Trump Demurs When Asked About Vaccine Safety Commission Headed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has released a statement revealing president-elect Donald J. Trump has appointed him to chair a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity in his new administration. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the son of Robert Kennedy and an outspoken supporter of safe vaccines. While many health professionals have expressed dismay at the involvement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the creation of this commission would be in line with some of the vaccine and autism concerns Trump expressed during his campaign. The media has been quick to cry anti-vaxxer, but both men are on record as being pro-vaccination, including Trump at a primary debate in 2015. “Autism has become an epidemic,” he said. “… It has gotten totally out of control. I am totally in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time.”

Will unbiased vaccine science finally be available now that the leader of the country is willing to have this kind of discussion in a public forum? There are two factors that could help change these attitudes.

The First Factor

Even if you don’t agree with Robert F. Kennedy Jr, he is still a Kennedy. This comes with name brand recognition, political connections, money, and a legacy of a public service. As a Democrat, he also brings the potential to promote bipartisan agendas. Many movements succeed when they find the right spokesperson. Kennedy could be that person.

The Second Factor

The second factor here is Trump. Taking a position that calls anything about vaccines into question has massive negative repercussions. Most politicians’ reputations don’t recover. (Hi, Jill Stein!). It’s also proven difficult to predict what exactly Trump will do next and which of his many outlandish campaign promises he will uphold. It’s clear he has strong feelings on the subject of vaccinations, but who knows how serious he is about acting on them. According to Hope Hicks, the presidential transition national spokesperson, “The president-elect is exploring the possibility of forming a commission on autism, which affects so many families; however, no decisions have been made at this time…”

What’s Going to Happen?

The appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to a commission studying vaccine safety would be a huge comfort to people and their loved ones who are struggling with the aftermaths of bad vaccine reactions, whether neurological conditions, paralysis, or developmental disorders. It remains unclear, however, if this commission (if it does indeed happen) will be able to make a difference in vaccine safety. The pharmaceutical industry and the science they have provided is firmly entrenched in the government, medical establishment, and mainstream media. Robert F. Kennedy will have a daunting task ahead of him if he is to adjust these views in any way.

Also, see Robert Kennedy Jr. Accepts Trumps Appointment to Chair Vaccine Committee from the previous day.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Robert Kennedy Jr. Accepts Trumps Appointment to Chair Vaccine Committee

After meeting with president-elect Donald Trump, Robert Kennedy Jr. has agreed to chair a commission on “vaccination safety and scientific integrity.”

Kennedy, an environmental activist, an environmental attorney, an author, and a former U.S. senator, is an outspoken critic of vaccine safety and the government cover-up of the vaccine/autism connection. Trump, who has had personal knowledge of vaccine injured children, is following through with his pledge to move toward a safer vaccine schedule and administration. He claims to be an advocate of vaccination, but he wants to see smaller doses spread out over time. His tweets do not mention toxic contents.

Kennedy also says he is pro-vaccine. His goal is vaccine safety. He wants the American people to be assured that vaccines are as safe as possible. He was very outspoken about thimerasol in vaccines and may well have been instrumental in it being removed from most of our children’s vaccines.

Mainstream media continues to denounce the vaccine/autism connection as they make this announcement. There is, of course, no mention that the government has paid out 3 billion dollars for vaccine injuries (including autism) while protecting the pharmaceutical companies from litigation. Nor is there mention of the high infant mortality rate in the U.S. that is statistically linked to the ever growing vaccine schedule.

Hopefully, the commission will illuminate the work of the many doctors and scientists who have voiced concern about vaccine safety and efficacy.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Blood Lead Levels – Standards Up For Review

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.

Recommended Reading:

 

Sources:


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.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


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.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Does Soda Tax Work?

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.

Sources:


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.

Recommended Reading:
Sources: