By David Andrews, Senior Scientist, and Bill Walker, Managing Editor
Environmental Working Group

Excerpts:

In the film “Erin Brockovich,” the environmental crusader confronts the lawyer of a power company that polluted the tap water of Hinkley, Calif., with a carcinogenic chemical called chromium-6. When the lawyer picks up a glass of water, Brockovich says: “We had that water brought in ‘specially for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley.”

The lawyer sets down the glass and says, “I think this meeting’s over.”

But almost 25 years after that real-life confrontation, the conflict over chromium-6 is not over. A new EWG analysis of federal data from nationwide drinking water tests shows that the compound contaminates water supplies for more than 200 million Americans in all 50 states. Yet federal regulations are stalled by a chemical industry challenge that could mean no national regulation of a chemical state scientists in California and elsewhere say causes cancer when ingested at even extraordinarily low levels.

by Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D.
Health Impact News

What if Tylenol is MORE Dangerous After the Baby’s Born?

An article in the New York Times this week warns that prenatal use of acetaminophen—the main ingredient in Tylenol—has been linked to an increased risk of asthma and attention disorders in children whose mothers took the drug.

Acetaminophen is found in over 600 over-the-counter and prescription medications. Petra Arck, professor of fetal-maternal medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, whose rodent experiments have found that acetaminophen stresses the liver and alters the placenta in pregnant mice, told the Times that because it’s so common pregnant women may be taking more acetaminophen than they are aware.

The damage done by acetaminophen seems to be dose dependent—the more a pregnant woman takes, the more serious the effects in her offspring. But since it’s found in so many products, many marketed for babies and children, what if infants, too, are being exposed to damagingly high levels of acetaminophen?

If acetaminophen can harm the fetus during pregnancy, when the baby has the protection of the mother’s liver, as well as the placenta, what if it’s even more harmful when given directly to infants?

The increasing popularity of acetaminophen to treat fever and pain in small children began in the 1980s after it was discovered that aspirin might cause Reye syndrome, a rare but sometimes fatal disorder that causes seizures, liver swelling, and brain swelling. The concern over Reye syndrome back then seemed to justify halting the use of aspirin. But now there is a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that we inadvertently replaced aspirin with something more dangerous.

In 2008 a team of researchers from UCSD and San Diego State, headed by Stephen Schultz, Ph.D., conducted a survey that found a 20-fold increase in the risk of brain disorders with use of acetaminophen after vaccination, but not with ibuprofen.

Taken out of context, the Schultz study was not enough to sound an alarm. It relied on participants’ recall and did not include independent verification of the amount of acetaminophen toddlers had been given. Another strike against it was that the study size was small (83 brain damaged children and 80 controls). But when you look at subsequent science that supports Schultz’s results, it becomes harder to understand why the medical community has generally ignored the possible harms of acetaminophen to children.

Indeed, a much larger study, involving more than 205,000 children, also published in 2008 (this time in The Lancet) found use of acetaminophen in the first year of life was associated with inflammatory diseases, including asthma and eczema by age six and seven.

Then in 2010, Schultz and Kevin Becker, Ph.D., who trained at Johns Hopkins in Molecular Biology and Genetics and is currently head of a research unit at the National Institutes of Health, hypothesized that the use of acetaminophen in early childhood “may significantly alter subtle immune processes,” and be a possible cause of both asthma and brain dysfunction.

William Shaw, Ph.D., a clinical chemist who had previously worked for the Centers for Disease Control, provides a detailed explanation of how acetaminophen causes damage: acetaminophen depletes the body’s supply of glutathione. Since glutathione is a molecule essential for clearing toxins, the use of acetaminophen can result in essentially a toxic wash of the brain during development.

Scientists now understand even more: acetaminophen derails something called DNA methylation, which is vital in the developmental biology of most life as we know it, from bacteria to humans. Unless you are a single-celled yeast or a tiny roundworm, two organisms that don’t use DNA methylation to control development, acetaminophen can disrupt an essential biological process, one that you need to have a healthy brain and body.

William Parker, Ph.D., an associate professor at Duke University Medical School, who has co-authored of over a hundred peer-reviewed articles and whose career has been dedicated to studying immune function, argues we need to be even more concerned about acetaminophen use in infants than in pregnant women.

“Based on available evidence, small children taking it may be many times worse off than during pregnancy,” Parker tells me. “But nobody knows because it’s never been tested. That should be very scary. Anyone who’s taken the time to read the literature will say, ‘Whoa, this is not safe.’”

With two additional studies coming out in the last three months, the total number of peer-reviewed studies finding associations between long-term neurological problems in children and exposure to acetaminophen from conception to early childhood stands at nine. Not one study has shown acetaminophen to be safe. Nine seems like quite a bit, but the FDA, the NHS, and many medical doctors still seem to be waiting for something more.

The accumulated science is enough for me to invoke the precautionary principle: the idea that an intervention must be proven safe before it can be assumed not to cause harm. New parents, as much as expectant couples and pregnant moms, need to take note. As a science journalist and a mother of four, I’m throwing the baby Tylenol in the trash.

Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is a science journalist, Fulbright awardee, and co-author, with Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D., of The Vaccine-Friendly Plan: Dr. Paul’s Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity and Health, From Pregnancy Through Your Child’s Teen Years.

Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., will be speaking, along with Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D., at Pure Life Chiropractic in Eugene, Oregon on October 8 from 3 to 4:30 (this event is free and open to the public), giving a keynote speech at the BirthWorks conference in Mount Laurel, New Jersey (near Philadelphia) on October 15, and touring Chicago and Michigan December 8th through 11th. To find out more visit www.JenniferMargulis.net

No More Mr. Nice Guy: Food Club Members Seek to Uphold Food Rights

By David Gumpert
DavidGumpert.com

Excerpts:

For years now, farmers have borne the brunt of government efforts to interfere with food rights and consumer access to the foods of their choice.

That may be about to change, as consumers launch actions to take the burden of government harassment off farmers’ backs.

A case in point, and apparently the first consumer to launch a food rights legal action, is Michigan businessman and herdshare member Mike Lobsinger, who a few months ago sued the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) over its seizure of his cream in a June raid of the farm that fulfills his herdshare agreement.  As reported by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, he argues in his suit that the cream is his private property and that the seizure violates the due process clause of both the Michigan and United States constitutions. A hearing on his case is scheduled next month in state court.

Read the Full Article Here.

by Gretchen DuBeau, Esq.
The Vaccine Reaction

Excerpts:

In 2014, an outbreak of whooping cough (pertussis) broke out in the San Diego area. Of the 621 individuals who were infected, nearly all of them were completely up to date on all preventive vaccinations. If vaccines are given to protect from disease, how could this happen?

San Diego public health official Dr. Wilma Wooten argued that the cause was related to a decrease in the protection offered by vaccines after the first year. This answer is most revealing, in that it speaks to the actual efficacy of vaccines. It also shows that the concept of herd immunity is largely myth—and completely misunderstood.

The theory of herd immunity states that when a critical mass of the population (usually stipulated at 95%) is vaccinated against a disease, the possibility of outbreaks is eliminated. This is the main argument that is used to shame parents who wish to refuse certain vaccinations for their children: by not vaccinating, they put the health of the “herd” at risk.

However, if vaccines start losing effectiveness after the first year, as Dr. Wooten says, then constant revaccination would be required, since the immunity offered is only temporary for most vaccines. Achieving the required rate of protection is virtually impossible under this paradigm.

Of course, if we look back over the decades and note the lack of rampant epidemics in our nation, while remembering that vaccine protection is in perpetual decline, the myth of herd immunity quickly unravels. Our society has never achieved this level of herd immunity, yet not a single major outbreak of disease has occurred.

While herd immunity may not exist, herd mentality most definitely does. Health authorities, media commentators, and schools and their parent–teacher associations waste no opportunity in perpetuating this myth. Proponents have done such a thorough job of convincing the public that a parent who questions it is treated like someone who thinks the earth is flat or believes climate change is a conspiracy. On the contrary: an unprejudiced view of the science about vaccines, and an examination of history, clearly show that the herd immunity theory is—and always has been—flawed.

Vaccines may have a place in our medical arsenal, but they are not the silver bullet they’re portrayed to be. Year after year the pharmaceutical industry, looking for lucrative new profit centers, churns out new vaccines. They use pseudo-science to convince the public that these products are safe and effective, and they use public shaming to convince the citizenry that non-compliance is a public health threat. This entire racket completely falls apart with a close examination of the herd immunity myth. Until we are honest in our assessment of both the safety and efficacy of vaccines, kids will continue to be hurt, rights will continue to be trampled, and mythology will continue to trump science.

Read the Full Article at The Vaccine Reaction.

Gretchen DuBeau is the executive director of Alliance for Natural Health USA.

Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com.

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this eBook, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.

Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm

Canadian physician Dr. Andrew Moulden provided clear scientific evidence to prove that every dose of vaccine given to a child or an adult produces harm. The truth that he uncovered was rejected by the conventional medical system and the pharmaceutical industry. Nevertheless, his warning and his message to America remains as a solid legacy of the man who stood up against big pharma and their program to vaccinate every person on the Earth.

Dr. Moulden died unexpectedly in November of 2013 at age 49.

Because of the strong opposition from big pharma concerning Dr. Moulden’s research, we became concerned that the name of this brilliant researcher and his life’s work had nearly been deleted from the internet. His reputation was being disparaged, and his message of warning and hope was being distorted and buried without a tombstone. This book summarizes his teaching and is a must-read for everyone who wants to learn the “other-side” of the vaccine debate that the mainstream media routinely censors.

by Dr. Mercola

Two-thirds of Americans drink tap water that has added fluoride. Unlike other chemicals added to water, which are intended to treat the water itself, fluoride is intended to treat the people who drink the water, whether they want the treatment or not.

As the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) puts it, “Fluoridating water supplies can thus fairly be described as a form of mass medication, which is why most European countries have rejected the practice.” [1]

In the U.S., many people assume the fluoride in drinking water is beneficial for their teeth, an assumption that has been widely spread by public health agencies.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has partnered with the American Dental Association (ADA) in saying fluoridation is “nature’s way to prevent tooth decay” [2] — a statement that is both misleading and inaccurate.

The Fluoride in Drinking Water Is Not Natural

The CDC and ADA state that “some communities are lucky enough to have naturally occurring optimal levels of fluoride in their water supplies.” [3]

While it’s true that fluoride is naturally occurring in some areas, leading to high levels in certain water supplies “naturally,” naturally occurring substances are not automatically safe (think of arsenic, for instance).

When people are exposed to high levels of naturally occurring fluoride, severe disease can result. Data from India’s Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry indicate that nearly 49 million people are living in areas where fluoride levels in water are above the permissible levels.

The World Health Organization recommends fluoride levels in drinking water stay between 0.8 and 1.2 milligrams (mg) per liter and do not exceed 1.5 mg per liter.

Exposure to levels above this amount may cause pitting of tooth enamel and fluoride deposits in your bones, while exposure to levels above 10 mg per liter may cause crippling skeletal fluorosis, as well as abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, seizures and muscle spasms.

Further, the fluoride added to drinking water is not the naturally occurring variety or even pharmaceutical grade; it’s a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. FAN explained: [4]

The main chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are known as ‘silicofluorides’ (i.e., hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate). Silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products; they are unprocessed industrial by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Since these silicofluorides undergo no purification procedures, they can contain elevated levels of arsenic — more so than any other water treatment chemical.

In addition, recent research suggests that the addition of silicofluorides to water is a risk factor for elevated lead exposure, particularly among residents who live in homes with old pipes.

Evidence Is Lacking That Fluoridated Water Reduces Cavities

The ADA also claims that water fluoridation reduces decay in children’s teeth by anywhere from 18 percent to 60 percent. This, too, is highly questionable however.

The Cochrane Collaboration, which releases comprehensive reviews regarded as the gold standard in assessing public health policies, found water fluoridation may not prevent cavities. [5]

In a review of every fluoridation study they could find, only three since 1975 looked at the effectiveness of water fluoridation at reducing tooth decay among the general population and had high enough quality to be included.

The studies found fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth. [6]

Further, in the two studies since 1975 that examined the effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing cavities in baby teeth, no significant reduction was noted there either. Study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom, told Newsweek: [7]

From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries [cavity] levels in adults.

While they couldn’t prove that water fluoridation is beneficial, they did find that it causes harm. About 12 percent of those living in fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis that was an “aesthetic concern.”

Dental fluorosis is a condition in which your tooth enamel becomes progressively discolored and mottled, and it’s one of the first signs of over-exposure to fluoride.

Eventually, it can result in badly damaged teeth and, worse, it can also be an indication the rest of your body, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, have been overexposed to fluoride as well. It is not only an aesthetic concern.

Tooth Decay Rampant in Low-Income Children Despite Widespread Fluoridation

African American and Mexican American children have significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis, and many low-income urban communities also have severe oral health crises, despite decades of water fluoridation.

The New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF) reported that rates of tooth decay among low-income children are on the rise even though record numbers of these children are exposed to fluoridated water (as well as fluoride from other sources, including dental products and medications).

Data set to be presented at an American Public Health Association Meeting in November 2016 revealed 40 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds living 100 percent below the federal poverty level have tooth decay, along with 69 percent of 6- to 9-year-olds and 74 percent of 13- to 15-year-olds.

Rates of dental fluorosis also rose among this population, with 58 percent of low-income children affected by this condition. [8] Paul Beeber, NYSCOF president, said in a news release: [9]

Claims that poor children need fluoride are without merit or evidence … It’s the dental care delivery system that needs fixing. Low-income Americans need dental care not fluoride.

Dentist David Kennedy, past-president of the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT), also stated: [10]

By focusing on fluoridation instead of diet and dentist-access, organized dentistry allowed a national dental health crisis to occur on its watch and created a new one — dental fluorosis.

Is Water Fluoridation Linked to Cancer?

Fluoride was first linked to bone cancer in the 1980s, prompting the U.S. Congress to have the National Toxicology Program look into the issue. Their study, which was completed in 1990, also found an association, with higher dosages of fluoride leading to bone cancer in rats. [11]

Although the results were widely downplayed, future studies also found fluoride-cancer connections.

In 2006, a study published in the journal Cancer Causes & Control found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma in boys. [12] As Personal Liberty reported: [13]

A World Health Organization study conducted from 1978 to 1992 showed that Americans living in areas where drinking water was treated with what the Environmental Protection Agency deemed was ‘optimal’ levels [of fluoride] had increased risk of cancer in 23 different areas of the body.

Male children exposed to high levels of fluoride may have a 546 percent increased risk of developing osteosarcoma later in life, according research conducted at Harvard.

This study, combined with the NTP study, combined with the studies that prompted Congress to order the NTP study, all add up to hard evidence that fluoride causes cancer.

Why Are Illegal Fluoride Supplements Still on the Market?