Onions Recalled in All 50 States Due to Salmonella Outbreak

A salmonella outbreak linked to onions has caused more than 500 people to get sick in the U.S and Canada, starting in early July. So far 59 people have been hospitalized in 34 different states, according to the CDC.

The outbreak was first linked to red onions, however, the recall currently included red, white, and yellow onions due to concerns of cross-contamination. The CDC has yet to disclose whether or not cases are more linked to restaurants or home cooking.

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut 

Recall efforts will extend far beyond the removal of whole onions from supermarket shelves. Much of the potentially contaminated product was likely used in prepared foods, meaning restaurants and retailers will have to examine their sourcing and identify everything that might have contained onions from Thomson International.

–Onions recalled in all 50 states after Salmonella sickens 500

The current outbreak is the largest Salmonella outbreak in America in the last decade. The outbreak is linked to Thomson International, a grower, packer, shipper, and supplier based in California.

The onions have been sold to wholesalers, retailers, and restaurants in Canada, and the US, as well as stores including Kroger and Food Lion.



CDC Mixes Up Coronavirus Test Results

The CDC recently admitted to combining coronavirus test results with coronavirus antibody results, in their tally for COVID-19 testing. A positive coronavirus antibody test means that someone has built up antibodies due to previously coming into contact with the virus. A positive coronavirus test means that someone is currently infected with the virus. The CDC has been combining negative antibody test results with negative viral tests. Doing this can both lower the accurate percentage of currently infected people and overlook the fact that many more people have already had the virus.

Related: A Coronavirus Vaccine Won’t Save Us

Image: Shutterstock: An epidemiologist runs PCR tests to detect specific genetic regions of SARS-nCoV-2 virus.

Even if traces of COVID-19 are found in an antibody test, those results are not logged by states or by the CDC as “positive” results for an acute infection. Grouping the two together could make it seem that a smaller percentage of people who have received tests are positive with COVID-19, since antibody tests do not measure acute infections at all.

CDC’s National Dashboard Includes COVID-19 Data That Expert Says Mixes ‘Apples To Oranges’

Related: Coronavirus – Your Guide to the CoVID-19 Pandemic

A CDC employee speaking on the condition of anonymity said that [combining test results] “would make it difficult to assess the actual number of infections at a given point in time.” Additionally, they pointed out that CDC infection rate website does state that some states may combine testing results. This information, however, is not entirely accurate. As recently as May 18th, the CDC tracker website claimed that the testing data reported was data from viral testing only.

Statistics have come out that show antibody numbers are radically higher than originally thought, meaning many people have already had the virus (with or without symptoms), making the death rate much lower than currently reported.

Sources:


Coronavirus Cleaning Leads to Increased Calls to Poison Centers

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control reported a 20% increase in the number of calls to Poison Control since the start of the coronavirus pandemic in January. The National Poison Data System (NPDS), CDC, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers looked at data from calls concerning cleaner and disinfectant exposure for the last three years. There were 45,550 chemical exposure calls from January to March, up 20.4% from 2019 and 16.4% from 2018.

Related: ABC Says Homemade Sanitizers Don’t Work For Coronavirus – We Disagree, So Here’s a Recipe

Bleaches accounted for the largest increase of calls among chemical cleaners, while nonalcohol disinfectants and hand sanitizers were responsible for the largest increase in disinfectant calls. Reasons for the calls included people improperly mixing bleach with other cleaners and toddlers swallowing sanitizer. Studies have linked the chemical with an increased chance of developing respiratory problems, leaving those who use the bleach more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut
Sources


A Study Shows Masks are Extremely Effective at Preventing Virus Spread

New research shows that masks are extremely effective at preventing the spread of CoVID-19. Previous research focused primarily on masks preventing the spread of the flu rather than CoVID-19. The new study tested the effectiveness of surgical masks at preventing the spread through droplets aerosolized particles.

“…surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.”

Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks– Nature Medicine

The study found that CoVID-19 was detected in 30- 40% of particles in aerosols and droplets expelled by those not wearing a mask. However, no virus was detected in aerosols or droplets from those who wore a face mask.

Related:

Despite research indicating that wearing masks could prevent the spread of the virus, the CDC has not recommended that everyone wear N95 masks. Alternatively, they recommend that N95 masks are saved for healthcare personnel only. Currently, the CDC is recommending homemade/alternative masks that are not N95 masks, and recommending social distancing and handwashing instead of N95 masks.

A surgical N95 (also referred as a medical respirator) is recommended only for use by healthcare personnel (HCP) who need protection from both airborne and fluid hazards (e.g., splashes, sprays). These respirators are not used or needed outside of healthcare settings.”

Coronavirus Disease 2019 -CDC

The Trump administration has ordered 3M to stop supplying N95 masks to Canada however they have not yet recommended that everyone wear masks, although the CDC is expected to advise all citizens to wear masks, very soon.

Sources:


FDA Admits That Flu Vaccine Vaccines for Pregnant Women Untested, Unlicensed

The CDC and other government agencies are recommending the FLULAVAL and Tdap vaccines for pregnant women. The manufacturers of FLULAVAL and Tdap vaccines have not had any clinical safety trials with pregnant mothers and the vaccines are not licensed for use with pregnant mothers, according to the Children’s Health Defense.

The manufacturers warn against against vaccinating pregnant mothers:

There are insufficient data on FLULAVAL QUADRIVALENT in pregnant women to inform.”

Package Insert for FluLaval Quadrivalent

There are no controlled data in human pregnancy. Diphtheria/pertussis, acellular/tetanus is only recommended for use during pregnancy when benefit outweighs risk.”

