Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA.

Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The Transportation Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers - backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology," reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government to stop these electronic strip searches. (http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/b...)

In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons -- high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue.

The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."

In layman's terms, any time you're talking about interfering with "gene expression" and "DNA replication," you're essentially talking about something that could be a risk to human health.

Never approved as safe for humans
"At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging," reports TechnologyReview.com (http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...). "But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe."

And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even though these devices clearly qualify as "medical devices."

(If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you'll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?)

The study cited in the TechnologyReview article mentioned above is visible at:http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

There, study authors conclude: "Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication."

In other words, millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA.


(These images depict what the TSA sees when air passengers are subjected to full-body scans using millimeter wave technology and / or backscatter X-rays.)

Could these scans cause cancer and birth defects?
Could these scans cause infertility? Cancer? Shortened lifespan? We don't yet know the answers to these questions, but then again neither does the TSA. This technology is being recklessly rolled out without adequate safety testing that would prove it safe for long-term use.

How many times in the past have the "experts" told us technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were dangerous? X-Rays were once used in shoe stores to see if new shoes would fit the bone structure of your feet. High-voltage power lines are perfectly safe, we're told -- but then why do children who live closer to those lines have higher rates of cancer?

Dentists still claim that mercury fillings are perfectly safe for your health -- a preposterous notion -- and cell phone companies continue to insist that cell phone radiation isn't hazardous to your health at all. Time and time again, the public has been lied to by the authorities during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that full-body scanners are safe when they've never been proven safe? Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.

What if the experts are wrong about their safety and ten years later we find out that there is cumulative DNA damage that causes infertility and cancer? What if air travelers who subject themselves to this radiation wind up suffering some currently-unknown health condition as a result? At no time in the history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency.

Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole (which they do, when you're talking on them anyway). But if there's one thing we all should have learned about radiation by now it's that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who's to say they're going to be safe?

What about pregnant women? Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners won't damage the DNA of the unborn babies? What if this technology becomes the next Thalidomide and ten months from now women start giving birth to mutant babies who were damaged by terahertz radiation?

I'm not saying this is going to happen, but wouldn't it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout?

As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC...)

"[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation."

Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an unproven, "experimental" technology with unknown long-term effects on human DNA.

And here's the real kicker: These full-body scanners do nothing to stop terrorists because they can't detect powder explosives in the first place. A determined terrorist can hide all sorts of powder in a shoe, or a sleeping pillow, or a plastic bag sewn into the side of his carry-on luggage. There are a thousand places for terrorists to hide explosives that won't be caught on full-body scanners, no matter how detailed the images are.

Besides, in order to avoid engaging in child pornography (because these machines offer very detailed depictions of body parts), the rules will allow people under 18 years of age to bypass them. So all you need then, if you're a terrorist, is a 17-year-old terrorist assistant who can pack explosives in his own underwear.

Radiology experts claim full-body scanners are safe
Radiology experts are claiming that the radiation emitted from these full-body scanners is perfectly safe for you. Then again, they also claim mammograms are safe, and recent science has now proven that mammograms cause cancer.

When it comes to radiation safety, you can't trust radiologists. They say all that radiation is safe for YOU, but then they flee the room when the X-rays are turned on, ever notice that? They really have zero credibility when talking about the long-term safety of medical imaging devices. Most doctors, similarly, don't have any real clue how much radiation is emitted by a CT scan!

As BusinessWeek reports: (http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty...)

"The health effects of the more common millimeter-wave scanners are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted.

'I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeter-wave security screening systems,' said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president."

The New York Times adds: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...)

"Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe."

NYT goes on to state that the TSA has entered into a contract under which it could purchase 900 full-body scanners to be deployed in airport all across the country.

Resources:
Physics Letters, January 8, 2010
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

Technology Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millim...

New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...

Historical facts about the dangers (and failures) of vaccines

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

Vaccines are the quackery of modern medicine. Mass vaccination programs not only fail to protect the population from infectious disease, they actually accelerate the spread of disease in many cases.

Many websites have cropped up over the last few years to counter the pro-vaccine propaganda put out by drug companies (who profit from vaccines) and health regulators (who serve the drug companies). One of those sites is www.VaccinationDebate.com , which lists the following historical facts about vaccines:

• In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)

• In 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. (http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/020...)
The Hadwen Documents.

• In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don't Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)

• In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)

• In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )

• In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)

• In the 1970's a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73)

• In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People's Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)

• The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.

• In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)

• In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)

• In Oman between 1988 and 1989, a polio outbreak occurred amongst thousands of fully vaccinated children. The region with the highest attack rate had the highest vaccine coverage. The region with the lowest attack rate had the lowest vaccine coverage. (The Lancet, 21/9/91)

• In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990)

• In the USA, from July 1990 to November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration counted a total of 54,072 adverse reactions following vaccination. The FDA admitted that this number represented only 10% of the real total, because most doctors were refusing to report vaccine injuries. In other words, adverse reactions for this period exceeded half a million! (National Vaccine Information Centre, March 2, 1994)

• In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated " Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)

• In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

• On November 2nd, 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced that its members voted at their 57th annual meeting in St Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. http://www.wellnesschiro.com/physic...
(Report by Michael Devitt)

Source: http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/we...


Read more at NaturalPedia:

You can also learn a wealth of information about the dangers of vaccines at NaturalPedia.com. Try these pages for more:

Vaccines: http://naturalpedia.com/vaccines.html

Vaccinations: http://naturalpedia.com/vaccination...

Gardasil: http://naturalpedia.com/gardasil.html

HPV: http://naturalpedia.com/HPV.html

The more you learn about vaccines, the more bizarre the pro-vaccine camp begins to look. And if you dig really deep, it becomes apparent their vaccines are based on nothing more than wishful thinking and circular logic (we support vaccines because we support vaccines, etc.).

So what's better than vaccines? Health education. A healthy population with high levels of vitamin D and other essential nutrients needs no vaccines. Maybe that's why they're never told about these things: Big Pharma's vaccine business depends on people remaining nutritionally ignorant. See http://www.naturalnews.com/026843_h... for more details.

