Amazon.com Widgets

Category Archives: Toxins

False Promises

nist6dh / Flickr

nist6dh / Flickr

One of Monsanto’s favorite (false) claims is that the proliferation of GMO crops leads to reduced pesticide use. The latest study to refute that claim, published this week in Environmental Sciences Europe, says that glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” genetically engineered crops were introduced in 1996. (Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup).

Monsanto also loves to falsely claim that glyphosate is harmless, despite study after study suggesting otherwise.(Not to mention that last year the World Health Organization classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen).

How much should you care about a 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate?

“The dramatic and rapid growth in overall use of glyphosate will likely contribute to a host of adverse environmental and public health consequences,” said Dr. Charles Benbrook, author of the new study.

One of those (many) consequences, according to the world’s leading natural health website, Mercola.com, is that glyphosate damages your mitochondria. Damaged mitochondria are linked to hypertension and diabetes, allergic inflammation and autoimmune inflammation—conditions that are all on the rise, especially in the U.S. where 75-85 percent of all processed foods contain ingredients derived from Roundup Ready corn, soy, canola and sugar beets, to name a few.

A mere coincidence that instances of diabetes, allergies and autoimmune disease have risen, alongside the increased use of glyphosate? You decide.

Meanwhile, glyphosate is up for review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which promised a decision by the end of July, then pushed the deadline to end of 2015. And then went radio silent.

While the EPA drags its feet on whether or not to renew approval of glyphosate, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) refuses to tell consumers how much glyphosate is left behind on the foods they eat.

It’s enough to send your blood pressure soaring.

TAKE ACTION: Tell EPA’s Neil Anderson: Ban Monsanto’s Roundup Now!

More on the latest study of glyphosate use

Tweet it now!

Text “Roundup” to 97779 to join OCA’s mobile network and take action!

h/t: Organic Consumers Assoc.

7 Toxins Harming Your Brain Right Now

Brain X-ray001

Some of the most common substances found in everyday life are harming our cognitive function right now. Along with pesticides, you have substances like BPA, phthalates, mercury, lead, benzene, and flame retardants that are affecting you, even if you don’t realize it. Hidden in your home and office, you are exposed to toxic chemicals on a daily basis, and your brain is taking the brunt of it.

7 Toxins Harming Your Brain

Your brain controls every aspect of your body, giving directions to cells and the nervous system. It is essential for supporting good mood and clear thinking, helping to improve your overall quality of life. Here are seven of the most harmful and pervasive toxins you should look out for in order to support brain health.

  1. BPA

BPA is a known endocrine disruptor that interferes with how your body regulates hormones. Not only does it affect reproductive health, but it can also affect brain function, learning abilities, and how your memory works. [1] And it’s not just plastic that contains BPA; items that are BPA free aren’t always much better. The substitutes used for BPA (Bisphenol F and S or “BPF” and “BPS”) have been linked to behavioral issues, as well. [2]

     2. Phthalates

Phthalates are present in more everyday things than you might think. Similarly to BPA, phthalates are found in many products that contain plastic and things like household cleaners, cosmetics, personal hygiene products, and even food. There is a wide variety of phthalates, but the most notable versions are BBzP (butyl benzyl phthalate), DnBP (dibutyl phthalate), and DEHB (di-2-ethyl hexyl phthalate).

Phthalates have been linked to ADHD, asthma, diabetes, neurodevelopmental problems, and more. [3] California is spearheading the move against phthalates by asking that four specific types must be listed on labels (many do not have to be listed at all). Even big corporations like Target and WalMart have promised to reduce the amount of or even eradicate the use of harmful toxins like phthalates in products they stock.

  1. Mercury

I’ve covered the dangers of mercury extensively in other articles. The base reason is that it has been linked to kidney problems, respiratory failure, and other neuromuscular complications; however, the elemental form of mercury is the most toxic. [4] Due to this knowledge, many people have switched off from thermometers and other products containing mercury.

  1. Lead

Lead poisoning isn’t a problem of yesterday, it’s a problem today — a huge problem. The biggest issue is that lead affects so many parts of the body in such harmful ways. Not only can it affect organs and tissues, but it can affect whole systems of the body like the digestive, reproductive, and nervous systems. You absolutely need to take conscious steps to reduce your exposure to lead, including making your home safer for your children.

  1. Benzene

Benzene is found in fuel and motor vehicle exhaust, but can also be found in detergents and pharmaceuticals. [5] Why is something so problematic used so frequently? Benzene is even classified as carcinogen, [6] it’s highly flammable, and benzene poisoning can pass from mother to fetus. The best way to reduce your exposure to benzene is to distance yourself from gasoline or waste plants and to avoid cigarette smoke at all costs. As quoted by the CDC, “Average smokers take in about 10 times more benzene than nonsmokers each day.” [7] Just one more reason not to smoke!

  1. Flame Retardants

Normally, something that helps to quell a fire is heralded as useful and sometimes heroic. However, a disturbing discovery was made by a researcher from Texas. The discovery showed that flame retardants were found in the breast milk of American women. [8] How could this happen? It turns out that flame retardants can be found virtually anywhere in food, furniture, and building materials. We’re around these items every day and breathe in the toxins that emanate throughout the day.

Attributed to the spread of human civilization, it’s unbelievable just how widespread traces of flame retardant chemicals are. Not even bald eagles are safe. Out of 33 dead eagles tested from 2009 to 2011, every one but two had all four flame retardant components for which scientists were testing. [9] It’s important to educate yourself about flame retardant compounds and make sure they’re not abundant in your home. [10]

  1. Pesticides

Mostly everyone is familiar with the negative effects of pesticides, but new developments further strengthen the argument against using pesticides on foods we consume. Perhaps the biggest and most shocking development to come to light is that pesticide exposure is now linked to Parkinson’s disease. [11] The best way to avoid undue exposure to pesticides is to choose organic food!

Protecting Your Brain

Now that you’re a bit more informed about seven toxins you might not have known about before, you can get started on protecting yourself from the harmful effects, both short term and long term. Turmeric shows powerful antioxidant protection for the brain, and it’s often advised to take this in extract form to ensure best results. Eating an organic diet, reducing the use of furniture made with flame retardants, and using glass containers instead of plastic are also helpful steps.

References:

  1. Nordqvist, Christian. What is BPA (bisphenol A)? Is BPA harmful? Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 26 Sep. 2014.
  2. Ketchiff, Mirel. The Scary Truth About BPA-Free Plastic. SHAPE. 2015.
  3. Westervelt, Amy. Phthalates are everywhere, and the health risks are worrying. How bad are they really? The Guardian. 2015.
  4. EPA. Health Effects of Mercury. EPA.gov. 2014.
  5. EPA. Benzene. EPA.gov. 2013.
  6. ATSDR. Benzene. ATSDR. 2011.
  7. ATSDR. Public Health Statement for Benzene. CDC.gov. 2015.
  8. Blum, Deborah. Flame Retardants are Everywhere. NY Times. 2014.
  9. Betts, Kellyn S. More Evidence for PBDEs as Neurotoxicants: Cohort Study Corroborates Earlier Findings. EHP. 2014.
  10. Bienkowski, Brian. Michigan’s Bald Eagles Full of Flame Retardants. Environmental Health News. 2015.
  11. Bret Stetka. Parkinson’s Disease and Pesticides: What’s the Connection? Scientific American.

Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.

Are These Companies Growing Produce With Oil Industry Waste Water?

Are-These-Companies-Growing-Produce-with-Oil-Industry-Waste-Water

Some commercial farms in California came up with their own solution to the drought, and it’s not pretty. They decided to use recycled oil industry waste water to grow their produce. Chevron Oil Company treats 21 million gallons of waste water per day and sells it to farmers, who in turn use it to water 45,000 acres of crops in one of the country’s primary produce-growing areas.

It’s like something used in third world countries that we scorn for their unsafe practices:

In most developing countries wastewater treatment systems are hardly functioning or have a very low coverage, resulting in large scale water pollution and the use of very poor quality water for crop irrigation especially in the vicinity of urban centres. This can create significant risks to public health, particularly where crops are eaten raw.

But it’s happening right here.

Recycled irrigation water has been used to some degree for decades, but the testing has been limited to naturally occurring toxins, like salt and arsenic. Officially, no testing is done for the chemicals used in oil production. While farmers test crops for pests or diseases, they don’t test them for chemicals that may have absorbed through the roots from water. They figure that the water authorities are looking out for that. So basically, everyone expects that someone else does the testing, and no one does the testing. Nuts, citrus, and grapes may be highly contaminated but no one knows for sure.

Yummy, right?

This is what independent testing of the oil industry waste water showed

One environmental group took it upon themselves to test samples of the treated irrigation water. Water Defense, an advocacy group founded by actor Mark Ruffalo, discovered something very unsettling.

Mark Smith, the scientist who took samples for Water Defense, has been a consultant for the EPA on more than 50 oil spills. He took samples from areas of the canal that were publicly accessible and put them through comprehensive testing.

He found acetone and methylene chloride. These are solvents used to remove grease from equipment and soften crude oil, and said that the concentrations in the water were higher than he had seen at oil spill disaster sites. He also found C20 and C34, hydrocarbons found in oil.

Smith, the Water Defense scientist, has consulted for the Environmental Protection Agency and other government offices on more than 50 oil spills and spent two years studying the oil wastewater used for irrigation in Kern County.

He traveled the eight-mile Cawelo canal, taking samples of the water as it moved from Chevron’s oil fields through the irrigation canals to farmers’ fields. He said he gathered samples only from areas that were publicly accessible. He took samples from 10 points, collecting water from a number of depths at each site through a process that he said is more comprehensive than the sampling state and local authorities require.

The samples Smith collected contained acetone and methylene chloride, solvents used to degrease equipment or soften thick crude oil, at concentrations higher than he said he had seen at oil spill disaster sites. Methlyene chloride, by the way, is classified as a potential carcinogen. The water also contained C20 and C34, hydrocarbons found in oil, according to ALS Environmental, the lab that analyzed Smith’s samples.

Methylene chloride and acetone are used as solvents in many industrial settings. Methylene chloride is classified as a potential carcinogen.

Here’s a horrifying example:

“One sample of the recycled Cawelo irrigation water, for example, registered methylene chloride as high as 56 parts per billion. Smith said that was nearly four times the amount of methylene chloride registered when he tested oil-fouled river at the 2013 ExxonMobil tar sands pipeline spill in Mayflower, Ark. That spill was declared a federal disaster, spurred evacuations and resulted in a $2.7-million fine for the company.

Chevron told The Times it does not use acetone or methylene chloride in its oil extraction process. The company would not disclose the fluids used in drilling or well maintenance.”

But don’t worry. It’s perfectly safe.

The water district is unconcerned. One board member (who grows pistachios and citrus, by the way) feels that the water testing being done is accurate.

Mark Smith, a board member of the Cawelo Water District who grows pistachios and citrus using treated water from Chevron, said he had “never heard a word” about contamination from the oil production process and is satisfied that the water testing is adequate. Glenn Fankhauser, assistant director of the Kern County Department of Agriculture and Measurement Standards, concurs. “As long as they’re treating the water to the point where it’s allowed by whatever agency governs the quality of water, I think it would be OK.”

Note the blithe unconcern shown by those who are, of course, profiting greatly from the use of toxic water to irrigate food crops.

The thing that blows my mind is how small family farms are being regulated out of business to keep us “safe” but this stuff goes on and no one in “authority” bats an eyelash. But somehow, we who are concerned about the fact that those with lots of money are not regulated are the kooky conspiracy nuts. As I’ve written about at length, with regard to something as important as water, you must take the responsibility for safety upon yourself.

Here is a list of companies whose farms receive oil industry wastewater

So, as it turns out, those cute little Halo oranges aren’t really very angelic.

An environmental group called Food and Water Watch received a list from the district of the names and addresses of companies that use its water.

Look for these labels in the grocery store, and avoid them until/unless they are proven safe, because, as per a report by Mother Jones, they’re most likely grown using oil industry wastewater.

  • Sunview (table grapes, raisins, persimmons, and prune plums)
  • Wonderful Citrus (Halos and Cuties – this company also owns  Fiji Water, POM Wonderful, and the world’s largest pistachio and almond growing operation)
  • Trinchero Family Estates (wine)
  • Bee Sweet Citrus (mandarins, oranges, and lemons)

Fruit-collage

It all comes back to the same refrain: if you don’t grow it yourself or know the grower personally, you really can’t trust it. We must go back to the days when food was sourced locally so that we can be our own watchdogs.

Sources:

Mother Jones

LA Times


Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor who lives in a small village in the Pacific Northwestern area of the United States. She is the author ofThe Pantry Primer: How to Build a One Year Food Supply in Three Months. On her website, The Organic Prepper, Daisy writes about healthy prepping, homesteading adventures, and the pursuit of liberty and food freedom. Daisy is a co-founder of the website Nutritional Anarchy, which focuses on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Daisy’s articles are widely republished throughout alternative media. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter, and you can email her at [email protected]

Nursery Water: “Purified” With Fluoride?

baby drinking water

Would you let your infant drink from the Tap? How about “Nursery Water” with added Fluoride?

distilled_nursery_water

Isn’t the point of distilling water to take contaminants and chemicals OUT? 

distilled_nursery_water_label

Nursery water contains .7 ppm/7 mg of fluoride per gallon.

Do Infants Need Fluoride?

What the Fluoride Action Network says

“In contrast to recommendations adopted in the 1950s, fluoride supplementation is no longer recommended for newborn children. This includes both fluoride in drops, and fluoride in drinking water.

Not only is fluoride ingestion during infancy unnecessary,it can also be harmful – as suggested by a mounting body of evidence linking fluoride exposure during the first year of life with the development of dental fluorosis. (For pictures of dental fluorosis, click here)

Because of the risk for dental fluorosis, and the lack ofdemonstrable benefit from ingesting fluoride before teeth erupt, the American Dental Association – and a growing number of dental researchers – recommend that children under 12 months of age should not consume fluoridated water while babies under 6 months of age should not receive any fluoride drops or pills.

Fluoridated drinking water contains up to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk (1000 ppb in fluoridated tap water vs 5-10 ppb in breast milk). As a result, babies consuming formula made with fluoridated tap water are exposed to much higher levels of fluoride than a breast-fed infant. (A baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest).

Dental fluorosis is not the only risk from early-life exposure to fluoride. A recent review in The Lancet describes fluoride as “an emerging neurotoxic substance” that may damage the developing brain. The National Research Council has identified fluoride as an “endocrine disrupter” that may impair thyroid function, while recent research from Harvard University has found a possible connection between fluoride.”

The Material Data Safety Sheet on Sodium Fluoride lists it as a “Severe (Poison)”…

(click image to enlarge)

mallinckrodt_chemicals_contact_info

Click to view

EXCERPT

3. Hazards Identification

Emergency Overview
————————–
DANGER! MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. AFFECTS RESPIRATORY SYSTEM, HEART, SKELETON, CIRCULATORY SYSTEM, CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AND KIDNEYS. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. IRRITATION EFFECTS MAY BE DELAYED.

SAF-T-DATA(tm) Ratings (Provided here for your convenience)
———————————————————————————————————–
Health Rating:3 – Severe (Poison)
Flammability Rating: 0 – None
Reactivity Rating: 1 – Slight
Contact Rating: 3 – Severe
Lab Protective Equip: GOGGLES & SHIELD; LAB COAT & APRON; VENT HOOD; PROPER GLOVES
Storage Color Code:Blue (Health)
———————————————————————————————————–

Potential Health Effects
———————————-

If inhaled or swallowed, this compound can cause fluoride poisoning. Early symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and weakness. Later effects include central nervous system effects, cardiovascular effects and death.

Inhalation:
Causes severe irritation to the respiratory tract, symptoms may include coughing, sore throat, and labored breathing. May be absorbed through inhalation of dust; symptoms may parallel those from ingestion exposure. Irritation effects may not appear immediately.
Ingestion:
Toxic! May cause salivation, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Symptoms of weakness, tremors, shallow respiration, cardopedal spasm, convulsions, and coma may follow. May cause brain and kidney damage. Affects heart and circulatory system. Death may occur from respiratory paralysis. Estimated lethal dose = 5-l0 grams.
Skin Contact:
Causes irritation, with redness and pain. Solutions are corrosive. Effects may not appear immediately.
Eye Contact:
Eye irritant! May cause irritation and serious eye damage. Effects may not immediately appear.
Chronic Exposure:
Chronic exposure may cause mottling of teeth and bone damage (osteosclerosis) and fluorosis. Symptoms of fluorisis include brittle bones,weight loss, anemia, calcified ligaments, general ill health and joint stiffness.
Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions:
Populations that appear to be at increased risk from the effects of fluoride are individuals that suffer from diabetes insipidus or some forms of renal impairment.”

Additional Reading

TOXNET’s page on Sodium Fluoride

Greenmedinfo.com’s toxicological citations on Fluoride

Our Verdict

The risks associated with the intentional dosing of infants with fluoride are probably far higher than the purported health benefits, which furthermore are topical and not systemic.

Infants are at much higher risk for adverse effects due to the relatively higher body burden (lower body weight vs. chemical exposure) and less developed blood-brain-barrier and detoxification systems than adults.

Nursery water is a misleading and potentially dangerous product in the context of an already fluoride saturated world.


Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

 

No Poison Is Good For You In Small Doses

poison

(The Real Agenda) A not so recent practice and talk point from mainstream media and conventional medicine says that inventions such as vaccines or other products manufactured by large corporate multinationals are safe, or that they are not as dangerous for people because the doses of life-threatening chemicals in them is very low.

It is important to raise the point here that no toxic chemical has ever been proven to be safe for human use via ingestion, injection, inhalation, spray or spreading it over someone’s body.

Ingesting, inhaling, injecting or spreading toxic chemicals on someone, just because the amount of one or a number of chemicals is low is not only illogical, but also equally dangerous for those who use the products.

The danger of getting sick or dying due to exposure to toxic chemicals in food, cleaning products or those used in vaccines, for example, is magnified when the product combines several hundreds of toxic chemicals which are rarely written on labels.

Let’s take vaccines as an example. The average flu vaccine contains 25,000 times more mercury than it is legally allowed in drinking water. Yet, these vaccines are provided as ‘safe’ tools to fight disease. Many vaccine inserts alert people that the vaccines have not been tested for potential carcinogenic effects.

It is not uncommon to find hundreds of websites kept by researchers and parents of children or relatives who were severely damaged by vaccines, but very few have been able to succinctly explain why it is not a good idea to inject poisonous chemicals in a child or an adult. The best top-ten reasons not to vaccinate were recently presented by Michelle Goldstein, on Vactruth.com.

“Once vaccinated, the potential side-effects cannot be easily undone, if at all. These include death, sudden infant death syndrome, auto-immune disorders, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies, asthma, ADHD, autism, Guillian-Barré Syndrome and other neurological damage,” explains Goldstein, a mental health therapist who also works with holistic medicine.

Goldstein provides ten key reasons that all parents and adults should consider and research before deciding to vaccinate:

Vaccines have never been proven safe or effective. This alone should raise enough questions for anyone who desires to use so-called immunizations.

Vaccines do NOT work. If the first reason was not enough to make you question vaccines, this one should. As explained by many health practitioners, vaccines inhibit the body’s natural immune reaction to cope with disease on top of polluting a child’s body with often unknown amounts of dangerous chemicals.

The very first vaccine was a disaster. As many other accepted myths, vaccine effectiveness and safety come from the minds of hijacked modern medicine establishments that were taken over by organizations such as the Rockefeller, Ford and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations. By the way, these organizations are creations of the oil industry whose byproducts are found in drinking water and of course vaccines.

Vaccines are highly profitable for pharmaceutical companies and the healthcare industry. This means that, even if vaccines were effective, which they are not, profit most likely overcomes safety, which is why pandemics such as the H1N1 and Ebola usually result in billions of dollars in profits for the farmaceutical industry, which is also favored by Rockefeller, and other ‘philanthropic’  organizations.

All vaccines contain a number of toxic poisons and chemicals that are linked to serious neurological damage including aluminum, thimerosal (methyl mercury), antibiotics, monosodium glutamate (MSG) and formaldehyde. How many times have you thought about ingesting or injecting yourself or your kids with anti-freeze, lead, cadmium, glycerine or acetone? Well, those ingredients are also found in vaccines.

Every -independently conducted- study comparing unvaccinated to vaccinated children demonstrates that unvaccinated children enjoy far superior health. This is one of the points that is not understood by the pro-vaccine crowd. They want to mandate that all children and adults be vaccinated, even though unvaccinated children fair better than those whose immune systems have been tainted with vaccines.

Vaccines cause a host of “chronic, incurable, and life-threatening diseases,” including autism, asthma, ADHD, auto-immune disorders, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, food allergies and brain damage. By the way, if you don’t believe this, ask yourself why do countries create “vaccine court”? Vaccine courts are entities created by the pharmaceutical industry and government agencies to deal with lawsuits brought up by the parents of children who have been damaged by vaccines. Even though the existence of these courts is widely unknown, the truth is that they have paid millions of dollars in compensation to families who were affected by vaccine poisoning.

Scientifically speaking, the only way to create true life-long immunity to a disease is through natural exposure to the disease in which the body creates true antibodies and immunity on many levels.

Vaccines kill infants, children and adults. No matter how safe pharmaceutical companies say their products are or how their safety has been reviewed by health authorities. Any study conducted by the pharmaceutical industry which is later submitted to government health organization will ever be performed objectively. Remember that pharmaceutical companies write their own rules and conduct their own safety and effectiveness studies. What can you expect from that?

Perhaps the top reason that explains why vaccines are untrustworthy is the fact that if you or a loved one suffers from a vaccine injury, pharmaceutical companies and physicians hold no medical liability. Do you know any other industry in which companies are not liable for defects or damages that result from the poor performance of their products? How about an industry who has zero responsibility for damages caused by their products? There are not any. This privilege is reserved to the pharmaceutical industry alone.

Another case of alleged “small, insignificant exposure” to dangerous chemicals is food products, which are laden with synthetically made conservatives, colors and flavors.

In case you need to see it on mainstream media to believe it, here is a report from CNN in which it is explained how 7 chemicals that are understood as safe for human consumption by health authorities, are actually poisonous for those who ingest them. Among them are: Azodicarbonamide, which is used in bread. Tartrazine, an artificial color that is used in thousands of food products. It is better known as Yellow No. 5 and No. 6.

Another toxic combination is that of Propyl gallate and butylated hydroxytoluene. Both are used as preservatives to keep manufactured food products from going bad and lasting longer on the shelf. Along with these two is Sodium nitrite, which is used for preservation and coloring of packaged meats.

Next comes tert-Butylhydroquinone, which is a form of butane. It is added to crackers, potato chips and some fast food. Similarly, Silicon dioxide is also added to food products such as “dry coffee creamer, dried soups and other powdery foods. It is also used as an insect repellent, removing the oily film that covers an insect’s body, causing them to dry out and die.”

This article concentrated on vaccines and some unknown chemicals added to foods, and leaves out some traditional offenders, such as BPA, MSG, hydrogenated oils, aspartame and hormone-bending chemicals, because we have already written about them before. Also, because both vaccines and food products are popularly exempted from scrutiny under the excuse that the small amounts of disease-causing chemicals they contain are easily disposed of by the human body, which is also a lie. It is important to remember that even if our bodies had the ability to get rid of some chemicals, the damage caused by them takes place before they are excreted out.

With so much land available to plant clean food and so much science available to create medicines that actually benefit our health, it is more than shocking to learn that there are people out there who still believe in 19th-century “snake oil” style solutions to their health problems or that people prefer consuming food products which are contaminated with hundreds of toxic substances put in them on purpose, despite the well-known dangers posed by them.

Knowing what to do about the chemicals in vaccines and food products is as simple as asking yourself the following question: Would I voluntarily ingest mercury, formaldehyde, anti-freeze, lead or cadmium? If the answer is NO, it would be necessary to ask why then would I ingest these and other chemicals in food or inject them into a child or an adult? If the answer YES, by all means knock yourself out. Inject away and eat away without remorse.


Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

Research: Gulf Shrimp Widely Contaminated With Carcinogens

shrimp_toxic

Conservative estimates indicate that the 2010 BP oil disaster released over 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf, followed by at least 1.8 million gallons of dispersants.  While the use of dispersants helped mitigate the public relations disaster by preventing the persistent formation of surface oil, as well as keeping many beaches visibly untouched, they also drove the oil deeper into the water column (and food chain) rendering a 2-dimensional problem (surface oil) into a 3-dimensional one. Additionally, research indicates that dispersants prevent the biodegradation of toxic oil components, as well as increasing dispersant absorption into fish from between 6 to 1100 fold higher levels.

Since the event, both the mainstream media and the government have acted as if the oil disappeared, and that no significant health risks remain for the millions still consuming contaminated seafood from the Gulf.*

Now, a new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives has revealed that the 2010 BP Gulf oil disaster resulted in widespread contamination of Gulf Coast seafood with toxic components from crude oil.1  In fact, levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in shrimp were found to exceed the FDA’s established thresholds for allowable levels [levels of concern (LOCs)] for pregnant women in up to 53% of Gulf shrimp sampled.

PAHs are well-known carcinogens and developmental toxicants, which is why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is obligated to set risk criteria and thresholds for allowable levels of exposure to them.**

In the new study the authors set out to evaluate the degree to which the FDA’s procedures for determining the safety of Gulf seafood after the BP disaster reflect the current risk assessment guidelines and practices, as produced by other authoritative entities, including the National Research Council (NRC), the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California EPA.  The authors focused on cancer risk associated with shellfish consumption, looking at whether or not the FDA’s guidelines protect the most vulnerable populations, e.g. pregnant women, infants.

The authors discovered a glaring discrepancy between the FDA Gulf seafood risk assessment (FDA 2010a) and the FDA’s own prior practice with risk assessment guidelines produced by other authoritative entities.

The FDA’s risk assessment was found to be seriously flawed because of the following six questionable assumptions:

The questionable assumptions include six main issues: a) high consumer body weight, b) low estimates of seafood consumption, c) failure to include a cancer risk assessment for naphthalene, d) failure to adjust for early-life susceptibility to PAHs, e) short exposure duration, and f) high cancer risk benchmarks. Taken together, these flaws illustrate a failure to incorporate the substantial body of evidence on the increased vulnerability of subpopulations to contaminants, such as PAHs, in seafood.

Their final conclusion was as follows

Environmental risk assessment requires the use of scientifically founded assumptions and appropriate default estimates about the exposed population, the intensity and duration of exposure, and the dose–response relationship. The risk assessment methods used by the FDA to set safe exposure levels for Gulf Coast seafood after the oil spill do not incorporate current best practices and do not protect vulnerable populations. The FDA’s conclusions about risks from Gulf seafood should be interpreted with caution in coastal populations with higher rates of seafood consumption and in vulnerable populations such as children, small adults, and pregnant women. Our analysis demonstrates that a revised approach, using standard risk assessment methods, results in significantly lower acceptable levels of PAHs in seafood and identifies populations that could be at risk from contaminants in Gulf Coast seafood. Health advisories targeted at high-end consumers would better protect vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, women who may become pregnant, and children. Our approach did not address infant exposure to PAHs via maternal seafood consumption and lactational transfer. The NRC (2008) found up to 50-fold interindividual variability in cancer risk and recommends incorporation of estimates of uncertainty, as well as population risk distributions, into future risk assessments. Improved public health protection from contaminants in food will require reforming FDA risk assessment practices.

Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the FDA’s conclusion that there are no significant risks to Gulf populations from oil spill–related contaminants in seafood are incorrect, and reckless when it comes to the health of the most vulnerable populations.

With reports now surfacing in mainstream media outlets on the appearance of eyeless shrimp and mutant fish, this latest finding probably only scratches the surface of a health problem in the Gulf titanic in proportions.

1 Seafood contamination after the BP Gulf oil spill and risks to vulnerable populations: a critique of the FDA risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Feb ;120(2):157-61. Epub 2011 Oct 3. PMID: 21990339

*Sixty percent of domestic shrimp and 70% of domestic oysters are sourced from the Gulf.

**The inherent absurdity of determining “an acceptable level of harm” is often overlooked

Additional Reading: Deformed Gulf Seafood is Part of the Deepwater Horizon Legacy


Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

Research Confirms Sweating Detoxifies Dangerous Metals, Petrochemicals

sweating detoxifies

New research is revealing something remarkable about why the body sweats. Beyond its obvious role in regulating body temperature, sweating has been found to facilitate the elimination of accumulated heavy metals and petrochemicals, indicating that if we want to be healthy we should put regular effort into doing more sweating.

Sweating has long been known as a source of bodily, if not also spiritual “cleansing.” But until recently, very little ‘scientific’ confirmation existed proving that using heat and/or exercise to facilitate perspiration-induced detoxification actually works the way that many natural health advocates claim.

With the Rise of Biomedicine and its so-called ‘evidence-based’ model of determining what is true and thereby legal to practice, this conspicuous lack of clinical proof has resulted in a veritable inquisition against those who claim that bodily detoxification through sweating is anything more than a form of ‘quackery.’

Sweating Confirmed As A Detoxifier of Metals

Enter the findings of a groundbreaking 2011 study published in the Archives of Environmental and Contamination Toxicology, which explored the effects of bioaccumulated toxic elements within the human body and their method of excretion:

“Toxic elements were found to differing degrees in each of blood, urine, and sweat. Serum levels for most metals and metalloids were comparable with those found in other studies in the scientific literature. Many toxic elements appeared to be preferentially excreted through sweat. Presumably stored in tissues, some toxic elements readily identified in the perspiration of some participants were not found in their serum. Induced sweating appears to be a potential method for elimination of many toxic elements from the human body.”[1]

The researchers also made the important observation that, “Biomonitoring for toxic elements through blood and/or urine testing may underestimate the total body burden of such toxicants. Sweat analysis should be considered as an additional method for monitoring bioaccumulation of toxic elements in humans.”

These are truly novel findings insofar as sweating, at least from the perspective of evolutionary biology, is considered to exist primarily for thermoregulation (sweat cools the surface of the skin and reduces body temperature, functioning as a wholebody cooling system). While the sweat glands have a well-known secondary role for the excretion of water and electrolytes, this function is not generally understood to be a form ‘detoxification.’

Also, this study underscores just how common it is for conventional medical practice to overlook the relevance of environmental factors in health (e.g. exposures to metals, petrochemicals, toxins), as many of these ‘vectors’ of exposure/poisoning are not properly measurable via blood or urine tests; that is, when they even care to look. This blind spot, of course, feeds the delusion that one can suppress bodily symptoms associated with environmental exposures with additional patented chemicals, in the downward spiral that is drug-based medicine. The obvious alternative method – identify and remove the poisons – isn’t even on the table, unless the practitioner happens to be aware of natural, integrative or functional medical principles and has the courage to go against the FDA-approved and liability-shielding grain to employ them.

Why Blood and Urine Analysis May Fail To Reveal The Problem

These preliminary research findings were further confirmed in a 2012 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Public and Environmental Health. The study titled, “Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury in sweat: a systematic review,” was performed by researchers from the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, and was based on a review of 24 studies on toxicant levels in the sweat.[2]

The researchers discovered the following:

  • In individuals with higher exposure or body burden, sweat generally exceeded plasma or urine concentrations, and dermal could match or surpass urinary daily excretion.
  • Arsenic dermal excretion was severalfold higher in arsenic-exposed individuals than in unexposed controls.
  • Cadmium was more concentrated in sweat than in blood plasma.
  • Sweat lead was associated with high-molecular-weight molecules, and in an interventional study, levels were higher with endurance compared with intensive exercise.
  • Mercury levels normalized with repeated saunas in a case report.

The researchers concluded, “Sweating deserves consideration for toxic element detoxification.

Sweating Also Removes The Insidious Petrochemicals BPA and Phthalates

But it gets better. Two additional studies published in 2012 found that sweating enhances the elimination of dangerous endocrine-disrupting petrochemicals.

The first study, involving 20 subjects made to undergo induced sweating, found that the ubiquitous petrochemical Bisphenol A (BPA) was excreted through sweat, even in some individuals with no BPA detected in their serum or urine samples.[3] This clearly indicates that the body uses sweat to rid itself of the BPA that has bioaccumulated in tissue.

The second study by the same research group, also involving 20 subjects, found that phthalate, a plasticizer tied to breast cancer and various other conditions associated with endocrine disruption, was present in concentrations twice as high in their sweat compared to their urine, and in several individuals was found in their sweat but not in their blood serum, “…suggesting the possibility of phthalate retention and bioaccumulation.”

The researchers concluded:

“Induced perspiration may be useful to facilitate elimination of some potentially toxic phthalate compounds including DEHP and MEHP. “[4]

Concluding Remarks and Tips

The conclusion? Sweating performs more than simply a cooling function for the body. It appears that it is also a way through which the bodily burden of accumulated toxins can be more rapidly detoxified. The natural medical tradition has long argued that the skin is the largest organ of elimination, and that oftentimes skin problems reflect a state of chronic toxicity. Perhaps modern science is only now catching up to these age-old observations.

As far as practical implementation, what are the best ways to sweat? Exercise and Sauna Therapy carry a wide range of additional ‘evidence-based’ health benefits (not to mention you feel great afterwards!), providing plenty of reason to engage these activities with enough effort and discipline to obtain a good sweat. Truly, any form of purposeful movement sustained for long enough, with the right intensity, can produce a healthy sweat. As Edgar Allan Poe said “The best things in life make you sweaty.”


[1] Stephen J Genuis, Detlef Birkholz, Ilia Rodushkin, Sanjay Beesoon. Blood, urine, and sweat (BUS) study: monitoring and elimination of bioaccumulated toxic elements. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2011 Aug ;61(2):344-57. Epub 2010 Nov 6. PMID: 21057782

[2] Margaret E Sears, Kathleen J Kerr, Riina I Bray. Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury in sweat: a systematic review. J Environ Public Health. 2012 ;2012:184745. Epub 2012 Feb 22. PMID: 22505948

[3] Stephen J Genuis, Sanjay Beesoon, Detlef Birkholz, Rebecca A Lobo. Human excretion of bisphenol A: blood, urine, and sweat (BUS) study. J Environ Public Health. 2012 ;2012:185731. Epub 2011 Dec 27. PMID: 22253637

[4] Stephen J Genuis, Sanjay Beesoon, Rebecca A Lobo, Detlef Birkholz. Human elimination of phthalate compounds: blood, urine, and sweat (BUS) study. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012 ;2012:615068. Epub 2012 Oct 31. PMID: 23213291


Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most

 

The Importance Of Organic Carpet Cleaners

Vacuum cleaner brush

Every time toxic cleaners are used, there’s a heavy impact on our environment. It does not matter whether the cleaners are poured, sprayed, washed, rinsed, or dumped; the harmful effects are the same. When we use these things we risk adding toxins to the air and to the water, both of which come back to us and are shared with the public. If you are not sure whether your cleaning products are harmful to you and the environment, take a look at the product labels to see the various types of chemical ingredients that are listed. What you find might surprise you!

Some products you may want to review are your carpet cleaners. For many of the cleaning needs today, there are healthier, organic alternatives for the usual toxic products. Carpet cleaners are no different. If you are concerned about this issue, and would like to use products that are healthier for you and the environment, consider switching to organic cleaning products. Organic carpet cleaners, for example, are generally dry cleaners that are much less harmful than traditional carpet cleaners.

Dangers of Non-Organic Carpet Cleaners

Most of the popular brands of carpet cleaners that are sold in stores can be quite harmful to us because they are made with chemical solvents that are very similar to the ones used by dry cleaners. The most common carpet cleaners give off powerfully strong odors that can aggravate a number of chronic respiratory conditions and allergies.

Some of the harmful ingredients that may be found in carpet cleaners include:

  • Pesticides
  • Disinfectants
  • Formaldehyde
  • Fragrances
  • Acids
  • Lye (Sodium Hydroxide)

These ingredients can cause endocrine issues, hormonal imbalance, and even infertility according to some studies. [1] In addition to these, there are a wide variety of additional compounds that are frequently found on product labels. It is helpful if you are aware of at least some of these potentially dangerous chemicals so you can avoid using them.

You’re Putting Toxic Chemicals on Toxic Materials

Carpets are often made of synthetic fibers and they’re treated with toxic chemicals that are hazardous to you and your family’s health. These carpets pose a threat to the families that have them installed as well as those who install them. Often times, those facing the greatest risks are infants, toddlers, and pets, which spend the most time breathing closest to the floor.

The following are some of the dangerous chemicals found in carpets in emissions tests:

  • Acetone
  • Benzene
  • Styrene
  • Hexane
  • Toluene
  • Formaldehyde
  • Caprolactam
  • Xylenes
  • Vinylcyclohexene
  • p-Dichlorobenzene

Many of these chemicals are carcinogenic. [2] If carpets are putting out these toxins, then people are surely breathing them in. Compound these chemicals with those in the cleanser formulas and you can begin to see the dangers present.

Why Should I Use Organic Carpet Cleaners?

Organic carpets don’t give off the noxious fumes that regular carpet can. Toxic fumes from carpet come from the synthetic fibers, the chemicals used in the manufacture, as well as the chemicals used to treat it. Your carpet padding can be treated with equally harmful chemicals. These toxic chemicals can cause allergic reactions in people and pets.

One of the main benefits of organic carpet cleaners is that they don’t pollute the air. Organic carpet cleaners are healthier for you and they’re healthier for our environment. Traditional carpet cleaners generally leave a concentrated vapor hanging in the air, which causes indoor air pollution. Indoor air pollution is a very serious concern, as it can cause sneezing, headaches, nausea, asthma attacks, irritation to the lungs, nose, and eyes, coughing, congestion, fatigue, and a host of other symptoms.

By using organic carpet cleaners, the potential for mold growth is greatly reduced. Since most organic cleaners are dry, the environment where mold spores readily sprout and flourish is minimized. Once mold develops in a carpet or carpet pad, it is nearly impossible to remove. The only alternative at that point is to replace all of it.

The most important point to remember is to be aware of the harmful chemicals that are typically found in commercially sold carpet cleaners, and make an effort to select organic carpet cleaners for the sake of your family’s health.

There are other alternatives that you can consider when you’re planning to have a greener home and work environment. For example, you could look into purchasing an organic carpet made with natural materials. A very safe carpet to purchase is one made of 100% natural wool fibers.

Carpet is not your only alternative for floor covering. Remember that alongside all-natural carpets made of wool or hemp, you can also elect to have natural wood flooring, not pressed or chipped board.

When you’re having new materials put on your floor, whether it’s wood, carpet, or some other beneficial covering, be sure to use proper backing; natural rubber is a good one. And then there’s the fixative. Sometimes the glue used can give off toxic fumes that linger for a long time after the flooring is installed. Check with your installer to make certain that he’s using the safest products for everyone.

One simple and effective product for deodorizing carpet between major cleanses is baking soda. You can sprinkle this dry substance freely over your carpet. Let is sit for as short as 30 minutes or as long as overnight; then vacuum. If you’ve ever used baking soda in your refrigerator, then you know how effective it is at removing odors. It can do the same for your carpet.

What to Consider When Cleaning Carpet

The best organic carpet cleaners are biodegradable and nontoxic. It is equally important to ensure a product’s packaging is made from 100% recycled material.

If you want your carpets to be professionally cleaned, you should know that there are professional organic carpet cleaners who specialize in natural cleaning of even the dirtiest carpets. If you have trouble locating professional organic carpet cleaners locally, try searching online to see if you can find one that is close to your area.

-Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM

References:

  1. Mehrpour O, Karrari P, Zamani N, Tsatsakis AM, Abdollahi M. Occupational exposure to pesticides and consequences on male semen and fertility: a review. Toxicol Lett. 2014 Oct 15;230(2):146-56. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2014.01.029.
  2. McMichael AJ. Carcinogenicity of benzene, toluene and xylene: epidemiological and experimental evidence. IARC Sci Publ. 1988;(85):3-18.

Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.

 

How Much Longer Will You Drink Fluoride ? (VIDEO)

water-or-fluoride1

I‘m sure you’ve heard it for years now, that fluoride is bad for you.  I did too before I finally took action.  Seeing how we need water more than food, and virtually all water in America has this strange substance added to it, swallowing an unnecessary chemical that even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says is toxic and used to be widely used as a rat poison, is worth serious contemplation.

The fact is, most of the world, including Europe, Japan, and China, do not put fluoride in their drinking water, specifically because of the harmful toxic effects it has on the people who drink it.  Why then is the United States government ignoring this evidence and deliberately putting the active ingredient of Prozac into the water supply of their citizens?  Is it the same reason why Nazis put fluoride into the drinking water of their prisoners during World War Two?

In this weeks episode of Conspiracy Corner News, I will answer these important questions.  The answers are frightening and shameful, and will require a response on your part.

Brother Bart-

 Donate

References:

In the description section of the above Youtube Video.




Bart Sibrel  is an award winning filmmaker, writer and investigative journalist who has been producing movies and television programs for thirty years. During this time he has owned five production companies, been employed by two of the three major networks and produced films shown on ABC, NBC, CNN, TLC, USA, BET, as well as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. To discuss his films, he has appeared and been interviewed on The Daily Show, Geraldo, NBC, CNN, FOX, Tech TV, Coast to Coast, and The Abrams Report. Articles featuring Mr. Sibrel’s films have been published in Time Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, USA Today and many others.  His top awards from the American Motion Picture Society include “Best Cinematography”, “Best Editing” and “Top Ten Director”. As the writer and director of the infamous “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” which exposed the moon landing hoaxMr. Sibrel has collected over the years innumerous military, government, industrial and private sources for credible firsthand verification of very real conspiratorial crimes against humanity. He will use these contacts and experience in exposing the true and unbelievably horrific intentions of the hidden minority who have diabolical intentions for mankind in his monthly Sleuth Journal column “Conspiracy Corner”.  When such concepts are speculative and unverified, Mr. Sibrel will acknowledge this and openly discuss the leading possibilities as a cautionary benedictionBe sure to visit his site at Sibrel.com and subscribe to his Youtube Channel.

If you are so inclined, you may Donate to his endeavors.

Why You Should Never Microwave Your Food

microwave

Microwaving is a simple, convenient cooking option for people on the go. The microwave oven has been a mainstay in the US for 30+ years, virtually transforming society and how we view food. But despite its wonders, the question that’s been avoided remains: are microwaves the healthiest cooking option? The answer is, of course, no, as there are much better options available that will ensure nutrients will remain in your food.

How Does Microwaving Work?

Before we dive into the research on the possible effects and safety of microwave ovens, let’s clarify what a microwave is. A microwave is a form of non-ionizing radiation. As a matter of contrast, ionizing radiation changes the electromagnetic nature of atoms, or ionizes them. This alters the way they interact with other atoms and molecules around them. X-rays, gamma radiation, and nuclear medicine (CT scans, barium swallows, and mammograms) are types of ionizing radiation. Your food is being zapped by high-frequency waves of heat, and some people argue that this radiation can be harmful to your health.

One study by Dr. Hans Hertel explored how microwaves change the molecular structure of food and the effects of that food on the human body. In his study, he found that individuals who consumed the microwaved foods experienced a decrease in HDL cholesterol, a reduced red blood cell count, and fewer white blood cells. Unfortunately, no studies have been conducted since to replicate Dr. Hertel’s findings, so it would be reaching to conclude that microwaving does indeed deteriorate health. Still, there are other cooking options that may be far better at retaining the nutritive quality of food.

The Best Cooking Options for Maintaining Nutrition

Microwaving cooks the food at very high temperatures in a very short amount of time. This results in a great deal of nutrient loss for most foods, especially vegetables. Our foods are also subjected to nutrient loss when we boil, fry, or roast our food. Boiling vegetables, for example, leeches most of the nutrients (including antioxidants) into the water. The best option for cooking vegetables that will result in only a minor loss of nutrients is steaming. Sautéing and baking at low temperatures is also a viable option that will retain more nutrients than microwaving, boiling, or frying. Of course, by making the majority of your diet raw, with some added dietary fat to help absorb the fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K), you’ll ensure a high level of nutrient intake.

Adding To the Toxic Load

When it comes specifically to microwaves, damage to the food itself isn’t the only concern. Many microwavable foods are processed and in packaging that contains an assortment of chemicals. Chemicals found in many of these containers include benzene, toluene, polyethylene terpthalate (PET), xylene, and dioxins (known carcinogens). At high temperatures, it is likely that chemicals can absorb into the food, and intake of these chemicals presents a high health risk. What’s more, the chemicals in the food themselves are also a cause for concern.

Perhaps one of the most dangerous contaminants in microwavable food is BPA. A watchdog report from the Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel found this estrogen-like plastic leaked from all packaging into the food tested. [1] BPA disrupts normal hormone activity. Infertility, low-libido, cardiac disease, mental disorders, allergies, high blood pressure, and weight gain have all been linked to BPA exposure. The simple fact is, when you use a microwave, you’re getting a lot more than the food you eat.

One Final Thought

Over the last 30 years, the science and research has come a long way to understand how microwaves affect proteins, antioxidants, and overall nutrient content of food. We’ve also learned how many toxins flood our food when zapped in the packaging. Today we shouldn’t be surprised by these dangers. Instead of microwaving, stick to raw foods as the primary aspect of your diet. When you do cook, try steaming and baking as your main cooking methods.

Have you given up your microwave? Is there anyone who has never used one? Share your experiences with us.

References:

  1. Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger. BPA leaches from ‘safe’ products. Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.

Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.

 

Are These Dirty Little Secrets Lurking In Your Toxic Laundry Products?

Dirty-Little-Secrets-in-Your-Laundry-Products

For a space that’s completely dedicated to getting things clean, the laundry room can be a landmine of dirty substances.  Toxic laundry products can contain ingredients that are irritating to the skin and damaging to the lungs. Some products disrupt hormones and have been linked to cancer.

This month, our Whole Home Detox efforts focus on the laundry room. We’ll discuss laundry detergent, fabric softener, and dryer sheets. There are homemade options that are excellent, or, if you aren’t into DIY, I’ll list some products you can buy that are less of a threat to your health than the standard offerings at the store.

What’s in your laundry room?

The detergent aisle at the store is a bright colorful place full of enticing promises.

  • Gets Clothes Cleaner!
  • Brightens Whites!
  • Outdoor Fresh Smell!
  • Removes Stains!

And you know, those promises are the whole point of doing laundry. We want our end result to be clothing that is stain-free, clean, and fresh smelling. But the route to this goal can be fraught with hazards these days, because there is no real oversight regarding the ingredients in the soaps you get at the store.

The substances contained within laundry products aren’t that bad if you are just exposed to them once, but when you use them in your laundry, you have constant exposure. The artificial fragrances are chemically designed to linger in your clothing, meaning that your skin and lungs are constantly exposed. These fragrances and other toxic ingredients build up over time in your system and have been linked to issues like:

  • Asthma and other respiratory issues
  • Hormone disruption
  • Reproductive problems
  • Birth defects
  • Cancer
  • Liver and kidney damage

Manufacturers aren’t required to list the specific ingredients of their products, because their trade secrets are protected before our health is. This increases the difficulty for consumers who are trying to make informed decisions about the products they use for their families.

Back in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act was passed, but only a few chemicals used in commerce have been subjected to testing. Of the ones that have been tested, even fewer have been tested in combination with the other chemicals that are in the detergents. (Often a substance that is perfectly harmless on its own can become extremely dangerous when combined with another chemical.) Some have been proven to be toxic in animal studies, but no testing has been done to see how those substances are potential dangerous to humans. Still others have been shown to be harmful to human health, but they’re used nonetheless. Don’t look to the EPA or the FDA for help on this one. They’re more interested in going after small businesses like artisan soapmakers and women who sew cloth solutions for feminine hygiene. Meanwhile, large corporations continue to poison us, completely unchecked.

The 8 Worst Ingredients in Toxic Laundry Products

The bottom line: it’s totally up to you to keep the following chemicals out of your home. In no particular order of awfulness, these are the 8 worst ingredients you are likely to find in the laundry aisle:

  1. 2-Butoxyethanol: This is in stain remover, as well as an ingredient in dry cleaning products.  It has been linked to birth defects, reproductive issues, developmental delays, blood issues, upper respiratory issues, and digestive issues. The substance is irritating to the eyes, the skin and the respiratory tract and is a known animal carcinogen. Tests have not confirmed carcinogenic effects on humans. Rated F by the EWG.
  2. Artificial fragrances: These can run the gamut, since “artificial fragrances” is such a broad term. Skin, lung, and eye irritation are of immediate concern. Some have been linked to cancer. Fragrance can be a trigger for migraines, allergies, and asthma for some people.
  3. Chlorine: This is the primary ingredient in bleach. It’s a strong irritant for the eyes, upper respiratory tract, lungs, and skin. It has been linked to cancer and reproductive concerns. “Chronic (long-term) exposure to chlorine gas in workers has resulted in respiratory effects, including eye and throat irritation and airflow obstruction.” (NIH) Rated F by the EWG.
  4. Diethanolamine: This is an ingredient found in many detergents“Limited information is available on the health effects of diethanolamine. Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to diethanolamine in humans may result in irritation of the nose and throat, and dermal exposure may irritate the skin. No information is available on the chronic (long-term), reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects of diethanolamine in humans. Animal studies have reported effects on the liver, kidney, blood, and central nervous system (CNS) from chronic oral exposure to diethanolamine. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) reported an increased incidence of liver and kidney tumors in mice from dermal exposure to diethanolamine.” (NIHRated F by the EWG
  5. Ethyl acetate  (Also ethoxyethanol acetate and related to ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) This is an ingredient in fabric softeners. Prolonged inhalation may be damaging to lungs, liver, kidneys, & heart. “Runners were evaluated after complaining of wheezing coughing, rhinitis, or shortness of breath after practicing in a facility under construction. Investigation revealed levels of ethyl acetate and toluene low enough to meet federal guidelines but apparently sufficient to cause symptoms in the athletes.” (NIH) There is a high concern for developmental and reproductive toxicity. Rated F by the EWG
  6. Optical Brighteners (also listed as ER, KSN, OB, OB-1 ) Optical brighteners are a variety of different chemicals that coat clothing in the washing machine and stick to the fabric even after rinsing, to make the washed item appear brighter. Optical brighteners can cause skin irritation and have been linked to reproductive and developmental issues.
  7. Petroleum distillates (also called naphthas) These chemicals are frequently found in laundry detergent. They have been linked to linked to cancer and lung damage.There is some evidence of DNA damage. Rated F by the EWG.
  8. Quaternium-15: This chemical found in laundry detergent releases formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen. It can trigger asthma, damage the respiratory system, and cause skin rashes upon contact.  Rated F by the EWG

So will these ingredients immediately cause toxicity and death?

Nope. They may not even cause symptoms of illness right away unless you’re incredibly sensitive to that type of thing.

For most of us, the issue is not occasional exposure, but cumulative exposure. If these substances are indicated as causes of illness and disease, isn’t it better to avoid them whenever you can? While you can’t stay away from these types of substances when you are out and about, what you choose to bring into your home is completely under your control. So why not avoid exposure whenever possible?

How to avoid toxic laundry products

Avoiding-toxic-laundry-products

There are some great resources available to help you avoid the hazards listed above.  This month in our Whole Home Detox, we’ll break down our laundry room into the following categories. Below, I’ll add the links as the articles are written.

  • Laundry detergents 
  • Fabric softeners
  • Dryer sheets

Homemade products are nearly always my favorite because then you know exactly what’s in them. (And they’re very budget-friendly!) However, if you don’t like DIY, don’t worry! There are some good products out there that you can purchase to replace the standards that contain ingredients you don’t want to bring into your home.

Stay tuned for detailed instructions and recommendations to replace the toxic products with less harmful alternatives.

Sources:

EPA

Mother Earth Living

EWG: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

EWG’s Guide to Laundry Products

NIH: 1, 2, 3

Resources

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

Natural Laundry Detergent: DIY Organic Laundry Detergent Recipes For Effective Cleaning

Better options for laundry products

Whole Home Detox


Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor who lives in a small village in the Pacific Northwestern area of the United States. She is the author ofThe Pantry Primer: How to Build a One Year Food Supply in Three Months. On her website, The Organic Prepper, Daisy writes about healthy prepping, homesteading adventures, and the pursuit of liberty and food freedom. Daisy is a co-founder of the website Nutritional Anarchy, which focuses on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Daisy’s articles are widely republished throughout alternative media. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter, and you can email her at [email protected]

Epazote: Discover Its Health Benefits And Uses

Espazote 1

Have you ever heard of epazote (pronounced eh-puh-ZOE-tay)? Epazote is a herb with a long history of use as a spice in Latin American cuisine and as an effective, natural remedy for eliminating harmful organisms from the digestive tract. [1] With a scientific name Dysphania ambrosioides (formerly chenopodium ambrosioides), this green leafy vegetable is native to Central America, southern Mexico, and South America. It is believed that the Mayans were among the first to harness the many benefits of this herb. [1]

Health Benefits of Epazote

Evidence suggests epazote could be useful to support a healthy intestinal environment and create a body environment that is not welcoming to harmful organisms. [1] Other studies show it’s useful for promoting general gastrointestinal health. [2] [3] [4] Some research has shown it to have strong antioxidant and soothing qualities. [5]

Studies on the oil extracted from epazote (known commonly as chenopodium oil) have shown to be effective against fungus. [6] Be cautious, however, as chenopodium oil, can be toxic and cause adverse effects if consumed in extreme quantities. [7]

Nutritional Facts of Epazote

For such a small plant, epazote can really pack a nutritional punch and offers vitamin A, B-vitamins, vitamin C, and more. Each 2 gram serving contains calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, phosphorous, zinc, and small amounts of dietary fiber and protein. [8]

Nutrient Per 100g 1 tbsp (0.8g) 1 sprig (2g)
Protein (g) 0.33 g 0.00 0.01
Dietary Fiber (g) 3.8 g 0 g 0.1 g
Vitamin A (IU) 57 IU 0 IU 1 IU
Vitamin B-6 (mg) 0.152 mg 0.001 mg 0.003 mg
Folate (µg) 215 µg 2 µg 4 µg
Thiamin (mg) 0.028 mg 0.000 mg 0.001 mg
Riboflavin (mg) 0.348 mg 0.003 mg 0.007 mg
Niacin (mg) 0.639 mg 0.005 mg 0.013 mg
Vitamin C (mg) 3.6 mg 0.0 mg 0.1 mg
Calcium (mg) 275 mg 2 mg 6 mg
Iron (mg) 1.88 mg 0.02 mg 0.04 mg
Magnesium (mg) 121 mg 1 mg 2 mg
Phosphorus (mg) 86 mg 1 mg 2 mg
Potassium (mg) 633 mg 5 mg 13 mg
Zinc (mg) 1.10 mg 0.01 mg 0.02 mg

Modern Use

Epazote is a pungent herb that can add a nice kick to your next meal. It is used in Mexican, especially Yucatecan, dishes. Add epazote to black beans or make an herbal tea. Just remember that it’s strong and a little can go a long way!

Because epazote is a wonderful herb packed with many nutrients, we have included it as a key ingredient in the harmful organism cleansing supplement, Paratrex®. Paratrex is a vegan friendly, gluten-free product designed to work in tandem with your diet. Each bottle of this all-natural blend contains epazote to promote detoxification and help create an environment that’s hostile to harmful invaders.

Have you used epazote to improve your life? Tell us about it in the comments below!

References:

  1. United States Botanical Garden. Epazote
  2. Ortega, F. A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Anthelminthic Intervention for Community Control of Ascariasis: Traditional vs. Pharmaceutical Therapy.Oregon State University.
  3. Ávila-Blanco, M. E. et al. Amoebicidal Activity of Essential Oil of Dysphania ambrosioides (L.) Mosyakin & Clemants in an Amoebic Liver Abscess Hamster Model.Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
  4. Trivellato Grassi, L. et al. From popular use to pharmacological validation: a study of the anti-inflammatory, anti-nociceptive and healing effects of Chenopodium ambrosioides extract. Journal of Ethnopharmacology.
  5. Song K1, Zhang J, Zhang P, Wang HQ, Liu C, Li BM, Kang J, Chen RY. Five new bioactive compounds from Chenopodium ambrosioides. J Asian Nat Prod Res. 2015 May;17(5):482-90. doi: 10.1080/10286020.2015.1042872. Epub 2015 May 22.
  6. Jardim CM1, Jham GN, Dhingra OD, Freire MM. Composition and antifungal activity of the essential oil of the Brazilian Chenopodium ambrosioides L. J Chem Ecol. 2008 Sep;34(9):1213-8. doi: 10.1007/s10886-008-9526-z. Epub 2008 Aug 5
  7. Montoya-Cabrera MA1, Escalante-Galindo P, Meckes-Fisher M, Sánchez-Vaca G, Flores-Alvarez E, Reynoso-García M. Fatal poisoning caused by oil of epazote, Chenopodium graveolens Gac Med Mex. 1996 Jul-Aug;132(4):433-7.
  8. United States Department of Agriculture. National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 28.

Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.

Fracking Wastewater Is Cancer-Causing, New Study Confirms (VIDEO)

toxicology fracking

The fracking industry likes to call its product “natural gas,” but the natural consequence of its activity is the production of billions of gallons of cancer-causing wastewater.

A new study published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology titled, “Malignant human cell transformation of Marcellus Shale gas drilling flow back water,” is the first study of its kind to confirm widely held suspicions concerning the carcinogenicity of fracking pollution.

The new collaborative study was conducted by scientists at esteemed institutions in both the U.S. and China and found that so-called “flow back” fracking wastewater induced malignant changes in human bronchial epithelial cells consistent with the cancerous phenotype. The same fracking wastewater was injected into mice, with 5 of the 6 developing .2 cm to .6 cm tumors as early as 3 months after injection, and with the control mice forming no tumors after 6 months. The authors concluded that their results indicate “flow back water is capable of neoplastic transformation in vitro,” i.e. fracking wastewater is capable of producing cancer in mammals.

Screen%20Shot%202016-01-04%20at%2011_16_29%20AM

In order to understand how, and to what extent, this fracking wastewater is produced, read the following background information:

Natural gas is believed to possibly be a bridge to transitioning from coal dependence. Currently natural gas fuels nearly 40% of the U.S. electricity generation, and the Marcellus Shale formation in the Appalachian Basin is on the forefront of gas-shale drilling for natural gas production in the United States (Pritz, 2010). Mining natural gas is not new, but the volume has soared in recent years because the new technique of high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing (HVHHF). The concern surrounding the environmental, public health and social impacts of this method has increased accordingly. HVHHF is an advanced technology that injects water, sand, and other ingredients at very high pressure vertically into a well about 6000 to 10,000 ft deep (Penningroth et al., 2013). The high pressure creates small fractures in the rock that extend out as far as 1000 ft away from the well. The pressure is reduced after the fractures are created, which allows water from the well to return to the surface, also known as flow back water (Veil, 2010). The flow back water contains complex proprietary chemical mixtures, but also naturally occurring toxins such as metals, volatile organics, and radioactive compounds that are destabilized during gas extraction (Warner et al., 2012). On average, about 5.5 million gallons of water is used on average to hydraulically fracture each shale gas well, and 30% to 70% of the volume returns as flow back water (Veil, 2010). Currently discharge options of flow back water are: inject underground through an onsite or offsite disposal well; discharge to a nearby surface water body; transport to a municipal wastewater treatment plant or publicly owned treatment works; transport to a commercial industrial wastewa- ter treatment facility; and/or reuse for a future hydraulic fracturing job either with or without some remediation (Pritz, 2010). Some commercial wastewater disposal facilities accept flow back and discharge the water after treatment under their own national pollutant discharge elimination system permits (Veil, 2010).

The implications of the data presented above are truly harrowing. Pennsylvania, alone, has over 7,700 active wells in use at present. Over 4,000 violations have been reported, and over 6 million in fines paid out thus far. The operation of these Pennyslvania wells require about 42 billion gallons of water, and according to the figures above, would together produce between 1.4 and 6 billion gallons of flow back wastewater.

Despite the massive scale of toxic pollution generated by the fracking industry, they have been highly successful in deceiving the public by calling its product “natural gas” — a typical green-washing technique.

radioactive_waste_fracking_jopg(1)

The truth is that the Marcellus Shale formation in the Appalachian Basin, which is by far the #1 producer of “natural gas” in the US, and which uses the increasingly widespread fracking technique known as high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracking (HVHHF), is responsible for producing not only massive fracking chemical and heavy metal pollution, but radioactive waste as well.  Read my report, “Fracking Creates Massive Radioactive Waste Problem,” to learn about how the fracking of the Marcellus Shale is releasing highly carcinogenic radioactive waste into the environment on an unprecedented scale.

The new study addresses the radioactivity concern by noting that their test wastewater, “may not be truly representative as it was aged prior to the physical–chemical characterization necessary in this set of experiments; and thus neither significant amount of radioactivity or organic compounds was present.” In other words, the carcinogenicity of fracking pollution may be far higher than observed in this study i radioactive components are taken into account.

The primary “carcinogenic” elements identified in the test wastewater were barium and strontium, which are two alkaline minerals that mimic calcium in living organisms and therefore are freely taken up by cells. These elements are naturally found in the Marcellus Shale, but are released in far higher than natural concentrations into wastewater as contaminants only after fracking.

The study concluded:

Our work has provided the first line of evidence that Marcellus Shale flow back water induces malignant cell transformation in vitro. The BEAS-2B cells exposed to flow back water up to six weeks appeared to be transformed and exhibiting altered morphology as compared to parental cells. The present work also provided Ba and Sr as hydraulic fracturing-related target pollutants in addition to the more classically- studied fracking contaminants (i.e., radioisotopes and methane) for fur- ther investigation. Research to determine whether fracking-associated pollutants can migrate to private or public drinking wells, to identify early warning indicators of exposure and effect, and to identify suitable remediation approaches are urgently needed. Descriptive and analytical epidemiological studies along with animal model studies will help to better understand the health impact associated with unconventional shale gas production.

To learn more about the hazards of fracking, watch the movie “Gasland” below:


Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

Home Detox: How To Rid Your Environment Of The Sources Of Chronic Illness

How-to-Rid-Your-Environment-of-the-Sources-of-Chronic-Illness

Did you ever wonder why our country seems to be getting sicker by the year?

Given the huge leaps in medical technology and the scientific discoveries made over the past decades, doesn’t it seem as though people in civilized countries would be leading longer, healthier lives?

In reality, it’s just the opposite.

Everyone is either sick themselves or knows someone who is sick. People are living sicker and dying younger right here in the Land of Opportunity. Chronic illness is now the norm instead of an oddity. A report from Johns Hopkins provides these alarming statistics:

Today, 133 million people, almost half of all Americans, live with a chronic condition. By 2020, as the population ages, the number will increase to 157 million. These people represent all segments of our society – they are of all ages, races, and economic status. Many have multiple chronic conditions, including functional limitations and disabilities. Data show that in the general population, people with five or more chronic conditions have an average of almost 15 physician visits and fill over 50 prescriptions in a year. In the Medicare population, the average beneficiary sees seven different physicians and fills upwards of 20 prescriptions in a year.

According to JHU’s study, the top chronic illnesses are:

Photo Credit: Johns Hopkins University

Photo Credit: Johns Hopkins University

ut it gets even worse than this. The numbers above don’t even include cancer. These days, every other person…literally every other person…in America will have cancer in their lifetime.

  • Nearly half of all Americans will develop cancer in their lifetime. (source) Quick math tells us that is an astonishing 157 million victims.
  • Over half a million people in America died of cancer in 2012. (source)
  • In 2011, cancer was the #1 cause of death in the Western world, and #2 in developing countries. (source)
  • Cancer is the #1 cause of childhood death in the United States. (source)

This is a fairly recent increase.  A hundred years ago, the number was far different.  At that time, 1 in 33 people was stricken with the disease. And despite billions of dollars being spent to find “the cure”, the World Health Organization predicts that deaths from cancer will DOUBLE by the year 2030.

Chronic illness is big business.

Here’s the kicker. According to the report from Johns Hopkins quoted above, people with chronic illnesses account for 83% of all healthcare spending in the US. EIGHTY-THREE PERCENT.

Now, let these numbers sink in:

Are you beginning to see the epic size of the business of illness? Billions and billions of dollars. An amount of money that is unfathomable to most of us.

Don’t look for American “watchdog agencies” to look out for your health. They’ve proven time and time again that the nature of their protection is to look after the bottom line of large corporations. Their watchdog efforts are not there to protect folks like you and me.

For example, the FDA still allows many of the toxins that have been implicated in cancer, hormonal disruption, and autoimmune illnesses to be in our food and our personal care products. A dizzying array of substances that are classified as “GRAS” (Generally Recognized As Safe) may not be safe at all. The things we put on our skin are quickly absorbed into our bodies, and we may unknowingly be applying hundreds of potentially harmful chemicals per day to our skin.

It isn’t just the FDA who is dropping the ball. The EPA is just fine with upping the levels of glyphosate allowed in our environment and sprayed on our food, despite irrefutable evidence that it causes toxicity and death.  There’s an immense body of research linking glyphosate to increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity and birth defects, as well as eye, skin, respiratory irritation, lung congestion, increased breathing rate, damage to the pancreas, kidney and testes. Another study links glyphosate directly to the proliferation of breast cancer cells via estrogen receptors. Even the World Health Organization has condemned the use of glyphosate, saying that it “probably” causes cancer.

The bottom line is this: you are completely on your own to protect your family from the environmental causes of all of these health issues.

What’s causing all of this illness?

It’s possible that the overwhelming amount of sickness in the country is due to nearly constant exposure to unhealthy chemicals in our water, our food, our personal care products, our cleaning products, and our environments. Our homes are full of things that make us sick, and all of it is approved for sale in our country.

Following is a brief synopsis of just a few of the possible culprits you may be unwittingly exposed to.

Water

Turning on the tap in many places releases a toxic stream into your glass or your shower. Some of these additions are incidental. The toxins present in municipal water supplies vary from city to city.  In the US Midwest, for example, there are high levels of pesticides (in particular, weed killers like glyphosate) due to agricultural practices that contaminate the groundwater (this also affects well water in the area).   In 22 states with military contractors, percholate, the explosive component of rocket fuel, has been found in the tap water.   In 2008, the AP released a report informing us that water treatment centers were unable to remove all traces of pharmaceutical drugs from the water supply.  (The drugs were introduced into the water by human and animal urine.) Tap water also contains contaminants like aluminum, arsenic and lead. (You can learn more about this in my book on the topic.)

But this is just the tip of the iceberg.  Chlorine, ammonia, and fluoride are deliberately dumped into the supply at water treatment facilities, and we’re told that it’s all for our own good.  These additives are poisons, though.

  • Chlorine: This removes disease-causing bacteria, which is great, but it also creates numerous toxic by-products, like chloroform and trihalomethanes. According to Dr. Michael J. Plewa, a genetic toxicology expert at the University of Illinois, chlorinated water is carcinogenic. “Individuals who consume chlorinated drinking water have an elevated risk of cancer of the bladder, stomach, pancreas, kidney and rectum as well as Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”
  • Ammonia: To undo some of the carcinogenic effects of the added chlorine, some facilities are also adding ammonia to the chlorinated water in order to meet EPA standards.  This creates “chloraminated” water. (Anyone who has ever cleaned a house knows that mixing bleach (chlorine) and ammonia is a no-no – so why are the facilities doing so?)   Unfortunately, it creates a brand new variety of toxins.  Fish and reptiles die when subjected to chloraminated water, and the effects on humans are just now being studied. To make a bad situation even worse, chloraminated water reacts with the lead in water pipes, releasing yet another toxin into the public water system.  In Washington DC, when chloramination of the water first began, lead levels were found to be 4,800 times the UN’s acceptable level for the toxic heavy metal.
  • Fluoride: The exact same fluoride added to the water supply in treatment facilities (sodium fluoride) is sold under a different label as a pesticide – that’s right – bug killer. The consumption of fluoride lowers IQs, causes infertility, has been linked to cancer and causes hardening of the arteries.  In fact, one study “published in the January edition of the journal Nuclear Medicine Communications, the research highlights the fact that mass fluoride exposure may be to blame for the cardiovascular disease epidemic that takes more lives each year than cancer. In 2008, cardiovascular killed 17 million people. According to the authors of the study: “The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events.”” (Source) It’s also important to note that the inclusion of fluoride in drinking water has no discernible positive effect on dental health. In fact, it can cause dental fluorosis,  a visible overexposure to fluoride resulting in  subtle white flecks in the tooth enamel all the way to a pronounced brown staining.

Food

Going down the aisles of your local grocery store to select food for your family is a lot like running a gauntlet, except instead of being pelted with stones and sticks, you’re being assaulted by unhealthy chemicals, invalid health claims, and highly processed items masquerading as food.  Health claims that have been “substantiated” by the FDA are a complete fallacy.  Whole, organic foods cost more than quadruple the price of conventionally grown foods.  Some of the most common poisons at the grocery store are either unlabeled or deceptively labeled.

  • GMOs: It’s nearly impossible to shop without adding some genetically modified food into your cart. Almost every item that is processed contains corn, for example, and up to 85% of corn grown in the United States is genetically modified. GMOs bear a high price tag for your health, however, despite corporate claims to the contrary. Just a few of the results of a GMO diet (based on peer-reviewed studies) are: grotesque tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, severe allergic reactions, a viral gene that disrupts human functions…you can read more HERE.
  • Artificial Sweeteners: Artificial sweeteners are deadly.  Splenda, for example, is the trademarked name for sucralose, an artificial chlorinated sweetener that is formed when the hydroxyl groups in a sugar molecule are replaced with chlorine molecules.  According to Dr James Turner, the chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health”In animals examined for the study, Splenda reduced the amount of good bacteria in the intestines by 50 percent, increased the pH level in the intestines, contributed to increases in body weight and affected P-glycoprotein (P-gp) levels in such a way that crucial health-related drugs could be rejected.”The sweetener has been linked to:
  • Gastrointestinal problems
  • Migraines
  • Seizures
  • Dizziness
  • Blurred vision
  • Allergic reactions
  • Blood sugar increases
  • Weight gain

Shockingly, there is something even worse: aspartame. This excitotoxin literally stimulates your brain cells until they die.  If that isn’t enough to convince you to ditch the diet cola, is also a known carcinogen that breaks down into formaldehyde in the human body.  In fact, there are 92 documented negative health effects linked to the consumption of aspartame.

  • Pesticides/Herbicides: Even the hijacked Environmental Protection Agency has to admit that the ingestion of pesticides can cause health problems.  They warn of the risk of “birth defects, nerve damage, cancer, and other effects that might occur over a long period of time.”  (Keep in mind, however, that despite this warning, the EPA just RAISED the acceptable limit of glysophate at the behest of Monsanto.) Especially at risk of harm from pesticides are children. Infants and children may be especially sensitive to health risks posed by pesticides for several reasons:
  • their internal organs are still developing and maturing,
  • in relation to their body weight, infants and children eat and drink more than adults, possibly increasing their exposure to pesticides in food and water.
  • certain behaviors–such as playing on floors or lawns or putting objects in their mouths–increase a child’s exposure to pesticides used in homes and yards.

Pesticides may harm a developing child by blocking the absorption of important food nutrients necessary for normal healthy growth. Another way pesticides may cause harm is if a child’s excretory system is not fully developed, the body may not fully remove pesticides. Also, there are “critical periods” in human development when exposure to a toxin can permanently alter the way an individual’s biological system operates. (source)

The website What’s On My Food takes a stronger stance than the EPA regarding the risks of pesticides.

The human health impacts linked to pesticide exposure range from birth defects and childhood brain cancer in the very young, to Parkinsons’ Disease in the elderly. In between are a variety of other cancers, developmental and neurological disorders, reproductive and hormonal system disruptions, and more.

  • Autism
  • Breast Cancer
  • Children’s diseases
  • Endosulfan
  • Gestational diabetes
  • Parkinson’s Disease
  • Growth Hormones: Our meat and dairy supplies are not safe either –livestock and dairy cattle are injected with genetically modified growth hormone, tainting the milk produced or the meat that is butchered.

“ Increasing cancer risk, milk from cows injected with genetically modified growth hormone contains “up to ten times the amount of insulin growth factor-1.” The growth factor has been shown to cause breast, prostrate, and colon cancer (Miller). When humans consume this milk, it puts them at risk for these cancers. This is not the only danger to reproductive health. Rats fed genetically modified potatoes grew smaller brains, testicles, and livers, and male rats fed only genetically modified soy had their testicles change from “from the normal pink to dark blue””

Source

Cleaning products, hygiene products, plastic containers, even tainted air

This is only a small portion of the toxins that we are ingesting, breathing in, and soaking up every single day.  We are lathering our skin with petrochemicals. BPA is leaching into our food and beverages.  Questionable farming methods are tainting the air that we breathe…it’s enough for a book, not merely an article.  Additives like MSG and unpronounceable non-food ingredients are killing off our brain cells and triggering the growth of cancerous cells in our bodies. We’re facing an antibiotic apocalypse because much of the meat and dairy products available at the store was preemptively treated with antibiotics due to horrible farming conditions.

And the result of all of these toxins in our environment?

  • Cancer
  • Obesity
  • Chronic illness
  • Lowered immune systems
  • Lethargy
  • Lower IQs
  • Heart disease
  • Lung disease
  • Infertility and other reproductive ailments
  • Hormonal imbalances
  • Shorter lifespans

What about moderation?

In my opinion, moderation is not an option.  We need to learn to avoid these toxins that are all around us, whenever possible.

Here are some examples that aren’t really that different, if you think about them.

  • Would you willingly feed your child just a “little bit of cyanide”?
  • Would you let them have a serving of strychnine “once in a while”?
  • Would you purposely give them a cigarette just because you “happened to be out and that is what was offered”?
  • Would you let them drink bleach from the laundry room as long as it wasn’t in an amount that would be immediately deadly?
  • What if it was diluted so that it didn’t burn their throats when they swallowed it?

It sounds pretty outrageous when you look at it that way, but by some of the choices we make, aren’t we doing just that?

Does your home need a detox?

Detox is a catchy buzzword these days that brings to mind drinking nothing but lemon water for a week and rejoicing over the inevitable weight loss. (Duh, you fasted for 7 days. You’re starving.) Because of this, I really hesitated to use it, but no other word seemed to encompass exactly what I wanted to convey.

de·tox·i·fi·ca·tion
dēˌtäksəfəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: detoxification
  1. the process of removing toxic substances or qualities.

See?

This is what we want to do. We want to remove the toxic substances from our homes. We want to perform a whole home detox so that our environments nurture health, instead of damaging it.

Without even knowing it, most people bring toxic substances into their homes with every bag from the store. It sneaks in with the groceries, the cleaning products, the personal care products we apply to our bodies, our home decor items, the tools in our kitchens, and the products in our OTC medicine cabinets. Harmful chemicals are in nearly everything you purchase these days, and it takes dedicated effort to weed these out and make your home a less toxic environment.

It actually takes more than just effort. Can you imagine the expense if you tossed everything in your home that contained chemicals you want to avoid and started over all at once? That’s not an inexpensive prospect. Have you ever looked at any of those crunchy granola people with their bento box lunches, their health-food store toothpaste and sunscreen, and their glass water bottles and thought, “Holy cow, it would be nice but that stuff costs a fortune.”

Depending how you go about it, living a healthy lifestyle can be far more expensive than picking up the standard household items from Wal-Mart that everyone else uses. But don’t despair. Even on a budget, you can make a change if you take things a step at a time. Removing the artificial, chemical-laden, harmful products from your home doesn’t have to be outrageously expensive. In fact, there are many DIY projects you can do to make your own versions of toxic store-bought products like cleaners, personal care items, and quick meals.

And best of all? Over the next year, I’m going to show you how.

Introducing The Whole Home Detox Series

This series is about arming yourself with knowledge and discovering why, in this age of medical miracles, people are living sicker and dying younger.

Over the next year, I’m going to show you how to remove the harmful chemicals from every facet of your home life. If you tried to do it all at once it would be completely overwhelming, so we’re going to break things down into categories and make small, meaningful changes each month. We’re going to talk about the following subjects this year:

  1. Laundry Products
  2. Kitchen Cookware and Storage Products
  3. Food
  4. Cleaning Products
  5. Yard and Garden Products
  6. Personal Care Products
  7. Cosmetics
  8. Pet Care Products
  9. Air Quality Products
  10. Water
  11. Home Decor
  12. Over the Counter Medications

We will spend the year exploring the options that are available, discussing the things to avoid going forward, and figuring out solutions that don’t include the artificially scented, chemical-laden products that nearly everyone else is buying.

I’m a single mom, so trust me, I’m on a budget too. But getting sick is more expensive than taking extra steps to ensure our wellness now. I’m going to offer suggestions in a variety of price ranges, DIY solutions, and simple lifestyle changes that don’t cost a penny.

So, let me know if there is anything specific you’d like to cover. Please feel free each week to add your own solutions to the comments – our community here has so much knowledge that the comments section often has just much information as the articles. Together, we can help each other on the road to health. Do as many or as few of these steps as you’d like and as your budget permits.  Look for a weekly post in the Whole Home Detox series with this nifty little logo on the featured image.


Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor who lives in a small village in the Pacific Northwestern area of the United States. She is the author ofThe Pantry Primer: How to Build a One Year Food Supply in Three Months. On her website, The Organic Prepper, Daisy writes about healthy prepping, homesteading adventures, and the pursuit of liberty and food freedom. Daisy is a co-founder of the website Nutritional Anarchy, which focuses on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Daisy’s articles are widely republished throughout alternative media. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter, and you can email her at [email protected]

Why You Should Reduce Your Exposure To Fluoride

Fluoride Toothpaste

Fluoride is commonly added to the water supply, and many have been brainwashed into believing fluoride is necessary for dental health and bone maintenance. However, the exact opposite is true. While evidence exists to show that fluoride may provide some benefit as a topical adjunct, it is by no means meant to be consumed and is definitely not without risks. [1]

How Am I Exposed to Fluoride?

Fluoride is a chemical element naturally present in the environment. During the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, public health officials began fluoridating drinking water. It’s added to the water supply and dental products like toothpaste and mouth rinse. It’s almost impossible to avoid if you don’t use a water purification device that specifically filters it out.

It’s important to consider all the potential resources that utilize tap water. If you frequently eat at restaurants, it’s a solid bet that their kitchen doesn’t use fluoride-free water. Beverage manufacturers all rely on municipal water systems to produce soda, juice, and smoothies — all of which contain added fluoride. Even coffee from the local coffee shop! When you add these up, you can begin to appreciate the high level of fluoride in the average person’s diet.

Symptoms of Fluoride Exposure

Fluoride exposure can cause a number of symptoms; some minor, some severe. Excess salivation is one indication of overexposure to fluoride. Fluorosis, a condition which impedes the function of the ameloblasts in the mouth, hinders the development of the enamel matrix and is another concern; its most common symptom is yellowing of the teeth. [2] It’s not a problem of “not brushing enough,” and simply cleaning the teeth or performing whitening treatments won’t correct the problem.

Fluoride can cause other, more serious issues as well such as calcification of the pineal gland and can get in the way of the thyroid’s ability to absorb iodine.

How to Avoid Fluoride

Avoiding fluoride is tricky, but can be done with the appropriate measures. First, you need to cut it off at the source. Avoid tap water and avoid products that use it. Invest in a water purification device or system that removes, among other things, fluoride. Second, only purchase natural, fluoride-free toothpastes and mouthwash.

Providing enough dietary iodine to your thyroid can help detoxify fluoride and the other harmful halogens, bromide, and chlorine.

Have you had negative reactions to fluoride exposure? What have you done to remedy the problem? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts and tips with us.

-Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM

References:

  1. Hellwig E, Lennon AM. Systemic versus topical fluoride. Caries Res. 2004 May-Jun;38(3):258-62.
  2. Ismail Al, Hasson H. Fluoride supplements, dental caries and fluorosis: a systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Nov;139(11):1457-68.

Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.

The Bitter Truth About Splenda

Demand Outstrips Supply For Sugar Substitute Splenda

If you were told to ingest a biologically alien synthetic chemical whose presence on this planet did not predate 1976, and whose structure is only a few atoms away from the deadly pesticide DDT, and you knew that not only were there no long term human safety studies performed on it, but that it had been already proven in tests to have following adverse health effects [click hyperlinked text to read the study abstracts]:

· Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage) 

· Enlarged liver and kidneys.

· Abnormal histopathological changes in spleen and thymus

· Increased cecal weight 

· Reduced growth rate

· DNA Damage

· Adverse changes to gastrointestinal bacteria

· Abnormal Pelvic Mineralization

· Decreased red blood cell count 

· Hyperplasia of the pelvis

· Aborted pregnancy (Maternal & Fetal Toxicity)

· Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights 

· Bowel inflammation/Crohn’s Disease

· Triggering migraine

· Increase glycosylation of hemoglobin (HbA1c) for diabetics

…would you still consume it? Of course not! And yet, millions of Americans (including our precious children!) are doing exactly that by consuming Splenda. So, what is sucralose, chemically speaking?

Like “Splenda,” the term “sucralose” is a cute little marketing ploy. The true name of this ugly little chemical is actually too long for the human tongue to comfortably pronounce (which is usually an excellent indication that it is not safe to ingest!) Go ahead and see if you can wrap your vocal chords around this phonetic monstrosity:

1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside

Despite the intended insinuation, sucralose is not a form of sucrose (cane sugar). Sucralose/Splenda is produced through artificially substituting three hydroxyl groups (hydrogen + oxygen) with three chlorine atoms in the sugar (sucrose) molecule. Natural sugar is a hydrocarbon built around 12 carbon atoms. When transformed into Splenda it becomes a chlorocarbon, in the same family as deadly pesticides like DDT, insecticides, biocides, disinfectants like Chlorox Bleach, and WWI poison gas like dichlorourea.

Recent research, in fact, shows that when heated — as in its advertised application as an ideal sugar alternative for baking — it releases highly toxic dioxin. Considering this fact, can this really be considered a food or should it be treated as a dangerous chemical?

The makers of sucralose/Splenda argue that this “remarkably stable” chemical passes unchanged into the urine and feces, when in fact, up to 11% to 27% is absorbed into the body (FDA, 1999). In fact, the varying degrees to which sucralose is absorbed is used as a marker for gut and intestinal permeability to determine certain disease states. Once absorbed, some portion of this chlorocarbon accumulates in the body (between 1.6% to 12.2%). What effects will these accumulated chemicals have? According to James Bowen, M.D:

“Any chlorocarbons not directly excreted from the body intact can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs. The liver is a detoxification organ which deals with ingested poisons. Chlorocarbons damage the hepatocytes, the liver’s metabolic cells, and destroy them. In test animals Splenda produced swollen livers, as do all chlorocarbon poisons, and also calcified the kidneys of test animals in toxicity studies.”

How can this be true for an FDA approved sweetener?

FDA approval does not in any way guarantee safety… sadly enough, in many cases, it guarantees the exact opposite. Take aspartame for instance. Aspartame (Equal/NutraSweet) contains 10% methanol, which is broken down in our body into two extremely toxic substances: formaldehyde and formic acid. There are over 30 known adverse health effects associated with its consumption! This sweetener gained FDA approval in 1981, despite appalling evidence linking it to cancer, particularly, brain cancer.

So, if Splenda is not a viable alternative to sugar, what can we use instead?

When one uncouples the experience of “sweetness” from caloric content, the body becomes confused because it does not receive nourishment and therefore will not attain satiety – this, in turn, leads to overindulgence. Indeed, new studies have shown exactly this: those who consume synthetic sweeteners are more prone to obesity. What this means is that when we ingest something sweet, it should also have caloric and nutritional content. Anything less than this equation is a recipe for failure and ill health.

Thankfully Nature provides us with a veritable cornucopia of healthy sweeteners: honey, stevia, xylitol, erythritol, and dehydrated organic cane juice, all of which are available at your local health food store. Next time that sweet tooth calls, remember not to succumb to advertising hype which would convert poisonous chemicals into “magical” no-calorie sweeteners. Use both common sense and a sense of moderation, and your body will thank you.


Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

 

Roundup ‘Weedkiller’ Feeds Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Study Finds

INFECTION

The nightmarish toxicological profile of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) continues to emerge within the peer-reviewed research, this time revealing its role in supporting the growth of a pathogenic bacteria of great medical significance.

A concerning new study published in the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology titled, “Influence of glyphosate in planktonic and biofilm growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” indicates that the world’s most widely used herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) may be contributing to the enhanced growth of the pathogenic bacteria P. aeruginosa in our environment.

The Brazilian team responsible for the study expressed concern over the “virtual nonexistence” of research evaluating glyphosate herbicide-pathogenic microbiota interactions, and conducted a series of microbial experiments to fill this data gap.  They noted:

“Glyphosate is probably the herbicide most discharged into the environment. Due to its extensive use in the protection of crops, it is inevitable that it will reach surface and deep waters (Pournaras et al., 2007), especially after rainfalls.”

P. aeruginosa is commonly found in watercourses and reservoirs in both oxygen (aerobic) and non-oxygen preferring forms (anaerobic), and can be a source of waterborne infection.

The results of the new study indicate that when exposed to varying concentrations of both glyphosate (a common contaminant found in GM agricultural runoff) and oxygen, both the aerobic the anaerobic and biofilm forming strains of this bacteria can thrive:

“Aerobic planktonic growth was superior to anaerobic one. This points to the possibility of P. aeruginosa, although a facultative organism (Davies et al., 1989; Yoon et al., 2002), has its growth significantly favored by the presence of molecular oxygen. Continuous bacterial exposure to low concentrations of glyphosate leads to increased rates of aerobic growth, which is somehow in agreement with previously published findings (Fitzgibbon and Braymer, 1988). By the contrary, in conditions of inaccessibility of molecular oxygen, the bacterium started to grow better in a concentration-dependent manner. It is possible that this phenomenon results from the use of the molecule as a source of phosphorus, as previously reported for the genus Pseudomonas (Peñaloza-Vazquez et al., 1995; Moore et al., 1983; Talbot et al., 1984). Glyphosate could also serve as a carbon source, which would be processed by both aerobic and anaerobic metabolisms (Rueppel et al., 1977), with increased rates in presence of oxygen. To support such theory, it has been found that different bacterial genera may promote catalysis of glyphosate using C-P lyases (van Eerd et al., 2003). Once broken up this connection, Pseudomonas spp. can produce glycine (Kishore and Jacob, 1987), which can also enhance growth.”

The researchers also focused on the ability of glyphosate to support the growth of so-called biofilms, a closely adhering colony of bacteria embedded in a self-produced matrix of a “slimy” extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), revealing:

“Our results revealed that the xenobiotic tends to favor the formation of biofilms of P. aeruginosa, especially those anaerobic and that such increase seems to be concentration-dependent.”

This finding has significant medical implications, as P. aeruginosa biofilm colonies are far more virulent and exhibit the kind of antibiotic resistance found in serious infections in humans, such as skin infections and pulmonary complications associated with fatal conditions such as cystic fibrosis.[1]

The study concluded:

“The results from this study point to the fact that the indiscriminate use of agricultural formulations containing glyphosate may result in an increase in growth rates of planktonic and biofilm phenotypes of P. aeruginosa in watercourses or reservoirs.”

As Roundup – now a ubiquitous agrochemical contaminant found in our rain, air and water — continues to accumulate in larger amounts in the environment, concern grows that it may be upsetting the natural microbial balance upon which our own microbial health depends on.

roundup(1)

Previously, we have looked at the way that Roundup herbicide is altering the microbial biodiversity of our environment by destroying soil microbes that have indispensable importance in the production of food. Research also now exists showing this agrochemical can shift the gut bacteria of animals towards pathogenic strains of bacteria, including the deadly botulism-associated Clostridium botulinum strain.  Also, a new study raises concern that as a water pollutant glyphosate may be contributing to the decline of the coral reefs, underscoring how profoundly this environmental contaminant may be affecting the future health of our planet as a whole.

As the public continues to rally behind the non-GMO movement, expending the bulk of its political efforts on labeling GMO-containing foods, it is important to also focus on the clear and present danger of Roundup herbicide, which a growing number of groups support banning entirely. When we understand the true extent of harm represented by this agrochemical (and which research now links to over 50 adverse health effects), then the argument that GM foods and non-GM (e.g. organic) foods are ‘substantial equivalent is immediately disproved.  GM foods are universally contaminated with glyphosate and AMPA (a glyphosate metabolite) residue and owing to the fact that infinitesimal (parts-per-trillion) concentrations of glyphosate may have endocrine disrupting/carcinogenic properties present regulations on glyphosate are not protecting the public or environment at large from its known risks. (Learn more by reading: EPA to the Public: Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’).

To get more involved follow the Global GMO Free Coalition.


References

[1] Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates Derived from Patients with Cystic Fibrosis under Aerobic, Anaerobic, and Biofilm Conditions J. Clin. Microbiol. October 2005 vol. 43 no. 10 5085-5090


Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.