Polly Curtis,, " Scientists warn parents on pesticides and plastics",
Guardian, March 21, 2006,
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,1735687,00.html?gusrc=rss

Parents were yesterday warned by researchers that levels of pesticides
previously thought to be harmless could cause cancers in babies and
young children.

Liverpool University scientists argue that low levels of chemicals from
pesticides and plastics could affect the development of babies before
they are born and increase their likelihood of developing cancer later
in life.

The organochlorines also accumulate in breast milk, raising the
possibility that babies are vulnerable while breastfeeding, Professor
Vyvyan Howard and John Newby say.

The research will prove controversial as the link between low levels of
pollutants and cancers has been disputed in the past. Cancer Research
UK urged people to be cautious about the paper, which involved a
systematic review of all the evidence to date, and called for further
thorough investigation.

But the researchers claim the evidence suggested the link was
"feasible" and enough for parents to consider switching to organic
diets to avoid contamination. The authorities should revisit
regulations on acceptable levels of chemicals, they argue.

Writing in the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, they
say that research indicates that the dangers of pesticides for children
have been underestimated. "We’re talking about chemicals which could
potentially cause cancer in children at parts per billion and parts per
trillion levels, rather than parts per million and thousands,"
Professor Howard, who is on the government’s advisory committee on
pesticides, told the Guardian. "Preventative measures for these types
of cancer have focused on educating the public about the danger of
tobacco smoke, improving diet and promoting physical activity. We
should now, however, be focusing on trying to reduce exposure to
problematic chemicals."

He stressed that the benefits of breastfeeding still far outweigh any
risk and parents should not be put off breastfeeding as a result of
their analysis. The paper examines the evidence that some pesticides
and plastics, which people are exposed to through food, air and water,
can affect hormone production, leading to hormone-dependent
malignancies, such as breast, testicular and prostate cancers.

It concludes that while population studies had not conclusively proved
a link between lower levels of the potentially carcinogenic chemicals
and people of any age, some animal studies have indicated the link.

There was further evidence that some people might be genetically
predisposed to being vulnerable to the chemicals.

"It seems to be the most vulnerable members of society: the developing
foetus, the developing child and adolescent and the genetically
predisposed, who are at risk of developing cancer following involuntary
exposure to environmental contaminants," the study says. "This may be
an appropriate time for governments to adopt the precautionary
principle until substances to which members of society are
involuntarily exposed are proved safe from long-term, low-level effects
on human health."

Professor John Toy, Cancer Research UK medical director, said: "People
should not be alarmed by this study – it is a review of previously
reported research and does not present new findings. The authors
suggest that it is feasible that certain chemicals could be a factor in
causing cancer but do not find compelling scientific evidence to prove
a link."

Jamie Page, chairman of the Cancer Prevention and Education Society,
which supported the research, said: "This research is very important
and suggests that there are links between chemicals and cancer. It is
our opinion that if progress is to be made in the fight against cancer,
far more attention and effort must be made to reduce human exposure to
harmful chemicals."

Peter Melchett, of the Soil Association, said the study echoed research
conducted around the world. "Other research shows that children with
organic diets have a big reduction in pesticide levels. If you want to
avoid pesticides, eat organic."

FAQ Health concerns

What are organochlorines?

An umbrella term for a group of chemicals contained in pesticides and
some plastics which are present in the environment and can accumulate
in the body when contaminated food is eaten. They are believed to
affect hormone production, which has raised concerns about links to
hormone-related cancers, such as breast, prostate and testicular
cancers.

How can you avoid them?

By eating organic food, according to the Soil Association. Although
today’s research says they can accumulate in breast milk, potentially
putting babies at risk, the scientists stress that the benefits of
breastfeeding still far outweigh any dangers. Washing fruit and
vegetables thoroughly, and peeling them when you can might cut down on
ingestion. However, Cancer Research UK, an authority on cancer
research, stressed that people should not be alarmed by the research,
which is based on existing research rather than new findings.

How are they regulated?

A government committee sets limits for the levels of pesticides which
can be present in food. The researchers behind today’s research are
arguing that these need to be revisited because of evidence of a
"feasible" link between lower levels and cancers in children.

Panel Seeks New Warnings for ADHD Drugs
http://news.yahoo.com/i/751

WASHINGTON – Psychiatrists urged federal advisers on Wednesday to move
cautiously in considering stronger warnings about rare but serious
risks, including heart attacks and hallucinations, for drugs taken by
millions of children for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060322/ap_on_he_me/fluoride_water;_ylt=A…

Wed Mar 22, 11:06 AM ET

WASHINGTON – The high levels of fluoride that occur naturally in some
drinking water can cause tooth and bone damage and should be reduced,
the     National Research Council said Wednesday.

