Every four years, the Center for Disease Control analyzes blood lead levels of children. Children under six whose blood levels test above 5 milligrams of lead per deciliter have enough lead in their body for the CDC to recommend a public health response. Before 2012, the level causing concern was twice as high as today’s. The level change expanded the potential number of children needing treatment from 150,000 to 535,000. With a new National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey from 2016, there are rumors that the CDC will again lower the reference blood lead levels from 5 mg of lead per deciliter to 3.5 mg.
How Does the Lead Get There?
Lead exposure is declining in the U.S. Levels of lead in children’s bloodstream have fallen over 90% since the use of lead in paint and gasoline was banned almost forty years ago. So where is the lead coming from? The majority of the children above the reference levels of lead are primarily exposed to lead in their homes. In addition to older homes with lead-based paints and toxic soil, contaminated water is becoming common (Flint, MI is only the most publicized case).
Lead does not belong in the body. The fact that the reference level for lead in children’s blood may be lowered again is a good thing, as raising awareness and preventing lead exposure whenever possible is incredibly important. Awareness is good, but for this potential level change, local government follow-through will be likely be limited. The CDC doesn’t actually have any regulatory power with this issue, and local labs and lead testing devices are rarely accurate around the new proposed levels, 3.5 mg.
There is also the issue of cost. Lead safety programs around the country last year were allocated a 17 million dollar budget, which resulted in understaffing and an inability to handle the cases already present. The last time the lead references levels were lowered, the number of children affected by that change almost tripled. If another shift like that occurs without a corresponding budget change, it’s likely communities will be unable to rise to the challenge set by the CDC.
What Can You Do at Home?
The average blood lead level in children 1-5 years old is from 1 to 1.3 mg. Even if you or your children aren’t exposed to lead-based paint on a regular basis, the likelihood of lead being in the body is very high (if only at low levels). While the CDC is raising awareness among medical health and government officials, they are less clear on how you can help yourself.
There are ways to remove lead and other heavy metals from the body (called chelation) by adding common, healthy foods like garlic and cilantro to the diet. The higher the blood lead levels, the more likely a medical professional needs to intervene. You can address your lead level every day before it becomes a toxic overload by doing something as simple as sprinkling raw garlic on your salad or dinner.
Four Children Dead in Amarillo, TX in Pesticide Poisoning
Four children have died in Amarillo, TX after the aluminum phosphide was sprayed under their house. The other inhabitants of the home are still in treatment, and whether they make it or not, the effects of the gas will cause long-term health problems.
Aluminum phosphide is a restricted-use pesticide due to its volatile nature. It turns into phosphine gas when mixed with water. According to the Amarillo Fire Department, a license is required to purchase the pesticide. In this case, it was bought on the black market. It was applied during the day and the toxic fumes leeched into the house during the night.
How Aluminum Phosphide Works
Aluminum phosphide turns into toxic phosphine gas when it comes into contact with water, either deliberately or in the atmosphere. Once toxic phosphine gas has been ingested, it causes the circulatory system to shut down. There is no antidote for the gas, and close to 60% of people who develop aluminum phosphide poisoning die from multiple organ failure, myocarditis, and profound shock.
Aluminum Phosphide Use in the United States
Aluminum phosphide is used to kill rodents, bedbugs, and other pests. It is also used to fumigate cereal grains, usually in tablet form and mixed with other chemicals that help keep the aluminum phosphide from exploding. The use of aluminum phosphide without a professional is not recommended. Yet similar pesticides like zinc phosphide in the form of rodent pellets are available to purchase at Wal-mart.
The people who sell pesticides cannot keep you safe because let’s face it -pesticides aren’t safe. While the pesticide used here is without question more dangerous than the average pesticide, this doesn’t change the fact that pesticides used to kill rodents and other pests are meant to kill living things, and children are especially vulnerable.
FDA Says to Avoid Repeated or Lengthy Sedation or Anesthesia for Pregnant Women and Children Under Three
Studies on childhood brain development in children under three have found that long or repeated exposure to general anesthesia has the potential to negatively affect that growth. The Food and Drug Administration has recently issued a warning regarding the use of general anesthesia and sedation drugs for children under three and pregnant women in their third trimester to make consumers aware of the possible side effects. The list of drugs includes commonly used anesthetics like lorazepam, ketamine, and midazolam, among others.
Janet Woodcock, the director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research released a statement regarding the FDA’s position on the new labeling requirements. “…based on the FDA’s comprehensive analysis of the latest published scientific studies, we are issuing a Drug Safety Communication to inform health care providers, parents and caregivers of children younger than three years, and pregnant women in their third trimester, that the repeated or lengthy (more than three hours) use of general anesthetic and sedation drugs may adversely affect children’s developing brains.”
Better Safe Than Sorry
Anesthesia or sedation are medically necessary in many cases and generally considered safe. Low-risk patients see a death rate of 1 in 300,000. Common non-emergency cases of sedation or anesthesia in small children include abdominal issues; nose, ear, and throat conditions; and dental procedures. The use of general anesthesia in emergency situations cannot always be avoided. The new warning label required by the FDA is intended to raise awareness of the potential effects of anesthesia on brain development during its crucial development years.
Obstetricians Have Objections
As of right now, no one has taken issue with the warning labels in regards to children. Extending the warning to pregnant women in their third trimester, however, has been more controversial. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) registered their disapproval on the inclusion of pregnant women in this warning, claiming they are “…unaware of data on pregnant women that support the FDA’s claims. These warnings may cause patients and providers to inappropriately reject the use of these medically indicated drugs.” Both animal and human clinical trials were studied for the safety advisory, but the actual human trials were only done on children.
Developing Brains Should Avoid Unnecessary Sedation
Babies have amazing, malleable brains that are developing by leaps and bounds. It’s often hard to see how much they’re learning and developing until much later in life. A caution advisory like the one issued by the FDA is designed to preserve that activity. While the ACOG makes a good point considering the clinical studies did not specifically test human pregnant women, it’s hard to see why exercising caution and sedating pregnant women only when necessary is such an issue.
The total number of cities in the United States that have voted to place a tax on beverages with added sugar like soda, sports drinks, and energy drinks grew from two cities (Philadelphia and Berkeley, CA) to six cities (San Francisco, Oakland, Albany, CA, and Boulder, CO) and one county (Cook County, which contains most of the city of Chicago). Relatively new to the United States, these “soda taxes” will or have also taken effect in France, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Much like tobacco taxes, the goal is to make the consumption of a key culprit (added sugars), which is associated with the rise of diabetes and other diseases, a less attractive choice. The effects of refined sugars on public health and healthcare costs are becoming one of the most important issues the world must face. But are taxes on sugary beverages the way to address it?
Do They Even Work?
…it’s possible the increased awareness campaigns are doing as much, if not more…
Short answer: probably. Of all of the local governments that have passed a tax on beverages with added sugar, there is only one that has any actual data: Berkeley. That measure was passed in 2014, and it took effect in January of 2015. With Berkeley as the sample size, the numbers are promising. For minority and low-income residents in Berkeley (the population most likely to drink sugary drinks), consumption fell 21 percent once the tax was implemented. But those numbers are not the entire story.
While the increase in the price of soda likely deterred many regular customers, that wasn’t the only way the Berkeley community achieved its positive results. The first objective of the campaign is to raise awareness. The tax has been earmarked for community programs specifically designed to promote health education and diet awareness, like the Berkeley YMCA’s Diabetes Prevention and Reduce Obesity campaign and the Unified school districts gardening and nutritional education programs. As the Berkeley tax is applied to beverage distributors, not consumers, it’s possible the increased awareness campaigns are doing as much, if not more than the actual tax.
In looking at the results of the Berkeley sugary beverage tax, it’s easy to see why it’s succeeding. The tax raises awareness of the issue and the education delivers resources and strategies to make better choices. A small, progressively minded, and wealthy community like Berkeley has the infrastructure to implement this program. But the tax itself is not without issues.
Why It’s Problematic
What’s the biggest issue with a soda tax? The people enforcing it – if you can call government people. There are two hurdles to worry about that combine and amplify one other. Reason one? Any time things are taxed, governments begin to expect and rely on that money. The second question is whether the government agency that is regulating this tax and other similar taxes actually knows anything about health.
Seriously…Does It Work?
Short answer: yes. Long answer: yes. But we don’t know if it does work without the education. Education makes a difference. The low-income populations (or people likely to have less access to quality health education) are responsible for a large percentage of sugary beverage consumption. Replacing unhealthy choices with better alternatives will always create a more lasting impact on habits than merely raising the price of soda ever could. One way or the other, the world is waking up to the truth about sugar.
Shaken Baby Syndrome – Child Abuse or Vaccine Injury?
Shaken baby syndrome (SBS, which is also known as abusive head trauma) is a diagnostic term for brain damage inflicted upon a baby or young child who has been violently shaken or thrown against an object. When a child presents with a subdural hematoma, retinal bleeding, and brain swelling, these three symptoms together are supposed to confirm the diagnosis.
The blood vessels in a young child’s brain are delicate. Their heads are large, and their necks are weak. When an infant or young child is violently shaken, the head jerks back and forth as the brain bashes against the inner wall of the skull, which can cause blood vessels to rupture and tears to form in brain and nerve tissue. Bleeding on the brain and swelling or bruising of the brain can occur, resulting in injury or death.
There are about 1,300 reported cases of SBS in the U.S. per year. One in four of these babies dies from their injuries, while 80% of children who survive suffer lifelong disabilities.
There is, however, a rising concern that SBS is either over diagnosed, wrongly diagnosed, or an altogether non-scientific diagnosis.
Is SBS a Definitive Diagnosis?
In the last 15 years, the validity of the SBS diagnosis has come under fire with medical examiners, pediatricians, neurologists, other physicians, prosecutors, and judges reversing their belief that the classic triad for this diagnosis can only be due to child abuse.
The Washington Post reports that Gregory G. Davis, the chief medical examiner in Birmingham, Alabama and the board chairman of the National Association of Medical Examiners said:
You can’t necessarily prove [Shaken Baby Syndrome] one way or another — sort of like politics or religion. Neither side can point to compelling evidence and say, ‘We’re right and the other side is wrong.’ So instead, it goes to trial.”
The Washing Post also reports that the pediatric neurosurgeon, Norman Guthkelch, who…
…had a key role in the original hypothesis that led to Shaken Baby Syndrome. Now, he says the science is faulty and there should be an independent review of Shaken Baby convictions.”
At trial, the outcome is swayed by the testimony of expert witnesses, the doctors who testify about the child’s symptoms, examination, and diagnosis. For many doctors, this diagnosis is ironclad. In their medical books, they were taught that presentation of the triad of symptoms is indicates SBS. That’s all there is to it, so that is what they say in court. But others are beginning to question the validity of the diagnostic criteria and the diagnosis itself. And some who question it are paying the price.
Dr. Wancy Squier
Physicians and scientists are supposed to keep an open mind. They know that science depends on keen observation and attention to detail. This observation and on-going questioning lead to fine-tuning diagnostics and to new discoveries. Sometimes new knowledge replaces earlier, widely accepted beliefs, especially the commonly held beliefs derived from textbooks. But when the impact of new hypotheses or the discovery of a mistake disrupts the status quo and places blame or liability on others, backlash can destroy a career.
Judy Mikovits Ph.D. dared to reveal her discovery that many of our vaccines are contaminated with a retrovirus that is associated with chronic fatigue syndrome and autism. Rather than receiving recognition and accolades for her discovery, she was fired, arrested, and discredited.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield discovered a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism, how the vaccine damages the gut microbiome. He publically advocated for discontinuation of the MMR, for replacing it with singular vaccines rather than the triple dose. For this, he lost his license to practice medicine.
In March of 2016, Dr. Wancy Squier, a world-renowned neuropathologist, lost her license to practice medicine (which the British call being “struck off the register”). The Medical Practitioners Tribunal of the General Medical Council, the same tribunal that revoked Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s license, determined that she lied and misled the courts due to her testimony that refutes the diagnostic criteria for SBS. She is currently appealing their ruling.
Due to her Dr. Squier’s testimony, a parent has been released from prison, her conviction overturned. Other parents were found not guilty of their charges. Their children presented with the triad of symptoms which normally guarantees a conviction, but Dr. Squier’s experience and research has convinced her that the SBS diagnosis is unscientific and unsupported. After studying all the literature she could find regarding SBS she says, “I have found nothing which satisfies me that there is any scientific foundation for it.”
More than 350 doctors have written letters of support to the British Medical Journal on Dr. Squier’s behalf. Three other British doctors who are skeptical about the SBS diagnosis who previously testified in the courts with similar testimonies are now afraid of the consequences. They no longer testify in civil or criminal cases regarding SBS for fear of losing their licenses.
Misguided Justice Leading Misdiagnoses
The very act of prosecution and plea bargaining has led to the legitimacy of the diagnosis. When innocent mothers, fathers, and caretakers take a plea, saying in effect that they did shake a child (when they didn’t) their “admission of guilt” validates the hypothesis that the classic triad of symptoms is proof of shaken baby syndrome.
For example, an innocent man is accused of murdering his girlfriend’s baby, an infant that presented with the classic triad. He repeatedly states that he is innocent, that he never shook or otherwise abused the child. But now, he is facing life in prison. His lawyer convinces him there is no hope for acquittal – the evidence is too great, too ironclad. The accused has to make a choice. Does he go to trial when his lawyer assures him there is a 97% or more chance that he will be convicted for a crime he did not commit and will spend the rest of his life in prison? Or does he plead guilty in order to strike a plea bargain with a reduced charge and a 10-year prison sentence with possible early release for good behavior? If these are his only choices, of course, he takes the deal. But his confession adds to the growing body of evidence that the triad of symptoms is caused by child abuse – even though no abuse ever occurred.
SBS Symptoms and Vaccine Injury
Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP detected a pattern when he was reviewing the pediatric records of four infants diagnosed with SDS. While looking for underlying medical conditions, he found intriguing similarities in the cases. Although the children were geographically distant from one another, they all had these things in common:
None were abused
All had complicated past histories
All had medical conditions that explained their symptoms (other than abuse)
All received the same three vaccines: Pediarix, HIB and Prevnar within three weeks of their apparent life-threatening event
Conclusion
While Dr. Squier fights for her license, there are a growing number of SBS convictions being overturned in the United States along with a rising concern that SBS cases, SIDS, and many cases of fractures are actually caused by vaccines. (Fractures can be due to vaccine induces rickets that causes soft bones). While the CDC and the FDA continue to deny the growing evidence of vaccine injury and death, many grieving parents who have lost their babies are serving time for crimes that never occurred.
GMO Study Finds Altered Amino Acids May Increase Histamine Reactions
One of the criteria the Food and Drug Administration considers when deciding whether or not to approve a GMO is called “substantial equivalence.” This means the nutritional profile and toxicity levels of the modified plant are within the same range as a non-modified plant. When a new strain of corn is similar enough to the original to demonstrate substantial equivalence, the product is free to pass to market with fewer safety checks. A new study looking more closely at the differences between a specific variety of GM corn, Monsanto’s NK603, and the non-modified corn it is derived from is challenging that principle.
Substantial equivalence is a standard practice in the industry. The GM crop database notes that
…small statistical differences between NK603 and control lines were observed only in: six amino acids (alanine, arginine, glutamic acid, histidine, lysine, and methionine) as measured in grain from European trials (no differences were observed in material from U.S. trials); and stearic (C18:0) acid levels. Overall, these differences were not consistent across all trial sites and they were considered to reflect random variation. All compositional results were within the ranges observed for commercial non-transformed lines.”
Peer reviewed research from Dr. Michael Antionou at King’s College in London has found that the differences in those amino acids are more important than Monsanto has considered or is disclosing.
Amino Acid Differences May Increase Allergic Reactions
In the words of Dr. Antionou,
Our study clearly shows that the GM transformation process results in profound compositional differences in NK603, demonstrating that this GMO corn is not substantially equivalent to its non-GMO counterpart. The marked increase in putrescine and especially cadaverine is a concern since these substances are potentially toxic, being reported as enhancers of the effects of histamines, thus heightening allergic reactions, and both have been implicated in the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines with nitrates in meat products.”
GMOs have been cited several times as a factor in the increase in allergies worldwide, though many scientists and researchers have remained firm in their conviction that GMOs do not contain any known allergens. The differences in amino acids found in this study suggest that while NK603 may not be derived from a substance known to cause allergies, the specific amino acids it enhances increase the likelihood of allergies occurring. Both putrescine and cadaverine are considered toxic in large doses. One could argue that GMO corn has such small amounts that it doesn’t matter, but does that argument take into account the amount of those compounds accumulating in the body over time? Without knowing the quantity of GMOs being consumed on a daily basis and the amount of chemical compound build up, it’s impossible to rule out the NK603 as a cause in increased allergic reactions.
GMO Regulation is Missing a Big Puzzle Piece
Getting a GMO approved in the United States involves three different government agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It’s a tremendous undertaking, with the average development and approval process from four years ago costing 136 million and taking 13 years. Once the company presenting the product has proved “substantial equivalence” though, it is assumed that the crop is safe and ready for market. From that point, there is no longer any incentive to continue safety testing and research. These companies are fundamentally altering the building blocks of the food we eat. Valid, peer-reviewed studies showing the negative effects of these manipulations continue to appear. Saying a product has been safety tested before its initial release is different from saying something is safe when released with incomplete information and saying that it is safe after more than a decade of data has suggested otherwise.
The companies seeing billion dollar profits from the product are left to correct the negative long term effects, often to the detriment of profits. What company is willing to do that? Regulatory systems are allowing one of the necessities of life to be irrevocably altered. A system that does not force a company to at least acknowledge (let alone fix) that alteration and its negative effects is a broken system.
Roundup Resistance is a Growing Problem and Syngenta Offers a Problematic Solution
Tolerance to things is built up over time, although some tolerances develop more quickly than others. The development of Roundup resistance in weeds is a quick one, in large part due to the popularity and frequent usage of the chemical. From the release of Roundup in 1974, it took 15 years for the first documented case of Roundup-resistant weeds to appear. The response to that resistance didn’t actually address the problem. The introduction of genetically modified, Roundup resistant crops allowed farmers to increase the amount of the herbicide sprayed, therefore increasing the opportunities for naturally resistant weeds to thrive and pass on their wayward genes. The growth of Roundup-resistant weeds is upon us, and Big Agriculture needs an answer.
Paraquat – A Potential Answer
Paraquat is a controversial product. While one of the most popular herbicides in the world, it has been banned in the European Union due to its toxicity. Paraquat is so toxic to mammals that it’s often said, “just one sip will kill you.” It has been used to commit suicide in many third world countries due to its easy availability and low price. Despite the fact that it has been banned in the European Union, the herbicide is still manufactured there. The E.U. is not the only country that has reservations regarding paraquat, as China is also in the process of phasing out paraquat for agricultural use. Countries like the U.S. and Australia are still using the herbicide, as it’s a fast-acting product that kills a wide range of weeds.
The Herbicide Always Knocks Twice
If one is good, two must be better…or something like that. One of the suggested uses of paraquat is to use it as a clean up herbicide after glyphosate. This is known as the “double knock” system, and it’s commonly used in Australia. Many scientists and insiders have predicted that this system has the potential to double the amount of time before herbicide resistant weeds appear again. While this system might be ideal from the manufacturer’s standpoint (twice as many products bought), the health and environmental concerns are more worrying.
Everyone Agrees That Paraquat is Toxic
The E.P.A. has classified paraquat as category I, the highest level of toxicity. So we know it’s toxic. That itself is not up for debate. What is in debate is whether or not paraquat causes Parkinson’s. And by debate, that is to say Syngenta is not willing to publicly accept the role of paraquat in increasing the rates of Parkinson’s and the company has subsequently funded studies refuting that link.
But Seriously, Everyone Knows
Syngenta continues to defend paraquat in the face of 20 years of studies presenting increasing links between the herbicide and Parkinson’s. As the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds continues to increase, the agricultural market is looking for the next option in herbicides. With nature as it is, who knows how long before that herbicide will cease to work and the next chemical in line will step up?
One of the advantages of paraquat is the fact that it is partially inactivated once it hits the ground. But what about the part that isn’t? Imagine the rings of a mature oak tree. At what point will we be able to tell the age of our soil by the layers of herbicides and pesticides built up throughout?
