Hazmat Birth

Hazmat Birth
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Dr. Stuart Fischbein
May 2, 2017

When it comes to pregnancy, the bowing to the false god of safety has become the standard.

On the header of my blog are a few of my favorite historical quotes. I think my favorite has become Albert Camus’, “The Welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants!” Fear is the easiest way to manipulate. And claiming safety is a perfect way to shut down any discussion. It’s good for you. It’s safer for the children. You don’t want to put your baby in danger, do you? We live in a world where ACOG admits that 2/3’s of its guidelines are not based on good scientific evidence. Yet they put them out anyway. In my world, on a daily basis, I am told directly or from print media about manipulation of women through skewed or even overtly false information. When it comes to pregnancy the bowing to the false god of safety has become the standard. Your baby is too big. Your baby is too small. Your pelvis is inadequate. The head is smaller than the shoulders which might get stuck. The fluid is decreasing. The cord is around the neck. You are 3 days overdue and your placenta is getting weak. VBAC is too dangerous. Your breech baby’s head might get stuck. Hospitals are safer. Induction is easy. Cesarean sections are routine.

Then there is the mockery of choosing an alternative to the fear based standard birthing world. Home delivery is for pizza! Having your baby at home is like driving your child without a seatbelt (This is the latest flippant simile from a doctor in Australia. Which, by the way, was how my generation grew up and I don’t recall massive death on the highway). Or as Jim Gaffigan, the comedian, quips, “when I told my friends we were having a home birth they said, Yeah, we were going to do that but we wanted our baby to live!”. Choosing a home birth is selfish! Why would you pick a lesser trained midwife? How would you feel when something goes wrong!

Ah, the something goes wrong theory of birth. Perfectly understandable in today’s fear based, litigious world. Risk management is something we all do every day. As individuals we just don’t have departments staffed with lawyers to do our personal risk management. Even if you could afford one can you imagine your life with every decision being scrutinized for safety and risk? Susie, you are not allowed to have that chocolate chip cookie because we have calculated that the risk/benefit ratio is adverse to your long term health and the viability of your family unit. Laughable? Far-fetched? Maybe, but this is the climate of the standard medicalized world we now live in. You cannot eat in labor because there is a 1/100,000 chance you might aspirate in an emergency. You must have an IV just in case. Please sign these consent forms about surgery and death after your next contraction. Sorry, hospital policy says you have to wear those belts continuously.

This past week I came upon a top secret correspondence from a local hospital that read something like this: “The OBGYN Department and the Infection Control Division would like to remind you that eye protection (e.g. glasses, goggles) and a face mask are required for all providers participating in a delivery.  We thank you for your cooperation with this important safety issue.”  The last sentence is the sinister one. Putting that tagline on anything gives it the appearance of concern and reasonableness. This may seem like a small thing but its insidious message is a continuation of the threat to all of us who value individual autonomy and see vaginal birth as something beautiful. This hospital, likely complying with some edict from some committee or oversight organization and almost certainly without a single adverse event in their institution, has turned the birth of a baby into a hazmat situation. My call to the author of this correspondence for clarification went unanswered. For those who have actually attended an un-medicated birth, a home birth or a water birth, can you imagine what the mother must think if she were to look down at a goggled and masked face catching her baby? I understand for an unscreened mother wearing protection would be a reasonable choice. But most women are screened and, unless there has been a series of incidents, universally requiring this garb is not about safety. It is about protecting the institution from liability. Plausible deniability should a worker catch something who was not wearing the hazmat protection hospital policy required. The risk managers are just doing their job. However, I believe minimizing risk must be weighed against common sense and personal choice in a free society. Sadly, common sense is losing and will continue to do so until the masses lose enough services or are inconvenienced enough that finally tort reform becomes a hot political topic.

Why have they come forth with this new rule now would be a logical question. Has there been some epidemic of exposures? I mean, vaginal birth without mask and goggles has been going on for millennia. No, it’s simply a symptom of the micromanaged and over-regulated reality we are now living in. I also just read an editorial about getting rid of the doctor’s white coat. Why now? Has there been an epidemic of disease spread by the hospital lab coat? Changing dirty coats makes good sense but banning them? Will the next suggestion be changing clothes between hospital wards, between rooms? And why won’t your own clothes be carriers of bad humours and thus need to be banned. And I can tell you that wearing scrubs from home and all day and night from the ward, to the call room to the cafeteria does not sound exactly hygienic. Wearing disposable gown and gloves makes sense in an infectious disease setting but in the maternity ward, really? So the why now question is really that someone somewhere just thought it up in response to usually an isolated incident. There are legions of administrative personnel whose job it is to try to diminish risk. The foolishness is they believe they actually can in every case no matter what the consequences down the road. Their job is to protect their job and their institution and their tyranny is always justified by safety.

