Medical Tyranny: Patient Refuses Rectal Exam, Doctor Won't Butt Out

Many people are under the impression that patients in the U.S. have the right to decline treatment if they are mentally competent and aware of the consequences of such a refusal. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case if you visit certain hospitals. A construction worker who was hit in the head while on the job was taken to New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center where he received eight stitches above his left eyebrow. When a doctor informed him that he needed to have a rectal exam in order to ascertain whether or not he sustained a spinal injury, the patient flatly refused the treatment.

What happened next is scary. While hospital personnel tried to hold the patient down in order to administer the exam anyway, very much against the patient's wishes, the patient accidentally hit a doctor while trying to break loose. Unfortunately, the hospital staff did not wish to take "no" for an answer, and the patient was drugged and later awoke with a tube in his throat and lubricant in his rectum, handcuffed to a bed. It seems doctors have the authority to decide to ignore the wishes of a patient if they feel the patient is incapable of making an informed decision.

While it might be reasonable to give doctors some latitude in these matters, the story doesn’t seem to make sense. If the patient was truly unable to make an informed decision about his medical care, why were misdemeanor assault charges filed against him for hitting the doctor? Surely a patient who was incapable of rational thought should not be held accountable if he were truly not thinking clearly and only acting out due to an injury? Curiously, they all thought he was thinking clearly enough to have him arrested for his actions but not clearly enough to have the right to informed consent concerning his care.

Just how necessary is a rectal exam when someone sustains a head injury, anyway? Clearly, not everyone who sustains a head injury and goes to an emergency room receives a rectal exam, and some medical professionals say that there are less invasive procedures that can be used to determine the neurological status of a patient. The patient in this case was quite responsive. He knew what exam the doctors wanted to do, and he knew why. His lawyer insists that things should've come to a halt the moment he said "no."

What is most disturbing to health freedom advocates is that the patient did not prevail in his lawsuit against the hospital. Hopefully, his lawyers will file an appeal. If any neurological testing needs to be done, perhaps it would best be done on the jury members who apparently have butts where their brains should be.

References:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gn7nIqTvF7zSx6NAjqcHp5xD5AUAD906RT180 (article no longer available)
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/lawsuit/

© 2008 by Joanne Waldron. Feel free to link to this post. It is ok to quote the first paragraph and then provide a clickable link. All other uses require the author's permission. If you enjoyed this article, please use the e-mail feature to send it to your friends!

Lower Calorie, Nutrient-Dense Diet Slows Aging

A recent article in The Money Times by Abhishek Garg reports that life expectancy is declining in some areas of the United States. One of the main reasons given for lowered life expectancy in these regions was obesity. Other reasons mentioned were smoking and high blood pressure. The good news is that even though obesity is known to lower life expectancy, there is considerable evidence that a lower-calorie, nutrient-dense diet can actually slow aging.

Dogs That Ate Less Lived Longer

One new study published in the Journal of Proteome Research and reported in ScienceDaily examined the effects of calorie restriction on Labrador Retriever dogs. Researchers from Imperial College London, Nestlé Research Center (NRC) and Nestlé-Purina used 24 dogs in the study. The dogs were divided into pairs; one dog in each pair was given 25% less food than the other. The dogs given less food lived, on average, 1.8 years longer than the dogs given more food. In addition to living longer, the dogs given less food had a lower incidence of diseases like diabetes and osteoarthritis. They also had a later median age before experiencing the onset of late-life diseases. Researchers determined that the dogs given less food also had healthier gut flora, which they believe is responsible for their better health and increased lifespan.

Calorie Restriction Slows Aging Process

According to a press release, another new study conducted by University of Washington scientists uncovered some of the details about how calorie restriction slows the aging process. Using yeast cells, the researchers have connected ribosomes, which are cellular components responsible for protein synthesis, and Gcn4, a protein utilized in the expression of genetic information, to the pathways associated with dietary response and aging. University of Washington faculty member, Brian Kennedy, who led the study, explained that while it is still unknown whether or not Gcn4 works the same way in organisms other than yeast, other organisms like worms, flies, mice and humans all have similar Gcn4-like proteins that seem to function in a comparable fashion.

Fast Food Gluttony Not The Path To Longevity

In addition to the various scientific studies concerning dietary restriction and aging, there are numerous lessons that can be learned from looking at the lifestyles of people in areas of the world that are known for longevity. Interestingly enough, when one observes the people in the world who live the longest, obesity is certainly not a characteristic that they share. See a lot of fat people out and about who are over 90? Gorging one’s self at all-you-can-eat buffets and a life of fast food gluttony is clearly not the path to longevity.

The Secrets Of The Okinawa People

In a wonderful book called The Blue Zone, Dan Buettner discusses the people of Okinawa who have one of the highest centenarian ratios in the world (perhaps 5 per 10,000 people). The people of Okinawa practice something known as “hari hachi bu.” This is a Confucian-inspired saying that serves as a reminder to eat only until one is eighty percent full. Since it takes some time for the stomach to get the message that it is full to the brain, this practice ensures that one doesn’t overeat. Compare this method of eating to the method of eating until one can’t force down another bite of food and American mothers nagging their children to clean their plates. Using the “hari hachi bu” technique of restricting calories by 20 percent at each meal may not seem like a big deal, but it will also help people to lose weight, which is one of the best things one can do to prevent disease.

Other Longevity Secrets

As one might guess, restricting calories is not the whole story. In her excellent book 50 Secrets of the World’s Longest Living People, Sally Beare notes that while the people of Okinawa may only eat about 1500 calories daily, they also eat a very nutrient-dense diet. The people eat meat very sparingly and enjoy lots of fresh, organic, locally-grown vegetables. They don’t eat a lot of processed foods or refined sugar. Instead of drinking soda, they drink green tea and mineral-rich water. They also eat fish and soy protein regularly. These are just some of the health secrets of the people of Okinawa, and there is much more information in the aforementioned books.

Convenience Has A Price

Sadly, fast food restaurants have found their way to Okinawa these days, and there has been a dramatic increase in the number of obesity-related diseases. According to Buettner, Hormel now exports five million pounds of SPAM per year to Okinawa. There is a price to pay for convenience and prosperity.

(Author's note: Remember that children need a certain number of calories because they are growing. While restricting a child's access to junk foods with no nutritional value is always advisable, children should be offered plenty of healthy foods, especially fresh fruits and vegetables.)

© 2008 by Joanne Waldron. Feel free to link to this post. It is ok to quote the first paragraph and then provide a clickable link. All other uses require the author's permission. If you enjoyed this article, please use the e-mail feature to send it to your friends!

FDA Report Exposes Troubles at Merck Vaccine Plant

A new FDA report, obtained and brought to the attention of the public by Karl Stark of the Philadelphia Inquirer and available to anyone via the federal Freedom of Information Action Act (FOIA), reveals that a Merck vaccine plant located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania was cited for 49 items, including failure to follow good manufacturing practices and some contaminated vaccines for children. Merck, the maker of the very controversial Gardasil vaccine, has been in the news quite a bit. Recently, they have also been under investigation for crafting numerous studies (a practice known as ghostwriting) for their Vioxx drug and then getting preeminent doctors to agree to allow them to use their names in conjunction with these studies.

Many of the details in the FDA inspection document are redacted, including lot numbers of vaccines and the names of various patients. The report indicates that Merck is required to investigate Product Quality Complaints (PQCs) for all deaths and life-threatening adverse experiences and perform lot checks and batch record reviews. The FDA notes that this procedure is not always followed by Merck and provides several examples in the report.

One example of this given in the report noted that an individual (name removed from the report) was vaccinated with Pneumovax (lot number removed from the report) on October 6, 2005. On November 1, 2005, the same individual was treated with IV antibiotics for an abscess at the injection site that had grown to the size of a half-dollar and was surrounded by redness. This was reported to VAERS, but Merck failed to conduct the required lot check and batch record review. A second example provided in the report involved an intrauterine death (victim’s name removed from the report) after the receipt of Gardasil (lot number removed from the report). Again, Merck failed to conduct the required lot check and batch record review.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. The report also notes that leaky Gardasil syringes have been a problem. Merck’s packing methods for products shipped with dry ice permitted the ingress of some substance (the name of which was redacted from the report) to replace another substance (the name of which was also redacted from the report) in the head-space of vials of lyophilized product. The products involved included ProQuad, Varivax, Zostavax, M-M-R II, Mumpsvax, Attenuvax, M-M-VAX, and Meruvax. According to the report, Merck was aware of this ingress as early as 2003. Numerous issues concerning sterilization were also mentioned in the report. Another item in the report specifies that vials that were rejected by automated inspection equipment in the first pass had to be rejected once again in a second pass in order to be discarded. Many procedural deficiencies were also noted in the FDA report. Obviously, all of the problems that were found are too numerous to list here, but the report is available for anyone who would like to see it through the FOIA.

Most people would not want to feed their children in a restaurant if health department inspectors observed that the restaurant had contaminated food or a dirty kitchen or bathroom. Few parents would allow a child to eat with a dirty fork. This would be a surefire recipe for indigestion. Perhaps parents should show the same concern about vaccinations.

© 2008 by Joanne Waldron. Feel free to link to this post. It is ok to quote the first paragraph and then provide a clickable link. All other uses require the author's permission. If you enjoyed this article, please use the e-mail feature to send it to your friends!

Merck Plant Dumps Vaccine Waste and Chemicals Into Water Supply

Merck, the maker of the very controversial Gardasil vaccine, has a pharmaceutical plant located in West Point, Pennsylvania, that discards pollutants from this facility into the Upper Gwynedd Township Publicly Owned Treatment Works (UGT POTW), according to a press release by the U.S. Department of Justice. The treated wastewater is released into the Wissahickon Creek, a tributary of the Schuylkill River. A federal court complaint was filed alleging that Merck violated the Clean Water Act with various discharges that caused numerous pass through and interference violations at the UGT POTW.

Extensive Fish Kills

On June 13, 2006, Merck released potassium thiocyanate (KSCN) into the water that reacted with the chlorination at UGT POTW which resulted in extensive fish kills in the Wissahickon Creek on June 14th and 15th. The Philadelphia Water Department had to shut down its Schuylkill River drinking water intake for several days, and a health advisory was issued stating that all recreational uses on the Wissahickon Creek were prohibited from June 14th – July 10th. Then, on August 8th and 9th, Merck released a batch of spent substrate used in vaccine production which caused large-scale foam discharge into the creek. Later, on the 16th, Merck released a massive amount of cleaning agents that when treated at UGT POTW caused another major foam discharge.

Merck Fined

Merck has agreed to settle the violations of federal and state water pollution regulations. Merck will pay $10 million to institute a system that will prevent future hazardous discharges from their plant. They will also spend approximately $9 million for environmental projects and will pay $1,575,000 in penalties and civil damages for past violations. "Merck’s actions led to an extensive fish-kill and caused the Philadelphia Water Department to temporarily shut down its drinking water operations," stated Acting Assistant Attorney General Tenpas. "This settlement ensures that Merck will take steps to prevent future illegal discharges including installing an early warning system to protect drinking water."

Drinking Water Shouldn't Make You Sick

There have been many stories in the news lately concerning the problems with municipal water systems. "Perhaps more than anything else, this settlement says to every company that discharges dangerous chemicals as part of its operations that it is accountable to the environment and the community," said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Pat Meehan. "Because when you get right down to it, no one should have to wonder, when they walk into the kitchen for a glass of water, if what they are about to drink is going to make them or their children sick."

© 2008 by Joanne Waldron. Feel free to link to this post. It is ok to quote the first paragraph and then provide a clickable link. All other uses require the author's permission. If you enjoyed this article, please use the e-mail feature to send it to your friends!

The HPV Vaccine: Herd Immunity or Human Sacrifice?

Reports of adverse reactions to the new HPV vaccine are escalating. One particularly heart-wrenching example is the story of an active 12-year-old little girl named Brittany who recently lost all feeling in her leg and collapsed two weeks after receiving the Gardasil vaccine. Although she once had dreams of earning an athletic scholarship, she now struggles to hobble around each day with the aid of braces and a walker, First Coast News reports. According to the article, she has been diagnosed with Acute Demyelinating Encephalomyelitis (ADEM), a condition characterized by inflammation of the brain and associated with the vaccination.

Parents Aren't Warned About Vaccine's Side Effects

Like many other parents, this girl’s mother had no idea that this kind of reaction to the vaccine was possible and never would’ve allowed her daughter to receive it had she been made aware of this. To add insult to injury, people who are injured by the vaccine cannot even sue Merck, the maker of the Gardasil vaccine, because the vaccine is part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund. Unfortunately, the only recourse for those injured by this vaccine is to file a claim with the government. Translation: compensation of the victims becomes the responsibility of taxpayers.

Side Effects Are Scary

While the FDA may claim that adverse reactions to this vaccine are rare, a review of the U.S.’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data shows that thousands and thousands of adverse reactions have been reported in the United States alone. Girls from other countries have been injured by this vaccine, as well. Hundreds of Australian girls have experienced side effects like paralysis, dizzy spells and seizures, but Australia’s Department of Health and Ageing won’t release any of the details. According to LifeSiteNews, The European Medicines Agency reports that there were two more women who died not long after they received the vaccine, one in Austria and one in Germany. The Financial Times reports that there have been eleven deaths and a wide array of other adverse reactions, including Bells Palsy, Guillan-Barre syndrome, seizures, blood clotting, heart problems, and even miscarriages and fetal abnormalities amongst pregnant women who received the vaccine.

Many Doctors Opposed To This Vaccine

Many doctors are not recommending this vaccine, because in addition to the serious adverse reactions and deaths that have been reported, they have concerns about the vaccine’s long-term safety and efficacy. In her well-written book called The Parents’ Concise Guide to Childhood Vaccinations, Dr. Lauren Feder notes that the pain that many girls experience after the shot is probably due to the aluminum adjuvants in the vaccine. She also cautions that the vaccine contains polysorbate 80, a substance linked to infertility in mice. After some deliberation, it was her opinion that the vaccine had more risks than benefits.

Researcher Speaks Out About Vaccine

One vaccine researcher, Diane M. Harper, a physician and someone who has spent twenty years on the development of the HPV vaccine, has publicly stated through a KPC News report that giving this vaccine to young girls is a “great big public health experiment,” as this vaccine’s safety and efficacy for young girls is unknown. She notes that HPV is a skin infection and can be spread in ways other than sex, and it’s quite possible that tiny girls have already been exposed to the strains of HPV covered by the vaccine which would render the vaccine ineffective. She thinks the vaccine should only be offered to women 18 and older, and only if they have first tested negative for the strains of HPV covered by the vaccine. Of course, testing tiny girls with a vaginal swab to see if they’ve already been exposed would be wholly inappropriate. Harper has many other concerns, as outlined in the news report, but she is having trouble getting her views heard through mainstream media. Another concern voiced by Harper and many other doctors is that even if someone gets the HPV vaccine, regular pap smears are still needed, as the vaccine doesn’t protect against all strains of HPV.

CDC: Genital Warts Don't Cause Cancer

The reason many doctors like this vaccine is because HPV can cause cervical cancer. According to the CDC, certain types of HPV can cause genital warts, and certain types of HPV can cause cervical and other cancers. The types of HPV that can cause genital warts are considered low-risk and are not the same as the types that cause cancer. Again, genital warts will not turn into cancer. However, the CDC reports that in 90% of all cases of HPV, including both the wart-causing and the cancer-causing varieties, the body’s immune system will clear the infection naturally within two years. In fact, the CDC maintains that most people who contract HPV will not have any symptoms at all.

Cervical Cancer Rare in the U.S.

But just how common is cervical cancer in the United States? To answer this question, it is useful to look at some statistics that Kaiser has posted on its website concerning the incidence of cervical cancer in the United States. The statistics are available by state and by ethnicity. For example, in the state of Maryland, 9.3 out of every 100,000 women contracted cervical cancer in 2003. Without considering any of the personal risk factors (like cervical cancer in the family), the general risk for someone living in Maryland would be 9.3/100000 or .0093% chance of contracting this disease. It is important to note that many people have pre-cancerous lesions that are treated by their doctors and that data is not reflected here. However, generally speaking, assuming that a woman gets regular pap smears, the risk for developing cervical cancer seems relatively small. Using the state of Maryland as an example again, according to the statistics provided by Kaiser, only 2.5 out of every 100,000 women or .0025% actually died from cervical cancer in the state of Maryland in 2004.

80% of Cervical Cancer Deaths Happen in Developing Countries

The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that 80% of all cervical cancer deaths happen in developing countries. The remaining deaths from cervical cancer are divided amongst all of the other developed nations. However, there is currently a big push in the United States for girls to have this vaccine. According to CorpWatch.org, Merck even lobbied to make the vaccine mandatory. Given that each course of the vaccine would cost hundreds of dollars, Merck would stand to make billions if this vaccine were required for all young girls. After all of Merck’s problems with its Vioxx drug that was taken off the market, this vaccine would certainly allow Merck to recoup its losses.

Preventing Precursor Lesions Isn't The Same As Preventing Cancer

For all of these reasons and many more, parents naturally have grave concerns about this vaccine. Even girls who receive the HPV vaccine still need regular pap smears, because 30% of cervical cancers won’t be prevented by this vaccine (and that’s assuming the vaccine works all the time for the other types). Numerous doctors have also pointed out that just because a vaccine may seem to prevent precursor lesions from developing doesn’t mean it will prevent cervical cancer –- this, along with many other long-term variables concerning the vaccine, won’t be known for many years.

No Good Reason To Risk Death

Given all of the adverse reactions associated with this vaccine and even the possibility of death, one has to question if young girls should be given a vaccine whose long-term effects are unknown in a country where women have good access to medical care and are able to get regular pap smears. This whole vaccine mentality is eerily reminiscent of the story told in Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring,” which recounts the tale of a young maiden being sacrificed in pagan Russia as an offering to the gods in order to have abundant crops. Is the suffering and possible death of some girls for the purpose of “herd immunity” really worth it? Go ask Brittany.

© 2008 by Joanne Waldron. Feel free to link to this post. It is ok to quote the first paragraph and then provide a clickable link. All other uses require the author's permission. If you enjoyed this article, please use the e-mail feature to send it to your friends!

The Frightening Diet of American Cows: Potato Chips, Chocolate and Chicken Manure

In The Physiology of Taste, written in 1825, Anthelme Brillat-Savarin wrote, "Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are." This is the origin of the popular phrase, "You are what you eat." It’s no secret that America is facing an unprecedented obesity epidemic. So, just what are Americans eating?

Cows fed Junk Food

According to an article in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the average American eats about 44 kg (about 97 pounds) of beef every year. That number may be shocking to some people. However, it’s not nearly as shocking as the news reported by The Daily Green concerning the latest addition to the diet of the American cow: "potato chip and chocolate waste not fit for the junk food aisle at the grocery store."

That’s right. Farmers are feeding cattle potato chips and chocolate scraps. Ever wonder what happens to those broken potato chips and chocolate candies? It’s bad enough that many children are permitted by their parents to eat this kind of junk food. Now, to make matters worse, they are experiencing even more ill health-effects through a meat-based diet, courtesy of farmers whose primary concern is turning a huge profit.

Cows Should eat Grass

Ask a little kid what a cow is supposed to eat, and the little kid will almost always give the correct response: grass. What’s up with American farmers? Why are they so confused? Studies have shown that beef produced from cows that eat the diet that nature intended is much more beneficial to human health.

What Else are Cows Eating?

However, cows have been given things like corn to fatten them up quickly for the last fifty years, according to The Daily Green, but corn is something that isn’t easily digested by cows. In fact, eating corn creates an acidic environment in the cow’s stomach that encourages the growth of E.coli. This, of course, requires the cow to be treated with antibiotics.

Of course, cows are also given growth hormones, and CNN reports that some farmers think regular feed is too expensive and are feeding their cattle chicken manure. (Maybe it's so expensive because it’s irradiated -- most animal feeds are irradiated, too.) If that’s not bad enough, the FDA allows all sorts of chemicals, contaminants, drug residues, and euthanized animals in animal feed. By the way, it’s no secret that many of the drugs found in animal feed are linked to weight gain. Anyone hungry?

You Are What You Eat

For those who think they can escape all of this ugliness by eating organic beef, think again. While eating organic, grass-fed beef is certainly healthier than eating the meat of cows that have been fed corn, chicken manure, chocolate, potato chips, euthanized animals, and irradiated feed laden with chemical residues, organically-raised cows still have to go to the slaughterhouse. For a great description of what happens at the slaughterhouse, be sure to read the chapter entitled "The Dead, Rotting, Decomposing Flesh Diet" in the book called Skinny Bitch by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the FDA is pretty worthless when it comes to protecting the health of the American people. The FDA even allows chemicals to be added to meat to make it look nice and red at the grocery store so that it will appear fresher longer. You are what you eat. Looking at the backsides of most Americans walking down the street, this is most certainly true.

© 2008 by Joanne Waldron. Feel free to link to this post. It is ok to quote the first paragraph and then provide a clickable link. All other uses require the author's permission. If you enjoyed this article, please use the e-mail feature to send it to your friends!

Broccoli: A Natural Way to Build Immunity

Broccoli is already known for its health benefits in the nutrition world, particularly for its cancer-fighting abilities. It regularly finds its way to the “top ten” lists of healthy foods compiled by many nutritionists and health experts according to Dr. Jonny Bowden in his must-read book The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth. This is not surprising, as it boasts a very powerful nutritional profile, containing loads of vitamins and minerals such as vitamin A, thiamin (B1), riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), vitamin B6, vitamin C, vitamin E, folate, vitamin K, pantothenic acid, calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, zinc and more. Now, another study by UCLA researchers finds that broccoli may play a role in rejuvenating the body’s immune system which weakens as people age.

The results of the study indicate that a chemical in broccoli known as sulforaphane activates certain antioxidant genes and enzymes in specific immune cells that can battle the damage from free radicals. Free radicals are unstable molecular fragments that can injure cells and which are associated with the aging process and the development of chronic diseases (i.e. cancer, heart disease). The principal researcher for this study, Dr. Andre Nel (also Chief of Nanomedicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA), said, “Our defense against oxidative stress damage may determine at what rate we age, how it will manifest and how to interfere in those processes. In particular, our study shows that a chemical present in broccoli is capable of stimulating a wide range of antioxidant defense pathways and may be able to interfere with the age-related decline in immune function."

The study conducted by the UCLA researchers involved the direct administration of sulforaphane in broccoli to old mice, and this appeared to actually reverse their diminishing cellular immune function. The researchers obtained similar results when they removed individual immune cells from the old mice, treated them with sulforaphane, and then put the cells back into the animals. Research scientist and first author of the study, Hyon-Jeen Kim, stated, “We found that treating older mice with sulforaphane increased the immune response to the level of younger mice.” Dr. Andre Nel said that the next step is to see how the results of this study would translate to humans. He did recommend adding broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables as part of a healthy diet.

Parents looking to build the immune systems of their children naturally, after being barraged with reports of reactions to vaccines which include death, paralysis and autism, are probably already feeding their kids broccoli on a regular basis, but this study is good news. After all, you don’t have to worry about your child dropping dead from eating a plate full of broccoli. As an added benefit, broccoli also appeared on a list of foods least contaminated by pesticides in 2003 by The Environmental Working Group. For people in a hurry, it’s easy to add broccoli sprouts to salads and sandwiches. BroccoSprouts®, a brand developed by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, is known to be very high in the antioxidant sulforaphane. No matter how you prefer to enjoy it, broccoli seems to be a prudent addition to any healthy diet.

© 2008 by Joanne Waldron. Feel free to link to this post. It is ok to quote the first paragraph and then provide a clickable link. All other uses require the author's permission. If you enjoyed this article, please use the e-mail feature to send it to your friends!

Say No To Candy Containing GM Sugar

Parents in Brazil are refusing to feed their children products made using genetically-modified sugar, according to an article at Food & Water Watch. Halloween is just around the corner, and unbeknownst to many American parents, foods like Kellogg's cereal and Hershey's chocolate may be made with sugar from genetically-modified sugar beets, warns Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel in a report at NewWest.net. There are many reasons that parents of American children need to be concerned.

Why Would They Use GM Sugar Beets?

Not surprisingly, it's all about the money. These sugar beets have been genetically altered so that they can withstand regular applications of a weed killer made by Monsanto known as RoundUp. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently increased the allowable residue of the active ingredient of the weed killer (known as glyphosate) on beetroots by a whopping 5000%. Those crackerjack scientists at the EPA are really doing their jobs protecting everyone, eh?

What's The Trouble With Glyphosate?

So, what's the trouble with the weed killer residue? Probably the biggest issue is that there have been studies linking glyphosate exposure to cancer and other health problems. Of course, there is also the Network of Concerned Farmers, a group of farmers who believe that glyphosate can create "super weeds" that are resistant to herbicides. Then, of course, there is a concern that these frankenfood crops may be responsible for the gene pollution of other crops and plants.

Monsanto Hires a Team of Lobbyists - Parents Must Take Action!

While the sugar industry is trying to keep their use of genetically-modified sugar beets quiet, Monsanto has hired a whole team of lobbyists to work on their behalf. This is why it is very important for concerned parents to make their views known before it is too late! Contact Nancy Pelosi at AmericanVoices@house.gov, and tell her that laws are needed to protect consumers from genetically-modified sugar beets. It is also important to send faxes to lawmakers. One can (at the time of this writing) send two free faxes per day at FaxZero.com right from any computer with an Internet connection (see terms and conditions at the site). Consumers should never have to worry about getting cancer from eating a piece of Halloween candy. (Even if parents are strict about what their children eat at home, it's hard to police what they might be given at at class parties at school.) Why not send a free fax to two different lawmakers every single day? If enough people complain, lawmakers will have to listen. E-mail or fax this article to lawmakers today.

Don't Support Child Slave Labor

Unfortunately, there is another reason to be concerned about the candy one purchases. According to an article by Dr. Edward Group, two of the companies that rule the chocolate industry (M&M/Mars and Hershey’s) purchase much of their cocoa from the Ivory Coast. Unfortunately, Ivory Coast cocoa farms use child slave labor to work their farms. Parents must consider whether they really want their children indulging in sweets made at the expense of other children.

Dr. Group: Put Your Money Where Your Health Is

Dr. Group believes parents can make their voices heard by voting with their dollars, by purchasing only organic chocolate and candy products. Dr Group asks parents to ask themselves if they would buy a chocolate bar if the label on the product said: "Consuming this candy bar may cause cancer - contains sugar from genetically engineered beets, cocoa harvested by child slaves, and harmful pesticides and fungicides." Sounds much less appealing, doesn't it?

© 2008 by Joanne Waldron. Feel free to link to this post. It is ok to quote the first paragraph and then provide a clickable link. All other uses require the author's permission. If you enjoyed this article, please use the e-mail feature to send it to your friends!

Hospitals Foist Tdap Vaccine On New Mothers

An article posted at HattiesburgAmerican.com reports that Forrest General, a hospital in south Mississippi, is trying to push new mothers into having the Tdap vaccine (which immunizes for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis) before they leave the hospital. Another article reports that the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) requires mothers who don't want the vaccine to opt out in advance. It is very important for new mothers to be aware that many hospitals, in an attempt to raise more quick revenue for the hospital, may soon be adopting this practice, informing the mothers that it is in accordance with the CDC's recommendations. Mothers, who may already be feeling tired and overwhelmed after having just giving birth, may be badgered by hospital staff to get the vaccine as they are trying to leave the hospital, with no time to adequately research the vaccine and its possible side effects. Surprisingly, the article also reports that in lieu of giving women who have just given birth the Tdap vaccine, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices suggests that the Td vaccine, which immunizes against tetanus and diphtheria, be given to women who are pregnant!

The Dangers of Aluminum Phosphate

One of the ingredients in the Tdap vaccine is known as aluminum phosphate. However, one doctor warns in an article that this common vaccine adjuvant is linked with numerous neurological problems, both in human and animal studies. It is doubtful that hospital staff or doctors administering this vaccine will explain this information to someone who is about to receive the vaccine; so, it's important that all expectant mothers do their own research before agreeing to this inoculation.

The Dangers of 2-phenoxyethanol

A preservative used in the Tdap vaccine, 2-phenoxyethanol, has its own dangers. In fact, a data sheet for this chemical provided by Oxford University states: "Harmful if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. May cause reproductive defects. Severe eye and skin irritant." Anyone want an injection? Pregnant mothers should note that this chemical is known to cause reproductive defects. Smart money says that if this chemical is harmful if it is absorbed into the skin, it's probably not too healthful if it's injected into the bloodstream. It's also a good bet that mothers aren't given this little tidbit of information before receiving the jab, either.

Adverse Reactions To Tdap

As with all vaccines, people who have received this vaccine have experienced numerous adverse reactions. While some health officials tend to sugar-coat the severity of side effects, an article on a Canadian government site notes that some of the possible reactions to this shot include severe swelling and pain at the injection site; a lump at the injection site that "usually" disappears in two months; serum sickness (a disease that affects various organs of the body); tingling, numbness, or weakness in the arm and chest; and serious allergic reactions (i.e. hives, wheezing, shortness of breath, swelling in the throat/mouth/face, a form of paralysis known as Guillain Barré Syndrome). Again, it is doubtful that hospital staff will advise new mothers of these possible adverse reactions before "offering" them the jab.

Are There Any Benefits to Receiving This Vaccine?

For people who don't mind rolling the dice when it comes to their health, it is possible that this vaccine may provide immunity, at least for a short time, to tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis. There is no way to tell which people will experience serious adverse reactions in advance. People are expected to just roll up their sleeves and hope for the best. New mothers are put on the spot after giving birth, probably being made to feel as if they are bad parents if they dare to refuse the vaccine which might possibly prevent them from giving one of these rare illnesses to their babies.

Are Parents Who Oppose Vaccines Kooky?

Parents often wonder where to get unbiased information on the topic of vaccinations. Parents who oppose vaccination are often thought of as kooky. The truth is that the only crazy people are the ones who don't bother to research vaccinations before getting them or allowing them to be given to their children. Doctors don't always give good advice. A New York Times article reports that in the 1940's, doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette, according to a tobacco company. Yes, it used to be quite fashionable for doctors to smoke. There are still dentists using mercury fillings even though mercury is known to be very toxic to human beings, and people are even warned not to eat too much fish. These are just a few examples that demonstrate that doctors aren't always right. So, just because doctors or medical organizations may advise getting a vaccine, it doesn't mean they always know what they are doing.

A Must-Read Book For Parents

Many parents wonder where they can get truthful, unbiased information about vaccines in order to weigh the absolute risks and possible benefits. There is one outstanding book called The Parents' Concise Guide to Childhood Vaccinations by Dr. Lauren Feder that provides this kind of information. It is not an anti-vaccine treatise. Instead, it offers truthful information about all of the most common vaccines. Vaccinations aren't something that should be given as one is in a rush to leave the hospital. Parents should take the time to educate themselves in order to make informed decisions.

© 2008 by Joanne Waldron. Feel free to link to this post. It is ok to quote the first paragraph and then provide a clickable link. All other uses require the author's permission. If you enjoyed this article, please use the e-mail feature to send it to your friends!

Many Popular Bottled Waters Are Unsafe To Drink

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) just published a very disturbing report concerning a study that EWG researchers conducted on 10 major brands of bottled water. While most people who drink bottled water do so because they believe the water to be free of dangerous contaminants, the EWG found that some brands of bottled water were nothing more than tap water! Worse yet, they found 38 dangerous pollutants in the water, including disinfection byproducts, fertilizer residue, caffeine, arsenic, radioactive isotopes, industrial chemicals (solvents, plasticizers, viscosity decreasing agents, propellants), bacteria and pain medications like Tylenol. Astonishingly, while consumers are provided with local tap water quality reports from public water utilities every year, the bottled water industry has no obligation to test water for contaminants or disclose the results of any tests conducted.

Which Bottled Waters Are Unsafe?

Some of the worst bottled waters, according to the EWG, include Walmart's Sam's Choice brand and Giant's Acadia brand. In fact, both of these brands had levels of certain chemicals that were well over the legal limits in California and the limits imposed by industry voluntary safety standards. Moreover, cancer-causing contaminants were found in bottled water purchased in North Carolina, California, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and the District of Columbia at well over the industry voluntary safety limits.

Could Drinking Bottled Water Up Cancer Risk?

One brand of bottled water, which was not identified, was actually responsible for triggering a 78% increase in the growth of breast cancer cells compared to the control sample. Now that's scary stuff. The EWG did disclose that a cancer-causing chemical known as bromodichloromethane was found in Walmart's Sam's Choice brand in levels that exceeded the allowable limit for cancer-causing chemicals per California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65, OEHHA 2008). The EWG is filing a lawsuit, because the group wants the water to be given the following label (as required by law): “WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer." Walmart's Sam's Choice brand bottled water was also found to be contaminated with cancer-causing trihalomethanes at levels above California's legal limit for bottled water (CDPR 2008).

Is Tap Water Any Better?

Unfortunately, most tap water is loaded with contaminants. In fact, many bottled water brands are nothing more than tap water packaged in plastic bottles, only way more expensive. As one can easily see from the EWG's report, buying water that's more expensive doesn't mean it is safer than tap water.

What Should Consumers Drink?

Unfortunately, the only real way to be sure that drinking water is safe is to take charge of filtering it at home. Shower water should also be filtered (Aquasana has a great shower filter), because skin can easily absorb toxins and cancer-causing contaminants. If one wishes to filter water that is used to wash dishes, a whole-house unit (perhaps one that uses reverse osmosis) is a possibility. Of course, a carbon filter at each sink and shower should also be used along with any whole-house unit to ensure that contaminants that may be lurking in the pipes inside the house are also removed. For even more protection, one could take the water that has been filtered using a whole-house reverse osmosis system followed by a carbon filter at the sink and then use a counter top distillation unit (like the Waterwise® Distiller With Electronic Monitor - Model # 8800) for any water used for cooking or drinking. Not everyone can afford an expensive water filtration system. For those people, a Brita pitcher or a Pur 3 Stage faucet mount may be used. Aquasana also carries an under-the-sink filtration system. If fluoride needs to be removed from the water, it is imperative to select an appropriate filtration method.

Are Any Bottled Waters Safe?

Cheap brands of bottled water found at grocery stores are generally not recommended for drinking, with rare exceptions. Some people like the taste of more expensive bottled artesian waters like Fiji water. This company posts test results for its water right on its website. Of course, for people on the go who prefer to bottle their own water at home, Aquasana sells a set of 6 glass bottles.

Easy Ways To Protect The Water Supply

-- Don't use laundry detergents that use dyes or fragrances. Does one really need blue laundry detergent? Does one's laundry have to smell like a mountain breeze? All chemicals in such products go right back into the water system. Try using the natural soap nuts that grow on trees from BetterLifeGoods.com. Yes, they really work well.

-- Don't use chemical fertilizers and weed killers on the lawn. It's easy for these chemicals to get into water pipes.

-- Don't use toxic chemical oven cleaners or toilet cleaners. Keeping the house clean on a regular basis will eliminate the need to use such strong cleaners. Plain white vinegar is great to clean windows, mirrors, and glass surfaces.

-- Say "no" to pharmaceutical drugs and over-the-counter medications to the extent possible, as all of these things end up right back in the water supply.

-- Buy organic foods. Don't support companies that add chemicals to the food supply.

-- Dispose of toxic waste correctly. It certainly cannot go in the kitchen garbage can.

-- Write to lawmakers and demand that fluoride not be added to the public water supply, as it is completely unsafe. In fact, parents are cautioned in an EWG press release: "The American Academy of Pediatrics warns against giving fluoridated drinking water to infants younger than six months, and the American Dental Association recommends formula made with fluoride-free water for babies less than 1 year old." Fluoride is no safer for adults - it just takes longer to cause harm.

-- Don't use toxic sunscreen products. If each person uses just one container of sunscreen a year, guess what happens to all of the toxic goop? As soon as one gets in the pool or the ocean, all of those chemicals go right into the water.

-- Use only organic soaps, personal care products and hair products. This stuff ends up in the water supply, too.

-- Don't use toxic dishwasher detergents. Choose a brand that is safe for the environment.

Contact Lawmakers and Demand Action

Contact Nancy Pelosi at AmericanVoices@house.gov, and tell her that laws are needed to protect consumers from dangerous bottled water. It is also important to send faxes to lawmakers. One can (at the time of this writing) send two free faxes per day at FaxZero.com right from any computer with an Internet connection (see terms and conditions at the site). Consumers should never have to worry that bottled water (or tap water) will cause cancer or illness. Why not send a free fax to two different lawmakers every single day? If enough people complain, lawmakers will have to listen.

© 2008 by Joanne Waldron. Feel free to link to this post. It is ok to quote the first paragraph and then provide a clickable link. All other uses require the author's permission. If you enjoyed this article, please use the e-mail feature to send it to your friends!