DOCTORS WARN: AVOID GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

Silver Bulletin e-News Magazine

by Jeffrey M. Smith

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, it is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]

The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]

Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.www.ResponsibleTechnology.org,
info@responsibletechnology.org





[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25, 2002.
[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[5] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[6] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
[7] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
[8] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[9] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006
[10] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
[11] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.[13] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
[14] Sunday India, October, 26, 2008
[15] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
[16] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[17] Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008
[18] See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.
[19] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005
[20] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[21] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
[22] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.
[23] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[24] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
[25] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; referencing, John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[26] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
[27] See memos at http://www.biointegrity.org/
[28] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, no8, pp. 721-733
[29] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.
[30] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25

Irradiated Foods Cause Severe Neurological Damage

NaturalNews.com

by Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

In a study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) report on cats developing severe neurological symptoms due to a degradation of myelin, the fatty insulator of nerve fibers called axons. Because myelin facilitates the conduction of nerve signals, when it is lost or damaged there can be impairment of sensation, movement, thinking and other functions, depending on what particular nerves are affected. This loss of myelin is found in several disorders of the central nervous system in humans -- the best known being multiple sclerosis (MS).

So what caused the cats to develop neurological problems? Although the researchers' statement to the media practically buries the fact, a close read shows the animals were fine until fed irradiated food. What's more, when they were taken off the irradiated diet, the animals' nervous systems began healing.

The new study took place when the researchers were faced with reports of a mysterious illness in pregnant cats. A commercial company had been testing various diets on the animals to see how the food impacted growth and development in the felines. The food used, it turns out, had been irradiated. Irradiation, which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for many human as well as animal foods, involves exposing foods briefly to a radiant energy source such as gamma rays or electron beams in order to kill bacteria.

Some of the cats eating the irradiated cat food exhibited very severe neurological symptoms, including movement disorders, vision loss and even paralysis. "After being on the diet for three to four months, the pregnant cats started to develop progressive neurological disease," said Ian Duncan, a professor of medical sciences at the UW-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine and an authority on demyelinating diseases, in a statement to the media.

The sick cats were shown to have widely distributed the very severe demyelization of the central nervous system. Their neurological symptoms were very much like those seen in people with MS and other demyelization disorders. When the felines were taken off the irradiated foods, they began to recover slowly. However, according to Dr. Duncan, the restored myelin sheaths were no longer as thick as normal myelin sheaths.

The finding is important, the scientists concluded in their study, because it shows the central nervous system retains the ability to reestablish myelin -- so strategies that could be developed to spur the growth of new myelin sheaths anywhere nerves themselves are preserved could be a possible therapy for treating a host of severe neurological diseases in humans. "The key thing is that it absolutely confirms the notion that remyelinating strategies are clinically important," Duncan stated.

Curiously, although the scientists' related their findings to possible human applications, they were quick to dismiss a possible connection between people, irradiated food and health risk. "We think it is extremely unlikely that (irradiated food) could become a human health problem," Duncan explained in the media statement. "We think it is species specific."

However, not everyone agrees irradiated food is fine for humans or animals. According to the Center for Food Safety, studies have shown irradiation produces volatile toxic chemicals such as benzene and toluene, which are known or suspected to cause cancer and birth defects. A 2001 study found an association between colon tumors and 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACB's), a new chemical compound detected only in foods that have been irradiated.


For more information:

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/...
http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/23/n...
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/i...


About the author:

Sherry Baker is a widely published writer whose work has appeared in Newsweek, Health, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Yoga Journal, Optometry, Atlanta, Arthritis Today, Natural Healing Newsletter, OMNI, UCLA's "Healthy Years" newsletter, Mount Sinai School of Medicine's "Focus on Health Aging" newsletter, the Cleveland Clinic's "Men's Health Advisor" newsletter and many others.

Cooking Broccoli Destroys 90+ Percent of Anti-Cancer Compound Sulforaphane

NaturalNews.com

Levels of the beneficial, cancer-fighting compound sulforaphane in broccoli are reduced by 90 percent when the vegetable is cooked, according to a study conducted by researchers from TNO Quality of Life in the Netherlands, and published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

"Consumption of raw broccoli resulted in faster absorption, higher bioavailability, and higher peak plasma amounts of sulforaphane, compared to cooked broccoli," the researchers wrote.

Eight male participants were fed 200 grams of crushed raw or crushed cooked broccoli as part of a warm meal; researchers then measured the men's blood and urine levels of sulforaphane. Based on these measurements, the researchers calculated that while the sulforaphane in raw broccoli had a bioavailability of 37 percent, this dropped to only 3.4 percent when the vegetable was cooked.

Furthermore, it took longer for the sulforaphane from cooked broccoli to be absorbed by the body. Optimal levels of sulforaphane were observed in the blood and urine of participants 1.6 hours after eating raw broccoli, but these levels were not reached among consumers of cooked broccoli for six hours.

The cruciferous vegetables, also known as Brassicaceae, include broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, arugula, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, daikon, garden cress, horseradish, kale, kohlrabi, mustard, radish, rape (canola), rapini, rutabaga , tatsoi, turnip, wasabi and watercress. Numerous studies have linked higher intake of these vegetables to lower rates of cancer and other health problems, particularly when the vegetables are consumed raw.

One of the plant compounds identified as partially responsible for this protective effect is sulforaphane, the main member of the isothiocyanate family that is found in broccoli. All cruciferous vegetables contain plant compounds known as glucosinolates, which are metabolized by the body into cancer-fighting isothiocyanates.

Studies have suggested that sulforaphane may help activate genes that produce antioxidants to clear dangerous free radicals from the body. This effect is believed to be partially responsible for the observed lower rates in breast, bladder, cervix, colon, endometrium, liver and lung cancers among those who eat large quantities of cruciferous vegetables. It is also believed to help protect the immune and other bodily systems from age-related decline.

Sulforaphane is also believed to reduce inflammation, which can transform precancerous cells into tumors and has also been linked to other chronic health problems such as heart disease and diabetes. At least one study has suggested that the chemical can even prevent the blood vessels of diabetics against the damage caused by high blood sugar.

The current study is not the first to suggest that most of broccoli's health benefits are destroyed by cooking. Recent research from the International Agency for Cancer Research found lower cancer rates among those who consumed at least three servings of raw cruciferous vegetables per month. This mirrors the results of an earlier study by researchers from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y., who found a 40 percent lower risk of bladder cancer among those who ate that many raw cruciferous vegetables.

There was no protective effect observed, however, among those who ate cooked vegetables.

The researchers in the current study noted that other forms of processing besides cooking might also lead to the degradation of sulforaphane or its chemical precursors.

"The sulforaphane content of cooked broccoli was lower than the glucoraphanin content of raw broccoli, 9.92 and 61.4 micromoles, respectively," the researchers noted. "It seems that the conversion from glucosinolate to isothiocyanate was incomplete or that another reaction occurred."

Glucoraphanin (a glucosinolate) is the chemical precursor to sulforaphane (an isothiocyanate).

"In future research," they said, "care should be taken that glucoraphanin is not hydrolyzed into other metabolites when broccoli is crushed."

FDA Plots to Mislead Consumers Over Irradiated Foods

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams

NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is intentionally plotting to deceive consumers over the labeling of irradiated foods, attempting to eliminate any requirement for informative labeling or replace the word "irradiated" with "pasteurized."

In a feature story published by NaturalNews yesterday, we stated that the FDA does not require foods to be labeled as irradiated. We received a lot of questions from readers about that point, with some stating the FDA does, in fact, require foods to be labeled when irradiated. This is not always correct: Most foods are not required to be labeled as irradiated. This story explains the FDA's food irradiation labeling policy in more detail and reveals the FDA's plot to deceive consumers by misleading them into thinking irradiated foods are NOT irradiated.

Foods that are exempt from irradiation labeling:

According to current FDA regulations, any food used as an ingredient in another food does NOT have to be labeled as irradiated. For example, if you buy coleslaw, and the cabbage in the coleslaw has been irradiated, there is no requirement that the coleslaw carry any labeling indicating it has been irradiated.

However, if raw cabbage is irradiated, then current FDA regulations do require it to carry an irradiation label. This label, however, is a symbol, not text, and many consumers have no idea what the symbol really means -- it actually looks like a "fresh" symbol of some sort. In no way does it clearly indicate the food has been irradiated. This is the FDA's way to "hide" the fact that these foods have been irradiated. (The symbol looks a lot more like leaves under the sun than food being irradiated...)

That same head of cabbage, by the way, if served in a restaurant, requires absolutely no irradiation labeling. All restaurant foods are excused from any irradiation labeling requirement. As stated at the FDA's own website (1):

Irradiation labeling requirements apply only to foods sold in stores. For example, irradiated spices or fresh strawberries should be labeled. When used as ingredients in other foods, however, the label of the other food does not need to describe these ingredients as irradiated. Irradiation labeling also does not apply to restaurant foods.

How the FDA plans to deceive consumers and further hide the fact that foods are being irradiated

As stated above, the FDA does not want consumers to realize their foods are being irradiated. Consumer awareness is considered undesirable by the FDA; an agency that also works hard to censor truthful statements about nutritional supplements and functional foods. Accordingly, the FDA pursues a policy of enforced ignorance of consumers regarding irradiated foods, nutritional supplements, medicinal herbs and all sorts of natural substances. It is currently illegal in the United States to state that cherries help ease arthritis inflammation if you are selling cherries. (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)

On the food irradiation issue, the FDA is now proposing two things that are nothing short of astonishing in their degree of deceit:

FDA proposal #1: Irradiated foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless consumers can visibly tell they're irradiated.

This ridiculous proposal by the FDA suggests that foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless there is some obvious material damage to the foods (like their leaves are wilting). Thus, foods that don't appear to be irradiated should not have to be labeled as irradiated.

Imagine if this same ridiculous logic were used to regulate heavy metals content in foods: If consumers can't SEE the heavy metals, then they should be declared free of heavy metals!

FDA proposal #2: Irradiated foods should be labeled as "pasteurized," not "irradiated."

This FDA proposal is so bizarre that it makes you wonder whether the people working at the FDA are smoking crystal meth. They literally want irradiated foods to be labeled as "pasteurized."

And why? Because the word "pasteurized" sounds a lot more palatable to consumers, of course. Never mind the fact that it's a lie. Irradiated foods are not pasteurized, and pasteurized foods are not irradiated. These two words mean two different things, which is precisely why they each have their own entries in the dictionary. When you look up "irradiated," it does not say, "See pasteurized."

But the FDA is now playing the game of thought police by manipulating the public with screwy word replacement games that bear a strange resemblance to the kind of language used in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. And it is, indeed, an Orwellian kind of mind game that the FDA wants to play with the food supply: After unleashing Weapons of Mass Destruction (radiation) onto the foods, the FDA wants to label them all as simply being "pasteurized," keeping consumers ignorant and uninformed.

How do I know the FDA wants to do this? The agency said so itself in an April 4, 2007 document filed in the Federal Register (Volume 72, Number 64). As published in the document (2):

FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to petition FDA for use of an alternate term to "irradiation'' (other than "pasteurized''). In addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm to use the term "pasteurized'' in lieu of "irradiated,'' provided it notifies the agency that the irradiation process being used meets the criteria specified for use of the term "pasteurized'' in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and the agency does not object to the notification.

Did you follow all that mind-warping logic? The FDA is essentially begging a company to petition it to use the term "pasteurized" instead of "irradiated" as long as they both result in the food being killed. Once it receives such a petition, it will approve it, claiming it is meeting "the needs of industry."

The FDA already allows lots of word substitutions in the areas of health and medicine. The phrase "Toxic Poison" has been replaced with "Chemotherapy," for example. "Over-medicated with dangerous psychiatric drugs" has been replaced with the term, "Treatment." And the phrase, "Regulated with life-threatening synthetic chemicals" has been replaced with the word "managed," as in "her diabetes has been managed."

So why not introduce all sorts of other word substitutions that might continue the Orwellian "Ministry of Language" propaganda put forth by the FDA?

I say we substitute the word "medicated" with "treated" and "treated" with "rewarded." That way, when a patient describes what drugs she's on, she can say, "I've been rewarded with ten different prescriptions!"

Better yet, let's replace the word "surgery" with "enhancement." So anybody who undergoes heart bypass surgery, for example, can say they've really just had "Heart bypass enhancement!"

It sounds a lot easier to swallow, doesn't it? And that's what it's all about, folks, when it comes to irradiating the food supply: Making it all sounds a lot less treacherous than it really is. Control the words and you control people's ideas, and if there's one thing the tyrannical FDA is really, really good at, it's controlling words!

What the FDA really wants to accomplish

Let's get down to some blunt truth about the FDA's real genocidal agenda. What the FDA wants here is two things:

1) The destruction of the food supply (genocide)

2) The complete ignorance of the consuming public (nutritional illiteracy)

Genocide and illiteracy. Ignorance and fear. Tyranny, radiation and chemicals... These are the things the FDA truly stands for.

That pretty much sums up the FDA's intent on this whole food irradiation issue. Destroy the food and mislead the People. And then wait for the windfall of profits at Big Pharma as the People degenerate into a mass of diseased, disoriented and desperate health patients. It's business as usual at the FDA.

That's why Dr. James Duke, creator of the world's largest phytochemical database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke), had this to say about the FDA's food irradiation policy:

"Perhaps the FDA should call up a billion dollar team to consider irradiating another health hazard - the FDA itself, which is almost as dangerous to our health as the pharmaceutical industry."

Why I call this the unleashing of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

In my previous article on this issue, I've called this food irradiation agenda a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" against the food supply. A couple of readers questioned me about that. Why, they asked, do I consider food irradiation to be a WMD?

WMDs include weapons that indiscriminately cause damage to people and infrastructure that serves the People. Dumping a radioactive substance into the water supply that serves a major city, for example, would be considered using a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Interestingly, the use of Depleted Uranium by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan is also an example of Weapons of Mass Destruction, making the U.S. guilty of yet more crimes against humanity. (A previous example is the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan's civilian population in World War II.)

Irradiating the food supply is also an application of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and here's a thought experiment that will clearly demonstrate it:

Suppose you wanted to irradiate your own garden vegetables. The minute you start trying to buy a machine that produces radiation, you would be quickly considered a terrorist and investigated by the FBI. They would visit your home and ask, "Why do you need a radiation machine?" And if you said you needed to irradiate your garden vegetables, they would look at you like you were completely nuts and probably haul you into the local FBI field office for yet more questioning, all while considering you a possible terrorist and likely adding your name to the no-fly list so you could never travel on commercial airlines.

If you don't believe me, try to acquire a high-powered radiation emitting device and see what happens...

So why is it considered bizarre and possibly criminal when an individual buys a radiation machine to irradiate their own foods, but when the FDA pushes the same agenda on a larger scale, they call it "safety?"

Irradiated food isn't altered, claims the FDA

Of course, the FDA says the irradiated food isn't altered by the radiation. This statement is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a pulse. Why? Because if the radiation doesn't alter anything, then how can it kill e.coli and salmonella?

The whole point of the radiation is to kill living organisms. And it works by causing fatal damage to the tissues and DNA of those microorganisms. So guess what it does to the plants? Since radiation isn't selective, it also irradiates the plant fibers and tissues, causing DNA damage and the destruction of enzymes and phytochemicals.

Amazingly, the FDA claims this does not count as "altering" the food because these changes aren't visible.

If it weren't such a nutritional atrocity, it would be downright hilarious. DNA changes are not visible to the human eye, but they can result in serious health consequences. Just ask anyone born with two Y chromosomes.

Eat up, guinea pigs!

Of course, the radiation pushers will claim that nobody really knows whether irradiating the food kills just 1% of the phytochemicals or 99% (or something in between). And they don't know what the long-term effect is on human health, either. This is exactly my point: The irradiation of fresh produce is a dangerous experiment, and we've all been involuntarily recruited as guinea pigs.

I will be curious to see a serious scientific inquiry into the nutritional damage caused to fresh produce by irradiation. I also find it simply astonishing that this decision by the FDA has been made in the absence of such scientific studies. Much like it does with the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA prefers to poison the people first, and then figure out later just how much damage might have been caused.

I say when you're dealing with the food supply, you should err on the side of caution. We are talking about the health of the nation here. This is not a small matter. It should be treated with extreme caution, skepticism and scientific scrutiny. Instead, it is being addressed with a gung-ho attitude framed in mind games and enforced ignorance.

In other words, rather than figuring out whether food irradiation is actually safe, the FDA would rather simply pretend it is.

Welcome to Make Believe Land, where all your food is now safe and nutritious, courtesy of the FDA!

Sources:

(1) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-fdb33.html

(2) http://www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/fr070404.html

World's Greatest Medical Failures

By: Jon Barron

Last issue, I discussed the "10 greatest advancements in medical history." In this issue, I want to cover some of medicine's greatest failings and to discuss some of the philosophical holes in the modern medical paradigm that lead to those failings. And of course, along the way, highlight some of those failings.

But first, let's get some perspective.

Sickness, disease, and injury abound. People need medical care. In America, we have grown up trusting our family doctor. There is peace of mind in knowing that someone cares, that someone knows your child by name and is moved by compassion when you, or someone you love, is hurting. In recent years we have turned to the more anonymous (but more complete) coverage, of prepaid medical plans. In Europe and Canada, it's the "health system" physicians who offer you cradle to grave protection in the name of the state. Understand, when you need a doctor, only a doctor will do. If you are severely injured in an automobile accident, you want a skilled surgeon -- not an herbalist.

Modern medical science has made incredible advances and contributions which have alleviated pain and suffering. Surgical technique (the cutting apart and repairing of the human body) has made remarkable progress. Identification of germs that cause disease and improved sanitation, which aids in preventing that disease, have also seen vast achievements. Burn treatment, trauma, and emergency room care are nothing less than miraculous. When it comes to these areas of medical care, the value they bring to us is impossible to measure.

But…there is another side to this story. There is great failure in health care today -- and, as a result of that failure, great pain and unnecessary suffering. And it is important that, as you discover how badly the modern medical paradigm is failing, you take great care not to assign blame wrongly. Yes, there are incompetent doctors whose practices we all abhor, and we wish they could never practice medicine again, but this newsletter is not about them. Neither is it directed at the thousands of faithful health care workers who go about their daily jobs. Specifically, my purpose in this newsletter is to confront the very foundational philosophy and system of the modern medical paradigm -- a philosophy that costs trillions and a system that promises hope, but delivers misery. No one, including many inside the medical community, can help but acknowledge these great failings. Sadly, for all our education and massive expenditures, modern medicine has failed miserably. You may wonder why.

Modern medicine likes to trace its roots to Hippocrates, the patron saint of today's doctors. In truth, its roots rest more comfortably in the Newtonian views of the 17th century when philosophers and scientists defined the universe as a great machine. Physicians of that era were not immune to this influence and likewise began to define the human body as a machine. According to this "new" paradigm, the body could be analyzed, catalogued, adjusted, and repaired as required -- just like any other machine.

This viewpoint became firmly established during the 19th century when the "body as machine" concept was taken to its ultimate, absurd extreme. The human body was no longer viewed as a holistic entity, but rather as a grouping of separate parts and pieces. Disease was no longer viewed as a body state, but as a set of symptoms. Ultimately, and so it is today, the province of medicine has become the observation, classification, and management of symptoms. According to this paradigm, disease or illness or injury manifests itself as symptoms entirely separate from the body as a whole (a decidedly non-holistic paradigm). The body is irrelevant. If the symptom can be eliminated (e.g., cholesterol numbers lowered through daily use of statin drugs), you are, by definition, now healthy.

In fact, there are some who would argue that today's medicine has even gone beyond treating the body as a machine -- that today's doctors have taken things to a whole new level of absurdity. They treat the body as a mere set of "numbers." When you go to your doctor now, he or she orders up a series of very expensive tests (blood work, PSA, EEG, etc.), each of which produces a set of numbers. Then, based on where your numbers fall relative to a chart of "normal" numbers, your doctor prescribes a series of drugs to move your numbers up or down so that they fall within the "norm." In this model, even symptoms don't matter -- only the numbers.

As it turns out, the body as machine paradigm works very well in surgical repair. If you break an arm, the doctor works with that part of the machine and repairs your arm. If you are wounded by a bullet, the doctor removes the bullet and repairs all of the separate parts of your body damaged by the bullet -- again, problem solved!

Unfortunately, the paradigm's failures become most evident when we look at the major diseases of our time -- cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc.

The failure of the medical paradigm

For now, let's just look at the big three diseases.

The failure of cancer treatments

The standard treatments for cancer are surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Do any of these treatments do one single thing to address the actual causes of cancer? And the answer, of course, is no, they do not. All they do is "attempt" to remove the manifestation of the cancer that results from these causes. To believe they address the underlying causes of your cancer, you would have to believe that you got cancer in the first place because your body was suffering from a deficiency of radiation or chemotherapy. No one believes that, not even your doctor. Is it any wonder then that these treatments have had such a poor track record? And on top of everything else, we now know that radiation and chemotherapy are known carcinogens. They significantly compound the problem!

The failure of diabetes treatments

Standard medical treatment offers several flawed approaches:

- Drugs like metformin seek to inhibit the absorption of high glycemic carbohydrates in the intestinal tract and enhance insulin sensitivity in the body, thereby reducing the need for extra insulin.

a) The major problem with metformin is its effect on the gastrointestinal system, ranging from a mild loss of appetite to nausea, vomiting, abdominal discomfort, cramps, flatulence and diarrhea. Many patients find these symptoms impossible to cope with and discontinue the tablets within days.

b) Lactic acidosis is a rare but dangerous side effect of metformin. This is a serious condition where the cells of the body do not get enough oxygen to survive. It is caused by a build up of lactic acid in the blood. Most of the cases described have been in people whose kidneys were not working well -- an inevitable problem with diabetes.

- Drugs like glyburide work by stimulating the pancreas to release more insulin.

a) Glyburide is so effective that you need to carry glucose pills with you in case you produce so much insulin that your blood sugar drops too low and you fall into a diabetic coma. Although this rarely happens, it is indicative of the larger problems with glyburide:

1) It raises insulin levels so high that your body faces all of the problems of high insulin levels discussed above.

2) It doesn't repair beta cells; it just forces them to work harder -- thus speeding up the day when they break down and become dysfunctional.

- Extra insulin in the form of pills or injections cover you when the beta cells in your pancreas have burned out and can no longer produce sufficient insulin by themselves or even when stimulated by drugs such as glyburide -- until, that is, your body's insulin resistance is so high that no amount of insulin is adequate for the task at hand. At that point, your body goes into rapid decay.

And when all is said and done, it should be noted that a huge study published earlier this year found that aggressively using these drugs to lower blood sugar levels actually resulted in an increased risk of death. The more they were used, the greater the risk.

The failure of heart disease treatments

Heart disease is the number one killer in the developed world; in most cases, it begins with atherosclerosis, which is the accumulation of plaque that hardens and narrows arteries. The progression is simple. You have clogged arteries. This eventually causes your blood pressure to rise so your doctor prescribes blood pressure medication to eliminate the symptom of high blood pressure -- not the problem, clogged and hardened arteries. To reduce blood pressure, doctors have essentially four classes of medication in their arsenal.

1. Diuretics, which reduce pressure by making you pee out water from your body. Reduce the volume of fluid in your blood, and you reduce the pressure. Unfortunately, side effects can include dizziness, weakness, an increased risk of strokes, and impotence. (Not to worry, there are more medications to alleviate the side effects.)

2. Calcium channel blockers, which work to relax and widen the arteries -- thus reducing blood pressure. Then again, a major side effect of channel blockers is a 60% increased risk of heart attack. (1, 2)

3. Beta blockers, which work by weakening the heart so it won't pump as strongly, thereby reducing blood pressure. One of the major problems with beta blockers, though, is the increased risk of congestive heart failure. And more recently, its use has been associated with an increased risk of diabetes. Now catch this. Despite the increased risk of congestive heart failure, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine August 20, 1998, recommended putting "every single" heart attack survivor on beta blockers.

4. ACE inhibitors (the new drugs of choice), which like the calcium channel blockers, also work to relax and widen the arteries. Unfortunately, ACE inhibitors can produce severe allergic reactions, can be deadly to fetuses and children who are breastfeeding, and can cause severe kidney damage.

But remember, these drugs only treat the symptom, not the cause -- clogged arteries. So eventually, as your arteries continue to clog to the point where even the medication no longer helps, you start getting the inevitable chest pains and shortness of breath. At that point, your doctor is then forced to chase the next set of symptoms and perform a coronary bypass or angioplasty to relieve the symptoms.

And like the drugs before it, surgery merely addresses the symptoms, not the problem. Think about this for a moment: If all your doctor did was bypass or clear the arteries supplying blood to your heart, doesn't that mean that all of the other arteries in your body are still clogged -- including the arteries that supply blood to your brain? The answer, of course, is yes. And, in fact, your odds of having a stroke after heart surgery are dramatically increased.

Not to worry. Your doctor has another drug to deal with this problem: Coumadin® (medicinal rat poison), which inhibits clotting and thins your blood so that it flows more easily through the narrowed arteries. But Coumadin has its own set of problems, and, of course, you are still on all of the previous blood-pressure drugs and symptom relieving drugs that your doctor previously prescribed.

The bottom line is that the average number of prescriptions per senior citizen has grown from 19.6 in 1992 to 28.5 in 2000, an increase of 45 percent. The average number of prescriptions per person 65 and older is projected to grow to 38.5 by 2010, an increase of 35 percent over 2000. From 1992 to 2010, then, the average number of prescriptions per senior citizen will grow by 96 percent. Stunningly, only the first 1 or 2 drugs actually deal with the symptoms presented by the original medical problem. The other 17-36 drugs are all required to deal with the negative side effects of the original 2, plus the interactions of all the other drugs being taken. And the really sad fact is that in over 95% of all cases, the original problem could have been resolved by merely changing diet and lifestyle -- with no side effects.

Somehow, along the way, we have created a major industry centered around disease and manipulating the symptoms of those diseases, and everyone wants a piece of the action -- from insurance companies to doctors, administrators to state legislatures, lobbyists to hospitals, drug companies to researchers, medical device companies to universities, and even all the non-profits that collect millions and millions of dollars to support this massive system of dysfunction. Make no mistake, this is not a wellness industry, but as Paul Pilzer states in The Wellness Revolution, it is a "Disease Industry" -- designed not to eliminate disease, but to perpetuate the management of symptoms. And the really sad fact is that in over 95% of all cases, the original problem could have been resolved naturally -- with no side effects.

Do you understand the implications of that statement?

Disease can be averted, treated, and in many, many cases even reversed -- naturally, with no side effects…and at little cost!

The 10 things doctors must do to truly earn the respect they crave

Look, modern medicine and the doctors who practice it have much to be proud of. As we discussed earlier (and last issue), there are many areas in which they have made great progress -- and areas in genetic and stem cell therapy and prosthetics that are likely to be transforming over the next 10-20 years.

But that said, there is much that modern medicine has to apologize for. And if doctors ever truly want to be the all around healers they claim to be, they will have to change some fundamental paradigms.

In the last newsletter, I listed the 10 greatest advances in medical history, according to doctors surveyed in the British Medical Journal. Let me wrap up this two part series by giving you my list of the 10 things doctors must do if they truly want to earn the respect they crave. Medical doctors must:

1. Start thinking of the human body as an integrated whole, not a machine with separate parts that can be treated independently.

2. Start treating underlying causes, rather than merely managing symptoms.

3. Actually learn the real role that diet and lifestyle play in optimizing health. A total of 6-8 hours of study in medical school does not make one an expert.

4. Accept the fact that the proper use of the right supplements can improve health.

5. Accept the fact that exposure to over 100,000 untested toxins released into the environment is going to have an impact on health -- and that it is indeed possible to detoxify many of those toxins even after they have entered the body.

6. Stop accepting perks (essentially bribes) from the pharmaceutical companies, which then influence subsequent treatment decisions.

7. Stop accepting simultaneous positions with drug companies and on FDA advisory boards. Quite simply, it is unethical to pass regulatory decisions on drugs in which you have a financial interest.

8. Evaluate alternative therapy treatments on a level playing field. Stop insisting that alternative health treatments must undergo rigorous peer reviewed study before they can be used, and yet allow 85% of all medical treatments to be used untested.

9. Stop being so arrogant as to think that if treatments don't come from within the medical fraternity, they have no value.

10. And stop being so arrogant as to think that alternative health treatments and supplements can be evaluated without the active participation of alternative healers. Going to medical school grants no expertise in alternative health -- none! (I once had a medical doctor announce to me with great pride that he had become an expert in alternative health the previous weekend under instructions from the head of his hospital. Considering that it's taken me over 40 years to develop a passing understanding of the field, with expertise in just one or two small areas, his achieving mastery of the entire field in just two days was truly impressive.)

When all is said and done, I have been fortunate to travel the world, to meet and spend time with dedicated men and women within the medical community whose work in the field of healing has distinguished them as miracle doctors. Not once or twice, but every day, over and over, they perform miracles.

But when it comes to the major diseases of our time, they can do better. And when you consider the alternative, we can only hope they do.

Serious Health Dangers May Be Lurking In Your Shampoo & Soap

by Greg Ciola

Source: www.healthtruthrevealed.com

The American public and the world have become the unwitting subjects of a massive toxicological experiment from personal care products. It’s ironic that in a day and age when so many have a heightened fear of terrorism and infectious diseases, few are aware of the harmful health risks coming from soaps, shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants, toothpaste, skin creams, cosmetics, hair sprays, laundry detergents, dishwashing products and household cleaners. Billions of people every day are being exposed to ingredients that are proven carcinogens, toxins, neurotoxins, hormone disrupters, skin irritants, allergens, and respiratory disrupters. Some of the ingredients being used have even proven to be deadly to laboratory animals yet the government has declared them safe for use with humans.

Might this be one reason why so many people suffer from such things as dry skin, itchy skin, persistent skin irritations and rashes, sinus problems, allergies, asthma, respiratory ailments, reproductive problems, neurological disorders, and other health related ailments that doctors and medicine just don’t seem to have answers for?

Perhaps it’s time you examined your personal care products a little further to see if they are having a deleterious effect on your overall health. We have reached the point where diet and exercise alone are not enough to keep your health in check. You must monitor and regulate every aspect of your life – from what you put on your body to what you put into your body, and even to what you use to clean your house.

Beware Of The Hidden Dangers of Shampoo

Unless the shampoo you use has been thoroughly investigated to be free of all caustic chemicals, phthalates, parabens, sodium lauryl and laureth sulfate, artificial fragrances and numerous other toxins, you are more than likely exposing yourself and loved ones to a risky brew of ingredients that could be extremely hazardous to your health. Did you know that a majority of the ingredients used in personal care products are actually derived from petroleum by-products, coal tar, and animal fats? I am sure that given the choice most of you wouldn’t choose ingredients derived from these sources to wash your hair or body.

Here’s something interesting to ponder. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health analyzed 2,983 chemicals used in personal care products. The final results were as follows.

• 884 of the chemicals were toxic
• 778 caused acute toxicity
• 376 caused skin and eye irritation
• 314 caused biological mutation
• 218 caused reproductive complications
• 148 caused cancerous tumors

Parents of newborns and little children beware! A new study published in the latest issue of the journal Pediatrics suggests that baby shampoos, lotions and powders may expose infants to chemicals that have been linked with possible reproductive problems.

The study focused on chemicals called phthalates, which are becoming fairly common in the environment. They are used in lubricants and cosmetics, and increasingly they are showing up in plastic products, including children’s toys.

A story appearing on the website www.consumeraffairs.com highlighted the study:

“Researchers carefully measured the phthalates levels in the urine of 163 infants between the ages of two and 28 months. They compared those levels to a description of their recent activities, provided by their mothers.
The moms in the study were specifically asked about any lotions, shampoo, powders, wipes or diaper creams they had used, as well as the use of plastic toys, teething rings and pacifiers.
While all the infants in the study had some level of phthalates in their urine, those who had used shampoo, lotion and powder had higher levels of the chemical than those who did not. The researchers concluded that parents who want to reduce phthalates in their children should avoid products that contain these chemicals.”

It’s quite disturbing that manufacturers actually produce products that they know can harm people, especially children. To highlight the problem further with personal care products on the market, I decided to take one popular brand of shampoo (name withheld) and examine its contents so you have some deeper insight into what you may be exposing yourself to every day.

Here’s what the label said it contains: Ammonium Chloride, Glycerin, Glycol Distearate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Octoxynol, Fragrance, Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate, Blue 1, Yellow 5, Red 40.

(Some of the information was obtained from two books: A Consumer’s Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients and A Consumers Dictionary Of Food Additives by Ruth Winter.)

1) Ammonium Chloride: Industrially employed in freezing mixtures, batteries, dyes, safety explosives, and in medicine as a urinary acidifier and diuretic. If ingested, can cause nausea, vomiting, and acidosis in doses of 0.5 to 1 gram. Lethal as an intramuscular dose in rats and guinea pigs. As with any ammonia compound, concentrated solutions can be irritating to the skin.

2) Glycerin: Any by-product of soap manufacturing obtained by adding alkalis to fats and fixed oils. A solvent, humectant, and emollient in many cosmetics, it absorbs moisture from the air and therefore, helps keep moisture in creams and other products, even if the consumer leaves the cap off the container. In and of itself glycerin is not a bad ingredient. It’s actually very beneficial when derived from the right source and is found in many organic products. The main problem with a lot of the glycerin being used in mainstream products stems from the fact that unless a product label states that it was derived from a vegetable or coconut source, it was likely obtained from pig fat.

3) Glycol Distearate: A widely used surfactant made from glycerin and stearic acid. Glycol literally means “glycerin” plus “alcohol.” (Stearic acid is also an animal fat and isopropyl alcohol is derived from petroleum.) This ingredient can be caustic on your skin.

4) Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS): Prepared by sulfation of lauryl alcohol followed by neutralization with sodium carbonate. May cause drying of the skin because of its degreasing ability and is an irritant to the skin. Sodium Lauryl Sulfate is an ingredient found in over 90% of commercial shampoos and conditioners. It has been shown to corrode the hair follicles and impede hair growth and has been blamed for many cases of premature hair loss. The Material Safety Data Sheet provided by the U.S. government says exposure to SLS can lead to a burning sensation, coughing, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache, nausea and vomiting. According to the American College of Toxicology, SLS stays in the body up to five days. Other studies show that it easily penetrates the skin and maintains residual levels in the heart, liver, the lungs, and the brain.

5) Octoxynols: Wax-like emulsifiers, dispersing agents, and detergents derived from phenol and used as a surfactant.

6) Phenol: Obtained from coal tar. Ingestion of even small amounts of phenol may cause nausea, vomiting, circulatory collapse, paralysis, convulsions, coma, respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest.

7) Coal Tar: Thick liquid or semisolid tar obtained from bituminous coal, it contains many constituents including benzene, xylenes, naphthalene, pyridine, quinolineoline, phenol, and cresol. The main concern about coal tar derivatives is that they cause cancer in animals, and they are also frequent sources of allergic reactions — particularly skin rashes and hives.

8) Fragrance: Fragrance is found in most deodorants, shampoos, sunscreens, skin care, body care and baby products. Fragrance on a label can indicate the presence of up to 4,000 separate ingredients. Almost all of them are synthetic. Symptoms reported to the FDA have included headaches, dizziness, rashes, skin discoloration, violent coughing and vomiting, and allergic skin irritations. (Fragrance is a clever way for manufacturers to disguise lethal and harmful ingredients and is virtually unregulated by the EPA or the FDA.)

9) Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate: A preservative widely used in cosmetics. Has been shown to adversely affect livers in rats in feeding studies. It also affected their behavior. It was also mildly irritating in human testing. (Carbamates are used in pesticides. Carbamic acid, which is colorless and odorless, causes depression of bone marrow, degeneration of the brain, nausea and vomiting. It is moderately toxic by many routes.)

10) Blue 1: A bright blue, coal tar derivative, triphenylmethane, used for hair colorings, face powders, and other cosmetics (see coal tar). May cause allergic reactions. On the FDA permanent list of color additives. Rated 1A – that is, completely acceptable for nonfood use – by the World Health Organization. However, it produces malignant tumors at the site of injection and by ingestion in the rat.

11) Yellow 5: A lemon-yellow coal tar derivative. (See coal tar)

12) Red 40: Many American scientists feel that the safety of Red No. 40 is far from established, particularly because the manufacturer conducted all of the tests. Therefore, the dye should not have received a permanent safety rating. The National Cancer Institute reported that p-credine, a chemical used in preparation of Red No. 40, was carcinogenic in animals. In rats, a high oral dose of the coloring caused adverse reproductive effects. It has been shown to cause skin sensitivity and irritation. Absorption of certain colors by the body can also cause depletion of oxygen.

This brief list of ingredients doesn’t even scratch the surface. There are thousands of others on the market and what I’ve just pointed out is pretty much the norm with most of them.

Do you think there may be a correlation between the use of shampoo and hair conditioners and those who suffer from dandruff, dry itchy scalp, balding, and other head, eye, and skin irritations? Did you know that side effects from shampoo are among the most frequent complaints made to the FDA? It should be evident after reviewing just a fraction of the ingredients being used that you should look for safer alternatives. Washing your hair in rendered animal fats, petroleum by-products, harmful dyes and perfumes is certainly not the answer to good hygiene.

Beware Of The Hidden Dangers of Soap

You probably didn’t know that most commercial soap and even some so-called “natural” soap on the market use animal fat in the form of Tallow, Sodium Tallowate, Magnesium Stearate, Stearic Acid, and Glycerin as the base for their product. Just check the labels of all the major brands and chances are you’ll find at least one of these ingredients listed. In the case of glycerin, unless they specifically state that it is derived 100% from coconuts or a vegetable source, it more than likely has come from pig fat. Let me ask you a very important question – how can you really expect to get clean by scrubbing your skin, face, and hair with animal fats? Could you imagine using the fat obtained from a person who had liposuction done? It’s disgusting! Why isn’t the fat from animals viewed the same way?

Most popular soaps also contain petroleum by-products, coal tar derivatives, hard surfactants, hard alkyl benzene sulfanates, preservatives, fragrances, dyes, perfumes, deodorizers and other toxic and caustic ingredients. Auto mechanics are warned that long-term exposure to petroleum products can cause skin cancer and other skin maladies yet we are led to believe by the cosmetics industry that these products clean and moisturize your skin. As with shampoo, your daily soap cleansing may actually be doing you more harm than good.

Sure, on the outside you may appear clean, but inside, your body may be a toxic waste dump full of carcinogens and health-threatening chemicals. In fact, chemical sensitivities are increasing dramatically every year and new research is linking many common cosmetic ingredients to the problem. The reason why these inferior ingredients are often used instead of safer alternatives is two-fold. They are dirt cheap, and it is a means for the meat-packing industry and the oil refining industry to make money on their by-products.

You see, millions of animals are slaughtered every year in the U.S. To just discard the leftovers makes no sense when a rendering plant can manufacture all sorts of by-products from the remains and make a huge profit. The majority of what is processed at a rendering plant comes from slaughterhouses, but also includes restaurant grease, expired meat from grocery stores, the carcasses of euthanized and dead animals from animal shelters, zoos, veterinarians, and road kill scraped off the highway. This material can include the fatty tissue, bones, and offal, as well as entire carcasses of animals condemned at slaughterhouses, and those that have died on farms (deadstock), in transit, etc. The most common animal sources are beef, pork, sheep, and poultry. During the rendering process the fat is separated and processed, put into containers, and sold to the cosmetic industry as a base for their product.

A similar situation takes place with oil refineries. There are numerous by-products produced from crude oil and sold off to cosmetic manufacturers for cleansing and disinfectant agents. While there are many safe alternative substances available that work far better, the large corporations refuse to change because there isn’t enough consumer demand yet and they aren’t willing to sacrifice profits to switch.

One of the worst practices going on in the industry deals with manufacturers using deceptive marketing tactics to actually fool consumers into thinking that their products are natural or that they will moisturize your skin. Beware of bold words on the front of packaging claiming that products are made with “natural” ingredients or some exotic ingredient that will moisturize your skin. This is usually just label hype! What manufacturers do is sprinkle a tiny dose of vitamins into a product or a small amount of Aloe Vera or other natural ingredient and then claim on their label that it is fortified with natural ingredients. The consumer then sees that and thinks they are getting a terrific product and in actuality, they have been scammed. That, I believe, is one of the worst dirty tricks of the trade. This is all done to simply confuse and deceive consumers.

The best way to make a difference is to make a commitment to stop purchasing any products that could contain potentially toxic ingredients and animal fats. It’s time you became an informed consumer. Your health is worth it and so is your family’s. It’s time we turned off the spigot on this money machine that makes billions of dollars every year for international corporations that care more about the bottom line than putting out a high quality product that truly benefits consumers. It’s time to stop polluting your body with chemical toxins that can endanger your health. It’s also time to stop bathing in dead animal fats.

Don’t Be Deceived By Antibacterial Soap!

In addition to everything I’ve just reported there are also some very serious health risks posed by the use of antibacterial soaps. Researchers have proven that antibacterial soaps are no more effective against germs than common soap. Frequent hand washing is the real answer. Ironically, the massive use of antibacterial soap is leading to stronger drug-resistant germs and mutated bacterial strains. According to Myron Genel, a chairman of the AMA’s Council on Scientific Affairs: “There’s no evidence that they do any good and there’s reason to suspect that they could contribute to a problem.”

The fact is antibacterial soap kills beneficial bacteria on the skin and it has the potential to also get into the body and cause harm. Why is that a concern, you ask? Because not all bacteria is bad! Thanks in part to lies woven by big pharma and the medical community, many tend to think that all bacteria is bad and that we need to go to war against it by killing it off with antibiotics, chemicals, and antibacterial soap. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you were to examine your skin under a microscope you would find a variety of bacterial strains. Many of them work in synergy with your body to actually protect you from the environment and from the damaging effects of the sun. Researchers who have looked into the safety of antibacterial soap contend that the increased usage of it poses the risk of creating germs that are resistant to antibacterials and antibiotics.

When a doctor prescribes antibiotics, it is generally for a very short period of time and for a specific infection that won’t go away on its own. Many doctors and scientists today are becoming increasingly concerned about the consequences of long-term use and abuse of antibiotics. It’s strange how manufacturer’s of cosmetic products and all the people using them don’t make the same association with antibacterial soaps that are now being used by billions around the world every day as though they are somehow being protected using them. It’s a huge lie!

In a memo to FDA advisory committee members the agency said, “A search of the medical literature did not reveal any studies that were able to demonstrate a link between the use of a specific consumer antiseptic and a reduction in infection rate...”

In an article that appeared in USA Today on 10/25/05, they quoted Tufts microbiologist Stuart Levy who was invited by the FDA to speak about anti-microbial resistance. Levy said, “There is no place for antibacterial chemical additives in the healthy household.”

The main antibacterial additive being used is triclosan in liquid soaps and triclocarban in hard soaps. Triclosan is a strong inhibitor of an enzyme present in many microorganisms. This enzyme is also “potentially important” as a target for new antibiotics, raising concerns that the use of triclosan may make these drugs ineffective. Conducting follow-up testing that closely mirrored typical dishwashing habits and conditions, researchers found that triclosan reacted with free chlorine to generate more than 50 parts per billion (ppb) of chloroform in the dishwater.

Researchers at the University of Minnesota reported as far back as 2003 that: “Sunlight can convert triclosan, a common disinfectant used in anti-bacterial soaps, into a form of dioxin, and this process may produce some of the dioxin found in the environment, according to research at the University of Minnesota. The researchers said that although the dioxin was a relatively benign form, treating wastewater with chlorine could possibly lead to the production of a much more toxic species of dioxin. The study is in press in the Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry.”

Triclocarban is a close cousin of tricolsan and is known to be just as toxic and dangerous. In the book “A Consumer’s Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients” it says that, “In May 1983, it was revealed that tests for this soap ingredient (Triclocarban) were falsified and that rat deaths were not reported. The reasons for the deaths were not confirmed.”

Since your skin is your body’s largest organ, the antibiotic agent (s) can absorb into your body and adversely affect your immune system, lymphatic system, endocrine system, reproductive system, and neurological system. Is it worth the risks? Parents need to be especially concerned about using antibacterial soap with young children since they tend to always put their hands in their mouth. If a child’s hands are regularly washed with antibacterial soap, their salivary glands can easily pick up these antibiotic chemicals and deliver them straight into the bloodstream while also killing off beneficial flora in the gut that functions as a major component of the immune system.

By now you may be feeling a bit frustrated and perhaps even angry. My goal has not been to put fear into you. I want to simply identify the problems and then point you in the direction of some safer alternatives. If I have convinced you that there are definite risks with a majority of the personal care products on the market, then I urge you to go through your home or office with a fine tooth comb and identify the products you have that contain questionable ingredients. Make sure you read all product labels thoroughly. If you can afford it, I would throw everything out. If money is a concern, use what you have and make a commitment to get the right products when it’s time to replace them.