The study did not analyze the benefits or risks of adding fluoride to
drinking water. Instead it looked at the current maximum limit of 4
milligrams per liter. Approximately 200,000 people live in communities
where that level occurs naturally in water.

The Council suggested further studies to establish a new maximum
level, but noted that the problems associated with exposure to
fluoride are very small at 2 milligrams per liter and less.
Approximately 1.4 million people have drinking water with natural
fluoride levels of 2.0 to 3.9 milligrams per liter, said the Council,
an arm of the     National Academy of Sciences.

More than 160 million Americans live in communities with artificially
fluoridated water, which contains between 0.7 and 1.2 milligrams of
fluoride per liter.

Fluoride is added to water to help strengthen the teeth.

Drinking water with levels above the maximum can cause tooth
discoloration and weaken the enamel, and long-term accumulation in the
bones can result in an increase in fractures, the Council reported.

The National Academy of Sciences is an independent organization
chartered by Congress to advise the government on scientific matters.
The study was requested by the     Environmental Protection Agency.

___

On the Net:

National Academies: http://www.nationalacademies.org

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

© 1998

July, 1949         SOUTHERN MEDICINE & SURGERY                209

The Treatment of Poliomyelitis and Other Virus Diseases with Vitamin C

Fred R. Klenner, M.D., Reidsville, North Carolina

IN A PREVIOUS REPORT dealing with the antagonistic properties of
ascorbic acid to the virus of atypical pneumonia, mention was made of
the fact that other types of virus infections had responded favorably
to vitamin C. This paper is to present these findings as well as the
results of subsequent studies on the virus of poliomyelitis, the
viruses causing measles, mumps, chickenpox, herpes zoster, herpes
simplex and influenza. Further studies with the virus of atypical
pneumonia will also be discussed.

These observations of the action of ascorbic acid on virus diseases
were made independently of any knowledge of previous studies using
vitamin C on virus pathology, except for the negative report of Sabin
after treating Rhesus monkeys experimentally infected with the
poliomyelitis virus. A review of the literature in preparation of this
paper, however, presented an almost unbelievable record of such
studies. The years of labor in animal experimentation, the cost in
human effort and in "grants," and the volumes written, make it
difficult to understand how so many investigators could have failed in
comprehending the one thing that would have given positive results a
decade ago. This one thing was the size of the dose of vitamin C
employed and the frequency of its administration. In all fairness it
must be said that Jungeblut noted on several occasions that he
attributed his failure of results to the possibility that the strength
of his injectable "C" was inadequate. It was he who unequivocally said
that ”vitamin C can truthfully be designated as the antitoxic and
antiviral vitamin."

In developing this paper it was felt that, since all virus infections
were more or less akin, only one of this family would be considered in
detail. Poliomyelitis, because of its prevalence and the seriousness
of the problem it presents, was chosen as the disease to be so
treated.

Poliomyelitis is in most instances an acute febrile disease of sudden
onset, with symptoms of a systemic infection which either abruptly
abort or develop to hyperesthesia, asymmetry of reflexes and flaccid
paralysis or palsies of muscle groups. It affects individuals of all
ages, but mainly children, as do more common childhood diseases to
which class it most likely belongs. Only slight contact between the
carrier of the virus and the susceptible person suffices in some cases
for the transfer of the causative organism. In this respect and also
in that the virus can be demonstrated in the nasal washings as early
as six days before onset of symptoms, poliomyelitis resembles measles.
We never have an epidemic of poliomyelitis preceding an epidemic of
measles; the opposite is frequently true. This grouping of the virus
organisms is too often repeated not .to carry some significance. For
example, atypical pneumonia and influenza are caused by closely allied
viruses; so are chickenpox, herpes zoster and herpes simplex; so are
measles, mumps and poliomyelitis. The incubation period depends on the
mode of entry. In experimental animals. Fraser and others showed that
the average was 6.6 days with intracerebral inoculation and ten days
when the intravenous route was used. Howitt mentions that the virus
reaches the nervous system sooner after intranasal than after
intravenous instillations. Transmission (Brodie, 1934) is by means of
droplets from the mucous membrane of the upper respiratory tract.
Infection by means of raw milk, human feces and house flies is highly
improbable.

The research of Flexner, Dark and Amoss in 1914 proved that
poliomyelitis is a disease of the entire nervous system, that the
sensory ganglia are the seats of early and profound histological
changes. The disease is significant mainly for the paralysis produced
through injury to the motor neurons of the spinal cord and brain. This
is caused by a special affinity of the virus for a certain type of
nerve tissue. Experiments show the cerebral cortex to be the most
unsatisfactory site for growth, that large amounts of the virus placed
in this area are apt to disappear in a short time. Observations in
monkeys and in man show that the anterior horn cells, particularly
those of the lumbar cord, are the most favorable sites for
proliferation of the virus.

In all clinically ill patients the virus eventually travels in the
course of its invasion by several channels. The virus can make a
direct assault through the olfactory bulb, to the brain, medulla and
spinal cord. The virus can enter the blood stream directly or through
the lymph channels. Following damage to the natural protective
barrier, the choroid plexus, it can make its way to the central
nervous system, or it can be excreted back onto the nasal mucous
membrane where it will pick up the direct route of the olfactory bulb.

Clark, Turner and Reynolds (1926, 1927, 1929) concluded that the virus
chiefly travels by the direct route to the brain. Lennette and Hudson
( 1935) confirmed this theory and reported their studies indicating
that human infection is chiefly through the nasopharynx. Brodi and
others showed that by section of the olfactory tracts in monkeys
infection by the direct route was prevented. It is of more than mere
academic interest that while the nasal mucosa of the monkey contains
branches of the 5th and 7th cranial nerves and that in addition, since
the virus can readily gravitate from the nasopharynx to the tonsil bed
with its nerve supply, if the olfactory tracts are cut no infection
will occur. The most likely explanation is that the olfactory is
non-medullated, the neurons lie in the nasal mucosa and are thus
exposed to the virus. The sciatic nerve (Brodi) will transport the
virus only when it has been injured, suggesting that lack of myelin
may render the healthy olfactory nerve vulnerable to the virus.

The most important of the secondary routes of infection is by the
excretion of the virus from the blood stream onto the nasal mucosa.
Lennette and Hudson (1934, 1935) demonstrated in monkeys that by
sectioning the olfactory tracts and then inoculating by the
intravenous route with the virus of poliomyelitis, they could prevent
infection.

This would fit in with the work of Jungeblut and others that the
spread of the virus through the central nervous system is along nerve
tracts, rather than by means of the cerebrospinal fluid, the infection
to become manifest when the first cell group is reached, and by relays
of fibers, reaches the mid-brain. Here numerous fiber-paths run in all
directions and the virus is carried by both motor and sensory axons,
causing disease at many levels of the brain and cord.

Since there is always a period of septicemia in the first few days of
poliomyelitis, it might be that this is the all-important route and
that the virus is grown on a living tissue, the blood, and then is
deposited out on the surface of the olfactory bulb. From this we
conclude that the time to destroy the virus is during this incubation
period which varies more with virulence and power of multiplication
than with size of initial dose.

The second flanking maneuver of importance is through the choroid
plexus. It is the function of the choroid plexus and the pial
lymphatic vessels to exclude the virus present in the blood from the
nervous system. Once these protective structures are injured, however,
the exclusion ceases and infection can follow readily. Changes in the
structure or function of the meningeal choroid plexus complex, too
slight to be detected in the cerebrospinal fluid or as morphological
alterations, materially diminish its protective power. Flexner and
Amoss injected large doses of the virus intravenously, then tested the
cerebrospinal fluid and found no virus after the first 48 hours; virus
in small amounts at the end of 72 hours; after 96 hours evidence of
free access to this system. The virus was still present 19 days later
when paralysis was beginning.

Poliomyelitis in man is always more severe if exercise is taken at
time of the infection. Here one must consider the factor of filtration
of the virus through the choroid plexus as being increased due to the
elevation of the vascular bed pressure. Also, that, by the
acceleration of the blood flow caused by greater oxygen demand in
physical effort, a marked increase in the percentage of the virus
deposited on the nasal mucosa would result.

We must agree with Fairbrother and Hurst that too little consideration
has been given to the pathology of the nervous system and in
particular to the drainage of the tissue fluids. These men confirmed
the earlier work of Schroder, who stressed that the normal flow of
these fluids is along the perivascular spaces from the center of the
cord outward, and that any inflammatory exudate occupying these spaces
must be swept into the pial meshes; further that meningeal
infiltration may seem nothing more than a drainage of cells from the
interior of the cord. Fairbrother and Hurst found that meningeal
infiltration does not occur in monkeys until the perivascular
infiltration beginning in the deeper vessels reaches the surface.

The presence of the filterable microorganism or virus of poliomyelitis
upon the mucous membrane of the nose and throat does not necessarily
lead to infection. It may give rise to a class of healthy carriers who
are themselves immune. Amoss and Taylor found a secretion of the
mucous membrane capable of neutralizing or inactivating the virus,
this property absent altogether from the secretions of some persons,
in those of others present at one time and not at another. It is
probable that in actively immune animals the passage of the
neutralizing substance from the blood into the cerebrospinal fluid
would continue as long as the inflammation present in the meninges
rendered the structures easily permeable to the protein
…

Hi all, my 5 year old has a stuffy nose, but only at night when he goes
to sleep.  During the day, he’s the picture of perfect health.  but 5
minutes after he goes to sleep at night his nose is stuffed and he’s
snoring and  breathing through his mouth.  What is that?  what can i do
"unstuff" him?  his doctor sent Nasonex, but i’m not fond of giving it
to him. any idea what this could be?  Anything natural i can give him
to help?  i feel so bad for him, he looks very uncomfortable and sounds
terrible.  thanks, Carla

I am researching the effect media (t.v, magazine, computer games, etc)
have on our children.

Do you have any opinions on this?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-…
9-18230800-bc-ageofautism.xml

The Age of Autism: Doctors for mercury
By DAN OLMSTED

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) — As doctors and health authorities fight state
bans on mercury in vaccines and keep giving it to kids and pregnant women,
one fact stands out: their certainty.

The image of pediatricians and public officials as valiant defenders of
mercury takes a bit of getting used to, given their longstanding efforts to
keep the toxic element out of our food, our bodies and the environment.

No reasonable person — let alone health professional — would advocate
keeping mercury in childhood vaccines unless they were absolutely certain
it was an exception to this lethal legacy.

That’s especially so because vaccines can be made without the mercury
preservative, called thimerosal. You can take it out and still protect the
health of American children through vaccination, and if you had a shred of
doubt about its safety, surely you would.

If you keep it in, you had better be right.

But what is the real degree of certainty that thimerosal is safe? Is it
absolute? Beyond a reasonable doubt? A preponderance of the evidence — the
lesser standard that applies in civil cases but not when someone’s freedom
(or life) is at stake?

Here’s the kind of thing that makes doctors — most of whom have no more
ability than you or I to investigate the safety of vaccines for themselves
— feel so certain. It’s a paper titled "Vaccine Safety Controversies and
the Future of Vaccination Programs," and it appears in the November 2005
issue of The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.

The authors are from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
which recommends the childhood immunization schedule; the United Nations
World Health Organization, which oversees the vaccination of tens of
millions of people worldwide every year, and several big universities. The
report was supported by "unrestricted grants from GlaxoSmithKline
Biologicals, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, several universities and other
institutions."

"Thimerosal has been used for (more than) 60 years in infant vaccines and
in other applications and has not been associated with adverse health
effects in the general population, except when persons have been exposed to
amounts many orders of magnitude greater than found in vaccines or
pharmaceuticals," the authors write.

That’s a ringing endorsement of safety (whether it’s supported by the data
is an issue I’ll address in upcoming columns). But keep reading: "It should
also be borne in mind that the risks of thimerosal-containing vaccines to
the fetus, premature infant and low-weight infant have insufficiently been
studied."

Whoa. "Insufficiently studied" — after more than 60 years of giving
thimerosal to pregnant women and babies of every size and shape?
Nonetheless, the CDC recommends flu shots for pregnant women and
6-to-23-months-olds and won’t recommend thimerosal-free versions. As a
result, most flu shots still contain mercury.

Another new study is condescendingly titled, "When science is not enough —
a risk/benefit profile of thimerosal-containing vaccines," by Australians
C. John Clements and Peter B. McIntyre in the journal Expert Opinion on
Drug Safety:

"Thimerosal is safe as a vaccine preservative, and should continue to be
used in settings where accessibility and cost require that multi-dose vials
of vaccine are available."

Clements advises the WHO on vaccine policy; McIntyre is director of
Australia’s National Center for Immunization Research and Surveillance of
Vaccine-Preventable Diseases.

"The overwhelming weight of scientific opinion rejects the hypothesis that
neurodevelopmental abnormalities are causally related to the use of
thimerosal in vaccines," they point out.

This is the kind of ammunition public health officials and the American
Academy of Pediatrics are firing back at proponents of mercury bans
–"overwhelming" evidence that thimerosal is safe. In Illinois, the state
AAP vigorously opposed the ban.

