How to have clean air without killing yourself with poisonous air fresheners?

There  is a safer way to keep your house smelling fresh. Air it out daily by simply opening windows for an hour or so. Use an air purifier. These can cost as little as $50 for a smaller one. Also buy some essential oils and mix up to 10 drops with a quart of water in a spray bottle. Spray your house safely and naturally in this manner. Check out this article that appeared on infowars by Jonathan Benson to understand why this is crucial to improving and maintaining your health. Here is the article!

Millions of Americans use scented candles, air freshener sprays, plug-in deodorizers and diffusers to make their living spaces smell clean and pleasant, but are the chemicals in these products safe? New research compiled by scientists from Emory University in Atlanta, Ga., and the Atlanta Allergy & Asthma Clinic suggests that various chemical additives in air fresheners can trigger allergies, asthma and other health problems.

“The chemicals in some of these products can trigger the nasal congestion, sneezing and the runny nose,” said Dr. Stanley Fineman, an allergist from Emory who helped gather data for the study. “With the asthmatics, there’s really good data showing their lung function changes when they’re exposed to these compounds.”

Many scented air freshener products contain harmful volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like formaldehyde, petroleum distillates, benzene and limonene, which are known to trigger asthma and other respiratory symptoms, as well as eye irritation, bone damage and leukemia. They also contain various other toxic ingredients like benzyl alcohol, camphor, dichlorobenzene, ethanol, naphthalene, phenol and pinene (http://mcs-america.org/airfresh.pdf).

Even some scented products labeled “natural” contain harmful ingredients like phthalates that can build up in the liver and fatty tissue over time. Phthalate exposure is linked to low sperm counts and reproductive damage (http://www.naturalhomeandgarden.com…). This is why it is always a good idea, even with “natural” products, to verify all ingredients with product manufacturers prior to purchasing them.

In 2007, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) tested 14 different brands of popular household air freshener products and found that most of them, even those labeled “all natural” or “unscented,” contained dangerous chemicals linked to hormone disruption and reproductive problems (http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/0709…).

The worst offender in the test was Walgreens Scented Bouquet Air Freshener, which contained 7,300 parts per million (ppm) of di-ethyl phthalate (DEP), a chemical linked to damaging hormones and impairing genital development, followed by Walgreens Air Freshener Spray with 1,100 ppm of DEP.

You can read the full NRDC report here:
http://www.nrdc.org/health/home/air…

“Consumers have a right to know what is put into air fresheners and other everyday products they bring into their homes,” said Dr. Gina Solomon back in 2007. “There are too many products on the shelves that we assume are safe, but have never even been tested. The government should be keeping a watchful eye on these household items and the manufacturers who produce them.”

The cold hard truth about vaccines

In the article below it talks about the absurd number of vaccines given or should I say forced upon young children here in the US. Doctors and other health care practitioners who speak up against vaccines are ridiculed or even have their medical licences revoked. This is serious business. A prominent herbalist I studied with had a daughter become damaged by vaccines some 60 years ago. My own son was lucky to survive his last vaccine, some 19 years ago. This event also pushed me into learning the truth. Beware of vaccines! They can be deadly or essentially harm you for life and they are largely laced with so much in the way of toxins that the barely nascent immune systems of young infants and children are very likely to experience some very serious side effects. Read the article below by Dr Mercola.

By Dr. Mercola, MD.

Common sense would suggest that, if we are giving our children more than five dozen vaccinations from day of birth to age 18, we are over-vaccinating our children. Yet, authorities continue to insist that “more is better” when it comes to vaccines without providing adequate scientific evidence to justify that assumption.

If you follow the CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule, your child will receive 49 doses of 14 vaccines by the time he/she is 6 years of age. And by the age of 18, the CDC recommends that children should have gotten 69 doses of 16 vaccines.

Today, you’ll pay $2200 to purchase all government recommended and mandated vaccines for a child (plus the cost of office visits) because the numbers of vaccines recommended for children have tripled in the past three decades. Sadly though, the short term financial costs to fully vaccinate your child according to the CDC schedule may actually pale in comparison to the costs to your child’s long-term health.

The list of problems related to today’s vaccines, and vaccine policy, is long and troubling:

1. Children not all biologically identical. The current one-size-fits-all approach to vaccination does not take into account differences among children’s genetic profiles or immune responses based on factors such as age, weight, and overall health status.

2. Infant mortality rates between nations appears to be linked to the numbers of vaccinations given to babies before the age of 12 months. More vaccines may contribute to higher infant mortality.

3. Babies receive several vaccines at once—they may receive 8 vaccines or more simultaneously at a doctor visit (between 2 and 15 months of age). Vaccine “layering” may increase the risk for a serious vaccine reaction.

4. Vaccines have not been adequately tested for safety using methodologically sound scientific studies, so their long-term health effects are unknown. Moreover, the effects ofmultiple vaccines given together have not been adequately tested. And pharmaceutical companies have financed nearly all vaccine research to date, which introduces enormous bias.

5. Vaccines do not provide complete or permanent protection against infectious disease. For example, 75 percent of children who contracted chickenpox in a 2001 Maryland outbreak had been vaccinated against chickenpox. A high number of vaccinated persons also have been found in pertussis and mumps outbreaks.

6. Vaccines are not always sterile but can be contaminated with bacteria, viral fragments, and foreign human and animal DNA.

7. Vaccines may contain toxic additives (including aluminum and mercury), which can contribute to your child’s toxic load.

8. Some vaccines are associated with a higher number of serious health problems, both immediate and delayed, yet healthcare professionals rarely report vaccine adverse events. Every year, more than 25,000 adverse reactions are reported to the government, including irreversible injuries and deaths. It’s been estimated that this represents only about 1 to 10 percent of total vaccine reactions, which means that millions of people may have suffered vaccine reactions and injuries over the past few years.

9. Vaccines, say some researchers, may contain excitotoxins that disrupt your child’s immune system (through microglial overstimulation) and damage developing brain structures, which raises his/her risk for a wide range of diseases, including autism, learning disabilities, and psychiatric disorders. New research gives evidence for a link between the high number of vaccines and the autism epidemic.

10. Many children receive even more vaccines than the vaccination schedule recommends. If you take your child to multiple health care providers or facilities, the odds are increased that your child may be given “extra” doses. Ten percent of children aged 19 to 35 months were found to have received extra vaccinations, according to a National Immunization Survey.

11. Preventing natural immune responses to environmental pathogens may not be in your child’s best interest. Healthy children receive life-long benefits from naturally occurring immune responses.

Current Vaccine Policy Could Explain Our Higher Infant Mortality Rate

In a recent report on Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality, an Institute of Medicine committee of medical experts acknowledged a casual link between adverse health effects and vaccination, while confirming that there are too few methodologically sound studies published in the medical literature to make definitive conclusions about many other serious health problems linked with vaccination. This report was published after a review of more than 1,000 vaccine studies by the Institute of Medicine.

According to the most recent National Vital Statistics Report, more than 26,000 American babies born alive in 2009 died before their first birthday, which gives the U.S. a very high infant mortality rate of six infant deaths per 1,000 live births. In 1960, America ranked 12th in infant mortality among all nations of the world. In 2005, we had fallen to number 30.Today in America, there are more premature babies than ever before and more full term babies die before their first birthday than in most European countries.

The most recent study (2011) looking and infant mortality and vaccination is perhaps the most disturbing. It finds that developed nations with the poorest infant mortality rates, like the U.S., tend to give their infants more vaccine doses before age one. To put this into perspective, doctors give American babies 26 vaccine doses before age one, which is twice as many vaccinations as are given babies in Sweden and Japan. Is it really just a “coincidence” that the infant mortality rate is twice as high in America as it is in Sweden and Japan?

Natural Immunity is Superior to Vaccine-Induced Immunity

The more vaccines are studied, the more apparent it becomes that proper vaccine studies are lacking, as vaccine expert and pediatrician Larry Palevsky explains. There is a major difference between natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity. Obtaining natural immunity has far greater benefits.

When children are born, they develop natural immunity to a large variety of microorganisms that they breathe, eat, and touch. The immune responses by cells lining their airways, skin and intestines, are very important in creating “memory” and protection against the organisms they naturally come into contact with. That primary line of defense is a very important step in the maturation of your child’s immune system—and it’s bypassed when he/she gets a vaccine.

With vaccination, you are merely creating an antibody.

Vaccines do NOT impart long-term immunity because they don’t create the kind of memory that occurs when you go through the process of a natural immune response. And natural exposure does not necessarily lead to infection—it is possible to obtain natural immunity without actually getting sick, if your immune system is robust. In fact, vaccines do NOT strengthen the healthy functioning of the immune system, but actually may weaken it.

Bombardment by Multiple Vaccines Can Damage Your Child’s Developing Brain

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a board-certified neurosurgeon and expert on vaccines and the nervous system. He may have discovered the central mechanism of how vaccines can contribute to the development of neurological diseases and has proposed a theory about the cause of autism spectrum disorders. Dr. Blaylock’s theory can be summarized as follows:

Priming: Your child’s immune system gets “primed” through exposure to an excitotoxin, such as a vaccine or an infectious agent, causing his/her microglia (special immune cells within the brain) to shift into “readiness mode.”

Microglial Activation: Subsequent exposures to vaccines or other immune stresses over a relatively short period of time activate the microglia into full “battle mode,” prepared to defend your child’s body against what they perceive as an all-out invasion.

Bystander Damage: Excitotoxins and free radicals are generated, causing “bystander damage” in a runaway process that cannot be shut down. This leads to chronic inflammation and damage to brain tissues, including mitochondrial dysfunction, brain inflammation, seizures, and the other difficulties seen with autism.

Vaccines differ from natural infections in that vaccines can cause brain stimulation for very prolonged periods—the immune system in your child’s brain is activated and re-activated by repeated exposure. Babies do not respond to vaccines in the same way as adults, even by one year of age. Immune over-activation can be especially damaging to a baby or young child’s developing brain structures, such as the amygdala and limbic system.

This cycle is magnified by the administration of multiple vaccines at once. Many studies suggest this is very risky. Did you know that your 12 or 15 month old baby is allowed to get up to 13 vaccines at once under the CDC Immunization Schedule? How can this NOT be an assault to the immune system or developing brain? When was the last time YOU took 13 different prescription drugs at once without suffering side effects?

Certain children appear to have a higher risk for developing chronic brain and immune system dysfuntion including autism, than others, if their immune systems are more easily “primed.” All it takes is the insult of ONE more vaccine, or ONE more infection, and the stage is set for regression into autism or development of other kinds of neuroimmune disorders like ADD/ADHD and seizures. One of the factors that can increase vaccine risks is if your child is particularly susceptible to immune dysfunction because of an imbalance in their gut flora..

Gut Bacteria May Increase Vulnerability to Vaccine Damage

Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride found why some children are more vulnerable than others to developing autism. She discovered a close connection between abnormal gut flora and abnormal brain development—a condition she calls Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS).

Your child’s immune system begins in his/her gut. Pathogenic microbes inside your child’s digestive tract can damage their gut wall integrity, allowing all sorts of toxins and microbes to enter their bloodstream and then his/her brain. With GAPS, your child’s digestive system becomes a source of toxicity, rather than a source of nourishment.

In her research, Dr. Campbell-McBride discovered that 100 percent of the mothers of autistic children have abnormal gut flora, which is significant because newborns inherit their gut flora from their mothers at the time of birth. Establishing normal gut flora in the first 20 days or so of life plays a crucial role in the maturation of your baby’s immune system. Babies who develop abnormal gut flora are left with compromised immune systems, putting them at higher risk for suffering vaccine reactions.

If your baby has suboptimal gut flora, vaccines can become the proverbial “last straw”—the trigger that “primes” his/her immune system to develop chronic heath problems, remembering Dr. Blaylock’s model.

The best way to prevent GAPS is by breastfeeding. and avoiding the use of antibiotics because they destroy the balance of gut floras and promote the growth of pathogenic bacteria. In addition to breastfeeding, I highly recommend the use of fermented foods and probiotics for your baby to help reduce his/her risk of GAPS.

Fortunately, it’s possible to screen your child for GAPS before he or she is vaccinated, so that you can make a better-informed vaccination decision. Dr. Campbell-McBride describes the entire process in her book. It involves providing a detailed family health history to a knowledgeable healthcare provider, combined with stool and urine analysis, and these combine to give you a picture of your baby’s gut health and overall immune status.

Dr. Campbell-McBride states:

“If your child has abnormal gut flora, we can assume that your child has compromised immunity, and these children must not be vaccinated with the standard vaccination protocol because they simply get damaged by it. They should not be vaccinated.”

These non-invasive tests are now available in most laboratories around the world for, typically, $80 to $100 each. This cost is insignificant compared to the incredible expense of treating an autistic child, once the damage is done.

Recommendations for Preventing Vaccination Overdose

Ultimately it is your responsibility to do the due diligence and research to decide for yourself which vaccines you want your child to have. My only caution is to warn you not to rely exclusively on government, drug company or medical trade association information as those sources will not disclose the full story about vaccine risks. Please do an independent analysis by getting information from many sources, including organizations dedicated to preventing vaccine injuries and deaths, rather than from entities that make billions of dollars from promoting one-size-fits all forced vaccination policies. Please realize that right now in most American states, you have the right to opt out of vaccines. However, also be aware that vaccine exemptions are under attack in every state because the wealthy and powerful Pharma/Medical lobby is trying to take them away.

Below are a few recommendations that will help you prevent extra vaccine doses and minimize a vaccine risk for you or your child:

• Keep a detailed record of the vaccinations your child has received and when. DO NOT rely on your doctor’s office to do that for you. It is also a good idea to have your child’s vaccination history on hand in the event there is a vaccine reaction.
  
• Make sure that your doctors or vaccine provider reports vaccine adverse reactions to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System) or make a reaction report yourself.
  
• Consider having your child evaluated for GAPS prior to any vaccination to help decrease vaccine risks.
  
• Consider using an individualized vaccine schedule. Find a doctor to work with you to if you want to have fewer vaccines administered on the same day and/or allow more time between vaccinations.
  
• Breastfeed your baby. Consider feeding him/her naturally fermented foods, rich in natural probiotics, as a regular part of his or her diet. Avoid antibiotics whenever you can.
  
• I also encourage you to become involved with the NVIC, a non-profit charity that has worked for more than 30 years to protect your legal right to make informed, voluntary choices about vaccination for yourself and your family.

 

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

While it seems “old-fashioned,” the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand vaccine exemptions, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org not only gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community, but when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips to make sure your voice is heard.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

Why taking iodine and consuming iodine rich foods is so important

In this article by Dr Mark Sircus, who I interviewed some months ago, Mark explains why iodine is so protective of your thyroid and how it protects you so well against fluoride. Iodine is found in Enerfood, bladderwrack and Thy Robust. Also check out Mark’s great books below!

Iodine Protects Against Fluoride Toxicity

There is growing evidence that Americans would have better health and a lower incidence of cancer and fibrocystic disease of the breast if they consumed more iodine. A decrease in iodine intake coupled with an increased consumption of competing halogens, fluoride and bromide, has created an epidemic of iodine deficiency in America.                                                                                    Dr. Donald Miller, Jr.

The toxicity of modern life is impacting iodine levels and in the countries that fluoridate their water this impact is maximized. It is well known that the toxic halides: fluoride and bromide, having structure similar to iodine, can competitively inhibit iodine absorption and binding in the body. All the halogens use the same receptors in the body so fluoride’s danger for people is centered in great part on this fact.

Americans and Brazilians, who are more exposed to fluoride than other populations, have a desperate need for more iodine. Taking iodine in its nascent form is not only the best way to increase iodine levels in the safest and most effective way possible for adults and children whose thyroids are already compromised, but it will also greatly aid in ridding the body of dangerous fluoride, bromide, chlorine, perchlorates and heavy metals.

In our age of increasing radioactivity and toxic poisoning specifically with fluoride,[1] chlorine, bromide, and even mercury, iodine is a necessary mineral.

Iodine is extremely important since the cells need it to regulate their metabolism. Without it, people are known to suffer from swollen glands in the throat, thyroid diseases, increased fluoride toxicity, decreased fertility rates, increased infant mortality rates, and (with severe deficiency) mental retardation. It has been theorized that iodine deficiency is a causal factor of ADHD in babies of iodine-deficient mothers.

