|Posted by Marisa Kimble on May 8, 2015 at 6:50 PM||comments (0)|
Health Impact News Editor
KS95 radio in Minneapolis Minnesota talked to a woman calling into their show recently who admitted that she took her 18 month old nephew into a doctor to have him vaccinated because her sister and brother-in-law did not believe in vaccines. She admitted that her sister did not know she had done this. Listen to her explanation for doing so in the audio below:
The woman explained that she was watching her nephew for a few days while the parents were traveling, and decided to take him to a doctor and get him vaccinated.
KS95 took call-ins and text messages from people, and some people said she did the right thing, and that they would do the same thing. Most agreed, however, that she should tell the parents, if for no other reason than that the parents might decide to get some vaccines at some point, and the child could end up with multiple doses.
So fair warning to all parents in the United States who choose not to vaccinate your children: if you have relatives who disagree with you, and they have control of your children for a given length of time, apparently they can find a doctor to vaccinate your children without your consent.
Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com
|Posted by Marisa Kimble on February 26, 2015 at 3:25 PM||comments (0)|
Top: Lower jaw and teeth of Early Neolithic farmer. Bottom: Lower jaw and teeth of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer.
Credit: Olivia Cheronet
Hunter-gatherers had almost no malocclusion and dental crowding, and the condition first became common among the world's earliest farmers some 12,000 years ago in Southwest Asia, according to findings published (04 Feb 2015) in the journal PLOS ONE.
By analysing the lower jaws and teeth crown dimensions of 292 archaeological skeletons from the Levant, Anatolia and Europe, from between 28,000-6,000 years ago, an international team of scientists have discovered a clear separation between European hunter-gatherers, Near Eastern/Anatolian semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers and transitional farmers, and European farmers, based on the form and structure of their jawbones.
"Our analysis shows that the lower jaws of the world's earliest farmers in the Levant, are not simply smaller versions of those of the predecessor hunter-gatherers, but that the lower jaw underwent a complex series of shape changes commensurate with the transition to agriculture," says Professor Ron Pinhasi from the School of Archaeology and Earth Institute, University College Dublin, the lead author on the study.
"Our findings show that the hunter gatherer populations have an almost "perfect harmony" between their lower jaws and teeth," he explains. "But this harmony begins to fade when you examine the lower jaws and teeth of the earliest farmers."
In the case of hunter-gatherers, the scientists from University College Dublin, Israel Antiquity Authority, and the State University of New York, Buffalo, found a correlation between inter-individual jawbones and dental distances, suggesting an almost "perfect" state of equilibrium between the two. While in the case of semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers and farming groups, they found no such correlation, suggesting that the harmony between the teeth and the jawbone was disrupted with the shift towards agricultural practices and sedentism in the region. This, the international team of scientists say, may be linked to the dietary changes among the different populations.
The diet of the hunter-gatherer was based on "hard" foods like wild uncooked vegetables and meat, while the staple diet of the sedentary farmer is based on "soft" cooked or processed foods like cereals and legumes. With soft cooked foods there is less of a requirement for chewing which in turn lessens the size of the jaws but without a corresponding reduction in the dimensions of the teeth, there is no adequate space in the jaws and this often results in malocclusion and dental crowding.
The link between chewing, diet, and related dental wear patterns is well known in the scientific literature. Today, malocclusion and dental crowding affects around one in five people in modern-world populations. The condition has been described as the "malady of civilization."
The above story is based on materials provided by University College Dublin. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
|Posted by Marisa Kimble on June 23, 2014 at 6:35 PM||comments (0)|
By Food Babe
Your skin is your largest organ.
It covers and protects everything on your body. How you treat it is incredibly important to your health. However, the skin is one of the most unappreciated organs, and one that I used to totally take for granted, slathering products full of toxic chemicals on it day after day. When I look back at all the different potions I’ve tried, I shake my head in disbelief and wish I would have known better. Not only would I not have developed eczema all over my body and face, but I would have looked a million times better growing up.
One of those products that has always caused me issues – is sunscreen. Every time after a beach vacation or going to the pool, I’d end up with a rash on my face or body. I wondered if I’d eaten something that I was allergic to. Little did I know at the time – the culprit was sunscreen.
The unknown long-term consequences of the chemicals in sunscreen are just starting to be revealed and the results are shockingly horrific, going beyond the common skin rash. Here in the United States, the FDA does not regulate cosmetics as rigorously as pharmaceuticals or food – allowing cosmetic companies to get away with using all types of chemical ingredients that are not used and in some cases banned in other countries. Sounds familiar – eh?
Sunscreen is supposed to protect us from harmful UV radiation from the sun, but as more people use sunscreen, the incidence of skin cancer continues to rise. This fact alone has to make you think – do sunscreens really provide skin cancer protection? Or could the chemicals in them actually be contributing to causing skin cancer?
It gets complicated trying to answer those questions. Some studies have shown that sunscreens do in fact protect us from some types of less threatening forms of skin cancers, but others have found that sunscreens have actually contributed to the risk of some of the worst forms of skin cancers.
So what do you do?
I certainly don’t want to look like a wrinkly old hag when I’m older from laying out in the sun too long without protection – but I also don’t want to increase my cancer risk by using products that could be harmful. Anti-aging is important to me and that’s why I live the way I do – not only do I want to look my best when I’m older, I want to feel my best too.
Below are my favorite sunscreen brands that are rated between 0-2 for their entire line of sun care products and are the safest available. I’ve included the links on where to find these brands online if you can’t find them in stores near you – but most natural food stores and vitamin shops will have one of these options available.
Badger - Certified organic, several different SPFs and option for kids, babies and active people, unscented available
Thinkbaby/Thinksport - Great for athletes, kids and adults for prolonged exposure in sun – Get 10% off with code: “foodbabe10″
John Masters Organics - SPF 30, only one option available
Seventh Generation - SPF 30, only one option available
Aubrey Organics - SPF 26-45 available, unscented available
Raw Elements - The first organic, non-GMO certified sunscreen - Get 10% with code: foodbabe
Sunology – Kids, Face and Body Protection – one of my favorites, because it glides in easily
California Baby (Target carries this brand) – Formulated for sensitive skin, SPF 18-30
*Note – Alba and Kiss My Face are two other brands that are safer than most conventional brands. However, you must only choose their mineral based products – for example Alba’s Mineral SPF 30 Unscented and Kiss My Face’s Mineral Lotion SPF 40 are great choices – but other versions in the same brand category may not be as safe.
There are over 1800 products on the market to choose from, making it incredibly confusing and difficult to pick the best and safest brand. Here’s what you need to watch out for:
Oxybenzone - this is a hormone disrupting chemical which penetrates the skin and enters the bloodstream. It is the most popular ingredient in chemical based sunscreens and only blocks UVB ray (sun’s good rays that provide vitamin D production), not UVA which are the most free radical damaging rays. Avoid any sunscreen that has this chemical at all costs, especially for children.
Vitamin A (Retinyl Palmitate) – A 2009 study by U.S. government scientists released by the National Toxicology Program found when this is applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, it may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions.
Fragrance – Sure it may make the product smell nice, but this is a petroleum based product that is linked to organ toxicity and allergies.
High SPF – The FDA does not regulate SPF higher than 50 and there’s no scientific proof they work better than lower SPF. Many of the higher SPFs do not provide any additional protection and studies have suggested that users are exposed to as many or more ultraviolet rays as those who use lower-SPF products.
Sprays or Powders – Generally speaking, sprays and powders have additional chemicals added to them for performance purposes. These additional chemicals are usually not something you want to be spraying on your body and can be toxic to the lungs. Besides, remember sunscreen is formulated for your skin, not your lungs. Many of the side effects of sprays and powders on the lungs are not tested before being approved.
Popular Conventional Brands - Aveeno, Banana Boat, Coppertone Sport, Coppertone Water Babies, Bull Frog, Neutragena, Storebrands (CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens), Hawaiian Tropic and many other popular brands are rated the worst in terms of safety in the Environmental Working Group’s Sunscreen Guide. You can use this guide to find out how good or bad the brand you have or want to buy is rated.
How To Choose A Safe Sunscreen:
Look for titanium dioxide and zinc oxide based mineral sunscreens, which do not penetrate the skin and provide UVA protection against the sun’s most damaging rays.
Choose non-nano products that do not have small particles that can absorb into skin
Choose sunscreens that are unscented or use essential oils as fragrance
Pick lotion based sunscreens with water resistance
Pick broad spectrum sunscreens that protect against UVA and UVB rays
Choose sunscreen products that are rated 0-2 in the Environmental Working Group’s Sunscreen Guide.
When it comes to being in the sun, I’m lucky. I tan, don’t burn and don’t completely freak out if I forgot my sunblock – however, because of my olive complexion I have to stay in the sun longer in order to get sufficient Vitamin D. (The lighter your skin color, the faster your absorption of Vitamin D). I wear sunblock at the pool, at the beach and when I’m outdoors for extended periods, but I’ve decided not to wear it everyday.
Using as little as 15 SPF blocks your body’s ability to convert the sun’s rays to Vitamin D by 99%. If you want to increase your chances of avoiding diseases linked to deficiencies in Vitamin D (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and depression) – you must get sunshine! The sun’s rays are pure wonderful energy your body needs.
Before I go – I want to mention this important fact. The biggest immediate benefit of getting sun a few times a week is the reduction of cravings. When Vitamin D levels are low, the hormone that controls appetite stops working. You eat and eat and eat, and never feel full when this happens. The sun contributes significantly to the daily production of Vitamin D, and as little as 10 minutes of exposure a few times a week is enough to help prevent deficiencies. Vitamin D also helps boost serotonin levels, your happy hormone, warding off depression which naturally reduces cravings. For me, this is reason enough to let the sun shine in!
If you know someone that might still be buying sunscreen with shady ingredients, please share this post with them, you could have a serious impact on their livelihood!
Thank you for spreading the word to the ones you love.
P.S. These sunscreen deals below are available for Food Babe readers for a limited time only!
|Posted by Marisa Kimble on March 24, 2014 at 7:50 PM||comments (0)|
Monday, March 24, 2014 by: S. D. Wells
Why is BPA being implicated in so many health articles and research studies being conducted lately? It's been used for decades in a boatload of consumer products, namely metal food and drink containers. Also, dental composites can contain BPA and release it with mercury, exposing adults and children to cancer-causing mutations of the cells in the reproductive, immune and central nervous systems. Now we know that daily exposure to even the lowest concentrations of BPA by pregnant primates can cause fetal abnormalities in the babies they are carrying. Humans who ignore these findings are ignoring other animals that are deformed and/or dying from cancer in the same way that all animals on the planet are affected by consuming chemicals, especially in the womb.
Put simply, BPA, or bisphenol-A, is an endocrine-disrupting chemical that screws up the signaling mechanism that controls estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormones. Now, we're not just talking about in rodents anymore; we're talking about primates and their babies. Human beings better wake up fast! Humans aren't so quick to validate studies on mice and rats, even though our DNA is still almost identical. People think, because rats can eat from the dumpster and survive, that somehow their immune systems invalidate all cancer testing done, but they're "dead" wrong.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences funded a study that looked at chemical blood levels in pregnant female rhesus monkeys and their fetuses, which are more similar to humans than rats are. This should scare humans into action, if nothing else has over the past few decades of BPA collateral damage being done.
Signs of adverse effects were analyzed in tissues from mammary glands, ovaries, brains, uteri and even lungs and hearts. The abnormalities WERE CAUSED by levels of BPA in the monkey fetuses. Do we have your attention yet? The amount of "exposure" was FAR LESS than the average levels that most humans are exposed to every day of their (shortened) lives. One researcher said the study exposes the fact that we as a species are underestimating our own exposure, and that biologically ACTIVE BPA passes from the mother to the fetus. This research was just published in February of this year, 2014.
The Great BPA Cover-Up
The FDA is full of it ("it" being misleading information about BPA). In June of 2013, less than one year ago, the FDA answered a pertinent health question concerning bisphenol-A's safety in food and products sold across the nation, and their simple, unambiguous answer won't surprise you. They ran their own tests about five years ago, so why would they bother looking at any new tests or research for at least a couple of decades, right?
There's a controversy a-brewin' on BPA, or so they would have you believe. Counter-studies are done all the time, by manufacturers of chemicals that frequent food and medicine, especially in the USA, and those studies undoubtedly support the financial interests of the parties that pay for them to be done. Think about it, once the FDA approves a food agent "criminal," it is unlikely to ever be removed. MSG and aspartame represent the KINGS of central nervous system disruptors, but those will never be removed from food, and they're even found in some vaccines.
It's well known that BPA can damage fetuses in humans, and studies dating back to the late 1990s show effects in lab animals from relatively low doses. The chemical is a carbon-based synthetic compound used in the manufacture of epoxy resins and other polymers. We're talking about one of the HIGHEST volume chemicals produced on the planet here. Have you ever thought of declining fertility and population control in the same realm? Have you ever thought of vaccines, Bill Gates and Big Government in the same genre? There is a connection. There is a pattern. Study more about chemicals that deform or kill babies. It's time to get really serious with this subject if you are not already.
This is data that describes how a substance (chemical compound in this case) is absorbed into the body, how it's distributed, in what form it is distributed, how long it lasts in tissues and, finally, how it is eliminated, if ever. Parent compounds and metabolites are forms in which the substances can be delivered, and this type of data is what enables researchers to evaluate exposure scenarios and construct physiological models. This in turn gives us reliable safety data, if the scientists aren't crooks and manipulating data to fit the end results that they auspiciously desire.
Understanding how BPA is metabolized is key. This is also where FDA studies are misleading, with tricky langauge about "oral exposure." They will tell you that the pregnant mother metabolizes BPA efficiently, thus limiting the baby's exposure, and that the baby's metabolization of it increases throughout gestation, including in the placenta. The FDA has also blamed the "specific strain" of rat used as being more sensitive to estrogenic effects. Okay, sure. And why is that? Have those rats been "orally" consuming BPA for decades and their genes are more immune to the deforming damage? That species of rats must have evolved, while the rest of them have not. Wow, what a serendipitous study the FDA has conducted. No wonder they always say, "This statement has not been evaluated." There's just too many rat species out there to run tests on them all!
Currently, it is "safe" to eat a carbon-based synthetic compound used in the manufacture of epoxy resins and other polymers. Thanks, FDA. I'll be sure and trust all the other 70,000 chemical agents approved for use in food.
|Posted by Marisa Kimble on December 11, 2013 at 6:15 PM||comments (0)|
Got a success story of your own? Send it to us at firstname.lastname@example.org and you could be featured in our I Lost Weight series!
Name: Jennifer Smith
Before Weight: 350 pounds
How I Gained It: My first memory of being overweight was when I was five years old on my first day of kindergarten. I had been blissfully ignorant of the fact until that day, but since, have been reminded every day. My entire life I have battled with obesity, never understanding why I had such a strong desire to eat. Over the past year I have realized that I never allowed myself to "feel" anything, I was numbing all emotions with food.
In June 2012, I weighed 350 pounds. I was no longer able to work, as I could hardly take 10 steps without having to sit down and rest. The simplest, everyday things had become difficult for me. I had all the health problems that one would expect from someone my size: high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes (just to name a few). I was on 17 different medications, and on 800 units of insulin per day. I always say I had a heartbeat, but I wasn't alive.
Breaking Point: During a visit to see my endocrinologist, I said to him, "I am just so insulin resistant, I think I could take the whole bottle of insulin and it wouldn't help!" That's when the doctor said, "Jennifer, you are out-eating your insulin."
His statement made me cry for two reasons. One, it was humiliating, and two, why would I do this to myself? I remember this day so profoundly because it's the day my life was forever changed.
How I Lost It: It was there at the Greenville Free Medical Clinic that I met Nursing Director Mark C. Johnson, RN. Mark told me something I hadn't heard in a very long time. He said, "I believe in you, and I know you can lose this weight." Mark can never understand why this meant so much to me. Perhaps it's because I had given up long ago and never expected to hear those words again. It sparked something in me that day and I believed him.
Mark asked me to write down everything I ate for one week and then bring it to him so we could go over it together. After I did that, I met with him and he made simple suggestions that were easy to do. For example, he said, "Instead of five pieces of bacon, have two." What I heard was, "I can still have bacon." He made everything seem possible.
For the first time I was forced to see what I was doing. When you are looking at such a large amount of weight to lose, it seems hopeless, but Mark gave me hope. He taught me that food is not my enemy, and that's where I had gone wrong so many times before. Cutting out certain foods or food groups for a time only made me binge on them later. Instead, I have learned to nourish my body with all types of food. I am not on a diet, I have changed the way I think and feel about food. I now know what foods are going to make me feel good and which ones make me feel bad. I keep a food journal, and I'm careful to follow serving sizes on nutrition labels. Mark has taught me to be mindful of what, when and why I'm eating. I was able to meet with him every week for a year.
Exercise is also a critical part of my weight loss. Mark is an ultra-marathon runner, and he often used his running experiences as a way to relate to my weight-loss journey. I started to think maybe I could run, too. At the end of November 2012, at 300 pounds, I started to run. Not for long: I think it was about 30 seconds before I had to stop and rest. But every day I was back at it, trying again and again. I learned I'm not weak-willed or lazy, and I am very proud to say that in June 2013 I ran my first 8K. Running has tamed the "beast" of my food addiction. Now I run five or six days a week, and I'm training for a half marathon.
My life has changed so much since last year. I am working again at a job I love, and I am able to volunteer at the clinic two days a week leading a nutrition and weight loss class. I have gotten off most of my medications, and I am no longer diabetic. I can never thank the wonderful staff and volunteers at the clinic enough for all their exceptional care and continual encouragement. And, a special thank you to Mark, who saved my life.
Current Weight: 185 pounds. I have 25 more pounds to go to reach my goal.
|Posted by Marisa Kimble on November 11, 2013 at 7:50 PM||comments (0)|
Upson K, AJ De Roos, ML Thompson, S Sathyanarayana, D Scholes, DB Barr, VL Holt. 2013. Organochlorine pesticides and risk of endometriosis: Findings from a population-based case-control study. Environmental Health Perspectives. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1306648.
Synopsis by Lindsey Konkel
Exposure to two banned pesticides may be associated with an increased risk of endometriosis, according to new research. Previous studies in rodents suggest that organochlorine pesticides and other chlorinated compounds may act as hormone disruptors, altering uterine and ovarian function and raising the risks of reproductive diseases.
National Institutes of Health
Exposure to organochlorine pesticides may increase women's risk of reproductive diseases.
Exposure to two banned pesticides may be associated with an increased risk of endometriosis, according to researchers from Washington State.
Endometriosis, a disease in which uterine tissue grows in the ovaries or other parts of the body, often causes pelvic pain and infertility.
The researchers focused on organochlorine pesticides, which were widely used for decades but mostly have been banned due to health concerns. They break down slowly in the environment and persist for many years in human tissue.
Links to endometriosis were found for the insecticides lindane and mirex. Mirex was banned in the United States in 1978. Most uses of lindane also have been banned, although it is still used in some doctor-prescribed lice shampoos.
Previous studies in rodents suggest that organochlorine pesticides and other chlorinated compounds may act as hormone disruptors, altering uterine and ovarian function and raising the risks of reproductive diseases.
The new study is one of the first to examine the association between organochlorine pesticides and endometriosis in women in the general population. Six to 10 percent of reproductive-age women in the U.S. suffer from endometriosis.
“Our study suggests that exposure from extensive past use of environmentally persistent OCPs in the United States, or present use in other countries may impact the health of the current generation of reproductive-age women with regard to a hormonally-mediated disease,” the study authors wrote.
The researchers focused on organochlorine pesticides, which were widely used for decades but mostly have been banned due to health concerns. They break down slowly in the environment and persist for many years in human tissue.Researchers tested blood from 248 women with clinically diagnosed endometriosis and 538 healthy women for traces of 11 organochlorine pesticides and byproducts. The women ranged in age from 17 to 49. The majority were white.
The women were divided into four groups, or quartiles, based on the level of pesticide in each woman’s blood.
Women in the second-highest exposure group for beta-hexacyclochlorohexane (beta-HCH), a byproduct of lindane, had a 70 percent greater risk of endometriosis than women with the lowest levels. Women with the highest levels of mirex had a 50 percent greater risk of endometriosis than women with the lowest levels.
When the researchers looked only at women with ovarian endometriosis (uterine tissue growing in the ovaries), the association was much stronger – a 2.5 times greater risk for those with the highest blood levels of the lindane byproduct than those with the lowest levels.
There were no statistically significant associations for other pesticides, including chlordane, DDT and hexachlorobenzene.
The researchers collected the blood samples an average of 1.2 years after diagnosis of endometriosis, so it’s possible that the concentrations may not reflect the levels that existed in the women’s blood while the disease was developing.
However, their results are consistent with those of a smaller study published last year, which linked HCH exposure and endometriosis.
|Posted by Marisa Kimble on October 29, 2013 at 7:45 PM||comments (0)|
The DNA you were born with is in fact not your destiny! Time magazine featured epigenetics on the cover of their January 2010 issue and again in July 2011.
The science of Epigenetics says that 30% of our DNA or “Genome” is pre-programmed and can’t be changed as opposed to the 100% scientists used to believe prior to the 2002 mapping of the human genome. The amazing and life changing discovery is that 70% of our epigenome (“epi” meaning above) or the layer above our DNA is controllable and influenced by the following four factors; Environment, Nutrition, Exercise and your Spiritual & Social relationships.
Scientists are learning through the discoveries of epigenetics how to jump start good genes that extend life and silence bad genes which prevents disease and slows down the aging process.
Epigenetics and Nutrition is designed to educate you and provide real, natural solutions in each of these Four Pillars of Epigenetic health. By following these recommendations and implementing these practices in your life, you can become the person you either used to be or dream about becoming.
It is attainable, you don’t have to suffer, you can live a life full of vitality, free of aches & pains, medications, and disease. You can change your life forever. Epigenetics is changing the world’s view on health!
Epigenetics and Nutrition has many programs, nutritional products, books, methods, resources and informational materials listed under the four Epigenetic Pillars- Environment, Nutrition, Exercise and Spiritual & Social have all been pre-tested and shown to affect you at an epigenetic or gene level. All you need to do is make a commitment to take responsibility for your health because your family, your primary Doctor (in 90% of all cases), your friends and especially your Government are not going to, only you can make the changes necessary to take control of your health!
I added one more Pillar, the fifth Pillar that I genuinely believe affects us at an Epigenetic level as well, Wealth! And by Wealth, I mean Wealth creation and Wealth protection. It’s not enough to create Wealth, we also need to know how to not only hang onto it but also how to nurture and grow it! Being wealthy provides a sense of protection from fears and anxiety.
|Posted by Marisa Kimble on October 15, 2013 at 6:10 PM||comments (0)|
By Dr. Brent Hunter
Posted Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 12:06pm EDT
Keywords: adhd, autism, Childhood Cancer, detox, Dr. Brent Hunter, Prescription Drugs, toxicity, Toxins, vaccines, wellness, Wellness Achiever, Wellness Lifestyle
From BPA, MSG, pesticides, environmental chemicals, household cleaners, toxins in vaccines and prescription drugs, our children are exposed to a huge amount of toxic chemicals. Toxins are everywhere in our modern society. They are damaging your child’s health and causing disease. How can you get these chemicals out of your children’s bodies and protect them? The first step is to understand where they are coming from. Then you can eliminate them and incorporate a healthy lifestyle that naturally detoxes your child’s body.
This article is Part 1 of 2 addressing the issue of toxicity in our children and what to do to detox them. It is not necessarily easy to rid your kid’s bodies of years of these stored toxins but it is possible. In part 2, we will discuss specific strategies and tips for detoxing.
Toxins and Childhood Health
The problem of toxic exposure has only increased year by year. My readers of more advanced years will remember a time when children were generally healthy and active. Today, however, there are more children who are sick and taking prescription drugs than there are healthy children. Certainly, there are many factors that contribute to this but the extreme exposure to toxins is a huge factor that you can control.
Nearly 12 million children in the United States under age 18 suffer from one or more learning, developmental, or behavioral disabilities.(1) We have seen ridiculous increases in the incidence of autism, ADHD and cancer in children. Consider these facts:
•Autism rates were 1 in 150 in 2000. By 2008, the rate had increased to 1 in 88.(2)
•From 2001 to 2010, the rate of ADHD diagnosis increased 25%.(3)
•Cancer is now the leading cause of death by disease in children under age 15.(4)
My Experience with Toxicity in my Own Child
When my son was born, the doctors felt that my wife had an infection in the birth canal. If that were the case, it could be transferred to my son during delivery and cause harm to him. However, the only way to confirm the infection is a bacterial culture that takes three days to grow. As a result, my son was placed on ‘precautionary’, heavy doses of three different I.V. antibiotics for three days.
Well, three days later, the cultures came back negative – my son never had a bacterial infection at all. However, the three days of heavy antibiotics were not without effect. As a result of the antibiotics, my son is profoundly deaf. There is nothing I can do to restore his hearing. However, the experience that we gained over the last five years dealing with his deafness have been amazing. In fact, my wife and I write about those experiences at this blog: Seeing Life Differently.
Additionally, the antibiotics wreaked major havoc on his digestion system. It took at least three months to detox him from the antibiotics and restore his normal digestive functions. He endured a lot of discomfort and pain for three months all due to three days of antibiotic treatment.
He is now one of the healthiest, non-toxic kids I know. Since that incident at birth, he has never had need of any prescription drugs, including antibiotics.
He attends the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind - a public school serving Deaf and Blind children in all of Florida. Many of the children at this wonderful school live in dorms Monday through Friday. The school has a great medical clinic/health center right on campus.
On registration day, all the parents have to also check in with the health center. It was amazing to me how many of the parents - nearly all - checked in prescription drugs for their children’s chronic health conditions! Toxicity from prescription drugs alone is a huge problem for our children.
It seemed like we waited forever in the line for the health center. We simply had to let them know that he has no drugs, remind them of his vaccine exemption, and sign a health services form.
I thank God everyday for my child’s great health. It is not that he has great genes. It is that we have formed a lifestyle for him that produces great health. This is no easy task as a parent, for sure. But it is possible, even for picky eaters like my son and every other five year old kid!
The fact is that children are exposed the same chemical toxins as adults. However, children are more vulnerable to toxins than adults for several reasons.
•Their bodies are still growing
•Pound for pound children drink more water/juices, eat more food and breathe more air than the average adult which increases their exposure to toxins
•The typical child receives 50+ toxin-laden vaccines before age 6(5)
Here are the top 10 toxins that our children are exposed to regularly:
1. Mercury Fillings. The mercury in these fillings is slowly leached into your kid’s body everyday which causes long term neurological damage. This mercury exposure is made even worse by the other sources your child is exposed to from vaccines and other drugs.
2. Toxins in Vaccines. Vaccines are not as safe as you may have been led to believe. I do not intend to discuss the validity of vaccines in this post. I would refer you to NVIC and Vactruth.com for a full discussion of this important issue. However, please do educate yourself fully before deciding which vaccines and how many vaccines to give to your child. Regardless of your vaccine decision, they are filled with toxic chemicals that damage your child’s health and cause disease. Here are just some of the common vaccine ingredients – posted on the CDC website(6) - that may shock you:
•Formaldehyde – also used to preserve dead things
•Mercury (thimerosal), especially in flu vaccines
•Aluminum – highly associated with alzheimer’s disease
•Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)
•Antibiotics (neomycin, streptomycin)
•Human cells from aborted fetal tissue
•Cells from pig and horse blood
•Monkey kidney cells
•Calf serum protein
•Chicken embryo cells
•Egg Protein extracts
•Soy Protein extracts
• Ammonium Sulfate
3. Prescription Drugs. I discussed the problem with antibiotics that my child experienced. That was only scratching the surface. Prescription drugs are all toxic and inherently dangerous. ADHD drugs are especially dangerous and toxic. They belong to a class of drugs called amphetamines and are similar to street drugs like meth and speed. No parent would even consider handing their child meth. However, when a doctor gives you a prescription for a legal version of the same thing, unfortunately, most parents don’t even think twice about giving it to their kids every day. Even worse, more and more kids are being prescribed antidepressant drugs as well with devastating effects.
4. MSG in foods and personal care products. MSG is everywhere. It is very toxic and results in many health problems. Read How to Avoid Being Secretly Poisoned by MSG to learn more about this important issue.
5. Toxins in processed foods and fast foods. Have you thought about the amount of synthetic chemicals, preservatives, nitrates and artificial colors and flavors in the hot dog that you give your child for lunch? These chemicals are used in all processed and fast foods and are a constant source of toxicity.
6. Toxins in Laundry products. These products may smell nice, however, the chemicals that create that fragrance are cancer-causing toxins. They are absorbed by your clothing and then absorbed through your skin and into your body.
7. Toxins in shampoo and personal care products (soap, deodorant, toothpaste, etc). Have you read the back of your shampoo or body wash bottle lately? Chances are that you will not recognize 99% of the ingredients. Neither will your body when they are absorbed through your skin.
8. Toxins in household cleaning products. Window cleaners state on the bottle that they are harmful or fatal if swallowed. Bleach will certainly cause grave danger if ingested. Though we don’t drink them, these chemicals are absorbed into our bodies by inhalation or through our skin.
9. Pesticides in the home, food, and environment. We use pesticides in the home that get into our bodies by inhalation or accidental skin exposure. We consume produce and meat that contain ridiculous levels of pesticides.
10. Soda pop. Both – depending on where you live – soda (and) pop contain high amounts of phosphoric acid which literally dissolves your child’s teeth and leads to softening of the bones as well. Not to mention the high fructose corn syrup causing toxicity, obesity and diabetes.
If you stop to think about all of these items, it becomes abundantly clear that our children (and you) are toxic! What can you do? How do you get rid of these toxins? We will discuss that in part 2 of this series. Look for it tomorrow.
The information in this article and the next (part 2) have been presented as a result of a question from a Wellness Achiever Newsletter subscriber. Be sure to subscribe for the latest updates from Wellness Achiever. You will also periodically have the opportunity to ask your questions about health and wellness and have them answered here. Visit WellnessAchiever.net and you will see a box near the top, right side of this article to enter your email address.
|Posted by Marisa Kimble on October 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM||comments (0)|
HLA-DQ and susceptibility to celiac disease: evidence for gender differences and parent-of-origin effects.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Apr;103(4):997-1003. Epub 2008 Jan 2. PMID: 18177450
Francesca Megiorni, Barbara Mora, Margherita Bonamico, Maria Barbato, Monica Montuori, Franca Viola, Simonetta Trabace, Maria C Mazzilli
Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Celiac disease (CD) is twice as frequent among female than male. Despite the large number of reports on the DQ2/DQ8 association, no systematic studies have investigated a possible different role of the HLA genes in the two genders. We performed case-control and family-based analyses of DR-DQ variants in a pediatric CD cohort with the aim of comparing female to male associations and to investigate the paternal/maternal inheritance of the disease-predisposing haplotypes.
METHODS: A total of 281 female and 156 male pediatric celiac patients, 292 nuclear families, and 551 controls were genotyped for HLA-DRB1, DQA1, and DQB1 loci. Odds ratio, parental origin of the disease-associated haplotypes, and transmission ratio distortion were evaluated in-between male and female cases.
RESULTS: DQ2/DQ8 were more frequent in female than in male patients (94% F, 85% M; P = 1.6 x 10(-3)) with a 99.1% and 90.5% calculated negative predictive value of the HLA test, respectively. Surprisingly, the majority of the 39 DQ2/DQ8 negative cases were male. The analysis of the DQ2 haplotype origin showed that 61% of female patients and 42% of male patients carried a paternal combination (P = 0.02). The transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) proved the major distortion in the DR3-DQ2 transmission from fathers to daughters.
