New Report Details Harms of Fracking including Asthma, Birth Defects, Cancer

A new report, titled Compendium of Scientific, Medical and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking is the most authoritative study that’s ever been done on fracking and how it is contaminating the air and water – and imperiling the health of millions of us.

Our examination of the peer-reviewed medical and public health literature uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health.”

This report looked at news investigations, government assessments, and more than a thousand peer-reviewed research articles. The study shows that fracking is poisoning our air, contaminating the groundwater, and putting our health of at risk.

Recommended: Start Eating Like That and Start Eating Like This – Your Guide to Homeostasis Through Diet

Just How Bad is fracking? Why?

Dr. Sandra Steingraber is a biologist and one of the co-authors. She’s been a public health advocate on issues like breast cancer and toxic incinerators. She says that “Fracking is the worst thing I’ve ever seen.”

Those of us in the public health sector started to realize years ago that there were potential risks, then the industry rolled out faster than we could do our science. Now we see those risks have turned into human harms and people are getting sick. And we in this field have a moral imperative to raise the alarm.” –Dr. Steingraber, Rolling Stone

Fracking is a complicated extraction process with public health hazards at virtually every part of the process. If you want to read it, click here to read the report, and then click the download button to view the PDF.

Recommended: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

Residents living near an active fracking site breathe in carcinogens like benzene and formaldehyde. THis leads to an increased risk of asthma and leads to developmental disorders and problems with pregnancies.

Pregnant women have a major risk, not only themselves but they’re carrying a fetus whose cells are multiplying continuously. If those cells get hit by some toxic chemical from fracking, it may not manifest itself for years.” – Dr. Lynn Ringenberg, president-elect of Physicians for Social Responsibility

Fracking sites have caught fire some have even exploded, as happened last month in Belmont County, Ohio. Communities have shown that fracking contaminates underground aquifers with hazardous chemicals. Fracked gas travels through pipelines, and leaks and explosions are now well-documented. Piped gas has to continuously be re-pressurized at compressor stations, and those stations have been documented to emit toxic gases and fine particle matter like methane, benzene, formaldehyde and other known human carcinogens. 

Dr. Kathleen Nolan is a co-author of the report. She’s a pediatrician and bioethicist. Dr. Nolan has examined people who have been sickened by fracking. She describes a case of one western Pennsylvania family:

They would see a yellow fog, kind of like a chemical mist coming from the compressor station. Their two youngest children, nine and 11, started having tics where their muscles would go into spasms, those spasms would persist even when they were asleep.”

Recommended: Heal Cavities, Gum Disease, Naturally with Organic Oral Care – Toothpaste recipes included

Of course, Scott Pruit, our head of the EPA who’s always wanting to be on the wrong side of history, is a big fan of Fracking.

For more on the dangers of fracking:




U.S. EPA reverses policy on ‘major sources’ of pollution

After 23 years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the portion of the Clean Air Act designed to reduce air emissions of mercury, lead, benzene, and arsenic. This move from President Trump’s EPA is a departure from the “once-in always-in” policy established in 1995 and is the latest in a long line of attempts to revoke federal EPA regulations. The petroleum and other fossil fuel industries, utility companies, and chemical manufacturers stand to benefit from the ability to reclassify major sources of air pollution as “area” pollution. More than 4.6 million people worldwide die from airborne pollution yearly and dismantling one of the policies designed to curb it is unsustainable, unhealthy, and shows the U.S. as a country unwilling to put aside petty squabbles and focus on urgent global issues.

Recommended: Great Pacific Garbage Patch Now Twice the Size of Texas

Lower Standards

The EPA and Republicans in Congress like the leaders on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), asserts that this relaxing of the Clean Air Act will be a good thing. According to Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, “It will reduce regulatory burden for industries and the states, while continuing to ensure stringent and effective controls on hazardous air pollutants…”

Recommended: The Last Male Northern White Rhino Has Died

This policy affects stationary sources of air pollutants, which are divided into two different categories, major sources and area sources. Major sources release either 10 million tons of any listed toxic air pollutant or 25 tons per year of a mixture of air pollutants. Any other sources of air pollutants is an area source. The biggest issue of contention is the 1995 “once-in always-in” policy that permanently classifies a pollutant generator as a major source (and subject to the increased scrutiny and regulation that come with that) if it is still emitting a certain level of toxins at an assigned date. Now, those major sources that are below the threshold of pollution are no longer subject to the maximum achievable control technology.

Recommended: Ocean Plastic To Triple Within A Decade

So It Goes

This is not the first effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to recently relax regulations. The Trump administration has targeted over 67 environmental laws, more than half of which have been overturned or are in the process of being rolled back. Most of the reasons for these changes have been economic or bureaucratic. Ironically, the environment doesn’t seem to be high on the list of priorities.

Sources:

 

 




Birth Control Pills for Men are Here. What Does that Mean for Reproductive Health?

Effective male birth control might finally be on its way, as scientists from the University of Washington Medical Center and the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, CA prepare to present their experimental oral contraceptive at the Endocrine Society’s 100th meeting in Chicago. The pill, called dimethandrolone undecanoate or DMAU, contains an androgen like testosterone, a progestin and a long-chain fatty acid (undecanoate) that keeps the birth control from clearing the body too quickly. This last component appears to be key to this new contraceptive offering, according to the study’s senior investigator, Stephanie Page, M.D., Ph.D., professor of medicine at the University of Washington.

DMAU is a major step forward in the development of a once-daily ‘male pill’…Many men say they would prefer a daily pill as a reversible contraceptive, rather than long-acting injections or topical gels, which are also in development.”

Related: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

Mild Repercussions?

The sample size for this study was small, with a total of 83 men completing the study. At the highest dose of the contraceptive, participants had significantly lower levels of testosterone and two of the hormones required for sperm production. Previous male birth control efforts showed liver inflammation, but this new effort passed all kidney and liver safety tests.

Or Serious Side Effects?

The pill didn’t result in any liver damage, but all groups taking part in the trial reported weight gain and decreases in HDL (“good”) cholesterol levels. Researchers classified these issues as mild, but these side effects may indicate that men with lower testosterone experience a lower level of health.

In a recent study of over 5,000 Italian men, scientists found that men with lower sperm count were 20 percent more likely to have higher blood pressure, bad cholesterol, and weigh more. The lower sperms levels went hand in hand with decreased testosterone, leaving many men at increased risk for diabetes, heart disease, stroke and decrease muscle and bone health. Dr. Alberto Ferlin, the leader of this study and a professor of endocrinology at the University of Bresci, said, “Infertile men are likely to have important co-existing health problems or risk factors that can impair quality of life and shorten their lives.”

Related: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

Spreading the Discomfort Around

The side effects of this pill don’t appear to be serious, but a universally reported weight gain and increased bad cholesterol is the precursor to more serious health issues later in life. But it remains to be seen if men will be interested in managing their reproductive functions with a daily pill, especially one where it must be taken with food to be effective.

I’m not saying that women need to continue taking on the majority of the faux hormone contraceptive responsibilities…in fact, why hasn’t this happened sooner!! But there are still serious health issues stemming from that that we have yet to properly address in modern medicine. Are we adding on to that dog pile? Then again, by the year 2050, giving birth will likely be an extremely dicey proposition due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Sources



Lawsuit Filed Against Unethical Herpes Vaccine Startup – Vaccines Given Without Consent

Rational Vaccines, a startup founded by a microbiologist at Southern Illinois University, Dr. William Halford, is being sued by three subjects from experimental trials of a live herpes virus vaccine conducted in 2013 and 2016. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for adverse side effects associated with the vaccine, which was administered both in a Holiday Inn room in 2013 and on the islands of St. Kitts and Nevis in 2016 without formal written consent. Neither of these trials had a physician present and were conducted without the approval of either an independent institutional review board or the Food and Drug Administration. Though Rational Vaccines has said it plans to seek FDA approval, this lawsuit alleges that the company violated U.S. and international laws protecting the rights of patients.

Questionable Research

The human subjects involved in this trial are likely to be left with many questions as to why the trial was conducted in such a shoddy fashion. There was no formal written consent. None of the usual regulating agencies were involved in the vaccine trial. After an auspicious start in a hotel room, the location of the trials was moved to an international location to better avoid these regulating industries, although subjects were given booster shots upon their return to the United States.

Related: We Consume Livestock Vaccines When We Ingest Meat

The findings from the 2013 and 2016 trials of the vaccine have not been published, yet Rational Vaccines considers the last one a success. Now they’re being sued. According to Alan Milstein, the New Jersey lawyer retained by the plaintiffs, “My clients are anxious to ensure such unethical experimentation on human subjects are not repeated…”

What Transparency?

What about the University? The Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, where Dr. Halford was employed for 10 years, is still investigating his research methods on the request of the Department of Health and Human Services. While they acknowledge that his conduct violated both University code and U.S. law, the dean of the medical school, Jerry Kruse, maintains that Dr. Halford’s research was kept hidden. This contradicts quotes from an article in The State Journal Registrar of Springfield that stated “I hope this works… The initial results are astounding…Halford is “an outstanding scientist — a genius, actually…” Denying knowledge of Dr. Halford’s shady practices also seems disingenuous considering the University owns the patent for Dr. Halford’s technology and admitting to any wrongdoing stands to lose the University 15 million dollars in federal research grants.

Related: Steps To Help Minimize Vaccine Side Effects

But It’s Profit

In cases like this, it helps to go straight to the source – Dr. Halford. Unfortunately (or conveniently, if you prefer a touch of conspiracy with your vaccine news), he died of cancer in June 2017. But the company is continuing on. In fact, they’re thriving, receiving 7 million dollars in funding from billionaire businessman, FDA critic, and Trump supporter, Peter Thiel.

Is this the tale of a rogue scientist, going off the rails, trying desperately to finish his life’s work before he’s cruelly struck down by cancer? Or do we believe the university’s narrative, willing to turn a blind eye to unorthodox and frankly dangerous research practices in the hopes of new achievements and increased fundraising? How about the story of a scrappy startup with a dream, willing to find a way past any and all obstacles to bring the world something it needs at any cost? Maybe it’s all three.

Related: How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

Shakeup…or Shakedown?

One of the trial subjects, Richard Mancuso, has gone on record stating that the vaccine cured his herpes. Rational Vaccines now has a powerful backer with a proven track record of disruption at a time when patients are no longer taking doctors and researchers at their word. Many of the medical community’s common practices are out of date and actively degrading the world we live in.

Related: How Plumbing (Not Vaccines) Eradicated Disease

But is injecting people with live vaccines in a hotel room and a startling lack of transparency really the precedent we want to set for new medical research going forward?

Sources:

 




Scientists Discover a Superbug With Undetectable Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria, particularly those included in the Enterobacteriaceae family like E.coli and salmonella, is one of the most urgent crises facing the healthcare industry. Figures predict 10 million deaths a year will occur worldwide by 2050 if nothing changes, and that doesn’t even take into account the long-term health issues those who survive will face. Currently, those who contract this kind of infection face a mortality rate of 40 to 50 percent. If that’s not enough to send a frisson of worry down the back of your neck, researchers at Emory University in Atlanta have discovered a strain of Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) where current diagnostic tests are unable to detect it’s resistance to medicine’s last line of defense. According to the study,

The data are worrisome, especially since the colistin heteroresistance was not detected by current diagnostic tests. As these isolates were carbapenem resistant, clinicians might turn to colistin as a last-line therapy for infections caused by such strains, not knowing that they in fact harbor a resistant subpopulation of cells, potentially leading to treatment failure.”

Recommended: Household Cleaners May Damage Lungs Like Pack-a-Day Smoking Habit, According to New Study

Bacteria Evolution

The strain is called Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP), and it’s resistant to almost all available antibiotics, including carbapenems, a commonly used treatment for multidrug-resistant bacteria. Prior to this study, scientists thought it was still susceptible to colistin, the antibiotics of last resort, at a dose of 0.5 ml or less. A closer look at that bacteria has revealed that 1 in 1,000 CRKP cells can survive a dosage four times that (2 ml). Those cells are genetically identical to the antibiotic- susceptible bacteria, and scientists identified a protein in the cell’s membrane that signaled another protein inside the bacteria to turn resistance on and off. This communication system enables the bacteria to hide in plain sight, and our current health system has no way to counter it.

A New System

This is not the first and will not be the last study to reach the conclusion that something in the healthcare system is fundamentally flawed. Sick? Take antibiotics. Still not better? Here are stronger ones! Scientists have confirmed that current diagnostic tests can’t even properly determine how to treat these pathogens, and yet clinicians keep throwing the same pharmaceuticals at them. And even those practices are in serious danger, as the World Health Organization has confirmed recently that the world is running out of antibiotics.

Recommended: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

So much of our modern lifestyle is designed to be easy and convenient and it can be hard to see what the actual cost of it is. The bill has arrived for the antibiotics. Are we prepared to pay it?

Sources:



Cancer and Processed Food – A New Study Officially Finds a Link

A new study of over 100,000 people’s eating habits in France found that a 10 percent increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods resulted in a 12 percent increase some cancers, confirming yet again that diet is a key component in disease prevention. Ultra-processed foods include soda, mass-produced bread, sweets, processed meats, and prepackaged meals, and this is the first scientific study to strongly link them to cancer. The study also established a massive database of the additives in specific foods, including commercial names and brands. The NutriNet-Santé cohort study concludes, “Further studies are also needed to better understand the relative effect of nutritional composition, food additives, contact materials, and neoformed contaminants in this relation. Rapidly increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods may drive an increasing burden of cancer and other non-communicable diseases.”

Recommended: Gluten, Candida, Leaky Gut Syndrome, and Autoimmune Diseases

Global Patterns

Let’s look at breast cancer. Common reasons given for the rise in breast cancer diagnoses include age, stress, obesity, lack of exercise, and having children later in life. Lifestyle choices are usually mentioned, but specific aspects of diet and lifestyle aren’t discussed. With this study, researchers noticed an increase of greater than 10 percent in the rates of breast cancer in response to ultra-processed food. This link mirrors trends happening throughout the world. Rapidly industrializing regions all over the world are all seeing a rapid rise in the incidences of breast cancer in conjunction with the increased presence of pre-packaged foods.

China

Since 2000, cases of breast cancer in China have increased by an average of 3.5 percent per year. Due to the country’s intense industrialization, rates of diagnosis are higher in cities than in rural areas. The move to urban areas has also increased the consumption of quick and easy to prepare pre-packaged meals and junk food offerings from Western companies like Kraft, Nestlé, and PepsiCo. Fast food sales are also a cause for concern, rising an average of 13 percent annually.

Recommended: Fungal Infections – How to Eliminate Yeast, Candida, and Mold Infections For Good

Central and South America

The majority of the Western hemisphere is a large region, but the circumstances are remarkably similar. There were over 140,000 new cases of breast cancer reported in 2012, and estimates predict that number will increase 70 percent by the year 2030. The growth in cancer rates comes at a time when these countries are being inundated by gigantic multinational corporations that specialize in ultra-processed food like Nestlé and Coca-Cola. Fast food chains are also expanding aggressively in the region.

Why Is That?

Ultra-processed foods contain large amounts of fat, sugar, and additives, and have been tied to obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. It’s difficult to know whether the fat, sugar or additives are responsible for ultra-processed food’s link to cancer, as many additives, colorings, and sweeteners in those foods are linked to asthma, skin conditions, vomiting, intestinal distress, inflammation, autoimmune disorders, depression, fatigue, diabetes, periodontal disease, and hyperactivity, among other things. Taken individually, the ingredients in these foods constitute serious health concerns.

Who knows what happens when a product contains more than one of these additives together? We don’t. Until now, no one has been doing that science.

Recommended: How to Cure Lyme Disease, and Virtually Any Other Bacterial Infection, Naturally

The Cumulative Effect

Although the sales of processed and packaged foods are declining in the United States, these items still account for over half of all calories consumed in the country. They’re beginning to account for a much larger percentage of the world’s diet than ever before.

Even as deaths from breast cancer decrease, the number of diagnoses continues to rise. Improved standards of care account for fewer deaths, but incidences of cancer continue to increase because those standards don’t address the reason this is happening – our diet. This study is the first to make that connection and the first study that saw a definite increase in breast cancer in correlation with increased processed food consumption.

If we want to manage our health care system, we must manage our food system. They are the same thing.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Iceland Law Would Outlaw Male Circumcision

An Icelandic bill recently introduced says the circumcision of young boys violates their rights. The lawmakers draw a parallel with female genital mutilation which is outlawed in most European countries. The bill says that circumcisions are performed without anesthesia, and states that the procedure is carried out “in homes that are not sterile, and not by doctors but by religious leaders. There is a high risk of infections under such conditions that may lead to death.”

This is fundamentally about not causing unnecessary harm to a child,” – Silja Dogg Gunnarsdottir, lawmaker who introduced the bill

Recommended: A Look at the Flu Shot

The proposed law calls circumcision a violation of human rights

…since boys are not able to give an informed consent of an irreversible physical intervention.”

Circumcision is not common in Iceland, Iceland is a small Atlantic Ocean island nation of 340,000 people. They are predominantly Lutheran or atheist, with an estimated 100 to 200 Jews and about 1,100 practicing Muslims according to The Tribune.

Related: Religious Reasons Not To Circumcise

The bill has eight co-sponsors. It is considered unlikely to get be voted in. The bill will not reach the majority in the 63-seat Iceland parliament it needs. It does not have the formal backing of any government ministers. But the bill has levied considerable support from 422 Icelandic doctors who want to retire the practice.

Iceland is known for progressive legislation on gender equality. In a world’s first, last month, the government made it illegal for companies to pay women less than men.

More on Circumcision: