...and the total is up to 140 adverse events (including paralysis). When will people learn to either keep their pants on or use condoms? You can't be vaccinated against every STD, so getting the shot for HPV is just deceiving yourself.
About a month after being vaccinated against the cervical cancer-causing HPV virus, 13-year-old Jenny Tetlock missed the lowest hurdle in gym class, the first hint of the degenerative muscle disease that, 15 months later, has left the previously healthy teenager nearly completelyparalyzed. Did the vaccine, Gardasil, cause her condition? Her father, Philip Tetlock, a psychology professor at UC-Berkeley's Haas School of Business, has embarked on an odyssey to find out whether the vaccine or random coincidence is to blame.
As father and scientist, Tetlock has contacted top medical experts, posted pleas on discussion boards looking for other teens who've experienced neurological problems post-vaccination and has been desperately trying to get the government to open an investigation into his daughter's case. "The weakening process is gradual so it may take months for parents to notice what is going on," he writes me in an E-mail. He started a blog a few weeks ago that shows photos of his sweet-faced teen and reveals his anger and frustration in the form of a box counting the days that he has yet to get a response from the government's Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network. As of today, it's 28.
He's not the only one to raise an alarm. The conservative public watchdog group Judicial Watch has been periodically obtaining adverse event reports on Gardasil from the Food and Drug Administration. I received the group's latest warning this week: of 10 deaths linked to Gardasil since September 2007 and 140 reports so far this year of serious effects such as miscarriage and Guillain-Barré syndrome, a nervous system disease that causes weakness and tingling in the arms and legs. (But these reports filed by patients or doctors with the government's vaccine adverse event reporting system may or may not reflect true vaccine risks. Some problems may be missed or underreported, while others, including sudden deaths, may have nothing to do with the vaccine itself.)
Judicial Watch opposes efforts in many states to make the vaccine mandatory for all girls ages 11 and 12. Those efforts have raised concerns among religious groups that protecting against the sexually transmitted virus will encourage promiscuity among teen girls. The FDA insists there's no medical reason to be worried. "We're monitoring the safety of the HPV vaccine very carefully, and the only adverse event that causes some concern is syncope or fainting after the vaccine," says Robert Ball, director of the FDA's office of biostatistics and division of epidemiology at the center for biologics evaluation and research. Higher rates of Guillain-Barré have been associated with the swine flu vaccine and possibly with the meningitis vaccineMenactra, but it is no more common in those who get Gardasil than in those who don't, says Ball. The same goes for other side effects like spontaneous miscarriage.
What's more, the FDA has not documented any other cases of vaccine-related peripheral motor neuropathy—what Jenny has—either in the adverse event reports filed by doctors and patients or in the manufacturer's clinical trial data. Merck, the vaccine's manufacturer, has dismissed the possibility that Jenny's condition was caused by Gardasil. "We're aware of this case and based on the facts that we've received, the information doesn't suggest that this event was causally associated with vaccination," says Merck spokesperson Kelley Dougherty.
Tetlock, though, wonders if Jenny carries genes that predisposed her to problems with the Gardasil vaccine. At age 10, Jenny developed a rare skin disease called pityriasis lichenoides that's thought to be triggered by an overactive immune system, and her grandmother died of a nervous system disease. Could it be that certain genetic tendencies make some people more likely to develop severe reactions from vaccines? I ask Ball. "That's an important question," he responds. "We just don't know." It's certainly going to be a topic of future research, he adds. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is starting to look at whether those who developed Guillain-Barré after being vaccinated share a common set of genes. So Tetlock could find out someday if his hunches are correct.
At this moment, he and his wife, Barbara Mellers, also a professor at Berkeley, are focused on being with their daughter as she struggles to breathe on her own. "Jenny endures terrible suffering each day," Tetlock tells me via E-mail. "She must watch her capacity to control her own body gradually ebb away—and each day her hopes of ever having a normal human life recede ever further into memory. The disease is cruel beyond belief."
As a parent, I've wrestled with whether or when to get my 12-year-old daughter vaccinated against HPV. As much as vaccines are vital in protecting against life-threatening infectious diseases, they do, indeed, have the potential to cause harm—however rare that may be. Evidence is mounting that the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal could trigger autism in certain susceptible kids, as my colleague Bernadine Healy previously reported. We don't know yet whether Jenny's illness is linked to Gardasil, though it's certainly plausible given the timing of symptoms several weeks after vaccination, which is when vaccine-related neurological problems typically occur. I'm not sure whether Jenny's case has changed my opinion about the value of Gardasil. But it certainly has given me pause.
Perfluorinated chemicals are in non-stick finishes on cookware, as well as stain-resistant fabrics and furniture. They're persistent (stay in your body for a REALLY long time), toxic (bad for you and for other living things), and bioaccumulative (build up in organisms that eat other organisms). Click through the link below to read the EWG's whole report on these really scary chemicals--and DuPont's plan to replace PFOA with something virtually untested and probably just as bad (or worse). Then write to your Congressman and tell him that DuPont's voluntary phaseout is not good enough.
In 2006, under pressure from the U.S. EPA, DuPont and 7 other companies promised to phase out by 2015 a cancer-causing chemical called PFOA, used to make Teflon and also found in grease-resistant coatings for food packaging. In its place, the chemical industry is pushing new, supposedly “green” food package coatings.
But an investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG) finds no evidence that the industry-touted replacement chemicals being rushed to market are safer -- and plenty of evidence that DuPont and other manufacturers are continuing a decades-long pattern of deception about the health risks of PFOA and related chemicals.
Like PFOA-based coatings, the new compounds are also made from, contaminated with, or break down into perfluorochemicals (PFCs), including new coatings for household products like stain-resistant fabrics and carpet, waterproof clothing, and food packaging. Like PFOA, they persist in the environment and can cross the placenta to contaminate babies before birth. But unlike PFOA – for which there are dozens of peer-reviewed studies showing links to cancer, reproductive problems and immune disorders – for the replacement chemicals there are almost no publicly available data on their health risks, leaving in question whether food packaging and other PFC-containing products are any safer.
EWG’s investigation is the first review of health data and industry greenwashing since the phaseout agreement was announced. We examined federal reports on food packaging toxicity; industry-funded health studies in Environmental Protection Agency files; and company e-mails unearthed in a lawsuit over PFOA pollution of drinking water near a DuPont facility in West Virginia, and found:
Despite agreeing to phase out PFOA, DuPont and other makers of perfluorinated chemicals continue to maintain that it is safe. A DuPont press release from March 2008 said “. . . PFOA exposure does not pose a health risk to the general public. To date, there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA.” This is not only contradicted by the EPA Science Advisory Board’s 2005 finding that PFOA is a likely human carcinogen, but by DuPont’s own scientific advisors. In 2005, in response to a similar statement by the company, an ethics advisor on DuPont's Epidemiology Review Board wrote: “The claim of no health effects is not supported by available facts (factual inappropriateness) … Such a statement is misleading, whether intentionally or not, and it is unacceptable to mislead in this way (moral inappropriateness).” In fact, to date at least 10 studies of people show significant health risks of PFOA, including elevated risk for obesity, heart disease, endocrine disorders, and infectious diseases in a study of 4538 children younger than 10 years of age living near a DuPont plant in West Virginia.
From January 2007 to April 2008, chemical manufacturers reported to the EPA 19 studies on PFC chemicals that showed “substantial risk” to human health or the environment under section 8(e) of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The health effects reported in these studies of anonymous PFCs include the deaths of laboratory animals as well as damage to the liver, thyroid and prostate. Yet under EPA regulations shielding confidential business information, in 17 of 19 cases the exact name of the chemical is not identified and in 13 of 19 cases the manufacturer is not identified. This information is secret not only from the public, but from health officials in states, like California, that are considering laws to ban PFCs in food packaging. These reports are doubly troubling: Not only is information being hidden that is important to public health, but by their own admission companies are finding substantial health risks for chemicals they may well be using as PFOA replacements.
From 2005 through November 2007 FDA approved 8 new food packaging fluorochemicals that may replace older, PFOA-contaminated or C8-based PFCs. These approvals were granted with no public record of any health risk assessment from exposures to the contaminant residues and breakdown products of greatest concern, according to documents EWG obtained from the Food and Drug Administration. Since that time FDA has approved 2 additional substitute chemicals, and DuPont has announced that its new PFOA replacement, the CapstoneTM grease-proofing chemicals, will be available for packaging products beginning in 2009. This dramatic shift in the market and in human exposures has occurred with no public assessment of the safety of the replacements.
A similar pattern of unproven claims and secrecy is found in reports filed by chemical makers on the progress of the PFOA phaseout. Since the phaseout is voluntary, EPA has no authority to verify claims of reduced PFOA use or releases. Some companies report little or no progress. Others claim significant reductions, but again hide the details as confidential business information. Worse, the industry’s claims that the phaseout will eliminate PFOA by 2015 are shattered by the fact that no company from China, the third-largest producer of packaging in the world, is a party to the agreement.
The industry’s contention that its PFOA replacements are safer rests on two atoms of carbon. PFOA is sometimes called C8 because it has 8 carbon atoms. A key replacement chemical, perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), contains 6 carbon atoms and is often called C6. The chemical industry would have us believe that the removal of two carbon atoms removes human health risks.
On April 23, 2008, a scientist representing the Telomer Research Program, a chemical industry group that includes DuPont and other PFC makers, testified before the Health Committee of the California State Senate against a bill to ban both PFOA/C8 and PFHxA/C6 in food packaging. He repeated the claim that PFOA is not harmful to humans, and that a ban is is not needed because of the voluntary phaseout program. He also repeatedly described C6 as an example of the “green chemistry” approach the state is developing to encourage the production of safer alternative chemicals:
[The bill] would derail a promising example of green chemistry at work . . . [B]y targeting perflourinated compounds with chain links of 6 or higher in this legislation, the bill would frustrate the conversion from the C8 based products, that are the source of the PFOA, to a set of effective C6 based compounds whose breakdown products are much, much less toxic and don’t have the same persistence issues that PFOA and some of the C8s have. . . . [O]ur companies are addressing the concerns about PFOA; we’re aggressively doing so. And we believe the proposed legislation would actually do harm to an effective green chemistry strategy for reducing the concerns about this chemical. (Lawyer 2008)
This is greenwashing – claiming environmental benefits for a product that's little better than its replacement – at its worst. PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge "green chemistry" is like calling anything under 200 miles per hour a safe speed limit. For C6 replacements, the full extent of the public record on their safety consists of a PowerPoint presentation delivered by Asahi Glass Company to the Environmental Protection Agency. Public records show that DuPont, Asahi, and Clariant are all shifting from PFOA to C6 chemistries despite an absolute dearth of public safety data, and despite the fact that on 3 critical counts, C6 may be as great a concern as PFOA:
C6, like all the other PFCs, is extraordinarily persistent in the environment (NAS 1972).
C6 is potentially 3 to 5 times more toxic than C8 to aquatic organisms (Asahi 2006).
C6 crosses the placenta to contaminate children before birth, according to an EWG study of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn babies (EWG 2005). While many studies of thousands of people by CDC, industry, and academic university researchers show that PFOA contaminates nearly the entire U.S. population, industry has failed to publish even a single study of C6 in people. EWG's tests of cord blood show it to be potentially as great a concern as PFOA.
Truly green chemistry is sustainable chemistry with products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances. Much remains unknown about C6, but what is known – that it is bioaccumulative, persistent and crosses the placenta to pollute human blood – is enough to disqualify it as green chemistry. Promoting a PFOA replacement that raises such serious safety concerns while simultaneously withholding critical toxicity data violates the spirit of the PFOA phaseout agreement and undermines the credibility of the entire industry.
Read the labels before you put the food in your shopping cart. Dried fruit that looks as if it would be a great nutritious snack is most likely contaminated with sulfites, which keep the fruit from getting discolored, but can cause adverse reactions in people with asthma. You're better off buying fresh or frozen organic fruit, like these (http://www.cascadianfarm.com/products/product_detail.aspx?cat=9) from Cascadian Farm.
... keep foods from becoming rancid, browning, or developing black spots. Antioxidants also minimize the damage to some essential amino acids and the loss of some vitamins
Requirements:
Preservatives must be listed by their common names on ingredient labels of all foods that contain them.
Why are carcinogenic food additives allowed in food?
The risk of adverse health effects from botulism is much greater than the risk of developing cancer from small amounts of nitrites, therefore nitrites are allowed.
A food manufacturer wanting to use sodium nitrites must show that nitrosamines will not form in hazardous amounts in the product under the additive's intended conditions of use. For example, regulations specify that sodium nitrite, used as an antimicrobial against the formation of botulinum toxin in smoked fish, must be present in 100 to 200 parts per million. In addition, other antioxidants, such as sodium ascorbate or sodium erythorbate, may be added to inhibit the formation of nitrosamines.
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) is a phenolic antioxidant Phenolic antioxidants prevent rancidity of fats and oils in food by protecting against lipid oxidation.
When the food additives amendment was enacted (1958), BHA and BHT were listed as common preservatives considered generally recognized as safe (GRAS). GRAS regulations limit BHA and BHT to 0.02 percent or 200 parts per million (ppm) of the fat or oil content of the food product.
Both BHT and BHA have been removed from the GRAS list and subjected to tolerances.
BHA is also used as a preservative for dry foods, such as cereals. The FDA set limits for each type of food. On cereals, for example, FDA limited BHA to 50 ppm of the total product.
Studies have suggested that at very high levels in the diets of laboratory animals, BHA could cause tumors in the forestomach of rats, mice and hamsters, and liver tumors in fish. The importance of this in humans is unknown, because humans do not have forestomachs. BHA did not cause cancer in experimental dogs, pigs, and monkeys, species which do not have forestomachs.
Other studies have shown that BHA protects against some chemical carcinogens, depending on the conditions of the tests.
Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) is a phenolic antioxidant
Phenolic antioxidants prevent rancidity of fats and oils in food by protecting against lipid oxidation.
Although not toxic itself, BHT may interact with other substances:
Protects against toxicity in some cases
Potentiates toxicity in others
For example, in animal studies BHT was demonstrated to be protective against mutagens such as benzo(a)pyrene and carcinogens when given during or before exposure to benzo(a)pyrene, but enhances toxicity when given after exposure.
Some beneficial health effects of BHT:
There are reports that BHT inhibits formations of some types of tumors.
Protective against carbon tetrachloride poisoning.
There is some evidence that it slows aging in mice.
From "A Fresh Look at Food Preservatives" by Judith E. Foulke, staff writer for FDA Consumer Magazine
Sulfites are used as antioxidants to prevent discoloration of light-colored fruits and vegetables, such as dried apples and dehydrated potatoes. They are also used in wine-making because they inhibit bacterial growth but do not interfere with the desired development of yeast.
FDA prohibits the use of sulfites in foods that are important sources of thiamin (vitamin B1), such as enriched flour, because sulfites destroy the nutrient.
Most people don't have a problem with sulfites. However, since 1985, when the agency started reporting on sulfites through the Adverse Reaction Monitoring System, over 1,000 adverse reactions have been recorded. FDA estimated that more than 1 million asthmatics are sensitive or allergic to sulfites.
In 1986, FDA ruled that sulfites used specifically as preservatives must be listed on the label, regardless of the amount in the finished product. Sulfites used in food processing but not serving as preservatives in the final food must be listed on the label if present at levels of 10 parts per million (ppm) or higher. Regulations issued in 1990 extended these required listings to standardized foods.
Also in 1986, FDA banned the use of sulfites on fruits and vegetables intended to be eaten raw, such as in salad bars and grocery store produce sections. Please the FDA site Sulfites: Safe for Most, Dangerous for Some
The symptom most reported by sulfite-sensitive people is difficulty breathing. Other problems range from stomach ache and hives to anaphylactic shock. In addition to knowing which food preservatives are sulfites and which foods are likely to contain them, sulfite-sensitive consumers can help themselves avoid health problems by following these suggestions:
Be aware that foods served in restaurants, especially potato products and some canned foods, could contain sulfites. Ask the waiter if sulfites are used in what you plan to order.
... so basically, you can't trust anything they've said about how safe thimerosal is, or vaccines are. They've been doing the bidding of Big Pharma all along, in addition to their own pathological quest to vaccinate everyone against everything as soon after birth as possible (as if there is no other way to prevent diseases, and as if vaccines are harmless).
Click through the link to read David Kirby's piece on the Huffington Post.
CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding has delivered a potentially explosive report to the powerful House Appropriations Committee, in which she admits to a startling string of errors in the design and methods used in the CDC's landmark 2003 study that found no link between mercury in vaccines and autism, ADHD, speech delay or tics.
Gerberding was responding to a 2006 report from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which concluded that the CDC's flagship thimerosal safety study was riddled with "several areas of weaknesses" that combined to "reduce the usefulness" of the study.
"CDC concurs," Dr. Gerberding wrote in an undated mea culpa to Congress, (provided to me through a Capitol Hill staffer) adding that her agency "does not plan to use" the database in question, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, (VSD) for any future "ecological studies" of autism.
In fact, Gerberding's report said, any continued use of the VSD for similar ecological studies of vaccines and autism "would be uninformative and potentially misleading."
Ecological vaccine studies are large, epidemiological analyses of risks and trends using computerized data from large populations -- in this case children enrolled at several big HMOs -- without ever examining a single patient in person.
CDC officials conducted at least five separate analyses of the data over a four-year period from 1999-2003. The first analysis showed that children exposed to the most thimerosal by one month of age had extremely high relative risks for a number of outcomes, compared with children who got little or no mercury: The relative risk for ADHD was 8.29 times higher, for autism, it was 7.62 times higher, ADD, 6.38 times higher, tics, 5.65 times, and speech and language delays were 2.09 more likely among kids who got the most mercury.
Over time, however, all of these risks declined into statistical insignificance, statistical inconsistency or else outright oblivion: The relative risk for autism plummeted from 7.62 in the first analysis, to 2.48 in the second version, to 1.69 in the third round, to 1.52 in the fourth, and down to nothing at all in the fifth, final, and published analysis printed in the Journal Pediatrics in November of 2003.
Vaccine officials attributed the steady drop to the elimination of "statistical noise" from the data through due diligence and the endeavor for excellence in governmental statistical analysis.
Indeed, the VSD study was the main pillar of a hugely influential 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine, which also concluded that there was no evidence of link between mercury, vaccines and autism.
To this day, public health officials routinely point to five "large epidemiological studies" representing the "highest quality science," none of which found any link to thimerosal.
In fact, the American VSD study has long been held up as the best and brightest of them all (the others were in Sweden, the UK, and two in Denmark). And this reputation has stuck in the minds of medicine and the media.
Curiously though, even the study's lead author -- Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, an employee of vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline -- protested that the VSD study "found no evidence against an association, as a negative study would. In fact, he said that additional study was needed, which "is the conclusion to which a neutral study must come."
That's when Congress stepped in.
In 2005, a group of Senators and Representatives headed by Sen. Joe Lieberman wrote to the NIEHS (an agency of the National Institutes of Health) saying that many parents no longer trusted the CDC to conduct independent minded studies of its own vaccine program. Lieberman et al asked NIEHS to review the CDC's work on the vaccine database and report back with critiques and suggestions.
The final NIEHS report was a serious and thoughtful critique of where the CDC went wrong in its design, conduct and analysis of the study. The NIEHS panel "identified several serious problems," with the CDC's effort, criticism to which the agency had not responded -- until now.
In her letter to the House Appropriations Committee, the CDC Director responded directly to many -- though not all -- of the most important criticisms and recommendations contained in the NIEHS panel report.
For example, the NIEHS had criticized CDC for failing to account for other mercury exposures, including maternal sources from flu shots and immune globulin, as well as mercury in food and the environment.
"CDC acknowledges this concern and recognizes this limitation," the Gerberding reply says.
The NIEHS also took CDC to task for eliminating 25% of the study population for a variety of reasons, even though this represented, "a susceptible population whose removal from the analysis might unintentionally reduce the ability to detect an effect of thimerosal." This strict entry criteria likely led to an "under-ascertainment" of autism cases, the NIEHS reported.
"CDC concurs," Gerberding wrote, again noting that its study design was "not appropriate for studying this vaccine safety topic. The data are intended for administrative purposes and may not be predictive of the outcomes studied."
Another serious problem was that the HMOs changed the way they tracked and recorded autism diagnoses over time, including during the period when vaccine mercury levels were in decline. Such changes could "affect the observed rate of autism and could confound or distort trends in autism rates," the NIEHS warned.
"CDC concurs," Dr. Gerberding wrote again, "that conducting an ecologic analysis using VSD administrative data to address potential associations between thimerosal exposure and risk of ASD is not useful."
Read that sentence one more time. The head of the CDC is saying that its most powerful and convincing piece of exonerating evidence for thimerosal is, in effect, "useless."
I hope everyone will read it, including the recommendations to make the VSD better, and the CDC's agreement with all of the suggestions.
As questionable at the US thimerosal study was, "it was an improvement on other studies, including the two in Denmark, both of which had serious weaknesses in their designs," Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Professor of Public Health at UC Davis Medical School and Chair of the NIEHS panel, told reporter Dan Olmsted at UPI.
That leaves very little for the CDC to go on in terms of proving that thimerosal and autism are not associated in any way.
Yes, there is always the study of disability services data from California -- which seem to be rising among the youngest cohorts of kids, who presumably received little or no mercury because thimerosal was largely removed from childhood shots.
But California is an "ecological study" with problems of its own.
"Although (this) information is often used by media and research entities to develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may misrepresent the quarterly figures," cautions the website of the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS). "Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next do not necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system."
Even the CDC admits that "there are several limitations" with linking a VSD study design with the California data, Gerberding wrote to Congress, because, among other things, California only counts "persons who were referred to and/or voluntarily entered" the disability system."
It will be interesting to see how the House Committee -- and the mainstream media -- react to this rather breathtaking confession by the CDC, which does seem to want to conduct the best vaccine-autism science possible (see Gerberding's replies to NIEHS recommendations for improving the VSD: CDC officials are currently conducting in- depth follow up studies with VSD patients).
As the waning months of the Bush administration get underway, I can't help but wonder if a little housecleaning might be going on at some of our top health agencies.
Yes, it fosters the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Yes, it bioaccumulates.
Yes, it's probably an endocrine disruptor.
So, why is it in your toothpaste? (Colgate Total, I'm looking at you!) When they tell you a product "fights germs for 12 hours!" it's probably not a good thing to put into your mouth. If "morning breath" really bothers you, brush your teeth (with Tom's of Maine) as soon as you wake up.
Triclosan is an antimicrobial agent found in a broad variety of products, ranging from hospital and household liquid hand soap, detergents, and other sanitizing products, to toothpaste and hair products, pesticides, and plastic and foam products like cutting boards and shoe insoles. The popularity of antibacterial consumer products has led to increased consumer use of triclosan (Perencevich 2001; Tan 2002). This antimicrobial agent is marketed under a variety of trademarked names as well, including Microban, Irgasan DP-300, Lexol 300, Ster-Zac, Cloxifenolum, Biofresh, and others.
Triclosan has been detected in human breast milk and blood samples from the general population (Adolfsson-Erici 2002; TNO 2005), and in the urine of 61 percent of 90 girls ages 6 to 8 tested in a recent study spearheaded by Mount Sinai School of Medicine (Wolff 2007). EWG-led biomonitoring studies have detected triclosan in 17 of 21 people tested (EWG 2007a). Scientists recently found triclosan in 58 percent of 85 streams across the U.S. (Kolpin 2002), the likely result of its presence in discharges of treated wastewater.
The amount of triclosan in the wastwater stream is estimated to be as much as 3 to 5 milligrams per person per day from residences alone (McAvoy 2002); in addition, substantial discharges of this antimicrobial agent are expected from laundries, hair salons, medical facilities, and many other commercial and industrial sites. Optimal water treatment can result in degradation and removal of 95 percent of triclosan (Samsoe-Petersen 2003); however, small amounts may pass through the treatment plants to receiving waters.
Triclosan kills microbes by disrupting protein production, and also by binding to the active site of a critical carrier protein reductase that is essential for fatty acid synthesis. This target enzyme is present in microbes but not in humans. Though triclosan is known to be acutely toxic to certain types of aquatic organisms (Orvos 2002), available studies do not indicate it causes cancer or birth defects in humans (Bhargava 1996). Products containing triclosan may occasionally cause skin irritation in people with a specific sensitivity (Bhargava 1996).
Triclosan has the tendency to bioaccumulate (Samsoe-Petersen 2003), or become more concentrated in the fatty tissues of humans and other animals that are exposed to this chemical. The chemical structure of triclosan is similar to that of DES, a non-steroidal estrogen linked to cancer development in those exposed in utero, raising concerns about its potential to act as an endocrine disruptor. A recent study on fish showed that triclosan had weakly androgenic effects, but no estrogenic effects (Foran 2000).
In contrast, another study found that low levels of triclosan in combination with thyroid hormones triggered rapid transformation of tadpoles into frogs (Veldhoen 2006). Rather than mimicking the thyroid hormone, triclosan, in concentrations of less than 1 part per billion commonly measured in U.S. streams, appeared to make thyroid hormones more potent. This hormone signaling mechanism is similar in frogs and humans, suggesting that triclosan could potentially disrupt the human thyroid system.
The evolving interaction between microbes and antiseptic agents has led to concern that use of specific antimicrobial ingredients may provoke the development of strains of bacteria that are resistant to disinfection. Studies have described strains of bacteria that have acquired reduced susceptibility to triclosan (McMurry 1998; Chuanchuen 2001). The identification of a triclosan-resistant bacterial enzyme suggests that resistance to this antiseptic ingredient may develop more readily than to other agents (Heath 2000). In addition, exposing specific bacterial strains to triclosan appears to result in selection favoring bacteria that are resistant to multiple antibiotics (Chuanchuen 2001).
The American Medical Association has advanced an official recommendation against using antibacterial products in the home due to concern about antimicrobial resistance (Tan 2002). A Food and Drug Administration panel reviewed the existing research and found no evidence that households that use antibacterial products are healthier than households that use soap and water and other typical cleansing products (FDA 2005).
Studies indicate that in surface waters, triclosan can interact with sunlight and microbes to form methyl triclosan, a chemical that may bioacummulate in wildlife and humans (Adolfsson-Erici 2002; Lindstrom 2002). A recent European study found methyl triclosan in fish, especially concentrated in fatty tissue (Balmer 2004). Triclosan also can degrade into a form of dioxin, a class of chemicals linked to a broad range of toxicities including cancer (Lores 2005). New research shows that triclosan in tap water can react with residual chlorine from standard water disinfecting procedures to form a variety of chlorinated byproducts at low levels, including chloroform, a suspected human carcinogen (Fiss 2007).
Gardasil has been implicated in the deaths of two more young women, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) has reported. Though no official cause of death has been listed, the young women apparently died shortly after receiving Gardasil, and the EMEA is characterizing their deaths as “sudden and unexpected.”
The two deaths bring the total number of fatalities possibly linked to the Merck cervical cancer vaccine to five. In the U.S., three young women have reportedly died after receiving Gardasil. However, there could be more such incidents, as health officials believe that adverse effects of medication are widely underreported.
Gardasil was approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2006. At the time of its approval, Merck & Co. said that clinical trials had proven the vaccine to be between 90-100% effective in preventing the transmission of some strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer. The approval of Gardasil was much hyped, with Merck claiming that it had the potential to eventually eliminate most cervical cancers.
Just weeks after its approval, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended that all young girls between the ages of 11 and 12 receive the Gardasil vaccine. Merck was more than happy to echo the CDC recommendations, and actually began an intensive lobbying effort to convince state health authorities to make Gardasil vaccinations mandatory for young girls. Merck has made similar efforts in Europe. Merck’s heavy promotion of Gardasil has been effective, as some analysts estimate that Gardasil could net the company as much as $1.4 billion in its first full year on the market.
But Gardasil may not be as safe as Merck claims. A 2007 analysis by Judicial Watch of Gardasil adverse event reports revealed that there had been at least 3,461 complaints of adverse reactions to the Gardasil vaccine, and there could have been as many as eight deaths attributable to Gardasil. According to Judicial Watch, in several instances, blood clots were reported to have occurred after the administration of Gardasil. The Gardasil side effect reports also included 28 women who miscarried after receiving Gardasil. Other side effects reported to the FDA included paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures were also reported. Oddly, Judicial Watch was only able to obtain the FDA’s reports on Gardasil after it filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the agency. As some have pointed out, Judicial Watch is a conservative organization with an agenda. But Judicial Watch did not fabricate these adverse event reports, and the seriousness of some of them indicate a need for further investigation.
In May, Dr. Diane Harper, a top expert on the HPV who, while working as a professor at Dartmouth College, served as a researcher on study trials for Gardasil, questioned efforts to make the vaccine mandatory. In an interview with a Florida TV station, Dr. Harper said that there has not been enough post-marketing surveillance of Gardasil to insure that it is free of side effects that could prove particularly dangerous to young girls. “We don’t know yet what’s going to happen when millions of doses of the vaccine have been given and to put in place a process that says you must have this vaccine, it means you must be part of a big public experiment. So we can’t do that until we have more data.” she said.
Big Pharma is still allowed to ship its poisoning mercury-containing vaccines to kids in the developing world, because the powers that be (including WHO) have deemed these kids not worth the expense of cleaner vaccines. Peruvian scientists did a study using hamsters and thimerosal (ethylmercury) and found that the hamsters were terribly damaged. It's too bad the government (ours and theirs) and Big Pharma don't care.
LAURENTE, Jonny, REMUZGO, Fany, AVALOS, Betthina et al. Neurotoxic effects of thimerosal at vaccines doses on the encephalon and development in 7 day-old hamsters. An. Fac. med., Sept. 2007, vol.68, no.3, p.222-237. ISSN 1025-5583.
Objectives: To determine if thimerosal administration in amounts equivalent to vaccines content produces neurotoxic effects on the encephalon in postnatal hamsters and on experimentation animals' development. Design: Experimental, prospective, bietapic study. Setting: San Fernando Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Biologic material: Seven-day old hamsters. Material: We divided 45 postnatal hamsters in three groups: group A (n = 15), group B (n = 15) and group C (n = 15). We administered three intramuscular equivalent doses of sucrose and thimerosal in 20 µL of physiological serum respectively to groups B and C on birth-days 7 (0,227 µg), 9 (0,216 µg) and 11 (0,220 µg). Group A received only 20 µL of saline solution. Main outcome measures: Body weight, encephalon weight, hamster's stature and encephalon histopathological alterations. Results: Anova and student t tests showed statistical significance in favor of low body weight, low encephalon weight and smaller stature in group C with respect to groups A and B hamsters (p<0,000). χ2 statistical significance in relation to the presence of histopathological alterations in group C was also obtained (p<0,000). We observed greater relative risk of encephalic alterations in group C. Conclusions: The administration of thimerosal in doses equivalent to vaccines content was associated with low corporal weight, low encephalon weight and smaller stature in postnatal hamsters. Neurotoxic effects were also produced at encephalic level, at hippocampus (regions CA1, CA3, DG), cerebral cortex and cerebellum (Purkinje cells and granuloses cells) with decrease in neuronal density, neuronal necrosis, axonal dismyelinization and gliosis. In addition, risk increase in developing any of these alterations was high in the animal group receiving thimerosal.
I've pre-ordered it, and I'll be reviewing it when I receive it in September. I'm looking forward to Ms. McCarthy's counterpoint to the psychological profession's decades of "refrigerator mother" lies.
Did you know that most people (something like 90%) are immune after three shots in a series, and more than half (around 70%) are immune after two shots? Half of people don't need more than the first shot in a series. The way to find out if your kid already has serological immunity is to ask for an antibody titer test after the first or second shot. Any time your doctor wants to give your kid a booster shot, ask for an antibody titer test first. If there are enough antibodies present in your child's blood, no boosters are required at present. I'm not a doctor, but if you ask your doctor (or check Medline, referenced below), they'll tell you the same thing. Why pay Big Pharma for an unnecessary shot? Why put more formaldehyde and aluminum into your kid's body if he already has immunity? A blood test isn't fun for a little kid, but neither is an injection, and the blood test doesn't involve any heavy metals or chicken embryos--sounds better to me!
Antibody titer is a laboratory test that measures the presence and amount of antibodies in blood. The antibody level in the blood is a reflection of your past exposure to an antigen or to something that the body does not recognize as belonging to itself. The body uses antibodies to attack and remove foreign substances.
Blood is drawn from a vein, usually from the inside of the elbow or the back of the hand. The site is cleaned with germ-killing medicine (antiseptic). The health care provider wraps an elastic band around the upper arm to apply pressure to the area and make the vein swell with blood.
Next, the health care provider gently inserts a needle into the vein. The blood collects into an airtight vial or tube attached to the needle. The elastic band is removed from your arm.
Once the blood has been collected, the needle is removed, and the puncture site is covered to stop any bleeding.
In infants or young children, a sharp tool called a lancet may be used to puncture the skin and make it bleed. The blood collects into a small glass tube called a pipette, or onto a slide or test strip. A bandage may be placed over the area if there is any bleeding.
When the needle is inserted to draw blood, some people feel moderate pain, while others feel only a prick or stinging sensation. Afterward, there may be some throbbing.
In some situations, your health care provider may check your antibody titer to see if you had a infection in the past (for example, chickenpox) or to decide which immunizations you need.
The antibody titer is used to determine:
The strength of an immune response to the body's own tissue in diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other autoimmune disorders.
Your need for a booster immunization
Whether a recent vaccine caused a strong enough response from your immune system so that you are protected against the specific disease
Normal values depend on the antibody being tested. If your health care provider is testing for antibodies against your own tissue, then the normal value would be zero or negative.
If your health care provider is testing to see if your immunization brought your antibody titer up to a preventive level, then the normal result depends on the specific value for that immunization.
If your health care provider is testing for antibodies against your own tissue, abnormal results would show a positive antibody titer. This means that your immune system is fighting its own tissue, cells, or substances.
If your health care provider is testing to see if your immunization brought your antibody titer up to a preventive level, an abnormal result would indicate that your body has not mounted an adequate response against the immunization, and you are not adequately protected from the disease.
Low levels may also occur if you have an immune deficiency.
Veins and arteries vary in size from one patient to another and from one side of the body to the other. Obtaining a blood sample from some people may be more difficult than from others.
Risks associated with having blood drawn are slight by may include:
Please click through the link to access the www.MyKidsMyChoice.com website and resources. You have the power to give your child a healthy life or a compromised one.
You’ve researched. You’ve considered the risks and benefits and you want to make your own decision regarding vaccinations.
There are three exemptions in the US—medical, religious and philosophical. All states have medical. A medical exemption to all of the vaccines is difficult to obtain, though you may be able to get an exemption for one or two. Understand also, the Department of Health can override your doctor.
The law (PHL 2164) provides, “(the law) shall not apply to children whose parent, parents or guardian holds genuine and sincere religious beliefs which are contrary to the practices herein required (immunizations), and no certificate shall be required as a prerequisite to such children being admitted or received into school or attending school.”
Most of the time, you will need to include a personal letter with the form.
Your beliefs have to be truly religious and they have to be sincerely held. This is a ‘two-tier’ test. The first one is genuinely religious in nature.
Most people I talk with hear "religious exemption" and panic, “I haven’t been to church in six years. And I have an issue with the Catholic Church.”
First, you do not have to be a member of an organized religion. Second, the above can be true and you can still believe in religious principles that directly connect to the rejection of vaccines.
In fact, I believe it’s impossible to have a conversation about rejecting vaccines without mentioning God and Faith.
You just need to find the correct words to express religious thoughts and concepts that connect to refusing vaccinations.
The Bible states, “Praise the Lord who forgives all sins and heals all diseases.” Psalm 103: David
This line of scripture expresses a simple idea; placing Faith in the healing power of God can cure disease. I believe the immune system is a gift from God. Inviting disease into a gift from God disrespects His divine gift to us, corrupts the body and consequently the soul. It separates from a Faith we have in God that he can cure all diseases.
The following further illustrates this point:
“As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, I have not done evil by turning from God.”
Additionally, vaccinations are fear-based and founded on a threatening principle. Mankind says that if I do not vaccinate, my child may get sick/die and may cause others to get sick/die. This idea is far away from the peace that God represents for me and the love He encourages us to feel for humankind. The pessimistic principle of vaccinations contradicts the love I feel for my fellowman as an instrument of Jesus Christ. Participating in the spiritually dark (and diseased) process of vaccines disconnects me from my mission to connect with God. To participate in this dark and diseased process gives energy and credence to harm and disease and offends my faith. For me, Jesus is about hope, love, optimism, peace and contentment.
Scripture that illustrates my feelings:
“The Lord turns my darkness into light.”
God said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever, follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” “There is no fear in love, but the perfect love (I have for my God and my children) drives out fear.” John 4:18 “Such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love.”
“God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity but of power, love and self-discipline.” The Bible states, “As within, so without.”
To me, the above states that what I invite into my spirit will be manifested in my body and vice-versa. If I invite/ allow disease into my body, my soul will be corrupted. To accept vaccinations is to invite disease into the body and the soul; only disease will result.
“Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life promised to those who love him.”
To me, this means that God needs us to persevere through disease, have Faith in His Supreme healing powers and know that addressing sickness will make us grow stronger.
“What if I am asked if I give my children medicine when they are sick? Or I give them vitamins?”
First, if they start asking you questions, make sure you have legal representation. Do not go into a taped meeting without an attorney or an advocate. Second, explain to school officials that injecting disease into a healthy body and helping a body in crisis are two very different actions.
Medicine helps a body in crisis; medicine is an optimistic hope for restored health. Medicine and vitamins work for the goal of maintenance/restoration of health and vitality.
Vaccinations are diseases injected into the blood anticipating sickness. Accepting disease into a healthy body turns your back on the gift of the immune system that God has blessed you with; inviting this disease will only bring more disease. Hope for, and pursuit of, good health is different from accepting and preventing disease.
The foundations of these principles are completely different. Medicine and vitamins do not disrespect the gift God has given us.
Helping a body in crisis has nothing to do with "interference, " and "substituting man's power," with the healing power of God. Sometimes school district attorneys will try to trip you up by using these words and altering your presentation of your belief system. This is so they can claim your objections to vaccinations are based on medical or philosophical grounds. DO NOT let them lead you down that road.
They may claim that it is illogical to use medicines and vitamins if God can heal all diseases. Repeat, "Restoring health to a body in crisis is different from injecting disease into a healthy body." If they repeat the question, offer the same answer, over and over again. We found the need to repeat ourselves numerous times during our interview.
The attorney who interviewed me and my husband claimed we used the words, "substitute" and, "interference," during our meeting. Upon review of the tape, it was evident we did not.
“But my kids have already had some vaccinations.”
Society puts a tremendous amount of pressure to vaccinate. Doctors pressure, even threaten, parents who refuse to vaccinate. Some pediatricians will not take unvaccinated children as patients.
Parents may ostracize others who do not vaccinate. Family members will also tell parents who want to follow their Faith, they’re “crazy.” Many parents understandably give in to the pressure.
Parents have told me that God sent them signs for years that vaccinations were not part of God’s plan. These parents did not listen until, in a conversation with God at a deceased loved one’s grave, they felt compelled by the spirit of God to follow the signs and their faith. They explained to the school that it took a long time to follow the signs from God and their true Faith, but their resolve is now strong and they will not turn their back on God. "Many parents ask Jesus Christ for forgiveness for not following what they knew in their heart to be His word to them."
“I don’t think my religious beliefs are anyone’s business.”
Schools have the legal power to compel you to prove to them your beliefs are sincere and genuine. When determining your sincerity, they are permitted to consider your forthrightness and demeanor. That means you must COOPERATE. It does not help you to be defiant or righteous, it actually harms you. They have all the power.
If they deny you, you can appeal the decision through the Commissioner of Education (he usually sides with the school) and/or the State and Federal Court Systems. The Courts consider the attitude and overall demeanor and the forthrightness of the complainant. It helps you to be completely cooperative because it can make you look like David and them Goliath. The school has virtually unlimited funds- your tax dollars and those of your community members. Most taxpayers do not.
“My first school accepted a letter. Don’t all schools do that?”
No. The law is broad and schools have the power to interpret it in any way they see fit. I was denied my waiver, yet in the next town over, religious waivers are no more than a letter in the nurse’s office. Most schools accept a letter. If they do not stop at the letter, it is imperative to set the proper groundwork so you will ultimately prevail in higher courts of law.
“What if I get called in for an interview?”
Find an attorney or I will accompany parents on a “sincerity interview” for a fee. I would suggest you bring your own tape recorder and set aside several hours beforehand to prepare yourself for the questions that may be asked. I will help prepare you as part of the interview fee.
“What happens if I get denied?”
You can appeal to the Commissioner of Education, the State Court and/or the Federal Court system. The Commissioner of Education usually upholds the school district’s decision. You have the best chance with Federal Court, as they will most likely adhere to the Federal Supremacy Rule, but that is also an expensive route.
You may select an attorney or pursue an organization that helps with civil rights and/or religious freedom issues, i.e. the ACLU or Liberty Counsel to name two resources. If I have helped you write your letter, I will also help you interest the ACLU or Liberty Counsel in your case. If they will not help, I have other attorneys that can help you.
Health and Wellness News...ProfileFriendsBlogMore 
Tools 
Print