Tdap Vaccine Information

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit was filed by Children’s Health Defense attorney, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on behalf of Informed Consent Action Network to obtain clinical trial data used by FDA to approve influenza vaccines for pregnant women.

The FDA’s response:

We have no records responsive to your requests.”

The FDA is admitting that these vaccines being recommended for pregnant women have not been licensed for such use by the FDA or tested for safety for pregnant mothers in clinical trials.

As a nation, we can no longer pretend our trusted agencies are protecting our children. It is time to hold federal agencies accountable.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Recommended:
How To Heal Your Gut
How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

From Children’s Health Defense:

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 11, 2019—In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the FDA has admitted, for the first time, that government agencies, including the CDC, are recommending vaccines for pregnant women that have neither been licensed for pregnant mothers by FDA nor tested for safety in clinical trials. The lawsuit, filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) attorney, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on behalf of Informed Consent Action Network(ICAN), a vaccine safety advocacy group, sought all clinical trial data used by FDA to approve influenza vaccines for pregnant women. The FDA’s terse reply: “We have no records responsive to your requests.”

The manufacturers of flu and Tdap vaccines warn against their use for pregnant mothers since their safety has never been established. Package inserts state that it is “not known” whether the vaccines “will harm an unborn baby” and there are “insufficient data” on use in pregnant women to inform vaccine-associated risks. FDA regulations strictly prohibit pharmaceutical companies from marketing products for “off-license” uses. Noncompliant companies are routinely prosecuted criminally and civilly, paying billions in lawsuits and settlements.

The CDC nevertheless has actively recommended influenza vaccination during any trimester of pregnancy since 2004 and has told pregnant women to get Tdap shots (for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis) since 2011. The FDA is responsible for vaccine safety and licensing, but, in the just-released court documents, it admits that it has no safety data to back up the CDC’s “off-license” pregnancy recommendations. FDA’s website states that it has never formally approved any vaccines “specifically for use during pregnancy to protect the infant.”

Blanket recommendations for vaccination during pregnancy are a dangerous proposition due to vaccination’s ability to activate a maternal immune response that can damage the developing fetal brain—just as infections during pregnancy sometimes do. In 2008, neuroscientist Paul Patterson warned, “Even if it happens less than 1% of the time, vaccinating an entire population of pregnant women could affect thousands of children.”

Long-term safety studies have not been designed to detect vaccine-related fetal injuries, but a 2017 Kaiser study of over 45,000 women (published in JAMA Pediatrics) showed an elevated risk of birth defects and a 20% higher risk of autism in children whose mothers received a first-trimester flu shot. After the authors applied a statistical correction that lessened the significant association, renowned UCLA statistician Sander Greenland criticized the methodologically “inappropriate” decision, noting that pharmaceutical researchers use the technique when they don’t like a result and “want to see if they can get rid of it.”

Click here to read the rest of the article on Children’s Health Defense’s website.

Thanks to Health Impact News for bringing this story to our attention.



Trump’s CDC Director Resigns After Tobacco Investments Discovered

Brenda Fitzgerald reportedly said she resigned because she could not divest from certain financial interests “in a definitive time period.” A Politico article from Tuesday reports that Fitzgerald purchased shares in a tobacco company shortly after becoming CDC director.

The former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially resigned her position today after just six months, due to “complex financial interests.” She was repeatedly forced her to recuse herself from the agency’s activities, unable to testify before lawmakers on public health matters. And on Tuesday, January 30th,  Politico reported:

The Trump administration’s top public health official bought shares in a tobacco company one month into her leadership of the agency charged with reducing tobacco use — the leading cause of preventable disease and death and an issue she had long championed.

The stock was one of about a dozen new investments that Brenda Fitzgerald, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, made after she took over the agency’s top job, according to documents obtained by POLITICO. Fitzgerald has since come under congressional scrutiny for slow walking divestment from older holdings that government officials said posed potential conflicts of interest.

Fitzgerald is 71 one years old. She is a physician who served as the Georgia public health commissioner until her appointment to the CDC post this last July. She said she and her husband had divested from many stock holdings in an interview late last year, but that she and her husband were legally obligated to continue certain investments in cancer detection and health information technologies. Fitzgerald apparently had to avoid government business that might affect those specific financial interests.

It is unacceptable that the person responsible for leading our nation’s public health efforts has, for months, been unable to fully engage in the critical work she was appointed to do.” – Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash

Dr. Fitzgerald’s tenure was unfortunately the latest example of the Trump Administration’s dysfunction and lax ethical standards. I hope the incoming Secretary of Health — nominated because his predecessor resigned for using taxpayer dollars for his personal luxury travel — will encourage President Trump to choose a new CDC Director who is truly prepared to focus on families and communities.” – Sen. Murray

Senator sent Fitzgerald a letter saying that the necessary recusals prevented Fitzgerald from engaging on public health issues like cancer and the massive opioid epidemic. Murray had voiced his concerns regarding Fitzgerald’s financial investments and the recusals necessary to avoid the aforementioned conflicts of interest since July. In December, the senator sent Fitzgerald a letter saying those recusals prevented her from fully engaging on public health issues including cancer and the opioid epidemic.

Fitzgerald had dismissed those concerns, saying that she was following ethics rules laid out by HHS and that her recusals were “very limited.”

About three hours after HHS announced Fitzgerald’s resignation, the CDC’s chief operating officer, Sherri Berger, sent an agencywide email that announced Fitzgerald’s resignation and said Anne Schuchat, the principal deputy, will be acting director effective Wednesday.

Recommended Reading:


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: