More good stuff from our friends at the Environmental Working Group. Here's a tip: don't give any plastic to your kid. Here's another one: don't mix food and plastic. The only thing I found in this piece that was a touch misleading is the bit about fragrances ... there are a few brands (like Suki Naturals) that list "fragrance" as an ingredient, but do not contain anything harmful. Their fragrances are 100% natural, like lavender. Your best bet is to check with the manufacturer.
Phthalates are a common industrial chemical used in PVC plastics, solvents, and synthetic fragrances. They've been around since the 1930's, and now they're pretty ubiquitous; when they tested 289 people in 2000, the CDC found phthalates in all of the subjects' blood at surprisingly high levels. They're often referred to as a plasticizer, which we think sounds rather like a kind of exercise to be done on the living-room floor in front of videos hosted by Jane Fonda. But we digress.
What are the possible health effects?
Phthalates are endocrine disruptors linked to problems of the reproductive system, including decreased sperm motility and concentration in men and genital abnormalities in baby boys. (Oh, and did you know that average sperm counts have decreased significantly since the 1940's?) More recently they've also been linked to asthma and allergies.
How can I minimize my exposure?
Avoid these, and you'll also be avoiding phthalates:
Nail polish:Dibutyl phthalate is often used to make nail polish chip-resistant. Look for it on the ingredients list, where it may be shortened to DBP.
Plastics in the kitchen: Take a critical eye to your cupboards. Phthalates may be more likely to leach out of plastic when it's heated, so avoid cooking or microwaving in plastic.
Vinyl toys: Phthalates are what make vinyl (PVC) toys soft, so don't give them to children. Opt instead for wooden and other phthalate-free toys, especially during that age when they put everything in their mouths!
Paint: Paints and other hobby products may contain phthalates as solvents, so be sure to use them in a well-ventilated space.
Fragrance:Diethyl phthalate (DEP) is often used as part of the "fragrance" in some products. Since DEP won't be listed separately, you're better off choosing personal care products, detergents, and cleansers that don't have the word "fragrance" on the ingredients list.
Vinyl: Vinyl shows up in a lot of different products; lawn furniture, garden hoses, building materials, and items of clothing (like some raincoats) are often sources. Aside from carefully choosing materials when you're making purchases, there is one easy change you can make: switch to a non-vinyl shower curtain. That "new shower curtain" smell (you know the one) is a result of chemical off-gassing, and it means your shower curtain is a source of phthalates in your home.
Sadly, this is a tiny percentage of the money Merck makes every day... ($24 BILLION in revenue last year). Let's hope that this settlement is one more step toward Merck paying for all the harm it has caused:
Merck agrees to $58-million settlement over Vioxx ad claims
From the Associated Press
2:05 PM PDT, May 20, 2008
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Merck & Co. has agreed to pay $58 million as part of a multistate settlement of allegations that its ads for the once-popular painkiller Vioxx deceptively played down the health risks.
The agreement announced today also calls for Merck to submit all new TV commercials for its drugs to the Food and Drug Administration for review before they can be aired.
The civil settlement ends a joint three-year investigation by 29 states and the District of Columbia into Merck's advertising practices involving Vioxx, Pennsylvania Atty. Gen. Tom Corbett said.
Vioxx was taken off the market in 2004 after research showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes. That triggered thousands of lawsuits against Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based Merck. A pending $4.85 billion settlement would end the bulk of those personal injury suits.
Thanks to aggressive marketing through direct-to-consumer television ads begun in 1999, hundreds of thousands of consumers demanded Vioxx prescriptions before doctors had a chance to understand the side effects, Corbett said.
"Consumers need clear information about the risks associated with prescription drugs so that they can make well-informed decisions about their health care," Corbett said.
The FDA does not require drug companies to submit advertisements for advance approval except in cases where it has pursued enforcement actions over false and misleading claims, agency spokeswoman Rita Chappelle said.
The agreement calls for Merck to submit all new TV commercials for its drugs to the FDA for review and follow through with any changes the agency recommends before airing them for seven years. Additionally, for a 10-year period Merck must comply with any FDA recommendations to delay television advertising for newly approved pain medications.
Merck is also prohibited from "ghostwriting," a practice in which people who worked for the company or were otherwise connected to it allegedly wrote positive articles and studies about Vioxx, Corbett said.
Merck is not admitting any wrongdoing under the settlement and defended its marketing of Vioxx in a statement Tuesday.
"Today's agreement enables Merck to put this matter behind us and focus on what Merck does best, developing new medicines," said Bruce Kuhlik, Merck's executive vice president and general counsel.
The Omnibus Autism Proceeding is divided into three theories of causation:
Thimerosal containing vaccines in combination with the MMR vaccine causes autism;
Thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism; and
The MMR vaccine causes autism.
The hearing on the first theory began June 11, 2007 at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on general causation as well as three test cases and proceedings concluded in Fall 2007. The second theory, that thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism, is set to begin in May 2008.
Just over 4,800 petitioners have filed claims alleging that vaccines caused their children's autism. The actions and decisions of the Court could have significant legal and public health implications.
CDC Statement regarding autism-related advertisement in USA Today
We know that autism is a heart-wrenching situation for many families and many children and it presents special challenges that we would certainly want to prevent and do anything we could to avoid. When it comes to the nation’s immunization recommendations, the CDC and Public Health Service are always guided by one overriding goal and interest—all our recommendations are designed to protect the health and well being of all children.
[NOT TRUE: RECOMMENDATIONS ARE DESIGNED TO FURTHER THE POLITICAL AIMS OF THE CDC, WHICH INCLUDE UNIVERSAL VACCINATION]
We are very disappointed in an advertisement that appears in today’s edition of USA Today. The advertisement completely mischaracterizes the efforts of CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine, and others to protect the health and well being of the nation’s children. CDC has sponsored multiple public meetings and scientific reviews, we’ve involved numerous outside organizations and experts in our research and recommendations, and we’ve made continued investments in research designed to discover factors which may place children at risk for developing autism. Importantly, if levels of thimerosal found in vaccines, including influenza vaccines, were associated with harm, CDC, the Public Health Service, and the nation’s physicians (e.g., the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and American Academy of Family Physicians) would not recommend their use.
[NOT TRUE: HOUSE RESOLUTION 881 AND SENATE BILL 1422 WERE DESIGNED TO PROTECT AMERICANS, ESPECIALLY PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN, FROM THE DANGERS OF MERCURY IN VACCINES, AND THE CDC CONTINUES TO DENY THAT MERCURY IS HARMFUL. SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL, FOR ONE, DISAGREES: CLICK HERE http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110query.html AND ENTER "MERCURY-FREE VACCINE ACT" FOR MORE INFORMATION]
We’ve made substantial progress in removing thimerosal from vaccines – and have done so without placing infants and children at risk for potentially serious vaccine preventable diseases. As we continue in our efforts to further reduce the use of thimerosal in vaccines, we must also ensure, particularly in the case of influenza, that our efforts do not create serious undesirable outcomes, such as vaccine shortages that would place people, including children, at risk. History has shown that disruptions in vaccine supplies can render the population more vulnerable to diseases we know we can prevent.
[MISLEADING: WE CAN PREVENT CHICKENPOX FOR A FEW YEARS WITH A VACCINE, BUT CHICKENPOX IS HARMLESS FOR NEARLY EVERY CHILD. WE CAN PREVENT ROTAVIRUS WITH A VACCINE, BUT (1) THE VACCINE CAN KILL YOU AND (2) ROTAVIRUS IS EXTREMELY RARE IN THE UNITED STATES. WE CAN PREVENT HEP B WITH A VACCINE, BUT WE CAN ALSO PREVENT IT WITH SAFE SEX PRACTICES AND CHOOSING NOT TO SHARE DRUG NEEDLES. VACCINES ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT DISEASES; THEY DO NOT ALWAYS WORK TO PREVENT DISEASES; THEY CAN CAUSE HARM, SUCH AS PARALYSIS VIA GUILLAIN-BARRE SYNDROME; IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT EVERY DISEASE SHOULD BE PREVENTED.]
We don't know, unfortunately, for children with autism what caused it, nor do we have sound, scientifically valid information on effective treatments. That's a fact. We just simply don't have answers to the cause of this disorder or the disorders that fall into the autism spectrum. We don't have a complete picture of the scope of the problem. We're just learning about the subtleties that can be early signs of autism, we're learning about the importance of early detection, and we're learning about the importance of early treatment, but we have a long way to go before we really understand the scope and magnitude of this problem in our country and what the trends really mean.
As we're looking for answers related to the causes and effective treatments for autism, we have to also be careful not to base our health recommendations on unproven hypotheses or fear. We have to base our decisions on the best available science that we have in front of us, and today the best available science indicates to us that vaccines save lives, and that's a very, very important message for all of us to remember.
["VACCINES SAV LIVES" IS A MANTRA, WHICH MEANS THAT IT'S AN EMPTY STATEMENT REPEATED AD INFINITUM. THE TRUTH IS THAT VACCINES CAUSE PLENTY OF DAMAGE: WWW.NVIC.ORG AND THAT A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL VACCINE SCHEDULE (INCLUDING MERCURY) IS THE SUREST WAY TO HARM AND KILL AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE.]
Check out this page from Every Child by Two, Rosalynn Carter's organization to shove vaccines down the throats (or into the arms) of every baby. ECBT wanted you to call your Congressman and ask him *not* to support the bill to ban mercury in vaccines. ECBT was scared that somehow we'd run out of vaccines ... instead of (what a reasonable person would expect) forcing vaccine manufacturers to make a clean(er) product. Imagine if there were mercury in toothpaste. Would your dentist tell you to support the production of mercury-laden toothpaste out of fear that there would be no more toothpaste for anyone? Hell, no. He'd ask you to support legislation to get toothpaste manufacturers to make toothpaste without a neurotoxin in it. Good God. This should not even be a subject for debate.
The Mercury-Free Vaccines Act of 2005 (H.R. 881) was introduced in the House by Representative Dave Weldon (R-FL) and now has 72 co-sponsors. This bill amends language within the Public Health Service Act to essentially ban all vaccines that contain one or more microgram of mercury in any form beginning July 2006. Included in the bill are specific prohibitions for the administration of influenza vaccine to children and pregnant women. Exceptions have been included in the bill in the case of “public health emergencies or bioterrorism events.” Vaccine advocates nationwide fear the repercussions of passage of this bill and strongly urge you to contact your legislator to urge him/her not to support either the House (H.R. 881) or the Senate version (S.1422) of these bills. In the likelihood that you are unable to speak directly with your Senator or Representative, request to speak with the staff person who deals with vaccine-related issues. Describe why you are calling and ask about your Congressperson’s position on the Mercury-Free Vaccines Act. Request that a message be given to your Senator/Representative about your opposition to H.R. 881 or S.1422 along with your specific concerns. To view the actual bills or find your Representatives/Senators go to the Library of Congress’ Legislative website at http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type in the bill number under the bill search.
This is unforgivable. This old article (from 1993) shows how George H. W. Bush and Hillary Clinton gave a one-two vaccination punch that sent autism rates skyrocketing. The eerie part is that the article was written *before* it happened.
Check out this particular section: "a Bush-appointed group of federal, state, local and private organizations developed "Standards for Pediatric Immunization Practices" based on the recommendations of the Public Health Service's National Vaccine Advisory Committee.
"The standards suggest keeping clinics open during off-hours and weekends; vaccinating children on a walk-in basis, thereby eliminating the need for scheduling appointments; forgoing the requirement of comprehensive physical examinations before administering vaccines; vaccinating children who come to a clinic for services other than a vaccine or who accompany other family members; and administering in a single visit all vaccinations for which a child is eligible."
Vaccinate kids without examining them! Vaccinate kids who come to a clinic because they're sick! What great ideas! Thank you, George Bush! You're almost as dumb as your son. And Hillary--you didn't think this went far enough?
Vote for Obama. Vote for McCain. Write in Ron Paul or Ralph Nader. Just don't give this woman a chance to do any more vaccine damage to our kids.
It's Mrs. Clinton's shot at an inoculation cure - Hillary Rodham Clinton's effort to supply childhood vaccines to every pre-school child
Insight on the News, Feb 22, 1993 by Elena Neuman
Summary: George Bush poured money into getting more preschoolers vaccinated, but the effort was criticized as meager, and some experts question whether greater spending is even the right prescription. Now Hillary Clinton will get her turn at a chronic national problem.
In a little-publicized 1991 media event, Arkansas's first lady blasted the Bush administration for its purported failure to pay for adequate supplies of childhood vaccines.
"That has always been one of the most inexplicable positions taken by the administration over the years," said Hillary Clinton from a podium she shared with Jocelyn Elders, who has been picked to become the new surgeon general. "Because if preventative health care is a positive thing, what better way than through immunization?" She revisited the subject at a Nov. 18 appearance before the Children's Defense Fund, the advocacy group she once led. "We owe our children more than we've been giving them," she declared. "What on earth could be more important than making sure that every child has the chance to be born healthy, to receive immunizations and health care as that child grows?"
Now the nation's first lady, appointed by her husband to lead his planned overhaul of the nation's health care system, Mrs. Clinton is in a position to follow through on these complaints. And a plan to federally fund all childhood vaccines will reportedly be the administration's first health care reform. If childhood immunization is less than universal because of neglect by penny-pinching Republicans in the White House, as the Clinton campaign charged, then giving children the medical attention they deserve is one campaign promise that should be easy to fulfill.
According to the most quoted statistics, compiled by UNICEF and the Children's Defense Fund, the United States ranks 17th in the world - behind countries like Albania, Poland, Mexico and Pakistan - for the percentage of 1-year-olds who have been vaccinated against polio.
A Children's Defense Fund survey this past summer found that most states report preschool vaccination coverage levels below 60 percent; in cities such as Los Angeles, Houston, Cleveland and Chicago, fewer than 50 percent of children under age 2 have received shots to prevent measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough) and other childhood diseases, the report said.
Childhood immunization has been a hot issue since 1989, when it attracted national media attention because of an outbreak of measles - a disease all but wiped out in 1983. Infections of whooping cough also rose in the late eighties, primarily due to parents forgoing DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) shots for their children after media reports that the vaccine caused serious adverse reactions, even death.
The Bush record on children's health was thus an open target for liberal criticism. In an opinion piece in the Washington Post less than a month before the election, commentator Michael Kinsley said the issue was a touchstone distinguishing Bush voters from Clinton voters. Describing the problem as an "aspect of the general decline of national wellbeing that snuck up on us while we were partying in the 1980s," he laid the blame at the doorstep of "people with no faith in the power of government to do good." What made him a Democrat, Kinsley offered, was his feeling that "as a citizen of the richest country in the world, this is a problem I shouldn't have to worry about. And I wish we had a president who would take whatever action, and spend whatever money, is necessarry to solve it."
Samuel Katz, a professor of pediatrics at Duke University Medical Center and the chairman of the Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, echoed this analysis in late December and urged Bill Clinton to be the president Kinsley had wished for. "With the de-emphasis on federal support originating during the Reagan years and continuing through the Bush administration, problems have undermined the nation's mandate to protect its children "he wrote in a Scripps Howard column. "Childhood vaccination must be a sure bet. President Bush's health-care promises proved empty. They let down the innocent children among us. Let's hope Bill Clinton's medical agenda puts the nation's future - its children - first and foremost."
Even Hollywood has thrown its weight behind the call for greater efforts at childhood immunization. In 1991, Steven Spielberg, Kate Capshaw, Henry Winkler, Bill Cosby and a host of entertainment executives and producers formed the Children's Action Network, in association with the American Academy of Pediatrics, to launch a full- scale immunization awareness drive.
Despite this seeming unanimity of liberal opinion, however, the Clintons may have a tough time living up to expectations. The indictment of the Bush administration for inaction on immunization left out two stubborn facts: Federal efforts have hardly been lacking; and the problem is more complicated than it has been portrayed.
Advocates of a full federal offensive have emphasized the Bush administration's failure to propose spending as much as Congress appropriated. Left out is the fact that spending on childhood preventive medicine may have been the fastest growing federal budget line in the Bush years - increasing by 250 percent.
Federal spending on immunization in fiscal 1988 was $98 million; in fiscal 1992 it was $297 million; and for fiscal 1993, which began Oct. 1, Bush requested $349 million. During those years, funding for two new vaccines, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenza type b, plus a booster shot for measles, mumps and rubella was added to the budget. Nor were federal efforts limited to increased funding. In 1991, Bush directed his top health officials to do a six-month study of six major urban centers to determine how the national immunization rate could be improved; upon receiving the panel's suggestions to make public clinics more user-friendly, he approved an additional $46 million to support vaccine distribution and education, quite apart from vaccine supply.
Vaccine "one-stop shopping" centers and immunization "express lanes" were planned for inner cities; plans were drawn up to consolidate government aid centers with public clinics to make it easier for poor parents to have their preschool children immunized at the same time as and in the same office where they applied for food stamps or welfare benefits.
These policy moves were "innovative and unusual. An important first step " says Linda Talbott, executive director of Every Child by Two, an advocacy organization for children's immunization founded by former first lady Rosalynn Carter and Betty Bumpers, wife of Arkansas Sen. Dale Bumpers. It was the first time since a federal immunization grant program was authorized in 1962 that money was allotted for functions other than the purchase of vaccines, and health care professionals applauded.
Almost without exception, Democrats on Capitol Hill criticized the policy, not on its merits but as too little, too late, or as a Band- Aid approach. "We don't need a six-city road show to study the problem"' said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. "We need a general federal commitment to see that every child is immunized" Katz told the Los Angeles Daily News that Bush had "finked out" on children.
Now, former Bush health officials profess amazement at the way a massive budget increase, coupled with policy innovations, was turned into a political liability. "The notion that there haven't been enormous increases in public health service funding, distribution and services during the Bush administration simply belies the fact of what's happened - during a time when there was a great deal of constraint over the general federal spending," says Kevin Moley, former deputy secretary of health and human services.
Moley, like other Bush officials, ridicules the notion that the international rankings of UNICEF are reliable - that statistics from, say, Pakistan or Albania are reported accurately. "After all this talk, are [the Clinton people] prepared to match the percentage increases the Bush administration put through in such areas as immunization for children, Head Start and AIDS? ... I don't know where they're going to get the money to do this unless they dramatically increase taxes or the deficit." That may in fact be the plan. The Children's Defense Fund advocates tripling spending - to $1 billion - for a universal immunization purchase program in which all vaccines, for both public clinics and private physicians, would be federally funded.
Given Mrs. Clinton's close ties to the organization, it's not surprising that the idea is being seriously considered. And although the Clinton administration says it has not quite figured out how to pay for the expensive federal program, higher taxes would in fact be consistent with a campaign speech that Clinton delivered to a convention of the American Association of Retired Persons in June in San Antonio, Texas. He said he planned to raise taxes on people making more than $200,000 to pay for specific programs - among them prenatal health care and immunization for all preschoolers.
The problem is that with all the money that has been poured into the immunization program in the past four years and with the restructuring of the program, there has not been a corresponding improvement in rates at which preschoolers get their shots. While measles has been brought under control, some experts attribute its demise to the natural run of an epidemiological cycle rather than any Public Health Service action.
Some immunization experts insist that to fully immunize the nation's children, particularly children in poverty, the issue is less one of how much the federal government is willing to spend than of how willing the government is to be paternalistic when parents are irresponsible.
According to Walter Orenstein, director of the department of immunization at the federal Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, the chief cause of the measles resurgence "was not a problem with vaccine supply, but a problem with delivery of services and parents' lack of knowledge about the vaccine schedule."
But when William Roper, the Bush-appointed director of the Centers for Disease Control, suggested in 1991 that parents might share the blame for vaccination rates, he was denounced as being politically insensitive. His suggestion was to make welfare checks to mothers contingent upon immunization of their preschoolers, just as public school admission has since the 1970s required full vaccination. (It is for this reason that the immunization rate of schoolage children is nearly 100 percent.)
"We all know that spending money and having coverage is not the only problem that we have to deal with, but we're not allowed to say it"' says Gail Wilensky, former special assistant to Bush for health care. "We need to get people to engage in more responsible behavior when it comes to their children. We need to stop pretending that this is just a financing health care problem."