Iodine intake immediately increases the excretion of bromide, fluoride, and some heavy metals including mercury and lead. Bromide and fluoride are not removed by any other chelator or detoxifying technique.

Dr. Kenezy Gyula Korhaz states that iodine chelates heavy metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, aluminum, and halogens such as fluoride and bromide, thus decreasing their iodine-inhibiting effects,[2] especially of the halogens. Iodine has the highest atomic weight of all the common halogens (126.9). Iodine is the only option when it comes to removing these toxic haloids from the thyroid and even the pineal gland where fluoride concentrates, especially when there is a deficiency of iodine in the body.

The human pineal gland contains the highest concentration of fluoride in the body. Fluoride is associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis and this depression increases one’s chance of cancer.

Dr. David Brownstein says that fluoride inhibits the ability of the thyroid gland to concentrate iodine and research has shown that fluoride is much more toxic to the body when there is iodine deficiency present. Brownstein says that after only one dose of iodine, the excretion of fluoride increases by 78%.[3]

On January 7, 2011, the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) proposed lowering the recommended level used in the water fluoridation program to 0.7 ppm, because of the very high incidence of dental fluorosis among American children. An amazing 41% of ALL American children aged 12-15 are now impacted by this condition.

Sodium fluoride is commonly used as a rat poison. Globalists and eugenicists have decided to add it to water supplies with the message to the public that it is good for teeth, despite warnings from the ADA stating that young children risk a disease called dental fluorosis.

After hailing water fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th Century (CDC), the government is calling for a reduction in the amount of fluoride it adds to public water supplies, citing its negative effect on teeth when promotion of healthy teeth is the basic reason given for adding fluoride to the water.

An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children’s liver and kidney functions. One of the strongest physiological effects of fluorides in drinking water (e.g. hydrofluorosilicic acid) is on the kidney, a point to consider in light of increased rates of kidney failure during recent decades.[4]

Kidney disease markedly increases an individual’s susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. In healthy adults, the kidneys are able to excrete approximately 50% of an ingested dose of fluoride. However, in adults with kidney disease, the kidneys may excrete as little as 10-20%, and young children may only excrete 15% of an ingested dose—thus increasing the body burden of fluoride and increasing an individual’s susceptibility to fluoride poisoning (e.g. renal osteodystrophy).

Scientific evidence over the past 50 plus years has shown that sodium fluoride shortens our life span, promotes various cancers and mental disturbances, and most importantly, makes humans stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one neat little package.

A Scientific American study “concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid.” The National Research Council of the National Academies in a 2006 report on page 266 said, “In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function.”

Halogen Displacement

The mechanism behind “halogen displacement” was probably best described by J. C. Jarvis, M.D. (Folk Medicine, Henry Holt & Co., 1958, HB, p. 136), who wrote: “The clinical activity of any one of these four halogens is in inverse proportion to its atomic weight. This means that any one of the four can displace the element with a higher atomic weight, but cannot displace an element with a lower atomic weight. For example, flourine can displace chlorine, bromine, and iodine because fluorine has a lower atomic weight than the other three. Similarly, chlorine can displace bromine and iodine because they both have a higher atomic weight.” Likewise, bromine can displace iodine from the body because iodine has a higher atomic weight. A reverse order is not possible.

European doctors used fluoride as a thyroid-suppressing medication for patients with HYPER-thyroidism (over-active thyroid). Fluoride was utilized because it was found to be effective at reducing the activity of the thyroid gland—even at doses as low as 2 mg/day.

Dr. Mark Allan Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM (P) Director International Medical Veritas Association Doctor of Oriental and Pastoral Medicine http://publications.imva.info http://blog.imva.info

[1] Fluoride is associated with cancer and it also accumulates in the thyroid as well as the pineal gland, an important hormone control center. Dr. Jennifer Luke found out that the pineal gland which produces serotonin and melatonin was also a calcifying tissue, like the teeth and the bones, so she hypothesized it would concentrate fluoride to very high levels. Luke had 11 cadavers analyzed in the UK and found very high levels of fluoride in the calcium hydroxy apatite crystals produced by the gland. The average was 9000 ppm and went as high as 21,000 in one case. These levels are equal to or higher than fluoride levels in the bones of people suffering from skeletal fluorosis. Luke hypothesizes that one of the four enzymes needed to convert the amino acid tryptophan (from the diet) into melatonin is being inhibited by fluoride. Melatonin is responsible for regulating all kinds of activities including the onset of puberty. It is thought that the fall of melatonin levels acts like a biological clock and triggers the onset of puberty. In her gerbil study she found that the high fluoride treated animals were reaching puberty earlier than the low fluoride ones. Considering the seriousness of a possible interference by fluoride on a growing child’s pineal gland (and for that matter, elderly pineal glands) underlines the need for higher iodine intake to increase fluoride elimination. [2] Sticht, G., Käferstein, H., Bromine. In Handbook on Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds - Seiler HG and Sigel, H Editors, Marcel Dekker Inc, 143-151, 1988. [3] David Brownstein, Iodine, Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It;https://www.drbrownstein.com/bookstore_Iodine.php [4] http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/carol-clinch-2009-fluoride-and-kidneys.pdf

 

Is the justice system spending our taxes ethically?

Fiber and colon cancer prevention

As a health advocate I have always recommended the inclusion of adequate fiber containing foods in  our diet. Eating a fiber rich diet is in my mind more important than taking fiber supplements since a healthy regular diet is the best ticket to long term health. In this BBC article they report on a study that illustrates the benefits of regular fiber intake.

Eating more cereals and whole grains could reduce the risk of developing colorectal cancer, a BMJ study says.

Researchers from Imperial College London found that for every 10g a day increase in fibre intake, there was a 10% drop in the risk of bowel cancer.

But their analysis of 25 previous studies found that fruit and vegetable fibre did not reduce risk.

A cancer charity called for more detailed research on the quantity and type of fibre to eat.

Eating fibre and whole grains is known to help protect against cardiovascular disease, but experts say that any link with colorectal cancer is less clear because studies have not had consistent results.

Reviewing the results of all previous observational studies in this area, researchers in London, Leeds and the Netherlands analysed data provided by almost two million people.

Their conclusion, published in the British Medical Journal, is that increasing fibre intake, particularly cereal fibre and whole grains, helps prevent colorectal cancer.

Whole grains include foods such as whole grain breads, brown rice, cereals, oatmeal and porridge.

Dagfinn Aune, lead study author and research associate in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Imperial College London, said their analysis found a linear association between dietary fibre and colorectal cancer.

“The more of this fibre you eat the better it is. Even moderate amounts have some effect.”

Adding three servings (90g per day) of whole grains to diets was linked to a 20% reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer, researchers said.

Cancer Research UK data shows that the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the UK is estimated to be one in 14 (6.9%) for men, and one in 19 for women (5.4%).

However, the study said there was no evidence that fibre in fruit and vegetables played a part in reducing risk.

A previous study which showed a reduction in risk with high intake of fruit and vegetables suggests that compounds other than fibre in fruit and vegetables could account for this result, said the authors.

They also said that the health benefits of increasing fibre and whole grains intake was not restricted to colorectal cancer.

“It is also likely to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, overweight and obesity, and possibly overall mortality,” the researchers said.

Protecting grains

Mark Flannagan, chief executive of Beating Bowel Cancer, said the research supported the charity’s current advice.

“These results support what we already know about the link between dietary fibre and a reduced risk of bowel cancer, although more work is needed to clarify the quantity and types of fibre we should be eating to reduce risk.

“We recommend that people eat a healthy balanced diet that includes plenty of dietary fibre, such as grains, cereals, fruit and vegetables to reduce the risk of developing bowel cancer.

“It is encouraging to know that simple changes to your diet and lifestyle could help protect you from the UK’s second biggest cancer killer.”

Yinka Ebo, senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said the review added weight to the evidence that fibre protects against bowel cancer.

“It shows that certain sources of fibre, such as cereal and whole grains, are particularly important.

“Eating plenty of fibre is just one of many things you can do to lower your risk of developing the disease, along with keeping a healthy weight, being physically active, cutting down on alcohol, red and processed meat, and not smoking.”

In an accompanying editorial in the BMJ, Professor Anne Tjonneland from the Danish Cancer Society, said whole grain products should be made more appealing to shoppers.

“To increase the intake of these foods in Western countries, the health benefits must be actively communicated and the accessibility of whole grain products greatly improved, preferably with a simple labelling system that helps consumers to choose products with high whole grain contents.”

Cancer of the large bowel, also known as colorectal cancer, is a common form of cancer in developed countries – but occurs much less frequently in the developing world.

Could your shampoo be slowly killing you?

That beauty and personal care products can be damaging to our health is more and more of a known fact  Read this article below by Dr Mercola as well as a previous article of mine here, in order to deepen your awareness of this vey important issue. We are being hit from multiple angles with regards to our health and the more we know the better armed we are to stay healthy.Enjoy the info and do your best to put it into practice!

 

If you buy special shampoo for your baby, the last thing you’d expect it to contain would be known or suspected carcinogens…

But if you live in the U.S., this may in fact be the case.

For the past two years, health and environmental groups have been urging Johnson & Johnson to remove two potentially cancer-causing chemicals from its baby shampoo.

One of these ingredients is quaternium-15, which releases formaldehyde; a skin, eye, and respiratory irritant, and a known carcinogen (formaldehyde exposure has been associated with leukemia specifically).

According to SafeCosmetics.org:

“The North American Contact Dermatitis Group considers quaternium-15 to be among the most clinically significant contact allergens in children.”

The other, 1,4-dioxane, is a “likely carcinogen,” and is present in Johnson & Johnson’s:

• Baby Shampoo
• Oatmeal Baby Wash
• Moisture Care Baby Wash, and
• Aveeno Baby Soothing Relief Creamy Wash

According to the CDC, 1,4 dioxane is “probably carcinogenic to humans,” and is toxic to your brain, central nervous system, kidneys and liver.

Why is Johnson & Johnson Dragging Their Feet on Removal of Toxic Ingredients for U.S. Lots?

On October 31, The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics sent Johnson & Johnson a letter signed by 25 environmental and medical groups, demanding they “commit to removing the chemicals from all of its products by November 15.” The Campaign also urges everyone to boycott Johnson & Johnson until it complies.

Johnson & Johnson recently responded, stating that:

“We have been phasing out the use of preservatives that release tiny amounts of formaldehyde to guard against bacterial contamination. These preservative technologies, which are used widely in our industry are all safe and approved in the countries where they are sold…  Over the past couple of years, we already have reduced the number of formulations globally with these “formaldehyde releaser” preservatives by 33% and in the U.S. by over 60%.

We are completing this reformulation as quickly as we can safely and responsibly do so.

As part of the manufacturing process, we have extensive monitoring to ensure that the amount of a trace byproduct known as “1,4 dioxane” in any of our products is well below the level that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and regulatory agencies around the world consider safe.

… We have introduced new product formulations for consumers who prefer natural products, such as JOHNSON’S^® NATURAL^®, a line that is 98% natural, and contains no formaldehyde releasing preservatives or traces of 1,4 dioxane.”

However, reasonable as this may sound, there are two rather obvious “problems” with their reply:

1. They’re already selling a carcinogen-free version of its baby shampoo in other countries, so obviously no complicated reformulation would be necessary, and
2. The Johnson’s “Naturals” brand does not contain either of these chemicals, but, it costs about twice as much as their regular baby shampoo. That makes TWO carcinogen-free formulas at their disposal, which makes the line “We are completing this reformulation as quickly as we can safely and responsibly do so,”  seem like a rather strange excuse

The countries already receiving quaternium-15-free Johnson & Johnson products include:

Denmark	Finland	Japan	The Netherlands
Norway	South Africa	Sweden	The U.K.

 

As stated by Jezebel:

“And it’s not like the company removed an essential ingredient to meet environmental restrictions in these countries. While some have banned the use of quaternium-15, it’s unclear why some of these countries are being treated to the carcinogen-free shampoo.”

What to Look for to Avoid Formaldehyde and 1,4-Dioxane

If you want to avoid formaldehyde-releasing ingredients and 1,4-dioxane, you need to know what to look for as they’re NOT listed on the label; at least not in those words.

Common ingredients likely to contaminate products with formaldehyde include:

• Quaternium-15
• DMDM hydantoin
• Imidazolidinyl urea
• Diazolidinyl urea

To avoid 1,4-dioxane, watch out for these ingredients, which create 1,4-dioxane as a byproduct:

• PEG-100 stearate
• Sodium laureth sulfate
• Sodium myreth sulfate
• Polyethylene
• Ceteareth-20

Other Hazardous Ingredients to Watch Out for

It’s unfortunate, but personal care products, including those specifically designed for babies, can contain a number of hazardous ingredients. Other common culprits to avoid include:

• Any chemical that include the clauses “xynol,” “ceteareth” and “oleth”
• Diethanolamine or DEA, a potentially cancer-causing agent. DEA also readily reacts with nitrite preservatives and contaminants to create nitrosodiethanolamine (NDEA), a known and potent carcinogen. The chemical also appears to block absorption of the nutrient choline, which is vital to brain development.
• Propylene Glycol. Despite the fact the material safety data sheet warns users to avoid skin contact with propylene glycol as it is a strong skin irritant and can also cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage, it’s a common ingredient in shampoos.
• Parabens. These preservatives may be listed on the label as methyl paraben, ethyl paraben, propyl paraben, butyl paraben, isobutyl paraben or E216. They have shown particularly troubling links to cancer.

  Studies have shown that parabens can affect your body much like estrogens, which can lead to diminished muscle mass, extra fat storage, and male gynecomastia (breast growth). Other studies have also linked parabens to breast cancer, as researchers found traces of parabens in every sample of tissue taken from 20 different breast tumors. The EPA has linked methyl parabens in particular to metabolic, developmental, hormonal, and neurological disorders, as well as various cancers.

Average Baby Exposed to Dozens of Potentially Unsafe Chemicals Daily

Four years ago, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) surveyed 3,300 parents and compared the baby products they used to lists of chemicals known to cause allergies, hormone disruption, damage to the nervous system, and cancer. Their review revealed that children are exposed to about 27 chemical ingredients on a daily basis that have never been assessed for safety. Not by the industry, nor by the government.

Examples of hazardous ingredients and baby products from that review include:

• 2 bromo, 2 nitropropane, and 3-DIOL: Can cause allergies and skin irritations. In certain products these ingredients can also break down to form other cancer causing agents
• Sodium borate, found in Desitin diaper cream, can accumulate in your child’s brain and liver, causing detrimental health effects
• Oxybenzone, a common ingredient in sunscreen, can trigger allergies, and may disrupt a child’s delicate hormone system

Interestingly, 89 percent of products labeled “Recommended by doctor” were found to be some of the worst offenders, containing some of the most dangerous chemicals!

The 2007 EWG study also determined that:

• 82 percent of children are exposed every week to one or more ingredients with the potential to harm the brain and nervous system.
  
• 69 percent of children are exposed every week to one or more ingredients that may disrupt the hormone system.
  
• 3.6 percent of children are exposed to ingredients with strong data linking them to cancer, including chemicals classified as known or probable human carcinogens.
  
• 80 percent of children’s products marked as gentle and non-irritating contain ingredients linked to allergies and skin or eye irritation according to government and industry sources.

Evaluate Ingredients Before You Buy

The issue of potential toxins lurking in shampoos, soaps, lotions and other personal care products is a serious one, as your skin readily absorbs these chemicals, allowing them directly into your blood stream. When absorbed, they can actually do more harm than if you were to swallow them.

I strongly recommend switching over to organic brands of toiletries, including children’s personal care products. You can usually find a good variety at either your local health food store, or by searching online. Keep in mind that not all products marked “natural” or “organic” are in fact wholly natural or organic, as “greenwashing” has become increasingly pervasive.

I highly recommend using the Environmental Working Groups Skin Deep site to evaluate each product before settling on a purchase. The EWG is a nonprofit public-interest research group known for making connections between chemical exposure and adverse health conditions. Since its inception in 2004, their “Skin Deep” study has assigned health-risk ratings to thousands of personal-care products.

General Shopping Guidelines

Some general guidelines to keep in mind when purchasing personal care products include:

• Look for the genuine USDA Organic Seal.
• If you can’t pronounce it, you probably don’t want to put it on your body. Ask yourself, “Would I eat this?”
• Look for products that are fragrance-free. One artificial fragrance can contain hundreds—even thousands—of chemicals, and fragrances are a major cause of allergic reactions.
• Pay attention to the order in which the ingredients are listed. Manufacturers are required to list ingredients in descending order by volume, meaning the first few ingredients are the most prominent. If calendula extract is the last ingredient in a long list, your calendula body wash isn’t very natural.
• Stick to the basics. Do you really need 10 products to prepare for your day? Simplify your life and rescue your bank account by reducing the total number of products you use daily.
• Buy products that come in glass bottles rather than plastic, since chemicals can leach out of plastics and into the contents. Bisphenol A (BPA) is a serious concern; make sure any plastic container is BPA free.
• Look for products that are made by companies that are earth-friendly, animal-friendly and committed to organic and sustainable business practices.

There is reason to be concerned about the numerous toxic chemicals you expose your children to on a daily basis, as each and every exposure adds to your child’s total, long-term toxic load. For more information, I highly recommend reading Dr. Doris Rapp’s book, Our Toxic World: A Wake Up Call. Dr. Rapp does a thorough job of uncovering the many ways you’re exposed to toxic chemicals, and how they take a toll on your health, contributing to the many chronic diseases you see today.

Call to Action

SafeCosmetics.org recommends taking decisive consumer action to end the unnecessary inclusion of toxic ingredients in products designed for babies. Here’s what you can do:

1. Vote with your pocketbook: Until Johnson & Johnson commits to making safer baby products for all babies, purchase products from companies making safer alternatives. Search EWG’s Skin Deep cosmetic database to find safer products.
2. Contact Johnson & Johnson: Sign the petition to Johnson & Johnson, asking them to immediately remove formaldehyde-releasing preservatives from all of its baby products sold in all countries and replace them with safer alternatives.
3. Write to Congress: Ask your U.S. Representative to support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011.

The love of parents can bring some amazing miracles. Good News!!!

We hear so much negative news these days that it is truly heartwarming when you hear something positive going on. Believe me there is so much good going on, but we do not hear it as often as we should. In this attached video watch how an Argentine father would not give up when it came to helping his son learn to walk. The miracle here is that all top specialists claimed that his son would never walk in his life. Here is the video which appeared today on BBC reported by Liliet Heredero;

Father’s homemade machine helps disabled son to walk

Are extreme profits in healthcare in conflict with the sanctity of human life?

This article below reminds us just how blatantly inhuman some people and organizations can be in their treatment of fellow human beings.

US researchers and big pharma conducting human experimentation in Africa

 Farid Zakaria

People’s Constitution
November 9, 2011

A new policy brief faults prominent institutions and drug companies like Pfizer, Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, and Population Council, for their involvement in unethical and illegal human experimentation in Africa.

The report is titled “Non-Consensual Research in Africa: The Outsourcing of Tuskegee” in reference to the illegal human experiment conducted in Tuskegee, Alabama, between 1932 and 1972 by the US Public Health Service. In that experiment, some 600 impoverished African-American men were observed in a study on the progression of untreated syphilis. Some of the men were intentionally infected with the disease and all of them were denied the cure. Regrettably, the report notes, no one was held accountable for this crime against humanity.

The new report details human experiments led by US researchers and drug companies on Africans who are typically undereducated, poor, and lack full understanding of their rights. The human subjects often are led to believe that they are receiving medical treatment from governmental health services or health ministries.

These practices hearken back to the appalling experiments carried out by US researchers in Guatemala in the 1940s where hundreds of Guatemalans were deliberately infected with sexually transmitted diseases without information or consent. President Obama formally apologized to Guatemala for these experiments last year.

Human experimentation in the United States is regulated by the Office of Research Integrity and various Ethical Research Institutional Boards. Many African countries lack these institutions. Even when they exist, they lack independence and are controlled by corrupt government officials.

In one experiment on HIV sponsored by Gilead Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and operated by Family Health International, Cameroonian subjects were given details about the experiment in English even though many spoke only French and were illiterate. Five women were allegedly infected with HIV in the experiment but were not given antiretroviral drugs.

In another experiment in Nigeria led by Pfizer physicians, researchers injected children with an antibiotic called Trovan during a meningitis outbreak without providing their families with informed consent forms that fully disclose the side effects and purpose of the experiment. Eleven children died and many were left paralyzed.

• In South Africa and Namibia, mothers with HIV/AIDS are routinely sterilized without their informed consent. Countries that perform these procedures are known to receive funding in the form of grants and incentives from USAID and other aid organizations.

The report explains that US researchers and drug companies violate the laws and protocols of the Declaration at Helsinki (1964) and the Belmont Report which provide ethical guidelines on human experimentation.

Moreover, the results of unethical and fraudulent experiments are laundered in the United States and Europe through the peer-review system. Many of the “peers” who review these experiments are themselves involved in the same unethical conduct. Others are concerned about the possibility of professional alienation if they speak out.

The authors make several demands so that these practices are ended. They include holding congressional hearings so that the matter is brought to the public’s attention and enacting new legislation to ensure that drugs are not approved by the FDA unless the research on which they are based comply with ethical research principles.

See original article here

We must act against the FDA before it is too late; The Government Wants to Seize Your Vitamins

In this article by Chip Wood, he explains why we need to clamour hard to prevent the FDA from enforcing a policy that would mean most of your herbs and supplements would be taken off the market. We need to act now, firstly by making sure our representatives are aware of this FDA power grab and travesty. Read the article below!

The Government Wants to Seize Your Vitamins

No matter how many times you beat back a Federal power grab, it is almost impossible to kill the monster. Like the most terrifying villain in the worst horror movie you’ve ever seen, it keeps coming back to life and threatening the townspeople.

Consider the efforts by the Food and Drug Administration to make it impossible for you to buy the vitamins you want. The FDA first tried to make many supplements illegal in the early 1990s. But its overzealous persecution of vitamin makers (I was one of them) caused millions of consumers to demand that Congress block the FDA.

As a result, in 1994 Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). While the law was far from perfect (what Federal legislation ever is?), it did protect the right to take the supplements of our choice. The only way the FDA could intrude was if it could prove a supplement was unsafe. I don’t know of a single case in which that happened. So for 17 years, those of us who take vitamins to protect our health were safe from government meddlers.

Unfortunately, there was a dangerous loophole in that 1994 law. While supplements that existed at the time were protected by law, the FDA was given the authority to regulate any new ingredients that were introduced after Oct. 15, 1994.

What happened? At first, nothing did. For 17 years, the FDA took no action.

That’s been a good thing, because for 17 years the dietary supplement industry continued to innovate. It discovered new ingredients and formulations and found better ways to extract and concentrate the most effective natural ingredients. As a result, millions of consumers benefited. They protected their hearts and arteries, found relief from joint pain, improved their memory, protected their prostate and much more.

Meanwhile, some deadly dangers did exist. Pathogens like E. coli in food kill at least 2,000 people every year. Acetaminophen, the painkiller in Tylenol and other drugs, is known to kill hundreds more. An FDA researcher estimated that there may have been more than 27,000 deaths linked to the use of Vioxx before the FDA finally took the drug off the market.

Now, the FDA wants to act like the past 17 years never happened. The agency has drafted a proposal to regulate what it calls “new dietary ingredients.” If this proposal is implemented, some of the most effective nutrients you take will be pulled from the market. Nutrients like resveratrol, ubiquinol CoQ10, bacopa, strontium and more.

That’s not all. Under these guidelines, the FDA can define almost anything as a new dietary ingredient. For example:

• If a supplement includes more of an ingredient than was used 17 years ago (even something like vitamin C), it’s new.
• If an ingredient uses a different extraction process (like baking or fermentation), it’s new.
• If a supplement uses an ingredient at a different “life stage” (such as using ripe rather than non-ripe apples), it’s new.
• If a supplement duplicates an ingredient in a laboratory rather than extracting it from the food (even though it’s chemically identical), it’s new.
• And if a probiotic formula includes a strain of bacteria that wasn’t found in yogurt 17 years ago, it’s new.

What would happen to these “new” ingredients? The manufacturers would have to take them off the market until they could prove the ingredients are safe — even if those ingredients have been safely used for 17 years.

What kind of proof is the FDA demanding? According to the guidelines, many companies would have to conduct animal studies using a dosage that’s 1,000 times the typical dose.

I’m not kidding. The FDA wants vitamin makers to do studies for a full year, at 1,000 times the typical dose.

So a fish oil manufacturer would have to conduct a one-year study in which animals are force-fed the human equivalent of 240,000 milligrams of fish oil each and every day. Do you think this outrageous overdose might injure or kill its victim? Of course it could. And that would give the FDA all the excuse it needed to outlaw any product that contained it.

But wait, it gets even worse. If one fish oil manufacturer performed such a study and it passed, it doesn’t mean that other fish oil makers can use the same data. No, sir. They are still required to go out and do their own studies before they’re allowed to sell their product.

These studies are very expensive. A study like the one above typically costs $100,000 to $200,000 to perform. Multiply that by several ingredients in several products and you get an idea of the cost.

Say a company carries six products containing six ingredients each. It would cost between $3.6 million and $7.2 million in studies before that company could even offer the products for sale. For a larger company offering 50 products or more, the costs would be astronomical.

Even if the company did all of that, every penny of those new and higher costs would be passed on to you, the consumer.

Anyone on a tight budget (and that’s almost all of us these days) would find the supplements they rely on becoming prohibitively expensive — if they were even on the market anymore.

Few supplement makers will be able to afford these studies. Many of them will be forced out of business. The ones that remain would still be at the mercy of the FDA. That’s because there are no requirements for the FDA to approve anything. It can approve or reject anything it wants. In the past, it has rejected the majority of ingredients submitted to it.

That means most of the nutrients you buy today will be pulled from the market and never return. Those that do return will be a lot more expensive — or may be available only as prescription drugs.

This is a blatant abuse of power. What the FDA is doing is performing an end-run around the existing law. According to the law, the FDA has to prove a dietary supplement is unsafe for it to be taken off the market. These new guidelines turn that on its head. They are clearly not what Congress intended.

Fortunately, these FDA guidelines have not yet been finalized. All Federal agencies are required to give the public an opportunity to comment on a draft before it is made final. In this case, the FDA has given interested parties until Dec. 1 to comment on the draft. That means there’s a small window of opportunity for you to voice your disapproval.

Frankly, I wouldn’t bother commenting to the FDA. The process is deliberately cumbersome. Those unelected bureaucrats don’t care what you think, anyway.

Instead, please contact the people you do elect: your Congressman and your two U.S. Senators. They have the power to rein in the FDA, and they have done so before — when enough voters complained.

We may not be able to kill the monster, but we can drive it back into its cave. Whether we do is up to you.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

 

Are we truly broke or are our taxes getting siphoned off by unscrupulous government?

Getting more involved in making sure where our hard earned moneys go is becoming more and more important by the day. In this short video the narrator draws our attention in an easily watchable way to some of the places our tax money goes and how we could redirect it in a way that serves the people rather than serving greedy corporations.

Watch it  on you tube here!

« Previous Page — Next Page »