"Though well intended, these bills do not advance public health and could
inadvertently diminish our state’s efforts at fighting influenza," the AAP
said. "Though it is a mercury-containing compound, thimerosal does not pass
from the bloodstream into the brain to any significant degree."

The state legislators listened politely to that dubious assertion — and
voted to limit thimerosal in childhood vaccines anyway. But that was not
the last word.

As reported by R. L. Nave in the Illinois Times last month: "Citing cost
concerns and a potential shortfall for the upcoming flu season, the
Illinois Department of Public Health filed for a 12-month exemption to the
Mercury-Free Vaccine Act, passed last summer to limit the use of vaccines
containing mercury. However, child-health-care advocates who lobbied for
the bill’s passage are upset by what they believe was a premeditated
attempt by IDPH to circumvent state law."

This is what you call chutzpah — public health authorities thwarting the
express will of the people, certain that flu shots will save humanity and
mercury never hurt anybody. Does the governor never fire anyone?

Almost lost in this crossfire is the simple fact that in 1999, these
selfsame health authorities — the CDC, the Public Health Service, the
pediatricians, the family physicians — urged drug companies to remove
thimerosal from childhood immunizations in the United States as soon as
possible.

Most childhood vaccines — in the United States, not overseas — are now
thimerosal-free. But that’s hardly a blanket reassurance, because most flu
shots do contain thimerosal.

Yet the CDC is still studying whether thimerosal causes autism.

"We do agree the preponderance of evidence to date suggests there is no
association between thimerosal and autism," CDC spokesman Glen Nowak told
us last month. But he said CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding is committed
to exploring all possibilities until the cause or causes of the disorder
are identified.

"Dr. Gerberding has made it clear the CDC has not ruled out anything as
possible causes of autism, including thimerosal," Nowak said. "Science is a
dynamic process. We have continued to fund studies to look at the role, if
any, of thimerosal."

Given these caveats, what would you do? Well, there are two maxims of
medicine that might apply. "First, do no harm," is the obvious one.

The second, related concept is the precautionary principle which, according
to wikipedia.org, "is the idea that if the consequences of an action are
unknown, but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible
negative consequences, then it is better to avoid that action."

So: Vaccines don’t need mercury. Even government experts acknowledge some
possible risks — to the fetus, for example — are insufficiently studied
60 years on. A link to autism has not been ruled out. They’re continuing to
investigate, as they should.

But the doctors and their public and private allies are battling state by
state to stop mercury bans, and the CDC won’t recommend a thimerosal-free
flu shot for kids and pregnant woman. There’s a phrase for this approach:

Bombs away.

- — -

Jan Drew wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprob…@lumbercartel.com> wrote
> > Ann wrote:
> >> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1…@sbcglobal.net> expounded:

> >>> You have just heard from the trouble maker and liar.

> >> Actually *now* you’ve heard from the trouble maker and liar.

> > I knew you were going to say that before I opened the post.

> Right on!

> How Sad.

> Below is the proof.

> What I post:
4>
> Here are a list of problems and current issues.

> http://www.apa.org/releases/adhd_drugs.html

> http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=32&idsub=120&id…

> http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_evelyn_p_060314_adhd_experts_…

> http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2006/03/03/news/news04.txt

> http://www.seacoastonline.com/cgi-bin/printstory/printstory.cgi

> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=20…

> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june06/add_3-13.html

> http://www.bestsyndication.com/Articles/2006/Nicole-WILSON/Health/03/…

> http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=1169340XSL_NEWSML_TO_…

> http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=genera_evelyn_p…

> http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060310-0202…

> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8GC71K80.htm?campaign_i…

> http://www.roanoke.com/business/wb/wb/xp-56761

> http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol37/vol37n22/articles/PelhamADHD.html

> http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=4562809

> http://www.thestar.co.za/general/print_article.php?fArticleId=3135273…

> http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060228-0732…

> http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_evelyn_p_060311_fda_hearings_…

> http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=governme…

> http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/short/41/5/1

> Mark Probert’s  tiny list of name calling:

> you’re an asshole

> That fucking bitch

> Fuck off

> moron

> moron

> moron

> moron

> moron

> moron

> idiot

> idiot

> idiot

> idiot

> idiot

> idiot

> stupid

> stupid

> stupid

Yup.

 [misc.health.alternative, misc.kids.health, talk.politics.medicine]
added to the circulation, so as to share the wealth.  [ keep it amonst
"friends", eh ? ]

             ( NIMBY syndrome )

Cordially,

RL

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.pdf