SMOKINCHOICES (and other musings)

September 25, 2010

We and Salmon need HELP

ORGANIC CONSUMER’S ASSOCIATION

Stop Genetically Engineered Salmon from Coming to Market!

We stand at a pivotal moment on Earth.

  • The ocean’s are heating up and becoming more acidic because of human-induced global warming.
  • Phytoplankton, the irreplaceable foundation of the ocean’s food chain are dying off.

Wild fish populations are crashing, not only because of global warming, but because we are allowing out-of-control, “profit at any cost” industrial fishing corporations to wreck havoc. And now the coup de grace.

The Obama Administration is poised to approve the first genetically engineered fish for human consumption, GE salmon, while the FDA is still aiding and abetting the force-feeding of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the public, wielding the fouled Bush-Quayle Era doctrine of “substantial equivalence” of GMO and natural foods like a club, legally blocking adequate safety testing and labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

We need to take action now, before the so-called FDA “review” of genetically engineered salmon is finished. It’s unlikely the Obama Administration will ban GMO foods or fish, even though they are inherently hazardous.

  • But if massive public pressure can force the FDA to require mandatory labels on Genetically Engineered fish, polls indicate that most consumers will boycott these GE fish and force them off the market.

We have until November 22, 2010, to submit public comments calling for labeling genetically engineered salmon. In addition the FDA still needs to do an Environmental Assessment before approving the GE salmon. The FDA Environmental Assessment will include a 30 day public comment period. How many letters can Organic Consumers Association members generate in the next two months?

You sent 100,000 letters in opposition to Tom Vilsack for USDA Secretary because of his pro-biotech, pro-Monsanto politics. We need to send that many or more to stop genetically engineered salmon. Direct action is going to be necessary, too.

If the Obama Administration stubbornly continues to hide behind the scientifically discredited Bush-Quayle doctrine of “substantial equivalence” claiming there isn’t a “material” difference between genetically engineered and normal salmon, then we’ll have no choice but to use every tactic we can muster to throw a wrench into the gears of the Frankenfoods Express. Please help us save the wild fish and the oceans instead of allowing the biotech industry to brainwash us into believing that industrial fish farms and genetic engineering represent the future of food. Write to the FDA to demand labels and adequate pre-market safety-testing of GMOs. And please forward this Action Alert to everyone you know.

(I know how hard I have been hitting on this issue, but I feel so strongly about this – I truly believe we must do anything and everything we legally can to stop this genetic modification  of the very foods nature has so generously  provided us. It is harming us, it will harm the fish and jeopardize the ocean and planet.  Haven’t we done enough to destroy the planet already?    Jan)

June 24, 2010

GMO’s, Gates/USAID, that’s Power!

Gates Foundation’s Rajiv Shah to Head USAID

Shah to Continue Gates-Monsanto Push for GMOs in Poor Countries

Despite the efforts of 5,497 Organic Consumers Association activists who sent letters to their Senators in opposition, the Senate confirmed Rajiv Shah to lead US foreign assistance as director of USAID.

On January 7, 2010, Shah was sworn in by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who gave a speech outlining USAID’s priorities. Sec. Clinton emphasized expanding partnerships with the private sector and NGOs and she highlighted the work Shah did with the Gates Foundation. She also referenced Bill Gates by saying that Shah had provided a list of people willing to go to bat for him in the Senate confirmation process that included “giants … in the foundation world.”

In his inaugural speech, Shah echoed Clinton, saying USAID needs “to better coordinate our work … with public, private and multilateral partners. … And we need to develop new capabilities to pursue innovation, science and technology…” Public-private partnerships promoting science and technology were what Shah specialized in when he worked at the Gates Foundation.

In an interview with NPR, Shah referred to his past employer as a future collaborator, saying, “We are also going to do things a little bit differently: bring in outside expertise and become more of a coordinating platform so that we can work with private sector innovators, like the Gates Foundation... so that women farmers trying to make – grow enough food for their family and their community can do that in places like Kenya or Senegal or Rwanda.”

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is one of Monsanto’s key non-profit partners, forcing hazardous Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) on farmers and consumers worldwide. The multi-billion dollar Gates Foundation is helping Monsanto infiltrate markets in poor African countries by fraudulently claiming that GMOs can feed the world and reduce rural poverty with high-priced GM seed varieties that supposedly, but in fact do not, increase yields, resist drought and improve nutrition.

In a speech the day before Shah’s swearing-in ceremony, Clinton spoke specifically about biotech crops:

“We are expanding our direct funding of new research, for example, into biofortified sweet potatoes that prevent Vitamin A deficiency in children, and African maize that can be grown in drought conditions.”

Rajiv Shah, USAID director, on tackling global hunger and why women lead the way

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 7, 2010

The number of people suffering from hunger has now topped 1 billion globally — the highest since 1970, according to the United Nations. U.S. foreign-aid director Rajiv Shah, 37, recently presented the Obama administration’s strategy to tackle the food crisis.

“Feed the Future” will focus on improving the agricultural systems of at least 20 countries. It’s part of an international effort that could benefit 40 million poor people over a decade, officials say.

Shah, a medical doctor who heads the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, came to agriculture through a circuitous route. In a former job at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he analyzed high-impact ways to help the poor. That led him to focus on farming. He didn’t just crunch numbers, though; he spent time working on a Montana farm “to get my boots dirty.”

“I fell in love with it,” he said.

Q: What’s the main way in which Feed the Future differs from what the U.S. government did before?

A: Probably the most important is the level of political commitment and engagement across the entire federal government. In the past, we’ve done good projects but often small projects . . . that didn’t really tie together and lead to a real transformation of that country’s agriculture and its situation with respect to hunger.

Can you give an example of a country where you’re introducing this?

I just got back from Bangladesh [where there are] 160 million people . . . about 40 million of whom suffer from chronic hunger. . . . We worked for many months at a high level with their government, civil society and the private sector, as well as international donors and partners who could really help focus on this program. . . . It’s about following the lead of the countries we work in, as opposed to designing solutions from Washington or Rome or New York.

Farming sounds like something the U.S. government did back in the ’60s and ’70s. Why focus on it now?

(While the world is celebrating all this “help” coming to the “under-fed, under-priveledged” of the world, I sit here growing more hopeless of this struggle by the day.   It doesn’t seem possible to expect to sound the alarm and hope that anybody, let alone everybody will listen, take action and get something done to help save the world – – not just feed a few.  What good does it do to feed people with food that is going to mutate their genes, shorten their lives, cost them more while they still live?  Where is doing the right thing?  Letting true science lead the way – not some agribusiness’ bottom line?

It isn’t enough that our government funds (probably with borrowed dollars) this otherwise noble sounding cause – – who wouldn’t want to help the needy, the hungry?  But the Gates Foundation?  Does anyone realize how vast the fortune is of  Bill and Melinda Gates?. . . how deep the commitment of this charitable couple?  All this money and clout uniting with “MONSANTO” to spread the ” glory” of GMO’s to the entire world.

Has everyone gone mad?  Is it just me?   How does a beautiful, intelligent young doctor like Rajiv Shah throw his weight and essence in with a purpose like this?

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!     Jan)


June 5, 2010

7 AG’s looking @ Monsanto

Filed under: GMO seeds,health destroyer,Monsanto — Jan Turner @ 12:13 am
Tags: ,

Organic Consumers Assoc.

Monsanto Under Investigation by Seven US States

  • By Ken Roseboro, ed.
    The Organic and Non-GMO Report, April 2010

To Subscribe to the Non-GMO Report call 1-800-854-0586 or visit http://www.non-gmoreport.com/

At least seven US state attorneys general are investigating whether Monsanto Company has abused its market power to lock out competitors and raise prices on seed. Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and two other unidentified states are in a working group to investigate the biotech giant.

The states are probing whether Monsanto violated laws by offering rebates to seed distributors for excluding rival seeds, imposing limits on combining the product with other genetic modifications, or offering cash incentives to switch farmers to more expensive generation of seed varieties.

The state investigations add to pressure on Monsanto. The US Justice Department is investigating the company’s marketing practices, and DuPont Company has accused Monsanto of anti-competitive practices in licensing litigation.

Daniel Sokol, a law professor at the University of Florida and expert on antitrust matters, told Bloomberg News that a state-level investigation on top of the federal probe “can lengthen the lawsuit and potential settlements and can increase uncertainty and costs for Monsanto.”

(comment:  Fight on you brave warriors and let the well-spring of approval from the people out here carry you forward to certain victory.  Americans – – the world, needs an enormous break from the control and greed of this monstrous giant.    Jan)

April 19, 2010

Acetaminophen: the Killer Painkiller

Alliance for Natural Health-usa

Acetaminophen: the Killer Painkiller

March 30, 2010

The active ingredient in the painkillers Tylenol, Anacin and Panadol was the focus of a recent analysis of 19 studies of 425,000 children and adults treated with acetaminophen in the past year. Children given acetaminophen were 60 percent more likely to suffer from asthma, while adults who had taken the drug were 75 percent more likely to experience asthma. According to a University of British Columbia-Vancouver review published in the journal Chest, higher doses translated to a greater risk of asthma.

The March 2010 issue of the American Journal of Medicine contained an analysis of data from 26,000 men, participants in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Researchers at Harvard University, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Vanderbilt University, and the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, determined that men younger than 60 who used acetaminophen were 61 percent more likely to experience hearing loss. Studies appearing in the journal Drug Safety have linked acetaminophen to adverse vision events.

The U.S. Acute Liver Failure Study Group found that acetaminophen poisoning is the leading cause of liver failure in the nation, associated with nearly 50 percent of all liver failure. The Life Extension Foundation has also sounded the alarm about acetaminophen and liver damage.

With 70-75 million prescriptions written annually, acetaminophen is the most commonly prescribed class of drugs in the United States. It is blamed for 56,000 injuries, 25,000 hospitalizations and 450 deaths. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been aware of this situation for decades. As early as 1977, the agency warned about acetaminophen and liver damage. The FDA Advisory Review Panel noted that exceeding the recommended dosage or (please note the or) taking acetaminophen for more than 10 days puts the patient at risk of liver damage. A suggestion that pharmacists distribute information explaining the risks of this drug has fallen on deaf ears at the FDA.

A study published in the journal Arthritis Care and Research cautioned that adverse reactions to acetaminophen not only affect patients’ quality of life, they also impose substantial economic burdens on society. Given all that we know now, how can the FDA remain silent about acetaminophen?

Responses to “Acetaminophen: the Killer Painkiller”

Susan Grant says:

Did you know that there are many people who are allergic to Ibuprofen and aspirin and they could potentiallyt kill many more people in the population at large. Sometimes no matter how consistent a person is with natural or homeopathic painkillers, they do not work. It is a matter of moderation in usage! With any product, moderation and mindfulness are VERY important!

Ibuprofen and the associated anti inflammatory drugs can and do cause heart attacks.

If you have osteoarthritis and have tried almost all the herbal and homeopathic and nutritional products and good diet and you still have the basic problem of intense pain, you have to use something. Most of the painkillers have either ibuprofen, asprin or acetaminophen with the painkiller. Unfortunately, sometimes we have to use something, when it gets that bad then thank goodness, they are still available. All of the above for the different individuals.

  • Les says:

    Susan, Pain like that is hard to take. While there are people that experience that kind of pain, many can do well with combinations of Boswellia, ginger, tumeric, upping omega 3 levels, dietary changes and other strategies. For those that suffer severe pain, might it be better to be treated with small amounts of narcotic under a pain manager than to use a hepatotoxin chronically? I have patients that have really improved the quality of their lives with almost no side effects with very small doses of narcotics to reduce the noxious input.

stan alderson says:

please send alternatives, my daughter suffer from migraines, much like her mother. what is safe

  • Caroline says:

    Try acupuncture which really does work to get rid of pain and headaches. Also, check the diet. I found I as allergic to cinnamon and it gave me migraines. Many times, if a person is very emotional – anger, frustration, stressed – these bring on migraines as well. As a health consultant, many times a complete calcium/magnesium/manganese/vitamin D/iron/copper can rid us of a headache brought on by stress or overdoing. These have worked work for many over the years. Drink water! the brain needs it too, and cut down on sugars and carbs because the body can only handle so much junk and then rebels. Exercise helps too.

  • Les says:

    Is it safe to assume you have had a multi-disciplinary workup with multiple trials of care, including: Acupuncture
    Chiropractic
    myoascial release
    dietary counseling

(It is so hard for me to remain silent on this issue when I have found relief for my occasional pains and problems with the use of EFT.  Sorry, those of you familiar with this blog already know that.  I would urge anyone suffering with chronic pain or any kind of pain including emotional [sadness, anger, resentment, grief frustration - anything],  to at least check it out.  You’ve got nothing to lose and it is free if you want to learn how to do it.  Children can learn this as it is simple and not complicated.  At the top right of my blog in the “pages” section, one can find the ABC’s of EFT and of course there are a number of other posts dealing with EFT as well. My hero, founder of EFT, Gary Craig has closed down the newsletter being unable to any longer do all the day to day stuff to keep it going.   But over the last couple of decades he has given it out to the world offering the free download of the manual at http://www.emofree.com   I do not think there are any more videos available, only the free visuals set up there.  But even to see the invitational video is a delight and imparts what it is about.

I am no specialist on EFT, but I use it and have shared it with many who would allow it.  I would be happy to discuss more fully to interested individuals.     Jan)

April 18, 2010

Gardasil, insanity rules

(Have  posted on Gardasil several times.  Expressed my utter confusion as to why any loving parent would subject their daughter to this idiocy.  Big PhRMA works overtime to discover fertile new grounds of irrational fear which they can then use to  exploit with yet one more vaccination  to foist off onto a gullible and (still trusting) public.

My fellow species-member, please wake up.  Our bodies are amazing and wonderful and they will take care of the in-dweller just fine, but we have an obligation to take care of the needs of our bodies to our utmost best.  We cannot ingest toxic substances and not expect to pay a horrendous price.    Stop poisoning your kids with all these “shots.” Let them have a chance to screw up their own lives, later when they are older –  just like you and I have had .     Jan)

Washington Examiner

Barbara Hollingsworth: Time for the truth about Gardasil

By: Barbara Hollingsworth Local Opinion Editor March 30, 2010

Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1 percent of all cancer deaths, so it was somewhat surprising when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration fast-tracked approval of Gardasil, a Merck vaccine targeting the human papilloma virus that causes the disease, in 2006.

As of Jan. 31, 2010, 49 unexplained deaths following Gardasil injections have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (http://vaers.hhs.gov/index). By contrast, 52 deaths are attributed to unintended acceleration in Toyotas, which triggered a $2 billion recall.

No recall for Gardasil, which is required for sixth-grade girls in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and many other states. Parents can opt out, but few know the true risks.

That was the certainly the case for Mary Davison of Frederick, Md., whose three daughters had the second of a three-shot vaccination regimen in January 2008. Her two younger girls had no reactions, but 20-year-old Mary Katherine felt sick and dizzy.

A subsequent magnetic resonance imaging scan showed that the Hood College student had a major stroke, and she spent almost two months in rehab before she could walk again. However, it wasn’t until the family’s primary care physician refused to schedule Mary Katherine’s third injection that her mom “finally put two and two together,” she told the Washington Examiner.

A month later, Lisa Ericzon of Alexandria Bay, N.Y., found her 17-year-old daughter Jessica dead on the bathroom floor just 40 hours after her third Gardasil injection. The coroner listed the cause as “undetermined natural causes.”

Jessica had pain and dizziness following her second Gardasil shot. “At the time, we didn’t think about any connection with the vaccination,” Ericzon told me. “But later, when I got on the Internet, I found all of the side effects Jessica complained about and three other women told me their daughters had also died within days of being vaccinated.”

One of those women was Emily Tarsell, of Sparks, Md., whose 21-year-old daughter Christina died 18 days after receiving her final Gardasil injection and experiencing fatigue, dizziness, and a pounding heartbeat. “We had no clue that these were all symptoms of something,” her mother said. Neither an autopsy or toxicology screen could determine the cause of death.

An October 2008 CDC report said 28 million girls and women who received Gardasil had no more adverse medical outcomes than those who hadn’t gotten the shots. But in February 2009, the National Vaccine Information Center (nvic.org) used CDC’s own data to contradict the government’s findings: Gardasil was associated “with at least four times as many death and cardiac arrest reports” as a similar vaccine, and “seemed to be associated with an unusually high number of reports of atypical collapse. …”

The August 2009 Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 89 percent of adverse Gardasil reactions submitted to VAERS had “insufficient identifying information to permit clinical follow-up or review.”

Merck denies any of the deaths are related to its vaccine, and the parents involved can’t prove they were. A Merck spokeswoman would only refer me to the VAERS Web site.

“CDC is still saying this is a safe vaccine. With Pap smears, there was no medical reason for fast-tracking FDA approval. They made it sound like it was some kind of pandemic,” Tarsell added. “No one ever calls you, no one ever follows up.”

Indeed, two months after Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., asked CDC to contact Tarsell, she has yet to hear from them. The feds “totally ignored us,” echoed Ericzon.

Barbara F. Hollingsworth is the Washington Examiner’s local opinion editor.

April 17, 2010

HFCS, finally, daylight

Filed under: health destroyer,HFCS — Jan Turner @ 2:46 pm
Tags: ,

BNET Food provides daily industry trends and news coverage with insights for managers and executives, focusing on the major companies in the food and beverage sector, from manufacturers to retailers. In addition to detailed company profiles, we bring you industry analysis on new alliances and partnerships, food products, mergers and acquisitions, contamination events, health risks, investments, and a host of other important business issues.

The Death of High Fructose Corn Syrup

By Melanie Warner | Mar 25, 2010

The back-to-back, double whammy announcements that PepsiCo (PEP) is ditching high fructose corn syrup in Gatorade along with the results of a scathing new study from researchers at Princeton make it official — allies of the controversial sweetener have lost the war.

For years, the Corn Refiners Association, a trade group consisting of companies like Cargill and ADM (ADM), has been hammering away at the bad press gushing out about high fructose corn syrup.  In ads,  in the press and online, they argue that the sweetener is a perfectly natural corn product and that it is no worse for you than regular old sugar.

To which consumers have responded with a collective “Yeah, right.” Con Agra (CAG) is taking HFCS out of its Hunt’s ketchup, Kraft (KFT) is banishing it from Wheat Thins and you will no longer find it in Snapple drinks. It’s all in response to what food companies say is overwhelming consumer demand. “We know moms don’t like it, and they don’t want to feed it to their kids,” supermarket expert Phil Lempert told Ad Age. Last month, outraged San Francisco parents forced high fructose corn syrup out of chocolate milk in the school system. More products are sure to follow.

Rightly or wrongly, HFCS is deeply entrenched as the most popular symbol of the growing consumer distrust of a food system that churns out nutritionally empty, over-processed foods with a long list of strange, unpronounceable ingredients.

And now the Princeton study gives HFCS foes the scientific bombshell they’ve been looking for, since actual evidence that eating lots of HFCS is going makes you fatter and unhealthier than simply eating lots of sugar is scant. The university reports that rats that ate HFCS gained significantly more weight than those that ate table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. The fact that the results of this study may be based on inconclusive results and thus not really offer convincing evidence, as NYU nutrition expert and no fan of HFCS Marion Nestle, points out, will likely get lost in the shuffle.

If only the Corn Refiners Association had changed the name of their beleaguered product, things might have worked out differently. Despite its name, high fructose corn syrup is only marginally higher in fructose, which has been clearly linked to obesity and metabolic syndrome, than regular sugar. (The fructose however is not chemically bonded to glucose as it is in sugar and thus more freely available to the body, so that could actually make a difference, though it’s never been proven).

But when you’re trying to tell people that your product doesn’t have a lot of fructose, but it’s called high fructose corn syrup, it’s a bit like naming your new butter alternative Extra Trans Fat Margarine. No one’s going to buy it.

Melanie Warner, a writer based in Boulder, CO, covered the food industry for The New York Times.

March 1, 2010

Fix it – don’t mask it!

(This is the second time  lately that I have used an article from Dr. Donohue to push against in order to express an opposing view.  Nothing against Dr.Donohue;   he is a good man and uses excellent common sense, but heavily anchored in the allopathic modality [traditional medicine].  My $0.02 has to do with  drug manipulation rather than attempting to correct the cause area.. . more at the end of article.  Jan)

TO YOUR GOOD HEALTH

Pneumonia, flu deadly combination

PAUL G. DONOHUE

Q: My sister, age 41, passed away unexpectedly. She had an upper respiratory illness that a clinic assured her was neither seasonal influenza nor H1N1, although no testing was done.  During the next several days, she rested and thought she was recovering. She mentioned a bad headache and body aches.   The autopsy identified the cause of her death as lobar pneumonia. How did this happen?
A: Pneumonia is lung infection. Lobar pneumonia indicates that only one lobe of a lung is involved (the right lung has three lobes; the left, two). Bronchopneumonia describes a more diffuse involvement of the lung with widespread patches of infection. Neither term indicates pneumonia’s severity.

.
Four million new cases of pneumonia arise annually in the United States in people who are active in their communities. Most otherwise healthy young people pull through the infection.  Either viruses or bacteria cause pneumonia. Bacterial pneumonias have an abrupt onset, and the patient suffers from a high fever, shaking chills, sweating, cough and shortness of breath. Viral pneumonias tend to have a milder course.

.
In the days before antibiotics, pneumonia was the No. 1 cause of death. Now death from pneumonia in a person of your sister’s age is rare. For older people, pneumonia is No. 6 on the list of death causes.  I believe your sister had influenza pneumonia, and probably with the H1N1 influenza virus. This influenza virus is a bigger problem for younger people than for the elderly, because younger people have had no prior experience with it.

.
The only way the cause of your sister’s death will be known with certainty is when cultures of her infected lung are available. You can obtain that information from the facility where her autopsy was done.
Please accept my profound sympathy for your loss.

.
Q
: I currently take alendronate (Fosamax) for osteoporosis and omeprazole (Prilosec) for acid reflux.
I read that omeprazole can lead to osteoporosis. Is there another medicine I can take for reflux?

.
A: Prilosec is part of the family of drugs known as proton pump inhibitors. People who take drugs such as Prilosec for prolonged periods and in high doses run a greater risk of having a hip fracture than do those not taking them. You can ask your doctor whether it would be OK to take a vacation from your omeprazole from time to time. Or you could take an entirely different acid suppressant, such as Zantac.

.
Dr. Donohue answers letters only in his North America Syndicate column but provides an order form of available health newsletters. Write him at P.O. Box 536475, Orlando, FL 32853-6475.

Of course, I am relating to the second question to the doctor who responds to a patient suffering from osteoarthritis (taking Fosamax) and this so upsets her stomach that she is required to take Prilosec to try to offset that.  One pharmaceuticl leads to another and then another as they all give us a terrible price to pay while not delivering on solving the problem in the first place.    (In a February post –  “Stroke or heart attack – – just luck?”,   I laid out my thinking pretty well and sought and finally found an integrative physician who does go after cause area rather than simply treating symptoms with drugs.)

At the core of this blog is the desire to relieve suffering where possible and in the simplest manner.  To first find and understand the problem would seem just logical to me. Then to pursue possible solutions. Labels don’t matter much – results do.  If something is wrong – deal with it and do not abdicate your own responsibility and authority in the process.  Your body will never matter to anyone else the way it does to you, because you live in it.  So take care of it.  Learn what it needs.  What your body needs may not be what mine needs and so on – we are all different.    I have learned from so many different people, going back many years.  But I will limit my chat here to the “experts” I have posted on here at smokinchoices so that you can refer to more complete treatments by referring to cited posts.   That would be Dr John McDougall,  Dr. Loren Cordain of the Paleo Diet) and Donna Gates at Body Ecology (B.E.D.) If we are lucky, we will keep an open mind and allow the new and possible in.

If we provide our bodies with adequate nutrient in our daily food regimen, we should not need a bunch of supplementation.  We can’t always have the luxury of organic so when that is the case,  we need to take precautions of extra washing of fruits and vegetables and careful preparation. We must learn what to eat to properly fortify our bodies.  Food combining is vital but not so complicated that one needs a diploma of some kind to use this benevolent tool.  The standard American diet is wrapped around the ole meat and potatoes idea,  spaghetti and meatballs,  fish and rice and so on.  ALL WRONG!  Meat (of any kind) is OK with vegetables;  Starches are good with veggies. But Meat and Carbs are a NO-NO.  Our sweets should come from fruits – eaten apart from  regular meals.  Nuts and seeds can be mixed in with fruits or veggies.  These are not arbitrary rules. In fact it is because though our stomach can handle all of the above – it just can’t handle it all at the same time because each food type (meat, carb) requires a different digestive process.  Starts in the mouth – that is why we should be chewing our food carefully.  Broken down in the stomach and then reaches the gut where all the important stuff happens like absorbing the nutriment thru the intestinal lining into the waiting cells.  Can’t happen if the food has not been properly digested and broken down and handled right in the gut.  Whole lot of manufacturing goin on here.

The process as given here is over-simplified – ones hope you will look to Cordain’s  Paleo – Acid/Base balance (12-6-09) full  treatment and science to back it up.

Now back to the patient who queried Dr Donohue – what about that Fosamax?. . .would really like you to look back to (2-25-09) ” I Worry about Sally Field”.  No sense trying to remember and repeat it all – have already done it!  After expounding at length, I end with Dr McDougall and interesting info regarding  that kind of medicine.

Whether we cotton more to Dr McDougall or to Dr Cordain milk is a big no-no!.  Dairy is one of the most destructive things Americans do to themselves and practically all of us love it.  Milk, cream, ice cream, yogurt, cheeses of every description, cottage cheese, sour cream and so on.   Humans were not meant to consume dairy – drink milk beyond weaning!  It is the single greatest destroyer in angelic clothing we face.  It causes young girls the pain,  irregularity and heavy bleeding (hemorrhaging)  of menses.  The pain and embarrassment of ACNE comes from dairy and afflicts the majority of our youth and many adults – because we don’t know!  Then as if that wasn’t enough, as we move along through the years – male and female alike, arthritis set in.  Again, the milk.  The people of no country in the world consume more Calcium than Americans, yet we have a higher incidence of arthritis than any other country. We have been deceived by our authorities for decades (for they didn’t know either) to take ever increasing amounts of calcium.  Calcium is not the answer.  It is far more complex.  Actually, why not just read Paleo  and your Bones (6-20-09).

If we could give up all grains and learn to eat the Paleo way; no dairy, and learn something about  food combining and the importance of the glycemic index – there would be no need for Prilosec or any other simple or complex antacid.

There’s a lot to think about.  Happy thinking

February 21, 2010

GMO’s trump Climate change in our “destruction”

Alliance for Natural Health – Europe

Say NO to GM


Why we need to take a stand on GM

GM represents probably the biggest uncontrolled experiment ever conducted by humans.

Contrary to the PR from the handful of biotech companies that are responsible for producing the genetically modified (GM) foods that can now be found in up to 70% of processed foods in supermarkets in the US—and in increasing amounts in many other countries—the process of ‘engineering’ genes from unrelated species into food crops is far from precise.

Our direct consumption of GM food, but also our indirect consumption of it via animals that have in turn been fed GM feed, poses very serious risks to human health and the environment.

These threats are very real but have been ignored by regulators like the USA’s pro-GM FDA. These regulators have avoided any detailed evaluations of GM safety as they regard it to be unnecessary because GM crops are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM cousins. Unfortunately, this is an assumption that has been proven false many times over and is one that is contested by a large and ever growing group of geneticists and molecular biologists around the world.

What can I do to protect myself, and the environment from GM?

The ANH upholds the view that consumer resistance to purchasing any GM produce, as well as political pressure, is going to be among the most powerful determinants as to whether the rampage of GM on the natural environment, and on our bodies, is going to continue. In a word, it’s really up to you and what you, your friends and your family are going to do. Are you prepared to avoid consuming any GM produce? (Europeans need only read the labels of packaged or processed foods or buy organic foods to avoid GM.)

Consumers in the US—as well as other parts of the world—can learn a lot about the ways of avoiding GM by going to the website of the Institute for Responsible Technology, its Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, its Non-GMO Shopping Guide and its GM-Free Schools Campaign. Also, look out for the No-GMO logo that’s going to be increasingly found on US produce once the initiative is launched later this year. The initiative currently has the support of food businesses with around $12 billion turnover.

What foodstuffs have been subject to genetic engineering?

Biggest targets for GM

  • Soybeans
  • Maize
  • Oilseed rape
  • Cotton ‘Engineered’

but on a much smaller scale

  • Potatoes
  • Tomatoes
  • Papaya
  • Alfalfa and a few other crops have also been

The key traits that have been added to commercial GM crops are herbicide tolerance, which allows farmers to spray such GM crops with herbicide (mostly glyphosate or RoundUp®) to kill weeds while not killing the crop itself, and insect resistance, particularly through the expression of Bt-toxin (a toxin produced by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis). Some crops possess both traits and are referred to as ‘stacked’ transgenics.

Over 110 million hectares of agricultural land is currently cultivated with GM crops, around half of this is in the USA, the single largest GM crop cultivator. The global area given over to GM has doubled in the last 5 years.

The US has also allowed the use of a GM-altered (recombinant) bovine growth hormone (rbGH) intended to increase dairy yields, which most other countries refuse to accept on the grounds of the health risks it presents to consumers of dairy products derived from rbGH injected cows. The EU continues to refuse import of dairy products derived from rbGH-treated cows.

Evidence on how pressure can be imposed on other countries through the World Trade Organization (WTO) is well illustrated by the long-running dispute over growth hormone treated beef. The USA, which routinely uses such hormones to promote rapid growth in beef cattle, together with support from both Canada and Argentina, has forced sanctions on the EU for continuing to refuse the import of hormone-treated beef. Based on the EU-imposed trade barrier, the WTO has allowed the US to impose import duties on EU exports that cost $116.8 million annually. An additional CAN$11.3 million a year is levied by the Canadian government on EU exports to Canada. The EU argues that it is compliant with WTO rules because there is solid scientific evidence that hormone-treated beef may be harmful.

Horse trading is the name of the game when it comes to the global food trade, and there is increasing evidence that the EU is slowly caving to pressure over the commercial cultivation of GM crops, an issue that has been the subject of a long-standing trade dispute ever since the EU imposed a 6-year moratorium on GM crops from 1998. The WTO has ruled that the EU’s moratorium is illegal and it is putting increasing pressure on the EU to stop some of its Member States, notably Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg, imposing unilateral bans on GM imports.

Despite widespread public opposition to GM crops in Europe, GM food and animal feed usage in Europe is continuing to grow. The difference in Europe, compared with many parts of the world, including the US, is that there is compulsory labelling of GM-containing foods (at least those that contain more than 0.9% GM). The trouble is, European consumers clearly don’t study labels that carefully and are consuming ever larger amounts of GM-containing produce, as revealed in a recent EU study involving 6 countries, led by scientists at King’s College London.

GM cotton trial in South Africa

What are some of the names of the companies that produce GM crops?

  • Monsanto
  • Bayer CropSciences
  • BASF
  • Dow AgroSciences
  • Pioneer (DuPont)
  • Syngenta


How are food crops genetically engineered?

The transfer of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)—the two strand spiral of genetic information found in every plant, animal and microorganism cell that controls the development and function of all organisms—from one organism to crop cells is not a clean, surgically-precise procedure. It is a very hit-and-miss process based on faulty foundations.

The genes from the donor organism, or synthetic equivalents, are not neatly spliced into the ‘videotape’ of the recipient’s DNA. They are forced into the DNA using a range of methods, often with very unpredictable consequences.

A common method of genetic engineering used in the development of GM crops involves the use of a ‘gene gun’. Millions of tiny particles of gold or tungsten coated in selected DNA fragments containing the required gene (gene cassettes) of the donor organism are fired with great intensity at recipient plant cells in the laboratory. An antibiotic marker is added so that cells where DNA has been successfully inserted survive following their dousing with antibiotic. A ‘promoter’, usually a part of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S (CaMV35S)—actually the naked virus, the virus without its protein coat—is also included to ensure the gene expression is permanently turned on to maximum. This is something that tends not to happen with many traits in non-GMOs. Any surviving cells will have had the antibiotic resistant marker along with the new gene(s) and DNA of the CaMV35S successfully incorporated and can then be cloned to produce the new-to-nature GM crop plant, complete with its new complement of DNA.

The above method of gene insertion has now been superseded, in many cases, by using a bacterial vector. This approach originates from the work of Professor Marc Van Montagu and colleagues at the University of Gent in Belgium in 1975, and involves using a particular bacterium (Agrobacterium tumefasciens) that induces tumours in plants. Actually only a part of the bacterium’s cells is used—the plasmid—which contains essential elements of its DNA without the tumour-inducing sectors. The bacterium possesses an unusual ability, not unlike that of a virus, to insert some of its own DNA into its host. Genetic engineers are able to insert gene cassettes (containing one or more genes) into the tumour-inducing section of the bacterium’s DNA, which then inserts the new genes into the plant cell.

Contrary to what the biotechnology companies responsible for genetic engineering of crops tell us, there is a very real risk that transgenic DNA might directly transfer into unrelated species, a process known as horizontal gene transfer. Find out more about the science on this in an ISIS article published in March 2008.


Surely no GM crops are released into the environment without thorough evaluation of safety?

Wrong. Owing to the fact that regulators have decided under pressure from biotech companies that there is no need to thoroughly evaluate the health and environmental consequences of GM crops because they are viewed as “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM relatives, safety evaluation has been very limited.

One of the most thorough evaluations to-date involved a GM potato that was engineered to produce a lectin (protein) from the snowdrop that is well known for its selective toxicity to insects. The purpose of the genetic modification was to have a potato that would produce its own insecticide and hence reduce the need for conventional insecticides, while still being safe to humans.

The work was conducted between 1995 and 1998 at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen (Scotland) under the leadership of Dr Arpad Pusztai, one of the world’s leading authorities on lectins and previously a pro-GM proponent.

The research findings, published in the prestigious Lancet journal in 1999, still stand as one of the most thorough investigations of the potential human health risks of GM.

The study involved assessing the effects of GM potatoes which had been engineered to express the lectin on young rats. The lectin, on its own, had been shown to be safe to rats when fed at 800 times the concentration at which it occurred in the GM potatoes. The results showed dramatic and unexpected effects that could not be caused by the lectin and could only be associated with the genetic modification.

The results rocked the shaky foundation of the GM industry. Dr Pusztai faced huge opposition from the Royal Society in London, from pro-GM governments, including the UK government and ended up being unceremoniously forced out of his job at Rowett. As increasing evidence for health and environmental risks continue to accumulate, Dr Pusztai is joined by an ever growing band of leading scientific researchers in the GM field who are adamantly opposed to the outdoor release of GM and its incorporation into human food and animal feed.

Read an article by Dr Pusztai, Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?, which demonstrates the lack of adequate safety evaluation of GM crops. Read an abstract of a recent (2007) review by Dr Joseluis Domingo of the School of Medicine, Rovira I Virgili University, Spain, entitled Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature.


What are some of the possible health risks from eating GM-containing foods?

Scientists have revealed a very large number of adverse effects associated with the genetic engineering of crop plants. The following is just a small list of some of the adverse effects that have been documented following exposure findings:

  • reduced organ weight
  • reduced growth
  • reduced fertility
  • compromised immune function
  • inflammation
  • mutations
  • allergic reactions
  • new diseases
  • reduced nutrient content of food
  • cancer
  • premature death

Probably the most complete and accessible compilation of documented health risks of genetically engineered foods has been undertaken by Jeffrey Smith, author of the bestseller Seeds of Deception (2004, Green Books, Totnes, UK / Yes! Books, Fairfield IA, USA), and his latest book Genetic Roulette: The  Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (2007, Yes! Books, Fairfield IA, USA). We strongly recommend all members of the public, academia and governments with concerns about GM foods to read both these books. They can be readily obtained through Amazon.

Alternatively, click here to discover more about the 65 health risks documented in Jeffery Smith’s book.


What are some the faulty bricks in the shaky foundations of GM?

The continued march of GM into our food supply has occurred only because dozens of errors, misconceptions, misrepresentations and even outright lies have been accepted by regulators, governments and unsuspecting members of the public.   We look here at just five of the most glaring defective bricks in the unsound foundations of genetic engineering:

Misconception 1: The ‘one gene one protein’ hypothesis

George Beadle and Edward Tatum were awarded the Nobel Prize for proposing this hypothesis back in 1958. They proposed that each gene within DNA coded for the production of a single protein or enzyme. The view formed the bedrock for the development of the genetic engineering of crop plants between the 1970s and 1990s. It allowed the scientists to think of strands of DNA, and the genes on them, like videotape or Lego bricks. You could splice or chop and change the DNA of a crop plant to incorporate whatever trait you so desired. Because the resulting GM crop would then be unique, you could also make a lot of money out of it through its patent.

The Human Genome Project which was completed in April 2003—the largest collaborative scientific project ever conducted—eventually proved this hypothesis to be incorrect. In unravelling the human genome, the project showed that there are only around 30,000 genes in the human genome, a much smaller number than was anticipated. Given that we know about the existence of some 200,000 cellular proteins (including enzymes) in the body, it is clear that some genes must code for more than one protein. Since this time, it has been found that most genes code for multiple proteins and only a very few code for a single one.

Therefore by incorporating a gene for a selected trait, it is highly likely that other, unpredictable consequences will arise. An increasing body of research is now beginning to support this view.


Misconception 2: The expression of genes in the crop plant will not be affected by the foreign, inserted gene(s)

This has again been demonstrated to be a completely false assumption. When the foreign gene is ‘spliced’ into the host plant’s DNA, there is no telling exactly where it will be situated and the foreign genes may have a wide range of unpredictable effects on the native genes in the recipient’s cells. The foreign gene and associated DNA may directly or indirectly cause some native genes to stop producing specific proteins or enzymes they are programmed to produce (‘gene silencing’), while it may increase the expression of others, some of which may have been dormant in the DNA for thousands of years. It may also cause some genes to express themselves differently and unpredictably, giving rise, for example, to allergens or toxins.

The documented increase in allergic reactions in countries in which GM crops are consumed and the death of at least 37 people and illness in up to around 10,000 Americans following the consumption of the genetically modified L-tryptophan dietary (food) supplement in the 1980s are examples of this.

No risks obviously apply to good old non-GM L-tryptophan, which is an essential amino acid found in liberal quantities in chicken and other meats.  It acts as a precursor to serotonin, the mood enhancing hormone that prevents so many of us entering states of anxiety and depression and taking SSRI drugs.

L-tryptophan and its intermediate, 5-HTP (5-hydroxytryptophan), have been used safely for decades as food supplements and are invaluable to many thousands.  They are a natural part of the food supply and again pose no risk, provided that they are taken in non-GM forms.


Misconception 3: Instability of DNA in genetically modified crops

It was assumed originally by genetic engineers that once the insertion of new genes had taken place and the modified cells had been developed into viable and crop plants, that their DNA would be relatively stable—or at least as stable as non-GM crops. This has been found to not be the case. It seems that the process of genetic engineering—where foreign DNA, often from a completely unrelated species—is forced into the DNA of a plant, making its DNA much less stable. As such, the DNA of

Misconception 4: Genes from GM crops won’t transfer into the environment

For years the biotech industry argued that the movement of transgenic DNA into non-GM crops or weeds or other plant, animal or microorganism species would not occur and could be guarded against by ensuring buffer zones between GM crops and non-GM ones.

It is now almost universally accepted that this is an inevitable consequence of increasing the hectarage of GM. It’s referred to as horizontal gene transfer or outcrossing and its impact could be catastrophic in either the short or the long term.


Misconception 5: Biotechnology is needed to feed the world’s expanding population

This is the big and emotive argument being pushed around by governments. It pulls at our heart strings and we are told that genetic engineering is merely an extension of plant breeding techniques that have been ongoing for centuries. Wrong again. Firstly, plant breeding works within the laws of nature. Nature doesn’t allow you to incorporate DNA from an unrelated species into a crop plant. It doesn’t, for example, allow you to put spider genes into maize plants.  It also has a very specific rule system for allowing recombination of DNA between related species. It is therefore a gradual process and does not involve the forced introduction of foreign DNA, antibiotic marker genes and naked cauliflower mosaic virus into its native DNA.

There’s little evidence that GM crop plants consistently give better yields, or that such yields can be sustained over many generations. There’s also little consistent evidence that GM crops are more nutritious and there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that they are less nutritious and pose considerable health and environmental risks.

Then there’s the huge issue of who controls the seed supply. Biotech companies and pro-GM governments tell us that GM is the answer to food shortages in developing countries, as well being the most cost-effective way of producing cheap food for the developed world. But around 2 billion people on the planet today are subsistence farmers who rely on raising their own seed. GM takes this capability away from subsistence farmers and makes them depend on a small handful of biotech companies for their seeds. This concept flies in the face of all that has been learned about re-establishing self-sufficiency in rural communities in developing countries.

Might farmers be handing ownership of their seed to someone else if they accept GM?

The approach favoured by the biotech giants also flies in the face of findings on the state of agriculture made over 4 years of study by a collaboration of 400 scientists from 60 countries, which are detailed in a 2,500 page report—released in April 2008—as part of a UN project, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). The executive summary of the report concludes that GM raises numerous contentious issues for developing countries, ranging from gene transfer, contamination of organic crops, undermining of local practices, reduced food security and unpredictable or reduced yields. In short, the scientists are saying that GM—at least in its present form—is not the solution to food shortages in the developing world.

Many developing countries have been at the forefront of resisting the shift to GM. Their governments, which by and large accepted agrochemicals in the past—many of which were banned in the west owing to their excessive health or environmental hazard—have not been so forgiving over GM. They are alive to the huge health and environmental risks. They understand the predicament it puts them in by becoming dependent on patented seeds from western biotech companies.

Large tracts of the Amazon rainforest, one of the most important areas of biodiversity in the world, is presently being flattened to make space for GM soyabeans to feed livestock in the western world. We have no idea what the consequences might be, but the existing evidence would suggest that widespread planting of GM crops poses a catalogue of potentially dire environmental risks.

One of the clearest pieces of evidence demonstrating the risk was a study in the US showing that pollen from GM maize kills Monarch butterflies.

Whatever happened to the precautionary principle that has helped to save many a whale, penguin and polar bear?

Is public opinion going to make GM redundant?

Although more and more countries are resisting increasing cultivation of GM, there is still enormous pressure from biotech companies which is being felt particularly at a governmental level.

The EU as a whole, and even some European countries that have previously supported the EU’s moratorium against further commercialization of GM, are becoming more pro-GM. This is particularly the case with the UK government.

It is clear that the biotech companies and governments are increasingly trying to prepare the public to be more amenable to accepting GM.

Do you know if there’s GMO’s in your food? Did the animal whose meat? you’re eating feed on GM soya or maize?

The World Trade Organization (WTO), the ‘policeman’ of global trade, regards the banning of GM as a barrier to trade and has been engaged in disputes with countries to restrict GM. Given that Europe has historically represented a big export market for agricultural products from the US and Canada, the US and Canadian governments, supported by the Argentinian government initiated a dispute against the European Union which is still ongoing.

Our key concern in Europe is that the European Commission itself is not fundamentally anti-GM. It is the public in Europe that represent the key opposition to GM—not the governments. In fact, although the European Commission doesn’t generally admit it, it is actually pro-GM. There is mounting evidence that the EU will slowly move into line with the US, to increase the number of GM registrations, to increase the land area within Europe given over to GM crop cultivation, and slip ever greater amounts of GM into our food. Leaked documents have revealed secret plans by the European Commission, and representatives of the 27 EU Member States to do just this.

Disconcertingly—as is so often the case in other matters—those at the tough end of the socio-economic scale will pay the highest price in health terms. This group tends to consume the largest amounts of processed foods, the perfect disguise for GM soya and maize products and derivatives.

At a global level, apart from the WTO from its pro-big corporate position as arbitrator over trade disputes, there is also considerable involvement of Codex.  The Codex Committee on Food Labelling, hosted by the pro-GM Canadian government, is providing the key battleground for governments, corporation-sponsored NGOs and consumer advocates to fight out labelling requirements for GM foods. There is a major and growing divide between those countries, headed by the US and Canada, that are pro-GM and opposed to compulsory labelling of GM ingredients in foods, and those, represented by some EU member States, many African and other developing countries, that are adamant that mandatory labelling of packaged foods is essential as a means of offering consumers choice. In other words, they support the fundamental human right—the right to knowledge.

Anything less than compulsory labelling, on the basis of the available evidence and the risks and uncertainty over GMOs is—in our view—criminally negligent.

Say No to GM

Remember: if you support the principles of natural health which serve to offer the body the appropriate internal and external environment to allow the optimal function of self-healing mechanisms within the body, ALWAYS say NO to GM! Anyone passionate about natural health has to say NO to GM.

That means making sure you know what you’re eating and buying, and making sure (as far as you can) that you are not knowingly consuming GM directly in your food or indirectly in meat produced from animals fed GM-soya or GM-maize. Presently buying organically certified food is one of the simplest ways of minimising your intake—but even this doesn’t necessarily eliminate your exposure altogether. It is particularly important for us to work to ensure that all children—who are especially susceptible to GMOs—are not unknowingly exposed to GM.

Help people to understand why we are faced with pro-GM spin from governments, regulatory agencies, international regulatory bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the World Trade Organization.

Work to ensure safety evaluations by regulatory authorities are massively extended and made transparent. Based on the current scientific evidence, no objective safety evaluation could ever approve the use of GM for release into the environment.

And don’t forget to tell as many people as you can—people you know or those you can reach out to—about GM and its very considerable risks.

Copy this link: http://www.anhcampaign.org/campaigns/say-no-to-gm

…and send it by email to the people you care about.

Some online resources relating to the GM controversy

Anti-GM websites

Arpad Pusztai’s Homepage
GM Freeze
GeneWatch?
GM Watch
Greenpeace ?
Friends of the Earth ?
Soil Association ?
Organic Consumers Association ?
Institute for Responsible Technology ?
Non-GM Farmers?
GMO Compass ?
GMO Safety ?
GM Free Ireland ?
GM Free Cymru (Wales)?
Institute of Science in Society?Lobbywatch.org?
Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application for Science and Technology (PSRAST)

Pro-GM websites

Monsanto website / “conversations about plant biotechnology”?
European Association of Bioindustries?
Sense About Science / GM and Plant Science page?
Skeptico Blog on Genetic Engineering

In addition, the following links are to profiles created by Lobbywatch.org (UK author and journalist George Monbiot) about organisations that have been staunchly pro-GM:

Institute of Economic Affairs?
European Science and Environment Forum?
International Policy Network?
Sustainable Development Network?
Competitive Enterprise Institute?
American Enterprise Institute

Promoting independent research and public debate on the impacts of biotechnology

Testbiotech Institute for Independent Impact Assessment in Biotechnology

Multimedia

Presentation by Dr Robert Verkerk at Natural Products Europe 2009 in London (5th April 2009) on the risks of GM crops and food now on youtube. Go to news item and links.

Click here for an illuminating exchange between the UK’s minister for agriculture, Hilary Benn, and organic farming proponents, hosted by organic gardener Monty Don. (6th February 2009, London).  Reported by Sam Burcher of the Institute for Science in Society.


Reading

Jeffrey Smith, author of the bestsellers Seeds of Deception (2004, Green Books, Totnes, UK / Yes! Books, Fairfield IA, USA), and his latest book Genetic Roulette: The  Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (2007, Yes! Books, Fairfield IA, USA).

We strongly recommend all members of the public, academia and governments with concerns about GM foods to read both these books. They can be readily obtained through Amazon.

Alternatively, click here to discover more about the 65 health risks documented in Jeffery Smith’s book.


January 13, 2010

FDA knew HFCS contained Mercury

Society ofENVIRONMENTAL JOURNALISTS

FDA Knew About Mercury in Corn Syrup — And Kept Silent

January 28, 2009

The Food and Drug Administration has known for years that high fructose corn syrup is often contaminated with toxic mercury — but did not inform or warn the public.

“There is no established safe dose for elemental mercury, the type discovered in corn syrup,” wrote Michael Hawthorne, who had the story in the Chicago Tribune of January 27, 2009. “But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says an average-sized woman should limit her exposure to 5.5 micrograms a day of methylmercury, the kind found in fish. If that same woman regularly ate corn syrup contaminated at the highest level detected in the study — 0.57 micrograms per gram — the researchers estimated that she could end up consuming an amount of mercury that is five times higher than the EPA’s safe dose.”

But the FDA had the information as early as 2005, when one of its scientists co-authored a study finding the mercury in corn syrup. Despite this, the FDA allowed the corn industry to go forward with a campaign advertising corn syrup as “natural.” That part of the story came out in the Huffington Post column of Leslie Hatfield Jan. 27.

The Corn Refiners Association is currently running a TV ad campaign attempting to deny negative statements about corn syrup.

October 27, 2009

H1N1 vaccine

This is from our Letters to the Editor in our Columbus Dispatch  10-27-09   And he is responding to a past article.            Jan

Better think before getting H1N1 vaccine

I am just one of thousands of doctors, scientists and parents who do not think that mass vaccination with H1N1 swine-flu vaccine is a good idea. Patients should make an individual decision with their doctor (“H1N1 vaccine available for at-risk groups,” Dispatch article, last Tuesday).

The risk of autism, brain damage and immune dysfunction is high, especially for children, pregnant women and elders.

There are five antiviral drugs for use in persons who contract influenza (e.g. Rimantadine and Tamiflu) to have on hand instead of administering this risky vaccine to 300 million people.   We will see more autism, dementia and immune dysfunction (Guillain-Barré syndrome) from mass administration of the H1N1 vaccine, especially with the recommendation to give it with straight flu vaccine.

The major networks are doing the bidding of pharmaceutical companies daily on every morning TV show while saying over and over that vaccines do not (in their view) cause autism or any problems; our government agrees by purchasing 250 million H1N1 vaccines with our tax dollars. My hope is each doctor and family member is aware of the risks, and that it’s not a no-brainer.

DR. PHILLIP DeMIO
President
American Medical Autism Board
Seven Hills

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers

%d bloggers like this: