LüSa’s products have become my “guilty pleasure.” Why? Because I am hoarding all the samples sent to OLM. I love these products. I refuse to share. Everything about them is appealing – from the packaging to the company’s philosophy and business practices.
LuSa states their intention is, “To make soap so good that you have a better day just for having washed with it. Then your better day inspires another’s better day and the whole world spirals into happiness.” I for one believe in the ripple effect. And these products do make me happy!
I love the packaging. I don’t like clutter on my bathroom countertops, but LuSa’s products remain stacked in plain sight though I have plenty of room in my drawers and cabinets. The cobalt blue glass jars with the grey, lavender, and green labels are very appealing.
LuSa’s products include soaps, essential oil blends, lip balms, body scrubs, bath salts, baby skin care products, and a few other products for mom and baby.
These handcrafted soap bars last two to three times longer than any natural soap I have ever tried, and the scents are heavenly. Just imagine eucalyptus and lavender, lemongrass and ginger, or spicy orange and cinnamon. LuSa’s website offers 21 varieties of handcrafted bar soaps including calendula baby soap, which is also a great facial soap for adults with hypersensitive skin. Soap bars are sold packaged or “naked” for a savings of 60 cents per bar.
Do you need to exfoliate? Or want to relax in a warm bath? LuSa’s organic sugar scrubs and bath salts come in four scents: citrus, lavender, mint, and patchouli. Refills are available at a reduced price.
Gift collections include two collections for baby and two for new moms as well as standard collections and a soap of the month club. Baby products include reusable baby wipes and liquid “Baby Juice” for cleaning baby’s bottom as well as “Booty Balm,” a remarkable salve for skin irritated by anything from diaper rashes to cuts and scrapes.
LuSa Organics is a small family operation committed to supporting local and regional economies. Their ingedients are naturally sourced, primarily organic, and consistently high quality. They scent their products with essential oils and create color with natural pigments, herbs, and clays. Ten percent of LuSa’s annual profits are donated to organizations creating positive global change.
Check out LuSa Organic’s website to discover all of their products for adults, children, and babies. www.lusaorganics.com
Dandelions
Often considered a pesky weed, dandelions have become an underappreciated, yet highly nutritious, perennial plant. Dandelion’s scientific name is Taraxacum Officinale, which roughly translated means the “official remedy for disorders.” Dandelion leaves (along with the roots and flowers) have enjoyed a long history as a highly regarded folk remedy throughout the world. Dandelion was used in Europe to treat boils, fevers, eye disorders, diarrhea, edema, liver congestion, digestive complaints and skin disorders. Chinese used it mainly for breast, liver and digestive disorders. In India, Russia and other parts of the world, it was used as a general liver tonic. Legend has it that even the people of Atlantis relied on dandelion as a food and nutritive tonic.
Originally from Europe, dandelions were brought to America by early colonists. Healers on the early American frontier often recommended dandelion greens as a rejuvenating springtime tonic because of its high nutrient content and vast healing properties. Today, the dandelion is beginning to see a resurgence in appreciation among the general population, and for good cause! Dandelion leaves are a rich source of many vitamins and minerals, including vitamins A, C, E, D, K, the range of B vitamins, calcium, iron, potassium, zinc, and magnesium. They are higher in beta-carotene than carrots and have more iron and calcium than spinach. According to scientific analysis, a one-cup serving has more vitamin A than most supplements and as much calcium as half a glass of milk. As if this wasn’t enough, the greens are also a natural source of omega-3 and 6 essential fatty acids.
The healing properties of dandelion greens center primarily around the digestive organs. As a bitter green, dandelion helps support digestion by encouraging the production of digestive enzymes and stomach juices. It has a mild diuretic effect, improving the way kidneys cleanse the blood and recycle nutrients. However, unlike over-the-counter or prescription diuretics, it doesn’t leach potassium. Dandelion greens are a rich source of chlorophyll (the green pigment that helps plants turn sunlight into energy), which helps to promote the growth of beneficial intestinal flora. Their digestive-stimulating, blood-cleansing, kidney-improving properties also make dandelion greens beneficial for clearing up skin issues and reducing swelling and inflammation.
Although this “official remedy for disorders” is available year-round, its peak season is April and May. The easiest way to get your hands on some is to purchase a fresh bundle at your local grocer or farmers market. But if you decide to give foraging a go, keep in mind that the greens are best picked when they are young and tender, before the flowers have bloomed.
Dandelion leaves have a bitter and tangy flavor that is a great addition to salads. They are also delicious quickly steamed then sautéed with garlic and olive oil. Older leaves tend to be a little tougher and should be cooked longer in soups or stews. To prepare dandelion greens simply wash them under cold water to remove any dirt and trim the bottom where the leaves were picked. Then toss into your salad, soup, stir fry, or sauté pan! purify the blood and
Monsanto Company Profile Part I of IV
If ever there was a company that stands for everything Organic Lifestyle Magazine stands against, it’s Monsanto. To us they are the villain, a company that embodies virtually everything we at OLM believe to be wrong with big business today. We would be hard pressed to find a company whose products have done more to harm our planet.
Many argue that Monsanto’s potential to devastate life as we know it is second only to producers of atomic bombs. Ironically, Monsanto was also heavily involved in the Manhattan Project and the creation of the world’s first nuclear bomb.
Monsanto started in 1901 as a chemical company. Their first product was saccharine, a coal tar product, which has had a controversial history. You may know it as Sweet‘N Low, the artificial sweetener sold in little pink packages.
Though saccharin was their first, Monsanto is also well known for many other chemical and chemically based products including Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, Polychlorinated biphenyl (commonly known as PCBs), Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), and RoundUp.
Today, Monsanto is a leader in the bio-tech industry selling RoundUp ready GMO seeds. Its main crops are soy, cotton, sugar beets, and canola. Its controversial bovine growth hormone, rBST, was sold to the Eli Lilly Company earlier this year.
We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices.
“I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.
“…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”
Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”
The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”
History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,
The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”
Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers. The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).
Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.” Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.
GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.
Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,
Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices. “I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.
…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”
Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”
The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”
History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,
The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”
Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers. The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).
Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.” Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.
GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.
Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,
Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
When we asked Mr. Mitchell if he was familiar with this statement, he said he thought the statement had been made by a Monsanto foreman and that it was taken out of context. “I don’t know the gentleman, but I do know the general feeling here. There is nobody here at Monsanto that I know that says, ‘Screw safety, that’s not our problem, it’s FDA’s.’ I think what the gentleman quoted is referring to is that when it comes down to it, the law, by the law, it’s FDA’s responsibility. I don’t know a single person at Monsanto who does not believe that we have the responsibility. But if you want to look at the law, the final say on this, and the final arbiter, and the people legally charged with safely stating whether it’s safe or not is not Monsanto, it’s FDA.”
Mitchell tells us he and Monsanto’s scientific team have never seen a study that shows any significant risk associated with GMO foods.
I’ve worked with our scientific affairs team, so when studies come out to do analysis and that sort of thing, we have yet to see a study which we think shows us any significant risk with these things. So, those studies are best addressed on a one-on-one basis, and I would say that there are just as many studies, independent as well, that show (chuckles) that there are not risks with them [GMOs].”
He argues that the oft referenced study by Árpád Pusztai showing GMO potatoes was flawed. “My understanding is that there were only six animals in each control group, so statistical significance is pretty weak there.” In addition, he states that Pusztai did not go through the basic safety processes. “The premise of biotech safety in virtually every country that allows these things is something called substantial equivalence. You compare a genetically modified potato to a non-genetically modified potato against a whole bunch of parameters on stuff they contain. And essentially if it doesn’t cause any physiological or physiochemical differences in the potato, they’re deemed to be substantively equivalent, which means that they are pretty much the same with the exception of the protein that’s expressed in the genetically modified one. …Now the ironic part is that Pusztai, when he did his test, never analyzed the potatoes for substantial equivalence. And in fact there is very good evidence that snowdrop lectin [used in the study] will actually—the protein itself, will change the physiology of that potato where it would not meet the standards of substantial equivalence. So he’s testing a GM product that was never commercialized, that has never even been even through the most basic level of safety, with a poor study, that basically shows and basically came to the conclusion that all genetically modified crops have risks, when he hasn’t even done the basic tests that genetically modified crops go through before being approved.”
In 1997, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were hired by Fox Television as the researchers and stars of a new investigative news show, called The Investigators. Akre says they were told, “Do any stories you want. Ask tough questions and get answers.” One of the first stories they proposed was an expose on Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone, rBST, also known as Posilac. Their investigation revealed that Canada refused to approve Posilac, citing health concerns, that Posilac was linked to cancer, and that the FDA had rubberstamped the product without proper testing.
While Monsanto’s publicity stated, “Posilac is the single most tested new product in history,” Wilson and Akre’s investigation revealed that the longest test Monsanto had done for human toxicity was for 90 days on 30 rats.
Legal threats from Monsanto prompted Fox to kill the story and set in motion a chain of events that resulting in Fox firing Steve Wilson and Jane Akre for insubordination after several attempts failed to convince them to kill the story, re-write the story, or out and out lie about its contents. Fox even attempted to bribe the pair, offering them the rest of a year’s salary in exchange for their silence about the story and Fox’s part in it.
Brad Mitchell stated, “We would still contend that Monsanto [rBST] is a safe product. The FDA would support us on that. It’s still being used, albeit by a different company.”
Mitchell also tells us recent Internet rumors that Monsanto was opposed to or tried to prevent the labeling of milk as rBST free were absolutely untrue.
What we were trying to prevent was misleading labeling of milk as being rBST free. And many of the milk companies out there who were labeling it were doing so in a way that was in violation of FDA guidelines and made it basically sound like our product wasn’t safe, and the scientific consensus, at least in this country, was that it is.
“You know, we obviously would prefer that it wasn’t labeled that way, but our gripe was not against people who were labeling milk as rBST free; our real concern was people who were labeling it in opposition to what FDA guidelines set. And the vast majority of the state legislation and the things you saw really were just forcing milk labelers to label in accordance to those guidelines.
“I’ll give you an example, where some milk labels said it’s hormone free. Well, no milk is hormone free. It’s just misleading to say so. Now, if you want to say it’s rBST free, that’s better. What the FDA suggested was that it says this milk comes from cows not treated with rBST. Obviously we would prefer that people didn’t put that in writing and that people didn’t see a problem with our products. But if they were labeling milk accurately, we would not have had an issue with them.”
This company Highlight is continued in our next issue. Click to readMonsanto Company Profile Part II, Monsanto’s Turn. We will discuss Monsanto’s stand on patent infringement lawsuits and high yield potentials of GM crops, Europe’s attitude toward GMOs, and more.
It’s unfortunate, but true. Medical doctors tend to attribute disease to a cause-and-effect paradigm that absolves the patient of responsibility. If you get sick, well, there’s a flu or a virus going around. If you get diabetes, sorry, but you are genetically programmed to get it. You can’t help it. If you have cancer, well, we never know why these things happen to some and not to others.
While these aren’t direct quotes from any specific doctor, this is the mindset of conventional medicine. There is very little accountability for health these days, along with a belief that most of our health issues are incurable and a resignation that we should accept the side effects of conventional treatment. While most people do resign themselves to this belief system, others, like Mark Hyman, M.D., do not.
Mark Hyman is a brilliant man, one of those people who can multitask, easily remember, and just plain excel in whatever task relies on his intelligence. But when he was in medical school, he did what many interns are forced to do—he pushed his body to unreasonable limits, working shifts up to 60 hours. Then he went to work in China for a year, breathing in the coal-soaked, mercury-laden air. After he came back to Massachusetts, he again lived with sleep deprivation when working crazy shifts in an inner-city emergency room. Then he realized he could no longer remember things easily. Sleep became problematic. He was drained—mentally, emotionally, and physically. Depression and anxiety became familiar parts of his life.
Unlike so many doctors who look for the “one thing” that caused the problem and the one treatment to alleviate the symptoms, Dr. Hyman recognized that his problem had more than one cause. In his book he says, “It was everything piled higher and higher until my brain and body couldn’t take any more.”
The Ultra Mind Solution title is a bit misleading, but at the same time, it’s perfect. If your brain is not working right, many health problems will arise. On the other hand, if your body is overburdened with toxins, lack of quality sleep, and a lack of nutrition, at some point the whole system is going to break down. Mark Hyman took a holistic approach. He decided if his brain was broken, his whole body was in trouble. He learned that many of today’s
In a recent conversation Dr. Tim O’Shea said, “I learned a long time ago, almost everyone who is sick is coming to me for the ‘magic bullet’. They’re saying, ‘Doc, what can you give me, so that I won’t feel this anymore? So I can go about my life continuing my destructive habits and unhealthy lifestyle?’”
Most of us know there are many herbs, supplements, and treatments for everything from the common cold to cancer. Vitamin C and zinc can help reduce the length and severity of a cold. Vitamin E can kill warts. Apple cider vinegar will knock out a sore throat. Quick fixes do have a place. But magic bullets and quick fixes don’t make us healthy. They don’t reverse diabetes. They don’t cure cancer.
We can continue to live destructive lifestyles and run to the doctor when symptoms of disease become uncomfortable or unbearable. We can accept a diagnosis of an “incurable” or “chronic” disease. Or we can choose health. We can choose to make a radical change in lifestyle.
We agree with Raymond Francis when he says, “There is one disease – malfunctioning cells. There are two causes – lack of nutrition and toxicity.” It really is that simple.
If you’ve been sick for a long time or you are extremely toxic, consider the aid of a naturopathic practitioner. You will probably benefit from some direction and may need supplements to regain your health. But remember, no one else can do it for you. No one can give you the magic bullet. It doesn’t exist.
If you choose health, you need to detox. You need to feed your body nutrient-dense, organic food. You need to choose an organic lifestyle.
Michael Edwards
Editor in Chief
Readers Write – Vaccines
Our readers respond to our previous magazine issue:
I really liked the vaccine articles. Our two-year-old daughter never had vaccinations and we are not planning to get them in the future. At the same time, we have a responsibility to protect her from ‘what if’. Reading this article helped us believe we made a right decision. This article needs to be shared. I also liked the review of LUSH products. I am not sure if you have been to a LUSH store before. I can’t stay more than 30 seconds because of the STRONG artificial fragrance that they use.
“Thank you Dr. Tim O’Shea for your article, Vaccine Injury Awareness. I really enjoyed this article and went to your website immediately after reading it. I found a plethora of great information that you have available for free.” – Blair
OLM’s stance on vaccinations is sad. Your articles are full of opinions with no scientific studies to back them up. I have unsubscribed. Too bad. I was really enjoying Organic Lifestyle Magazine.
“I thought Raymond Francis’s article What About Vaccinations was great! The article has evidence, and statistics, and he helped us to make our decision in regards to our children. Thank you OLM.” – New Mom & Dad
Ok, seriously, don’t you guys know they don’t put mercury in vaccinations anymore? Why don’t you do some homework before reprinting old articles?” – Jason
Actually, they do. Keep reading.
It was fantastic to see how you guys reviewed Lush cosmetics and The Morocco Method Hair Care! It’s nice to find a magazine that is not just here for its advertisers. When I read about Terressentials I thought that all of the product reviews you did were just paid advertising masquerading as actual reviews. Now I see that you guys really are reviewing these products and putting your honest opinion out there.”
“I have doneaA little bit of research on vaccinations and decided not to vaccinate our son, but I was concerned that I had not made the right decision. It was a constant fear for me, as I’m sure any mom can imagine. After rewarding your articles in the last issue I felt some relief. I then checked out Mike Adam’s, Dr. Tim O’Shea’s, and Raymond Francis’s websites. I was really excited to see so much free and easily accessible information. I just wanted to personally thank you, OLM, as well as these three health advocates for their wisdom.” – Tera
I was disheartened to read the rather ironically titled article, “The Psychology of Vaccine Injury Awareness”, published in the December 2008/January 2009 issue of your magazine. Dr. O’Shea’s article was a misleading assemblage of opinion stated as fact, unsupported assertions, and outright untruths.
“First, Dr. O’Shea casually mentions mercury toxicity without also mentioning that childhood vaccines in the U.S. no longer use the mercury containing preservative thimerosal, what was previously the target of the outrage of the anti-vaccine movement. Nor did he mention that in the 7 years since the preservative was removed, childhood autism rates have continued to rise. The debate as to whether mercury in vaccines is causing the autism epidemic is dead.
“Second, Dr. O’Shea’s assertion that the increase in autism seen in this unnamed “backwoods” community is “very likely the textbook example of hot lot damage” is simply ludicrous. Even if one takes at face value his dubious assertion that this community has a vastly elevated rate of autism, a claim that is uncited and unverifiable in the absence of a place name, his indictment of vaccines as the obvious culprit cannot be supported. There is no reason to think that a vaccine “hot lot” would result in any geographic clustering. As he stated, vaccine lots can include anywhere from 20,000 to millions of doses of vaccine. These doses are distributed nationally and internationally. Therefore deleterious effect from any alleged “hot lot” would be geographically dispersed, not clustered in a single small town. Furthermore, it has been shown that 90% of vaccine from a given lot are used within 5-9 months of distribution. If this increased rate of autism were caused by a single lot of vaccine, the cases would all have occurred in a terribly short time span in children of the same age cohort. But Dr. O’Shea has done nothing to show that this is the case.
“Third, he states that “there is overwhelming scientific evidence of their [vaccines] potential for permanent neurological and developmental damage”, backing this statement up only with a tantalizing reference to his own book, the contents of which the reader would conveniently have to purchase in order to verify. This statement, however, is patently false. There has been no single article published in a reputable peer reviewed journal establishing a link between vaccines and neurological damage; a fact that Dr. O’Shea would no doubt chalk up to the vast conspiracy that hides such abominable evidence. The simple truth is that the few studies that have been done that have drawn the conclusions he alludes to, most of which were conducted by Dr. Geier, who is also quoted in his text, were not published by reputable journals because they suffered from poor methodology, weak analysis, and far too strong conclusions drawn from limited results.
“Fourth, he mentions the 1700% increase in autism across the U.S. without mentioning that an unknown, but substantial proportion of that increase is likely the result of expanding diagnostic criteria and a vast increase in awareness among both mental health practitioners and the population in general. While it is likely that there has been a real increase in autism over this period, baldly stating the increase statistics without also mentioning the known caveats is alarmist and irresponsible.
“Fifth, his reference to the “shocking increase in the number of vaccines since 9/11” is laughable. No such shocking increase has occurred for the ages during which autism typically develops. There has been a single added series, a three dose schedule against rotavirus, plus a booster dose of MMR and varicella added over this time period. These changes clearly do not represent a precipitous increase in the vaccine burden. Furthermore, there were no changes made to the recommended childhood immunization schedule as a result of the events of 9/11. Slyly linking vaccines to those events only serves as a naked attempt to tap into people’s fears and paranoias.
“Sixth, Dr. O’Shea vaguely links childhood vaccines to “the sharp increase in childhood cancer and diabetes”, with no supporting evidence or even discussion. The fact is, we know that the cause of the diabetes epidemic is the corresponding childhood obesity epidemic resulting from sedentary lives fed by junk food and soda. Mentioning childhood diabetes in the same breath as vaccines is completely absurd.
“This kind of pabulum is a slap in the face to the epidemiologists who study this and other important health issues, obsessing over every decimal point, and painstakingly and ever so carefully drawing conclusions in the causal relationships they study. But far more importantly, it undermines the good public policy that is supported by their findings, endangering the public health by feeding a movement embedded in misplaced anger, misinformation, bad science, and paranoia. I suggest you do some more research before publishing articles with such far reaching public health implications.” – Andrew Horvath
Epidemiologist
Marin County, California
We sent this final letter to Dr. Tim O’Shea. His response is on the next page. OLM
