuit by Cheryl Rounds in an exclusive to Santa Fe Sun News, published July 4, 2008
Under California Proposition 65 any substance that contains a known carcinogen must carry a warning label or face prosecution. Most people are under the assumption that body care products are regulated by the FDA or some other federal agency that assures safety and purity. In fact in 1938, the Cosmetic Act made manufacturers of body care responsible for regulating the products they produced. At the time it was assumed the skin was impervious to any of the chemicals they may have used in their beauty formulas.
Today with the introduction and effectiveness of skin patches for drug delivery, we are more aware that chemicals placed on the skin's surface will be absorbed into the body. Even worse every chemical our body is exposed to may not be totally eliminated and may be stored in the body's fat and tissues. The storage of chemicals in the body is called "body burden" and there is not a person alive today that does not have some sort of body burden. Additionally each child born today will inherit some of their mother's body burden and then will add to this burden throughout their lifetime.
There are over 30,000 different chemicals used in body care products today. At least one third are known to be carcinogenic, estrogenic, teratogenic or to cause various problems in human beings. The strategy of the chemical companies who produce these substances is to deny and/or minimize the problems they may cause. One of there key arguments is that these chemicals are in such minute quantities in their products that they couldn't possibly cause harm. This argument negates the fact that these chemicals are in multiple products that are used daily along with multiple other chemicals that could cause synergistic effects.
The chemical named in the lawsuit is 1.4-Dioxane. 1,4-Dioxane is not added directly to body care products but rather it is a by product of the chemical process that turns Sodium (or Ammonium) Laurel Sulfate (SLS) to Sodium (or Ammonium) Laureth Sulfate. Sodium Laurel Sulfate is a very harsh and powerful sudsing agent and degreaser. Sodium Laureth Sulfate is a slightly larger molecule that is little less harsh on the skin. To make the Lauteth version Ethylene Oxide (a petroleum product and known carcinogen) is added to the SLS in a process called ethoxolation.
Chemical companies like to confuse us and claim that one chemical is safer than the other but in truth the safety of neither has been proven. While only certain manufactures were named in the current lawsuit, any body care product or cleanser that has Sodium or Ammonium Laureth Sulfate as an ingredient will also contain 1,4-Dioxane. There are other unintentional ingredients such as nitrosamines and formaldehyde that also show up in body care products. However, aside from these chemicals, we also need to look more closely at the chemicals that manufacturers intentionally put into our personal care.
Many such as phthalates and parabens have been associated with cancers and have been outlawed in Europe. Our manufacturers continue to use these chemicals because they are cheap and effective for the uses they want and manufacturers value profit above safety. They also choose to confuse us, often by noting the natural source of the chemical in parenthesis as (coconut oil) and by noting the words natural or organic somewhere on the label. But be aware that unless accompanied by a third party certification seal such as USDA organic, these words are just marketing terms designed to have us think these products are greener than they really are. This is a marketing technique called "greenwashing."
The bottom line is most commercially sold body care products contain chemicals that can harm our health and that of the planet. There are good products available but we have to educate ourselves as to how to read labels and what to look for. As long as our laws allow manufactures to use questionable chemicals in the products they sell us, buying these products in a store such as Whole Foods or a high end department store, is no assurance of quality. The quickest way to get good products to the market place is to vote with your purse and stop buying products with chemical ingredients.
Whole Foods shame on you! Many people trusted you to do better!
Cheryl Rounds has a BS in Human Nutrition from the University of Massachusetts. After graduating she went on to do independent research on the topics of Whole Foods Nutrition and Holistic Health. She currently writes and lectures on holistic topics in the hopes of inspiring people to make healthier choices for both themselves and the planet. Find out more at her website: www.blissfullyorganic.com
There are some lessons to be learned from this unfortunate situation. We cannot blindly trust that any product marked "organic" or "natural" is truly free from toxins, as these words can be manipulated by unscrupulous manufactures and marketing practices to hide certain chemicals, a process referred to as "greenwashing" in the following article. Today's post discusses some of the ways Whole Foods and other parties have been less than truthful about the composition of some of their products, and it also gives us some things to be aware of when purchasing healthful personal care products so that we can avoid being deceived. Unfortunately, when the almighty buck is at stake, what you see is not always what you get. The really sad thing is that these companies do not have to resort to trickery, as there is an ever-growing market for truly safe products that are not poisonous to the body. We as consumers must be sure to thoroughly do our own research before assuming anything that we buy to put on or into our bodies is actually free of unwanted chemical toxins.
Write down ingredient lists, research them, and ask questions of the manufacturer or distributor. There are some great all-natural, safe personal care products available -- however, you may have to search for them as usually they are from smaller companies not able to compete in places like Whole Foods or the most popular vitamin store. Do your homework and don't allow anything on your skin that is toxic or questionable.
California Suit Against Whole Foods for Carcinogen in Body Care Products, with Corporate Puff Response from CEO John Mackey and the Truth from Nutritionist Cheryl Rounds
"Organic" Mega-merchant Waited Til Only After Suit Was Filed to Remove Offending Body Care Products! Time to Dump Your Shares?
Santa Fe, New Mexico 7/07/2008 03:44 AM GMT (TransWorldNews)
California Suit Against Whole Foods for Carcinogen in Body Care Products
By Ronnie Cummins, Founder, Organic Consumers Association, and Prepared here by Stephen Fox, Managing Editor, Santa Fe Sun News
California Files Lawsuit Against Whole Foods, Avalon, and Others Whose Products Tested Positive for Carcinogenic 1,4-Dioxane in OCA Study
Details are here: http://www.prlog.org/10079593-california-lawsuit-whole-foods-avalon-and-others-with-products-containing-carcinogenic-1-4-dioxane.html
OAKLAND, CA - Reacting in part to a study released by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) in March of this year, but also based on their own testing, the Attorney General of California has filed a major lawsuit against body care household-cleaning product companies whose products recently tested highest for the carcinogenic contaminant 1,4-Dioxane.
Under California's "Proposition 65" consumer products that contain toxic levels of 1,4 Dioxane must have warning labels stating they may cause cancer. 1,4-Dioxane is typically produced as a byproduct when ingredients are ethoxylated with the petrochemical ethylene oxide, a process which has become standard practice for many cleansing and moisturizing products. The suit, California v. Avalon Natural Products (manufacturer of the Alba brand), also names Whole Foods Market California (manufacturer of the Whole Foods 365 brand), Beaumont Products (manufacturer of the Citrus Magic brand), and Nutribiotic.
It is unclear exactly which products manufactured by the aforementioned companies triggered the lawsuit, but all named companies have sold products that tested close to or in excess of 20 parts per million for 1,4-Dioxane in the OCA study released at the Natural Products Expo in Anaheim, CA in March.Last week OCA sent a letter to the four companies named in the California lawsuit to see if they are planning changes to their labeling or product formulations. Only one company responded. In a letter to the OCA, Beaumont Products wrote, "Upon being notified that there was a problem with our product, we verified that the problem existed, then took immediate action." Beaumont has reformulated their products to remove the problematic ingredient, highlighting their dedication to providing safe products, in contrast to the lack of action taken by the other three companies. http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/beaumont.doc)
The California Attorney General (AG) alleges these companies should have put warning labels on products containing high levels of 1,4-Dioxane, stating that they may cause cancer. The lawsuit states, "Plaintiff alleges that each defendant has known since at least May 29, 2004 that the body washes and gels and liquid dish soaps contain, 1,4-dioxane and that persons using these products are exposed to 1,4-dioxane." Per Proposition 65, fines for mislabeled products are as high as $2,500 per day for each violation.
"These companies need to stop treating the inclusion of cancer causing chemicals in their products as 'business as usual' and reformulate before consumer confidence in the natural products and organics industry is permanently damaged," says consumer activist David Steinman who conducted the OCA study and originally exposed the presence of 1,4-Dioxane in baby bubble bath products in his book Safe Trip to Eden and in a February, 2007 press conference with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. The AG's complaint states that California wants "preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions, or other orders prohibiting the defendant(s) from exposing persons within the State of California to 1,4-dioxane without providing clear and reasonable warnings."
"The OCA's 1,4-dioxane study elevated the issue of fake 'natural' and 'organic' brands that utilize petrochemicals in their formulas in March, and now we are seeing labeling enforcement on a scale never seen before," says OCA National Director Ronnie Cummins. "We used an independent laboratory and found that numerous 'natural' and 'organic' brands tested positive for 1,4-Dioxane, a cancer causing contaminant resulting from the petrochemical ethylene oxide being attached to one or more ingredients."
For immediate release: Interviews with David Steinman or Ronnie Cummins can be arranged by contacting Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671.
HERE ARE 3 SHORT VIDEOS THAT EXPLAIN ALL OF THIS, FROM TWO OF THE TOP AMERICANS IN THIS EFFORT, RONNIE CUMMINS OF ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION AND MIKE ADAMS, TOP AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE HEALTH JOURNALIST:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7qe4zfhDLY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwLghr2A7Eo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjwrhK7FyXY
_______________________________________
Response for Whole Foods CEO and Founder, John Mackey, to SunNews query:
We believe that OCA's allegations are inaccurate. We have conducted our own investigation into the allegations that some of our products contain 1,4-dioxane and do not believe that these products represent a health risk or are in excess of California's Proposition 65 Safe Harbor level for 1,4-dioxane. We are cooperating with the California Attorney General's office to resolve these claims as quickly as possible. For shoppers who are looking for alternatives to the products named by the OCA, we carry numerous USDA organically certified personal care products in addition to other products that meet our own Premium Body Care standards. Our standards have been designed utilizing the most current research and resources to evaluate products in key areas of safety, naturalness, efficacy, environmental impact and labeling.
Regards,
Libba Letton, Media Relations, Whole Foods Market
______________________________________
Analysis of California's Whole Foods Lawsuit by Cheryl Rounds in an exclusive to Santa Fe Sun News, published July 4, 2008
Under California Proposition 65 any substance that contains a known carcinogen must carry a warning label or face prosecution. Most people are under the assumption that body care products are regulated by the FDA or some other federal agency that assures safety and purity. In fact in 1938, the Cosmetic Act made manufacturers of body care responsible for regulating the products they produced. At the time it was assumed the skin was impervious to any of the chemicals they may have used in their beauty formulas.
Today with the introduction and effectiveness of skin patches for drug delivery, we are more aware that chemicals placed on the skin's surface will be absorbed into the body. Even worse every chemical our body is exposed to may not be totally eliminated and may be stored in the body's fat and tissues. The storage of chemicals in the body is called "body burden" and there is not a person alive today that does not have some sort of body burden. Additionally each child born today will inherit some of their mother's body burden and then will add to this burden throughout their lifetime.
There are over 30,000 different chemicals used in body care products today. At least one third are known to be carcinogenic, estrogenic, teratogenic or to cause various problems in human beings. The strategy of the chemical companies who produce these substances is to deny and/or minimize the problems they may cause. One of there key arguments is that these chemicals are in such minute quantities in their products that they couldn't possibly cause harm. This argument negates the fact that these chemicals are in multiple products that are used daily along with multiple other chemicals that could cause synergistic effects.
The chemical named in the lawsuit is 1.4-Dioxane. 1,4-Dioxane is not added directly to body care products but rather it is a by product of the chemical process that turns Sodium (or Ammonium) Laurel Sulfate (SLS) to Sodium (or Ammonium) Laureth Sulfate. Sodium Laurel Sulfate is a very harsh and powerful sudsing agent and degreaser. Sodium Laureth Sulfate is a slightly larger molecule that is little less harsh on the skin. To make the Lauteth version Ethylene Oxide (a petroleum product and known carcinogen) is added to the SLS in a process called ethoxolation.
Chemical companies like to confuse us and claim that one chemical is safer than the other but in truth the safety of neither has been proven. While only certain manufactures were named in the current lawsuit, any body care product or cleanser that has Sodium or Ammonium Laureth Sulfate as an ingredient will also contain 1,4-Dioxane. There are other unintentional ingredients such as nitrosamines and formaldehyde that also show up in body care products. However, aside from these chemicals, we also need to look more closely at the chemicals that manufacturers intentionally put into our personal care.
Many such as phthalates and parabens have been associated with cancers and have been outlawed in Europe. Our manufacturers continue to use these chemicals because they are cheap and effective for the uses they want and manufacturers value profit above safety. They also choose to confuse us, often by noting the natural source of the chemical in parenthesis as (coconut oil) and by noting the words natural or organic somewhere on the label. But be aware that unless accompanied by a third party certification seal such as USDA organic, these words are just marketing terms designed to have us think these products are greener than they really are. This is a marketing technique called "greenwashing."
The bottom line is most commercially sold body care products contain chemicals that can harm our health and that of the planet. There are good products available but we have to educate ourselves as to how to read labels and what to look for. As long as our laws allow manufactures to use questionable chemicals in the products they sell us, buying these products in a store such as Whole Foods or a high end department store, is no assurance of quality. The quickest way to get good products to the market place is to vote with your purse and stop buying products with chemical ingredients.
Whole Foods shame on you! Many people trusted you to do better!
Cheryl Rounds has a BS in Human Nutrition from the University of Massachusetts. After graduating she went on to do independent research on the topics of Whole Foods Nutrition and Holistic Health. She currently writes and lectures on holistic topics in the hopes of inspiring people to make healthier choices for both themselves and the planet. Find out more at her website: www.blissfullyorganic.com
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Children on Statins for High Cholesterol?
It appears Big Pharma and the established system of conventional medicine is not satisfied with the millions of adults that are prescribed statin drugs every year, but are now going after the children's market. Despite the known, but often underplayed, hazards of statin use in adults, a leading pediatrician's organization is now recommending cholesterol testing for children as young as 2, and the administration of statin drugs to children as young as 8. The article below includes an astounding statement by a supporter of these plans, admitting that there is little research on the effects of these drugs on children, but that they are considered "generally safe." Well, we've certainly heard those words before!
The obesity epidemic amongst American kids is being used to justify the use of these toxic drugs. Here again we have classic AMA thinking that seeks to throw toxic pharmaceuticals at a health problem instead of addressing the real cause behind the alarming rates of heart disease in this country. Pediatricians, of all people, should be standing up and declaring that our children must be taught to eat real, whole foods instead of the steady diet of pre-packaged junk and fast-food that most consume, along with a lifestyle that encourages lots of physical activity. Instead, they are telling parents to give dangerous drugs to their children, drugs that will only harm them and not help reduce their risk of disease. A quick fix, if you will. Such foolishness as this only robs physicians of the little integrity they have left in the eyes of many these days. It is a travesty that one must question every recommendation given by doctors, as many of them are blinded to the truth by the propaganda put out by Big Pharma and the "researchers" they fund.
Artificial Symptom Relief Does Not Equal Health
Cholesterol Drugs for Kids
July 7, 2008, 12:15 am
The nation's pediatricians are recommending wider cholesterol screening for children and more aggressive use of cholesterol-lowering drugs starting as early as the age of 8 in hopes of preventing adult heart problems.
The new guidelines were to be issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics on Monday. The push to aggressively screen and medicate for high cholesterol in children is certain to create controversy amid a continuing debate about the use of prescription drugs in children as well as the best approaches to ward off heart disease in adults.
But proponents say there is growing evidence that the first signs of heart disease show up in childhood, and with 30 percent of the nation's children overweight or obese, many doctors fear that a rash of early heart attacks and diabetes is on the horizon as these children grow up.
Previously, the academy had said cholesterol drugs should be considered in children older than 10 if they fail to lose weight after a 6- to 12-month effort. The academy estimated that under the current guidelines, 30 percent to 60 percent of children with high cholesterol were being missed. And for some children, cholesterol-lowering drugs, called statins, may be their best hope of lowering their risk of early heart attack, proponents said.
"We are in an epidemic," said Dr. Jatinder Bhatia, a member of the academy's nutrition committee who is a professor and chief of neonatology at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. "The risk of giving statins at a lower age is less than the benefit you're going to get out of it."
Dr. Bhatia said that although there was not "a whole lot" of data on pediatric use of cholesterol-lowering drugs, recent research showed that the drugs were generally safe for children.
Surprisingly, the paper published in the medical journal Pediatrics that explains the new guidelines notes that among adolescents, average total cholesterol levels as well as LDL and HDL cholesterol have remained stable, while triglyceride levels have dropped, based on data collected from 1988 to 2000.
It is not clear how many children would be affected by the new guidelines. The recommendations call for cholesterol screening of children and adolescents, starting as early as the age of 2 and no later than the age of 10, if they come from families with a history of high cholesterol or heart attacks before 55 for men and 65 for women.
Screening is also recommended for children when family history is unknown, or if they have other risk factors, like being at or above the 85th percentile for weight, or have diabetes.
If the child's cholesterol level is normal, retesting is suggested in three to five years. Although lifestyle changes are still recommended as the first course of action, drug treatment should be considered for children 8 years and older who have bad cholesterol of 190 milligrams per deciliter and who also have a family history of early heart disease or two additional risk factors, the new recommendations say.
The guidelines give no guidance on how long a child should stay on drug treatment. But they do say the first goal should be to lower bad cholesterol levels to less than 160 milligrams or possibly as low as 110 milligrams in children with a strong family history of heart disease or other risk factors like obesity.
Because statins have been around since only the mid-1980s, there is no evidence to show whether giving statins to a child will lower the risk for heart attack in middle age.
The academy also now recommends giving children low-fat milk after 12 months if a doctor is concerned about future weight problems. Although children need fat for brain development, the group says that because children often consume so much fat, low-fat milk is now appropriate.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/cholesterol-drugs-for-kids/
The obesity epidemic amongst American kids is being used to justify the use of these toxic drugs. Here again we have classic AMA thinking that seeks to throw toxic pharmaceuticals at a health problem instead of addressing the real cause behind the alarming rates of heart disease in this country. Pediatricians, of all people, should be standing up and declaring that our children must be taught to eat real, whole foods instead of the steady diet of pre-packaged junk and fast-food that most consume, along with a lifestyle that encourages lots of physical activity. Instead, they are telling parents to give dangerous drugs to their children, drugs that will only harm them and not help reduce their risk of disease. A quick fix, if you will. Such foolishness as this only robs physicians of the little integrity they have left in the eyes of many these days. It is a travesty that one must question every recommendation given by doctors, as many of them are blinded to the truth by the propaganda put out by Big Pharma and the "researchers" they fund.
Artificial Symptom Relief Does Not Equal Health
Cholesterol Drugs for Kids
July 7, 2008, 12:15 am
The nation's pediatricians are recommending wider cholesterol screening for children and more aggressive use of cholesterol-lowering drugs starting as early as the age of 8 in hopes of preventing adult heart problems.
The new guidelines were to be issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics on Monday. The push to aggressively screen and medicate for high cholesterol in children is certain to create controversy amid a continuing debate about the use of prescription drugs in children as well as the best approaches to ward off heart disease in adults.
But proponents say there is growing evidence that the first signs of heart disease show up in childhood, and with 30 percent of the nation's children overweight or obese, many doctors fear that a rash of early heart attacks and diabetes is on the horizon as these children grow up.
Previously, the academy had said cholesterol drugs should be considered in children older than 10 if they fail to lose weight after a 6- to 12-month effort. The academy estimated that under the current guidelines, 30 percent to 60 percent of children with high cholesterol were being missed. And for some children, cholesterol-lowering drugs, called statins, may be their best hope of lowering their risk of early heart attack, proponents said.
"We are in an epidemic," said Dr. Jatinder Bhatia, a member of the academy's nutrition committee who is a professor and chief of neonatology at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. "The risk of giving statins at a lower age is less than the benefit you're going to get out of it."
Dr. Bhatia said that although there was not "a whole lot" of data on pediatric use of cholesterol-lowering drugs, recent research showed that the drugs were generally safe for children.
Surprisingly, the paper published in the medical journal Pediatrics that explains the new guidelines notes that among adolescents, average total cholesterol levels as well as LDL and HDL cholesterol have remained stable, while triglyceride levels have dropped, based on data collected from 1988 to 2000.
It is not clear how many children would be affected by the new guidelines. The recommendations call for cholesterol screening of children and adolescents, starting as early as the age of 2 and no later than the age of 10, if they come from families with a history of high cholesterol or heart attacks before 55 for men and 65 for women.
Screening is also recommended for children when family history is unknown, or if they have other risk factors, like being at or above the 85th percentile for weight, or have diabetes.
If the child's cholesterol level is normal, retesting is suggested in three to five years. Although lifestyle changes are still recommended as the first course of action, drug treatment should be considered for children 8 years and older who have bad cholesterol of 190 milligrams per deciliter and who also have a family history of early heart disease or two additional risk factors, the new recommendations say.
The guidelines give no guidance on how long a child should stay on drug treatment. But they do say the first goal should be to lower bad cholesterol levels to less than 160 milligrams or possibly as low as 110 milligrams in children with a strong family history of heart disease or other risk factors like obesity.
Because statins have been around since only the mid-1980s, there is no evidence to show whether giving statins to a child will lower the risk for heart attack in middle age.
The academy also now recommends giving children low-fat milk after 12 months if a doctor is concerned about future weight problems. Although children need fat for brain development, the group says that because children often consume so much fat, low-fat milk is now appropriate.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/cholesterol-drugs-for-kids/
Monday, July 7, 2008
Hazards on Tap in Our Homes
The following article gives a very comprehensive look at a major public health crisis that is caused by exposure to numerous toxins found in the municipal water supplies throughout this country. Not only is it unsafe to drink this water, but even bathing or especially showering in it can lead to a number of potentially dangerous situations.
Drinking bottled water has increased in popularity, but that has its own risks, especially if the water is stored in plastic bottles. Our bodies need ample amounts of pure, clean water every day to function properly, eliminate toxins from the body, aid in absorption of nutrients, boost the immune system, and thus prevent disease. It is clear that the best solution to this problem is the use of a water purification system that covers all of the water coming into the house, both for drinking and bathing. Not only is contaminated water a hazard, but the lack of quality water will also negatively affect every aspect of our overall health.
The Poisoning of America's Water Supplies
by Mark Sircus Ac., OMD
Every day in the United States more than 240 million people turn on their faucets in order to drink, bathe, and cook, using water from public water systems. But more people are arriving to the point where they will not let a drop of water touch their lips in their own homes unless that water comes from a bottle shipped from a fresh water source. And even then we still have trouble in the home. Researchers at the University of Texas found that showers and dishwashers liberate trace amounts of chemicals from municipal water supplies into the air [i].
"The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives." - American Indian Proverb
Squirting hot water through a nozzle, to produce a fine spray, increases the surface area of water in contact with the air, liberating dissolved substances in a process known as "stripping." So if we want to avoid those chemicals drinking bottled water is not enough. Chemically sensitive individuals would also have to wear a gas mask in the shower, and when unloading the dishwasher if they want to avoid chemical contamination. And even then the skin will absorb directly in the shower chemicals like fluoride so we cannot assume we are safe from the contaminants even if we are drinking pure water. The majority of people still take the purity of their tap water for granted when they shouldn't.
When we look deeper we can see that even in a rich country like the United States, we all have reason to be concerned about not only drinking, but even bathing in water that comes from public treatment systems. Albuquerque, Fresno, and San Francisco are examples of cities that have water that is sufficiently contaminated so as to pose serious potential health risks to pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems, according to Dr. David Ozonoff [ii]. What we find in these waters are contaminants that occur with surprising regularity, regardless of location, such as chlorination by-products, lead, and coliform bacteria. Other contaminants, such as Teflon and rocket fuel occur less frequently but pose major health concerns. If we include the fact that fluoride is actually poisonous we have water that is slowly killing some Americans and depressing the health of almost everyone who drinks and showers in it.
And the problems with water just do not end. In August 2005 we learned that common household brass plumbing fixtures may release far more lead into drinking water than previously believed. As a result, even new homes built with brass fixtures like ball valves and water meters could end up with potentially unsafe lead levels. In a report trumpeted by the National Science Foundation, Virgina Tech researchers charged that the standards used to certify the brass plumbing supplies found at most hardware stores may be inadequate to predict lead contamination of water. This contradicts years of assumptions that lead contamination primarily comes from old leaden pipes or public water systems with lead contamination problems [iii]. Contrary to popular belief, many plumbing supplies sold today are not lead-free but contain up to 8 percent lead content in brass fixtures [iv]. Lead makes brass and other metals more malleable, helping manufacturers create intricate shapes.
The consequence though is extraordinarily high for exposure to lead in drinking water which results in delays in physical and mental development, along with slight deficits in attention span and learning abilities. In adults, it can cause increases in blood pressure. Adults who drink this water over many years could develop kidney problems or high blood pressure according to the American EPA [v]. The Romans had their engineers turn the populace into neurological cripples when they started using lead in their water systems but they did not have to deal with either fluoride or mercury. The three together, mercury, lead and fluoride become a kind of devil's triangle of chemical toxicity that is only made worse by aluminum and a host of other hostile chemicals that are clogging up our bodies.
Water pollution by drugs is an emerging issue that is extremely important. Pharmaceuticals are now attracting attention as a whole new class of water pollutants. At the recent American Chemical Society conference, Chris Metcalfe of Trent University in Ontario reported finding a vast array of drugs leaving Canadian sewage treatment plants. Padma Venkatraman, a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins concluded that antidepressants, anticonvulsants, anticancer drugs and antimicrobials are among the pharmaceuticals most likely to be found at "toxicologically significant levels" in the environment.
These drugs and many more [vi] are finding their way into public water systems because pharmaceutical industries, hospitals and other medical facilities as well as households dispose of unused medicines and even human excreta can contain incompletely metabolized medicines. Millions of doses of prescription drugs that Americans swallow annually to combat cancer, pain, depression and other ailments do not disappear harmlessly into their digestive systems but instead make their way back into the environment where they may contaminate drinking water and pose a threat to life, according to researchers at John Hopkins medical center.
These drugs pass intact through conventional sewage treatment facilities, into waterways, lakes and even aquifers. Discarded pharmaceuticals often end up at dumps and land fills, posing a threat to underlying groundwater. And farm animals also are a huge source of pharmaceuticals entering the environment because of the massive use of hormones, antibiotics and veterinary medicines used in their care. Along with pharmaceuticals, personal care products also are showing up in water. Generally these chemicals are the active ingredients or preservatives in cosmetics, toiletries or fragrances. For example, nitro musks, used as a fragrance in many cosmetics, detergents, toiletries and other personal care products, have attracted concern because of their persistence and possible adverse environmental impacts. Some countries have taken action to ban nitro musks. Also, sun screen agents have been detected in lakes and fish.
It is hard to tell which is worse, the toxic chemicals and drugs that are leeching into the public water systems or the noxious chemicals deliberately put in the water by public health officials. Standard water treatments result in health threats yet health officials are loath to admit any problem that we should beware of. Chlorination of drinking water supplies virtually eliminates most disease or bacterial contamination, but creates traces of several toxic by-products in drinking water -- such as chloroform, trihalomethanes and other chlorinated organic compounds. In recent years municipal water districts across the United States are changing the way they disinfect public water supplies. Many are adding ammonia to chlorinated water to produce chloramines [vii], or chloraminated water. They are doing that in order to meet standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While chloramination has been used as a way to lower the level of carcinogenic disinfection byproducts (DBPs) created by chlorination, it has led to extreme water toxicity. Chloraminated water kills fish and reptiles and there is no reason to believe it is safe for human consumption.
"I almost died," Denise Kula Johnson of Menlo Park said the day after chloramines were added to her water supply. "I was in the shower and suddenly I could not breathe. I passed out on the floor. I was terrified."
"The government is hiding the fact that the drinking water is not usable," says medical scientist Dr. Winn Parker who tells us that the most at-risk groups from chloraminated water are the fetus in the first trimester, children to age three, people over age 60 and those with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Women in the 35-45 age group are at risk of recurring rashes on the inner thighs and chest, he added. Parker is calling for government funding of alternative disinfection methods, such as ultra-violet and reverse osmosis, which would make harmful chemical disinfection methods obsolete. "We need to amend the Constitution," Parker said, "to give the people in each state the right to vote on what goes into their water."[viii] A recently discovered disinfection byproduct iodoacetic acid, found in U.S. drinking water treated with chloramines, is the most toxic ever found according to Dr. Michael J. Plewa, a genetic toxicology expert at the University of Illinois [ix].
"Individuals who consume chlorinated drinking water have an elevated risk of cancer of the bladder, stomach, pancreas, kidney and rectum as well as Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." [x] - Dr. Michael J. Plewa
When Washington DC changed in 2000 to chloramines, this newly treated water reacted with the lead in the pipes to poison the drinking water. Lead levels were found in Washington's water 3,200 times the EPA's "action level" and 4,800 times the UN's acceptable level for the toxic heavy metal. Americans have been conditioned to believe that the problem with lead has mostly disappeared but nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Washington Post, "In New York City, the nation's largest water provider has for the past three years assured its 9.3 million customers that its water was safe because the lead content fell below federal limits. But the city has withheld from regulators hundreds of test results that would have raised lead levels above the safety standard in two of those years."[xi]
"The drinking water lead crisis in Washington D.C. poses serious public health risks to thousands of residents of the national capital area, and casts a dark shadow of doubt over the ability, resources, or will of federal and local officials to fulfill their duty to protect our health," said Paul D. Schwartz, National Policy Coordinator, Clean Water Action [xii].
After switching to chloraminated water, children in Washington ingested more than 60 times the EPA's maximum level of lead with one glass of water [xiii].
Jim Elder, who headed the EPA's drinking water program from 1991 to 1995, said he fears that utilities are engaging in "widespread fraud and manipulation. It's time to reconsider whether water utilities can be trusted with this crucial responsibility of protecting the public. I fear for the safety of our nation's drinking water. Apparently, it's a real crap shoot as to what's going to come out of the tap and whether it will be healthy or not."
Cities across the country are manipulating the results of tests used to detect lead in water, violating federal law and putting millions of Americans at risk. - Washington Post [xiv]
Underground aquifers can become contaminated with bacteria and viruses because of insufficient topsoil layers to filter rainwater as it trickles down to recharge the groundwater. Livestock manure, human sewage sludge, fertilizers, weed killers [xv] and pesticides seep down into groundwater supplies. The intensification of agricultural practices -- in particular, the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides -- has had a huge impact on water quality. The main agricultural water pollutants are nitrates[xvi], phosphorus, and pesticides. Rising nitrate concentrations threaten the quality of drinking water, while high pesticide use contributes substantially to the direct poisoning of our water supplies.
The Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM, 1992) concluded that "groundwater is threatened by pesticides in all European states." WHO (1993) has established drinking water guidelines for 33 pesticides but an awareness is growing that in all matters water related we are not being protected from serious harm. There really is no limit to the concerns and chemicals that make drinking public water a bad idea.
There really is no end to the serious problems with tap water that are being seriously underestimated. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that arsenic is so dangerous in drinking water that stringent levels set by the Clinton administration and later suspended by the Bush White House were not strict enough. For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency set an acceptable arsenic level of 50 parts per billion in drinking water. But recent studies suggested that this level was too high and increased the risk of bladder and lung cancer. A report by the National Academy of Sciences in 1999 said the standard should be made stricter "as promptly as possible." President Bill Clinton ordered the limit to be lowered to 10 parts per billion in 2006 and scientists doubt if even this low level of concentration is safe [xvii].
References:
i. (http://www.agonist.org/story/2005/8/4/44118/79781)
ii. National Resources Defence Council. Ozonoff is chair of the Environmental Health Program at Boston University School of Public Health and a nationally known expert on drinking water and health issues ((http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/usci...)
iii. (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke%5C29130.html)
iv. Drinking Water Act in 1996 banned plumbing devices with pure lead pipe but still allows low levels of lead. Homes built before 1986 are more likely to have lead pipes, fixtures and solder. However, new homes are also at risk: even legally "lead-free" plumbing may contain up to 8 percent lead. The most common problem is with brass or chrome-plated brass faucets and fixtures which can leach significant amounts of lead into the water, especially hot water.v. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead/index.html) Amendments made to the federal Safe
vi. Detected contaminants include caffeine, which was the highest-volume pollutant, codeine, cholesterol-lowering agents, anti-depressants, and Premarin, an estrogen replacement drug taken by about 9 million women. Also chemotherapy agents were found downstream from hospitals treating cancer patients. Final results from the study are expected to be released in the fall. For additional information about the U.S.G.S. study check the website: (http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc.html)
vii. Chloramine is a disinfectant put into many municipal water supplies. In recent years it has often replaced chlorine for two main reasons. The first is that it is much longer lasting, so it continues to provide a disinfectant action in supply pipes, where chlorine typically loses its capacity to disinfect. The second is that it does not react with organics nearly as readily as does chlorine. The reaction products of chlorine and organics (chlorinated organics) are very toxic to people, and water supply operators elect to use chloramine to reduce this toxicity.
viii. Bollyn, Christopher. The Unhealthy Consequences of Chloraminated Water. ((http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/c...)
ix. ((http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...)
x. Sep 2004 ((http://www.watertechonline.com/News.asp...)
xi. (http://www.americanfreepress.net)
xii. US House of Representatives, Committee on Government ReformHearing on the District of Columbia's Lead Contamination ExperienceStatement of Paul D. Schwartz, National Policy Coordinator, Clean Water ActionMay 21, 2004. (http://www.dcwatch.com/wasa/040521i.htm)
xiii. From April 2 to May 8 of 2004, utility officials switched back to chlorine, a yearly change intended to rinse bacteria from the pipes before summer. During that time, officials said yesterday, lead level test results in homes with lead service lines were 25 percent to 30 percent lower than they would have predicted. ((http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar...)
xiv. ((http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar...)
xv. The weed killer atrazine affects the levels of a number of hormones needed for normal development and function of the reproductive system, including estrogen, prolactin, luteinizing hormone, and follicle stimulating hormone. Atrazine has been linked to sexual malformations in frogs that were exposed to water containing just 1/30th as much atrazine as the EPA regards as safe in human drinking water. Sanders, Robert. Popular weed killer atrazine feminizes native frogs across Midwest, could be impacting amphibian populations worldwide 30 October 2002. University of Berkely. ((http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele...)
xvi. Nitrate in drinking water is also associated with increased risk for bladder cancer, according to a University of Iowa (UI) study that looked at cancer incidence among nearly 22,000 Iowa women. The study results suggest that even low-level exposure to nitrates over many years could cause increases in certain types of cancer, said Peter Weyer, Ph.D., associate director of the UI Center for Health Effects of Environmental Contamination (CHEEC) and one of the study's lead authors. The study was published in the May 2001 issue of the journal Epidemiology. "From a public health perspective, source water protection is a main concern. Sources of nitrate which can impact water supplies include fertilizers, human waste, and animal waste," Weyer said. "All of us, rural and urban residents alike, need to be more aware of how what we do as individuals can impact our water sources and, potentially, our health." ((http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/articles/O...)
xvii. New York Times September 11, 2001
URL: http://www.naturalnews.com/z023565.html
Drinking bottled water has increased in popularity, but that has its own risks, especially if the water is stored in plastic bottles. Our bodies need ample amounts of pure, clean water every day to function properly, eliminate toxins from the body, aid in absorption of nutrients, boost the immune system, and thus prevent disease. It is clear that the best solution to this problem is the use of a water purification system that covers all of the water coming into the house, both for drinking and bathing. Not only is contaminated water a hazard, but the lack of quality water will also negatively affect every aspect of our overall health.
The Poisoning of America's Water Supplies
by Mark Sircus Ac., OMD
Every day in the United States more than 240 million people turn on their faucets in order to drink, bathe, and cook, using water from public water systems. But more people are arriving to the point where they will not let a drop of water touch their lips in their own homes unless that water comes from a bottle shipped from a fresh water source. And even then we still have trouble in the home. Researchers at the University of Texas found that showers and dishwashers liberate trace amounts of chemicals from municipal water supplies into the air [i].
"The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives." - American Indian Proverb
Squirting hot water through a nozzle, to produce a fine spray, increases the surface area of water in contact with the air, liberating dissolved substances in a process known as "stripping." So if we want to avoid those chemicals drinking bottled water is not enough. Chemically sensitive individuals would also have to wear a gas mask in the shower, and when unloading the dishwasher if they want to avoid chemical contamination. And even then the skin will absorb directly in the shower chemicals like fluoride so we cannot assume we are safe from the contaminants even if we are drinking pure water. The majority of people still take the purity of their tap water for granted when they shouldn't.
When we look deeper we can see that even in a rich country like the United States, we all have reason to be concerned about not only drinking, but even bathing in water that comes from public treatment systems. Albuquerque, Fresno, and San Francisco are examples of cities that have water that is sufficiently contaminated so as to pose serious potential health risks to pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems, according to Dr. David Ozonoff [ii]. What we find in these waters are contaminants that occur with surprising regularity, regardless of location, such as chlorination by-products, lead, and coliform bacteria. Other contaminants, such as Teflon and rocket fuel occur less frequently but pose major health concerns. If we include the fact that fluoride is actually poisonous we have water that is slowly killing some Americans and depressing the health of almost everyone who drinks and showers in it.
And the problems with water just do not end. In August 2005 we learned that common household brass plumbing fixtures may release far more lead into drinking water than previously believed. As a result, even new homes built with brass fixtures like ball valves and water meters could end up with potentially unsafe lead levels. In a report trumpeted by the National Science Foundation, Virgina Tech researchers charged that the standards used to certify the brass plumbing supplies found at most hardware stores may be inadequate to predict lead contamination of water. This contradicts years of assumptions that lead contamination primarily comes from old leaden pipes or public water systems with lead contamination problems [iii]. Contrary to popular belief, many plumbing supplies sold today are not lead-free but contain up to 8 percent lead content in brass fixtures [iv]. Lead makes brass and other metals more malleable, helping manufacturers create intricate shapes.
The consequence though is extraordinarily high for exposure to lead in drinking water which results in delays in physical and mental development, along with slight deficits in attention span and learning abilities. In adults, it can cause increases in blood pressure. Adults who drink this water over many years could develop kidney problems or high blood pressure according to the American EPA [v]. The Romans had their engineers turn the populace into neurological cripples when they started using lead in their water systems but they did not have to deal with either fluoride or mercury. The three together, mercury, lead and fluoride become a kind of devil's triangle of chemical toxicity that is only made worse by aluminum and a host of other hostile chemicals that are clogging up our bodies.
Water pollution by drugs is an emerging issue that is extremely important. Pharmaceuticals are now attracting attention as a whole new class of water pollutants. At the recent American Chemical Society conference, Chris Metcalfe of Trent University in Ontario reported finding a vast array of drugs leaving Canadian sewage treatment plants. Padma Venkatraman, a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins concluded that antidepressants, anticonvulsants, anticancer drugs and antimicrobials are among the pharmaceuticals most likely to be found at "toxicologically significant levels" in the environment.
These drugs and many more [vi] are finding their way into public water systems because pharmaceutical industries, hospitals and other medical facilities as well as households dispose of unused medicines and even human excreta can contain incompletely metabolized medicines. Millions of doses of prescription drugs that Americans swallow annually to combat cancer, pain, depression and other ailments do not disappear harmlessly into their digestive systems but instead make their way back into the environment where they may contaminate drinking water and pose a threat to life, according to researchers at John Hopkins medical center.
These drugs pass intact through conventional sewage treatment facilities, into waterways, lakes and even aquifers. Discarded pharmaceuticals often end up at dumps and land fills, posing a threat to underlying groundwater. And farm animals also are a huge source of pharmaceuticals entering the environment because of the massive use of hormones, antibiotics and veterinary medicines used in their care. Along with pharmaceuticals, personal care products also are showing up in water. Generally these chemicals are the active ingredients or preservatives in cosmetics, toiletries or fragrances. For example, nitro musks, used as a fragrance in many cosmetics, detergents, toiletries and other personal care products, have attracted concern because of their persistence and possible adverse environmental impacts. Some countries have taken action to ban nitro musks. Also, sun screen agents have been detected in lakes and fish.
It is hard to tell which is worse, the toxic chemicals and drugs that are leeching into the public water systems or the noxious chemicals deliberately put in the water by public health officials. Standard water treatments result in health threats yet health officials are loath to admit any problem that we should beware of. Chlorination of drinking water supplies virtually eliminates most disease or bacterial contamination, but creates traces of several toxic by-products in drinking water -- such as chloroform, trihalomethanes and other chlorinated organic compounds. In recent years municipal water districts across the United States are changing the way they disinfect public water supplies. Many are adding ammonia to chlorinated water to produce chloramines [vii], or chloraminated water. They are doing that in order to meet standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While chloramination has been used as a way to lower the level of carcinogenic disinfection byproducts (DBPs) created by chlorination, it has led to extreme water toxicity. Chloraminated water kills fish and reptiles and there is no reason to believe it is safe for human consumption.
"I almost died," Denise Kula Johnson of Menlo Park said the day after chloramines were added to her water supply. "I was in the shower and suddenly I could not breathe. I passed out on the floor. I was terrified."
"The government is hiding the fact that the drinking water is not usable," says medical scientist Dr. Winn Parker who tells us that the most at-risk groups from chloraminated water are the fetus in the first trimester, children to age three, people over age 60 and those with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Women in the 35-45 age group are at risk of recurring rashes on the inner thighs and chest, he added. Parker is calling for government funding of alternative disinfection methods, such as ultra-violet and reverse osmosis, which would make harmful chemical disinfection methods obsolete. "We need to amend the Constitution," Parker said, "to give the people in each state the right to vote on what goes into their water."[viii] A recently discovered disinfection byproduct iodoacetic acid, found in U.S. drinking water treated with chloramines, is the most toxic ever found according to Dr. Michael J. Plewa, a genetic toxicology expert at the University of Illinois [ix].
"Individuals who consume chlorinated drinking water have an elevated risk of cancer of the bladder, stomach, pancreas, kidney and rectum as well as Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." [x] - Dr. Michael J. Plewa
When Washington DC changed in 2000 to chloramines, this newly treated water reacted with the lead in the pipes to poison the drinking water. Lead levels were found in Washington's water 3,200 times the EPA's "action level" and 4,800 times the UN's acceptable level for the toxic heavy metal. Americans have been conditioned to believe that the problem with lead has mostly disappeared but nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Washington Post, "In New York City, the nation's largest water provider has for the past three years assured its 9.3 million customers that its water was safe because the lead content fell below federal limits. But the city has withheld from regulators hundreds of test results that would have raised lead levels above the safety standard in two of those years."[xi]
"The drinking water lead crisis in Washington D.C. poses serious public health risks to thousands of residents of the national capital area, and casts a dark shadow of doubt over the ability, resources, or will of federal and local officials to fulfill their duty to protect our health," said Paul D. Schwartz, National Policy Coordinator, Clean Water Action [xii].
After switching to chloraminated water, children in Washington ingested more than 60 times the EPA's maximum level of lead with one glass of water [xiii].
Jim Elder, who headed the EPA's drinking water program from 1991 to 1995, said he fears that utilities are engaging in "widespread fraud and manipulation. It's time to reconsider whether water utilities can be trusted with this crucial responsibility of protecting the public. I fear for the safety of our nation's drinking water. Apparently, it's a real crap shoot as to what's going to come out of the tap and whether it will be healthy or not."
Cities across the country are manipulating the results of tests used to detect lead in water, violating federal law and putting millions of Americans at risk. - Washington Post [xiv]
Underground aquifers can become contaminated with bacteria and viruses because of insufficient topsoil layers to filter rainwater as it trickles down to recharge the groundwater. Livestock manure, human sewage sludge, fertilizers, weed killers [xv] and pesticides seep down into groundwater supplies. The intensification of agricultural practices -- in particular, the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides -- has had a huge impact on water quality. The main agricultural water pollutants are nitrates[xvi], phosphorus, and pesticides. Rising nitrate concentrations threaten the quality of drinking water, while high pesticide use contributes substantially to the direct poisoning of our water supplies.
The Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM, 1992) concluded that "groundwater is threatened by pesticides in all European states." WHO (1993) has established drinking water guidelines for 33 pesticides but an awareness is growing that in all matters water related we are not being protected from serious harm. There really is no limit to the concerns and chemicals that make drinking public water a bad idea.
There really is no end to the serious problems with tap water that are being seriously underestimated. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that arsenic is so dangerous in drinking water that stringent levels set by the Clinton administration and later suspended by the Bush White House were not strict enough. For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency set an acceptable arsenic level of 50 parts per billion in drinking water. But recent studies suggested that this level was too high and increased the risk of bladder and lung cancer. A report by the National Academy of Sciences in 1999 said the standard should be made stricter "as promptly as possible." President Bill Clinton ordered the limit to be lowered to 10 parts per billion in 2006 and scientists doubt if even this low level of concentration is safe [xvii].
References:
i. (http://www.agonist.org/story/2005/8/4/44118/79781)
ii. National Resources Defence Council. Ozonoff is chair of the Environmental Health Program at Boston University School of Public Health and a nationally known expert on drinking water and health issues ((http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/usci...)
iii. (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke%5C29130.html)
iv. Drinking Water Act in 1996 banned plumbing devices with pure lead pipe but still allows low levels of lead. Homes built before 1986 are more likely to have lead pipes, fixtures and solder. However, new homes are also at risk: even legally "lead-free" plumbing may contain up to 8 percent lead. The most common problem is with brass or chrome-plated brass faucets and fixtures which can leach significant amounts of lead into the water, especially hot water.v. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead/index.html) Amendments made to the federal Safe
vi. Detected contaminants include caffeine, which was the highest-volume pollutant, codeine, cholesterol-lowering agents, anti-depressants, and Premarin, an estrogen replacement drug taken by about 9 million women. Also chemotherapy agents were found downstream from hospitals treating cancer patients. Final results from the study are expected to be released in the fall. For additional information about the U.S.G.S. study check the website: (http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc.html)
vii. Chloramine is a disinfectant put into many municipal water supplies. In recent years it has often replaced chlorine for two main reasons. The first is that it is much longer lasting, so it continues to provide a disinfectant action in supply pipes, where chlorine typically loses its capacity to disinfect. The second is that it does not react with organics nearly as readily as does chlorine. The reaction products of chlorine and organics (chlorinated organics) are very toxic to people, and water supply operators elect to use chloramine to reduce this toxicity.
viii. Bollyn, Christopher. The Unhealthy Consequences of Chloraminated Water. ((http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/c...)
ix. ((http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...)
x. Sep 2004 ((http://www.watertechonline.com/News.asp...)
xi. (http://www.americanfreepress.net)
xii. US House of Representatives, Committee on Government ReformHearing on the District of Columbia's Lead Contamination ExperienceStatement of Paul D. Schwartz, National Policy Coordinator, Clean Water ActionMay 21, 2004. (http://www.dcwatch.com/wasa/040521i.htm)
xiii. From April 2 to May 8 of 2004, utility officials switched back to chlorine, a yearly change intended to rinse bacteria from the pipes before summer. During that time, officials said yesterday, lead level test results in homes with lead service lines were 25 percent to 30 percent lower than they would have predicted. ((http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar...)
xiv. ((http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar...)
xv. The weed killer atrazine affects the levels of a number of hormones needed for normal development and function of the reproductive system, including estrogen, prolactin, luteinizing hormone, and follicle stimulating hormone. Atrazine has been linked to sexual malformations in frogs that were exposed to water containing just 1/30th as much atrazine as the EPA regards as safe in human drinking water. Sanders, Robert. Popular weed killer atrazine feminizes native frogs across Midwest, could be impacting amphibian populations worldwide 30 October 2002. University of Berkely. ((http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele...)
xvi. Nitrate in drinking water is also associated with increased risk for bladder cancer, according to a University of Iowa (UI) study that looked at cancer incidence among nearly 22,000 Iowa women. The study results suggest that even low-level exposure to nitrates over many years could cause increases in certain types of cancer, said Peter Weyer, Ph.D., associate director of the UI Center for Health Effects of Environmental Contamination (CHEEC) and one of the study's lead authors. The study was published in the May 2001 issue of the journal Epidemiology. "From a public health perspective, source water protection is a main concern. Sources of nitrate which can impact water supplies include fertilizers, human waste, and animal waste," Weyer said. "All of us, rural and urban residents alike, need to be more aware of how what we do as individuals can impact our water sources and, potentially, our health." ((http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/articles/O...)
xvii. New York Times September 11, 2001
URL: http://www.naturalnews.com/z023565.html
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Potential Cancer Cure Linked to White Blood Cells
You may want to take a good look at the story in today's post, because it might just disappear into thin air, especially if it turns out that this discovery actually reverses cancer in humans. Of course it is too soon to tell if what has been so successful in cancerous mice can be effective in humans, but if this truly is a lead towards a safe, relatively harmless procedure that can defeat cancer, it is sad but true that it may be quashed by a "cancer industry" system that thrives on the millions of dollars of profits that are produced annually from cancer treatment.
Such manipulation can happen in numerous ways. Often researchers and their work will be discredited and ridiculed in the academic community and the press, or a study can be bogged down with so many regulations and so much financial hanky-panky that it becomes impossible for the project to continue. Whatever the case, this story bears watching. Any possible remedy for cancer that can bypass the hazards of chemo and radiation therapies would seem to be welcomed by all, but unfortunately this is not always the case. This atmosphere that is so hostile to the truth is one of the reasons that nutritional and other natural approaches to fighting cancer, including a lifestyle of wellness that prevents the disease in the first place, have not been more widely accepted by the public and many in conventional medicine.
Cancer cure in mice to get human trials
Wake Forest University scientists studying genetic immunity in mice to start testing humans
Zoe Elizabeth Buck, Staff Writer
Clinical trials begin this week at Wake Forest University on a cancer therapy that has completely cured the disease in every mouse tested over the past few years.
The therapy involves the transfusion of white blood cells from cancer-resistant donors into cancer patients, letting loose a uniquely qualified army of disease fighters to attack the invading tumor.
Some scientists are skeptical about the move from mice to humans, but others are excited about the possibility of success.
Dr. Zheng Cui, the lead investigator, and his team at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine announced the move to human clinical trials Saturday at the Understanding Aging Conference in Los Angeles. The team recently won approval for human trials from the Food and Drug Administration.
"This is the first time that such aggressive cancer in mice has been eradicated like this," Cui said. "This is a very dramatic result."
The result is especially dramatic considering its discovery stemmed from a series of accidents, starting with one extraordinary mouse.
In the late 1990s, Cui and his team were using mice as experimental cancer patients for their research, injecting them with malignant cells. Within three to four weeks, as expected, all the injected mice developed tumors and died.
But in 1999, for some reason, one mouse didn't develop tumors and didn't die.
Dr. Lloyd Old of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, who was collaborating in the research, later said that if Cui had been trained as an immunologist, he would have thrown out the mouse right then. But Cui was trained as a medical doctor, and his curiosity led him to continue testing the oddball mouse, injecting it with higher and higher lethal doses of carcinogens.
No matter how many times the researchers tried to give the mouse cancer, it didn't develop a tumor, and it didn't die.
The mouse was immune to cancer.
Making sure
As cautious scientists, Cui and his team decided to breed the mouse and test its offspring for cancer immunity.
"We knew that if we hadn't made a mistake, something very dramatic was happening, but we had to know we weren't making a mistake," he said.
It wasn't a mistake. Three of the mouse's seven grandchildren didn't get cancer, either. Whatever was causing the cancer resistance was built into the mouse's family genes. News of the finding created a stir.
"Our lives were suddenly overtaken by an unexpected media frenzy," Cui wrote in 2003. Headlines proclaimed a cure for cancer -- albeit in mice.
"People got very excited for a reason," he said. "It was exciting. We had direct evidence for cancer immunity that we could reproduce at will. It was a very profound result, and it was not subtle. I don't think people could have overreacted."
The next step was to figure out how to transfer that cancer immunity from the special mice to mice that were dying of cancer. The solution is apparently hidden in the mice's white blood cells, which are like a tiny biological army. They are carried in the bloodstream to fight infection and disease throughout the body.
For some reason -- Cui and his team don't know why -- the white blood cells from the immune mice could defeat the cancer every time, while the other mice's white blood cells were unable to stave off the infection.
The majority of contemporary cancer research focuses on these cellular soldiers. But most research seeks to isolate certain parts of the cells and stimulate them in test tubes, a complex process.
Cui's procedure is simple.
"We don't have to do anything to manipulate the white blood cells," Cui said. All he and his team did was transfuse the immune mouse cells into the sick mice, and the tumors melted away.
"It's like we discovered aspirin, only instead of curing headaches it's curing cancer," Cui said. "We don't know how it works exactly, but it doesn't really matter."
A leap forward
Rather than spend years determining the mechanisms behind the miracle, Cui thought it was more important to press forward toward clinical trials in humans.
But Cui's eagerness to move forward could lead to problems.
"Anything that seems like a miracle always runs into roadblocks in the future," said Vivek Rangnekar, a cancer researcher at the University of Kentucky. "If you don't know the mechanism behind what is going on, you will not be equipped to deal with those roadblocks. For example, they could find that the cancer builds up a resistance, and if they don't know what's going on they will not be equipped to deal with that."
As Cui moves forward, he must first find a source for the cancer-fighting white blood cells -- the human equivalent of that miraculous mouse.
Next week, Cui's team will begin a search for cancer-resistant humans.
Next step: humans
Whether people are immune to cancer is probably rooted in their genetic background.
"Some families just don't have any cancer for generations, even among heavy smokers," he said. "Chances are it is probably not because they are lucky."
These cancer-resistant people are identified by examining how well their white blood cells fight off cancer cells in a test tube. Once a set of donors is selected, the clinical trial will move into the treatment stage, harvesting white blood cells from immune people and transfusing them into cancer patients. The process will be relatively painless by contrast with current cancer treatments such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy, which often have debilitating side effects.
"It's basically a blood transfusion -- a safe procedure that goes on all the time," Cui said.
Doubts and pessimism
Other researchers remain cautious. Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, said it was important to note that we simply won't know anything about the viability of the therapy for humans until the clinical trial begins.
"We're always hopeful," he said, "but we have to temper our enthusiasm."
Some scientists expressed pessimism about the clinical trials. Lab mice have such close genetics that any two members of the same strain are essentially identical twins. This is not true in humans. Some experts worry that the cancer patients' bodies will reject the donated cells from the blood transfusion, or worse, that the white blood cells, designed to identify and attack anything foreign to them, will attack the body of the patient from the inside.
Cui said he is aware that the procedure comes with risks. But, he said, the white blood cell transfusions have been used in other fields of medicine for years.
"We've minimized all the risk, especially for these first few rounds of trials," he said. "We don't know what will happen, but we hope this will cure several types of cancer and help a few people in the next months. This could be another arrow in the cancer treatment quiver."
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/health_science/story/1124231.html
Such manipulation can happen in numerous ways. Often researchers and their work will be discredited and ridiculed in the academic community and the press, or a study can be bogged down with so many regulations and so much financial hanky-panky that it becomes impossible for the project to continue. Whatever the case, this story bears watching. Any possible remedy for cancer that can bypass the hazards of chemo and radiation therapies would seem to be welcomed by all, but unfortunately this is not always the case. This atmosphere that is so hostile to the truth is one of the reasons that nutritional and other natural approaches to fighting cancer, including a lifestyle of wellness that prevents the disease in the first place, have not been more widely accepted by the public and many in conventional medicine.
Cancer cure in mice to get human trials
Wake Forest University scientists studying genetic immunity in mice to start testing humans
Zoe Elizabeth Buck, Staff Writer
Clinical trials begin this week at Wake Forest University on a cancer therapy that has completely cured the disease in every mouse tested over the past few years.
The therapy involves the transfusion of white blood cells from cancer-resistant donors into cancer patients, letting loose a uniquely qualified army of disease fighters to attack the invading tumor.
Some scientists are skeptical about the move from mice to humans, but others are excited about the possibility of success.
Dr. Zheng Cui, the lead investigator, and his team at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine announced the move to human clinical trials Saturday at the Understanding Aging Conference in Los Angeles. The team recently won approval for human trials from the Food and Drug Administration.
"This is the first time that such aggressive cancer in mice has been eradicated like this," Cui said. "This is a very dramatic result."
The result is especially dramatic considering its discovery stemmed from a series of accidents, starting with one extraordinary mouse.
In the late 1990s, Cui and his team were using mice as experimental cancer patients for their research, injecting them with malignant cells. Within three to four weeks, as expected, all the injected mice developed tumors and died.
But in 1999, for some reason, one mouse didn't develop tumors and didn't die.
Dr. Lloyd Old of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, who was collaborating in the research, later said that if Cui had been trained as an immunologist, he would have thrown out the mouse right then. But Cui was trained as a medical doctor, and his curiosity led him to continue testing the oddball mouse, injecting it with higher and higher lethal doses of carcinogens.
No matter how many times the researchers tried to give the mouse cancer, it didn't develop a tumor, and it didn't die.
The mouse was immune to cancer.
Making sure
As cautious scientists, Cui and his team decided to breed the mouse and test its offspring for cancer immunity.
"We knew that if we hadn't made a mistake, something very dramatic was happening, but we had to know we weren't making a mistake," he said.
It wasn't a mistake. Three of the mouse's seven grandchildren didn't get cancer, either. Whatever was causing the cancer resistance was built into the mouse's family genes. News of the finding created a stir.
"Our lives were suddenly overtaken by an unexpected media frenzy," Cui wrote in 2003. Headlines proclaimed a cure for cancer -- albeit in mice.
"People got very excited for a reason," he said. "It was exciting. We had direct evidence for cancer immunity that we could reproduce at will. It was a very profound result, and it was not subtle. I don't think people could have overreacted."
The next step was to figure out how to transfer that cancer immunity from the special mice to mice that were dying of cancer. The solution is apparently hidden in the mice's white blood cells, which are like a tiny biological army. They are carried in the bloodstream to fight infection and disease throughout the body.
For some reason -- Cui and his team don't know why -- the white blood cells from the immune mice could defeat the cancer every time, while the other mice's white blood cells were unable to stave off the infection.
The majority of contemporary cancer research focuses on these cellular soldiers. But most research seeks to isolate certain parts of the cells and stimulate them in test tubes, a complex process.
Cui's procedure is simple.
"We don't have to do anything to manipulate the white blood cells," Cui said. All he and his team did was transfuse the immune mouse cells into the sick mice, and the tumors melted away.
"It's like we discovered aspirin, only instead of curing headaches it's curing cancer," Cui said. "We don't know how it works exactly, but it doesn't really matter."
A leap forward
Rather than spend years determining the mechanisms behind the miracle, Cui thought it was more important to press forward toward clinical trials in humans.
But Cui's eagerness to move forward could lead to problems.
"Anything that seems like a miracle always runs into roadblocks in the future," said Vivek Rangnekar, a cancer researcher at the University of Kentucky. "If you don't know the mechanism behind what is going on, you will not be equipped to deal with those roadblocks. For example, they could find that the cancer builds up a resistance, and if they don't know what's going on they will not be equipped to deal with that."
As Cui moves forward, he must first find a source for the cancer-fighting white blood cells -- the human equivalent of that miraculous mouse.
Next week, Cui's team will begin a search for cancer-resistant humans.
Next step: humans
Whether people are immune to cancer is probably rooted in their genetic background.
"Some families just don't have any cancer for generations, even among heavy smokers," he said. "Chances are it is probably not because they are lucky."
These cancer-resistant people are identified by examining how well their white blood cells fight off cancer cells in a test tube. Once a set of donors is selected, the clinical trial will move into the treatment stage, harvesting white blood cells from immune people and transfusing them into cancer patients. The process will be relatively painless by contrast with current cancer treatments such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy, which often have debilitating side effects.
"It's basically a blood transfusion -- a safe procedure that goes on all the time," Cui said.
Doubts and pessimism
Other researchers remain cautious. Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, said it was important to note that we simply won't know anything about the viability of the therapy for humans until the clinical trial begins.
"We're always hopeful," he said, "but we have to temper our enthusiasm."
Some scientists expressed pessimism about the clinical trials. Lab mice have such close genetics that any two members of the same strain are essentially identical twins. This is not true in humans. Some experts worry that the cancer patients' bodies will reject the donated cells from the blood transfusion, or worse, that the white blood cells, designed to identify and attack anything foreign to them, will attack the body of the patient from the inside.
Cui said he is aware that the procedure comes with risks. But, he said, the white blood cell transfusions have been used in other fields of medicine for years.
"We've minimized all the risk, especially for these first few rounds of trials," he said. "We don't know what will happen, but we hope this will cure several types of cancer and help a few people in the next months. This could be another arrow in the cancer treatment quiver."
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/health_science/story/1124231.html
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Wet Weather Bolsters Mosquito Population
It has been a difficult year weather-wise in many parts of the country due to heavy winter snows, rains, and the ensuing flooding this spring. One of the fallouts of this extreme weather has been a significant increase in the number of mosquitoes. As the article below highlights, huge numbers of mosquitoes are becoming an unusually difficult problem for many communities. Another article I read states that even the high rate of home foreclosures is playing a role, as many abandoned swimming pools are providing premium breeding grounds for these insects.
This issue can lead to panic and the abusive use of chemical methods of controlling mosquitoes, especially when the media plays on the fears of the public regarding the West Nile virus. Some municipalities are even resorting to mass spraying of toxic pesticides in neighborhoods, a practice that has almost ceased in the last several decades. Yes, mosquitoes can pose a health hazard, but overreacting by exposing people and the environment to dangerous chemicals is not the answer.
Common sense is called for here. Try to plan outdoor activities during times when the mosquitoes are not most active, especially avoiding being outdoors around dusk if at all possible. The use of long sleeved shirts and pants are recommended for those hiking in dense forest areas. Citronella candles are also advised, as is a good all-natural, DEET-FREE mosquito repellent like NoBite XF. B-Complex vitamins, ultrasonic devices, or daily consumption of fresh, organic garlic may help as well. Despite what the media says, the truth of the matter is that the chances of getting serious illnesses from mosquitoes, including West Nile virus, is quite slim, and simple protective all-natural measures are really quite effective.
First the floods, now the mosquitoes
Standing water producing perfect swarm, experts say
By Carolyn Starks and Vikki Ortiz Chicago Tribune reporters
11:17 PM CDT, June 27, 2008
Mother Nature flipped a switch this week that unleashed swarms of aggressive mosquitoes so hungry that bug-spraying teams are working overtime to calm frazzled nerves.
The onslaught of rainfall this spring created perfect breeding conditions for mosquitoes throughout the Chicago area. Many of the broods started to hatch in May but didn't go looking for a blood meal in full force until the recent blast of hot, muggy weather, experts said.
Those in charge of counting the insects are finding 300 or more mosquitoes in traps that usually contain 30, said George Balis of Clarke Environmental, a mosquito abatement company based in Roselle.
In flooded areas near the Fox River and Chain O' Lakes -- prime mosquito territory -- that roughly means an annoyance level 10 to 15 times higher than normal.
"We have a very substantial amount of floodwater mosquitoes that you can generally say are attacking the whole Chicago area," said Mike Szyska, director of the Northwest Mosquito Abatement District, which covers 241 square miles in the Cook County suburbs. "These are the very aggressive ones and are both daytime and nighttime biters."
Public health officials are worried about increasing numbers of Culex pipiens, the species that can carry the potentially deadly West Nile virus. That nasty skeeter is reproducing more rapidly than normal because of all the stagnant water.
While the number of infected mosquitoes is not high now, health officials believe a hot summer could increase the risk of disease from the virus in birds, animals and humans. The Illinois Department of Public Health reported in the past two months that three batches of mosquitoes tested positive for the virus in Evanston, and one each in Bartlett and Villa Park.
John Massey of Schaumburg thinks about the illness every time he slaps a mosquito dead. He's been doing that often lately.
Massey, 59, was recently swarmed on the golf course.
"All at once, they came out," he said. "There must be 20 different varieties."If victims aren't worrying, or itching, they're running.
Ray Koteras, 47, of Crystal Lake said he and other parents at children's baseball games this week spent as much time swatting their limbs as they did watching the action. His family, he said, has been forced to sprint from their garage to the house, slamming the door shut to keep the bugs out.
"The last couple weeks it's been . . . just swarming," Koteras said of the mosquitoes. "It's been brutal."
The buzzing clouds are particularly thick in parts of McHenry and Lake Counties, where stagnant water from the flooding is receding and leaving pools of larvae to hatch.
The Chain O' Lakes and Fox River, which closed this month due to dangerous conditions, were reopened Friday. But business owners along the water fear July 4 vacationers will have unwanted company.
"[The mosquitoes] come out around 9 p.m.," said Mel Christensen, a shuttle boat operator at Port of Blarney in Antioch. "They come out, and they're hungry. We've got a lot of standing water so they're going to be bad this year."
In Chicago, health workers have dropped larvicide into 300,000 catch basins and use about 80 traps to gauge the volume and types of mosquitoes.
"We're seeing loads of the nuisance mosquitoes at this point," said Tim Hadac, spokesman for the city's Department of Public Health.
Szyska said his teams have been working 12-hour days and weekends killing larvae in catch basins and spraying neighborhoods at night. Trying to control the pests, he said, often seems like a never-ending fight.
Arming themselves for battle, Allan and Swati Nielson perused the insect repellent aisle Friday at Cabela's Outdoor Gear Store in Hoffman Estates. They were preparing for a weekend camping trip that promised to be a bug fest.
The mosquitoes in their Park Ridge yard have been a plague, which they only expect to get worse.
"You'll sit there and they're just all around you," said Swati Nielson, 35. "You get bitten alive."
Tribune reporters Deborah Horan and Josh Noel contributed to this report.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-flood-mosquitoes_both_28jun28,0,7831461.story
This issue can lead to panic and the abusive use of chemical methods of controlling mosquitoes, especially when the media plays on the fears of the public regarding the West Nile virus. Some municipalities are even resorting to mass spraying of toxic pesticides in neighborhoods, a practice that has almost ceased in the last several decades. Yes, mosquitoes can pose a health hazard, but overreacting by exposing people and the environment to dangerous chemicals is not the answer.
Common sense is called for here. Try to plan outdoor activities during times when the mosquitoes are not most active, especially avoiding being outdoors around dusk if at all possible. The use of long sleeved shirts and pants are recommended for those hiking in dense forest areas. Citronella candles are also advised, as is a good all-natural, DEET-FREE mosquito repellent like NoBite XF. B-Complex vitamins, ultrasonic devices, or daily consumption of fresh, organic garlic may help as well. Despite what the media says, the truth of the matter is that the chances of getting serious illnesses from mosquitoes, including West Nile virus, is quite slim, and simple protective all-natural measures are really quite effective.
First the floods, now the mosquitoes
Standing water producing perfect swarm, experts say
By Carolyn Starks and Vikki Ortiz Chicago Tribune reporters
11:17 PM CDT, June 27, 2008
Mother Nature flipped a switch this week that unleashed swarms of aggressive mosquitoes so hungry that bug-spraying teams are working overtime to calm frazzled nerves.
The onslaught of rainfall this spring created perfect breeding conditions for mosquitoes throughout the Chicago area. Many of the broods started to hatch in May but didn't go looking for a blood meal in full force until the recent blast of hot, muggy weather, experts said.
Those in charge of counting the insects are finding 300 or more mosquitoes in traps that usually contain 30, said George Balis of Clarke Environmental, a mosquito abatement company based in Roselle.
In flooded areas near the Fox River and Chain O' Lakes -- prime mosquito territory -- that roughly means an annoyance level 10 to 15 times higher than normal.
"We have a very substantial amount of floodwater mosquitoes that you can generally say are attacking the whole Chicago area," said Mike Szyska, director of the Northwest Mosquito Abatement District, which covers 241 square miles in the Cook County suburbs. "These are the very aggressive ones and are both daytime and nighttime biters."
Public health officials are worried about increasing numbers of Culex pipiens, the species that can carry the potentially deadly West Nile virus. That nasty skeeter is reproducing more rapidly than normal because of all the stagnant water.
While the number of infected mosquitoes is not high now, health officials believe a hot summer could increase the risk of disease from the virus in birds, animals and humans. The Illinois Department of Public Health reported in the past two months that three batches of mosquitoes tested positive for the virus in Evanston, and one each in Bartlett and Villa Park.
John Massey of Schaumburg thinks about the illness every time he slaps a mosquito dead. He's been doing that often lately.
Massey, 59, was recently swarmed on the golf course.
"All at once, they came out," he said. "There must be 20 different varieties."If victims aren't worrying, or itching, they're running.
Ray Koteras, 47, of Crystal Lake said he and other parents at children's baseball games this week spent as much time swatting their limbs as they did watching the action. His family, he said, has been forced to sprint from their garage to the house, slamming the door shut to keep the bugs out.
"The last couple weeks it's been . . . just swarming," Koteras said of the mosquitoes. "It's been brutal."
The buzzing clouds are particularly thick in parts of McHenry and Lake Counties, where stagnant water from the flooding is receding and leaving pools of larvae to hatch.
The Chain O' Lakes and Fox River, which closed this month due to dangerous conditions, were reopened Friday. But business owners along the water fear July 4 vacationers will have unwanted company.
"[The mosquitoes] come out around 9 p.m.," said Mel Christensen, a shuttle boat operator at Port of Blarney in Antioch. "They come out, and they're hungry. We've got a lot of standing water so they're going to be bad this year."
In Chicago, health workers have dropped larvicide into 300,000 catch basins and use about 80 traps to gauge the volume and types of mosquitoes.
"We're seeing loads of the nuisance mosquitoes at this point," said Tim Hadac, spokesman for the city's Department of Public Health.
Szyska said his teams have been working 12-hour days and weekends killing larvae in catch basins and spraying neighborhoods at night. Trying to control the pests, he said, often seems like a never-ending fight.
Arming themselves for battle, Allan and Swati Nielson perused the insect repellent aisle Friday at Cabela's Outdoor Gear Store in Hoffman Estates. They were preparing for a weekend camping trip that promised to be a bug fest.
The mosquitoes in their Park Ridge yard have been a plague, which they only expect to get worse.
"You'll sit there and they're just all around you," said Swati Nielson, 35. "You get bitten alive."
Tribune reporters Deborah Horan and Josh Noel contributed to this report.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-flood-mosquitoes_both_28jun28,0,7831461.story
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Vaccinations: The Perspective of a Concerned Mother
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is the project of Barbara Loe Fisher, a mom who became an advocate for those who refuse to accept the propaganda and misinformation put forth by the vaccine pushers in Big Pharma, the AMA, FDA, CDC and other medical-political organizations. The motivation for her proactive stance was personal. She witnessed poor reactions to vaccines in her own children that seriously affected their health.
We have previously referenced articles from NVIC on this blog, as this group has produced much good work that takes a stand for the freedom of choice when it comes to vaccinating our children. I thought today's article was particularly fitting, as it presents a combination of factual information that makes a great case for questioning the wholesale acceptance of vaccines, but it also addresses the ethical and emotional issues that we as parents are confronted with regarding this crucial issue related to the health and welfare of our children. Vaccines are, and continue to be, questioned as to whether they are actually needed, and whether they cause harmful reactions and future health concerns in those that are subjected to the chemicals they contain.
A No-Brainer: Obey the M.D. With the Needle or My Conscience?
by Barbara Loe Fisher
www.NVIC.org
I know and respect a number of enlightened medical doctors working with Moms and Dads as equal partners in making health care decisions for children, which may include making informed vaccination choices that do not necessarily conform with government policy. I also admire responsible, insightful journalists who do their homework and write astute and balanced articles about vaccine safety and informed consent to vaccination. However, these tend to be the exception and not the rule.
As the vaccination debate becomes more contentious and the divide continues to widen between those who worship at the altar of medical science and those who prefer to kneel at a different kind of alter, caught in the middle are ordinary Americans being forced to choose between obeying their conscience and obeying a medical doctor wielding a needle. Some journalists are desperate to be part of the intellectual elite calling the shots (no pun intended) and go to great lengths to characterize those, who place spiritual faith and conscientious beliefs above the doctor's orders, as ignorant. The desire to discredit people refusing to have blind faith in the opinion of a medical school graduate is most intense when it comes to the issue of vaccination.
During the past 26 years that I have studied and written about vaccination and the informed consent principle, I have been fascinated by the lack of knowledge that doctors giving orders and some journalists, who dutifully assist them in persuading others to follow orders, possess about the subject. Lacking knowledge, they often prefer to canonize medical doctors promoting use of multiple vaccines in early childhood and try to marginalize those who do not believe in non-evidence based pronouncements that "Vaccines are safe and effective and the benefits always outweigh the risks."
Despite the attempt by medical doctors heading up federal and state health agencies to persuade people that vaccination is, in fact, the new "sacrament" (brilliantly labeled by that medical heretic, the late great Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.), vaccination is a medical intervention performed on a healthy person that has the inherent ability to result in the injury or death of that healthy person.
There are hard facts to consider when making a vaccine decision:
1) There can be no guarantee that the deliberate introduction of killed or live microorganisms into the body of a healthy person will not compromise the health or cause the death of that person either immediately or in the future;
2) There are very few biological predictors that have been identified by medical science to give advance warning that injury or death may occur from vaccination;
3) There is no guarantee that a vaccine will, indeed, protect a person from contracting or transmitting an infectious disease; and
4) There is an absence of adequate scientific knowledge about the way vaccines singly or in combination act in the human body at the cellular and molecular level, including whether certain genes predispose some individuals to a greater risk than others for suffering vaccine injury or death.
Therefore, vaccination is a medical procedure that could reasonably be termed experimental each time it is performed on an individual, whether that individual is healthy or has an undiagnosed health condition or genetic predisposition that could raise the risk for being harmed by vaccination.
Further, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and drug companies marketing vaccines openly state that the number of human subjects used in pre-licensing studies are too small to detect all vaccine side effects. So mass use of a new vaccine after the federal government licenses it and recommends it is a de facto uncontrolled scientific experiment. In this regard, the ethical principle of informed consent attains even greater moral, medical and legal significance.
Although doctors take offence when their opinions are challenged, they REALLY get mad when an ordinary Mom questions the value of injecting vaccines into her child 48 times in the first six years of life (now, with the CDC's addition an annual influenza shot and more vaccinations to the adolescent vaccine schedule, it is 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18). The arrogant, patronizing response by those doctors, who are intent on mindlessly implementing government policy before taking into consideration the potential risks of vaccination for the 1 in 6 highly vaccinated child in America already suffering with immune or brain dysfunction, is to throw the mother and child out of the office.
It can be especially infuriating for the medical school graduate practicing pediatrics to be confronted by a Mom (or Dad) who knows more about the toxic components, potential high risk factors and life altering side effects of vaccines than they are getting paid by parents to know. But that outrage does not compare to the outrage of mothers and fathers being told by legislators doing the bidding of Big Pharma that an elitist group of CDC-appointed M.D.'s and Ph.D's holding a few meetings in Atlanta should be given the power to make state laws forcing children to get every new vaccine that the pharmaceutical industry creates and sells.
And this is where faith and reason comes in: the reconciliation of faith and reason that leads to a conviction which may be guided by prayer but is confirmed by conscience.
The club that medical doctors use to keep the people ignorant and bound to them by a golden chain from birth is fear: fear of microbes; fear of infection; fear of nature. Like primitives drawing menacing creatures on the walls of caves to ward off evil spirits, the men and women with M.D. written after their names get out their needles and poke them into babies to ward off the evil microbes they believe are out to get us. Giving themselves different names - vaccinologists, pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, public health officials - they are convinced they must fight a war with microbes and believe the only way to save humanity is to force everyone to get injected with more and more of those lab-altered microbes over and over and over again.
Then they tell us we must have faith that every time something bad happens after vaccination, it is only a "coincidence."
Let's see. Shall I consult the Merck Manual or the intelligence God gave me? Shall I obey the medical school graduate or my conscience?
For me and a lot of parents who have watched our once healthy children suffer life-altering vaccine reactions, it is no-brainer. I will stand up for the human right to use the intellect, heart and soul God gave me, pray for guidance, and obey my conscience when it comes to using a pharmaceutical product that could kill or injure me or my children. No government official or medical doctor has the moral authority to take my life or the life of my children to prop up a one-size-fits-all government policy that does not acknowledge biodiversity within the human species or respect individual human life.
Source: NVIC Vaccine E-Newsletter of June 11, 2008
We have previously referenced articles from NVIC on this blog, as this group has produced much good work that takes a stand for the freedom of choice when it comes to vaccinating our children. I thought today's article was particularly fitting, as it presents a combination of factual information that makes a great case for questioning the wholesale acceptance of vaccines, but it also addresses the ethical and emotional issues that we as parents are confronted with regarding this crucial issue related to the health and welfare of our children. Vaccines are, and continue to be, questioned as to whether they are actually needed, and whether they cause harmful reactions and future health concerns in those that are subjected to the chemicals they contain.
A No-Brainer: Obey the M.D. With the Needle or My Conscience?
by Barbara Loe Fisher
www.NVIC.org
I know and respect a number of enlightened medical doctors working with Moms and Dads as equal partners in making health care decisions for children, which may include making informed vaccination choices that do not necessarily conform with government policy. I also admire responsible, insightful journalists who do their homework and write astute and balanced articles about vaccine safety and informed consent to vaccination. However, these tend to be the exception and not the rule.
As the vaccination debate becomes more contentious and the divide continues to widen between those who worship at the altar of medical science and those who prefer to kneel at a different kind of alter, caught in the middle are ordinary Americans being forced to choose between obeying their conscience and obeying a medical doctor wielding a needle. Some journalists are desperate to be part of the intellectual elite calling the shots (no pun intended) and go to great lengths to characterize those, who place spiritual faith and conscientious beliefs above the doctor's orders, as ignorant. The desire to discredit people refusing to have blind faith in the opinion of a medical school graduate is most intense when it comes to the issue of vaccination.
During the past 26 years that I have studied and written about vaccination and the informed consent principle, I have been fascinated by the lack of knowledge that doctors giving orders and some journalists, who dutifully assist them in persuading others to follow orders, possess about the subject. Lacking knowledge, they often prefer to canonize medical doctors promoting use of multiple vaccines in early childhood and try to marginalize those who do not believe in non-evidence based pronouncements that "Vaccines are safe and effective and the benefits always outweigh the risks."
Despite the attempt by medical doctors heading up federal and state health agencies to persuade people that vaccination is, in fact, the new "sacrament" (brilliantly labeled by that medical heretic, the late great Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.), vaccination is a medical intervention performed on a healthy person that has the inherent ability to result in the injury or death of that healthy person.
There are hard facts to consider when making a vaccine decision:
1) There can be no guarantee that the deliberate introduction of killed or live microorganisms into the body of a healthy person will not compromise the health or cause the death of that person either immediately or in the future;
2) There are very few biological predictors that have been identified by medical science to give advance warning that injury or death may occur from vaccination;
3) There is no guarantee that a vaccine will, indeed, protect a person from contracting or transmitting an infectious disease; and
4) There is an absence of adequate scientific knowledge about the way vaccines singly or in combination act in the human body at the cellular and molecular level, including whether certain genes predispose some individuals to a greater risk than others for suffering vaccine injury or death.
Therefore, vaccination is a medical procedure that could reasonably be termed experimental each time it is performed on an individual, whether that individual is healthy or has an undiagnosed health condition or genetic predisposition that could raise the risk for being harmed by vaccination.
Further, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and drug companies marketing vaccines openly state that the number of human subjects used in pre-licensing studies are too small to detect all vaccine side effects. So mass use of a new vaccine after the federal government licenses it and recommends it is a de facto uncontrolled scientific experiment. In this regard, the ethical principle of informed consent attains even greater moral, medical and legal significance.
Although doctors take offence when their opinions are challenged, they REALLY get mad when an ordinary Mom questions the value of injecting vaccines into her child 48 times in the first six years of life (now, with the CDC's addition an annual influenza shot and more vaccinations to the adolescent vaccine schedule, it is 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18). The arrogant, patronizing response by those doctors, who are intent on mindlessly implementing government policy before taking into consideration the potential risks of vaccination for the 1 in 6 highly vaccinated child in America already suffering with immune or brain dysfunction, is to throw the mother and child out of the office.
It can be especially infuriating for the medical school graduate practicing pediatrics to be confronted by a Mom (or Dad) who knows more about the toxic components, potential high risk factors and life altering side effects of vaccines than they are getting paid by parents to know. But that outrage does not compare to the outrage of mothers and fathers being told by legislators doing the bidding of Big Pharma that an elitist group of CDC-appointed M.D.'s and Ph.D's holding a few meetings in Atlanta should be given the power to make state laws forcing children to get every new vaccine that the pharmaceutical industry creates and sells.
And this is where faith and reason comes in: the reconciliation of faith and reason that leads to a conviction which may be guided by prayer but is confirmed by conscience.
The club that medical doctors use to keep the people ignorant and bound to them by a golden chain from birth is fear: fear of microbes; fear of infection; fear of nature. Like primitives drawing menacing creatures on the walls of caves to ward off evil spirits, the men and women with M.D. written after their names get out their needles and poke them into babies to ward off the evil microbes they believe are out to get us. Giving themselves different names - vaccinologists, pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, public health officials - they are convinced they must fight a war with microbes and believe the only way to save humanity is to force everyone to get injected with more and more of those lab-altered microbes over and over and over again.
Then they tell us we must have faith that every time something bad happens after vaccination, it is only a "coincidence."
Let's see. Shall I consult the Merck Manual or the intelligence God gave me? Shall I obey the medical school graduate or my conscience?
For me and a lot of parents who have watched our once healthy children suffer life-altering vaccine reactions, it is no-brainer. I will stand up for the human right to use the intellect, heart and soul God gave me, pray for guidance, and obey my conscience when it comes to using a pharmaceutical product that could kill or injure me or my children. No government official or medical doctor has the moral authority to take my life or the life of my children to prop up a one-size-fits-all government policy that does not acknowledge biodiversity within the human species or respect individual human life.
Source: NVIC Vaccine E-Newsletter of June 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
