Study finds connection between prenatal exposure to BPA and aggression during toddler years

(NaturalNews) Researchers from the Harvard University School of Public Health have made a disturbing new discovery about the plastics chemical bisphenol-A (BPA). It turns out that prenatal BPA exposure can spur aggressive and undesirable behaviors in girls after they are born and reach their toddler years. Published in the journal Pediatrics , the study analyzed a group of 244 mothers and their three-year-old daughters living in the Cincinnati, Oh., area. The study team gathered and studied gestational and childhood BPA exposures using urine samples from the mothers, and compared various exposure levels among the children to their respective behavioral profiles. The team discovered that for each ten-fold increase in gestational BPA exposure levels, young girls exhibited significantly more indicators of anxiety and depression than their less- or non-exposed counterparts. Young girls exposed to high BPA levels were also more emotionally disturbed than the others and had a more difficult time controlling their inhibitions. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly funded the study as part of an investigation into the safety of BPA. “Parents should be concerned about these findings,” says study author Joe Braun. “As the mothers concentration of BPA rose, the girls born to those mothers had higher scores on these behavior problem indices. If pregnant women or parents are concerned about exposure to BPA, they can try to reduce it by limiting their exposure to canned foods and packaged foods.” Although these particular findings were limited strictly to females, previous studies have found a similar connection between prenatal BPA exposure and poor behavior in both sexes. Back in 2009, a study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that BPA’s endocrine-disrupting effects can harm both girls and boys. Besides impairing proper neurological development, which is likely the reason for behavior problems later in life, prenatal BPA exposure was found to “masculinize” unborn females, and “feminize” unborn males. It appears, based on that study, that BPA actually blocks the proper growth and development of human sex hormones (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48065/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__BPA_in_the_womb_shows_link_to_kids%E2%80%99_behavior). Both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC), however, continue to insist that BPA is safe, despite the plethora of scientific data showing that the chemical is harmful. Sources for this article include: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-links-bpa-exposure-in-womb-to-behavior-problems-in-toddler-girls/2011/10/24/gIQA6ihRDM_story.html http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48065/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__BPA_in_the_womb_shows_link_to_kids%E2%80%99_behavior

Portland, Me., officials consider allowing raw milk sales at farmers markets – as long vendors include official CDC propaganda

(NaturalNews) Maine is one of ten US states that currently recognizes the freedom of individuals to buy and sell raw milk at the farm and retail level (http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/raw_milk_map.htm). But raw milk sold at farmers markets technically does not fall under the banner of either “farm” or “retail” sales, which prompted a recent crackdown by (nit-picky) Portland, Me., health officials against its sale at such events. In response to this needless crackdown, farmers, vendors, and patrons who support the sale of raw milk at farmers markets showed up at a recent city council meeting to push for an amendment to lift the ban. And The Portland Press Herald (PPH) reports that members of the Portland City Council’s Health and Recreation Commission have actually recommended approval of an ordinance that will allow raw milk sales at city farmers markets. But this recommendation is reportedly contingent upon the inclusion of a ridiculous warning pamphlet developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that is filled with the agency’s unfounded biases and superstitions about raw milk’s alleged risks, none of which are definitively backed by sound science. The CDC still claims, for instance, that raw milk is inherently dangerous, no matter how it is produced, and that pasteurization is a form of “minimal processing” that magically makes milk safe for human consumption. In reality, raw milk produced on clean, small-scale farms is far healthier than the pasteurized milk product sold in stores across North America, which has caused more illness outbreaks and deaths than raw milk (http://www.realmilk.com/rawmilkoverview.html). Nevertheless, raw milk sales are legal both on the farm and in retail stores in Maine, and the only labeling requirement for raw milk products sold in this manner is that the containers be clearly labeled “not pasteurized.” So what the Portland City Council is suggesting for raw milk sold at farmers market sales is nothing short of a subtle assault on food freedom. “I just find it cumbersome,” said Larry Bruns, manager of one of the farmers markets in Portland, to PPH concerning the proposal. “Pretty soon you’ll need one of these (consumer fact sheets) for everything we sell at the farmers market including spinach, lettuce and raw greens. It’s a slippery slope you are heading down.” Sources for this article include: http://www.pressherald.com/news/farmers-market-sales-of-raw-milk-endorsed_2011-11-16.html

Mysterious white goo repeatedly found blanketing cancer-stricken Turkish city — are chemtrails to blame?

(NaturalNews) Residents of Dilovasi, an industrial suburb just outside of Istanbul, Turkey, have been looking for answers concerning a mysterious substance that, on numerous occasions, has been found covering cars, trees, clotheslines, and vegetable gardens throughout the city. Milliyet , a Turkish newspaper, reports that government officials are currently trying to identify the source of this sticky goo, which has reportedly made a number of people ill and ruined local crops. According to Hurriyet Daily News (HDN), the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey is conducting an investigation into the matter, but only after local media began to report that the substance could not be washed or removed from clothes, crops, and other contaminated items. “My products were worth at least 20,000 Turkish Liras (about $10,695), but they are all destroyed now. Cabbage, leeks, and other produce items were ruined by the goo. I cannot sell these to anyone. I have to throw them away. This substance also covered the windows of my greenhouse and it blocks the sunshine,” said Alaattin Illik, a Dilovasi resident and greenhouse owner. According to Digital Journal , local officials in Dilovasi, which is a heavy industrial area with roughly 200 industrial plants around the area, have been accused of covering up the severity of toxic pollution in the area. This fact is made evident by the higher-than-usual cancer rate in the area, which is roughly 30 times higher than the national average. But another possible explanation for the unidentified chemical blankets is “chemtrails,” a chemical spraying program in which jets deliberately release various materials into the stratosphere. Following days of heavy chemtrail spraying, anomalous materials and substances similar to the kind found in Dilovasi have been observed in a variety of places around the world. Unlike normal jet exhaust contrails that dissipate quickly, chemtrails linger in the sky and often spread into artificial clouds. In some instances, these chemtrails actually leave behind what appears to be particle dust residue, spider web-like filaments, and slimy goo similar to what is being found in Dilovasi (http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/Articles/chemtrails_over_america.htm). Be sure to watch the following segment from a 1997 episode of Unsolved Mysteries where residents of Oakville, Wash., were sickened by unidentified goo falling from the sky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvRusfXUaW4 Sources for this article include: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=white-material-to-be-searched-by-officials-2011-11-09 http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/chemical-snow-blankets-cancer-hit-turkish-town.html

Susan G. Komen for the Cure openly denies science by claiming BPA exposure has no connection to breast cancer, insists chemical is safe

(NaturalNews) The breast cancer research group Susan G. Komen for the Cure seems more interested in keeping its chemical industry donors happy than it is in actually finding a cure for breast cancer. A recent story in Mother Jones explains that, despite the more than 130 scientific studies that demonstrate a clear connection between bisphenol-A (BPA) exposure and breast cancer, the group continues to deny any link between the two, and insists that BPA is safe. Seemingly countless studies in recent years have shown that BPA, which is found in plastics, can liners, store receipts, and other consumer products, is linked to breast cancer and other diseases. The European Union (EU), Canada, and some localized areas of the US have all banned the chemical in baby products for this very reason. Even the US President’s Cancer Panel in its 2010 report explains that BPA exposure can cause breast cancer, cause breast cancer cells to proliferate, and even make healthy cells act like cancer cells (http://www.naturalnews.com/028765_environmental_chemicals_cancer.html) But Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which collectively receives millions of dollars every year from companies like the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, General Mills, and Georgia-Pacific, all of which use BPA in their product materials, claims that BPA is safe. The group even makes the absurd statement on its website in defense of BPA that “[l]inks between plastics and cancer are often reported by the media and in email hoaxes.” Such a ridiculous statement makes a little bit more sense, though, when considering that donor Georgia-Pacific’s parent company, Koch Industries, is a major manufacturer of BPA-laden epoxy resins. Manufacturing giant 3M, another major Komen for the Cure donor, is also a member of the American Chemistry Council, a trade association that claims BPA is safe as well. In a telephone interview with Mother Jones , University of Missouri biology professor and BPA export Dr. Frederick vom Saal reportedly told the magazine that Komen for the Cure’s statements concerning BPA demonstrate “significant ignorance.” That a foundation, whose stated goal is to find a cure for cancer, would make such a claim is “astounding,” he added. Komen for the Cure continues to lie to women about the nature of breast cancer Komen for the Cure is notorious for denying a link between any chemical exposure and breast cancer, fueling instead the myth that most cases of breast cancer are inherited. In reality, less than ten percent of breast cancer cases have a hereditary link, while the more than 90 percent of other cases have a definitive environmental link — but Komen for the Cure apparently could not care less about the truth. The sad reality is that the Komen Foundation, which is supported by millions of highly-driven individuals who believe the group is working in the best interests of women, continues to expose itself as nothing but a pseudo-scientific, fraudulent research group. The organization’s continual denial of sound science in favor of its own baseless opinion on the matter shows that another agenda is at work — and it is one that, by all appearances, has no basis in actually curing or preventing breast cancer. Sources for this article include: http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/09/breast-cancer-komen-bpa

Prenatal exposure to common chemicals called phthalates linked to brain damage

(NaturalNews) According to the American Chemistry Council, a family of plasticizer compounds called phthlates are fine and dandy additions to everything from wall coverings, flooring, toys, perfumes, shampoos and IV tubes. In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studies show average phthalates exposures are below levels set by U.S. federal agencies to be protective of human health. So that means they must be safe and nothing to worry about, but this is not true. Although the federal government and the chemical industry lobbyists may want you to believe phthalates are innocuous, scientists have found that these widepread chemical contaminants are potent endocrine system disrupters. And now a newly published study by researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health links phthalate exposure while still in the womb to changes in the brain and increased behavioral problems in children by the age three. Previous studies of school-age children have already pointed to a strong association between prenatal exposure to phthalates and developmental problems. However, the new study, just published in Environmental Health Perspectives , is the first to investigate phthalate exposure before birth and the prevalence of mental, motor and behavioral problems in children during their preschool years. The children of 319 non-smoking inner city women who gave birth between 1999 and 2006 were followed for several years by the research team, headed by Robin M. Whyatt, DrPH, deputy director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health. The scientists documented prenatal exposure by measuring metabolites of four phthalates in the mothers urine. Then the researchers evaluated links between pre-birth exposures to these phthalates and the mental, motor and behavioral development of toddlers when they were 3 years old. The scientists used a well-known developmental test, the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II, to document the mental and motor development of the children. In addition, behavioral problems were assessed by asking the moms who participated in the research to complete the widely used Child Behavior Checklist (used for kids between one and a half and 5 years of age). The results showed that higher prenatal exposures to two of the phthalates significantly increased the odds of motor delay, an indication of potential future problems with fine and gross motor coordination. But the news gets even more troublesome. One of the phthalates appeared to cause significant decreases in mental development in girls. Prenatal exposures to three of the phthalates were also significantly associated with behavior problems including anxiety and depression and withdrawn behavior in both little boys and girls. “Our results suggest that prenatal exposure to these phthalates adversely affects child mental, motor and behavioral development during the preschool years,” Dr. Whyatt said in a statement to the media. “The results add to a growing public health concern about the widespread use of phthalates in consumer products.” So how could phthalates affect the developing brain? No one knows for sure yet. But Dr. Whyatt, who is also professor of clinical Environmental Health Sciences, pointed out that phthalates disrupt the body’s hormone systems, including the function of the thyroid gland. They also lower production of testosterone, which is needed for the brain to develop normally. “The results are concerning since increasing exposures from the lowest 25 percent to the highest 25 percent among the women in our study was associated with a doubling or tripling in the odds of motor and/or behavioral problems in the children,” Pam Factor-Litvak, PhD, the senior epidemiologist on the study, explained in the press statement. For more information: http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/news

Medical atrocities routinely committed against chimpanzees in the name of science

(NaturalNews) The question of whether chimpanzees and other primates should be used for biomedical research is an issue that has recently been reinvigorated thanks to 186 chimps at the Alamogordo Primate Facility in New Mexico who are waiting for their verdict of either life in a grassy sanctuary or a life of torture in the name of medical research. For years, these chimps were used for biomedical research, primarily for hepatitis and HIV. Lennie, once a space chimp, has been documented as suffering atrocities, including being infected with HIV and hepatitis as well as enduring four spinal taps, a bone-marrow biopsy and repeated blood draws, to name a few. All of these very stressful experiments, no doubt, contributed to his death, apparently from heart disease, in 2002. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a U.S. government entity, is interested in relocating these chimps from their “sanctuary” on an Air Force base in New Mexico, where they’ve been on a 10-year hiatus from invasive experimentation, to the Texas Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio, where they’ll be put back into invasive research. Due to public outcry spearheaded by animal rights activists, such as the Humane Society, Animal Protection of New Mexico and In Defense of Animals, the NIH has commissioned a panel to determine the fate of chimpanzees in experimentation. An analysis – to be completed in seven months – is being conducted by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the medical branch of the independent National Academy of Sciences, “to reassess the scientific need for the continued use of chimpanzees to accelerate biomedical discoveries.” According to Eric Kleiman, the Research Director for In Defense of Animals, the IOM process is illegitimate and the outcome a foregone conclusion because of the pro-experimentation make-up of the panel and the fact that the NIH deliberately omitted the topic of ethics from the panel’s charge. For Kleiman, who’s been fighting against chimpanzee experimentation for seventeen years now, it’s a frustrating scenario. He points to what he calls a “remarkable” editorial in Nature , one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. In its June 16 issue, the journal wrote that “[The NIH] may wish to divorce the science from the ethics, but society at large will not accept such a distinction. Nor is it intellectually defensible….” Consequently, Kleiman believes that the IOM report will not be definitive. The same Nature editorial wrote that the panel’s report will provide a “valuable starting point” for the much broader discussion of the use of chimpanzees in experimentation. In fact, many researchers now believe that animal testing isn’t necessary anymore. A Petri dish can hold just as much knowledge as a live animal. For the recently-published McClatchy Newspapers Special Report “Chimps: Life in the Lab,” Arthur Caplan, a University of Pennsylvania ethicist who chaired a government panel in the 1980′s that set guidelines for animal research stated that, “the burden of justifying the research is on the researcher, and it’s very high. For primate research, you had better be able to show me that you’ve got something that’s pretty promising: an HIV vaccine, a cancer drug.” “Chimpanzees have not been a universally satisfactory model for human diseases,” concluded the National Research Council (affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences) in a 1997 report; while Science Director, Jarrod Bailey, of the anti-animal testing New England Anti-Vivisection Society is quoted as saying, “100 vaccines had been tested in nonhuman primates, including chimpanzees, and success in animals didn’t translate to success in humans.” Of course, groups like the NIH stand by their beliefs that these animals are important to their research, however there are myriad factors to consider. So where do we draw the line? “When it comes to animal experiments, in general, we’re one of the most regressive countries in the world,” laments Kleiman as he explains that, “NIH is the largest funder of animal experiments.” America is the only country, besides Gabon, that allows for invasive experiments to be conducted on chimpanzees. As a country that should be leading the way, we are falling radically behind in the arena of ethics and animal rights. Still, America isn’t entirely at fault. Although it is true that most countries have outlawed such experimentation, their companies are still free to travel overseas to utilize American facilities. Such allowances are simply loopholes and should not absolve these countries of their culpability in the perpetuation of this heinous activity. After an hour-long conversation with Kleiman, it was clear that there was a whole lot more to the story than most people are aware of, quite literally enough to write a book about. The labyrinthine issue is a mine-filled mess of fabrications and deceptions. “They’ve [the NIH] violated the law, they’ve lied to Congress,” says Kleiman. “What they’re legally doing to these chimpanzees is appalling. The NIH shouldn’t be allowed within a thousand miles of them.” When asked what he expects to see change over the next ten years, Kleiman does not seem optimistic, even though he believes the NIH’s lack of use of these chimpanzees at the APF over the past ten years is a clear indication the agency’s claims that these chimps are vital for experimentation is false. The reality is “the research goes where the money goes,” and “the NIH still has an ‘animal-model’ mindset.” He explains that much of the research conducted on animals is for useless experiments that aren’t cited by anyone but the researchers themselves. “It’s a fundamentally broken system,” says Kleiman. At some point, when playing God with the creatures we cohabitate with on planet earth, we have to ask ourselves what our obligation is as caretakers, and how long can we keep declaring that the ends justifies the means. The Dalai Lama has said that, “Today more than ever before, life must be characterized by a sense of universal responsibility, not only nation to nation and human to human, but also human to other forms of life.” Even Einstein said, “Our task must be to free ourselves — by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.” From spirituality to science, the answer seems crystal clear. Let’s hope the panel sees it that way too. When asked what the general public can do to support this cause and the freedom of the Alamogordo chimpanzees, Kleiman suggests going to this link (which provides information on contacting your representatives/senators): http://ida.convio.net/site/MessageViewer/&printer_friendly=1?em_id=18201.0&dlv_id=20641. For More Information on this Issue: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474268a.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/24/v-print/112433/as-science-turns-from-chimp-research.html http://idausa.org/endchimpresearch http://idausa.org/rr http://nihchimpcruelty.com To Contact the NIH: http://www.nih.gov/about/contact.htm Texas Biomedical Research Institute – Chimpanzee Program Info: http://txbiomed.org/SNPRC/primates_chimpanzees.aspx Watch Papa Gorilla play with Baby Gorilla: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKq-Tmxyly4 A Documentary Film (coming soon) on a Chimpanzee Raised by a Human Family: http://www.project-nim.com/

Interview with Dr. John Cannell on benefits of vitamin D

(NaturalNews) Mike Adams recently interviewed the Executive Director of the Vitamin D Council, Dr. John Cannell, MD, in order to obtain more information about the nutrient which has been gaining ground as a proven necessity for cancer protection, good overall health, and a strong immune system. Vitamin D has been proven to reduce the risk of many types of cancer. Listen to the full interview here: http://soundcloud.com/healthranger/interview-john-cannell-vitamin-d The Vitamin D Council — a group of approximately 15 scientists, doctors, and PhDs, all respected in their fields — provides research that proves the effectiveness of Vitamin D in severely lessening cancer risks. The Council recently reviewed the most relevant literature on Vitamin D and subsequently tripled the daily Vitamin D dose recommendations for healthy adults. Vitamin D is a powerful activator and supporter of immune response; Dr. Cannell discusses with Adams the specific role it plays in this response, in and why this is so crucial to preventative health and healing. In the informative audio interview now available on NaturalNews, Dr. Cannell also speaks candidly with Mike Adams about various little-known facts and myths about Vitamin D and discusses the many reasons it plays a vastly important part in shaping the health of humans. This special interview is brimming with over an hour’s worth of insight about significant Vitamin D-related facts. Some examples of what else you will learn from Dr. Cannell in the interview: • What the Vitamin D Council upped the daily Vitamin D dose recommendations to for adults, teens, children, and infants • The links between Vitamin D deficiency and mental disorders such as schizophrenia and autism, as well as Vitamin D deficiencies and other disease like: diabetes, bone disorders, kidney health, cancer, mood, heart disease • Why Vitamin D level affects so many different aspects of health and areas of the body through its numerous mechanisms of action • How Vitamin D affects your genetic code and works in a very primitive way to treat and heal a variety of diseases • Why Cannell recommends at least 5000 units of Vitamin D a day • What percentage of breast milk in the US has no Vitamin D in it… it’s a startling statistic! • What percentage of human genomes are directly regulated by Vitamin D • How Vitamin D affects the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of seasonal vaccines • Why weaning toddlers from formula to juice is dangerous for their health and Vitamin D levels • How you can calculate how much Vitamin D you are making outdoors just by viewing your shadow • The best place to buy an affordable in-home blood test that properly measures your Vitamin D levels • The effect our country’s obsession with soap and cleanliness could be having on our Vitamin D levels • How the cosmetology industry has played a huge part in the generation of the myth that sunlight is a carcinogen • How Vitamin D acts as a chelating agent to rid your body of heavy metals and toxins And much more! This information about Vitamin D and its powerful ability to fight cancer risks and fortify your health is not something to miss out on. To access the interview and soak up some beneficial Vitamin D wisdom, visit this link: http://soundcloud.com/healthranger/interview-john-cannell-vitamin-d

British woman develops allergy to electricity following chemotherapy treatment

(NaturalNews) British woman Janice Tunnicliffe cannot watch TV, keeps her washing machine in a concrete outhouse and cannot have neighbors with wireless internet because she is “allergic” to electricity. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8520405/Meet-the-woman-allergic-to-electricity.html) The problems began following chemotherapy treatment for bowel cancer. The cancer had not spread but it was decided that she should have chemotherapy after her surgery as a precautionary measure. Shortly afterward her unusual problem started, she began to feel ill whenever she was near electrical and wireless devices in her home. What could the rare condition, called electrosensitivity, say about chemotherapy or about the electrical and wireless devices that abound in our lives? Tunnicliffe, 55, cannot bear to be anywhere near electromagnetic fields of any kind. She even had to cover her windows with a special metallic material to deflect any electromagnetic waves coming in. Her condition, which requires her to avoid cell phones, radios, kitchen appliances, computers, and wireless internet, among other things, has left her completely isolated from the world filled to the brim with these devices that the rest of us live in. She suffers constant headaches, chest pains, nausea and tingling in her arms and legs whenever she is near electrical devices or items that emit a signal. The chemo connection The medical profession has been slow to recognize electrosensitivity as an illness, according to Graham Lamburn, technical manager at the independent organization Powerwatch, which promotes safer environments, and the causes are still unknown. But the timing of the Chemotherapy and the onset of her illness seals the deal for Tunnicliffe. “Personally, I think there must be a link with the chemotherapy and the ES,” she said. “But no one is going to admit that.” Toxicity of chemotherapy In recent years more studies and more experts are beginning to acknowledge the toxic impact chemotherapy has on the human body even for the workers who only handle chemotherapy agents. A 10-year study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control released in 2010 confirmed that chemotherapy agents continue to contaminate workspaces, and are still being found in the urine of those who handle them. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38114586/ns/health-cancer/t/lifesaving-cancer-drugs-may-put-workers-lives-risk/) “If cancer specialists were to admit publicly that chemotherapy is of limited usefulness and is often dangerous, the public might demand a radical change in direction,” wrote Ralph W. Moss in his book “The Cancer Industry”. A 2010 study from Indiana University adds to the growing list of harmful side effects caused by chemotherapy. According to scientists, the chemical cancer treatment destroys gray matter in the brain associated with cognitive function and memory. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029996_chemotherapy_brain_function.html#ixzz1MuC7AzE3) A 2006 study published in the online edition of Breast Cancer Research and Treatment showed that chemotherapy might change the way the brain works, causing mild forgetfulness and brain fog in some cancer survivors, often described as “chemobrain”. (http://www.naturalnews.com/020665.html#ixzz1MuCJRRk6) Canary in the coal mine? Aside from the dangers of chemotherapy, what about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation? Canaries were often used in coal mines as a warning system because toxic gases would kill the bird before they would affect the miners. Could Ms. Tunnicliffe, made extra sensitive by illness, be the canary of the electrical world? Possibly so, according to a new report by the Council of Europe’s Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. Last week, the powerful European body ruled that immediate action to protect children was required after examining evidence that cell phones and wireless networks have “potentially harmful” effects on humans. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8514380/Ban-mobile-phones-and-wireless-networks-in-schools-say-European-leaders.html) It is crucial to avoid repeating the mistakes made when public health officials were slow to recognize the dangers of asbestos, tobacco smoking and lead in petrol, according to the report. The report also pointed to potential health risks from cordless phones and baby monitors, which use similar technology. “Mobile phone technology is clearly incredibly beneficial and useful,” said Professor Paul Elliot of Imperial College in London and lead researcher in an international study of the long-term effects of mobile phone use on 200,000 people. “But we have to weigh up those potential health effects, so it is responsible to do research on that. In children, that research has not yet really been done, so we need more research in this area. In the meantime the advice is not to be excessive in use.” Sources for this article include: http://www.naturalnews.com/029996_chemotherapy_brain_function.html#ixzz1MuC7AzE3 http://www.naturalnews.com/020665.html#ixzz1MuCJRRk6 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8514380/Ban-mobile-phones-and-wireless-networks-in-schools-say-European-leaders.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8520405/Meet-the-woman-allergic-to-electricity.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38114586/ns/health-cancer/t/lifesaving-cancer-drugs-may-put-workers-lives-risk/

Water fluoridation is a civil rights violation say Atlanta civil rights leaders

(NaturalNews) On April 18, Atlanta civil rights leaders called for an end to Georgia’s mandatory water fluoridation practices April on the grounds that it negatively and disproportionately impacts the health of black families and the poor. Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and former Atlanta Mayor, along with Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, Pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta, both inductees in the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame, expressed concerns about the fairness, safety, and full disclosure regarding fluoridation in letters to the state’s minority and majority legislative leaders. Studies show that despite fluoridation, tooth decay is higher in blacks. Dental fluorosis, caused by overexposure to fluoride which can result in pitting of tooth enamel and mottling of the teeth, is also higher in blacks. The Department of Health and Human Services proposes to lower water fluoride levels to alleviate the growing dental fluorosis epidemic but the Fluoride Action Network submitted scientific evidence to HHS indicating that, to preserve health, fluoridation must stop completely. “My father was a dentist,” Young said. “I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices and policies.” Fluoride has been linked to many health problems, according to FAN, including lowered IQ in 24 human studies and damage to the brain in over 100 animal studies. “The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has designated kidney patients, diabetics, seniors and babies as ‘susceptible subpopulations’ that are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides.” Dudley said. “Black citizens are disproportionately affected by kidney disease and diabetes, and are therefore more impacted by fluorides.” Infants, one of the sensitive subpopulations, who are fed formula made with fluoridated tap water will receive up to 175 times more fluoride than breast-fed infants, according to FAN. Infants zero to six months old, the smallest and most vulnerable in our population, were completely excluded from risk calculations in HHS’s proposal. “I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies.” Young said. “If they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count?” “This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion,” he said. “We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist.” The attack on water fluoridation is just one of many building across the country. Others include: An American Association for Justice Newsletter for trial lawyers describes potential fluoride legal actions based on personal injury, consumer fraud, and civil rights harm; a bipartisan group of Tennessee legislators, in a letter to their state’s Health Commissioner, expressed their concern about fluoridation’s undesirable impact on babies and other groups; a bipartisan group of New York City Council Members has also introduced legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC; and, in Central Texas, Austin’s City Council recently held a hearing on fluoridation in response to pressure from local citizens. “I support the holding of ‘Fluoride-gate’ hearings at the state and national level,” Durley said, “so we can learn why we haven’t been openly told that fluorides build up in the body over time [and] why our government agencies haven’t told the black community openly that fluorides disproportionately harm black Americans…” Sources for this article include: http://fluoridealert.org/press.release.4-14-11.html

Betrayal of a Nation: Why U.S. health authorities are keeping you vitamin D deficient and who stands to gain

(NaturalNews) Dr. Anne Looker and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently made vitamin D legend, Professor Hector DeLuca of University of Wisconsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_DeLuca), and certain folks at big pharma very happy with her widely-reported analysis of the vitamin D status of Americans. Using definitions of deficiency straight from the November 2010 Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Vitamin D Report – definitions that no vitamin D scientist I know agrees with, except perhaps Professor DeLuca – Dr. Looker reassured Americans their vitamin D levels were sufficient. Instead of a lower limit of 40, 30, or even 20 ng/ml, Dr. Looker and her CDC colleagues actually said any American with vitamin D levels below 12 ng/ml were “at risk of vitamin D deficiency.” That’s right, she wouldn’t say “deficient” for a person less than 12 ng/ml, all she said is they are “at risk” of being deficient! Why? Dr. Looker falsely reassured Americans that everything is pretty much OK because around 80% of white Americans have levels higher than 20 ng/ml (although only 30% of African Americans do). I carefully read her entire paper; why didn’t I see a “CDC Action Plan for African Americans” for the 70% of Blacks with levels less than 20 ng/ml? Probably for the same reason I didn’t see any “FNB action plan for African Americans” in their recent vitamin D report. Where did Dr. Looker get the idea that 20 ng/ml was OK? From the FNB. Where did the FNB get that idea? Professor Hector DeLuca and the vitamin D analogue scientists, that’s where. What I am about to tell you is a failure of a system, not a person. The National Academy is responsible, as scientists to the USA, to see that the processes that occur in its name are fair, above the appearance of impropriety, and free from avoidable conflicts of interest. I have been to enough vitamin D conferences to know that about half of the scientists who attend these conferences are looking for the new patent that will secure or extend their financial fortune. They do not need America alarmed right now about the fact more than 80% of Americans are actually vitamin D deficient; no, the government might need to do something now, an action that would threaten the value of something that I have just learned about: an imminent river of new vitamin D knockoff commercial patents. Vitamin D knockoff scientists want the government to say that 20 ng/ml is fine, at least until all the phase 2 and phase 3 FDA trials are finished on their newly patented vitamin D “analogue” drugs. In a few years it won’t matter because dozens of knockoff analogues will have been approved for treating vitamin D deficiency, yes prescription-only vitamin D knockoff drugs to treat vitamin D deficiency, instead of vitamin D, I kid you not. After these scientists get their analogues past the FDA, I predict the same scientists will change their tune and start crying for 40 ng/ml as the desirable lower limit, ensuring a vast market for their knockoffs. The creation of vitamin D knockoff patent prescription-only drugs goes something like this: take the cholecalciferol or 25-hydroxy-cholecalciferol molecule, change its structure enough – without changing its actions – and Ola, you can patent it. It must be structurally different enough from natural cholecalciferol to be a unique drug but it must retain its vitamin D efficacy. Ergocalciferol (Drisdol) – the only prescription drug available to treat vitamin D deficiency in the USA – is an example of an analogue, although the path to its discovery and its patent was quite different. The patent on ergocalciferol made the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Chemistry the richest chemistry department in the world. In some countries, ergocalciferol is still the only vitamin D available. For a detailed discussion of how these patents put the National Academies in a very difficult position, read the following blog: Conflict of Interest at National Academy of Science? (http://pandemicsurvivor.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/conflict-of-interest-at-national-academy-of-science/) As I write this, I understand additional vitamin D patent applications are being prepared (I actually know of one application by a member of the recent FNB committee member). These analogue scientists need time; the nutrient, vitamin D, needs to take a back seat for a while. Vitamin D was getting too hot, too many good things being said about it, and too many press stories about too many Americans being deficient. The analogue scientists want a big market when they finish with the FDA. Anyway, after you have your new vitamin D molecule and your patent, you approach the FDA, who will require that you do randomized controlled trials, pitting your new vitamin D analogue drug against . . . what? Vitamin D, right? No: placebo. That’s right, placebo. As I understand the process, and I hope I am wrong, the vitamin D knockoffs only have to prove they are better than placebo, which, if they keep their efficacy, will be a cinch. I even know of a patent application for a drug to treat vitamin D deficiency by inhibiting the 24-hydroxylase (the enzyme that gets rid of vitamin D in the body). If you inhibit the 24-hydroxylase, you will raise 25(OH)D levels and thus treat vitamin D deficiency; this is what big pharma is up to (I kid you not). Can you imagine taking a drug that interferes with a natural enzyme that metabolizes vitamin D in order to increase the amount of vitamin D in your blood, instead of just taking vitamin D? Is this the best that American medicine can do? Very few people seem to know that the recent FNB committee had an unusual guest, an overseer, an official vitamin D advisor, Professor Hector DeLuca (http://host.madison.com/news/article_1b2e3719-0a5f-57d8-b87d-ba89b38d0c31.html), one of the true giants in the field of vitamin D, both academically and financially. Talk about mother-load analogue patents, he wrote the book. He has created so many activated vitamin D knockoffs that he named one after himself, “Hectorol.” Another fact often gets lost; Dr. DeLuca is the only member of the vitamin D community who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, an extremely difficult membership to achieve, a shadowy process requiring inside advocates and secret votes. I’m told, but could not confirm by calling the National Academies, that blackballing is still used; if so, one negative vote and, “I’m sorry Dr. Holick,” “I’m sorry Dr. Heaney,” and “I’m sorry Dr. Norman.” Anyway, Professor DeLuca and his Department of Chemistry at the University of Wisconsin are experts in making knockoff analogue vitamin D drugs. To be fair, his analogues of activated vitamin D have saved thousands of lives, mainly patients with kidney failure, although activated vitamin D itself works in kidney failure. If the new analogues of cholecalciferol and 25-hydroxy-vitamin D effectively treat vitamin D deficiency, they too will save millions of lives. However, there is just a much easier and cost effective way of treating vitamin D deficiency: plain old, cheap old, nutrient old, vitamin D. As far as the recent FNB report on vitamin D, can you visualize all the scientists on the FNB hard at work, under the watchful eye of their “Special Advisor,” National Academy of Sciences member, Professor Hector DeLuca. I would venture a guess that more than one member of the FNB vitamin D panel dreamt about being in the National Academy himself or herself one day. Then they pondered which lower limit to vote for, the 40 ng/ml opined by most vitamin D scientists or the 20 ng/ml opined by “Special Advisor” DeLuca. Let us see, what will get me into the National Academy of Sciences the quickest? I can’t really complain. First, this is America and I suspect the quickest way to treat the massive vitamin D deficiency pandemic is going to be through private industry, like it or not. Second, it is possible one of the vitamin D knockoff drugs will actually work better than vitamin D; “possible” I said. Third, I get royalties on my own brand of vitamin D so I have my own conflicts of interest. Fourth, before you get too high on your horse about Dr. DeLuca, ask yourself how many lives have you saved in your lifetime? He discovered activated vitamin D, trained dozens of the top vitamin D researchers, and saved thousands of lives. Also, I have no way of knowing how exceptional was the FNB’s decision to make secret the critiques of the 12 top vitamin D experts, experts who were asked to review the FNB’s work. Does the FNB invoke such secrecy frequently? When did it do so last? Did the final FNB report change, based on the opinions of the 12 vitamin D experts, or did the FNB Board (most who admit to not being vitamin D experts) simply comply with Professor DeLuca’s judgment? If the final FNB report did change, what did the report look like before the vitamin D experts’ opinions were weighed? I understand at least one vitamin D expert charged the FNB with racism for its failure to consider the vitamin D plight of African Americans. Is that true? Most members of the Vitamin D Council would like to read all 12 critiques by the 12 top vitamin D experts in the world but – unlike Professor DeLuca or the vitamin D-knockoff pharmaceutical companies – we don’t have the money to legally fight the FNB’s proclamation that the 12 expert critiques by the top vitamin D experts in the world are – and will remain – secret, beyond the reach of Federal Freedom of Information Laws. Sources for this article include: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db59.htm http://pandemicsurvivor.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/conflict-of-interest-at-national-academy-of-science/ http://host.madison.com/news/article_1b2e3719-0a5f-57d8-b87d-ba89b38d0c31.html

Next Page »