There are two realities in the birthing world as I see it. One is fear based, often absurd, seeing pregnancy as illness, believing that interventions make benefit greater than risk and using safety as a canard for control. The other is trusting of nature, understanding of the imperfections of life and looking at pregnancy as wellness and a normal function of the female body. I have lived in both worlds and have a unique perspective. The first is uncomfortable and often riddled with self-deceit cloaked in cognitive dissonance. The latter is my choice and I try to be a vanguard for it. This past week I had the good fortune to attend a beautiful home VBAC in the hostile birth world of Santa Barbara and an inspirational water birth in Beverly Hills. I wore a t-shirt and sweat pants and was goggle-less and mask-less and I am delighted to report I am well and happy.  All good things, Dr. Stu.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com

Advertisements

Book Review: The Healing Power Of Touch – The Many Ways Physical Contact Can Cure by Karin Sullivan

thehealingpoweroftouch
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
December 12, 2016

The Healing Power Of Touch – The Many Ways Physical Contact Can Cure by Karin Sullivan is an encyclopedia – albeit a small one – outlining the various ways that healing can be brought about through touch.

Sullivan begins by examining data which shows how powerful human touch can be.

From there the book is essentially split into two parts.

The first part of the book examines the vast array of touch therapies available to individuals.  Granted, given the wide-array of therapies discussed, the author gives each therapy a very cursory but reasonable overview.  Within these therapies discussed, some of the ones mentioned are: acupressure, reflexology, reiki, shiatsu, chiropractic, ayurvedic massage, aromatherapy massage, applied kinesiology, myofascial release, and much more.

From there on, the second part of the book focuses on specific conditions.  These conditions, which number at least 50 in the book, include many major diseases.  Each of these lists various of the therapies which were known at the time to work.  Some of these conditions included diabetes, depression, insomnia, headaches, hypertension, colitis, cancer, burns, bronchitis, bone spurs, sinusitis, shoulder pain, sciatica, pregnancy discomfort, Parkinson’s disease, nausea and vomiting, cancer, asthma, arthritis, and more.

One thing to keep in mind is that the information provided within the book was published in 1998.  Since then there has been increasing evidence and studies that showcase the many benefits of many of the alternative therapies mentioned in the book.  How many studies have been conducted really depends on which therapy is covered, but the fact remains that the benefits have helped many.

Alternative therapies have been growing immensely over the years and it is now a multibillion dollar industry.  This goes to show people are attempting to get away, and rightly so, from regular for-every-ill-there-is-a-pill mindset of BigPharma.  Books like this one help show what’s available for individuals, even if the book is slightly dated.

Regardless, the book can serve as a small encyclopedia, or as a jump-off point from where the individual may research further any of these topics.  Given that there are no side-effects for these therapies, they should at minimum be considered, if not downright researched thoroughly for individuals who have disease, or wish to stay in a health state of being.

What’s the Harm in Taking an Antidepressant?

Source: KellyBroganMD.com
Dr. Kelly Brogan M.D.
November 8, 2016

what's-the-harm

We know that all drugs have side effects. That’s just part of the deal right? But is it really possible that an antidepressant can cause a sane person to act like a cold-blooded criminal?

I imagined my audience would be wondering as much as I arrived to an unseasonably chilly day at King’s College in London. I was there to share what I have learned about the medications that I so dutifully and faithfully prescribed during the early part of my career, and also about the deep potential for healing depression in simple, safe ways, according to the latest science.

The day before my flight, I had received an email from a man who I would choose to invite on stage with me that day. His name is David Carmichael and he wrote:

“I took the life of my 11-year-old son Ian on July 31, 2004 in a Paxil-induced state of psychosis and was charged with first degree murder. I was judged to be “not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder” in September 2005 and received an absolute discharge from the forensic psychiatric system (in Ontario, Canada) in December 2009. I’ve been off all prescription drugs since September 2010. Prior to our family tragedy, I was a physical active sports consultant with no history of violence or mental illness.”

He told an audience of clinicians and patients, that day, about how it is that a normal citizen, prescribed a seemingly safe medication for work-related stress, goes on to commit a heinous act of violence against his beloved child. This academic classroom was heaving with grief when he finished his description of events.

This must be rare, right? Totally anomalous?

Wrong.

It has become my contention that the Russian Roulette that is played with each new prescription of psychotropic medication violates the physician’s most primal tenet – first do no harm – and does so in the absence of anything approximating informed consent.

Violence as a Side Effect?

Thankfully, we are often given multiple chances to wake up to a greater truth. It’s becoming easier than ever. With grassroots platforms like madinamerica.com, the information is out there, when you are ready to look beyond main stream media to what the real victims are claiming.

The truth about antidepressants and violence is also in the most recently published literature, including a critical review, hot off the press, by Carvalho et al where the authors dive into the research on the supposed safety of SSRIs and SNRIs. In this document, they present an evidence-based horror menagerie of ways in which a simple antidepressant can derail your life if it doesn’t take it. Leaving patients with new medical diagnoses, antidepressants prescribed often for difficult transitions in life like divorces and deaths, carry documented risks that your doctor cannot possibly tell you about because if they knew of them, they would put down their prescription pad immediately.

Let’s take a tour. Neatly summarized here, the adverse effects of antidepressants can sound like that droning voice in TV ads that we are inured to because we have been told these “side effects are rare, and outweighed by the benefits.”

But the benefits are shockingly limited so, let’s take a closer look at those side effects…

harm image

The Risks That Made Me Quit Prescribing

Having always represented antidepressants as safe and effective to my patients, I put down my prescription pad after learning 3 facts about psychiatric medications:

  • They result in worse long-term outcomes [1]
  • They are debilitatingly habit forming [2] [3] [4]
  • They cause unpredictable violence [5] [6]

These insights were apparently just the tip of the iceberg. Several years into the horror stories of patient experiences and new relationships with grassroots activists, I am left wondering. What on earth are these meds? How could biochemistry have ever manifested molecules capable of derailing, distorting, and suppressing the human experience to this extent?

With more unknowns than knowns at this point, the signal of harm is growing and patient alignment with this model of care, diminishing.

I pulled some choice phrases from the paper for your further enlightenment below but suffice it to say that many of these side effects are major gamechanging problems if not life-ending tragedies that render the placebo-level performance of these medications totally unacceptable.

Gut disturbance: “Some of the most frequently reported side effects associated with the use of SSRIs and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) include nausea, diarrhea, dyspepsia, GI bleeding and abdominal pain.”

Liver toxicity: “Two main mechanisms may be involved in antidepressant- induced liver toxicity, namely a metabolic component and/or an immuno-allergic pathway. A hypersensitivity syndrome with fever and rash as clinical manifestations, as well as with autoantibodies and eosinophilia, and a short latency period (1–6 weeks) point to a predominantly immunoallergic pathophysiological mechanism, whereas a lack of hypersensitivity syndrome and a longer latency period (i.e. 1 month to 1 year) points to an idiosyncratic metabolic mechanism.”

Weight gain: “Notwithstanding the complexity of the clinical scenario, compelling evidence indicates that the use of most antidepressants may increase weight in a significant proportion of patients.”

Heart problems: “SSRIs and SNRIs may promote a decrement in heart rate variability (HRV). Although the impact of the effects of antidepressants on HRV remains to be established, data indicate that a lower HRV is a significant predictor of incident cardiovascular events.”

Urinary problems: “SSRIs can cause urinary retention by acting on central micturition pathways. Serotonin may increase the central sympathetic outflow leading to urinary storage, and at the same time inhibits parasympathetic flow, which affects voiding.”

Sexual dysfunction: “…a significant body of data shows that antidepressants may differentially affect sexual function in multiple aspects, leading to reductions in libido, arousal dysfunction (erection in males and vaginal lubrication in females) and orgasmic dysfunctions.”

Salt imbalance: “The mechanisms of SSRI-induced hyponatremia remain incompletely elucidated, but these agents can act by either increasing the release of antidiuretic hormone (ADH) or increasing the sensitivity to ADH resulting in a clinical picture similar to the syndrome of inappropriate secretion of ADH.”

Osteoporosis/Bone weakening: “The use of SSRIs has been associated with a reduction in bone mineral density (BMD) and a consistent higher risk of fractures.”

Bleeding: “All serotonergic antidepressants have been associated with an increased risk of bleeding. The most likely mechanism responsible for these adverse reactions is a reduction of serotonin reuptake by platelets, although other mechanisms have also been implicated.”

Nervous system dysfunction: “All kinds of EPS [extrapyramidal symptoms] are seen in patients taking antidepressants, but akathisia appears to be the most common presentation followed by dystonic reactions, parkinsonian movements and tardive dyskinesia…Headache was one of the most common side effects associated with the use of antidepressants in a large retrospective cohort of adolescents and adults.”

Sweating: “Most studies indicate that approximately 10% of patients on SSRIs may develop excessive sweating, although the incidence may be higher for paroxetine.”

Sleep disturbances: “The SSRIs and venlafaxine are associated with increased REM sleep latency and a reduction in the overall time spent in the REM phase while sleeping.”

Mood changes: “Many patients taking SSRIs have reported experiencing emotional blunting. They often describe their emotions as being ‘damped down’ or ‘toned down’, while some patients refer to a feeling of being in ‘limbo’ and just ‘not caring’ about issues that were significant to them before…Furthermore, an activation syndrome in which patients taking antidepressants may experience anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness and impulsivity in the first 3 months of treatment may ensue.”

Suicidality: “The incidence of suicide and attempted suicide has been a frequently underreported adverse outcome across antidepressant RCTs.”

Overdose toxicity: “Patients with MDD are at increased risk of suicide and overdosing of prescribed medications is a common method used to attempted suicide.”

Withdrawal Syndrome: “These symptoms include flu-like symptoms, tremors, tachycardia, shock-like sensations, paresthesia, myalgia, tinnitus, neuralgia, ataxia, vertigo, sexual dysfunction, sleep disturbances, vivid dreams, nausea vomiting, diarrhea, worsening anxiety and mood Instability.”

Eye disease: “A subset of patients taking SSRIs reports nonspecific visual disturbances…SSRIs may increase intraocular pressure and lead to the emergence of angle-closure glaucoma…A nested case-control study found a higher likelihood of cataracts after exposure to newer generation antidepressants.”

Hormonal imbalance: “Long-standing increases in peripheral prolactin levels are occasionally observed in patients using ADs, including SSRIs [208] ; hyperprolactinemia may have deleterious health consequences (e.g. a decrease in BMD [bone mineral density] and hypogonadism).”

Pregnancy/Breastfeeding risk: “Most of the data describing the presence of birth defects associated with SSRI use have been based on observational studies and drug registries. Therefore, the clinical significance of these data is questionable.”

Cancer risk: “Preclinical studies have found that antidepressants can increase the growth of fibrosarcomas and melanomas, and may also promote mammary carcinogenesis.”

Whew! Now that’s depressing. And why don’t you know about these? Because your doctor doesn’t. I recently learned of a patient who was prescribed an antidepressant simultaneous to an antibiotic “just in case the antibiotic caused depression or mood changes”. We are trained to treat these medications as a “why not” application of pharmacology, and the truth is that, as the authors state:

the history of toxicology reminds us vividly of the lag that often occurs between the first approval of a drug for use in humans and the recognition of certain adverse events from that drug.”

Taking these risks seems all the more unecessary with the robust outcomes of lifestyle medicine – multimodal, multi-tier interventions that are low cost, immediately available, and side effect free. As the authors conclude:

The findings of this review suggest that long-term treatment with new generation ADs should be avoided if alternative treatments are available.”

I would have to agree and affirm that these “alternative” treatments are indeed available. These treatments offer not only resolution of symptoms and elimination/avoidance of meds, but an entirely new experience of self. This is not about getting “back to normal,” it’s about integration, evolution, and vitality. I’ve been working for several years to make self-healing toolkits available to everyone considering an antidepressant or looking to come off of one for less than the price of one doctor visit. Check it out!

[1] http://www.power2u.org/downloads/AnatomyofanEpidemic-SummaryofFindings-Whitaker.pdf
[2] https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/371865
[3] http://www.madinamerica.com/psychiatric-drug-withdrawal/#/home/
[4] http://kellybroganmd.com/stop-madness-coming-psych-meds/
[5] http://kellybroganmd.com/homicide-and-the-ssri-alibi/

Read More At: KellyBroganMD.com

_______________________________________________________________
© Kelly Brogan MD. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Kelly Brogan MD. For more articles, sign up for the newsletter at kellybroganmd.com.

_______________________________________________________________

Kelly Brogan, MD

Kelly Brogan, M.D. is a Manhattan-based holistic women’s health psychiatrist, author of the New York Times bestselling book, A Mind of Your Own, and co-editor of the landmark textbook, Integrative Therapies for Depression. She completed her psychiatric training and fellowship at NYU Medical Center after graduating from Cornell University Medical College, and has a B.S. from MIT in Systems Neuroscience. View full bio. Want to share this article on your own blog? View our reposting guidelines.

An Intriguing Way To Treat Fertility Issues Naturally

Source: iHealthTube.com
November 11, 2016

So many people can spend thousands upon thousands of dollars trying to get pregnant. Dr. Casen DeMaria discusses some common reasons for fertility issues as well as how to treat fertility issues naturally. Find out what glands may be behind certain issues and what may be done to restore function and lower stress that often accompanies these issues.

Zika Spraying Enriches Chemical Companies While Endangering Public Health

Image result for zika pesticide dangers
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mecola
September 14, 2016

As you may recall, the Zika virus made big headlines back in January and February when the Brazilian government blamed Zika-carrying mosquitoes for an uptick in reports of microcephaly,1,2 a condition in which babies are born with unusually small heads.

Like many other nations, the U.S. overreacted to the news by increasing states’ mosquito eradication efforts. 3 Some early models estimated that 200 million Americans, about 60 percent of the U.S. population, would become infected with Zika this summer4 — estimates that were clearly vastly overblown.

Sounds just like President Bush who 11 years ago claimed that over 200 million would not only get infected with Bird Flu but would actually die from it. They must have figured most people forgot about this and it was time for another scare to sell more chemicals and vaccines.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics5 reveal we’ve come nowhere near such numbers.

The two states with the highest rates of laboratory-confirmed Zika infections, New York and Florida, have had 625 and 507 cases respectively so far. New York accounts for 23 percent of all U.S. cases; Florida accounts for 19 percent of the total.

It’s worth noting though that the vast majority of all Zika cases in the U.S. occurred during travel elsewhere. Florida alone had 35 cases of locally acquired infections. All other states report zero locally-acquired cases.

Among the U.S. territories, Puerto Rico was worst beset, with 13,791 locally-acquired cases as of August 31, 2016. The U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa report 221 and 47 locally-acquired cases respectively.

Call for DDT Has (Fortunately) Been Left Unanswered

As the Zika scare grew to a fever pitch, groups like the Manhattan Institute and various journalists for prominent media outlets started calling for the return of DDT6 to address the mosquito problem. For example, in a June 6 article, The New York Post wrote:7

“The Zika virus outbreak makes it clearer than ever: It’s time to end the ban on DDT — a ban that was never sensible in the first place, but now is downright unjustifiable.”

Never mind the fact that DDT passes freely through the placenta during pregnancy,8 where it gains direct access to the developing fetus and its brain.9 DDT has also been linked to decreased fertility, premature delivery, Alzheimer’s10 and even microcephaly,11 making this recommendation about as ignorant as it gets.12

Fortunately, the ban on DDT has not been lifted. However, there’s no shortage of other dangerous insecticides on the market, and they’ve been heavily employed in many states.

Florida and New York Being Heavily Sprayed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPHmzZMIINs

In Miami-Dade County, Florida, the aerial spraying campaign against Zika-carrying mosquitoes has been referred to as a “blitz” that “could be one for the record books if the [CDC] records it as a success.”13 The area began spraying the insecticide Naled from low-flying planes on August 4.

Naled is banned in the European Union (EU), and when residents in Puerto Rico found out the CDC was going to use the chemical against Zika-carrying mosquitoes there, the streets filled with protesters. Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla finally forced the CDC to take the shipments back.14

Concerned residents took to the streets in Wynwood, Miami, as well, but it didn’t have much of an impact.

Neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn, New York, were doused with Duet15 and Anvil insecticides from trucks on the nights of August 31 and September 1, 2016, to combat mosquitoes known to carry either the Zika or West Nile virus (Asian Tiger, Aedes Aegypti and Culex mosquitoes).16,17 Duet has also been used in Orange County, California.18

Duet19 contains two pyrethroid pesticides, Sumithrin and Prallethrin, plus a synergistic compound called piperonyl butoxide (PBO), which boosts the effectiveness of the former two.

Sumethrin is an endocrine disruptor, neurotoxin and likely carcinogen, and PBO has been shown to be harmful to the fetal brain, causing “profound developmental defects in children exposed in utero.”

According to recent research, children living in areas exposed to annual aerial spraying of pyrethroids (such as Duet and Anvil) have a 25 percent higher risk of autism compared to areas where mosquito control is done primarily through pellets distributed on the ground.

This suggests the method of application can make a big difference when it comes to human health.20,21 In another study, exposure to pyrethroids during the third trimester increased the chances of the child having autism by 87 percent.22

Low-flying helicopters also released pellets of Altosid and VectoBac over four New York City boroughs earlier this summer, including Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and The Bronx. As noted by The Vaccine Reaction:23

“What might be of particular concern to the New York City’s residents is the ironic possibility that using these chemicals against mosquitoes to control the perceived threat of the Zika virus could actually have the effect of creating a serious local health crisis where there was previously none.

While the CDC seems convinced that Zika is behind the microcephaly cases in Brazil … other organizations such as Médicos de Pueblos Fumigados (Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Villages) of Argentina … has argued that an insect growth regulator similar to Altosid may be responsible for the microcephaly cases.”

Aerial Spraying Is Not an Effective Strategy for Controlling Zika

Many have also argued that aerial sprayings against the Zika-carrying mosquito Aedes aegypti is futile, exposing the population to toxic chemicals for no good reason.24

These tiny black and white striped mosquitoes have a very limited range of flight, and since it’s so difficult to catch them airborne, insecticidal sprays and foggers are mostly useless for controlling them.25 Reporting on recent research, WebMD writes:26

“Female mosquitoes can transmit the Zika virus to their eggs and offspring, and this may make it harder to contain outbreaks, a new lab study suggests. Control programs that focus only on adult mosquitoes may not halt Zika’s spread, the researchers warned …

‘Spraying affects adults, but it does not usually kill the immature forms — the eggs and larvae,’ said [study co-author Dr. Robert] Tesh. As a result, ‘spraying will reduce transmission, but it may not eliminate the virus’ …”

CDC Relies on Unpublished Data to Support Aerial Spraying

Curiously, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden defended the use of aerial insecticide sprayings in a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) citing a non-peer-reviewed presentation by a New Orleans mosquito control board employee named Brendan Carter.

According to Carter, aerial disbursement of “ultra-low volumes of insecticide” reduced caged Aedes aegypti by more than 90 percent in a New Orleans field trial. However, as reported by Kaiser Health News:27

“Carter earned his master’s degree in 2014 from the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine … Even so, other experts in mosquito-borne diseases were unconvinced when asked about Carter’s finding as described in Frieden’s commentary for JAMA.

‘I know of no published reports that support this figure,’ said Durland Fish, [Ph.D.] a Yale University professor emeritus of microbial diseases as well as a professor of forestry and environmental studies there.

Fish worked with public officials in Dominica in 2014 to counter chikungunya virus, another disease spread by the Aedes aegypti mosquito. ‘This is a domestic mosquito, meaning they live inside the house — in closets, under the bed, in the sink. Spraying outside won’t be very effective,’ he said.”

Micro-Mist May Work by Entering Your Home, but Is That Wise?

Many others agree with Fish’s conclusion, noting there’s virtually no scientific evidence to support the use of aerial spraying to control Aedes mosquitoes. However, Joseph Conlon, spokesman for the American Mosquito Control Association, is not on that list.

According to Conlon, the idea that aerial spraying against Aedes mosquitoes doesn’t work is an outdated notion, since Naled can now be sprayed in a micro-fine mist, “capable of wafting into homes through screen doors and bathroom vents.”28 But what about the residents, including infants and pregnant women, inside those homes who then breathe in this super-fine mist?

Naled, an organophospate insecticide is known to interfere with cholinesterase activity, an enzyme essential for the proper working of your nervous system. Organophosphates as a group are also linked with shortened pregnancies, lowered IQ and increased risk of attention deficit disorder (ADD).29

According to the Extension Toxicology Network, “Naled is moderately to highly toxic by ingestion, inhalation and dermal adsorption. Vapors or fumes of Naled are corrosive to the mucous membranes lining the mouth, throat and lungs, and inhalation may cause severe irritation.”30

It is also readily absorbed through your skin and should be immediately washed off if contact occurs. High temperatures and/or UV light enhances its toxicity — an added concern when sprayed in hot and sunny areas like Florida.

I live in Florida full-time now and this is a significant issue for me personally. This is one of the reasons why I use my infrared sauna three times a week to help me detox not only from these admitted exposures but also from all the other ones that we have no idea of but nevertheless have exposure to.

Naled Decimates Bee Populations in South Carolina

Naled was also sprayed in Dorchester County, South Carolina, in the morning hours between 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on August 28, 2016 — with devastating consequences. In one Summerville apiary, 46 hives totaling 2.5 million bees died that same morning. Many other beekeepers also claim massive losses. As reported by The Washington Post:31

“[T]o the bee farmers, the reason is already clear. Their bees had been poisoned by Dorchester’s own insecticide efforts, casualties in the war on disease-carrying mosquitoes … Given the current concerns of West Nile virus and Zika … Dorchester decided to try something different … It marked a departure from Dorchester County’s usual ground-based efforts. For the first time, an airplane dispensed Naled in a fine mist, raining insect death from above …”

Naled is known to be highly toxic to bees, which is why counties that use it will typically spray it at night, when honey bees are not out foraging. Provided they have sufficient warning, beekeepers can also shield their hives to prevent exposure. According to Dorchester County administrator Jason Ward, all but one beekeeper on the county’s contact list was notified of the spraying.

However, many local beekeepers were not on the county’s list to begin with, and the county only requested a more complete list from the Lowcountry Beekeepers Association after the fact. In a WCSC-TV interview, local beekeeper Juanita Stanley said: “Had I known, I would have been camping on the steps doing whatever I had to do, screaming, ‘No you can’t do this.'”

Florida Governor Has Financial Stake in Zika Mosquito Control

Considering the limited risks of Zika and the significant risks of aerial insecticides on critical pollinators like bees and human health, one wonders what’s really driving the decision process. When you start to dig, you’ll often find financial incentives. In Florida, people are now wondering whether Governor Rick Scott may have a personal stake in unleashing chemical warfare.

On June 23, 2016, Scott allocated $26.2 million in state emergency funds to combat Zika. As it turns out, an undisclosed conflict of interest could potentially have influenced this generous release of funds. According to Florida Bulldog:32

“… Rick Scott has an undisclosed financial interest in a Zika mosquito control company in which his wife, Florida First Lady Ann Scott, owns a multi-million dollar stake through a private investment firm she co-owns. The company is Mosquito Control Services LLC of Metairie, LA. According to its website,

MCS ‘is a fully-certified team of mosquito control experts — licensed throughout the Gulf Coast, including Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida’ … It is not known whether MCS, whose services include monitoring and aerial spraying, stands to benefit from Florida government funds … MCS did not respond to two requests for comment.”

Is Zika Being Hyped to Save Toxic Insecticides From Being Banned?

In a recent Health Nut News article,33 Erin Elizabeth pieces together a long list of events and players suggesting the real reason for the Zika hype may be related to the fact that the primary chemical weapons against Zika — Naled and Malathion — are both up for re-evaluation at the EPA under a special provision of the Endangered Species Act. If found to harm endangered species, they will be banned — unless there’s sufficient political pressure to keep them on the market, that is.

Moreover, the Clean Water Act stipulates you must have a NPDES permit34 in order to be “allowed” to discharge pollutants into U.S. waters. Insecticides are a significant water pollutant, and mosquito control applications that result in water discharges must have an NPDES permit, which includes limits on the discharges and has certain monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure the chemical does not hurt water quality and human health.

Should Naled and/or Malathion be found harmful to endangered species, operators would not likely be able to get an NPDES permit for the chemicals even if they somehow were not outright banned under the Endangered Species Act.

Interestingly enough, the American Mosquito Control Association has lobbied Congress to pass HR 935, which would exempt mosquito control operations from the NPDES permit requirement altogether, allowing them to discharge whatever chemical without limits, monitoring or reporting requirements.

When Congress remained unreceptive to the idea, HR 935 was suddenly renamed the “Zika Control Act.” Once Congress comes back from recess, they could potentially be forced to vote yes on this disastrous bill if there’s sufficient panic about Zika.

The Senate is also scheduled to vote on whether to set aside another $1.1 BILLION in funding to fight Zika — a virus that so far has not seriously harmed a single person in the U.S., and has not conclusively been proven responsible for the microcephaly cases in Brazil either. In short, this whole thing appears to be little more than a gift to the chemical industry at the expense of public health. As noted by Erin:

“The American Mosquito Control Association and the chemical companies can only benefit from huge hype and fear surrounding Zika. They NEED the populace to fear Zika so that Congress is forced to approve a terrible bill that would pollute/erode the Clean Water Act and eventually allow for Malathion and Naled [to] continue to be used despite data showing their effect on endangered species.”

Some States Now Offer Free Mosquito Repellents

In related news, in addition to boosting mosquito sprayings across entire neighborhoods, some states have decided to hand out free mosquito repellents. Universal Studios, Walt Disney World and SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida, now offer free bug repellents to visitors35 and, in Texas, pregnant women on Medicaid are eligible to receive free DEET mosquito repellent at pharmacies without a prescription.36

However, DEET is by no means harmless. On the contrary, DEET has been shown to harm brain and nervous system function and is so poisonous that even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says you should wash it off your skin when you return indoors, avoid breathing it in and not spray it directly on your face. Why focus on distributing a highly toxic chemical to pregnant women rather than giving them something that’s actually safe?

Neem-based products, for example, are a viable alternative that can keep mosquitos at bay without risking your and your baby’s health. Citronella oil and geraniol can also be used, and both are safe for the whole family, including infants. Products containing either 20 percent picaridin or 30 percent oil of lemon and eucalyptus have also been shown to outperform DEET in tests.

Picaridin resembles the natural compound piperine, an essential oil in black pepper. Lemon eucalyptus oil and picaridin are not actual repellents; they primarily work by masking the environmental cues that mosquitoes use to locate their target. Side effects of both picaridin and lemon eucalyptus include potential skin or eye irritation, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states picaridin should not be used on children under age 3. Still, they’re both likely FAR safer than DEET!

Biological Warfare Is a Risky Game

Are we doing the right thing by waging war against pests with toxic chemicals? It needs to be understood that there’s a price to pay, both in human and environmental health. We’re poisoning our world, and ourselves, in the name of protecting public health. There’s something inherently wrong with that position. Some are quick to say we have no other options. But this isn’t necessarily true.

In the short term, there are safer options to guard against mosquitos than aerial insecticides and topical DEET. But we also need to take a much wider view. What’s needed is the political and societal will to make necessary changes, and this involves fully embracing ecologically sound, regenerative methods of agriculture. Why? Because when nature is in balance, pests fail to gain the upper hand. They still exist, but they’re kept in check naturally.

It may not be as effective as releasing a potent toxin, but if we keep going the way we’re headed, we’re just going to encounter more of the same problems. Is it really worth putting our children’s health and future at risk? Is it worth decimating pollinators, on which our food supply depends? I believe the answer is no, but at the very least, we need a more open discussion about what we’re doing and what the options are. We also need to implement more farsighted solutions.

Again, this is all based on the likely flawed assumption that what the media, CDC and public health authorities are saying about Zika is true. In my view, this is merely a repeat of the Bird Flu Hoax, which is a New York Times best-selling book I previously wrote. They just fast-forwarded the clock a decade and hoped they could use the fear-based tactics to push their pernicious agenda yet again.

Read More At: Mercola.com

Iodine Supplements Before, During, and After Pregnancy

Source: NutritionFacts.org
Dr. Greger
September 8, 2016

DESCRIPTION: What is the evidence that all pregnant women should follow the American Thyroid Association’s recommendation to take a daily iodine supplement?

Clinton receives millions from Dow Chemical; backs away from effort to ban toxic chemical that harms women

Dow Chemical
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
September 7, 2016

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton embodies all that is wrong with American politics today, as she has proven time and again. One example unearthed just recently involves her policy reversal regarding a dangerous chemical, after the company that manufactures it became a benefactor of the Clintons’ charities.

As reported by Breitbart News in February, at one time Clinton opposed use of an industrial solvent manufactured by Dow Chemical known as Trichloroethylene, or TCE, because it was found to be potentially harmful to pregnant women. But she changed her mind after the nation’s largest maker of TCE began partnering with, and eventually contributing to, the Clinton Global Initiative and an advisory group linked to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Not so ironically, at the time of the Breitbart report Clinton was making an issue of the government-created toxic water crisis in Flint, Mich., in which residents were saturated with dangerous levels of lead. Lead poisoning: bad; chemical poisoning: not so much (for donors, anyway).

Clinton’s personal and financial partnership with Dow Chemical reveals much about the inner workings of her and her husband’s growing financial empire, as well as the “pay for play” nature of her political life.

Phony legislation that went nowhere

On October 5, 2005, then-U.S. Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y., drafted a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, noting that seniors and children are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of the chemical, used primarily as a metal degreaser. She then urged the agency to adopt regulatory measures to prevent possible harm from the chemical.

“Endicott, Hopewell Junction and Ithaca [New York] are known to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds where TCE is also known to be present,” Clinton’s office said at the time in a statement which highlighted the letter.

At the time, there was intense political pressure on Clinton and her New York lawmaker colleagues, after it was found that TCE had leached into an underground water table near Hopewell Junction. In addition, a number of homes had experienced “vapor intrusion” of the chemical into their homes. Both of these incidents caused significant threats to public health, as most residents were likely not purifying their water or cleaning the air in their houses.

Also, noted Breitbart, the EPA reported discovering other toxins in the well water of at least five homes in the Hopewell Junction community while testing was being conducted for the presence of TCE.

“TCE is a widespread pollutant in the United States and vapor intrusion is known to be a significant pathway of exposure,” Clinton, who took the lead, said in her letter, which was signed by other senators and congressmen. “The EPA needs to act now to establish safe, protective ‘interim standards’ in order to ensure the health and safety of our children and our communities.”

Principles for sale

In 2007, Clinton would introduce legislation that made clear that TCE was potentially harmful to “pregnant women, infants, and children.”

Shortly after Clinton introduced her measure, Dow began partnering with the Clinton Global Initiative, eventually working up to being a benefactor. The company pledged a $30 million loan guarantee for a clean water projection in India at the Clinton Global Initiative’s 2007 annual meeting. Andrew Liveris, Dow’s chairman and CEO, announced the loan while appearing at the annual meeting in late September 2007, less than two months after Clinton introduced her TCE Reduction Act.

Breitbart noted that Liveris became a close friend of the Clintons, with Dow donating between $1 and $5 million to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2014. Liveris also gave Bill Clinton the use of a private Dow jet when the former president went to North Korea in 2009 to successfully negotiate the release of two American journalists who were being held in that country.

There are other ties as well, Breitbart noted. But in sum, this is just another example of how the principles of Bill and Hillary Clinton are not hard-and-fast ideological things, but are instead for sale to the highest bidder.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Breitbart.com

Congress.gov

HVMag.com

EPOnline.com

NaturalNews.com