BREAKING: EPA Finds Radiation In Milk ABOVE EPA Limits And In Drinking Water In 13 US Cities
This is an excellent five minute video reporting all radiation readings in the US up to April 9 – why isn’t anybody telling us about this?
A new study is causing fresh doubts about the safety of genetically modified crops. The research found Bt toxin, which is present in many GM crops, in human blood.
Bt toxin makes crops toxic to pests, but it has been claimed that the toxin poses no danger to the environment and human health; the argument was that the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of the toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.
India Today reports:
“Scientists ... have detected the insecticidal protein ... circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women. They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation.”
Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from genetically modified (GM) crops, has for the first time been detected in human and fetal blood samples. It appears the toxin is quite prevalent, as upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:
- 93 percent of maternal blood samples
- 80 percent of fetal blood samples
- 69 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples
Writing in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the researchers noted:
"This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF [pesticides associated with genetically modified foods] in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities."
This GM insecticide toxin is already showing up in fetal blood, which means it could have an untold impact on future generations.
Upwards of 85 percent of U.S. corn crops contain a special gene added that allows them to produce an insecticide. This way, when bugs attempt to eat the corn they're killed right away (specifically their stomach is split open) because the plant contains an invisible, built-in pesticide shield.
The particular gene added to most corn crops is a type of Bt-toxin -- produced from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria. Genetic engineers remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn (and cotton) plants.
They claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in human stomachs -- and even if it survived, it won't cause reactions in humans or mammals ...
But studies are now showing that this is not the case, as Bt toxin is readily passing into the human bloodstream and animal studies have already shown that Bt-toxin does cause health effects in animals, including potentially humans. As Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, wrote:
"Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.
Farm workers and others have also had reactions to natural Bt-toxin, and authorities acknowledge that "People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt."
In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room.
… The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn't wash off the plants like the spray does, nd it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version.
In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others."
Given that Bt toxin has now been confirmed in the human bloodstream, it should come as no surprise that it has also infiltrated the environment. According to one study, 50 of the 217 streams, ditches and drains near cornfields that researchers tested were found to contain Cry1Ab above six nanograms per liter.
The protein is getting into the waterways via corn stalks, leaves, husks and cobs that blow into the water -- a phenomenon that's incredibly common since farmers often leave such material in fields to help minimize soil erosion.
Eighty-six percent of the streams tested contained various corn material with the potential to transmit Bt-toxin into the water. Further, because the study was conducted six months after crops were harvested, it indicates that the GM protein lingers in the environment. Now that this GM toxin is showing up in waterways, it has the potential to devastate aquatic life and continue to spread, uncontrolled and unrestricted, across the entire United States and world.
In case it's not clear, I want to reiterate that this new study in Reproductive Technology has confirmed that if you eat GM foods that contain the insecticidal Bt toxin, it appears likely that it will be transferred to your bloodstream.
As I mentioned earlier, as of right now about 85 percent of the corn grown in the United States is genetically engineered to either produce an insecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. And about 91-93 percent of all soybeans are genetically engineered to survive massive doses of Roundup herbicide.
What this means is that nearly ALL foods you buy that contain either corn or soy, in any form, will contain GM components unless it's certified organic by the USDA.
There's very convincing evidence that eating these genetically modified foods spells nothing but trouble for your health. As Smith discusses in this interview, scientists have discovered a number of health problems related to genetically modified foods in general, however these studies have been repeatedly ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide.
In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy.
However, the GM-friendly UK government, who funded the study, chose not to fund any follow up research to see if GM corn -- which contains the BT toxin -- might also transfer and continue to create insecticide inside your intestines. Now the evidence has come through nonetheless, as the study in Reproductive Technology shows that it does transfer, at least to your bloodstream (and the bloodstream of your baby if you're pregnant).
This is extremely concerning, as in this interview Smith also mentions an Italian study where they fed BT corn to mice. As a result, the mice expressed a wide variety of immune responses commonly associated with diseases such as:
Inflammatory bowel disease
Various types of cancer
Lou Gehrig's disease
I've gone on record saying that due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States, EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "USDA Organic" label is filled with GM components. So you're eating GM foods, and you have been for the last decade, whether you knew it or not. You can thank Congress for this, and the USDA and Monsanto. What ultimate impact these GM foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects.
If you don't already have a copy of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, please print one out and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Also remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.
You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
If you're feeling more ambitious, you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure from the Institute of Responsible Technology in bulk and give it to your family and friends. When possible, buy your fresh produce and meat from local farmers who have committed to using non-GM seeds and avoid non-organic processed foods as much as possible, as again these are virtually 100-percent guaranteed to contain GM ingredients.
More than you ever wanted to know about:
The industry-wide secret butchers don't want you to know about:
Transglutaminase = Blood Clotter = Meat Glue
Industrial and Culinary Applications
Used in Meat, Fish, Chicken, Fish Balls, Surimi, Ham, Imitation Crabmeat,
Sausage, Hot Dogs, Milk, Yogurt, Noodles, Shrimp Pasta and, more than likely,
other products not mentioned here.
"Meat Glue comes in a number of forms. Some produced by cultivating bacteria the others, the primary ingredient, comes from the blood plasma of pigs and cattle - specifically the coagulant which causes blood to clot."
"The white powder called "Meat Glue" is sold by the kilo. It's the meat industry's dirty little secret."
It makes pieces of beef, pork, lamb, fish or chicken that would normally be thrown out ( or sold at a lower price) stick together so closely that it looks like a solid piece of meat....and you get to pay the premium price for less than premium meat. BUT...that's not all....Transglutaminase *ALSO* plays a part in "Enabling" cancer in humans. See below by Dr. Kapil Mehta, Ph.D
Reports About Meat Glue On Youtube.
Lots of info here about "Meat Glue"
Meat Glue ( Orignally, I was sent this video...it's on the list above. This video is what got me started trying to find out more about Transglutaminase! You won't like what you find. )
Dr. Kapil Mehta, Ph.D
Professor, Department of Experimental Therapeutics, Cancer Medicine (Biochemistry) , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Professor of Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX
Transglutaminase and cancer
Development of resistance to chemotherapy and spread of tumor cells to distant organs (metastasis) pose major impediment in successful treatment of cancer. In an attempt to delineate the nature of tumor-encoded genes whose expression contributes to the development of drug resistance and metastasis, we identified tissue transglutaminase (TGM2) is one such gene. TGM2 encodes a structurally and functionally complex protein (TG2), whose function is implicated in inflammation, wound healing, cell migration, apoptosis, and angiogenesis. In cancer cells, TG2 expression is associated with poor drug response, increased metastatic potential, and poor patient survival. Its overexpression results in constitutive activation of [ cancer ] cell growth and [ cancer ] cell survival signaling pathways. Conversely, inhibition of TG2 by small-molecule inhibitors, antisense, ribozyme or small interfering RNA (siRNA) has been shown to inhibit tumor cell growth and invasiveness and to render cancer cells sensitive to chemotherapeutic drugs by promoting cell death both in vitro and in animal models. The immediate objectives of our laboratory efforts are to define the functions of TG2 that contribute to the development of drug resistance and metastasis in cancer cells. We believe that silencing of TG2 can deprive cancer cells of critical survival pathways and thus, TG2 represents an attractive therapeutic target for cancers in which TG2 is overexpressed.
Other areas of research interest in the lab
Liposomes (lipid-vesicles) as drug delivery systems, integrin-mediated signaling pathways, retinoids (vitamin A and synthetic analogs) as differentiation-inducing agents
From wikipeda - link below.
Industrial and culinary applications
Used in Meat, Chicken, Fish, Fish Balls, Surimi, Ham, Imitation Crabmeat, Sausage, Hot Dogs, Milk, Yogurt, Noodles, Shrimp Pasta.
Transglutaminase is also used in molecular gastronomy to meld new textures with existing tastes.
Transglutaminase can be used in these applications:
Besides these mainstream uses, transglutaminase has been used to create some unusual foods. British chef Heston Blumenthal is credited with the introduction of "meat glue" into modern cooking. Wylie Dufresne, chef of New York's avant-garde restaurant wd~50, was introduced to transglutaminase by Blumenthal, and invented a "pasta" made from over 95% shrimp thanks to transglutaminase.
 See also
Comment by someone I know:
Other than hamburger, I now buy meat ONLY ON THE BONE so I KNOW it’s REAL NATURAL meat.
I wondered about those boneless pork loin roasts…they flavor them to make them taste better…
I didn’t know about this glue method, I was just suspicious of some meats not being NORMAL looking or texture right of what meat should be…..so I DON’T buy THOSE anymore.
UGH…I just bought some FROZEN boneless chicken breasts filets [ Co-Workers: Does this sound familiar?? ].
I cooked 2 of them and they were awful…maybe they have glue in them…they sure didn’t “BITE” right or texture of a chicken breast.
Supermarkets and the food industry want you to believe their products are good for you, nature and environment. But please don’t be misled.
Almost all non-organic meat, eggs and dairy sold in supermarkets comes from animals fed on genetically modified (GM) soy. That’s important for you to know, but it’s not on the label. Even worse, this soy will soon be called ‘responsible.’ The label has been developed by the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS). The RTRS consists mainly of companies that have a strong interest in expanding the soy industry.
Members range from soy producers and grain dealers to the biotech, pesticide, animal feed and oil sectors. They include BP, Shell, Cargill, Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto. A few NGOs are also on board, notably the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
The scheme will not reduce the massive pesticide use that poisons people and the environment in South America. It will not stop land conflicts. It will not even stop deforestation. It will definitely not reduce soy imports. But it will create a ‘green’ label for GM crops.
For the first time, a genetically modified crop, designed to be sprayed with massive amounts of pesticides, will be labelled ‘responsible’. That is why environmental and social organisations are writing to supermarkets and food companies, asking them not to mislead their customers. We – Friends of the Earth International, the Global Forest Coalition, Rettet den Regenwald (Rainforest Rescue), European Coordination Via Campesina, Food and Water Europe and many others – strongly oppose the RTRS’s attempt to greenwash soy. We want to reduce Europe’s dependence on imported soy and call for radical changes in the way food is produced.
Please join us and tell the supermarkets that you don’t accept the RTRS’s misleading label. Sign the form and your message will be sent to supermarkets and food companies all over Europe. Please distribute this action widely and inform your friends as well. Thank you very much for your support.http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/Action/action.html
I have written several articles dealing with the risk assessment methods used by Codex Alimentarius in order to water down the levels of nutrition available in vitamin and mineral supplements, as well as the potential removal of many supplements from the market entirely. All of this is of vital importance. However, Codex Alimentarius Guidelines are relevant to many more issues than just vitamins and minerals. One of these issues has to do with food irradiation.
Clearly a threat to public health, irradiated foods are not safe for human consumption and contribute to a host of health problems such as cancer and birth defects. Irradiation also causes genetic damage to cells. One of the reasons for this is the fact that irradiated food is exposed to gamma rays of radioactive material or electron beams causing chemical changes in the food.
Essentially, the food becomes mutated by this exposure, a condition which does not occur in nature, and is the cause for many forms of cancer and genetic modification. Yet, Codex pushes irradiation as if it were a great tool of disinfection with no adverse side effects at all.
Indeed, prior to the easing of restrictions on food irradiation by Codex, the United States had been irradiating food at an alarming rate. The process began in 1963 when wheat flour became the first food allowed to be irradiated. In 1964, white potatoes were added to the list and the process continued until the present day. In 2011, almost the entirety of the food supply is eligible for irradiation.
It should be noted that under current US law, organic food cannot be irradiated. However, that is not the case with Codex standards, as there is no categorization of what foods can and cannot be “treated” with radiation.
It should also be mentioned that current US law states that all irradiated food must be labeled with the radura symbol and some amount of text stating its irradiation. However, that labeling only has to be made visible to the “first consumer” and that is generally individuals such as the distributor, not the average grocery store shopper. 
However, even these labeling requirements are severely inadequate. While these “first consumers” must, by law, be able to see the words and symbol on some products the law does not require the labeling of many others.
It would seem that the FDA, USDA, NRC (National Regulatory Commission), and the DOT (Department of Transportation), if truly concerned with the health and welfare of consumers, would require clear and appropriate labeling for any and all foods that have been irradiated. Although not irradiating at all would be the best policy, at least allowing the real consumer an opportunity to choose seems like a bare minimum in terms of public health and basic fair business practice.
However, in contrast to their rhetoric and stated objectives, it is also clear that these regulatory agencies have no real interest in protecting the public from any danger or insuring fair business dealings.
The FDA governs most aspects of food irradiation but the USDA, DOT, and NRC regulate some aspects as well. There are some differences in policy, but it should be noted that the latter three agencies only deal with specific aspects of the process. For instance, the USDA deals only with meat/poultry and fresh fruits, while the NRC addresses the safety of the facilities used in irradiation. The DOT regulates the transportation of the materials.
For the most part, the differences between the policies of these agencies are very slight. Most of the differences exist between the FDA and the USDA but deal only with things such as where labels should be posted and what size type and font should be used. For instance, the USDA requirement for multi-ingredient products that contain irradiated meat is that it should be stated to the consumer by the label yet the FDA has no such requirement at all.
But before one mistakenly gets the impression that the USDA is somehow more interested in protecting the consumer than the FDA, consider the fact that the USDA even allows claims touting the “beneficial effects” of irradiation. Ironically, vitamin and mineral supplements such as Vitamin C are highly regulated in the claims that can be made about their health benefits but radiation may be touted as safe and beneficial.
To add to the shady language of the labeling requirements already in existence, in 2002 Congress created a loophole that had been the desire of the meat and poultry industry for some time. With the creation of this new escape hatch, companies can now use terms like “electronically pasteurized” instead of “treated with radiation” or “irradiated” by bypassing the FDA and going straight to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to request permission to use the new semantically gifted term.
The HHS Secretary has the authority to grant them such permission. Indeed, in 2007, the FDA itself proposed a new rule similar to the congressional loophole. This rule would allow irradiated food to be labeled as “pasteurized” as opposed to “irradiated.” The very fact that this rule would even be proposed should worry every American.
Clearly, if the FDA were truly concerned about those individuals they are supposed to be protecting from adulterated foods, they would, at the very least, require that companies label their products honestly. This proposal, however, clearly shows the true intent behind FDA policies and regulations.
 Krebs, Al. “WTO Codex To Allow Dangerous Levels of Food Irradiation.” Organic Consumers Association. July 10, 2003. http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/071403_wto_irradiation.cfm Accessed May 24, 2010.
 Nausoulas, Andrianna. “Codex Alimentarius and the International Politics of Food Irradiation.” Toronto Food Policy Council, July 2003. http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/codextoronto.pdf Accessed May 24, 2010.Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom.
They were projecting the radiation exposure at 700% of a normal X-ray. Now, at 10 times that equals 7000% or 70 X-rays all at one time -- for as long as they want to keep you standing there to make sure what they are seeing. There will be rampant cancer cases because of this!
“TSA officials have repeatedly assured the public and lawmakers that the machines have passed all inspections. The agency’s review of maintenance reports, launched Dec. 10, came only after USA TODAY and lawmakers called for the release of the records late last year.”
Repeatedly assured us? Oh, well -- if that’s the case… I feel so much better now! Don’t you?
TSA to retest airport body scanners for radiation
The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.
By Scott Olson, Getty Images
The TSA says that the records reflect math mistakes and that all the machines are safe. Indeed, even the highest readings listed on some of the records — the numbers that the TSA says were mistakes — appear to be many times less than what the agency says a person absorbs through one day of natural background radiation.
Even so, the TSA has ordered the new tests out of "an abundance of caution to reassure the public," spokesman Nicholas Kimball says. The tests will be finished by the end of the month, and the results will be released "as they are completed," the agency said on its website.
TSA officials have repeatedly assured the public and lawmakers that the machines have passed all inspections. The agency's review of maintenance reports, launched Dec. 10, came only after USA TODAY and lawmakers called for the release of the records late last year.
The agency posted reports Friday from 127 X-ray-emitting devices on its website and said it would continue to release results from maintenance tests for the approximately 4,500 X-ray devices at airports nationwide. Those devices include machines that examine checked luggage. Of the reports posted, about a third showed some sort of error, Kimball said.
The TSA announced steps to require its maintenance contractors to "retrain personnel involved in conducting and overseeing the radiation survey process."
Some lawmakers remain concerned, however.
The TSA "has repeatedly assured me that the machines that emit radiation do not pose a health risk," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a written statement Friday. "Nonetheless, if TSA contractors reporting on the radiation levels have done such a poor job, how can airline passengers and crew have confidence in the data used by the TSA to reassure the public?"
She said the records released Friday "included gross errors about radiation emissions. That is completely unacceptable when it comes to monitoring radiation."
U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz also was troubled by the information posted by the TSA. Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairs a House oversight subcommittee on national security and has sponsored legislation to limit the use of full-body scans. He has been pushing the TSA to release the maintenance records.
At best, Chaffetz said, the radiation reports generated by TSA contractors reveal haphazard oversight and record-keeping in the critical inspection system the agency relies upon to ensure millions of travelers aren't subjected to excessive doses of radiation.
"It is totally unacceptable to be bumbling such critical tasks," Chaffetz said. "These people are supposed to be protecting us against terrorists."
In the past, the TSA has failed to properly monitor and ensure the safety of X-ray devices used on luggage. A 2008 report by the worker safety arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the TSA and its maintenance contractors had failed to detect when baggage X-ray machines emitted radiation beyond what regulations allowed. They also failed to take action when some machines had missing or disabled safety features, the report shows.
Chaffetz said the TSA's characterization of the maintenance mistakes "sounds like an excuse rather than the real facts."
"I'm tired of excuses," Chaffetz said. "The public has a right and deserves to know. It begs the question, 'What are they still not sharing with us?' These are things you cannot make mistakes with." Chaffetz said he expects to address some of his concerns during a hearing Wednesday.
The full-body scanners, called backscatter devices, are supposed to deliver only a tiny amount of radiation — about as much as an airplane passenger gets during two minutes of a typical flight.
Peter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University, said Friday he wanted to scrutinize the 2,000 pages of reports the TSA posted. He has expressed concerns about the potential for the scanners to break and the importance of proper maintenance and monitoring.
"Mechanical things break down," Rez told USA TODAY in December. Rez also has voiced fears about the potential for a passenger to get an excessive dose of radiation or even a radiation burn if the X-ray scanning beam were to malfunction and stop on one part of a person's body for an extended period of time.
He said Friday that the contractor mistakes TSA identified only heighten his concerns.
"What happens in times of failure, when they can give very, very high radiation doses. I'm totally unconvinced they have thought that through," Rez said of the TSA. "I just see a large, bumbling bureaucracy. Of course it's not very reassuring."
The TSA's Kimball disputed such characterizations.
"Numerous independent tests have confirmed that these technologies are safe, but these record-keeping errors are not acceptable," he said. For instance, "the testing procedure calls for the technician to take 10 separate scans" for radiation levels, "add them up and then divide by 10 to take an average. They didn't divide by 10," Kimball said.
"We're taking a number of steps to ensure the mistakes aren't repeated," he said, "and the public will be able to see for themselves by reviewing all future reports online."
The TSA is responsible for the safety of its own X-ray devices. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said it does not routinely inspect airport X-ray machines because they are not considered medical devices. The TSA's airport scanners are exempt from state radiation inspections because they belong to a federal agency.
Some of the records were written by employees of the machines' maker: Rapiscan Systems. In a written statement, the company's executive vice president, Peter Kant, said, "The mistakes were the result of calculating and procedural errors that were identified by Rapiscan management and have been corrected. In actuality, the systems in these airports have always been well below acceptable exposure limits."
Rapiscan Systems said in a Dec. 15 letter to the TSA that company engineers who tested the backscatter machines were confused by inspection forms and instructions, leading them to make mistakes on the forms that vastly inflated the radiation emitted by the machines.
Rapiscan vowed to redesign its inspection forms and retrain its engineers.
The TSA released inspection reports from 40 backscatter machines, and reports for 19 of those machines had errors, including six that were deemed "considerable."
In a written statement sent to USA TODAY, TSA Administrator John Pistole said the equipment is safe.
"Independent third-party testing has confirmed that all TSA technology is safe," Pistole said. "We are also taking additional steps to build on existing safety measures in an open and transparent way, including commissioning an additional independent entity to evaluate these protocols."
Contributing: Thomas Frank and Brad Heath
For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.
Soy is everywhere, from plastics to cosmetics and saturates the food supply in everything from infant formula to prison food to “health” food. It’s inexpensive to grow, and the U.S., with the help of Monsanto , is pumping it out at a dizzying and unfortunately, sickening rate. We produced nearly a hundred million metric tons in 2009. Between 90 and 95 percent of those soybeans were genetically modified which means they were designed to withstand heavy doses of RoundUp Ready that would kill a normal plant. Humans are not Monsanto genetically modified plants; repeated doses of RoundUp Ready in the diet is not something we were genetically built to endure.
Soy stormed the health food scene and was pushed by doctors as a way to lower cholesterol. They’re right, because it is has been stripped of anything but protein and acts as a nutrition-less void; a harmful one too. While centuries old versions of soy like tempeh, soy sauce, and miso are very beneficial, the unfermented soy causes serious health issues. Unfermented soy is everywhere, in more than just its obvious forms like tofu, edamame, soy milk, and soybean oil. It is also lurking on ingredients lists as “textured plant protein” and even worse, lecithin and mono and diglycerides.
Just like corn syrup, white bread, aspartame, and MSG, unfermented soy products should be entirely avoided. This isn’t an easy task as soy is often hidden in very unassuming places. Read labels carefully. The following article by Dr. Mercola offers a list of ingredients that contain soy. Focusing on a diet without processed foods is a great way to avoid worrying whether you’re eating soy or not.
~ Health Freedoms
In the early 1990s, soy and soy products exploded onto the supermarket scene with promises of bountiful health benefits. This “new miracle food,” soy, was supposed to lower cholesterol, take the heat out of hot flashes, protect against breast and prostate cancer and offer a filling alternative to earth-loving vegetarians.
The problem with these claims?
Most of them are false.
Sadly, most of what you have been led to believe by the media about soy is simply untrue. The sudden upsurge in the recommendation of soy as a health food has been nothing more than a clever marketing gimmick to further reduce the cost and nutritional content of your food.
For you vegetarians out there staring at the screen in open-mouthed shock, fear not. There are plenty of other healthy vegetarian alternatives, which I will discuss later in this article. What was once considered a minor industrial crop back in 1913 now covers over 72 million acres of farmland. But first, let’s examine the dangers and side effects of soy protein isolate and GMO foods.
Soy Protein Isolate — What is It, and How is it Getting in My Food?
The Soyfoods Association of America has a soy protein “fact sheet” defining soy protein isolate as the following:
Soy protein isolate can be found in protein bars, meal replacement shakes, bottled fruit drinks, soups and sauces, meat analogs, baked goods, breakfast cereals and some dietary supplements.
- “Soy protein isolate is a dry powder food ingredient that has been separated or isolated from the other components of the soybean, making it 90 to 95 percent protein and nearly carbohydrate and fat-free.”
Bodybuilders beware: because many weight-gainer powders, bars and shakes contain this dangerous ingredient and it can cause troubling side effects such as diminished libido and erectile dysfunction — and this is just the start. You’ll find out more about these disturbing health effects later on in this article.
Even if you are not a vegetarian and do not use soymilk or tofu, it is important to become a label reader. There are so many different names for soy additives, you could be bringing home a genetically modified soy-based product without even realizing it. Dr. Daniel offers a free Special Report, “Where the Soys Are,” on her Web site. It lists the many “aliases” that soy might be hiding under in ingredient lists — words like “boullion,” “natural flavor” and “textured plant protein.”
Here are a few other names soy tends to hide under:
- Soya, Soja or Yuba
- TSF (textured soy flour) or TSP (textured soy protein)
- TVP (textured vegetable protein)
- MSG (monosodium glutamate)
Not all textured vegetable protein is made from soy, but a great deal of it is. Lecithin can be made from soy, eggs, sunflower or corn. Be sure to contact the manufacturer to find out which is in your product if the label doesn’t reveal this information.
GMO — Making Soy Even Worse
One of the worst problems with soy comes from the fact that 90 to 95 percent of soybeans grown in the US are genetically modified (GM), and these are used to create soy protein isolate.
Why the genetic tinkering?
Genetically modified soybeans are designed to be “Roundup ready.” That’s right, they are chemically engineered to withstand heavy doses of herbicides without killing the plant! What does this mean for your health and the health of your unborn or yet-to-be-conceived children? Read on.
GM Soy Can Lead to Hormonal Disruption and Miscarriages
The active ingredient in Roundup herbicide is called glyphosate, which is responsible for the disruption of the delicate hormonal balance of the female reproductive cycle.
“It’s an endocrine buster,” says UK pathologist Stanley Ewen, “that interferes with aromatase, which produces estrogen.”
What’s more, glyphosate is toxic to the placenta, which is responsible for delivering vital nutrients from mother to child, and eliminating waste products. Once the placenta has been damaged or destroyed, the result can be miscarriage. In those children born to mothers who have been exposed to even a small amount of glyphosate, serious birth defects can result.
In an excellent summary of glyphosate-related effects by the Pesticide Action Network, Dr. Andreas Carrasco of the Embryology Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine in Buenos Aires, simply and expertly explains the serious risks for unborn children exposed to Roundup-laden GMO soy products.
Amphibian embryos were exposed to a tiny concentration of glyphosate (diluted 5000 fold) and showed the following effects:
The long-term effects of the human consumption of genetically modified soy and soy-based products are staggering.
- “Effects included reduced head size, genetic alterations in the central nervous system, increased death of cells that help form the skull, deformed cartilage, eye defects, and undeveloped kidneys. Carrasco also stated that the glyphosate was not breaking down in the cells, but was accumulating.
- The findings lend weight to claims that abnormally high levels of cancer, birth defects, neonatal mortality, lupus, kidney disease, and skin and respiratory problems in populations near Argentina’s soybean fields may be linked to the aerial spraying of Roundup.”
In April 2010, researchers at Russia’s Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security found that after feeding hamsters GM soy for two years over three generations, by the third generation, most lost the ability to have babies! Now, let’s take a close look at some of the health risks to YOU as a result of eating genetically modified soy.
Infertility in Women
Do you want to start a family? Have you had any trouble conceiving, perhaps due to irregular menstrual cycles or endometriosis? Have you ever experienced a miscarriage?
If so, what you’re about to read will shock you.
A Brazilian study published in 2009 looked at the impact of soy on the reproductive system of female rats. Female rats fed GM soy for 15 months showed significant changes in their uterus and reproductive cycles, compared to rats fed organic soy or no soy.
Extrapolating the findings to people, women who eat genetically modified soy products, such as the soy protein isolate in processed vegetarian fare, may be more likely to experience severe hormonal disruptions, including an overabundance of estrogen, a hair-growth stimulating hormone, and damage to the pituitary gland.
According to Dr. Stanley Ewen, the female rats fed GM soy probably had an increase in progesterone, which could cause an increase in the number of eggs released during each ovulation cycle.
You might think this would lead to an increase in fertility. However, as discussed in an article by Jeffrey Smith, women who consume genetically modified soy products are at increased risk for developing retrograde menstruation (the menstrual cycle backs up into the body instead of outward), causing endometriosis, which can lead to infertility.
The consumption of soy protein isolate and other soy-based products can also lead to abnormally heavy or longer menstrual periods. This is called menorrhagia and, ironically, some commercials have been popping up with a new pill that supposedly offers the “cure” for this “mystery syndrome.”
When in reality the real cure for some women is as simple as removing soy and soy-based products from the diet. The negative effects of soy are not restricted to women, however.
Loss of Libido & Erectile Dysfunction in Men
Guys, do you enjoy protein bars or use a weight gainer shake? If so, be sure to read the label to see if the products you use contain any soy ingredients. Did you know that celibate monks living in monasteries and leading a vegetarian lifestyle find soy foods quite helpful for dampening libido?
Another drawback: Soy has also been linked to erectile dysfunction. The two natural drugs found in soy, genistein and daidzein, mimic estrogen so well that they have been known to cause a variety of alarming side effects in men:
- Breast enlargement (gynecomastia)
- Decreased facial and body hair growth
- Decreased libido
- Mood swings and frequent crying jags[LOL!!!]
- Erectile dysfunction
- Lowered sperm count
For example, one recent study documented a case of gynecomastia in a 60-year-old man as a result of his soy consumption. Another study showed that juvenile rats exposed to daidzein showed impaired erectile function at maturity.
Men, if you’ve experienced one or any of these symptoms, soy could be the culprit. Remove it from your diet, but be sure to consult a trusted physician if your symptoms do not improve or get worse as this could be a sign of another serious condition.
The Healthy Aspects of Soy: Fermented vs. Unfermented
In order to back up the claim that soy is a health food, privately funded “researchers” have been quick to point out that Asians, who consume a diet high in soy, have less risk of breast, uterine and prostate cancer. Unfortunately, they leave out two very important
- Asians, especially the Japanese, while having a decreased risk of the above-mentioned cancers, have a much higher risk of developing cancer of the esophagus, thyroid, stomach, pancreas and liver!
- Asians also consume a diet rich infermented soy, which is the only type of soy to offer health benefits.
The reason Asians have an increased risk for some cancers is the same reason they do not develop others: unfermented soy. The soy marketing and promotion gurus left out this critical piece of information. Would you rather have one cancer over another? Isn’t that like asking whether or not you’d like to be whacked in the head with a two-by-four vs. a wooden stick?
You might be asking yourself what the big difference is between consuming a fermented soy product such as, say, tempeh, vs. tofu or a veggie burger. I’m here to tell you, the difference is night and day.
Unfermented AND fermented soy contains hormonal mimics in the form of isoflavones which can not only disrupt delicate hormone systems in your body, but also act as goitrogens, substances that suppress your thyroid function. When the thyroid is suppressed, a host of health problems result, namely:
- Anxiety and mood swings
- Difficulty losing weight
- Difficulty conceiving children
- Digestive problems
- Food allergies
And so much more. No wonder soy can lead to thyroid, esophagus and stomach cancer! Unfermented soy is also chock full of phytic acid, an “antinutrient” responsible for leeching vital nutrients from your body. Phytic acid also blocks the uptake of essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc especially.
Now, fermented soy products do provide health benefits.
As I mentioned in my previous article, some examples of healthful fermented soyproducts are as follows:
- Tempeh, a fermented soybean cake with a firm texture and nutty, mushroom-like flavor.
- Miso, a fermented soybean paste with a salty, buttery texture (commonly used in miso soup).
- Natto, fermented soybeans with a sticky texture and strong, cheese-like flavor.
- Soy sauce, which is traditionally made by fermenting soybeans, salt and enzymes; be wary because many varieties on the market today are made artificially using a chemical process.
For those of you who enjoy tofu, I’m sorry to say it didn’t make this list because tofu is an unfermented soy product.
So, What Are The Health Benefits of Fermented Soy Products?
The claim that soy products can prevent osteoporosis, decrease your risk of cardiovascular disease and dementia and protect you from cancer of the prostate, lung and liver is actually true, but ONLY if the soy is fermented.
The process of fermenting soy destroys the above-mentioned dangerous substances, thereby making it fit for consumption. Also, fermented soy products such as those listed above are a rich source of vitamin K2, a vitamin that works in harmony with vitamin D to keep you healthy. Vitamin K regulates your body’s blood clotting ability and helps prevent cancer, osteoporosis and heart disease. And vitamin D is essential to the function of every system in your body.
Warning to Vegetarians about the Risk of Mineral Deficiency
Since phytic acid or phytates sap the nutrients from your body, if you’re eating a vegetarian diet that has replaced meat with mostly unfermented soy such as veggie burgers containing GMO soy protein isolate, you are at risk for severe mineral deficiency.
In addition to this nutrient loss, many processed veggie burgers and the like are packed with harmful artificial flavorings, particularly MSG and textured vegetable protein products to give them their strong “meat” flavor.
What’s even worse is the process soy has to go through to become soy protein isolate. Acid washing in aluminum tanks, which is designed to remove some of the antinutrients (but the results often vary widely), leeches aluminum into the final product. Aluminum can have adverse effects on brain development and cause symptoms such as:
- Antisocial behavior
- Learning disabilities
- Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia
As I mentioned in a previous article about soy, this makes processed vegetarian fare more palatable, but far from nutritious. Vegetarians have plenty of options for well-rounded, nutritious meals without needing to eat soy or soy-based products.
Flaxseed, which is rich in essential omega 3 fats like ALA, is an excellent source of protein. Add it to salads or sprinkle it over yogurt to infuse your meal with vital nutrients. However, it is important to grind flax seeds just prior to eating them because100 percent of commercially ground flaxseeds are rancid. Hemp seeds are also an excellent source of protein.
- Beans are an inexpensive, protein-rich food that can be eaten alone, added to salads or served as a side dish. Be sure to purchase organic dried beans and cook them at home to avoid the adverse health effects of eating canned food. Ideally is it also best to soak them for at least 12 hours before cooking them.
- Nuts are also an excellent source of protein. For optimal health benefits, reach for organic nuts such as almonds or walnuts, instead of overly processed mixed nuts.
- Quinoa is a gluten free grain that can be enjoyed as a cereal, side dish or added to homemade vegetable stews as a thickener.
Hope for the Lactose Intolerant
If you suffer from lactose intolerance and have been replacing milk with soy, you have three more healthful options: Almond milk, and now hemp milk. All are nutritious alternatives to soy, and almond milk has a richer, heartier flavor. Hemp milk is a very creamy, high protein alternative to soymilk, and it’s easy to blend your own by whizzing up hemp seeds and water in a high-speed blender.
Babies — Birth Control in a Bottle
As stated in a number of previous articles, soy formula is one of the most dangerous foods you can feed your baby!
What does this mean? Feeding your infant soy-based formula can cause a host of health problems including:
- “In 1998, investigators reported that the daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy infant formula is 6 to11 times higher on a body-weight basis than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults consuming soy foods. Circulating concentrations of isoflavones in infants fed soy-based formula were 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than plasma estradiol concentrations in infants on cow’s milk formula.”
- Behavioral problems
- Food allergies and digestive distress
- Early puberty and fertility problems (including the inability to menstruate)
- Precocious puberty for girls and gynecomastia (man boobs) for boys
- Thyroid disease
As I concluded in my article on infant formula, babies who are fed exclusively from the breast from birth to six months enjoy health benefits such as:
- Lower risk of respiratory tract and middle ear infections
- Lower risk of eczema
- Lower risk of obesity
- Added protection against heart disease, diabetes, asthma, and allergies
- Improved brain function and immune system function
Soy formula is also laden with toxic chemicals such as aluminum and manganese, which can cause both physical and mental health problems, learning disabilities, brain damage and behavioral problems. If, for some reason, you are unable to breastfeed or have adopted a baby, look into these recipes for homemade infant formula.
School Lunch — Children’s Nutrition Left Behind
In order to comply with new US Government standards, soy products are now being used to replace whole, nutritious foods in school lunches. Due to the decreased fat content of soy, it is touted as a healthful alternative to the meat and dairy of yesterday’s hot meal.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Soy added to your child’s hot lunch depletes the necessary nutrients needed for healthy growth and has been linked to learning disabilities. I encourage you to watch this sobering video to learn more about the dangers in your child’s school lunch. Do your children a favor and send them to school with a healthy, home-packed meal.
Senior Citizens — Aging Less Gracefully
According to a study done by Dr. Lon White of the Hawaii Center for Health Research, senior citizens who consumed a lot of tofu in mid-life were more likely to experience accelerated brain aging and a more pronounced loss of cognitive function.
If you’re heading toward your golden years and are looking to avoid soy protein, become a label reader. Meal replacement drinks like Ensure are filled with soy protein and are best avoided. If you’re looking for a wholesome, nutrient-filled vegetarian meal replacement drink, try my 100% Pure Pea Protein supplement. As you can see, unfermented soy is anything but a health food.
- “What’s more,” said Dr White, “those who ate a lot of tofu, by the time they were 75 or 80, looked five years older.”
Do your own research, try eliminating it from your family’s diet and judge the results for yourself. Remember, an educated consumer is an armed consumer. Big companies can only produce and sell these harmful products as long as you’re buying them.
Vote with your wallet by spending your money on healthier alternatives!
By Dr. Mercola
Please watch the following link:
Note: Bold highlights have been added.
The Institute of Science in SocietyScience Society Sustainability
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
ISIS Report 21/02/11
Pathogen New to Science Found in Roundup Ready GM Crops
USDA senior scientist sends “emergency” warning to US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on a new plant pathogen in Roundup Ready GM soybean and corn that may be responsible for high rates of infertility and spontaneous abortions in livestock. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Please distribute widely
and forward to your elected representatives
An open letter appeared on the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance founded and run by Judith McGeary to save family farms in the US [1, 2]. The letter, written by Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, warns of a pathogen “new to science” discovered by “a team of senior plant and animal scientists”. Huber says it should be treated as an emergency, as it could result in “a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies.”
The letter appeared to have been written before Vilsack announced his decision to authorize unrestricted commercial planting of GM alfalfa on 1 February, in the hope of convincing the Secretary of Agriculture to impose a moratorium instead on deregulation of Roundup Ready (RR) crops.
The new pathogen appears associated with serious pervasive diseases in plants - sudden death syndrome in soybean and Goss' wilt in corn – but its suspected effects on livestock is alarming. Huber refers to “recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.”
This could be the worst nightmare of genetic engineering that some scientists including me have been warning for years  (see Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare, ISIS publication): the unintended creation of new pathogens through assisted horizontal gene transfer and recombination.
Huber writes in closing: “I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.”
The complete letter is reproduced below.
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn - suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science.
This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen's source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.
We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.
For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency.
A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:
Pathogen Location and Concentration
Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease
Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure
The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.
For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.
It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.
I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.
1. “Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup Ready Crops May Cause Animal Miscarriages”, Jill Richardson, La Vida Locavore, 18 February 2011
2. “Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup Ready Crops May Cause Animal Miscarriages”, 18 February 2011, http://farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-miscarriages
3. Ho MW. Genetic Engineering Dream of Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, Third World Network, Gateway Books, MacMillan, Continuum, Penang, Malaysia, Bath, UK, Dublin, Ireland, New York, USA, 1998, 1999, 2007 (reprint with extended Introduction). http://www.i-sis.org.uk/genet.php
URL for this article: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/newPathogenInRoundupReadyGMCrops.php
BEFORE ITS NEWS!
. The Media Feeds Us Junk Information
Posted by Good German on November 12, 2010
From Environment News Service:
Chemicals used to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags are migrating into food, being ingested by people and showing up as contaminants in blood, according to new research at the University of Toronto.
The contaminants are perfluoroalkyls, stable, synthetic chemicals that repel oil, grease, and water. They are used in surface protection products such as carpet and clothing treatments and coating for paper and cardboard packaging.
Earlier research by University of Toronto environmental chemists Scott Mabury and Jessica D’eon, established in 2007 that the wrappers are a source of these chemicals in human blood. Their new study shows that perfluorinated chemicals can migrate from wrappers into food.
The specific chemicals studied are polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters, or PAPs, breakdown products of the perfluorinated carboxylic acids, or PFCAs, which are used in coating the food wrappers.
“We suspected that a major source of human PFCA exposure may be the consumption and metabolism of polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters, or PAPs,” said D’eon, a graduate student in the University of Toronto’s Department of Chemistry.
“PAPs are applied as greaseproofing agents to paper food contact packaging such as fast food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags,” she explained.
In their latest study, D’eon and Mabury exposed rats to PAPs either orally or by injection and monitored for a three-week period to track the concentrations of the PAPs and PFCA metabolites in their blood.
The researchers used the PAP concentrations previously observed in human blood together with the PAP and PFCA concentrations observed in the rats to calculate human exposure to the chemical perflurooctanoic acid, PFOA.
“In this study we clearly demonstrate that the current use of PAPs in food contact applications does result in human exposure to PFCAs, including PFOA,” said Mabury, the lead researcher and a professor in the university’s Department of Chemistry.
Elevated levels of PFOA in blood have been associated with changes in sex hormones and cholesterol, according to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances. Exposure to PFOA also has resulted in early death and delayed development in mice and rat pups, the agency says.
Read more here.
A few days ago it was revealed that diet soda can trigger strokes in regular drinkers of the sweet fizzy beverages. Now the Center for Science in the Public Interest is petitioning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prohibit what it says is carcinogenic “caramel coloring” (that is, not real caramel but synthetic, chemical “caramel”):
The “caramel coloring” used in Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and other foods is contaminated with two cancer-causing chemicals and should be banned, according to a regulatory petition filed today by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
In contrast to the caramel one might make at home by melting sugar in a saucepan, the artificial brown coloring in colas and some other products is made by reacting sugars with ammonia and sulfites under high pressure and temperatures. Chemical reactions result in the formation of 2-methylimidazole and 4 methylimidazole, which in government-conducted studies caused lung, liver, or thyroid cancer or leukemia in laboratory mice or rats.
The National Toxicology Program, the division of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences that conducted the animal studies, said that there is “clear evidence” that both 2-MI and 4-MI are animal carcinogens. Chemicals that cause cancer in animals are considered to pose cancer threats to humans. Researchers at the University of California, Davis, found significant levels of 4-MI in five brands of cola.
“Carcinogenic colorings have no place in the food supply, especially considering that their only function is a cosmetic one,” said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. “The FDA should act quickly to revoke its approval of caramel colorings made with ammonia.”
Federal regulations distinguish among four types of caramel coloring, two of which are produced with ammonia and two without it. CSPI wants the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the two made with ammonia. The type used in colas and other dark soft drinks is known as Caramel IV, or ammonia sulfite process caramel. Caramel III, which is produced with ammonia but not sulfites, is sometimes used in beer, soy sauce, and other foods.
Five prominent experts on animal carcinogenesis, including several who have worked at the National Toxicology Program, joined CSPI in calling on the FDA to bar the use of caramel colorings made with an ammonia process. “The American public should not be exposed to any cancer risk whatsoever as a result of consuming such chemicals, especially when they serve a non-essential, cosmetic purpose,” the scientists wrote in a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.
CSPI also says the phrase “caramel coloring” is misleading when used to describe colorings made with ammonia or sulfite. The terms “ammonia process caramel” or “ammonia sulfite process caramel” would be more accurate, and companies should not be allowed to label any products that contain such colorings as “natural,” according to the group.
“Most people would interpret ‘caramel coloring’ to mean ‘colored with caramel,’ but this particular ingredient has little in common with ordinary caramel or caramel candy,” Jacobson said. “It’s a concentrated dark brown mixture of chemicals that simply does not occur in nature. Regular caramel isn’t healthful, but at least it is not tainted with carcinogens.”
In a little-noticed regulatory proceeding in California, state health officials have added 4 MI to the state’s list of “chemicals known to the state to cause cancer.”…
[continues at the Center for Science in the Public Interest]
Is aluminum phosphate safe for human consumption?
Nanotech Particles Pose Serious DNA Risks To Humans And The Environment
The Toxin So Dangerous - Even CDC Now Warns Against Consumption by Infants
A new study has found that the protective shield fluoride forms on teeth is up to 100 times thinner than previously believed. This raises questions about how this renowned cavity-fighter really works.
It has long been believed that fluoride changes the main mineral in tooth enamel, hydroxyapatite, into a more-decay resistant material called fluorapatite. But the new research found that the fluorapatite layer formed in this way is only 6 nanometers thick -- meaning it would take almost 10,000 such layers to span the width of a human hair. According to Science Daily:
"The scientists question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay".
Another new study shows that exposure to fluoride may lower children's intelligence. In addition to toothpaste, fluoride is added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies. PR Newswire reports:
"About 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride area scored as bright, normal or higher intelligence compared to only 8 percent in the 'high' fluoride area ... in the high-fluoride city, 15 percent had scores indicating mental retardation and only 6 percent in the low-fluoride city."
Fluoride is a potent neurotoxin that's been fraudulently promoted as a cure for cavities for the past five decades. Finally, we're beginning to see the kind of research needed to hopefully reverse this great injustice…
The two recent scientific developments above deserve special notice as together they offer a compelling picture of the truth. Not only do we now have yet another study showing that fluoridated water has a significant impact on children's IQ, but researchers have also discovered that the benefits of topical application of fluoride is highly questionable.
Folks, there are FAR better options for decreasing tooth decay than using a topical poison or ingesting a harmful industrial pollutant.
According to Science Daily, Americans spend a staggering $50 billion a year on the treatment of cavities. Fluoride, long heralded as the answer to decaying teeth, can be found in a vast assortment of toothpastes, mouthwashes and professionally applied fluoride treatments. It's even added to your drinking water for this purpose.
Now, a groundbreaking study published in the journal Langmuir has uncovered that the fluorapatite layer formed on your teeth from fluoride is a mere six nanometers thick. To understand just how thin this is, you'd need 10,000 of these layers to get the width of a strand of your hair! Scientists now question whether this ultra-thin layer can actually protect your enamel and provide any discernible benefit, considering the fact that it is quickly eliminated by simple chewing.
The conventional wisdom has been that topical application of fluoride can help strengthen your enamel and help prevent decay. If that's untrue, then the case against water fluoridation—the ingestion of fluoride—becomes even stronger than it ever was before.
There's just no doubt that ingesting fluoride has no beneficial effect on your teeth. In fact, there's overwhelming evidence indicating that fluoride is a potent toxin that can cause a wide array of severe health problems once ingested.
When evaluating the issue of water fluoridation it is also important to understand that fluoride is a drug. You can't get fluoride without a prescription. Yet it's being added to your water supply on a mandatory basis at various levels that may or may not be safe for various individuals, especially children, the sick, and the elderly. Water fluoridation is a major assault on your freedom of choice – to be drugged or not.
Sodium fluoride, which is a far simpler toxin than the fluoride compounds used for most water fluoridation, has also been used for rat and cockroach poisons, so there is no question that it is highly toxic.
Amazingly, the United States is only one of eight countries in the entire developed world that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its water supply. (The other seven are: Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore.) In Europe, Ireland is the only country that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its drinking water, and England fluoridates 10 percent. Most of mainland Europe is not fluoridated, and yet, according to World Health Organization data, their teeth are just as good, if not better than Americans'.
The latest study linking water fluoridation to lowered IQ was announced in a December 21 news release. However, this study was recently withdrawn from publication according to Jane Schroeder (NIH/NIEHS). In an email response she explained the reason for the withdrawal as follows:
"Following Ahead of Print publication EHP learned that many of the data had been published in a previous paper (Xiang et al. 2003. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94), in violation of EHP¹s policy regarding the use of previously published material in original Research Articles. Consequently, the paper had to be withdrawn from publication."
That said, the data published in 2003 still stands and is still valid. Dr. Connett has also stated that his comments still stand.
"This is the 24th study that has found this association, but this study is stronger than the rest because the authors have controlled for key confounding variables and in addition to correlating lowered IQ with levels of fluoride in the water, the authors found a correlation between lowered IQ and fluoride levels in children's blood.
This brings us closer to a cause and effect relationship between fluoride exposure and brain damage in children.
What is also striking is that the levels of the fluoride in the community where the lowered IQs were recorded were lower than the EPA's so-called 'safe' drinking water standard for fluoride of 4 ppm and far too close for comfort to the levels used in artificial fluoridation programs (0.7 – 1.2 ppm)."
Trained as a chemist specializing in environmental chemistry, Dr. Connett is known throughout the world as a leader in the movement opposing water fluoridation because of his knowledge base. His organization, the Fluoride Action Network, contains a wealth of information on this topic.
Earlier this year I joined forces with Connett to publicize his game plan to end water fluoridation in Canada and the United States. I'll review it again at the end of this article.
In December 2010, a second study reporting an association with exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children was pre-published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials.
According to the authors, “our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose–response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis.”
This study indicates a 5 point lowering in IQ as the fluoride level in drinking water went from about 0.3 ppm to 3.0 ppm.
In addition to this study, there are 23 more from four different countries (Mexico, Iran, India and China), which indicate that evenmoderate exposure to fluoride lowers IQ in children.
According to Dr. Connett, there are also more than 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage, spanning all the way back to 1941. Unfortunately, most of the IQ studies have been unavailable in English, which is why the 2006 fluoride report created by the National Research Council of the National Academies contained only five of the available studies.
Still, while reviewing just 20 percent of the evidence, the panel concluded that there was a consistent and plausible link between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. The news release quotes Tara Blank, Ph.D., the Science and Health Officer for the Fluoride Action Network as saying:
"Millions of American children are being exposed unnecessarily to this neurotoxin on a daily basis. Who in their right mind would risk lowering their child's intelligence in order to reduce a small amount of tooth decay, for which the evidence is very weak."
According to Dr. Connett, the newest studies show that over 40 percent of American children are overexposed to fluoride. How can we know? Because they have the telltale sign of dental fluorosis. In its mildest form, dental fluorosis looks like little white specks on your teeth. But as it gets more serious, it begins affecting more of the surface of your teeth, creating yellow, brown and orange mottling.
Promoters of fluoridation scoff at these signs, saying that they're "just cosmetic."
But, since we already know that water fluoridation does NOT effectively reduce dental caries, this is an unnecessary cosmetic defect, and, worse yet, it is a worrisome indication that your body has been overexposed to fluoride. If it's having a detrimental, visual effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed that it's also damaging something else inside your body, such as your bones.
In fact, fluoride will accumulate in your body and can, over time, lead to far more serious health concerns. There are plenty of studies showing the dangers of fluoride to your health—besides dental fluorosis—such as:
|Increases lead absorption||Disrupts synthesis of collagen||Hyperactivity and/or lethargy||Muscle disorders|
|Brain damage, and lowered IQ||Arthritis||Dementia||Bone fractures|
|Lowers thyroid function||Bone cancer (osteosarcoma)||Inactivates 62 enzymes||Inhibits formation of antibodies|
|Genetic damage and cell death||Increases tumor and cancer rate||Disrupts immune system||Damages sperm and increases infertility|
Most of the people who are educated about fluoride will avoid drinking municipal tap water that is fluoridated, and a reverse osmosis system is about the only way to rid your water of fluoride. However, there are many who simply don't have the resources or the know-how to protect themselves and their young children. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) sent out an email to alert its members of their recommendation to parents to not use fluoridated tap water to make infant formula. A few days later, the CDC followed suit.
But neither of them openly informed the public!
So millions of parents are still using tap water to make up formula, oblivious of the fact that the agencies that promote fluoridation in this country have issued a specific warning against using fluoridated water for this purpose. Not only that, but by fluoridating the municipal water supply, you doom many low income families to fail to protect their young children from this dangerous drug, even if they have this information.
Tooth decay is caused by acids in your mouth, typically created from sugar being metabolized by bacteria (Streptococcus mutans), and as you may already know, the number one source of calories in the United States is high fructose corn syrup.
The acid produced then attacks your enamel. Eventually the bacteria can get into the dentine, at which point tooth decay sets in. You typically don't find dental caries in more primitive societies that do not consume these vast amounts of sugar. So, the real answer lies in your diet. Avoid excessive sugar consumption, and your dental health will improve along with the rest of your body.
The Fluoride Action Network is an absolutely phenomenal resource for further education, and they're doing much to pressure the US government for change.
Later this year we plan on developing a massive social networking initiative to form local groups in which you can work on removing fluoride in your local community. We will have access to online tools that will help you replicate success other Canadian and American municipalities have had in removing fluoride.
Until then if you are a professional you can sign FAN's statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide now been signed by more than 3,230 professionals. We encourage all medical and science professionals to sign this statement.
Our fluoride initiative will largely focus on Canada, because 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. If we can get the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow. If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at email@example.com. The point-of-contact for Toronto is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at firstname.lastname@example.org.
We're also going to address the two US communities: Austin, Texas and San Diego, California. If you live in Austin, Texas, you can join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org, or by regular mail or telephone:
Austin, Texas 78713
Phone: (512) 371-3786
If you're in San Diego, California, contact Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher of the Presidio Sentinel at email@example.com .
Additionally, New York City council member Peter Vallone, Jr. introduced legislation on January 18 “prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply" in New York City. The ensuing debate alone could have major significance for our efforts in the US, considering that NYC is the nation's largest city.
Therefore, New York City is now also on our list of targeted cities in North America. The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at NYSCOF@aol.com . Please contact her if you're interested in helping with this effort.
In addition, we're willing to support any credible activist for this cause, who is scientifically based and grounded, regardless of where you live in the US. We can provide resources to help support you in your effort to eliminate fluoride from your local community – and it really needs to be a community battle.
We're not going to be able to pass a federal law against fluoridation. There is not going to be a Presidential mandate or even a State-wide elimination. This change will occur one community at a time.
So please, get informed; stay involved. In addition to the Fluoride Action Network, you can find a wealth of scientific literature at this link. I also highly recommend getting a copy of Dr. Connett's new book, The Case Against Fluoride to learn more.
Governments around the world have passed measures to prohibit the sale of incandescent light bulbs for general lighting. The aim is to encourage use of more energy-efficient lighting alternatives, such as compact fluorescent lamp (CFLs)
The first concern is what may be coming off from the bulbs. Ultraviolet Radiation. Scientists say the bulbs, give off UV. Like the sun gives off. We know this because Health Canada - they're the people who make sure the products and drugs you use are safe - told us that in an email that "CFLs are not provided with a prismatic diffuser that filters ultraviolet radiation out. Therefore, there may be skin sensitivity issues, especially in people with certain skin diseases"
Health Canada is currently testing the bulbs to see if, and how much, radiation it gives off.
Compact Florescent Light Bulbs: The Truth
MSG for You and a Coffin Too! Ajinomoto bribes U. S. Dept of Agriculture and University Professors to Sanctify Poisons
Hundreds of medical studies and thousands, Nay, millions of victim accounts, irrevocably establish that monosodium glutamate, Ajinomoto’s chemical “flavor enhancer”, is a deadly, systemic, neurotoxic poison that eradicates your mind and health. In 1994 renowned Neurosurgeon and Professor Russell Blaylock, M.D., 27 year practitioner of the most delicate and demanding field of surgery: on the brain and nervous system, the pinnacle of medical expertise, released his book “Excitotoxins, the Taste that Kills”, which plainly explains how MSG certainly destroys you. : “MSG is not the only taste enhancing food additive known to cause damage to the nervous system. In fact, there is a whole class of chemicals that can produce very similar damage they all share one important property. When neurons are exposed to these substances, they become very excited and fire their impulses very rapidly until they reach a state of extreme exhaustion. Several hours later these neurons suddenly die, as if the cells were exited to death. Neuroscientists have dubbed this class of chemicals “excitotoxins”. More and more diseases of the nervous system are being linked to excitotoxin build-up in the brain. For example disorders such as strokes, brain injury, hypoglycemic brain damage, seizures, migraine headaches, hypoxic brain damage, and even AIDS dementia have been linked to excitotoxin damage.” [The class of excitotoxins includes murderous aspartame, NutraSweet, Equal, which Ajinomoto recently renamed AminoSweet since their sales are in the toilet. Similarly MSG is a venom of 100 aliases: glutamate, hydrolyzed plant protein, sodium caseinate, etc, etc, etc]
In his chapter Effect Excitotoxins on the Developing Brain, Dr. Blaylock tells how MSG ruins children: “Excess glutamate can trigger abnormal nervous system development by interfering with the establishment of proper nerve connections, that is the wiring of the brain the onset of these behavioral and learning disorders may not show up immediately but rather may be delayed for many years following birth because of the timing of the onset of specialized brain functions. Injury to the speech areas of the brain, for example, would not be evident in the newborn baby, but would be evident when the child began to learn to speak ... Likewise, damage to areas of the brain concerned with complex learning skills would not be evident until the child started school and was exposed to math and reading.”
& nbsp; There is an entire library of scientific documentation on MSG toxicity for you to investigate on the web. This is bad for the Japanese MSG maker, Ajinomoto. They have zero interest in you or your family’s health. They just want the money!
Consider what debased evil minds, wicked, devoid of conscience, malignant, twisted, perverse and demonic, that intentionally loose dread poisons on humanity with full knowledge of the agony, suffering, poverty, ruined lives, foreclosed futures, desolation and death they inevitably produce. Is there a name for such foul criminal scum? I give you Joseph Mengele, the Nazi Angle of Death who hideously tortured thousands of screaming victims just for the damned fun of it. In the name of good Science, of course.
& nbsp; And I give you Susan Schiffman, Ph.D., who published Perception of Taste and Smell in the Elderly encouraging MSG in foods for seniors, so they’ll eat more. I also give you Univ/ Nebraska’s Dr. Steve Taylor. These profane Angles of Desolation and their ilk can find no better use for their brains and fancy educations than pushing poisons on their countrymen. Shame! Equally guilty are their cohorts at Univ/California at Davis, plus the Department of Agriculture, which will be funded by Ajinomoto for the two year “research”, conclusion foreknown: MSG will be blessed.
When corporations fund regulatory agencies, said agencies work no more for taxpayers but become company stooges with fat budgets, bigger bonuses, and all those plane rides! Think of it as the District Attorney working for the Godfather. Today In America there’s always some venal overpaid money grubbing bureaucratic Judas to cheerfully sell you out. & nbsp;
Jack Samuels who has the MSG web site, www.truthinlabeling.org also has some comments. If Jack Samuels were to get MSG he could go in anaphylactic shock. This is how serious the issue is.
”Several weeks ago, the Truth in Labeling Campaign became aware of the fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has joined with Ajinomoto Co., Inc. to conduct a two year study at the University of California, Davis to determine the benefits of monosodium glutamate for people who are dieting to lose weight or maintain weight.
According to the press release from Ajinomoto Co., Inc., the world’s largest producer of the food ingredient “monosodium glutamate,” the purpose of the study is to establish that by using monosodium glutamate on prepared foods, food flavor will be enhanced, and the subjects will be more satisfied with the reduced amounts of food required to lose and/or maintain weight. All of the subjects will be women. (See (www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/usda-ars-and-ajinomoto-launch-sodium-glutamate-research-collaboration-105678023.html ).
We find it interesting, and distressing, to find that the USDA is spending our tax dollars on an industry-designed study undertaken to “establish” that ingestion of Ajinomoto’s neurotoxic and endocrine disrupting product, monosodium glutamate, will be useful in controlling obesity.
For many years, Ajinomoto Co., Inc. has been funding researchers at the University of California, Davis to produce studies promoting the Ajinomoto Co., Inc. product, with some of the funds being for the University of California, Davis to cover related expenses.
We find it interesting that the expressed intent of this study contradicts work done by industry agents such as Susan S. Schiffman, Ph. D. who in 1993, published a paper entitled “Perception of Taste and Smell in the Elderly” in which she encouraged the use of monosodium glutamate in foods for the elderly on the basis that it will taste better and the elderly will, therefore, eat more. Over the years, Dr. Schiffman, often with glutamate industry agent, Dr. Steve Taylor of the University of Nebraska, would include this claim in talks to groups responsible for food service.
It should come as no surprise that a governmental food safety agency is cooperating with the glutamate industry. For some background on this subject, go to http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.html to access a peer reviewed, published paper entitled “The Toxicity/Safety of Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG): A Study in Suppression of Information.” Read, under the section entitled “Defenders of the Safety of MSG,” the sub-sections entitled “Agencies of the United States Government” and “People and Organizations Influenced by Glutamate Industry Agents.” All one has to do to realize that monosodium glutamate is a major factor in the obesity epidemic is to access MEDLINE at www.pubmed.gov and type in “monosodium glutamate, obesity. There are well over 200 references to studies listed that demonstrate that monosodium glutamate can cause obesity.
It is time that our governmental agencies involved in food safety begin to protect consumers rather than spending money to represent the interests of industry. Everyone who reads this should contact their representatives in Washington to express their feelings about the USDA’s cooperation with Ajinomoto Co., Inc. We believe that the contract discussed above should be cancelled by the USDA.
Jack L. Samuels
Truth in Labeling Campaign”
Obviously, this issue has been answered for decades. . MSG is known as an excitotoxin, one that makes you fat.
Why would you investigate a product that causes obesity like MSG for benefits in weight management? Here are reports by Doctors Ralph Walton and Sandra Cabot: http://www.rense.com/general91/aspp.htm Studies show that mice fed MSG become grossly obese. http://www.msgexposed.com/studies-show-msg-fed-mice-became-grossly-obese/
Now consider MSG research. In 1993 Jack Samuels, President of the Truth in Labeling Campaign, was reviewing FDA docket files relating to an FDA study on the safety of amino acids in supplements. In the files, he found a letter dated March 22, 1991, from Andrew G. Ebert, PhD, Chairman, International Glutamate Technical Committee - a glutamate industry organization in which Ebert admitted that aspartame had been used since at least 1978 in test and placebo materials that his organization provided to scientists who study the safety of MSG.
A review of studies conducted with the above referenced test material clearly indicates that some subjects reacted to both MSG test material and placebo material. Scientists conducting such studies concluded that since subjects reacted to both MSG and placebos, their reactions were not from MSG. Even though such logic is highly questionable, we now know that subjects reacted to placebos because of the presence of aspartame, an additive that causes MSG-type responses in MSG sensitive people. Because of the disclosure of the use of aspartame in placebo material by Jack Samuels, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in its July 1995 report on the safety of MSG in food, concluded that the use of aspartame in placebo materials was inappropriate. The word dishonest seems more appropriate. Knowing that MSG reacts and there is no way to stop that from happening by using aspartame they could now say MSG did not react any more than the placebo. The placebo is supposed to be inert.
The FDA knew this was wrong and illegal and allowed it for 25 years. Who knows, it may still be done. Yet the FDA has raided supplement makers for nothing more than products used for good health, and think nothing of sending these good people to jail. Yet they allowed the glutamate industry to break the law for a quarter of a century. To make matters worse Congress just approved S 510 giving the FDA (the Fatal Drugs Allowed folks) even more power. It’s time contributions from Big Pharma and chemical companies be discontinued. They can’t stop the problems caused by these industries as long as they receive money from them. Congress needs to listen to the people and think of the world they are leaving to their grandchildren: http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_causes_birth_defects.htm
Some years ago I wrote this open letter to Ajinomoto. http://www.wnho.net/ajinomotoletter.htm They have refused to answer, even though other organizations have asked them to answer it as well.
Here is another report on Ajinomoto: http://www.wnho.net/recipe_for_death.htm and another that needs answering: http://www.wnho.net/whopper
The whole issue is obvious, to get a government agency, USDA to bless a poison. Dr. John Olney, one of the most renowned neuroscientists in the world today tried to prevent the approval of aspartame. Forty per cent of this poisonous molecule is aspartic acid, another excitotoxin. Dr. Olney founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity. Here is the 49 page report he wrote to the FDA Board of Inquiry who agreed with him.
You will note that Dr. Olney warned about compounding MSG with aspartame and what it would do to the brains of babies and children. After the FDA revoked the petition for approval through political chicanery of Don Rumsfeld who at the time was CEO of Searle got aspartame marketed. Today Dr. Olney prophecy has been fulfilled.
"The European Environmental Association has projected that with the rise of autism caused by toxic foods like Aspartame, MSG, Fluoride, and environmental degradation, by 2013 no one will be born in the Western World that does not to some degree have autism. Our board of AAEM, American Academy of Environmental Medicine and Dr. William Rae, director of the Dallas Environmental Clinic agreed in open discussion at the October 2010 annual meeting." Bill Deagle, M.D.
Mary Nash Stoddard
Neotame - Hidden Danger in Holiday Food Supply
Everyone wants to indulge a sweet tooth at this festive time of year, without suffering the inevitable consequences of weight gain. But, be aware of the hidden (not listed on ingredient labels) dangers of Neotame sweetener in almost everything consumed by humans, and now even in feed for livestock raised for human consumption.
In 1998, Monsanto applied for FDA approval for a monster molecule, "based on the aspartame formula" with one critical addition: 3-dimethylbutyl [listed on EPA's most hazardous chemical list]. Neotame is touted as being 13,000 times sweeter than sugar.
On July 5, 2002 - Monsanto's Neotame molecule was approved by the US FDA over formally registered objections of the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network and others. (Long term effects on humans are unknown.) Read the full release on The Aspartame Consumer Safety Network.
Do Any of These Symptoms Sound Familiar?
•Arthritis •Leaky Gut Syndrome
•Vaginal Discharge •Acne
•Respiratory and Sinus Infections •Impotence
•Gas or bloating •Hypoglycemia
•Menstrual Pain •Skin Lesions or Rashes
•Painful Sex or Sexual Dysfunction •Shortness of Breath
•Itching scalp, inside ears, or in skin creases •Learning and Memory Problems
• Eczema •Jumpy Legs
•Blurred Vision •Brain Fog
•Painful Urination or Other Urinary Disorders •Depression or Mood Swings
•Chronic Rashes •Tiredness or Fatigue
•Irritability •Joint Pain or Swelling
•PMS •Male Yeast Infection in folds of foreskin or urethra
•Feeling Run Down •Digestive Pain
•Short Attention Span •Hand Pain
•Hip and Knee Pain •Constant Headaches or Migraines
•Vaginal Odor •Premature Aging
• Ridges or yellow, thickened Toenails or Fingernails •Oral Yeast Infection (Oral Thrush)
•Food Allergies •Muscle Aches
All of these are signs of Candida Yeast Infection.
Candida affects 80% of all Americans, because of our high Carb diets.
It has some 300 different symptoms!
It can be very dangerous, if left untreated.
Candida Albicans is a fungus that, when overgrown and out of balance, can create a serious health issue. We all have Candida, because it grows in our intestines as part of our normal flora. We require 10% of the flora in our intestines to be a fungus to aid in our regular digestive process. It is not possible, nor is it desirable, to completely eliminate Candida, because it is a normal natural part of the flora in your intestine and it is necessary for digestion. However, we function best when only 10% of our intestinal environment consists of fungus. The real problem begins when the Candida overgrows, due in great part to the use of antibiotics prescribed by your doctor.
Antibiotics (Antibiotics: Anti = against and bio = Life Antibiotic means against life!) kill all bacteria, good and bad, indiscriminately. However, the job of some of the “good” bacteria is to eat and thus control the growth of fungus in our gut. When these good bacteria are killed by the antibiotics, there is no guard to prevent the overgrowth of the fungus.
Then, on top of knocking out our protection, Candida overgrowth is fostered and compounded by our American Diet, high in carbs, sugar and white flour. As the Candida rapidly multiplies, it moves up the intestine through your stomach, then into the esophagus, mouth and sinuses. It also moves down through the intestines, coming out at the anus and can also infect a woman’s vagina. In the vagina it will cause a bad smelling, greyish-white discharge and itching. Men are also susceptible to carrying Candida in the folds of their foreskin, which then can be passed to their sexual partner.
Candida can establish itself on skin, in scalp or in the ears. On the skin it can cause itchy, raw, sore spots where it finds folds or creases in the skin. In the hair it can cause flaking, like dandruff. In the ears, it will cause itching and sometimes a ringing or buzzing called tinnitus.
Doctors rarely diagnose Candida, because their main focus and that of their primary treatment – antibiotics -- is bacteria. Since Candida is a fungus, it is not the first thing that comes to their mind when dealing with a patient’s complaints. When they do diagnose Candida, they frequently recommend Nystatin or one of the other antifungals, which are known to be injurious to your kidneys, and are required by law to be disclosed as such in their contraindications material dispatched along with the medicine.
When Candida mutates from non-pathogenic to pathogenic form, it produces root-like structures called rhizoids, which penetrate the intestinal walls and create holes in the walls of the intestines. This condition is called Leaky Gut Syndrome. It enables the yeast, toxic waste, bacteria and undigested food to escape from the intestines and enter the blood stream causing many unpleasant and often dangerous conditions. When Candida becomes systemic through your leaky guy, it can virtually penetrate and manifest itself within every organ it settles in.
Candida yeast produces, as its waste product, more than 75 toxic substances that poison the human body. The two major toxins (Canditoxin and ethanol) have a negative effect on our brain and can significantly interfere with our biochemical processes. Note that Canditoxin and ethanol that are released into your blood stream are the SAME dangerous toxins that when injected into rats, had caused paralysis of the limbs and ultimately death.
In humans Canditoxin and ethanol cause a myriad of health problems: vaginal yeast infection, dry itchy skin, oral thrush, skin rashes, eczema, joint pain, stomach bloating, chronic diarrhea, arthritis, constipation, heartburn, blisters in the mouth, restless sleep, lack of energy, brain fog, chronic sinus problems, jumpy legs, headaches, blurred vision, mood swings, sugary food cravings, food allergies, jock and rectal itching, body chills, athlete's foot, to name just a few. And just a few years ago, yeast has been determined to be the cause and substance of Cancer.
I struggled with Candida for years without knowing what it was. Once I determined what my problem was, I spent over 5 years trying to “cure” it, with only minor successes at best. I tried everything I heard about or read about to control and kill it. At the height of my infection, I found that nearly everything humans eat contain nutrients or chemicals that FEED the yeast, including processed or fried meats. Meat normally does not feed the yeast, but it will if cooked improperly. Frying meats requires high temperatures, which will cause chemical changes in the meats, which then feeds the yeast. Boiling or baking presents fewer chemical changes and are thus better for your Candida diet.
Diet is important to Candida control, but diet alone isn’t the answer. Changing your diet to avoid simple carbs will certainly help to control Candida and we shouldn’t neglect a healthy diet rich in vegetables and lower in carbs, but almost everything we eat seems to contain something that feeds the yeast. The other half of the answer lies in elimination of the overgrowth of Candida.
Fortunately there are some easy remedies which are not harmful to your body and are very effective against Candida. They are not quick cures, but they are effective, inexpensive and you won’t run the risk of damaging your very important organs.
TESTING YOURSELF FOR CANDIDA
First thing in the morning, before you spit or swallow, gather a mouthful of saliva and spit it on to the top of a clear glass of cold water. For the next hour watch what happens. If the spittle lies on the top of the water in frothy bubbles, you have healthy saliva. If the saliva sinks toward the bottom of the glass in long, gray, root-like strings, that indicates a Candida problem. The faster this happens the heavier your load of Candida.
•Check your tongue in a mirror. Is it covered with a white or grayish coating? Your tongue should be pink.
•Does it have deep cracks or lines in it? There should be no cracks.
•Does your mouth frequently feel dry or hot or prickly? Again Candida.
•Do you get tiny, sore bumps on your tongue or gums? Blame Candida.
An EASY fix for oral or any topical Candida infection is ½ teaspoon of bleach in 1 cup of water. Mix well. Use as gargle morning and evening. Swish vigorously between your teeth, as well. Do not swallow bleach. A tiny bit won’t hurt you. Think of a chlorinated swimming pool. That has bleach in it, too. It isn’t good for you, so don’t swallow it, but if you accidently swallow a tiny bit, it won’t hurt you. Soak your toothbrush in the same solution, between brushings to kill any Candida which survives the brushing. Before gargling, scrape your tongue with a flat surface, such as a table knife, to get rid of as much of the white fuzzy Candida layer as possible. Brush your teeth and tongue with baking soda, not toothpaste. If you have infected gums or bleeding gums, this will also help.
Some also swear by a vinegar gargle. 1 Tablespoon of vinegar in a cup of water. I’ve also found a few drops of Yeast Ease swished and gargled to also be very effective. It is available from Jernigan Neutraceuticals http://www.jernigannutraceuticals.com/ . Yeast Ease is tested to kill the 5 main types of yeast on contact. It is more expensive, by far, than the vinegar or bleach solutions, and no more effective as far as I can determine. I offer it here as an alternative, if you wish one.
I dealt with a sinus infection for twenty years, believing I had allergies, not knowing that it was Candida. The absolute best discovery I made was Sinufix Nasal spray—not the pills, though they do help, too. It is available at your health food store or at www.swansonvitamins.com, and will, over time, wipe out the yeast in your sinuses. It will not solve the systemic problem, but it will knock down the infection in your sinuses and allow you to breathe more freely. I found nothing else to compare with it for healing raw, congested sinuses and to promote clearer breathing.
VAGINAL YEAST INFECTION
For a vaginal douche that is very effective against Candida, use 2 tablespoons of vinegar in a pint of warm water. Flush through the vagina, lying down in your tub, so that gravity pulls the solution deep into the recesses of the vagina. Douche morning and evening for 5 days. That will control it nicely, at least until your next flare up, which inevitably comes, if you haven’t controlled the problem at the source…your colon.
TOPICAL YEAST INFECTION
The bleach solution can be dabbed on skin with a cotton ball several times a day and will kill Candida on contact. Then, before bedtime, apply Preparation H or a similar hemorrhoid medication to promote healing, if it is very raw and sore. Shark oil is the wonderful healing property in Preparation H that promotes healing. The bleach solution will kill the infection and the hemorrhoid cream will help your skin to heal. No more pain, itching or soreness! The Candida will break out again, if you haven’t controlled it systemically.
FINGERNAIL OR TOE NAIL INFECTIONS
Soaking your fingers and toes 20 minutes per day in the bleach solution will be effective over time. Scrape debris from under the nail and then trim the nail as far back as is comfortable so that the liquid will penetrate as far into the nail and nail bed as possible. Soak your trimming utensils in this solution also to prevent reinfection. This process should continue for as long as it takes your nails to grow out. And you must also fight it internally. Soaking isn’t effective for the inside bed of the nails. This must be treated systemically with MMS, below.
INTERNAL TREATMENT TO CLEAR ORGANS AND BLOOD
The ONLY thing I’ve found that will clear out the internal Candida is Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS). When I tried to clear mine, I took every product on the health food store’s shelves that said it was for Candida or fungus. NOTHING worked. Then, I learned of MMS.
When I first began to take MMS for my Candida problem, I began with a small dose, just a few drops twice a day, and over a few weeks I built up to a dose of 23 drops twice a day. I’ve read of others who have built up to taking up to 65 drops twice a day. It did take several months, but I saw the evidence with my own eyes of the complete clearing of Candida from my stomach and intestines.
A new protocol has been developed by Jim Humble, the creator of MMS, which indicates the following to be effective: Take a few drops (6 to 10 -- or more as you build up to this dosage slowly over a couple of weeks) in the morning and then repeating that dose 1 hour later, then repeating those two doses again in 4 hours an hour a part, and again repeating that dosage 4 hours later, again an hour apart. Thus, one would take 6 doses per day, taking two doses each time but 1 hour apart, doing this 3 times a day. This puts the maximum amount of MMS into your system without causing your body to react to it, which it could, if you tried to take as much all at one time. The reaction is demonstrated by either vomiting or diarrhea and is caused by MMS killing so many pathogens (called die off) that your body can’t process them all at one time, so it eliminates it through vomiting or diarrhea instead of processing it through kidneys and liver. If this happens, he suggests backing off for a day or two by a few drops, and then beginning again at a reduced dosage and building up your dosage again. You can find more info from Mr. Humble at his website http://jimhumble.biz
MMS creates a stabilized gas which lasts up to 12 hours in your body. Oxygen is deadly to yeast, which requires an oxygen poor environment to thrive. Oxygen is beneficial to your body, and unlike antibiotics, doesn’t kill off the good flora in your system. It targets and eliminates all the bad-for-us pathogens, viruses, bacteria and fungi, because it kills only those pathogens which don’t match our body’s pH factor, which are all the things that make us sick, such as AIDS, CANCER, Malaria, Herpes, Colds, Flu, etc. None of these match our pH factor, so they do make us ill. MMS is Nature’s all-in-one perfect antibiotic.
There are other ways of getting oxygen into your system. Vitamin O (a brand name for liquid oxygen), baking soda and food grade hydrogen peroxide are all effective at introducing oxygen into your body, but the effect from these does not last long enough to actually be beneficial to us. Most of the oxygen dissipates within 20 minutes. Thus, they are not nearly as effective as MMS. MMS will last for up to 12 hours in your body. It dissipates as it kills, so it may be all worn out before the 12 hours, if it encounters lots of pathogens. It kills bad pathogens on contact as the gas it creates is picked up and transferred by the blood to every organ throughout your body, effectively eliminating yeast cells as it encounters them, as well as bacteria and viruses with which it comes in contact!
Another great benefit of MMS is that it helps detox your body from heavy metals, too! We all gather a load of mercury, zinc, aluminum, etc. over our lifetime, and these can cause Alzheimer’s, muddy thinking, reduced immune system efficiency, and more. Detoxing your body every 6 months or so is a good idea and easily done with MMS.
THE CANDIDA DIET
Watching your diet is the single most important factor in your quest to conquer Candida. Avoiding or severely limiting white flour and sugar is paramount. Both simple and complex carbs feed the candida, and many foods contain carbs, but white flour and sugar are like rocket fuel to Candida. The compound carbs found in vegetables are metabolized more slowly and while they will feed the candida, they are not as nearly as bad as sugary candies or ice cream or floury bakery goods. An excellent cook book called the “Coping with Candida Cookbook” by Dr. Sally Rockwell is available at many health food stores. It has some good recipes, but I really appreciate that it gives the carb value for most foods. While you are doing your internal cleanse from Candida, you will want to try to eat the lower carb foods. If you feed the Candida at the same time you are trying to eliminate it, you will be at this a LONG time. To enable your recovery, be sure to take a multi-strain probiotic to replace the flora which antibiotics have decimated.
Am I cured? Never completely. Candida can regrow as you take more antibiotics or ingest more sugar, white flour and simple carbs. But, watch your diet and keep the MMS handy. You’ll never have to suffer again as you do now. Contact me to purchase or for more info.
|Health Topics - Soy Alert!|
|Friday, 01 May 2009 14:24|
| The governor's justification for replacing nutritious meat and cheese with toxic soy protein was financial-to lower the enormous costs of running the Illinois Department of Corrections. However, the likely reason is payback for campaign contributions from Archer Daniels Midland, the main supplier of soy products to the Illinois prisons. |
Suffering of Inmates
How You Can Help
Sample Letter Sent By A Relative Of An Inmate
Sample Letter Sent By A Concerned Citizen
I am glad to forward your well indoctrinated* responses to deflect, diffuse, confuse and shut any and all discussions pertinent to stop the deliberate adulterating of City water. Your response and attachment to my original inquiry is designed to give an impression of being impartial, factual and authoritative but is likely to confuse, obfuscate or even intimidate the uninitiated. This note gives me an opportunity to set the record straight and educate the readers on the many tactics of those who deliberately keep contaminating our otherwise clean water...
"I am awaiting Health Canada’s review. I am open to persuasion and would suggest that you address your concerns with Dr. Graham Pollett, Chief Medical Officer."
No matter what question is posed to you we all get the above inconsistent response. How are you open to persuasion while in the same breath you shut any dialogue by continually saying that you awaiting Health Canada’s review before any one can even begin to persuade you. It took the threat of a re-election to open this dialogue hardly a demonstration of your seriousness or concern for that matter!
"Let me be very clear. I take the safety of our water supply very seriously. I have reviewed scores of pages of information sent by various members of the community."
From the scores of pages that you reviewed, you are still happy with the practice of adding a toxic waste product to our water while you humor the authorities. Deliberately adding fluoride and its co contaminants which include traces of lead, arsenic, mercury and other byproducts to our water does not show a lot of concern. How did you miss from your review the fact that fluoride is more toxic than lead? Yet you claim you are serious about the safety of our water?
I shudder to think how you should handle more complex issues. Given that all one has to do, in this instance, is to simply stop adding toxins to our water. This has already been done by other enlightened municipalities such as Dryden and others in the Niagara Region. In all cases Health Canada and Board of Health (BOH) tried, their level best, to prevent these municipalities from doing so. As you can see your tactics to deflect this on to Health Canada, BOH and other pro fluoridation organizations are null an void. Certainly you are most welcome to wait for any review in the world but why add this toxin while waiting? What incentive do these organizations have to respond in a timely manner, we have already been waiting for more than 60 years to get a straight answer. If you are "open to persuasion" why are you not taking the city to bat to stop this madness?
"The Ontario Ministry of Environment takes guidance from Health Canada, and Administration will continue to comply with all provincially mandated drinking water regulations."
How is it that other jurisdictions don't comply? It is because the responsibility lies squarely with the city according to the above statement one can only conclude that the Health Canada and Ontario Ministry of Environment are asking the City to purposely violate:
1) Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, section 20(1,3) - which specifically sates "Dilution no defence". also the food adulteration act
2) The fisheries act by polluting our lakes streams and rivers etc.
3) The Natural Health Products Regulations
4) Medical ethics as one dose does not fit all - ie mass medicating without a prescription
No one can force the city to damage their constituents health and pollute the environment period! Some jurisdictions don't - so why does London?
"Mr. Gupta characterized the Health Canada review as a delay tactic; stating “Amazingly they (Health Canada) are still reviewing this issue when they have already had 60+ years to figure all this out.” Guideline reviews such as this are regular occurrences. The scientific method is based upon the premise that our conclusions must be re-evaluated as new information becomes available. Health Canada conducts periodic reviews of its guidelines in order to include the most recent research in its decision making processes."
Toxicity of fluoride was well established prior to the start of water fluoridation it was known than that this substance is more toxic than lead then so why the need for regular reviews - unless it is, yet again, another ongoing stalling tactic?
For an historic overview see: The Fluoride Deception - Christopher Bryson
For the situation today see: Leading Dental Researcher Speaks out Against Water Fluoridation - Dr Hardy Limeback
For Environmental issue see: An Environmental Professional Speaks Out on Fluoridation
Here is a summary: Professional Prospectives
If you think that Health Canada is some benign and altruistic agency set up to protect the people, I have news for you.
This is the agency that kept trying to foist upon us pesticides on behalf of the industry when many, for years, were concerned about the harmful effects on health and the environment from cosmetic pesticide use. Health Canada used, like they are doing for fluoridation, our tax dollars travelling all over the country to defend the industry and fight the citizen concerns.
This is the same agency which tried their level best to contaminate our milk supply with Bovine Growth Hormone. This rouge agency went as far as firing its most conscientious scientists while attempting to do this! And sees to it that no one comes in its way. For a full account see Dr. Shiv Chopra's detailed account in Corrupt to The Core. The book is available at the London Library.
They already know from their own Health Canada 2009 Draft Review that 1 month old infants drinking powder milk-based formula, exceed the safe limit set by the Institute of Medicine by 3,300%. Have you been told?
As we speak this agency is still making excuses why genetically modified foods should not be labeled; supported the outmoded practice of putting toxic mercury fillings in our teeth; is defending the communication industry rather than protecting innocent children from RF (Radio Frequency) exposure; removing safe effective supplements to reduce competition to pharmaceuticals; holding honest hard working alternate health businesses at gun point while looking the other way on huge carnage from pharmaceuticals many of which they were aware of years before recall. Need I go on?
As for Dr. Pollett he seems to have disappeared never to be seen, heard or found after a presentation on this issue was made to the Board of Health which he chaired in Oct. 2008. He was supposed to get back with a remedy... Why don't you find out why after 2 years he still has not responded? Given that you keep throwing his name all over the place for good measure...
Crux of the matter:
The alphabetic soup agencies endorsements attached with your response are nothing short of an embarrassment. None of them can produce any credible double blind studies that show that hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe and efficacious when diluted at the level in our water. Why? Do you think that we should be adding any substance to our water which after 60+ years still has not got any animal and/or human safety studies?
Do you even wonder why these most basic of studies still have not been done and/or available? Obviously they know what they will find, hell even I can figure that one. Given that any such study can only show harm. Remember this is substance more toxic than lead! The strategy is to first make sure that there's no data at hand, then claim that there is no data on harm. As if absence of data is proof of safety - very clever indeed!
That's why they resort to dishonest plebiscites which don't tell the residents that what they intend to use is an industrial toxin to fluoridate their water. First bait the masses with glories of Fluoride and teeth and claim it a health benefit then switch to an industrial toxin. Do you really think that anyone, in their right mind will vote for or agree on lead, arsenic, mercury etc. being added to their municipal drinking water? Furthermore, one cannot medicate those who don't want to be this way. This will never stand a test in the courts as 51% of the people can't force the remaining to be medicated against their will. They do it because they know we can't afford to take them to court and if by chance we do they can use our tax money to fight back... The City's law department can verify the above, some municipalities in the Niagara Region did and exposed this scam thus removing this toxin in their water. I ask again why not London? See:
Fluorosilicates are a Source Water Concern
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
|50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation|
Updated April 12, 2004
by Paul Connett, PhD
1) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.
2) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the US (See data from World Health Organization in Appendix 1, and the time trends presented graphically at http://www.fluoridealert.org/who-dmft.htm ). The reasons given by countries for not fluoridating are presented in Appendix 2.)
3) Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface! There are 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth. This result was not shown to be statistically significant. In a review commissioned by the Ontario government, Dr. David Locker concluded:
4) Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).
5) There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. There appears to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water fluoride levels.
6) Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997, and De Liefde, 1998) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized. Many other factors influence tooth decay. Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia 1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002 and Ekanayake 2002).
7) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged the findings of many leading dental researchers, that the mechanism of fluoride's benefits are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC. Thus, you don't have to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. As the benefits of fluoride (if any exist) are topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense, for those who want to take the risks, to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, there is no reason to force people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their water supply. This position was recently shared by Dr. Douglas Carnall, the associate editor of the British Medical Journal. His editorial appears in Appendix 3.
8) Despite being prescribed by doctors for over 50 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective. Fluoride supplements are designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride as ingested daily from fluoridated water (Kelly 2000).
9) The US fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e. to lower dental decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused by fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its mildest form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). A major US survey has found 30% of children in optimally fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth (Heller 1997), while smaller studies have found up to 80% of children impacted (Williams 1990; Lalumandier 1995 and Morgan 1998). The York Review estimates that up to 48% of children in optimally fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms and 12.5% with symptoms of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).
10) Dental fluorosis means that a child has been overdosed on fluoride. While the mechanism by which the enamel is damaged is not definitively known, it appears fluorosis may be a result of either inhibited enzymes in the growing teeth (Dan Besten 1999), or through fluoride's interference with G-protein signaling mechanisms (Matsuo 1996). In a study in Mexico, Alarcon-Herrera (2001) has shown a linear correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures in children.
11) The level of fluoride put into water (1 ppm) is up to 200 times higher than normally found in mothers' milk (0.005 – 0.01 ppm) (Ekstrand 1981; Institute of Medicine 1997). There are no benefits, only risks, for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (this is an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).
12) Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.
13) Fluoride is very biologically active even at low concentrations. It interferes with hydrogen bonding (Emsley 1981) and inhibits numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978).
14) When complexed with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with many hormonal and some neurochemical signals (Strunecka & Patocka 1999, Li 2003).
15) Fluoride has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in a variety of cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993 and Mihashi 1996). Recent studies have also found a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997 and Joseph 2000).
16) Fluoride forms complexes with a large number of metal ions, which include metals which are needed in the body (like calcium and magnesium) and metals (like lead and aluminum) which are toxic to the body. This can cause a variety of problems. For example, fluoride interferes with enzymes where magnesium is an important co-factor, and it can help facilitate the uptake of aluminum and lead into tissues where these metals wouldn't otherwise go (Mahaffey 1976; Allain 1996; Varner 1998).
17) Rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water, using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta amyloid deposits which are characteristic of Alzheimers disease (Varner 1998).
18) Aluminum fluoride was recently nominated by the Environmental Protection Agency and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for testing by the National Toxicology Program. According to EPA and NIEHS, aluminum fluoride currently has a "high health research priority" due to its "known neurotoxicity" (BNA, 2000). If fluoride is added to water which contains aluminum, than aluminum fluoride complexes will form.
19) Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and exposure alters mental behavior in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent(Mullenix 1995). Rats dosed prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under activity or "couch potato" syndrome). More recent animal experiments have reported that fluoride can damage the brain (Wang 1997; Guan 1998; Varner 1998; Zhao 1998; Zhang 1999; Lu 2000; Shao 2000; Sun 2000; Bhatnagar 2002; Chen 2002, 2003; Long 2002; Shivarajashankara 2002a, b; Shashi 2003 and Zhai 2003) and impact learning and behavior (Paul 1998; Zhang 1999, 2001; Sun 2000; Ekambaram 2001; Bhatnagar 2002).
20) Five studies from China show a lowering of IQ in children associated with fluoride exposure (Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Li 1995; Zhao 1996; Lu 2000; and Xiang 2003a, b). One of these studies (Lin Fa-Fu 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g. 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency.
21) Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) showed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high levels. In her Ph.D. thesis Luke has also shown in animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty (Luke 1997).
22) In the first half of the 20th century, fluoride was prescribed by a number of European doctors to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (over active thyroid) (Stecher 1960; Waldbott 1978). With water fluoridation, we are forcing people to drink a thyroid-depressing medication which could, in turn, serve to promote higher levels of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) in the population, and all the subsequent problems related to this disorder. Such problems include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease.
It bears noting that according to the Department of Health and Human Services (1991) fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is estimated to range from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day, which is a range that actually overlaps the dose (2.3 - 4.5 mg/day) shown to decrease the functioning of the human thyroid (Galletti & Joyet 1958). This is a remarkable fact, particularly considering the rampant and increasing problem of hypothyroidism in the United States (in 1999, the second most prescribed drug of the year was Synthroid, which is a hormone replacement drug used to treat an underactive thyroid). In Russia, Bachinskii (1985) found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people, at 2.3 ppm fluoride in water.
23) Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa , mimic the symptoms of arthritis (Singh 1963; Franke 1975; Teotia 1976; Carnow 1981; Czerwinski 1988; DHHS 1991). According to a review on fluoridation by Chemical & Engineering News, "Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed" (Hileman 1988). Few if any studies have been done to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis - CDC, 2002) is related to our growing fluoride exposure, which is highly plausible. The causes of most forms of arthritis (e.g. osteoarthritis) are unknown.
24) In some studies, when high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a HIGHER number of fractures, particularly hip fractures (Inkovaara 1975; Gerster 1983; Dambacher 1986; O’Duffy 1986; Hedlund 1989; Bayley 1990; Gutteridge 1990. 2002; Orcel 1990; Riggs 1990 and Schnitzler 1990). The cumulative doses used in these trials are exceeded by the lifetime cumulative doses being experienced by many people living in fluoridated communities.
25) Nineteen studies (three unpublished, including one abstract) since 1990 have examined the possible relationship of fluoride in water and hip fracture among the elderly. Eleven of these studies found an association, eight did not. One study found a dose-related increase in hip fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1 ppm to 8 ppm (Li 2001). Hip fracture is a very serious issue for the elderly, as a quarter of those who have a hip fracture die within a year of the operation, while 50 percent never regain an independent existence (All 19 of these studies are referenced as a group in the reference section).
26) The only government-sanctioned animal study to investigate if fluoride causes cancer, found a dose-dependent increase in cancer in the target organ (bone) of the fluoride-treated (male) rats (NTP 1990). The initial review of this study also reported an increase in liver and oral cancers, however, all non-bone cancers were later downgraded – with a questionable rationale - by a government-review panel (Marcus 1990). In light of the importance of this study, EPA Professional Headquarters Union has requested that Congress establish an independent review to examine the study's results (Hirzy 2000).
28) Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system - it damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility in a number of different species (Kour 1980; Chinoy 1989; Chinoy 1991; Susheela 1991; Chinoy 1994; Kumar 1994; Narayana 1994a, b; Zhao 1995; Elbetieha 2000; Ghosh 2002 and Zakrzewska 2002). While studies conducted at the FDA have failed to find reproductive effects in rats (Sprando 1996, 1997, 1998), an epidemiological study from the US has found increased rates of infertility among couples living in areas with 3 or more ppm fluoride in the water (Freni 1994), and 2 studies have found a reduced level of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas (Susheela 1996 and Barot 1998).
29) The fluoridation program has been very poorly monitored. There has never been a comprehensive analysis of the fluoride levels in the bones, blood, or urine of the American people or the citizens of other fluoridated countries. Based on the sparse data that has become available, however, it is increasingly evident that some people in the population – particularly people with kidney disease - are accumulating fluoride levels that have been associated with harm to both animals and humans, particularly harm to bone (see Connett 2004).
30) Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives. This is because 1) some people (e.g. manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink more water than others, and 2) we receive fluoride from sources other than the water supply. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water (Kiritsy 1996 and Heilman 1999), fluoridated dental products (Bentley 1999 and Levy 1999), mechanically deboned meat (Fein 2001), teas (Levy 1999), and pesticide residues on food (Stannard 1991 and Burgstahler 1997).
31) Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are not being asked for their informed consent prior to medication. This is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of western Europe has ruled against fluoridation (see appendix 2).
As one doctor aptly stated, "No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.’ It is a preposterous notion."
32) While referenda are preferential to imposed policies from central government, it still leaves the problem of individual rights versus majority rule. Put another way -- does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it's against that neighbor's will)?
33) Some individuals appear to be highly sensitive to fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies (Shea 1967, Waldbott 1978 and Moolenburg 1987). In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given 1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions. Can we as a society force these people to ingest fluoride?
34) According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993), and other researchers (Juncos & Donadio 1972; Marier & Rose 1977 and Johnson 1979), certain subsets of the population may be particularly vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects; these include: the elderly, diabetics and people with poor kidney function. Again, can we in good conscience force these people to ingest fluoride on a daily basis for their entire lives?
35) Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g. calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodide deficiencies and protein poor diets) (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Chen 1997; Teotia 1998). Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition are the poor, who are precisely the people being targeted by new fluoridation programs. While being at heightened risk, poor families are less able to afford avoidance measures (e.g. bottled water or removal equipment).
36) Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for poor families. The real "Oral Health Crisis" that exists today in the United States, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and lack of dental insurance. The Surgeon General has estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat children on Medicaid.
37) Fluoridation has been found to be ineffective at preventing one of the most serious oral health problems facing poor children, namely, baby bottle tooth decay, otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992 and Shiboski 2003).
38) The early studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude." In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could give no fluoridation trial a grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000, see Appendix 3 for commentary).
39) The US Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed (McClure 1970)!
40) Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, a fact that even the dental community has acknowledged (Seholle 1984; Gray 1987; PHS 1993; and Pinkham 1999). This is significant because pit and fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children today (Seholle 1984 and Gray 1987).
41) Despite the fact that we are exposed to far more fluoride today than we were in 1945 (when fluoridation began), the "optimal" fluoridation level is still 1 part per million, the same level deemed optimal in 1945! (Marier & Rose 1977; Levy 1999; Rozier 1999 and Fomon 2000).
42) The chemicals used to fluoridate water in the US are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they come from the wet scrubbing systems of the superphosphate fertilizer industry. These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities. Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these chemicals are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000).
43) These hazardous wastes have not been tested comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. The assumption being made is that by the time this waste product has been diluted, all the fluorosilicic acid will have been converted into free fluoride ion, and the other toxics and radioactive isotopes will be so dilute that they will not cause any harm, even with lifetime exposure. These assumptions have not been examined carefully by scientists, independent of the fluoridation program.
44) Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children's blood. Because of lead’s acknowledged ability to damage the child’s developing brain, this is a very serious finding yet it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries.
45) Sodium fluoride is an extremely toxic substance -- just 200 mg of fluoride ion is enough to kill a young child, and just 3-5 grams (e.g. a teaspoon) is enough to kill an adult. Both children (swallowing tablets/gels) and adults (accidents involving fluoridation equipment and filters on dialysis machines) have died from excess exposure.
46) Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation (see appendix 4).
47) The recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Dr. Arvid Carlsson (2000), was one of the leading opponents of fluoridation in Sweden, and part of the panel that recommended that the Swedish government reject the practice, which they did in 1971. According to Carlsson:
48) While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they cannot defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the US Environmental Protection Agency (Bryson 2004). According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, "Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view" (See appendix 5).
In light of proponents’ refusal to debate this issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, observed that "the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues" (Martin 1991).
50) The Union representing the scientists at US EPA headquarters in Washington DC is now on record as opposing water fluoridation (Hirzy 1999). According to the Union’s Senior Vice President, Dr. William Hirzy:
When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, invested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a fifty year delay. Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science not political expediency. They have a tool with which to do this: it's called the Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children's teeth have not suffered, while their public's trust has been strengthened.
It is like a question from a Kafka play. Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child's mouth?
For those who would call for further studies, I say fine. Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want. This folly must end without further delay.
Further arguments against fluoridation, can be viewed at http://www.fluoridealert.org. Arguments for fluoridation can be found at http://www.ada.org and a more systematic presentation of fluoride’s toxic effects can be found at http://www.Slweb.org/bibliography.html
I would like to acknowledge the help given to me in the research for this statement to my son Michael Connett and to Naomi Flack for the proofreading of the text. Any remaining mistakes are my own.
APPENDIX 1. World Health Organization Data
APPENDIX 2. Statements on fluoridation by governmental officials from several countries
Germany: "Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/germany.jpeg
France: "Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france.jpeg
Belgium: "This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-belgium.htm
Luxembourg: "Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000).www.fluoridealert.org/luxembourg.jpeg
Finland: "We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm
"Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual's right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of "force-feeding" was also mentioned.
Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water." (Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.) www.fluoridealert.org/finland.jpeg
Denmark: "We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated." (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm
Norway: "In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000).www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm
Sweden: "Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm
Netherlands: "From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn." (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm
Northern Ireland: "The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland." (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000).www.fluoridealert.org/Northern-Ireland.jpeg
Austria: "Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm
Czech Republic:"Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered as follows:
(a) uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)
(b) unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
(c) unethical ("forced medication")
(d) toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/czech.jpeg
APPENDIX 3. Statement of Douglas Carnall, Associate Editor of the British Medical Journal, published on the BMJ website (http://www.bmj.com ) on the day that they published the York Review on Fluoridation.
See this review on the web at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/904/a
British Medical Journal, October 7, 2000, Reviews, Website of the week: Water fluoridation
Fluoridation was a controversial topic even before Kubrick's Base Commander Ripper railed against "the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids" in the 1964 film Dr Strangelove. This week's BMJ shouldn't precipitate a global holocaust, but it does seem that Base Commander Ripper may have had a point. The systematic review published this week (p 855) shows that much of the evidence for fluoridation was derived from low quality studies, that its benefits may have been overstated, and that the risk to benefit ratio for the development of the commonest side effect (dental fluorosis, or mottling of the teeth) is rather high.
Supplementary materials are available on the BMJ 's website and on that of the review's authors, enhancing the validity of the conclusions through transparency of process. For example, the "frequently asked questions" page of the site explains who comprised the advisory panel and how they were chosen ("balanced to include those for and against, as well as those who are neutral"), and the site includes the minutes of their meetings. You can also pick up all 279 references in Word97 format, and tables of data in PDF. Such transparency is admirable and can only encourage rationality of debate.
Professionals who propose compulsory preventive measures for a whole population have a different weight of responsibility on their shoulders than those who respond to the requests of individuals for help. Previously neutral on the issue, I am now persuaded by the arguments that those who wish to take fluoride (like me) had better get it from toothpaste rather than the water supply (see www.derweb.co.uk/bfs/index.html and www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/index.html for the two viewpoints).
APPENDIX 4. List of 14 Noble Prize winners who have opposed or expressed reservations about fluoridation.
APPENDIX 5. Quotes on debating fluoridation from Dr. Michael Easley, Director of the National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research, and one of the most active proponents of fluoridation in the US (Easley 1999). Easley’s quotes typify the historic contempt that proponents have had to scientific debate.
This post includes a synopsis of a study published in the Journal of Neuroscience Research 2010 Nov 15;88(15):3361-75
Study title and authors:
Simvastatin interferes with process outgrowth and branching of oligodendrocytes.
Smolders I, Smets I, Maier O, vandeVen M, Steels P, Ameloot M. Biomedical Research Institute, School of Life Sciences, Hasselt University and Transnational University Limburg, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
This paper can be accessed at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20857509
Oligodendrocytes are a type of brain cell. They are the cell type that is predominantly affected in multiple sclerosis. Myelin is the protective sheath coating our nerve fibers. Any adverse effects on oligodendrocytes and myelin are detrimental and are implicated in multiple sclerosis.The study focused on the effects of stain drugs on oligodendrocytes and myelin.
The study found:
(a) Cholesterol is required for the growth of oligodendrocytes.
(b) Statins inhibited the growth of oligodendrocytes.
(c) Statins inhibited the growth of myelin.
To conclude: Statin treatment has detrimental effects on oligodendrocyte growth, which is the prior step in (re)myelination, and thereby inhibits the healing of multiple sclerosis lesions.
Read the full article here: http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/2011/04/statins-implicated-in-multiple.html