Moley says, "You've got crack-addicted mothers trying to survive day by day whose last thought in the world is getting their children properly immunized. But God forbid anyone should suggest that parental irresponsibility and bad behavior are a factor here."
Joseph Liu, a senior associate and health care specialist at the Children's Defense Fund, has been one of the most vocal opponents of this view. To him it's more a matter of parental ignorance (and a large dose of Republican mishandling) than of irresponsibility. "You can go to almost any very concerned, very involved parent and ask them what's the immunization schedule that their child needs from birth to age 4, and you won't find single parent out of a hundred that has the ability to recite that schedule," he says.
In the past, pediatricians kept track of immunizations and informed parents of when to bring their children in. Today, says Liu, many families don't have such a relationship with a pediatrician. Parents just don't know what they're supposed to be doing.
In addition, points out Judith Shea of the National Association of Community Health Centers, the system of public immunization is too diffuse. "There isn't a coordinated system throughout the states," she says. "The communication among all the entities administering public vaccines is not as fluid as it should be." Public clinics are often disorganized, require long waits and the scheduling of appointments weeks or months in advance, and aren't open at hours that working parents can manage.
Recent studies also have found clinics to be burdened by an ever- increasing clientele. A 1991 survey of Dallas-area pediatricians and family practitioners published in Pediatrics magazine found that more than 70 percent referred some of their patients to public clinics rather than administer the vaccines themselves. And a Milwaukee study found that children not covered by health insurance were far more likely to be sent by their doctors to public clinics. (Only half of private insurance plans cover the cost of immunization.) Although there hasn't been a problem with vaccine supply in the clinics, the increased use has led to longer waits for appointments and in waiting rooms.
The rectify these problems, a Bush-appointed group of federal, state, local and private organizations developed "Standards for Pediatric Immunization Practices" based on the recommendations of the Public Health Service's National Vaccine Advisory Committee.
The standards suggest keeping clinics open during off-hours and weekends; vaccinating children on a walk-in basis, thereby eliminating the need for scheduling appointments; forgoing the requirement of comprehensive physical examinations before administering vaccines; vaccinating children who come to a clinic for services other than a vaccine or who accompany other family members; and administering in a single visit all vaccinations for which a child is eligible.
"We're trying to do a better job of making our clinical services user- friendly," says Orenstein of the CDC.
"It's very clear that we have to work with the public and private sector to do this. It isn't simply a matter of just education. It's an issue of trying to make the services as pleasant as possible, to reduce clinic waits and to not require appointments all the time." Sen. Donald Riegle, a Michigan Democrat, is introducing legislation - the Comprehensive Child Health Immunization Act - that seeks to implement the standards as a matter of federal law.
Optimism about the new standards is not unanimous, however. Jan Erickson, executive director of the National Vaccine Information Center, says the elimination of comprehensive physicals and the simultaneous inoculation of siblings would lead to an increase in adverse reactions to vaccines.
"There are a host of reasons that we shouldn't lessen the restrictions. We should, in fact, tighten them up," she says. "The intent of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was to make vaccines safer, so these standards really fly against Congress's intent in passing that law, which still now should form the basis of any federal policy about immunization campaigns."
Erickson is referring to a law passed in 1986 in response to a number of serious neurological reactions and deaths from the whooping cough vaccine. A slew of lawsuits against the manufacturers of the vaccine threatened to put them out of business and jeopardized the nation's vaccine supply. They also sent the prices of most vaccines skyrocketing. The price of the DTP vaccine, for example, has risen 5,147 percent from its low of 19 cents a dose in 1977 to $9.97 in 1992. The 1986 law partially rectified the crisis by legislating medical precautions for administering vaccines as well as a publicly financed vaccine injury compensation fund to eliminate the need for outside litigation against the companies.
"The at-risk indicators for a vaccine adverse reaction are if there has been a history in that family among siblings or very close relatives of having had an adverse reaction," says Erickson. "So the recommendation of giving siblings simultaneous vaccinations seems misguided. Having some sort of sequenced pattern to having siblings receive vaccinations makes a lot more sense. But really the most risk is introduced by not having competent medical professionals do the exams, the screening and admininistering of the vaccinations. Doctors are not well-trained enough to diagnose adverse reactions, and if doctors aren't well-trained enough, you can certainly imagine that other persons without the professional training, what their deficiencies would be in recognizing adverse reactions,"
The National Vaccine Information Center, an advocacy group for families of children injured by vaccines, has tracked 360 deaths and 17,221 other serious adverse reactions due to vaccinations in the 20 months leading up to July 1992. This, they say, represents only a fraction of the number of adverse reactions. (The CDC and many pediatricians and neurologists, on the other hand, question whether vaccines are the true cause of all these injuries and deaths.)
Erickson, Orenstein and other immunization professionals further question the universal vaccine purchase program promoted by the Children's Defense Fund, the American Association of Pediatrics and other heath care organizations. While Orenstein concedes that universal purchase would prevent fragmentation of care while also stopping the overuse of public clinics by children who are normally treated by private physicians, he says he wonders whether such an expensive solution would solve the problem of low vaccination rates in the inner cities.
"We still will need to improve our health care delivery capacities in the inner cities," he says. "We shouldn't think that buying the vaccines will somehow get a kid in Harlem vaccinated. Moreover, will vaccine manufacturers drop out of the market as a result of universal purchase? That is a potential threat. Will they invest the same amount of money in research? That is not clear." Vaccine manufacturers expressed just these concerns upon receiving word of Clinton's universal purchase plans, and the CDC is currently funding a study to determine the benefits and risks of universal purchase. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, however, seems to suggest that universal purchase would not solve the nation's preschool immunization problem.
The study found that in caring for the uninsured and underinsured, expanded free or subsidized health care for low-income pregnant women was not associated with an improvement in access to prenatal care or in birth outcomes. Between 1984 and 1987, the study reported, the rate of Massachusetts women who received prenatal care declined, even as public care received increased funding.
"The Clinton people have a lot to learn on this issue, and they've just been following a very knee-jerk kind of reaction"' says Erickson. "They think that universal immunization is a great thing to do for children, when in fact it really is a very poor effort at trying to safeguard children's health."
Immunization of preschoolers may prove to be one of those problems that everyone - Democrat and Republican alike - would like to solve, but that can't be solved by money alone.
Bush tried his hand at it for four years. Now it's Clinton's turn.
COPYRIGHT 1993 News World Communications, Inc. COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
Autism Spectrum Disorders in Relation to Distribution of Hazardous Air Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area
Gayle C. Windham,1 Lixia Zhang,2 Robert Gunier,1 Lisa A. Croen,3 and Judith K. Grether1
1Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control, California Department of Health Services, Richmond, California, USA; 2Impact Assessment, Inc., La Jolla, California, USA; 3Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program Division of Research, Oakland, California, USA
Abstract Objective: To explore possible associations between autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and environmental exposures, we linked the California autism surveillance system to estimated hazardous air pollutant (HAP) concentrations compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Methods: Subjects included 284 children with ASD and 657 controls, born in 1994 in the San Francisco Bay area. We assigned exposure level by census tract of birth residence for 19 chemicals we identified as potential neurotoxicants, developmental toxicants, and/or endocrine disruptors from the 1996 HAPs database. Because concentrations of many of these were highly correlated, we combined the chemicals into mechanistic and structural groups, calculating summary index scores. We calculated ASD risk in the upper quartiles of these group scores or individual chemical concentrations compared with below the median, adjusting for demographic factors.
Results: The adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were elevated by 50% in the top quartile of chlorinated solvents and heavy metals [95% confidence intervals (CIs) , 1.1–2.1], but not for aromatic solvents. Adjusting for these three groups simultaneously led to decreased risks for the solvents and increased risk for metals (AORs for metals: fourth quartile = 1.7 ; 95% CI, 1.0–3.0 ; third quartile = 1.95 ; 95% CI, 1.2–3.1) . The individual compounds that contributed most to these associations included mercury, cadmium, nickel, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride.
Conclusions: Our results suggest a potential association between autism and estimated metal concentrations, and possibly solvents, in ambient air around the birth residence, requiring confirmation and more refined exposure assessment in future studies.
One third of American honeybees have disappeared over the last two years. As I previously reported, and as Wikipedia reports, Bayer's pesticide Imidacloprid (marketed as Gaucho) is responsible for the massive honeybee die-offs around the world. Yet another reason to support (and practice) organic gardening.
What You Can Do in Your Backyard Replace some of your lawn with flower beds.
Plant native plant species, which are well-suited for local bee populations. A wealth of honeybee resources -- including a free Pollinator Garden Wheel and a poster depicting North American bee species -- are available at pollinator.org.
Reduce or eliminate pesticides and insecticides in the garden whenever possible. Visit organicgardening.com for eco-friendly alternatives.
Choose plants that flower at various stages in the growing season to provide a consistent source of food for pollinators. For a free packet of bee-friendly flower seeds, visit burtsbees.com.
Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide produced by the chemical firm Bayer AG. In France it was sold under the name Gaucho and its use is highly controversial as it is believed to be responsible for high losses in bees. According to the National Union of French Beekeepers (UNAF), the number of hives in France has plummeted to one million in 2003, from 1.45 million in 1996. Between 1995 and 2001, the average production of honey went from 75 kg/hive down to 30 kg/hive. The AFFSA (equivalent of the US FDA) indicate the national production went down from 40,000 tons to 25,000 tons per year.
French beekeepers claim that Imidacloprid, as a seed treatment for sunflowers, has killed many bees and caused a significant drop in honey production. Some requested that systemic insecticide use be withdrawn from crops where bees might be affected, while others called for a complete ban on its use.
In France, Imidacloprid started being used in 1994 as a seed-coating for sunflowers. The following years, some beekeepers mentioned the possibility of a relationship between the pesticide and some behavioral troubles in bees. Bayer CropScience made some studies on the topic, which concluded Gaucho was non-toxic to bees. At this point, most discussions were kept rather private between Bayer and beekeeper associations.
However, during summer 1997, heavy losses of bees were observed in several regions of France and the controversy became public.
In 1998 a French official study was conducted with the goal to determine whether Imidacloprid was responsible for the bee population decrease, as well as the reduction in honey production during the flowering season of sunflowers.
Ecotoxicology studies had to define the living being in danger (the bees), to define the chemical concerned (imidacloprid), to evaluate the quantity necessary to kill the living being with the chemical, and to define the concentrations at which there is no detrimental effects on the living being.
In the case of the accusations against Imidacloprid, the issue is not the direct death of the bees, but behavioral changes such as disorientation, feeding problems, and communication disturbance. Initial studies were aimed at determining the minimal amount for which bees showed these behavioral changes.
The study, led by AFSSA, in four different areas showed no differences in terms of bees behavior, mortality, evolution of the beehives, and honey harvest with or without Imidacloprid.
A study led by Wilhelm Drescher in 1998 from the University of Bonn on the activity of bees in sunflower fields in western France concluded that no results could prove Imidacloprid, used on sunflower seeds, had a detrimental effect on bees. It also mentioned that other possibilities, such as viral diseases vectored by Varroamites (the populations of such being on the rise since 1996 due to appearance of resistance to acaricides). It essentially concluded that the French bee loss was not linked to imidacloprid but to a viral disease or a spiroplasma in bees which produces similar symptoms.
In parallel several studies have been conducted by Bayer CropScience to evaluate the risk for bees related to the use of Imidacloprid on sunflowers.
Bayer claimed that several studies had been made in open air as well as in greenhouses in Argentina, Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, Sweden, South Africa, Hungary, and the United States, and that all those studies confirmed Imidacloprid was not dangerous to bees.
Bayer also claimed that other arguments may be provided to explain the loss of bees. They indicated that in a study led in 1975 (Wilson, Menapace), bee decline had been obverved in 27 American states. Most disappearances were seen in wet and fresh spring. Inspectors mentioned a disease, famines, unusually wet and fresh weather, diarrhea, lack of pollen, dead queens, genetic defaults, and stress.
Another study by Kulincevic et al. in 1983 mentioned that the primary reason for malnutrition in bees is an insufficient pollen offer. It was mentioned that modern techniques could help by offering food substitutes to bees, but that poor substitutes (such as soy) could provoke bees' decline.
[edit]Imidacloprid banned as a sunflower seed treatment in 1999
Finally, Jean Glavany, Minister of Agriculture in the French government, used the precautionary principle and decided to withdraw the use of imidacloprid as a sunflower seed treatment in 1999. Bayer scientists denied again that the product was responsible for the colonies' death in a meeting in 2000.
Jean Glavany renewed the ban in 2001 for two additional years and asked a panel of experts to make a complete epidemiological study to try to figure out all the factors that might explain bees' decline, still observed during these years.
At the end of 1998, studies indicated there were no effects, but doses were very small and unmeasurable in the laboratory. A second set of studies was lauched in 1999, to quantify:
toxicity of the product (imidacloprid) on bees
remanence of the product in soil
quantities in plants
Bayer CropScience results show that the maximal dose for which no effect was observed was 20 ppb, while the amount of residue in parts of the plant available to the insect (aerial parts) was below 1.5 ppb. They concluded bees could not be in contact with high enough concentrations to be able to be affected by the pesticides, and that the sunflower seed treatment was risk-free for bees.
The "Commission des Toxiques" brought these conclusions in 2001:
imidacloprid answers European legislation in terms of soil remanence, and does not accumulate in soils
residues may be found in plants cultivated after a sunflower whose seeds where treated by Imidacloprid. Residues were found only in parts to which bees are not exposed (such as leaves). No residue was found in the pollen of untreated sunflowers.
The commission concluded that it had no serious indicators suggesting Imidacloprid might be dangerous to bees. However, the commission suggested a risk could exist with seed-treated corn pollen.
Gerard Eyries, marketing manager for Bayer's agricultural division in France, was cited saying studies confirmed that Imidacloprid left a small residue in nectar and pollen, but there was no evidence of a link with the drop in France's bee population, adding, "It is impossible to have zero residue. What is important is to know whether the very tiny quantities which have been found have a negative effect on bees." He also added that the product was sold in 70 countries with no reported side effects.
Other studies[citation needed] indicated that concentrations were especially high when the plant is young. These would often be of
10 to 20 ppb in upper leaves
100 to 200 ppb in other leaves
less than 1.5 ppb in nectar
2 to 3 ppb in pollen
Bayer then agreed that the insecticide may cause disorientation of bees at levels above 20 parts per billion of the active ingredient. Recent studies[citation needed] by researchers at the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) suggest that bee behaviour is affected at levels between 3-16 ppb or possibly even 0.5 ppb.
In 2001, Bayer also brought a judicial case against Maurice Mary, one of the leaders of the French association of beekeepers for disparagement of the chemical Imidacloprid. The action was dismissed by the judge in May 2003.
In 2003, agricultural Minister Jean Glavany again extended the suspension of the use of Imidacloprid on sunflower seeds.
In spite of a 4 year ban already on sunflower seeds treatment, a significant drop in bee individuals is still observed. Beekeepers were cited as saying the measure was insufficient, as studies found that Imidacloprid left a residue which meant that even after two years, plants sowed on the same spot as the crop originally treated contained traces of the product.
Some also suggest that the bee colony losses could also be due to the use of imidacloprid on corn as well, or by the replacement of it by another systemic insecticide called Fipronil. Indeed in May 2003, the DGAL (Direction Générale de l'Alimentation du ministère de l'Agriculture ) indicated death of bees observed in the south of the country had been caused by acute toxicity by Fipronil (as the active chemical in the systemic insecticide called Regent), while it was recognised Imidacloprid had no responsibility in the bees death. Some national field studies are currently under way (2003) to assert the responsibility of Imidacloprid.
A similar battle is occurring in Nova Scotia, where beekeepers are accusing Imidacloprid used on potatoes for massive losses of bees needed for blueberrypollination.[1]
Bernadine Healy, MD, is the former head of the NIH. She says the US government has been too quick to dismiss the link between vaccines and autism. Let's urge our congressmen to pass House Resolution 2832!
CBS) CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson wrote this story for CBSNews.com.
Jordan King was a typical baby. His parents called him vocal and vivacious.
Then just before age 2, after a large battery of vaccinations, he simply withdrew from the world.
"The real scary thing was when I noticed he wasn't looking at us any more in the eyes," Mylinda King, Jordan's mother, said.
William Mead was a Pottery Barn baby model and met all the typical milestones. Then, also at age 2, after a set of vaccinations, William became very ill and he, too, changed forever.
At first, both sets of parents suspected hearing problems.
"The reason we had him tested for a hearing deficit was 'cause he wouldn't respond to us," Mead said. "He no longer used any of his language."
"We had him tested for deafness, it was that bad," King said. "I mean, you could slam a book on the floor and he wouldn't turn around to see what the sound was. It was like he was in this bubble of somewhere else, like he'd left the planet or something."
Doctors said it wasn’t a hearing problem … it was the brain disorder autism.
In both children, batteries of tests revealed dangerous levels of the brain toxin mercury in their systems. Their only known exposure: the mercury preservative once widely used in childhood shots.
"Our doctor, Dr. Green, said 'you can stop looking for sources'," King said. "I know where it came from and it was … when he told us it was the vaccines, you just can't believe it."
Now, William and Jordan are two test cases among nearly 5,000 autism claims filed in federal vaccine court. Most claim that mercury, or MMR shots, or both, resulted in their children’s autism.
Government officials and many scientists insist there’s nothing about vaccines that can lead to autism.
"I think it's important for the average parent to know that the government hasn't made a link between vaccines and autism," said Dr. Anne Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control.
Dr. Bernadine Healy is the former head of the National Institutes of Health, and the most well-known medical voice yet to break with her colleagues on the vaccine-autism question.
In an exclusive interview with CBS News, Healy said the question is still open.
"I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational," Healy said.
"But public health officials have been saying they know, they've been implying to the public there's enough evidence and they know it's not causal," Attkisson said.
"I think you can't say that," Healy said. "You can't say that."
Courageous Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) has repeatedly introduced a bill to compare the incidence of autism in two populations: vaccinated and unvaccinated. Most elected officials are on the take from Big Pharma, so the bill hasn't gotten enough traction to get voted into law, but I applaud Congresswoman Maloney's efforts, and I hope she can finally get this thing through Congress. Keep trying, Carolyn! We're behind you. (As a former constituent of yours, I'm even more behind you!)
Everyone should write his own Congressman and ask him to support this critical piece of legislation.
Legislation Aims to Resolve Thimerosal Controversy
Maloney Introduces Bill to Require Comprehensive Study to Resolve the Question of a Possible Link between Mercury and Autism
WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced the “Comprehensive Comparative Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Populations Act of 2007” (H.R. 2832), legislation that would require the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct a comprehensive comparative study of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, which may resolve the controversy about the possible link between autism and mercury or other vaccine components (click here for text of the legislation).
Many parents have raised concerns about the effect that thimerosal, which was widely used as a preservative in vaccines and is made of mercury - a known neurotoxin, may have had on a child’s chances of developing autism and other neurological disorders. The study mandated by this new legislation would try to help resolve this controversy once and for all.
“Vaccines have been instrumental in reducing the incidence of many once-common diseases, but we owe it to parents and children to study and resolve the question of the possible link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism,” said Maloney. “What is ultimately needed to resolve this issue one way or the other is a comprehensive national study comparing outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. As the most scientifically advanced country in the world, we should be jumping at the chance to conduct a comprehensive national study to resolve the questions that have been raised. Parents deserve answers, and children deserve no less than absolutely certainty and safety.”
“The time has come to put the questions about thimerosal behind us and get some concrete answers about possible dangers associated with this vaccine preservative. Vaccines are critical to protecting public health, but we must know for certain that at the same time doctors are providing children with life-saving medicine that they are not also exposing them to a substance that could make them more prone to developing autism. As the world leader in medical research, it is incumbent upon the United States to take the lead on this matter and launch a comprehensive study on thimerosal so we can make smarter decisions about vaccines in the future,” said Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), an original co-sponsor of the bill. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is the bill’s other original co-sponsor.
This week, Generation Rescue is releasing a phone survey that offers a preliminary look at vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. According to Generation Rescue co-founder J.B. Handley, “Our study was meant to highlight the critical importance of the research required by H.R. 2832. A sound study like the one proposed in the bill is needed to help resolve the issue of whether there is a link between vaccines and autism.”
In the past, those who claim the preservative thimerosal has no effect on children have also claimed that a comprehensive study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations could not be done in the United States because there was not a big enough unvaccinated population with which to compare the general vaccinated population. However, Dan Olmsted of UPI wrote a series of articles about the autism epidemic that identified a number of populations suitable for study, including: the Amish; children whose parents don’t vaccinate for religious reasons; patients of Homefirst, an alternative medical practice in Chicago that does not vaccinate; and others. The Maloney legislation proposes comparing vaccinated populations with unvaccinated populations such as these.
A broad spectrum of vaccines containing thimerosal was manufactured for domestic use until 1999, and the nation’s inventory of vaccines included some containing thimerosal for several years afterwards. Thimerosal is still used in most flu vaccines, and it remains in most vaccines administered to children in the developing world.
Maloney also introduced a bill with Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL) last year that would give responsibility for the nation’s vaccine safety to an independent agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, removing most vaccine safety research from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Currently, the CDC has responsibility for both vaccine safety and vaccine promotion, which is an inherent conflict of interest that is increasingly garnering public criticism. Click here for more information.
Great for helping with allergies and as an antibiotic. However, children under one year of age are susceptible to the botulinum toxin that can be in honey, and should not eat it.
My daughter is now 7 months old. I have been adding locally produced honey to my daughter's food to help with her allergies. In my opinion, this has decreased her allergy like symptoms. My wife and I have had great success decreasing our allergies with this practice. I was told that honey can hurt an infant. Is this true? Mark Torrans Pineville, Louisiana
Mark, your care for your daughter comes through clearly in your question. Taking the initiative with preventive measures to insure her health and comfort is a very loving act. Getting information regarding the safety and efficacy of these preventive measures is very wise indeed, and may save your daughter's life.
Like you, I have heard claims that wild honey might reduce allergy symptoms. In fact, today in a local supermarket I saw a jar labeled "100% Natural Raw Honey, Unfiltered Unblended." This product went on to promise great health benefits.
And indeed, careful scientific study has recognized great medicinal value in honey. Honey has significant, known antibiotic properties (Journal of Pharmacology, Nov 1996). Honey is also a traditional remedy for upset stomach. It has now been proven to prevent the growth of Helicobacter pylori in the stomach -- the organism responsible for many ulcers and much abdominal discomfort (J R Soc Med, Jan 1994). Honey also reduces the gastritis caused by drinking too much alcohol (Scandinavian Journal of Gastoenterology, Mar 1991).
Honey has been proven to decrease the cancer-producing effects of many carcinogens, and to be effective in eradicating yeast (Cytologic Genetics, Nov-Dec 1996). Topical honey is known to be useful in treating gangrene, preventing both death and amputation (Surgery, Feb 1993). Burns heal faster when treated with honey than when treated with OpSite burn dressings (British Journal of Plastic Surgery, Jun 1993). There is also less pain, less scarring, and fewer contractures when burns are treated with honey rather than with Silvadene dressings (British Journal of Surgery, Apr 1991). In Russia, honey was even proven to effectively preserve vision when cataracts begin to form in the elderly (Vestn Oftalmol, Nov-Dec 1990). Honey is an amazing substance -- but ...
As it turns out, NOT giving your daughter honey while she is an infant is an important preventive health measure. It may save her life.
The concern is with infant botulism.
Botulinum spores are found widely in soil, dust, and honey. Adults who swallow botulinum spores are almost never affected. When infants swallow the spores, however, the spores can germinate in their immature gastrointestinal tracts and begin producing botulinum toxin. This has occurred even when the honey was only used to sweeten a pacifier (EuropeanJournal of Epidemiology, Nov 1993).
Botulinum toxin is the most poisonous natural substance known to man. The lethal dose is only 1/10,000,000 mg per kg of body weight -- an amount that would be invisible to the naked eye. This tiny amount in the blood stream can cause death within minutes through paralysis of the muscles used in breathing.
Infant botulism has been found on every continent except Africa. In the United States it is most common in the states of California, Utah, and Pennsylvania. While infant botulism can occur from taking in soil or dust (especially vacuum cleaner-bag dust), eating honey is the number one preventable cause. Corn syrups are not sterilized and may also be a source of contamination (The AAP Red Book, 2000).
Infant botulism can occur any time in the first year of life, but like SIDS it is most common in the first six months. In fact it has been suggested as the cause of death in up to 10% of SIDS cases (NelsonTextbook of Pediatrics; Saunders 1992).
Thankfully, in most instances of infant botulism, the amount of toxin is so incredibly minuscule that the case remains mild. For this reason it is often misdiagnosed.
The first symptom of infant botulism is constipation (which is also a common benign finding in many infants). This can appear 3 to 30 days following ingesting spore-containing honey (The AAP Red Book, 2000). Typically, the parents then observe increasing listlessness, decreased appetite, and weakened cry over the next several days. Nursing mothers often report new engorgement. Sometimes this is the full extent of the disease. If the disease progresses, however, the child moves less and less and might begin to drool from the mouth. Gagging and sucking reflexes diminish. Loss of previous head control is also an important sign. Complete respiratory arrest can occur either suddenly or gradually.
If an otherwise healthy baby develops constipation, followed by weakness and difficulty in sucking, crying, or breathing, then infant botulism should be considered the most likely diagnosis until proven otherwise.
When infant botulism is diagnosed, the average Intensive Care Unit stay for the baby is about one month, typically including mechanical ventilation and continuous tube feedings. This is followed by another 2 weeks on the hospital ward, with a total hospital cost often exceeding $100,000 (Pediatrics; Feb 1991). Thankfully if the botulism is correctly diagnosed and the baby receives appropriate supportive care, almost all will recover fully and completely. The fatality rate for babies who have been hospitalized with botulism is less than 1%. Recently, an antitoxin for infant botulism has been developed and shown to reduce hospital days, mechanical ventilation, and tube feedings (The AAP Red Book, 2000).
The single most effective way to prevent infant botulism is for infants to avoid honey. Breast feeding also appears to lessen the severity of botulism cases.
Despite other health benefits, honey is an unsafe food for any infant. HONEY SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN 12 MONTHS.
Breast feeding, though, is a great way to prevent or decrease allergy symptoms. Breast feeding and minimizing your daughter's being exposed to potential allergens (such as cigarette smoke, cat hair, house dust, etc.) are the best ways to serve your goals of reducing her allergies and her allergy symptoms. These measures will benefit your daughter now, and the benefit will last for years to come.
You might recall the story I did on Singulair ( asthma drug ) and its apparent link to the suicide of a 15 year old from Queensbury. His parents, Kate and Dave Miller have been battling for the FDA to consider their case and it turns out they have plenty of company - many others have reported emotional difficulties even suicidal thoughts when taking Singulair. The Millers have been invited to testify before the FDA which, after our story aired, announced it would be investigating reports of a suicide link. The drug maker is Merck.
Well this hasn't been a great couple of weeks for Merck. Most recently, the FDA put the kibosh on its plans to market a niacin product that doesn't cause flushing. Niacin is recognized as an effective treatment for lowering cholesterol but it can cause flushing. For that reason many people won't take it. Merck had been testing a drug that combined Niacin with a prostaglandin to prevent the flush. Reports indicated Merck was confident the FDA would greenlight the product. Well, guess again. Maybe it's Merck's recent track record - Singulair concerns, Vioxx being pulled, questions over testing of Vytorin - a cholesterol lowering medication - that gave the FDA cold feet, this time. In a report on MedPage today -
Allen J. Taylor, M.D., of the Uniform Services University of the Health Sciences and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, said that the FDA had made the right decision, because "laropiprant ( the anti flushing agent) is a first-in-class agent. We need to confirm that this drug is inert aside from its effect on flushing."
Dr. Taylor said that he hoped the FDA would require the company to provide data from a trial that compared laropiprant "by itself" to placebo in a population of patients with dyslipidemia or hypercholesterolemia.
"We need to find out if this drug truly causes no harm," Dr. Taylor said. "Or, to be completely balanced, we need to find out if there is some benefit with the drug."
The Environmental *cough* Protection Agency (EPA) is currently pondering the question of whether it's OK to have rocket fuel in our drinking water. Take your time, guys. It's not as if this is killing anyone. Oh, wait, it is.
EPA is currently undertaking efforts to help the Agency determine if regulation of perchlorate in drinking water would represent a meaningful opportunity for reducing risks to human health. To support its decision, the Agency is gathering occurrence data at public water systems, evaluating the availability and cost of treatment technology and assuring that analytical methods are available to monitor for perchlorate in water.
EPA has established an official reference dose for perchlorate which is consistent with the recommended reference dose included in the National Academy of Science’s January 2005 report. A reference dose is a scientific estimate of a daily exposure level that is not expected to cause adverse health effects in humans. The reference dose will be used in EPA’s ongoing efforts to address perchlorate in drinking water. It is important to note that the reference dose in EPA’s draft assessment represents a preliminary estimate of a protective health level and is not a drinking water standard. • Risk information about perchlorate and perchlorate salts
What is perchlorate? Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and man-made chemical. Most of the perchlorate manufactured in the United States is used as the primary ingredient of solid rocket propellant. Wastes from the manufacture and improper disposal of perchlorate-containing chemicals are increasingly being discovered in soil and water.
Does my water contain perchlorate? There have been confirmed perchlorate releases in at least 25 states throughout the United States. EPA, other federal agencies, states, water suppliers and industry are working to address perchlorate contamination through monitoring for perchlorate in drinking water and source water and developing treatment technologies that can remove perchlorate from drinking water.
How is perchlorate removed from water? Several types of treatment systems designed to reduce perchlorate concentrations are operating around the United States, reducing perchlorate to below the 4 ppb quantitation level. Biological treatment and ion (anion) exchange systems are among the technologies that are being used, with additional treatment technologies under development.
Throw out your nonstick cookware and don't get your couch treated with stain resister. Honestly, just use some canola oil on your stainless steel or cast iron pan, and clean your couch if you spill something on it. (I recommend products from BioShield and Green Depot.)
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/05/teflon_milk.html Teflon Chemicals Found In Human Breast Milk Non-stick residues turning up just about everywhere May 1, 2008 Teflon Teflon graphic • Teflon Chemicals Found In Human Breast Milk • DuPont Hopes Teflon Charges Don't Stick • Study Finds Teflon Chemical In Newborns' Umbilical Cords • DuPont Agrees To Teflon Pollution Curbs • Whistleblower Claims DuPont Failed to Act on Food Contamination Danger • Claims Against Teflon May Not Stick • Teflon Ingredient Found in North Carolina Groundwater • Grand Jury Probes Chemical Used in Teflon • Teflon Chemicals Found in Humans Chemicals used to make nonstick cookware and stain-resistant fabrics are spreading around the world and turning up in surprising places. Now, a team of researchers including Kathleen Arcaro of the University of Massachusetts Amherst has found these suspected carcinogens in samples of human milk from nursing mothers in Massachusetts. "Perfluorinated compounds, or PFCs, are found in human blood around the world, including the blood of newborns, but this is the first study in the United States to document their occurrence in human milk," said Arcaro, a professor in the department of veterinary and animal sciences and a member of the environmental sciences program. "While nursing does not expose infants to a dose that exceeds recommended limits, breast milk should be considered as an additional source of PFCs when determining a child's total exposure." The breast milk was collected as part of Arcaro's larger, ongoing study examining the link between environmental exposures and breast cancer risk. Chemical analyses were conducted in the laboratory of Kuruntachalam Kannan at the New York State Department of Health. Results are scheduled for publication in Environmental Science and Technology. This research was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Milk samples were collected in 2004 from 45 nursing mothers in Massachusetts and analyzed for nine different PFCs. Perfluorooctane- sulfonate (PFOS), used to make stain-resistant fabrics, was found in the highest concentration in breast milk, followed by perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), used in nonstick cookware. On average, each liter of milk, which is roughly equivalent to one quart, contained 131 billionths of a gram of PFOS and 44 billionths of a gram of PFOA. The amount of PFCs that nursing infants would consume each day did not exceed Total Daily Intake Values set by the U.K. Food Standards Agency Committee on Toxicology, which were based on a review of current toxicology studies. Arcaro cautions that recommended intakes of PFCs based on Total Daily Intake values should be interpreted with caution, since there is no consensus on these values, which are derived from rodent studies. Mothers should also compare the risks of breast feeding with the benefits, which include better nutrition and immune system development and enhanced defense against infections in children. Milk from mothers who were nursing for the first time was also studied to see how PFC concentrations changed over time. Total PFC concentrations and the concentration of PFOS increased during the first six months of nursing. "This may be related to increased food intake to meet the energy demands of nursing, and changes in food consumption patterns in nursing mothers," said Arcaro. "In a Canadian study, diet was shown to contribute 61 percent of a person's total daily intake of PFCs." Food sources of PFCs include grease-resistant packaging such as microwave popcorn bags and pizza boxes, as well as fish and other animals that contain these chemicals. Exposure can also come from personal care products including dental floss and shampoo. PFCs are persistent chemicals that can linger in the environment and the human body for years without being broken down. Several studies have documented their presence in the blood of newborns collected immediately after birth, and in children between the ages of 2 and 12, who have blood levels similar to those found in adults. These studies led the team to investigate breast feeding as a source of PFCs, information that will be needed to determine the sources and magnitude of exposure in infants and children and whether PFCs have an effect on birth outcomes in newborns.
Outils 
Aide
My daughter is now 
Mark, your care for your daughter comes through clearly in your question. Taking the initiative with preventive measures to insure her health and comfort is a very loving act. Getting information regarding the 
