Related Links:
How Corrupted Drug Companies Deceive and Manipulate Your Doctor
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Pfizer Officials Sued by Investors
Pfizer Officials Sued by Investors:
How Corrupted Drug Companies Deceive and Manipulate Your Doctor
How Corrupted Drug Companies Deceive and Manipulate Your Doctor
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Pharmaceutical drug contamination of waterways threatens life on our planet
Pharmaceutical drug contamination of waterways threatens life on our planet:
The President's Cancer Panel (PCP) recently released its yearly report to the President outlining the status of cancer in America. This year's report focuses primarily on environmental factors that contribute to cancer risk. According to the report, pharmaceutical drugs are a serious environmental pollutant, particularly in the way they continue to contaminate waterways across the country (and the world).
Many reports have recently appeared about pharmaceutical contamination of water supplies, rivers, lakes and other waterways, but spokespersons from the drug and chemical industries have denied that this pollution poses any risk whatsoever to the environment. But this report, issued directly from PCP, provides a stunning indictment of the dangers associated with pharmaceutical pollution.
The executive summary of the PCP report includes the following statements:
"[P]harmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown."
It's important to note that PCP is required by law to assess the National Cancer Program and offer a truthful evaluation of the various things it finds to be responsible for causing cancer. The panel is a division of the National Cancer Institute itself, so its findings hold fairly considerable weight in the scientific world (or they should, if the reaction wasn't so politicized).
The report itself is quite extensive, evaluating everything from the environmental and health impacts of drug and pesticide pollution to cell phone radiation and nuclear testing residue. But the section on pharmaceutical drugs is especially interesting when considering the fact that numerous reports have shown that drugs and drug residue that ends up in water supplies typically isn't filtered out by municipal treatment plants.
According to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study conducted back in 2002, antidepressants, blood pressure and diabetes medications, anticonvulsants, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy drugs, chemotherapy drugs, antibiotics, heart medications and even codeine are all showing up in the water supplies of American cities. This study was the first national-scale evaluation of pharmaceutical drug contamination in streams, and roughly 80 percent of the streams tested were found to be contaminated as well.
In 2008, an AP investigation found that at least 46 million Americans are drinking water contaminated with trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. Even though every city tested has its water treated and "purified" prior to being delivered to the public, trace amounts of pharmaceutical drugs are making their way through to the tap. (Since not all major metropolitan areas were tested, the number of people affected is likely far higher than what was reported by AP.)
In spite of all this, water quality reports don't disclose the levels of pharmaceuticals found in tap water. Since the EPA and FDA have failed to establish any proper guidelines for drug contamination in water, most people have no idea that their water contains a dangerous cocktail of prescription medications.
People who take prescription and over-the-counter drugs will excrete them as well, contributing to the drug overload being found at wastewater treatment plants. (Drugs are not necessarily "broken down" by your digestive system.)
It is also regular protocol for hospitals to flush millions of pounds of unused medications every year, a practice that contributes significantly to water contamination.
And let's not forget the drug companies that dump large amounts of their own pharmaceuticals into water supplies. The same AP investigation found that more than 270 million pounds of pharmaceutical compound residue is dumped every year into waterways nationwide, many of which serve as drinking water for millions of people.
The U.S. isn't the only place where Big Pharma is dumping its waste, either. In 2009, researchers found that India's rivers are full of dangerous pharmaceuticals, too.
One Indian river where 90 different pharmaceutical companies dump their waste tested positive for over 21 active drug ingredients. In one river alone, there was enough ciprofloxacin (a strong antibiotic) being dumped every day by drug companies to treat 90,000 people! (And scientists detected this in water that was supposedly purified by the drug companies before being released into the environment).
The drug contamination levels found in India's rivers were 150 times the detected levels found in the U.S. These findings prove that drug companies couldn't care less how much drug residue they dump in water as long as they can get away with it. They don't even believe that pharmaceutical contamination is a threat to the environment.
"Based on what we now know, I would say we find there's little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health," explained microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, in a Dallas Morning News article about the AP investigation. This is similar to BP's CEO saying, after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, that the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico was "tiny" compared to how big the ocean is.
A 2006 study conducted by researchers from the University of Insubria in Italy simulated drug-tainted water by creating a low-level mixture of various drug residues and testing it on embryonic cells. They discovered that, even at low doses, the drug residues actually stopped cells from reproducing.
Even though current water contamination levels are measured in parts per million or parts per billion, there is no way to know just how much exposure people are actually experiencing. People drink contaminated water, shower in contaminated water and cook with contaminated water, so it's illogical to suggest that there's no harm being caused by widespread exposure, even at "low" doses, especially when the exposure is a combination of dozens of different drugs that have never been tested in combination.
People are not the only beings that are affected by pharmaceutical contamination, either. The world's aquatic ecosystems (and the plants and animals that belong to them) are all being negatively impacted.
Researchers are in agreement that aquatic species of all types are being harmed by continuous exposure to water contaminated with pharmaceuticals. Even though wastewater is treated in the U.S. before entering waterways, most treatment facilities do not have the proper filtering technology to remove dangerous drug residues from wastewater before it gets dumped.
Many fish are experiencing reproductive problems as a result of exposure, as is explained in the following report:
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23504633/)
Beyond having their sperm damaged, some fish are actually changing sexes. Males are becoming females and females are becoming males as a result of drug exposure in the water. Other water creatures are experiencing things like organ failure and the inability to grow. It makes a reasonable person ask "How long until these effects start to hit humans?"
Or have they already?
"We have no reason to think that this is a unique situation. We find pretty much anywhere we look, these compounds are ubiquitous," explained Erik Orsak, an environmental contaminants specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to the findings.
And it's not just near American cities where fish are turning up with all kinds of drugs in their bodies. As of 2008, more than 100 different pharmaceutical compounds have been detected around the world, affecting fish and wildlife everywhere. These are chemicals that simply do not belong in our environment. And yet they are there, dumped into our waters by the pharmaceutical industry and its hospitals, pharmacies and consumers.
If drug residue is building up in animals and wildlife, then of course it's building up in humans as well, posing the risk of significant harm. Reproductive failure, thyroid dysfunction, cancer, osteoporosis -- all of these diseases and more may be caused, at least in part, by prolonged exposure to low levels of all sorts of drugs in the water supply.
California has a similar law in place, and New York is working on one as well, according to a recent report:
(http://www.westfaironline.com/hudso...)
The same report indicates that there have been five bills introduced to regulate drugs at the federal level.
While this addresses the hospital waste problem, there's still the human and drug company waste problems. No matter how you look at it, pharmaceutical drugs are going to continue making their way into the water supplies because they will pass through the bodies of consumers first!
And if U.S. companies are polluting water supplies in other countries (such as India), they should be held accountable for their actions. There's no excuse for U.S. companies to pollute anywhere in the world just because they're operating outside domestic borders.
Together, these measures would help to drastically reduce the amount of pharmaceutical waste entering our environment.
And it's not just pharmaceuticals, either. Chemical byproducts and waste from many different industries are polluting our environment at unprecedented rates. Mercury (from dental fillings), fluoride (dripped into the public water supply on purpose, if you can believe that!), and all sorts of other chemicals and heavy metals are showing up in food, water and the global environment.
Haven't we poisoned our planet enough already?
Plants, animals and even humans can only take so much of this. That's why we need to keep fighting against the corporations that are causing this harm and force them to stop destroying the world in which we hope to raise our children.
After all, if we keep poisoning the planet at this rate, there won't be much left to offer future generations except a toxic stew of patent-protected chemicals that all the corporations pretend pose no problem at all.
The President's Cancer Panel (PCP) recently released its yearly report to the President outlining the status of cancer in America. This year's report focuses primarily on environmental factors that contribute to cancer risk. According to the report, pharmaceutical drugs are a serious environmental pollutant, particularly in the way they continue to contaminate waterways across the country (and the world).
Many reports have recently appeared about pharmaceutical contamination of water supplies, rivers, lakes and other waterways, but spokespersons from the drug and chemical industries have denied that this pollution poses any risk whatsoever to the environment. But this report, issued directly from PCP, provides a stunning indictment of the dangers associated with pharmaceutical pollution.
The executive summary of the PCP report includes the following statements:
"[P]harmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown."
It's important to note that PCP is required by law to assess the National Cancer Program and offer a truthful evaluation of the various things it finds to be responsible for causing cancer. The panel is a division of the National Cancer Institute itself, so its findings hold fairly considerable weight in the scientific world (or they should, if the reaction wasn't so politicized).
The report itself is quite extensive, evaluating everything from the environmental and health impacts of drug and pesticide pollution to cell phone radiation and nuclear testing residue. But the section on pharmaceutical drugs is especially interesting when considering the fact that numerous reports have shown that drugs and drug residue that ends up in water supplies typically isn't filtered out by municipal treatment plants.
No laws exist to protect the public from pharmaceuticals
Many chemicals are highly regulated because they are known to negatively affect human and environmental health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with regulating exposure to these chemicals, but pharmaceuticals are not included in its regulatory scheme. Despite years of prodding by environmental scientists, the EPA has given very little attention to the dangers posed by widespread pharmaceutical contamination.According to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study conducted back in 2002, antidepressants, blood pressure and diabetes medications, anticonvulsants, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy drugs, chemotherapy drugs, antibiotics, heart medications and even codeine are all showing up in the water supplies of American cities. This study was the first national-scale evaluation of pharmaceutical drug contamination in streams, and roughly 80 percent of the streams tested were found to be contaminated as well.
In 2008, an AP investigation found that at least 46 million Americans are drinking water contaminated with trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. Even though every city tested has its water treated and "purified" prior to being delivered to the public, trace amounts of pharmaceutical drugs are making their way through to the tap. (Since not all major metropolitan areas were tested, the number of people affected is likely far higher than what was reported by AP.)
In spite of all this, water quality reports don't disclose the levels of pharmaceuticals found in tap water. Since the EPA and FDA have failed to establish any proper guidelines for drug contamination in water, most people have no idea that their water contains a dangerous cocktail of prescription medications.
Hospitals, consumers and drug companies are all responsible
None of this is surprising if you consider that unused and expired drugs cannot be legally returned to the pharmacies where they were purchased. Many people just flush them down the toilet because the drug labels actually encourage patients to dispose of them this way (and they probably don't know what else to do with them).People who take prescription and over-the-counter drugs will excrete them as well, contributing to the drug overload being found at wastewater treatment plants. (Drugs are not necessarily "broken down" by your digestive system.)
It is also regular protocol for hospitals to flush millions of pounds of unused medications every year, a practice that contributes significantly to water contamination.
And let's not forget the drug companies that dump large amounts of their own pharmaceuticals into water supplies. The same AP investigation found that more than 270 million pounds of pharmaceutical compound residue is dumped every year into waterways nationwide, many of which serve as drinking water for millions of people.
The U.S. isn't the only place where Big Pharma is dumping its waste, either. In 2009, researchers found that India's rivers are full of dangerous pharmaceuticals, too.
One Indian river where 90 different pharmaceutical companies dump their waste tested positive for over 21 active drug ingredients. In one river alone, there was enough ciprofloxacin (a strong antibiotic) being dumped every day by drug companies to treat 90,000 people! (And scientists detected this in water that was supposedly purified by the drug companies before being released into the environment).
The drug contamination levels found in India's rivers were 150 times the detected levels found in the U.S. These findings prove that drug companies couldn't care less how much drug residue they dump in water as long as they can get away with it. They don't even believe that pharmaceutical contamination is a threat to the environment.
"Based on what we now know, I would say we find there's little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health," explained microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, in a Dallas Morning News article about the AP investigation. This is similar to BP's CEO saying, after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, that the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico was "tiny" compared to how big the ocean is.
Studies show drug residue cocktails actually do cause harm
Though the chemical and drug industries deny any danger from exposure to drug residue in the water, science (and common sense) says otherwise.A 2006 study conducted by researchers from the University of Insubria in Italy simulated drug-tainted water by creating a low-level mixture of various drug residues and testing it on embryonic cells. They discovered that, even at low doses, the drug residues actually stopped cells from reproducing.
Even though current water contamination levels are measured in parts per million or parts per billion, there is no way to know just how much exposure people are actually experiencing. People drink contaminated water, shower in contaminated water and cook with contaminated water, so it's illogical to suggest that there's no harm being caused by widespread exposure, even at "low" doses, especially when the exposure is a combination of dozens of different drugs that have never been tested in combination.
People are not the only beings that are affected by pharmaceutical contamination, either. The world's aquatic ecosystems (and the plants and animals that belong to them) are all being negatively impacted.
Drugs are being found in fish
According to an MSNBC report back in 2009, all kinds of drugs are being found in the bodies of fish near major U.S. cities. Researchers found drugs for high cholesterol, allergies, high blood pressure, bipolar disorder and depression in the livers and tissue of fish.Researchers are in agreement that aquatic species of all types are being harmed by continuous exposure to water contaminated with pharmaceuticals. Even though wastewater is treated in the U.S. before entering waterways, most treatment facilities do not have the proper filtering technology to remove dangerous drug residues from wastewater before it gets dumped.
Many fish are experiencing reproductive problems as a result of exposure, as is explained in the following report:
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23504633/)
Beyond having their sperm damaged, some fish are actually changing sexes. Males are becoming females and females are becoming males as a result of drug exposure in the water. Other water creatures are experiencing things like organ failure and the inability to grow. It makes a reasonable person ask "How long until these effects start to hit humans?"
Or have they already?
"We have no reason to think that this is a unique situation. We find pretty much anywhere we look, these compounds are ubiquitous," explained Erik Orsak, an environmental contaminants specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to the findings.
And it's not just near American cities where fish are turning up with all kinds of drugs in their bodies. As of 2008, more than 100 different pharmaceutical compounds have been detected around the world, affecting fish and wildlife everywhere. These are chemicals that simply do not belong in our environment. And yet they are there, dumped into our waters by the pharmaceutical industry and its hospitals, pharmacies and consumers.
Why we need more research on the toxicity of pharmaceutical contaminants
Many animal studies have been or are being conducted on pharmaceutical exposure, and they are indicating that these drugs are causing widespread harm. But very few official human trials have been conducted, prompting many to push for increased efforts.If drug residue is building up in animals and wildlife, then of course it's building up in humans as well, posing the risk of significant harm. Reproductive failure, thyroid dysfunction, cancer, osteoporosis -- all of these diseases and more may be caused, at least in part, by prolonged exposure to low levels of all sorts of drugs in the water supply.
Many states pushing for drug waste legislation
Because the truth about drug contamination in water is no longer a secret, many states have begun enacting legislation to regulate drug disposal. Last August, Illinois passed the Safe Pharmaceuticals Disposal Act, which restricts hospitals from flushing drugs down the drain.California has a similar law in place, and New York is working on one as well, according to a recent report:
(http://www.westfaironline.com/hudso...)
The same report indicates that there have been five bills introduced to regulate drugs at the federal level.
While this addresses the hospital waste problem, there's still the human and drug company waste problems. No matter how you look at it, pharmaceutical drugs are going to continue making their way into the water supplies because they will pass through the bodies of consumers first!
Drug companies must be held responsible for their wastewater
Since it's already been revealed that drug companies are failing to properly treat their wastewater before dumping it into rivers (even though they claim to be treating it), U.S. regulatory agencies need to step up and correct the problem. Regular monitoring of wastewater contaminant levels is the only way to halt the chemical contamination of waterways.And if U.S. companies are polluting water supplies in other countries (such as India), they should be held accountable for their actions. There's no excuse for U.S. companies to pollute anywhere in the world just because they're operating outside domestic borders.
Wastewater treatment plants should be retrofitted
State and local legislators would do well to put forth their own legislation to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities so they can properly filter out pharmaceuticals (and dispose of them safely). Since there's no way to stop human elimination of pharmaceuticals (apart from slowly educating the masses to stop swallowing dangerous pharmaceuticals), municipalities need to do their part to prevent these dangerous toxins from getting into water supplies in the first place.Together, these measures would help to drastically reduce the amount of pharmaceutical waste entering our environment.
It's the environment, stupid!
The careless disposal of toxic pharmaceuticals is proving to be highly destructive, despite reassurances by some that it's not that big of a deal. The health of the planet and all of its amazing biodiversity is now threatened by the steady poisoning of toxic chemical pharmaceuticals.And it's not just pharmaceuticals, either. Chemical byproducts and waste from many different industries are polluting our environment at unprecedented rates. Mercury (from dental fillings), fluoride (dripped into the public water supply on purpose, if you can believe that!), and all sorts of other chemicals and heavy metals are showing up in food, water and the global environment.
Haven't we poisoned our planet enough already?
Plants, animals and even humans can only take so much of this. That's why we need to keep fighting against the corporations that are causing this harm and force them to stop destroying the world in which we hope to raise our children.
After all, if we keep poisoning the planet at this rate, there won't be much left to offer future generations except a toxic stew of patent-protected chemicals that all the corporations pretend pose no problem at all.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Fw: [Journal2MyGOD] View Is Bleaker Than Official Portrayal of War in Afghanistan...
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 3:42 PM
Subject: [Journal2MyGOD] View Is Bleaker Than Official Portrayal of War in Afghanistan...
And you thought you had seen everything!!!
Well if this gets noticed they will NUKE someone so that everyone can fight and scream about that while this gets pushed under the carpet....
Hang on tight folks
View Is Bleaker Than Official Portrayal of War in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com:
* 1979 The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan. Mujahedeen — Islamic fighters — from across the globe, including Osama bin Laden, come to fight Soviet forces.
* 1989 Last Soviet troops leave Afghanistan.
* 1996 The Taliban take control of Afghanistan, imposing fundamentalist Islamic law. Mr. bin Laden takes refuge in the country.
* Sept. 2001 After the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush gives the Taliban an ultimatum to hand over Mr. bin Laden; the Taliban refuse, and in October the U.S. leads a campaign that drives the Taliban out of major Afghan cities by the end of the year.
* 2002 Hamid Karzai becomes interim president of Afghanistan. The Taliban continue to wage guerrilla warfare near the border with Pakistan.
* 2004 New constitution is ratified, making Afghanistan an Islamic state with a strong president. Later, Mr. Karzai wins the country's first presidential election.
* Feb. 2009 President Obama orders 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.
* Aug. 2009 President Karzai wins re-election in a vote marred by fraud.
* Dec. 2009 President Obama issues orders to send 30,000 troops in 2010, bringing the total American force to about 100,000.
--
Posted By stars2man to Journal2MyGOD at 7/26/2010 03:42:00 PM
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Indian Children Blinded and Crippled By Fluoride In Water
Indian Children Blinded and Crippled By Fluoride In Water:
What Your Dentist Isn’t Telling You About Fluoride
Of the 200-odd villagers in the Indian town of Gaudiyan, around 135 have bone deformities. A private doctor who conducts social work in the area termed it as a case of skeletal fluorosis -- the result of excess fluoride content in drinking water.
In another part of India, also partly as a result of fluoride poisoning, children are losing their vision. They have been diagnosed with Lamellar Congenital cataract -- a condition in which the eye lenses are damaged.
According to The Times of India:
"...high fluoride content in water and Vitamin A deficiencies is ruining the lives of children of this taluk."
Other examples of such harm include the village of Sogival where the groundwater contains 4.84 ppm of fluoride and two-thirds of the people suffer from skeletal deformities. And in Bihar, the prevalence of physical deformity is yet another testament to excessive fluoride exposure.
For even more stories from India detailing the harm caused by fluoride, please see this link.
Sources:
This is an important topic for a number of reasons and one of the most important is that it helps dispel the popular public health myth that fluoride in the water supply is normal and actually prevents dental caries.
Nothing could be further from the truth as fluoride is a toxin and a poison even when it occurs naturally in your water supply.
India is one of several countries known to have dangerously high levels of fluoride in their drinking water. This poison comes into contact with water supplies when rocks containing fluoride erode or volcanic activity spews fluoride-containing ash into the air, allowing the colorless, odorless substance to enter groundwater (of course in some areas, like the United States, fluoride is intentionally added to water supplies).
In areas where naturally occurring fluoride is high, serious health problems usually become apparent, and that is, unfortunately, what's happening now in India. But these events also have potential relevance to the US, as this summary on fluorosis in India explains.
As of 1999, 17 of India's 32 states and territories were known to have high concentrations of fluoride in water, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), with concentrations as high as 48 mg/liter reported. For comparison, WHO has capped the upper limit of fluoride in drinking water at 1.5 mg/liter.
Sadly, for many people in India there is no access to safer water supplies or reverse osmosis filters that could remove the fluoride from the water, and now generations of children are growing up with serious health problems as a result.
Blindness and Skeletal Fluorosis
In one Indian village, a disturbing trend of eye diseases in children has emerged. Previously healthy children are suffering from vision deterioration, lens damage, retina deterioration and blindness that cannot be reversed.
Health centers in the area are now launching a study of 29,800 children to determine the cause of the eye disorders, with their initial theory being high fluoride content in water, coupled with vitamin A deficiencies and marrying of close relatives.
In another village of about 200 people, about 135 of them suffer from bone deformities that are also thought to be the result of excess fluoride in drinking water. While children in the area appear normal at birth, they begin developing bone problems as they get older.
Skeletal fluorosis, a crippling bone disease, is well-documented and strongly associated with drinking water that contains high levels of fluoride. The disease is known to be endemic in several parts of the world, including India, China and many parts of Africa.
A Cumulative Poison
In order to understand the long-term dangers of fluoride, it's important to realize that fluoride is a cumulative poison.
Ninety-eight percent of the fluoride you ingest in water is absorbed into your blood through your gastrointestinal tract. From there, it enters your body's cellular tissues. On average, about 50 percent of the fluoride you ingest each day gets excreted through your kidneys. The remainder accumulates in your teeth and bones, pineal gland, and other tissues, such as the aorta.
The amount deposited into your bones and teeth varies depending on your age. In children, more than 50 percent of an ingested dose of fluoride is deposited in bone, but in adults only about 10 percent is stored there.
As with teeth, fluoride is deposited in bone by the ionic exchange with hydroxyl-apatite. It does dissolve from bone over time, but at a slower rate than it is deposited, so if your intake remains constant or high, the level of fluoride in your bones increases linearly with age.
Further, if your kidneys are damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.
Basically, if you ingest more fluoride than your body is capable of eliminating, various stages of fluorosis may ensue. Symptoms of early skeletal fluorosis include:
- Pains in your bones and joints
- Burning, prickling, and tingling in your limbs
- Muscle weakness
- Chronic fatigue
- Gastrointestinal disorders
There are numerous other health problems associated with the accumulation of fluoride in your body as well, such as:
- Hyperactivity and/or lethargy
- Arthritis
- Dental fluorosis (staining and pitting of teeth)
- Lowered thyroid function
- Lowered IQ, and dementia
- Disrupted immune system
For the people in India and other developing countries who are exposed to dangerously high levels of naturally occurring fluoride, the solution lies in securing safer water supplies or filters to remove the poison.
For those of you in the United States, you should know, too, that this toxin is being intentionally added to your drinking water supplies.
Fluoridated Drinking Water Pawned Off as "Healthy"
Given the well-known health risks of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, you may be wondering why the practice of adding fluoride to your tap water began back in 1945 and endorsed by the US Public Health Service in 1950 before any significant health studies of either naturally or artificially fluoridated communities had been published.
Amazingly, the United States is only one of eight countries in the entire developed world that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its water supply. (The other seven are: Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore.) Canada has a little over 40 percent of its population drinking fluoridated water and that percentage is falling as more and more communities are halting the practice.
Most likely, your dentist – along with countless government and public health officials -- has praised and promoted the use of fluoride, both in toothpaste and drinking water, as one of your must-do regimens to promote strong and healthy teeth.
Unfortunately, they've all bought into the public deception of fluoridation's so-called "safety and effectiveness" and have unwittingly participated in and perpetuated perhaps one of the grandest public health frauds and toxic cover-ups in U.S. history.
As you may know, the theory behind the introduction of fluoride in your water supply initially seems beneficial – to reduce the incidence of dental caries in children.
However, the health dangers of fluoride are so numerous, they far outweigh any potential benefit to your teeth. Dr. Paul Connett, known throughout the world as a leader in the movement against water fluoridation, said in our recent interview:
"First of all, water fluoridation is very bad medicine because once you put it in the water, you can't control the dose. You can't control who gets it. There is no oversight. You're allowing a community to do to everyone what a doctor can do to no one, i.e. force a patient to take a particular medication."
Fluoride Has No Benefits When Ingested
Today, even promoters of fluoridation concede that the major benefit, as far as fighting tooth decay is concerned, is topical; fluoride works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside of your body, so why swallow it?
There is practically no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, and no difference between states that have a high- or low percentage of their water fluoridated.
Yet in the United States, children are being exposed to concerning levels of fluoride daily. Dr. Connett says:
"We know that 32 percent of American children have been overexposed to fluoride because you have this telltale sign of dental fluorosis, which in its mildest form is little white specs. But when it gets more serious, it affects more of the surface of your teeth and it becomes colored; yellow, brown and orange mottling of the teeth."
Promoters of fluoridation scoff at these signs, saying that they're "just cosmetic."
But, since we already know that water fluoridation does NOT effectively reduce dental caries, this is an unnecessary cosmetic defect, and, worse yet, it is a worrisome indication that your body has been overexposed to fluoride.
If it's having a detrimental, visual effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed that it's also damaging something else inside your body, such as your bones, as is the case in India.
What to Do if You Want to Avoid Fluoridated Water
If you live in the United States and want to avoid drinking municipal tap water that is fluoridated, using a reverse osmosis system in your home will rid your water of fluoride. You are still going to get fluoride when you have meals and beverages downtown, at work, or at a friend's house. Or if you have an organic garden, do you really want to put this poison on your fruits and vegetables?
Also, remember there are many who simply don't have the resources or the know-how to protect themselves and their young children from this pervasive toxin.
This is why The Fluoride Action Network is working hard to pressure the U.S. government to halt the support it gives to fluoridation and also help communities end this outdated, unnecessary and dangerous practice.
If you and your friends and neighbors want to help get fluoride out of your community's water supply please contact the Fluoride Action Network at info@fluoridalert.org . Simply give them your name, state and email address and they will do their best to supply you with contacts in your area and provide you with other supporting material.
Promoters of fluoridation would like you to believe that there are no doctors, dentists, scientists or other professionals opposed to water fluoridation, but this is simply not true.
A statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide has been signed by over 3000 professionals.
We encourage all medical and science professionals to sign this statement.
Over a dozen of the professionals who have signed can be seen talking about this issue in the video "Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation" which is accessible online at www.FluorideAlert.org.
Dr. Connett has also co-authored a book with two other scientists dealing with the full scientific and ethical arguments against fluoridation that will be published in early October: The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There. (Chelsea Green publishers.) Advance orders can be placed on Amazon.com.
If you haven't already done so I would also encourage you to watch my recent video with Dr. Connett below on this topic where he expands on this information further and discusses some simple practical measures you can take.
If you want to speak with Dr. Connett in person simply email him at pconnett@fluoridealert.org and give him your phone number.
Related Links:
What Your Dentist Isn’t Telling You About Fluoride
Raw Milk Bans are About Protecting Big Dairy
Raw Milk Bans are About Protecting Big Dairy:
Who Should be Able to Limit Your Right to Unpasteurized, Unprocessed Food?
If you're thinking "no one," you're going to have to duke it out with the FDA.
Earlier this year, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) filed a lawsuit against the FDA over their raw milk ban, claiming it is unconstitutional. The FDA's rebuttal contained the following extremely concerning and outrageous statements, which make it very clear they believe you have no right to unprocessed food:
- "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food."
- "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds."
- "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."
- The FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render the FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health."
- "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract."
Since when did the FDA have authority to tell you what you can and cannot eat and feed your children? Apparently they believe they've had it all along.
If you go by these assertions, it means the FDA has the authority to prohibit any food of their choosing and make it a crime for you to seek it out. If, one day, the FDA deems tomatoes, broccoli or cashews capable of causing you harm (which is just as ludicrous as their assertions that raw milk is harmful), they could therefore enact such a ban and legally enforce it.
What this means is that freedom of food choice is a myth if you live in the United States, and this simply is not acceptable.
Unfortunately, state governments have been dutifully following suit, no doubt after intense pressure from the dairy industry.
In May, for instance, after weeks of lobbying by the Wisconsin dairy industry, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle vetoed a bill that would have made sale of on-the-farm raw milk legal, stating he "must side with public health and safety of the dairy industry."
In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources issued cease-and-desist orders to four milk-buying clubs and proposed new regulations to ban off-the-farm sale and distribution of raw milk.
In their lawsuit, FTCLDF also pointed out that the FDA is taking an unfairly harsh approach with raw milk compared to other raw foods. For instance, unpasteurized juices are sold with just a warning label letting consumers know the juice has not been pasteurized, while raw milk has been outright banned in many states.
Is it a coincidence that some of the states where raw milk sales are illegal are also among the largest dairy producers in the United States (namely Wisconsin and Iowa)?
Hardly.
Do You Want Easy Access to Raw Milk?
By joining the fight to make access to healthy raw milk a right for all Americans, you are not only standing up for raw milk; you're taking a stand to protect your freedom of food choice.
No one, and certainly not any government agency or dairy lobby, should be able to restrict your access to pure, unadulterated food. Organizations like the Weston A. Price Foundation and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund are working toward true freedom of choice for American consumers, and I urge you to get involved in their causes.
For more information, I urge you to listen to my interview with Mark McAfee, the founder of Organic Pastures, one of the largest producers of raw milk in the United States, along with this video with health and business journalist David E. Gumpert.
You can also find lots of valuable information in Gumpert's book, The Raw Milk Revolution, and on McAfee's Web site www.OrganicPastures.com.
Related Links:
Monday, July 19, 2010
Top Secret America
Methodology (Printer friendly version)| washingtonpost.com:
Methodology
The Top Secret America database was put together by compiling hundreds of thousands of public records of government organizations and private-sector companies.
From these records, The Washington Post identified 45 government organizations (for example, the FBI) engaged in top-secret work and determined that those 45 organizations could be broken down into 1,271 sub-units (for example, the Terrorist Screening Center of the FBI). One of the 45 organizations is represented as “unknown”; this category was created as a catchall for companies doing work for a government organization that could not be determined.
At the private-sector level, The Post identified 1,931 companies engaged in top-secret work for the government. Private-sector companies were grouped together and listed by a parent company's name (for example, General Dynamics), even though one company might contain multiple sub-units (for example, General Dynamics Information Technology).
In a case where a large corporation (for example, Boeing) has a distinctly named sub-unit engaged in top-secret work (for example, Boeing's Digital Receiver Technology) the name of the sub-unit was used. In the case of large corporations not primarily in the defense industry (for example, AT&T) that have similarly named sub-units that focus on top-secret work (for example, AT&T Government Solutions), the name of the parent company is used and the name of the sub-unit is noted. For every company listed, revenue and employee data and the date of establishment were drawn from public filings, Dun & Bradstreet data and original reporting.
More than 20 journalists worked on the investigation, including investigative reporters, cartography experts, database reporters, video journalists, researchers, interactive graphic designers, digital designers, graphic designers, and graphics editors at The Washington Post. They include:
Stephanie Clark, Ben de la Cruz, Kat Downs, Anne Ferguson-Rohrer, Justin Ferrell, David Finkel, Jennifer Jenkins, Todd Lindeman, Laris Karklis, Lauren Keane, Greg Manifold, Jennifer Morehead, Bonnie Jo Mount, Larry Nista, Ryan O’Neil, Sarah Sampsel, Whitney Shefte, Laura Stanton, Julie Tate, Nathaniel Vaughn Kelso, Michael Williamson, Karen Yourish, Amanda Zamora
One researcher was funded in part by the Center on Law and Security at New York University Law School.
© 20252010 The Washington Post Company
Friday, July 16, 2010
A Clear and Plastic Danger
A Clear and Plastic Danger: "A Clear and Plastic Danger
By Dr. David Blyweiss on 07/15/2010
By Dr. David Blyweiss on 07/15/2010
I’ve been concerned about the health effects of plastics since I first learned about them back in the 1990s. Since then, research has shown that those handy plastic containers you put your food in contain dubious chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) that can leach into your food.
A 2008 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that people with the highest levels of BPA were twice as likely to suffer from heart disease and diabetes than those with the lowest levels. These substances can disrupt crucial antioxidant and DNA activity in the body, as well as the normal functioning of the endocrine system. But what worries me even more is that, once inside the body, BPA acts like the hormone estrogen. Based on this characteristic, new studies link BPA to reproductive damage in both men and women. It also boosts the risk of developing breast cancer.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to avoid BPA. Along with some food storage containers, you can also find this hormone-disrupting chemical in plastic water bottles and even in the cans that hold many of the foods you eat. The FDA says that this isn’t a threat, but a new Consumer Reports’ test of canned foods (including soups, juice, tuna, and green beans) found that almost all of the 19 name-brand foods tested contain some BPA.
The consumer group reports that a 165-pound adult eating one serving of canned green beans could ingest 80 times more BPA than the recommended upper daily limit. Children eating multiple servings of canned foods daily with BPA levels comparable to the ones they found in some of the tested products could get a dose of BPA approaching levels that have caused adverse effects in several animal studies.Perhaps most telling is that in Japan major manufacturers voluntarily changed their can linings in 1997 to cut or eliminate the use of BPA because of concerns about health effects. A 2003 Japanese study found that the levels of the chemical in subjects’ urine dropped by 50 percent after the change in cans was made.
But BPA isn’t the only problem. The PVC used in many brands of plastic wrap is also problematic. This type of plastic contains phthlates—plasticizers, which have a similar estrogen-like effect in the human body. And like BPA, PVC has been associated with infertility problems and abnormalities of genital development.
Ideally, you should switch to glass, metal or ceramic containers to store your leftovers. But, I know that’s next to impossible. The next best option is to become well-versed in how to pick your plastics. The best way to tell if a plastic container contains BPA or phthalates is to look at the number on the bottom of the container. Containers marked with a 1, 3, or 7 contain phthalates or BPA, while ones labeled with 2, 4, or 5 are safer.
If plastic storage containers are used, never expose them to heat or use them in the microwave. This can cause even greater leaching. Remove cling wrap from any store-bought meats, cheeses and fish and repackage them in a safer container. It’s also important to throw away any container that is scratched or appears worn since bacteria can hide in these nooks and crannies.
While it’s difficult to completely avoid plastics, minimizing its use can reduce the overall amount of plasticizing chemicals that wind up in your body. And, even though it might seem like a bit more effort when storing your holiday leftovers, opting for safer alternatives to BPA- and PVC-laced containers can give you a big health payoff for years to come.
References:
Baccarelli A. Epigenetics and environmental chemicals. Current Opinions in Pediatrics. 2009;21:243-251.
Concern over canned foods. Consumer Reports. December 2009.
Munguía-López EM. Migration of bisphenol A (BPA) from can coatings into a fatty-food simulant and tuna fish. Food Additives and Contaminants. 2005;22:892-898.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Arrogance is Appalling
Pfizer is Not Alone in Their Actions
Another Reason to Take Control of Your Health