CONCLUSIONS: CD is confirmed to be more prevalent in female than in male (F:M = 1.8) but, in DQ2/DQ8 negative patients, we found an unexpected male excess (F:M = 0.7). Moreover, only the inheritance of a paternal DQ2 haplotype led to a daughters predominance. These data show a role of HLA genes on the disease sex bias and suggest a possible different effect of parent-specific epigenetic modifications in the two genders.
Article Published Date : Apr 01, 2008
Study Type : Human Study
|Posted by Marisa Kimble on September 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM||comments (0)|
Gerona, RR, TJ Woodruff, CA Dickenson, J Pan, JM Schwartz, S Sen, M Friesen, VY Fujimoto and PA Hunt. 2013. BPA, BPA glucuronide, and BPA sulfate in mid-gestation umbilical cord serum in a northern California cohort. Environmental Science and Technology http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es402764d
Synopsis by EHN Staff
A new study in California found bisphenol A in all samples of umbilical cord blood obtained from pregnant women, suggesting universal fetal exposure. More than one-third of the samples had levels comparable to or higher than levels associated with health effects in animals.
All samples of umbilical cord blood obtained from pregnant women in California had detectable levels of bisphenol A, suggesting "universal fetal exposure," according to newly published research.
The study is the first to show that second-trimester fetuses are widely exposed to relatively high levels of BPA, an estrogen-like substance found in polycarbonate plastic, food can liners and other commonplace consumer products.
The scientists sampled cord blood from the fetuses of 85 women who had undergone elective abortions at a San Francisco clinic that serves Northern and Central California.
Three of the samples had BPA levels higher than ever reported in other umbilical cord blood, which had been collected from full-term fetuses. Thirty-six percent had levels comparable to or higher than those associated with developmental effects in animal tests.
"Our findings suggest universal fetal exposure to BPA in our study population, with some at relatively high levels, and we provide the first evidence of detectable BPA sulfate in mid-gestation fetuses," the scientists from University of California, San Francisco and Washington State University wrote in the study, which was published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology last week.
BPA at low doses has been linked to an array of developmental effects in animals, particularly neurological and behavioral changes, according to published studies. Whether there are effects on the human fetus is unknown, however. The National Toxicology Program, based on the animal experiments, concluded that there is "some concern" for brain, behavior and prostate effects in infants and children.
Some scientists have said that there should be no detectable levels of the active form of BPA in human blood. They say that the BPA found in people must be caused by laboratory error because nearly all active BPA should be metabolized when it passes through the liver. But in this study, the scientists reported that they tested all the materials used in sample collection and storage to make sure they were BPA-free.
Laura Vandenberg, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who studies BPA but was not part of this study, said "these results should go a long way toward dispelling the myth that all BPA in human blood is the result of accidental contamination during sampling."
For this study, the scientists developed a new technology for testing BPA in cord blood, allowing them to measure three types of BPA, including the first discovery of BPA sulfate in cord blood. BPA sulfate is a form that is created when BPA passes through the liver.
Previous studies have tested pregnant women's blood, amniotic fluid, placenta and cord blood, but none had examined mid-gestation samples.
"Our median BPA levels are similar to those measured in term umbilical cord serum from larger studies, [however] the concentrations of BPA in our study include the highest levels reported to date," the researchers wrote.
The data suggest that the immaturity of the fetus's metabolic system and its "saturation" with BPA "may both act to increase fetal exposure to BPA during early to mid-gestation," the authors wrote. Animal studies previously have shown that fetal levels of BPA in certain tissues can exceed the mother's levels.
One possible explanation for the higher levels is that the women were primarily low-income and more ethnically diverse than the general U.S. population. Previous research suggests ethnicity and socio-economic factors may contribute to exposure differences. Also, the new analytic technique could be more accurate than the techniques used to test other cord blood.
In this population, there was large variability in the amount of active BPA compared to the converted forms. Active BPA ranged from less than one one-hundredth to over 400 times the other two forms. If the liver's metabolism were as effective as assumed by the Food and Drug Administration, active BPA would be virtually undetectable in blood and less than a tiny fraction of metabolized BPA.
These findings challenge the regulatory assumptions about BPA safety. It has been assumed that all consumed BPA passes into the liver. But a study published earlier this year suggested why this assumption may be false. It showed that significant amounts of active BPA can be absorbed in the mouth and then passed directly into the bloodstream. These new data are consistent with that finding.
"Overall our findings point to the importance of fetal exposure to BPA during development and the need to accurately assess the full range of human exposure during pregnancy," the authors wrote.