Diary of an Angry Mom

You Win Worst Place...

2010-07-06T19:11:00.006-04:00

It has been a while since I had a lot to say, or rather a lot of time to write it down, but I could not resist this headline. U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study. I mean really, how could I, the anti-science brigade, not take a pause and reflect on this illuminating missive?

So we get dead last? Not even a consolation prize. All those doctor's and nurses telling me that I am risking my life, my children's lives and all my other loved ones because I did not vaccinate against swine flu... could they have been wrong?

NEVER

NOT HERE, This is AMERICA, Home of the Brave and Medically incompetent.

Did you know that more accidental deaths in hospitals occur in July, more than any other month? The explanation is that many doctors go on vacation and that residencies for new, unexperienced, doctors begin. You are more likely to die at a hospital in July... I feel warm and fuzzy now.

And we are not really talking about the universal healthcare issue, although the survey does touch on this topic. The report goes on to say that even though we have the worst medical care we also pay the most. Thats right, we pay the most, Americans pay almost double than that of the other countries represented in the study. We also have the lowest quality and coverage. The survey takes quality, availability of care, accidents, wrong diagnosis, mistakes and other issues into consideration as well.

I personally believe that this can be seen most clearly in our countries obstetrics practice. New Jersey has a caesarian rate of about 50%. That is right, our bodies are so malformed and diseased that we need to create another orifice to pass our children through 50 percent of the time. One of the tools that is used to monitor women and babies during birth is called a heart rate monitor. This device is strapped to the mother and is supposed to monitor fetal heart rate. This device, more than any other, is one of the main causes of a caesarian birth - and it has a 60% failure rate.

That means that if I flipped the first coin I found on the sidewalk it would be more accurate. This is a device that is used to determine if you infant child is in danger and it is WRONG 60% of the time.

The Flu vaccine is another big one. Recommended for a "Most Useless Vaccine" award it is ineffective more than 85% of the time. The number the CDC uses to generate expected flu deaths include other illnesses including pneumonia. Canada had a total of 35 confirmed pediatric flu deaths during the swine flu outbreak and by contrast the United States had over 500 unconfirmed pediatric deaths... and that is still a far cry from the expected number of deaths projected at the outset. They are now incinerating tons of vaccines which have expired. That is right - OUR TAXES - are going up in smoke. It is like the old adage that the lawyers always win. Well these days the pharmaceutical companies seem to win.

Right now a leukemia drug, Mylotarg, is being taken off the market. After market studies showed that if you took the drug you had an increased chance of dying. This was one of those fast tracked drugs - like the swine flu vaccine - that was only tested on about 180 people before it was released for sale. Considering the rate at some side effects occur it is negligent to assume that they would even surface in such a small study.

I get it, medicine can do amazing things! I understand that there was a time in our recent history that some easily treated diseases could kill, that antibiotics saved millions of lives, and that some vaccines have also helped millions remain healthy. What I have a problem with is the idea that you cannot argue facts with medical studies. Your doctor does not even know proper nutrition! IT IS NOT A REQUIRED STUDY. They can prescribe medication, spot and treat illness and recommend a cure... but they do not have to understand that drinking a 2 liter bottle of soda everyday is what caused your diabetes.

"Modern medicine is a tradition, not a science." A friend told me. And remember folks, there was a time when doctors refused to wash their hands, denying it was possible that they were spreading germs and disease. There was a time when doctors used leaches and bleeding to cure ailments and beat people to cure mental illness.

They can be wrong.

The Age of Anti-Science

2010-02-21T23:28:00.000-05:00

I have been hearing a lot about anti-science these days... it has a number of names anti-science, science deniers, science rejectionists... seriously. The idea is that if you dispute 'common scientific ideas' you are somehow against science and a deeply ignorant person. I first ran across the term when researching vaccine issues, then fluoride and climate science... and now I have started to see it everywhere.

The basic premise is that 'scientists' (nice and vague that one) have performed 'studies' (equally vague) that 'prove' a result. The most basic would be an example of a study that showed hot water burned skin. If you argued that hot water did not burn skin well then you would be (bu bu bu bum) ANTI-SCIENCE, got it?

Now that we have the overall premise of anti-science down you see how it could be applied freely to stupid people who either want to burn themselves or others they know, but what about the studies that it is being applied to like:

Vitamins & Supplements
Vaccine Safety
Diet (Saturated Fat, Cholesterol and High Fructose Corn Syrup)
Chemical Food Coloring and Flavoring
Allergies
Climate Change

The list is actually quite long and these few items barely scratch the surface but they are the ones on my mind, mostly. One of the main things that I have noticed is that if you do not believe what you are told by the 'scientists' you are wrong, even if it is later discovered that the 'scientists' themselves were in the wrong with their study... A good example of this would be eggs. Remember the demon egg? The deadly bomb of cholesterol mascaraing as a delicious breakfast food??? Simply one egg a day could make you a walking death trap - possibly infecting those around you with the amount of cholesterol you have ingested... Then a few years later, "Um... Hello? (is this thing on?) Um, yeah... those eggs we told you were poison... we were, well, we um... see the thing is... they are okay now."

Another thing that I find equally disturbing about the anti-science finger pointers is the sponsors (i.e. the people who pay for everything) who are supporting the studies almost always get the results that they want and those studies which do not meet their needs are tossed aside. This happens quite often actually and you never know it because these studies are brushed aside or something is 'wrong' with them. Now granted, there are inherently flawed studies, and these should be discredited... but many just show different results. An example of this would be the recent BPA issue that is everywhere right now. Unilaterally, studies done by the BPA industry showed no harmful effects on people whatsoever! However, all the studies performed by independent institutions, like schools and labs without industry ties show that BPA was not only harmful, but harmful in microscopic doses...

So if we need to believe in science and believe in the studies which science and which studies? Why are the studies I choose to favor somehow less important than the others because the result is different?

I met someone in the science field recently and she said once that any study can be made to show what you want it to. That was a very scary thought, one that preoccupied me for quite some time. Think about that for a minute... any study can be made to show what you want it to. So like when Monsanto wanted us to believe that DDT was safe and harmless, so harmless they sprayed people with it, children in pools and passers-by on the street, to prove that in a few years they would have debilitating cancers, diabetes and fertility problems... ooooh so the 'scientists' did 'studies' showing that the product was 'safe'... I'm sold.

But this is modern science we are talking about, not 40 year old science... so it must be better and must be different than this archaic stuff I am referring too... but it isn't. The swine flu debacle is a perfect example. We never had to break out the trailer for the piles of dead... there was no crier with a bell and a creaky cart. But there was a lot of panic, fear and fear-mongering, scare tactics and pressure from all sides to get vaccinated with a, hot off the press, barely tested vaccine. There was a point in time where I actually worried we could die or would be forced to take the vaccine against our will.

Who's science are we looking to and how do we know that those scientists have our best interests in mind? According to the nay-sayers asking these questions makes me personally anti-science. Basing my life's decisions on them makes me a danger to society. I am what is wrong with America today... Who the fuck knew?

I find that science is taking on near religious proportions in this day and age. We have supplanted churches will pills and the latest science du jour for health and well being, no matter the costs. Doctors, scientists, and institutions have taken on near omniscient status deciding who is of sound mind, who has the right to push a baby out of their body and who has the right to die off a ventilator. Dispute is often met with physical restraints, court orders and loss of custody. Lawsuits and defensive medicine have taken the place of sound advice and reasonable expectations.

This from a country with the highest infant mortality rate of the industrialized nations and ranked #33 in general medical care... and yet we are told that American medicine is the best in the world. So again, which studies are we looking at?

Science is a never ending quest to find answers to the universe and everything in it. Science cannot be absolute, it cannot be definitive and unchanging - it defies the concept of science.

What is Fluoride?

2010-01-12T12:35:00.007-05:00

Have you ever wondered about fluoride before? Really thought about it and wanted to know what it was and what it did? I started to wonder when I needed to by toothpaste for my daughter when she turned 1 year. The dentist said I should be sure and get a toothpaste without fluoride until she was between 2-4 and would not swallow it. This got me wondering about toothpaste, water, fluoride treatments and more...

The dentist explained to me that it was 'not good' for children to swallow toothpaste. I have since learned that it can be FATAL if your children swallow too much toothpaste, so the minor 'not good' that the dentist emphasized seems to be quite an inadequate warning. I simply read the tube of toothpaste:

Use a pea sized amount, DO NOT swallow. If more than a pea sized amount is swallowed contact Poison Control immediately. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN 6 AND UNDER.

It is toothpaste!?! What do you mean do not swallow it? I am not going to use it like whip cream but how can you not swallow it? Why would they make it taste like bubble gum if they did not want your children to try and eat it? Who's idea was it to put Oswald on the tube and make it taste like ice cream? Alas, it is that kind of thinking that keeps me from getting invited back to parties...

Okay, so we are not supposed to eat toothpaste, why?
Because it can kill you. Literally kill you, maybe not you - but your 2 year old - YES. Stone dead after an agonizing period of acute poisoning due to: F L U O R I D E.

Don't believe me? Go read your toothpaste.

Another good way to check on the deadly nature of fluoride is to check out the tank that the dentist has in his office... There is a rather large skull and cross bones on it over the word POISON. Yeppers, there is.

But What About The Water?
Yes, you in the back, speak up... What about the WATER? Yes, we fluoridate the water supply in the United States so heavily that there are more areas with fluoridated water than without... but if I cannot swallow the toothpaste then surly my water has less fluoride than the toothpaste, DUH.

You would be wrong about that.

If you live in a fluoridated community an 8oz glass of water has the same amount of fluoride that a pea sized amount of toothpaste does (and by the way when was the last time you saw any commercial, ad or person use a "pea" sized amount?) But seriously folks... Think about that for a minute... if my child eats 2 pea sized servings of fresh, whitening, bubble gum princess pink toothpaste (for a healthy smile) I need to call Poison Control and if I give her a 12oz glass of water I do not? Can someone help me through the thinking process that was used in this public health statute?

After getting confused about this I decided to ask my dentist. I mean seriously, right, he would totally know. Um, right? The dentist told me that the only problem I need to worry about is if the kids swallow toothpaste regularly, they could get brown spots on their teeth from too much ingested fluoride. But also that water fluoridation was a sound practice that helped millions battle tooth decay... he sounded a bit like a public service announcement really. And I do not give a fuck about millions, I care about me and mine, just like everyone else.

Where does a person turn when they have a question not adequately answered by a professional? Probably the internet, or an encyclopedia, maybe a medical journal? I did all three and more. I found out some amazing information, after I removed the categories concerning mind control and alien landing strips.

There is a large portion of information out there on mind control and, as always, the alien groups (the just like to get their hands in everywhere, maybe it is the aluminum foil?)... there is a LARGE portion of information on mind control and subduing populations et cetera... You cannot help but laugh at some of it. Funny and a little scary when you realize that people like that exist and are largely well armed. In fact the only reason I even bring it up at all is because there is so little factual medical information on fluoride out there. There are far more sites that offer explanations on why the US adopted the Nazi Fluoride Mind Control Plan than why fluoride turns your teeth brown. I searched and searched and searched some more. It took me months and I am still finding more.

I have learned that the fluoride they put in the water supply is a by-product of the aluminum foundry and fertilizer (weapon) making industries. It is called hydrofluosilicic acid and contains large amounts of other undesirable elements you associate with toxic waste... such as: aluminum, mercury, lead and arsenic. In fact if the companies that supply government agencies with fluoride were to dump it in the water themselves they would be fined heavily for dumping toxic wastes illegally. If they did not sell it to our water companies they would be charged by law to dispose of it in an approved toxic waste removal method... (I love modern corporate language, you can almost forget what you are talking about if you just tack on more words)

But what does the EPA say?
Interesting question... Thanks for bringing that up. The EPA states that the 2PPM of fluoride is so safe that they are increasing it to 4PPM... However there is an organization (not the mind control people...) made up of EPA scientists, researchers and workers called the EPA Union. The union was founded in response to the new trend of the officials at the EPA generally ignoring the recommendations and findings of its own workers, researchers and scientists.

The EPA Union petitioned congress to begin and immediate nationwide ban on all fluoridation programs because of new science and research that showed clear evidence of harm. More harm from fluoridation that good. Harm including: Hyperactivity in children, Dental fluorosis, Skeletal Fluorosis and Ostioscarcoma (a bone cancer). They also demanded that the EPA provide fluoride free drinking water for all employees...

Curious, isn't it?

I am going to continue this topic for a while. The amount of information is hard to include in one post. So I will continue more on the topic later, in additional posts.

Links:
A dentist talks about fluoride:

Professional Perspectives: Dr. Bill Osmunson from kevin on Vimeo.

In August of 2007 a group of 600
professionals petitioned Congress to end fluoridation because of the new
science showing health problems nationwide related to public water
fluoridation. You will find a copy of an article about the session at:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/341865/congress_will_hear_protests_
from_health.html

There is also a short video on YouTube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLVtO1VkNzQ which has a portion of the hearing/petition and an EPA representative named Dr. J. William Hirzy who is the Senior VP of the EPA Union, this union was established as a
whistle blower organization due to the EPA's refusal to accept their own scientists recommendations on many issues.

Finally a vimeo interview with Dr. Hirzy on the fluoride issue and where it stands today.

William Hirzy - Part 1 (EPA Union VP) Washington DC from kevin on Vimeo.

Standard Product Quality

2009-10-21T11:45:00.021-04:00

So, you decided to buy an electric can opener for your kitchen. You see an ad for this new product promising an easy opening, where the edges of the can are rounded to prevent serious injury from the sharp edges traditional openers leave. A fast, clean and safe can opening experience without all the labor needed to open cans in the past! Awesome right? You then get a Consumer Report on this can opener that says...

This model opens only 15%-25% of the cans on the market.

Of the 15%-25% it only works with cans of a specific diameter.

There is a possible, but rare, risk of electrocution and death.

A possible, less rare, risk of permanent damage to your counter top.

Would you buy this product?
I am going to go out on a limb here and speak for most people... NO. You are going to be passing on this patented kitchen aid.

But do most people understand this applies to medicine as well?
In my experience, no. There is a one size fits all attitude and if you ask a question you are just displaying your ignorance. This model, that I used above, is actually based on factual data from the standard yearly flu vaccine. The information was obtained from the CDC's (Center for Disease Control) own website on the flu and separate vital statistics area.

When looking at the statistical evidence from the flu vaccine. The CDC's prediction for the 1992-3 flu season was off by 84%. This is also the same for the 1997-8 year as well. So we are at our "25%" or rather 16% of cans...

Then if you happen to be one of the 16% that actually has a flu strain covered by the vaccine that you received you have a 70% chance of immunity to it, and we have our special diameter...

Next we have side effects. The flu shot indicates that there is a risk of Guillain-Barré, this is listed separately from other side effects. Another side effect is anaphylaxis if you are allergic to anything in the vaccine. For anyone who does not know Guillain-Barré is is a neurological condition which can paralyze and/or kill you. So here we have our small chance of electrocution and death.

Lastly, there have been a number of studies which show those who have received 5 or more flu shots have a 15% increased risk of degenerative neurological disease, like Alzheimer's. This final issue is our permanent counter top damage... Sounds funny and stupid when we are talking about a can opener. Not so funny and not so stupid when talking about a flu shot.

Why the H1N1 hype?
I think that a lot of this has to do with the fact that billions of dollars, of our money, were spent to fatten the pharmaceutical wallet in the sky. How stupid does everyone in the Government look if they say... "Well we panicked, but we have all these vaccines now. Lets just bury them somewhere?" So to combat this they have to pretend that this is still some 12 Monkeys/Outbreak scenario where we should be afraid to go outside or breathe in public. The CDC is even recommending a shot to those who have already had the virus?

This is the ONLY area of science that is so blatantly biased. The only area I have come across which is allowed such liberties and lack of accountability. American's all over the country are saying they will not allow a doctor near their arm with the H1N1 vaccine, 65% of Americans are planning on refusing it. It shows that people are paying attention to what is really going on here, more than the medical community would like. So their response? Make it compulsory for adults and children. My only hope is that people will see this situation, understand how unsafe the whole thing is and start the question: "Wait, if this one is unsafe what about the 48 shots we require children under 6 to have?"

Even health care workers are up in arms about this. This is not some global response by millions of uneducated people who have suddenly become Christian Scientists. These are people who see that there is evidence out there that does not answer the questions they are asking. But this whole situation feels like some Orwellian fugue. I hear people saying things like:

"People who are not vaccinated should be required to wear red id bands which clearly identify them."

"People who do not get the shot should lose their jobs."

"Unvaccinated health care workers should be sued if anyone around them gets sick."

"Unvaccinated people who get sick should be quarantined and refused all medical care."

"Parents should have their children removed from custody if they refuse the swine flu shot."

AND MY ALL TIME FAVORITE:

"Unvaccinated people put the rest of us at risk."

This one is my favorite because it is so commonly spouted by individual, doctor and government alike. I have written before that a vaccine's purpose is to expose you to a small dose of an illness which has been modified or killed so that your body will be immune to the illness if you encounter it naturally. So if you are vaccinated and you get sneezed on while you are on your way home from work using the subway - you are SAFE. What a stupid and ineffective device a vaccine would be if you got a shot and were at an increased risk for contracting the illness if someone around you got sick.

Problem is intelligent educated people are repeating this line over and over again. People that have degree's and even Ph.Ds. The two concepts are actually opposing arguments... opposite sides of a coin. You cannot have both, either a vaccine allows you to resist the disease or it makes you more susceptible to it: period. IF a flu shot will make you more susceptible to the flu why on earth would you take it?

Take the flu shot if you want to - by all means. Just get away from me and my family because we are not going to take it. Not until years of research, PROPER research is performed and we have recourse, medical and legal, if there is an injury. Because as it stands now you cannot get medical, financial or legal compensation if you are injured by a vaccine. The Patriot Act saw to that last loophole for manufacturer's.

You need to do the legwork for yourself when it comes to this. I have talked to Doctors and been intentionally or unintentionally misled. My son has a milk allergy and I recently found out the DTap vaccine is cultured in milk proteins, says so right on the insert. I spoke to my son's doctor about it and he stated that I was 100% incorrect. This confused me since I had just downloaded a copy from the Merck website before coming in. He also would not give me a copy of the insert and I had to ask several times for the Manufacturer, Lot and Exp details on the shot my son was getting. Course I had to sign his "liability form" in order to see him...

SO Get online, go to the manufacturer's website and get a copy of the insert for yourself. Read it. Go to the National Vaccine Information Center website, NVIC.org, and read the information and statistics about side effects, diseases and injury compensation. Do not rely on what people are telling you... go and find out for yourself. Use this as a source for more information... not your first and last stop

Fact Checking: Formaldehyde

2009-09-21T11:37:00.021-04:00

Good evening everyone, time to put on your tin-foil hats and curl up with a cup of hot cocoa. This is another post in part one, additives, of my vaccine series. This post is dedicated to the vaccine ingredient: formaldehyde.

Basic Facts: Vaccines contain mercury, formaldehyde and aluminum. A full listing of vaccine ingredients can be found on the CDC.gov website¹, see references.

Formaldehyde: The EPA indicates that formaldehyde is an important chemical. It is heavily used in manufacturing. It goes on to talk about the numerous products this chemical is used in. The most common source of formaldehyde exposure, after embalming (and who cares if it is toxic then), is pressed wood products. There is also a section that talks about serious health effects of formaldehyde exposure including throat irritation; wheezing and coughing; fatigue; skin rash; severe allergic reactions².

Wikipedia indicates that "Formaldehyde can be toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic.", "Several European countries restrict the use of formaldehyde, including the import of formaldehyde-treated products and embalming. The European Union is considering a complete ban on the use of formaldehyde as a biocide³." A biocide is a chemical that can kill living organisms, including humans.

The CDC indicates that the formaldehyde used in vaccines is used to kill the viruses and bacteria used in the production of the vaccines as well as a precaution against unwanted viruses and bacteria which regularly contaminate vaccines⁴. They also point you to another document, if you have more concerns not addressed by them, on 'Addressing Parents Concerns' about vaccine additives. The paper talks about how the dose of formaldehyde in vaccines is harmless and we have years of studies on vaccines which prove that it is harmless. However there are also several alternate sources which indicate that it is the cause of severe allergic reactions, asthma and eczema type skin problems; in addition there are also more acute and serious health affects if larger concentrations are involved, like coma and death.

In the final analysis the document wants to make it clear we should all be confident because:

According to the AAP, "Parents should be reassured that quantities of mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde contained in vaccines are likely to be harmless on the basis of exposure studies in humans or experimental studies in animals."(emphasis added)

This paper systematically dismisses ANY and EVERY concern you might have about any number of additives. This paper is also co-authored by Dr. Paul Offit. Some notes on Dr. Offit: he is the co-inventor and a patent holder of the Rotovirus vaccine and is also on the vaccine advisory council the CDC uses to define the youth vaccination schedule. He is granted a waiver by the CDC for a conflict of interest when serving on the vaccine advisory council. He has also stated that children can receive upwards of 10,000 vaccines at one time without adverse effects.

But it should be the least of your worries. "Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines," says Dr. Offit. "A baby's body is bombarded with immunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean." In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 10,000 vaccines at once.

When looking at Infarex, the DTaP vaccine by GlaxoSmithKline, we are told that there is less than 100 mcg of residual formaldehyde per injection and CHOP has a chart indicating that no injection contains more than 0.2mg of the chemical⁸. But again, like trans fat ads, we need to tally the amount of formaldehyde with the number of shots at once. We need a cumulative count when the doctor comes in with 7 vaccines at the same time...

According the the NJ Vaccine Schedule, which has the largest number of vaccines in the country, a 3 month old child should have the following: 1 dose DTaP - 0.1mg, 1 dose Hib - 0.1mg. So that is actually 0.2mg of formaldehyde, that is not less than 100mcg. Now the safe level, according to the CDC is, 0.1ppm but does anyone know what that translates to mcg or mg?

There is also a discrepancy between these numbers and the actual effects that are measured. Some of the numbers are for carcinogenic effects, allergic reactions, breathing problems. They also vary greatly based on inhaled forms or consumed forms. There is no information on injected formaldehyde within the OSHA, EPA, and CDC details. There is also evidence that the EPA is re-evaluating the current standard for toxicity⁹.

You can also find another MSDS, Material Safety Data Sheet, on Formaldehyde from the Science Lab group which indicates that formaldehyde is an skin irritant, corrosive on skin and in the eyes, can cause death and has carcinogenic and mutagenic properties which can affect humans. The sheet also indicates that it is toxic to kidneys, liver, skin, central nervous system (CNS) and dangerous if ingested¹³.

But again...
This is not your run of the mill dangerous formaldehyde that is used in children's vaccines. This is the special human, child, friendly version of the chemical that comes with a basket full of puppies when you order it online with a special code...

Small Tangent...
The Associated Content article, The DTaP Vaccine: What the Manufacturer's Insert Tells Us, brings an interesting fact to the surface as well. The DTaP vaccine is cultivated with milk protein. The insert indicates that children with milk protein allergies should not receive the vaccine. However, the document provided by doctors about the vaccine, entitled: Vaccines, What You Need To Know¹², does not contain this information. What else is missing from these fact sheets you are provided with... quite a lot actually, but that is another post.

My thoughts...
We know that formaldehyde is dangerous to all life forms however there is a clear argument between how much is too much and at what level is exposure going to cause what complications. I know that personally we had a pressed wood dresser and standard infant mattress in my sons room. He had asthma symptoms every day, mostly at nap time and night time. These symptoms were continual for several months. He needed constant treatment with a nebulizer. We removed the dresser and then later the mattress and his asthma symptoms have disappeared. The doctors assure me emphatically and without any room for argument that the dresser and the mattress had nothing to do with it, even though both are made with formaldehyde. One doctor went so far as to say that using sheets on the mattress would reduce the chemicals coming out of the mattress, like some sort of filter.

If this chemical can cause illness just breathing it what business does it have being injected into our children at any level?

References:
1. "Vaccine ingredients sorted by ingredient" Centers for Disease Control, CDC.gov. Accessed 09-21-2009.

2. "# Basic Information: Formaldehyde" Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.gov. Accessed 09-21-2009.

3. "Formaldehyde," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Accessed 09-21-2009.

4. "Ingredients of Vaccines - Fact Sheet" Centers for Disease Control, CDC.gov. Accessed 09-21-2009.

5. "Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Vaccines Contain Harmful Preservatives, Adjuvants, Additives, or Residuals?" Pediatrics, Medical Journal. Accessed 09-21-2009.

6. "Formaldehyde (CASRN 50-00-0)." Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.gov. Accessed 09-21-2009.

7. "Formaldehyde." National Safety Council. Accessed 09-21-2009.

8. "Hot Topics: Formaldehyde." Vaccine Information Center, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Accessed 09-21-2009.

9. "Formaldehyde in Vaccines: Toxic Substance Poses Threat" Associated Content. Accessed 09-21-2009.

10. "Infanrix Prescribing Information. GlaxoSmithKline. US.GSK.com. Accessed 09-21-2009.

11. "The DTaP Vaccine: What the Manufacturer's Insert Tells Us" Associated Content. Accessed 09-21-2009.

12. "Vaccines, What You Need To Know" Centers for Disease Control, CDC.gov. Accessed 09-21-2009.

13. "Parents Pack Newsletter." October 2005 Issue. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Accessed 09-21-2009.

14. "Material Safety Data Sheet: Formaldehyde" Science Lab. Accessed 09-21-2009.

Fact Checking: Aluminum

2009-09-17T11:59:00.012-04:00

This is a new series of posts based on vaccines. This is part one, additives. After further research on more vaccine issues I have found more information, convoluted (from either side), as most of it tends to be. I have tried to navigate between these two sides with a 6 foot salt shaker (and an extra bottle of salt on the side). I have come up with some interesting and conflicting information. Right now I am going to talk about the additives, specifically aluminum.

Basic Facts: Vaccines contain mercury, formaldehyde and aluminum. A full listing of vaccine ingredients can be found on the CDC.gov website¹, see references.

I am going to focus on 1 of these additives, aluminum.

Aluminum: When you look up aluminum on the CDC website you get several items, one is a vaccine page. If you have concerns about aluminum use in the vaccines the CDC directs you to a document, created and sponsored by CHOP, called Aluminum in Vaccines². This document goes to great length to assure you that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is of no concern and clearly not harmful to anyone. They illustrate how we consume aluminum everyday thought a multitude of sources and our babies are getting such a small amount in their vaccines. This is equated to drinking a bottle or a feeding of breast milk. They do not differentiate between eating foods which contain aluminum and injecting aluminum directly into the body or blood stream.

But why is this important?
This specific difference has caused many "peer reviewed" scientific studies to be discarded as injection is NOT the same as consumption. They do talk a bit about the aluminum used in intravenous fluids but emphasis is placed on the fact that toxicity numbers are for patients with compromised kidneys.

The FDA indicates that aluminum content over 5 micrograms per kilogram of body weight in a day can cause toxic reactions in an adult with compromised kidney function. Dr. Sears points out that this would be 10 to 20 mcg for an infant, in a daily dose³. The Eengerix-B Hepatitis B vaccine⁴, given at BIRTH, contains 250 mcg in one shot. The Pediarix vaccine⁵, which is for DTaP-Hepatitis B-Polio, a combination vaccine has a dose of 850 mcg of aluminum. Pediarix would be considered toxic for a 375lb adult according to the FDA's information.

Breakdown:
Pediarix 375lbs = 170kg x 5mcg = 850mcg aluminum
Eengerix-B 110lbs = 50kg x 5mcg = 250mcg aluminum

Again, there is a lot of emphasis that this relates to people with impaired kidney function, but do they check your infant for impaired kidney function at birth? What is proper kidney function in a 8 hour old child? How much aluminum can a 24 hour kidney excrete without causing physical or neurological damage? Do they run a test to see what a toxic level of aluminum looks like on someone without impaired kidney function?

If you look on the internet there are tibits out there. One source talks about about content over 100 mcg per liter of water being unsafe for consumption⁶. This is noteworthy since aluminum compounds are used by water treatment facilities to clarify water. But there are no real studies on toxicity on healthy people since it is immoral to test toxicity levels on humans by poisoning them. There is also a lot of jabber that vaccines cannot be withheld from people since they are considered 'life saving' and to do so would be to deny treatment and that is unethical... However, the EPA indicates that aluminum toxicity has been linked to pulmonary and developmental problems⁷.

The Dr. Sears' article talks, in detail, about how no one really knows how this amount of aluminum affects infants³. The studies that he has personally looked at just do not have the answers. The assumption is that aluminum is safe. And again, like so many other aspects relating to vaccination, there is aggressive and vehement opposition (by the medical community, the government and pharmaceutical companies) to any suggestion that it could be otherwise. There is only one thing that is clear: parents are not so sure it is safe.

Another nice tibit out there is that fluoride also can affect aluminum. Thats right, the fluoride we put in the water to keep our teeth healthy. The general process is that aluminum is excreted by the body and in most cases this is true, however studies show that fluoride combines with aluminum allowing it to pass into your body, from the blood stream, and collect in the bone and brain tissue.

A fluoride/activist group, ActionPA, cites a news release from the medical journal Brain Research about the connection to Alzheimer's disease⁸. There is also document from the Department of Health and Human Services which recommends that this substance be watched and studied because of its neurotoxic properties⁹. Another bit, the National Toxicology Program goes into great detail on the toxicity of aluminum and its controversial link in studies. Saying that there are several studies which show a clear connection to illness and then others that show opposing results to those same studies¹⁰. There is even an MSDS, which is a Material Saftey Data Sheet¹² (required by 'Big Brother' for most substances people are exposed to), which talks about some serious effects:

It is a poison that accumulates in the brain and tissues of the body ("target organs"). Ingestion: "Chronic ingestion of aluminum may cause Aluminum related Bone Disease or aluminum-induced Osteomalacia with fracturing Osteodystrophy, microcytic anemia, weakness, fatigue, visual and auditory hallucinations, memory loss, speech and language impairment (dysarthria, stuttering, stammering, anomia, hypofluency, aphasia, and, eventually, mutism), epileptic seizures (focal or grand mal), motor disturbances (tremors, myoclonic jerks, ataxia, convulsions, asterixis, motor apraxia, muscle fatigue), dementia (personality changes, altered mood, depression, diminished alertness, lethargy, ‘clouding of the sensorium’, intellectual deterioration, obtundation, coma), and altered EEG.

Awesome hu?
Don't worry, I thought so too. Can you think of anything else that might be as toxic and pervasive as aluminum? As it relates to vaccines? Come on! I gave you a list at the beginning... the CDC, AAP, and FDA want to ASSURE you that this is a special child friendly version of aluminum (you can request in pink or blue to match your child's gender) which is used in vaccines; not this scary nasty aluminum we are talking about here...

So where does that leave you and me?
I simply do not understand why the EPA, FDA, and other governmental agencies are "watching" this neurotoxin if a dose of 850mcg is safe or a newborn. How can aluminum even be classified as a neurotoxin if it is so safe? The fact is that it is not. The information I found is spread out between several agencies and most of the agencies are not in charge of vaccines or their production. The studies are also in water treatment, not pediatrics... aluminum miner and foundry workers, not children's daycare...

One of the most interesting things about this additive, or adjuvent as such things are called in the medical community, is that medical science cannot even explain what it does. All we really know is that it 'seems' to increase the immune response to the vaccine, thus making the vaccine more effective.

My thoughts...
I personally believe that the money involved in a guaranteed nationwide government contract helps gray areas like this. If you follow the methodology - we all know that trusting companies to do their own saftey testing is like putting a fox in charge of chickens, but it happens everyday. I want to be able to vaccinate my child. I want to believe that if I do this my children will be safe from illness that could kill them or even some that would just annoy them and cause a lot of discomfort that they do not have to otherwise go through. The problem is the facts are all wrong. How can we be assured that aluminum is safe when liturature spread accross agencies and other medical sources shows it is not?

Lets be realistic here, I am not talking about having too much butter with a meal or giving my daughter an extra cookie after dinner. We are talking about injecting a known neurotoxic metal into the body of a child, that in conjunction with ADA advocated water fluoridation, will deliver that neurotoxin directly to her brain.

Ironically the CDC also has a document called the Toxicological Profile for Aluminum¹¹. This document has test after test of damaging affects on every manner of animal accept humans. No Studies, No Studies, No Studies.... this is like a mantra in the document and yet at the same time there is a document sponsored by them saying studies show that aluminum is safe. It is almost laughable that a study used to dispute a connection with Alzheimer's disease consisted of a telephone call to patients to determine the number of people affected with Alzheimer's who used aluminum containing deodorant vs. those who did not.

WOW.
I know I'm sold.

References:

1. "Vaccine ingredients sorted by ingredient" Centers for Disease Control, CDC.gov. Accessed 09-17-2009.

2. "Aluminum in Vaccines: What you should know"" Centers for Disease Control, CDC.gov. Document Created and Published by CHOP (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Accessed 09-17-2009.

3. "Is Aluminum the New Thimerosal?" Mothering Magazine, Dr. Robert W. Sears. Issue 146, January/February 2008. Accessed 09-17-2009.

4. Eengerix-B Prescribing Information. GlaxoSmithKline. US.GSK.com. Accessed 09-17-2009.

5. Pediarix Prescribing Information. GlaxoSmithKline. US.GSK.com. Accessed 09-17-2009.

6. Aluminum Toxicity: A misdiagnosed epidemic. Idaho Observer. Ingri Cassel. December 2007. Accessed 09-17-2009.

7. Ecological Toxicity Information. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.gov. Accessed 09-17-2009.

8. Fluoride Combines with Aluminium in Drinking Water. ActionPA, Actionpa.org. Accessed 09-17-2003.

9. Federal Register Online via GPO Access. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Accessed 09-17-2003.

10. Aluminum Compounds　Review of Toxicological Literature. The National Toxicology Program, The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. NTP.NIEHS.NIH.gov Accessed 09-17-2009.

11. Toxicological Profile for Aluminum. Centers for Disease Control, CDC.gov. Accessed 09-17-2009.

12. Aluminum MSDS. Science Lab, ScienceLab.com. Accessed 09-17-2009.

Vaccination Fundamentalists & the Rest of Us.

2009-09-08T09:56:00.016-04:00

I have not broached this topic as of yet in my blog. Today seems like a good day. School is starting and millions of children are going to return to school and basically receive a shot as they go through the door. Schools across the country are now flu clinics for a disease that is shown continually to be mild and less harmful than the regular strain of influenza which, as we all know, is an epidemic killing millions; like something out of "The Stand."

I have my own, strong, opinions about vaccination and in my "quest" to find more information and educate myself I have been harassed, ignored, retaliated against, and generally opposed in all ways. Now mind you, I did not say that I refused to vaccinate my children. What I said was, I wanted MORE information and to educate myself.

It is a sad fact that almost NO ONE in the country believes their doctor fully anymore, just as "empty promises" has become the standard tag line for our faith in politicians. Many people believe that their doctors recommendations are not motivated by our best interests any longer, but the fear of litigation and greater good of the public health. This is not to say that doctors on a personal level are not trustworthy or deliberately deceiving us... but there is a pattern here.

When my daughter was born she was whisked away within minutes of her emergence from my post-operative body. She was washed and her cord cut, then some industrial blue dye was put on her cord, (for reasons I still do not understand...) and a vaccine for Hepatitis B was given to her. Those of you not “in the know” may not know that Hepatitis B is a sexually transmitted disease that pregnant women are regularly screened for during pregnancy. So since I did not have Hepatitis B pre or post pregnancy I am not sure how my daughter could have contracted Hepatitis B vaginally within hours of her birth. However, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) feels that all children are in terrifying danger of Hepatitis B from the rampant infant sex happening in hospitals across the nation that they need the life saving protection of a vaccine within hours of birth. They are also to receive another 3 shots as a “booster” before they are 18 months of age. Because again, the rampant sexual deviance of toddlers is a well known “elephant in the room,” do not get me started on all the needle sharing that goes on in this age range as well. You may think that they cannot handle that sippy cup but that is just a deception – those little buggers can manage a hypodermic without a hitch.

I then, of course, brought my daughter in for her scheduled visits to the pediatrician so we could monitor her development and of course get more vaccines. When she was 3 months old the doctor entered the room with 5 vaccines and got ready to “get started,” requiring that I even hold my own child down, immobilized, so that she could have the nurse do the shots. I objected to this. I uttered the words “Wait a minute, she is getting 5 shots at once?” The room went icy. I did not know that I had just told the doctor that my husband and I were wanted war criminals... terrorists to the public good... I thought that I had shown concern and good judgment as she thrust a stack of papers at me explaining the complications vaccines could cause and trying to administer them before I could even count the pages let alone read them. For one of the main things I could see in all of the papers was, “if you have a reaction to this vaccine...” The first thought I had was, “How will I know which vaccine my daughter has had a reaction to if you are giving her 5 shots at a time?” and the second was “Why does she need all of these right now? I am breastfeeding her and she is not in daycare.” The doctor did not answer any of these questions but stated, mechanically, that she was administering the recommended vaccines and that I was putting my child at risk by not allowing her to proceed. In my eyes she was putting my child at risk from the number of vaccines she wanted to give at the same time. In the end I stated flatly that I would not allow more than two vaccines administered at the same time. She left the room without looking at me or saying another word and the nurse took over.

So much for patient informed consent.
So much for parental rights.

I had this battle EVERY time I brought my daughter in for a checkup. EVERY TIME. I was branded a problem parent and my questions were NEVER answered. My daughter, like most children, got a fever after all her vaccines. I have learned that this is a common side effect of vaccines, and hardly the worst, however doctors do not even record this information in the chart. A fever of 100.99 degrees, is now, not even a fever in their eyes. There is also another thing that the doctors office never recorded... the manufacturer, lot number or expiration date on the vaccines administered to my daughter or my son. I know this because I needed to obtain copies. There is a space for that information on both charts... in fact it is the only information “collected.” The name of the vaccine, manufacturer, expiration and lot number... a standard spread sheet style paper... it determines if my child can go to school or not... and it looks like a post-it with illegible handwriting on it.

Another thing that I am shocked about is the vehemence that other mothers have toward people who question vaccination or do not vaccinate their children. They pull their kids closer and glare at you, like you are somehow causing disease by your mere presence. How dare you show up at the playground with “typhoid mary” in tow. I got in a conversation with about 5 other mothers one day on the subject and I was equally shocked about the ignorance they all had about vaccination as a whole. Every mother was under the impression that an un-vaccinated child put their own child at risk for an illness they had been vaccinated against. That is asinine. Why would millions of people be required to vaccinate their children if simply being around an un-vaccinated child put them at risk...? It is the opposite of what vaccines were invented for. A vaccines purpose is to expose you to a calculated dose of an illness which has been modified or killed so that your body will be immune to the illness if you encounter it naturally. It tricks the body into thinking that you have already had the illness, even though you did not have all the vomiting, shitting and delirium which comes from many of the illnesses themselves. It is really an ingenious idea when you get down to it. I think it is up there with one of the most innovative and practical inventions that mankind has thought up. That does not mean that I want to inject my child, required by law, with thirty-five doses of vaccines before she is three years of age.

The doctors push a piece of paper in front of you to sign as if to imply you are “giving consent” to vaccinate... you are not. In fact the doctor has the legal right to administer the vaccines without your consent and over your objections.

Another issue is the toxic conversation that “pro-vaccine,” a term I loath, people push. The vehemence and scathing contempt for those who do not want to vaccinate or want to take it slower is just over the top. There is no middle ground in this debate and to those who are “pro-vaccine” there is no debate – you are just fucking stupid. You must be one of those fundamentalist religious people who will not allow the cooking of green vegetables on Tuesday if Venus is in the 5th house of Mars... or you live in some compound hidden in the desert were one man fathers 45 children in the name of God... But I am not, and no one else that I know, who objects to vaccination, is either. In fact most of us are well educated and smart. We have questions which are not answered and we see connections which have not been explained adequately (or explained away without real assessment). I also find it telling that the pro camp use the same terms and statements in their propaganda. They sound like the same person... humm...

There is a series of articles on a group of Somali refugees that are living in Minneapolis. The rates of autism in this group is staggering, one in twenty-three children out of the Somali group has developed autism. The comments on these articles are very telling of peoples opinions and illustrate a lot of the “pro camps” intolerant and aggressive disdain for anyone who disagrees with them. The Fundamentalist Vaccinators we will call them... The TFV's... There was a comment from a user named “Viewpoint” last night which talked about how he used to be employed by a Pharmaceutical company and how his job was actually to create posts and comments which would curb the conversation to the company perspective. He talked about how he was instructed to create multiple accounts so that it appeared as though there were a number of users who all felt the same way, the majority... I went back to quote the comment today for this blog and it has been “flagged” and removed... that is odd don't you think?

I have learned, through my journey to educate myself:

That doctors are now rejecting patients from their practice for questioning and desiring to space vaccines out, a practice that the CDC and AAP openly discourage.

That there are no studies which confirm or deny a link between thimerisol (ethyl-mercury) and autism.

That VAERS, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is not used by 90% of doctors and that even those who do use it are not recording most basic reactions, like fevers.

That most parents of autistic children have watched their children “become” autistic within days of a vaccination.

That vaccine patent holders are on the Vaccine Advisory Council that determines the youth vaccine schedule.

That the CDC grants a waiver for the conflict of interest that those on the Vaccine Council clearly have.
Five, that the CDC grants conflict of interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a year at a time, and allows full participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every member, whether they have a financial stake in the decision or not. So they’re discussing it, influencing other members possibly, whether they have a financial stake or not.
Most doctors do not receive a flu shot.

While thimerisol is not recommended for use in vaccines it is still used in multi-dose vials.

The widespread rhetoric that thimerisol is no longer in single use vaccines is untrue. While the new vaccines manufactured no longer contain thimerisol the older versions were never removed from the market and those marketed to other countries also do contain it.

Young children are now required to obtain an annual, thimerisol containing, flu shot in order to attend school.

Pregnant women and children are encourages to refrain from eating deep sea fish because of the risk of mercury poisoning.

BUT... Pregnant mothers and infants as young as 6 months are encouraged to get a thimerisol containing flu shot, even though the information provided with the flu shot indicates that it should only be done as an emergency precaution.

Pardon me if I think you might be smart enough to draw your own conclusions to this information... I doubt you need me to "sum up" for you. I will post a warning now, my comments are moderated and I will not allow insulting or abusive comments. If you think people who do not vaccinate should be burned or have their kids removed from custody... go somewhere else, there are enough sites out there for you. Comments will not degrade into some flaming war here. That does not mean I will not publish opposing views.

References:
Somali's Autism Epidemic:
Minneapolis and the Somali Autism Riddle

Somali Autism Mom: "We Thought America Was the Last and Best Stop in this World"

The Minnesota Somali Autism Study: That and a dollar will buy you a hot dog.

CDC Documentation:
CDC Hepatitis B Information

CDC Vaccine Schedule (PDF File)

Other:
VAERS Reporting Site

Conflict of Interest & Vaccine Development (PDF File)

Better Homes & Pharmacies

2009-07-28T18:51:00.008-04:00

So, I have yet another subscription lovingly provided by my mother-in-law. This one is the Better Homes and Gardens magazine. Or rather, as I have found, Better Homes and Pharmacies. Who says direct advertising has no impact?

I was flipping through this "magazine" (and I use the term loosely) the other day at breakfast and made a snide comment about not being able to find any of the articles. The whole thing seemed to be ads. My husband made a suggestion: tear out all the pages with ads and see how much is left of the magazine.

There are about 200 pages in the magazine and I could barely find any content. I noticed that throughout the magazine there were ads on the facing page (sometimes multiple and many full page) and you then turned the page to read any content on the back page. This tactic is used on almost every page. There is a tiny block of content on the rear of the page... surrounded by more ads.

Out of the 200 pages there were only 20 pages left once I removed all the ads. Most of the ads were full page ads but there were also several pages blocked out for several advertisements ringing a small portion of text. Most of the ads had some reference to scientific studies or research done on their product to insinuate its superiority over any alternative.

200 Pages - Ads = 20 Pages

20 Pages

There were only twenty pages (20) out of 200 that were ad free. No wonder I could not find any of the articles.

While I was going through the pages and removing the ads I noticed that they had a similar theme that the Ladies Home Journal had, in that they were for junk food and pre-made meals, but there was a sharp increase in the number of pharmaceutical ads. A considerable number of the ads were for very serious pharmaceutical drugs...

200 Pages - Content = 180 Pages

180 Pages - Medicines = 150 Pages

30 Pages

That is right... thirty (30) pages of ads for pharmaceutical drugs. This count includes the full page ads, and in some cases 2 page ads, and the prescribing information following the ads... so that you can be sure to get "all the facts" about the medication... or at least enough to make you ask your Doctor to prescribe it. And it is no wonder that drug companies spend about 4 billion, 4 BILLION, dollars a year on "direct-to-consumer-marketing." So if they are spending $4 billion, what do you think they are making? (They also spend about $16 billion to get your doctor to recommend them too...)

Now, I do not know about you, but when I was growing up someone paid you to advertise their products for them... However, in this new modern age Better Homes and Gardens is charging for the ads and making you pay for them too? Sounds like a sweet deal to me. Kinda like that tax on used cars that you pay over and over again...

If you are feeling saucy, just skip the subscription and buy it off the news stand, that way you can be sure to get ripped off properly!

The Not So Angry Oatmeal Post

2009-07-28T18:51:00.005-04:00

After my Breastfeeding Crimes post, and a dozen others, you may be thinking that I am off my rocker... Notwithstanding the rocker part this is still -yes- a short non-angry post about oatmeal. But such oatmeal...

Some of you, who have followed other posts, may know that our family is attempting to get a little greener in our daily lives, mainly spawned by the allergies my youngest child has. In an attempt to join the "Slow Food" movement we have started making a number of things from scratch. I purchased a bag of Bob's Red Mill Rolled Oats the other day since the other stuff has maybe 15 ingredients and 2-3 that my son cannot have and 10 that I do not want him to... I looked at the directions and sighed, annoyed, at the 10-20 minute estimated cook time - and bought them anyway.

Never have 20 minutes been more worth the wait.

I have eaten "quick oats" and "instant" oatmeal most of my life - never again. In fact as I got older the idea of oatmeal texture, akin to mucus, took root in my mind and I began to have aversions to it. I found excuses to eat something else when it was for breakfast. The slow cooked oatmeal was perfect and as oatmeal should be. I could feel that the oats were whole and the texture was firm and they tasted great - not some pile of gelatinous chemicals with "natural peach flavor" somewhere at the end of the list.

Preparation:

Bob's Red Mill Rolled Oats Oatmeal
Cream of Coconut (to taste)
Organic Non-Salted Butter
Organic Half'n Half (or Milk for you Fatophobes)

Make the oats according to the package - boil the water first, it will allow the oats to maintain their shape better. Once the oats are finished put them in serving dishes, drizzle the cream of coconut on top (to taste), add a pat of butter and a tablespoon or two of cream. Mix. Enjoy.

Breastfeeding Crimes

2009-07-28T12:38:00.006-04:00

Okay, I did not want to write about this mainly because when I first read about this case it seemed it would blow over once anyone with a brain got involved. Well, it didn't. Stacy Anvarinia is being charged with Child Endangerment and faces 5 years in prison. Her daughter has already been taken away from her and is in foster care.

I first read about this on the Eco Child's Blog and followed it as it was quickly picked up throughout the "Mom Blogs." My first impressions of this case are that this woman has been terribly wronged and the whole thing should be dismissed. It will blow over damnit.

It didn't.

It still hasn't.

If you want to read anything about it type in Stacy Anvarinia in any search engine. you can also take a look here: Drunken Breastfeeding

This poor woman has pleaded GUILTY to child endangerment and faces 5 years in PRISON for breastfeeding her daughter while the police were at her house. Let us take a look at the reported facts in this situation:

1.) She called the police about domestic violence. Her boyfriend had beaten her about the head and neck. The police noted injuries to the face on arrival.

2.) During the interview she breastfed her child.

3.) She was arrested for child endangerment, police allege she was drunk during the interview and while breastfeeding her child.

4.) There was no breathalyzer or blood test taken to determine if she was intoxicated.

5.) It is not a crime to breastfeed a child after consuming anything - even substances like anti-depressants, street drugs, and opiate derived medications prescribed by a physician.

6.) The boyfriend who beat her has not been brought up on charges.

So, looking at these facts I would think, well she was beaten about the head and seemed to be drunk... maybe she was HIT IN THE HEAD REPEATEDLY? Or MAYBE - JUST MAYBE after being BEATEN by someone she cared for she had a few DRINKS. I know that if it was me, I probably would do the same. Of course, I am speculating about the drinks because no tests were performed. I do not know about you - but if you plan to put me away for 5 years for having a beer and feeding my child you better have more than your "say so" to convict me. OH WAIT it is not illegal to breastfeed after drinking.

What REALLY gets me about this entire situation is the obtuse and ignorant statement that the police released on the issue:

"It is quite unusual for a mother to be breast-feeding her child as we are conducting an investigation, whether she was intoxicated or not."

So does that mean that infants should not get hungry when the police are involved? Would it be just as unusual if she had to go to the store to buy more formula for her child while they were there? Isn't it more abusive to NOT feed your child because the police are there?

Now we know that breastfeeding after consuming alcohol is NOT a crime - but what is a crime is Assault and Battery even if sober and bottlefeeding your child... so why is no one looking to the boyfriend now?

I am saddened that no Women's Rights or Breastfeeding groups have rallied to Stacy's aide. It is pathetic that they are all cowing behind their "recommendations about drinking while breastfeeding" which is NOT the issue here. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS WOMAN WAS EVEN INTOXICATED so that this issue has even become about breastfeeding and alcohol is evasive and cowardly.

I believe that Stacy Anvarinia's rights have been trampled severely and I cannot imagine what threat they hung over her head that convinced her to PLEAD GUILTY to this overwhelmingly inappropriate charge. This entire situation should be reviewed by internal affairs and Women's rights groups should be involved in her defense. I believe they have an OBLIGATION to get involved in this and not just with commentary about how drinking and breastfeeding are "not recommended." I mean a real legal defense fund to get this woman's charges dismissed and to return her child to her.

I am not even going to get INTO THE MINUTE AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL IN BREASTMILK because I will probably have a stroke while writing about it. Let us keep this about the abuse of power local police enacted over a BATTERED woman (with a prior crime on her record) trying to take care of her newborn.

Would anyone have looked twice if she had taken prescribed percocet? or vicodan? NO. It would have been a non-issue. There is also the fact that they keep returning to this "prior crime" issue. They have not released information on what the "prior crime" was and seem to allude to it having something to do with why they decided on their current charges. But as far as I know... prior crimes cannot be used against you in court. Maybe she stole something... does that make you an unfit parent? Problem is no one knows.

This woman had a horrible day and maybe she had a beer or two... just like you and me. OR MAYBE SHE HAD A HEAD INJURY. Or maybe she is being harassed by the police who do not like "repeat offenders," "poor people," or "suspicious behavior." And in a day and age where breastfeeding rates drop by 80% after children turn three months of age, no wonder they were shocked to see a woman do such a thing in their presence.

Addition: I have since found a copy of the police report for this. It is hard to read, however, you can make out that this is indeed all she was arrested for. They "rushed" the baby to a nearby hospital for "evaluation" and "subsequent medical care." My loathing cannot even be portrayed properly in words.

Headlines, Trees and Disease

2009-07-03T16:01:00.006-04:00

So I was out driving around today and saw one of those newspaper dispensers on the corner near my house. The HUGE headline, that filled the entire page, was "LOVER STRANGLED BY BOYFRIEND." Now do not get me wrong... I am sure that this matters a great deal to her and her family but is it "National News?" Similar to the 6th death in the state from Swine Flu? Why is this on the front page?

Why is this more important that the fact that the USDA intends to approve a full scale planting of genetically engineered eucalyptus trees...

What?

Your serious... GE Trees are more important?
Actually, yes. Would you like to know why they are more important? I thought so... I am going to tell you. There is a pathogen called Cryptococcus gattii which is a fungal pathogen. This fungus causes meningitis in people and animals. This fungus really likes these trees. This "new and improved" version of the eucalyptus tree is a known host for this fungal species and the planting of these trees will result in wide spread contamination of forests and areas where they are planted. Lets not forget cross pollination and wind blown pollination either. There are estimates of pollination occurring 1,000 kilometers from the initial planting sites.

The entire project hinges on the fact that these trees can survive in colder climates. The EPA and USDA have not put together a Environmental Impact Statement or EIS to review any relevant problems that this might cause. The eucalyptus is actually considered a "pest" species or invasive non-native species in many areas and is removed when found.

As far as I am concerned I have yet to read any material which explains WHY we need eucalyptus trees which can thrive in cold climates. And honestly, even if there was a good argument I would argue that the risk of meningitis is not an acceptable risk. Everyone talks about progress and science being the key -- no one is talking about progress towards what or the key to what... doesn't anyone else find that odd?

If you would like more information on this issues or would like to take action to stop these trees from being planted please visit the Center for Food Saftey @ http://ga3.org/campaign/GEtrees

==

image source: wikimedia.org, public domain.

Welcome to Dr. [BLANK]'s office, please take a seat.

2009-06-12T18:57:00.004-04:00

So...a friend of mine wrote a blog post the other day about a recent trip to the doctors office that almost any of us can identify with. It got me so heated I have to vent about it myself. This is an area with the worst set of office policies and accountability that I have ever seen and really makes a statement about the "health" of the system we use.

In future generations the terms HMO and PPO will be ticket offenses and history books will be rewritten to stamp out the very mention of them to preserve peace for future... Dramatic? Well whoever thought up an HMO has obviously never had to use one and can probably afford private home care from a physician on retainer.

One of the things that I find so aggravating about this is that now "we" have become the "enemy." I called a doctor's office once to let them know that I was running late and did not know if I would make it in time - but that I was coming - due to an accident on the road. Why? Because it is courteous. Well I was penalized for this courtesy as I had to wait an additional hour to see the doctor, no one told me anything, I just waited... and waited... Finally I stood up and went to the window to complain and the "office administrator" (they do not even sound like humans anymore, G.B. Carlin...) informed me casually, "Well what do you expect, you were late."

When I explained s l o w l y that even though I had called to let them know I was running late I still arrived 10 minutes before my scheduled appointment time, never mind the fact that I had never been seen before 20 minutes after the scheduled time, and had waited through TWO patients with appointments after mine. She said, "But you were late."

Another doctor's office had me wait through a nurses personal phone call and lunch break at her desk - 2 hours after my scheduled "nurse" appointment. When I complained to the front desk I was told that she had gone for the day and that I would need to reschedule my appointment for a later date. Did I mention the nurse was watching the exchange the whole time? Oh, and smiling. I stayed in that office an additional two hours to talk to the managing doctor about the situation and how rude they had been. She stated that she did not believe me because that "just doesn't sound like my girls."

And, since I have already started, there was an OB/GYN office that I used to go to and I once made an appointment for 8AM. I had planned to go to work after since I did not need to be in the office till 9:15AM. I walked in the office at 7:45 and saw 2 other women sitting there. Another walked in while I was waiting. So that is three (3) other women, four (4) including myself. I asked the clerk if there was another doctor on that day and was informed that "No, only him." We were all called within 5 minutes of each other and sent to our respective "rooms," I was called last, which were cold as hell... and asked to put on a tissue paper robe. At 8:50AM I had still not seen the doctor. I took off my robe and got dressed. I went out to the main desk to complain and the girl at the front desk, bless her, looked like she was going to flinch. I asked her what the problem was and why I had not been able to see the doctor yet. She apologized and told me the doctor would be with me as soon as possible but that he was with another patient. I asked her how that was possible since I had called and was told that 8AM was the first appointment she shrugged and said "I'm sorry."

While I was talking to her my doctor rounded the corner and said "What, you aren't staying for your appointment?" I lost it. I yelled that my appointment had been at 8AM and that I had specifically asked if it was the first one so I would not be late to work and arrived early so I did not set back his schedule for the day and that NOW I had to go to work... a full hour PAST my appointment time, not that he gave a shit, because his time was SO much more valuable than mine. He shrugged and turned away from me handing someone else some files and walked away. But after he walked away the girl at the counter gave me a quiet golf clap and said "Good for you!"

The last one I will share with you is when I was pregnant with my first child. Actually no... that one is too personal for this venue... maybe another time. Suffice it to say that I have since learned the name for my encounter has been dubbed, recently, as "Medi-wife" or "Medwife." This term is used now to identify nurse practitioners who are registered nurse midwives. There have been studies on this group of women and they show that they perform more unnecessary risks and surgeries on laboring women than other midwives and even Ob/Gyn doctors themselves. I think it is safe to assume that they have gotten a little taste of the "God" complex so many doctors are accused of... STAT!!!!

Reclaiming my yard.

2009-06-10T21:07:00.007-04:00

When we moved into the house we are in now there was a lot of landscaping which had been done around the house. After having another child I realized I cannot keep up with the weed pulling and spraying, not to mention that it is just chemicals upon chemicals -some of which supports my least favorite company- so NO MORE.

I have seen several articles about people in CA letting their yards "go back to nature" by planting some indigenous plants and grasses which lower their carbon footprint, attract local birds and bees, and just look damn nice. For some reason "Western" thinking implies that anything in its natural state cannot be beneficial. You can see this all over the place: how we give birth, medications, and food are some obvious examples. I think though that our gardens are also affected. We do not know what indigenous plants are or even what they look like - assuming that if it is not at the grocery store you can't get it or it is too much trouble. Most grass actually flowers and even common plants like clover can look beautiful when allowed to grow to proper size and proportions.

I found a few links for local, for me local is NJ, plants and species in my area. I have listed them in case you are interested in looking at them at all. The gentleman who runs the Easyliving Wildflowers site only deals in indigenous species and has a wide selection. I am going to get the following from him:

New Jersey Tea or Ceanothus americanus which has nice white flowers when it blooms. It is a shrub so I am going to plant it around the fence areas.

I also intend to use Lonicera flava or Native Yellow Honeysuckle. These are really nice and are not the Japanese Honeysuckle you see all over the place. I intend to plant these along the chain link fence as crawlers so they use the fence as a trellis and block out the ugly thing.

There is another I want to find more about and it is Crimson Clover or Trifolium incarnatum. I do not know if this clover is indigenous or even regional if it is, but it is very pretty and would be nice for ground cover when it flowers, as opposed to the gravel we have in place now.

Another resource I found is native trees and shrubs at http://njaes.rutgers.edu/njriparianforestbuffers/projects/mtholly.htm, which is a Rutgers site promoting and supporting the restoration of forest areas in NJ. I will post photos in an ongoing thread on this as it happens.

Soap Box Step Down...

2009-06-07T23:32:00.003-04:00

I am just f#%&ing tired of talking about food issues. I think most of it has tapped out now... The keg is kicked... But, it is one of those things that you need to work out to exhaustion or it will eat at you (no pun intended). So, you all know how I feel about the topic and beating the dead rotting horse has gotten annoying at this stage. I am going to move on now to new and equally annoying things about being an Angry Mom. Just not tonight.

Who's afraid of Naomi Wolf

2009-06-05T13:39:00.004-04:00

So I have watched an interesting film called The End of America. This is a film I suggest you see and you can for free. I have included it at the end of the blog if you want to watch it. Naomi Wolf talks about some serious issues we are facing and the terrifying changes that the Bush administration pushed through. I know we are mostly rooting for Obama to fix many of the issues caused by Bush - but one of the key things is getting those laws REMOVED from the books.

We can cheer all we want for Barack Obama but maybe the next president is not as "people oriented" and decides that he really wants to make use of some of those new laws just ripe for the picking. Like charging you with sedition because you did not vote for him. That of course is really just too dramatic... This is America after all. We do not have those issues here.

Ms. Wolf goes back several times to talk about the accountability of Bush and those he supported in the White House. How many times did your or I watch the news or an inquiry into an event that ended in a semantic argument? What do you mean by that? Well... what I mean is did you fire the gun. "Well I am not sure I fully understand what you are asking - when you say "fire" are we talking about a BBQ?"

And I wonder if this has anything to do with why so many real (not the new industry approved factory version) organic farmers and "back to basics" farmers are being mistreated.

What the hell does this have to do with farming?
I would like to tell you that... This has to do with farming because until very recently, the last 20 years or so, farmers had an ENORMOUS influence in Washington. Policies were made or broken by stubborn farmers everywhere.

We have been forced to take a path that down plays the importance of food and those who make it. There is power in food. That sounds really stupid doesn't it, however even Sun Tzu wrote about it 2,000 years ago in the Art of War.

Quote #1:
If the enemy is taking his ease, he can harass him; if well supplied with food, he can starve him out; if quietly encamped, he can force him to move.

Quote #2:
Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.

Starve the enemy that is well stocked with foods and feed your troops by taking food from the enemy to further deplete his stores. There is power in food but the message has been muted because of the plenty we have and because we ourselves do not get involved in the process, unless it is to pick up a box at the store. Indeed many of us would not even know where to start if we wanted to get involved in the process. This leaves us dependent on a few powerful groups that now supply us with what we need... the farmers are no longer part of that group.

One of the things I appreciate is that President Obama also recognizes this grossly ignored aspect of our society. Here is a fantastic statement from him on the subject:

"Our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time it is creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats. That are also now vulnerable to sky high food prices or crashes in food prices. Huge swings in commodity prices and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare cost. Because they are contributing to type II diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare cost."

While he does not say specifically that the treatment of Farmers needs to be addressed he does talk about the results of their mistreatment. Here are some articles that I have collected about the current gross mistreatment of farmers today. This excludes the standard mistreatment that they already experience regularly (such as subsidies for only 4 types of crops) these go even further beyond what most have come to expect.

Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto (Patent infringement on natural cross pollination and wind blown seeding)

Police Raid on Organic Co-Op (Armed agents, Department of Health, Police perform a forceful raid, search & seizure on family farm)

Lose your property for growing food? (He who controls the food really makes the rules. )

Trafficking in Raw Milk (After illegal drugs, raw milk is the underground commodity in America. Illegal in most areas and benefiting only Big Dairy)

Which came first, the egg or the permit? (Health Bureau requires small-scale egg producers to get new documentation, the cost of which can put them out of business.)

This one is just fun.

Big Agriculture takes umbrage at Michelle Obama's Organic victory garden

By not allowing you or I to take charge of our food we are being denied more than just constitutional rights - but fundamental human rights. Ms. Wolf talks about the closing of society and how normal citizens are being treated as criminals. I believe that this is an extension of that, an mostly overlooked extension. When we think about constitutional rights and violations we need something major to bring it into view... something like mass arrests of students or immigrants - certainly not a bunch of hippie farmers who should be buying their food like everyone else.

Monsanto guilty of Crimes Against Humanity?

2009-06-04T17:15:00.007-04:00

I have been doing a lot of thinking lately and I want to know if what Monsanto is doing is considered a crime against humanity as defined by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Guess what... it is. Letter "k" in the definition of a crime against humanity is: (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

There are a number of studies, now coming to light, that the FDA and companies like Monsanto covered up the fact that their products (Genetically Modified Organisms) could cause health problems or complications when consumed by animals and humans. There are doctors who now recommend that their patients not consume GMO's at all since the rate of allergy is so high and other effects are unknown. One article that references this is Doctor's Warn Against GMO's, by Jeffrey Smith. Be sure that you catch the one part of that sentence. There are now hundreds of articles out there on this topic and millions of people are still unaware that we are even eating the damn things. There is evidence that the modified DNA is passing into our bodies and may be altering our own DNA.

You can also visit the ISIS website, which I have spoken about in several other posts, they have a huge GMO section on the site. And we are just talking now about the physical health issues caused by eating GMO's not what the company is actually doing to farms and farmers the world over. We are not talking about any anti-trust, political, or human rights issues - just health.

We, the People of the United States of America, are taking part in the biggest trial study ever conducted and it is being done:

1. Without your consent
2. Without your knowledge
3. Without compensation
4. Without consideration for your health risks
5. Without consideration for the environmental risks

And it is still going on right now. Companies like Monsanto are trying to get MORE AND MORE AND MORE SEEDS out there with their patented GMO process. They know that their products cause health problems, disease (to animals and plants alike) and economic hardship to those who use their products and they do not care. They have released a GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM into the "wild" with no thought to the consequences only their bottom line.

We are paying the price and when the shit hits the fan I want to know who will pay the bills. When we are affected with diseases like Morgellon's or Allergies so severe we cannot eat most foods at the store - I want to know how we are going to live and who is going to pay for the medical bills. There is even a suggestion that the many auto-immune diseases we are seeing spike so dramatically are being caused by the GMO foods. The problem is WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DO but we are all going to find out what they have done soon enough.

When that happens:
Will Monsanto executives be held liable? Will the Government compensate us since they did not regulate it properly? Will Monsanto executives go on trial? to jail? Will Monsanto be required to pay us individually? collectively? at all?

If you are laughing at my optimism then you actually feel the same way I do, because apparently I can't make my sarcasm come through in my writing. These people are profiting billions of dollars off of this and in the end I think we will have no recourse. How dare someone even think that they can do this to me and my family. Visit the Center for Food Saftey if you actually want to get involved...

And someone tell me how you charge someone with crimes against humanity...

Poll Results: GMOs

2009-05-31T22:55:00.008-04:00

So... the latest poll results are in. This poll was regarding Genetically Modified foods and labeling of these foods as such. I also found that I have 7 regular readers (wahoo)! Anyway, the results of this poll are actually a pretty accurate representation of how America at large feels. According to a study quoted by The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods 89% of Americans want GMO's labeled. This report funded by the USDA, conducted by Rutgers University, found that only 10% of the population thought that GMO labeling should not be required. In 2007 Senator John Edwards, Governor Bill Richardson, and Senator Chris Dodd went "on the record" for their support of GMO labeling. So with this OVERWHELMING support support why aren't they?

The companies that make GMO's are not paying attention. They are doing their best to lobby in Washington to keep labels and restrictions off their foods. And yes, I know I sound like a f#@%ing activist. The problem with this is that if you are ignorant about what is going on people who have learned about it really do seem like activists or conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately that is not the case, it sounds like science fiction or a Ludlum book but it is all out there in the open, it is just that no one is drawing attention to it. Although I would also like to know how many people reading know that we have been eating GMO foods, without our knowledge, for the better part of 10 years -because I had no idea and I was furious when I found out.

So to the results:

71% of you indicate that you would want a label on GMO foods so that you could avoid purchasing them. 28% percent of you want a label on GMO foods and might consider something else, depending on the options available... but not one of you said that GMO labels did not matter. Here is an example of an imposed breakdown of supply and demand. By the rules of "supply and demand" lack of consumer demand would make GMO's a defunked product but it makes up something like 80% of the corn and soybean market.

We cannot be alone in this...
You are right, we are not alone in wanting GMO foods labeled. The United States is however only one of about 4-5 countries which does not have laws governing the introduction of GMO crops and the labeling of GMO foods. Our FDA did not even require safety testing of GMO foods before introducing them to the consumer market place, hard to even fathom if you ask me. The European Union requires labeling and as a whole are doing more to stop the GMO market than any other group. There have also been a number of studies deemed "illegal" and "infringement" which are being done in other countries showing serious health problems with animals fed GMO foods. Of course we do not acknowledge these studies here in the US and the scientists involved are probably crackpots you know... never mind that Monsanto has actually threatened some and funding has been cut on all projects involved. Several scientists have paid for their own studies in order to continue the research in these areas despite being threatened and denounced by others in their field.

I have found an incredible resource called ISIS or The Institute of Science in Society. This institute promotes "layman" understanding and responsible science, to benefit people not just companies, and communication with the public on advancements in language they can understand. They are based in England and really have put themselves in the "line of fire" as it were... The website is at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php and has articles and studies related to GMO foods, documentation on "life" patents and the aggressive lobby to globalize patent law by companies such as Monsanto. There is a lot of good science on this site. We lack a lot of impartial science in the US, unfortunately most studies here reflect the outcome that the paying party wants, no matter the subject.

I urge you to visit ISIS and read more on what the rest of the world already knows... and also to visit the Campaign website to make labeling GMO foods mandatory. We have been eating GMO foods in the United States for over 10 years, think about that, we are part of an experiment being conducted at our expense. You probably did not even know and if you did know - did you also know that 70% of the foods in the grocery store have GMO ingredients? I sure as hell didn't.

Not again...
You have heard me talk about a company called Monsanto a lot... What have I got against them? What did they ever do to me? Well they are a seed company. They also own the majority of "life" patents and have developed the most GMO's to date. One of the main issues I have with this company is the conflict of interest our own government has when dealing with and creating regulations regarding its practices. There are over 17 former Monsanto employees currently holding high positions in our government, including EPA officials and FDA officials. Check out the list at the Organic Consumers Association for more details on the jobs they held and what they do now, or don't do properly, now.

What they hell can I do about it?
Get out your soap box!!! I am... if this is the first time you learned about this topic then pass it on, write your own blog, write your representatives. There are a number of senators and assemblypeople that already have concerns about this... urge them to keep going. Print out articles and include them in your letter as resources. Sign petitions and join ISIS. There are a number of things you can do, while you are checking your email...

Check out Congress.org to find your local legislative contacts: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/

Keep going... post suggestions and comments about what you want to know and I will find out the information or find out where you can start to get information for yourself. Educate yourself first and that is the best way to do something about it...

Dora: a pox upon us.

2009-05-28T15:07:00.004-04:00

You all know it... the saccharine sweet half singsong quasi educational "I need your help!" from the eternally youthful lips of Dora. Aahhh, children's television. How torn can one person be on such a topic? This seemingly innocuous thing that acts like a sedative on the mind of a high strung hyper active child, it is so sweet... And with just enough alternate language to be considered "educational" why not?

[INSERT SHOW NAME] seems to be okay to me, so what is the problem? I do not know exactly, I guess it is like anything else that seems to good to be true or that kids tend to like too much of. There has to be some fallout somewhere right? I mean aside from being eternally annoying, of course.

Thing #1 learned her ABC's, numbers (Spanish and English), animals and objects, and some emotional words with the help of Sesame Street, not that we had her hooked in Clockwork Orange style or anything or refused to teach her "manually" (techie humor, sorry) but she just seemed to enjoy it. Thing #2 also seems entranced by the swirling lights and sounds, if only for a minute or two, and not as much as his sister at this age...

I admit that I have often used this crutch because, lets be honest, because it helps. When I am sick, really stressed out or even just can't take the parenting thing anymore. Sometimes it is obvious when you have reached the "too much" stage or what shows are inappropriate and sometimes it is harder to tell.

For example, Thing #1 is terrified of Dungeons & Dragons and the Smurfs, my husband says he can understand because the Smurfs are pretty scary... but on the other hand she likes Danger Mouse and Bleach. She will crawl in our bed and ask if we can "watch itchy-go" and then snuggle up with me not batting an eye when the monsters come out.

We try not to let them watch too much and allow them to be active physically and use their imaginations (Tangent: which I really love to watch! I mean really, because this stage of parenting - the imagination stage is just the best. Each day a new and more interesting story arises from a empty can of oatmeal and a dish towel... It is just wonderful and fun to see.) But the damn thing is like a siren in the house, we always have to say "no" or "enough" or even forcefully turn it off because there is never enough. No matter how sunny or what else there is to offer the desire is still there.

AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) says that kids should watch no more than 2 hours of TV per day and kids under 5 not at all... That is a lot when you get down to it. There are a lot of hours in the day and two may not seem like a long time when you view it in a 24 hour scope -but that is generally 3-4 shows. And lets not forget the studies show all kinds of developmental problems: real, speculated and suggested that can arise if Thing #1 watches Dora too much.

So why is it so hard to say "No"?
Because she likes it... more than her cat, her brother, mommy or daddy, or even the sun and the sand. But she also listens to the information in a way she cannot seem to listen to us. I am ashamed to admit that we have even resorted to saying things like "Dora says we need to wear our seat belts to stay safe, right?" or "Dora eats her vegetables to stay strong and healthy, you know..." The "kicker" is that if these tactics didn't work I would not mind keeping her out of my house for good. Personally I hate the football headed brat and her voice is like nails on a chalkboard to me. Thankfully Thing #1 seems to be growing out of her "Noggin" phase and I have been replacing her daily caloric intake with shows from PBS instead.

Sid the Science Kid and Super Why! are her favorites now. She even likes Word World... and you know what, I think they are actually teaching her to read. I know that I have not taught her how to spell "Yes" and "Smile" even though I have attempted to get her to learn and write her own name as well as other letters and numbers... But she picks things up from these shows that you would not imagine.

Some, I guess, would argue that this is a reason not to allow her to watch anything at all. I think I prefer to monitor what she is watching and make myself, no matter how I loathe it, watch it too. You need to make yourself aware of these things. They are learning every second of every day and I need to know what so: 1. I can help her understand 2. I can make sure it is appropriate 3. I can ease her fears should she have any.

I do wish I could get her to be as active in other area, like reading and even just playing with her toys. When I look around I realize we have more books than videos and more toys than money in the bank... but she has to be prompted to play or read whereas the TV is a "no brainer" if you will, pun included.

Parenting Advice, sort of...

2009-05-24T13:31:00.003-04:00

I am going to take a rest bit from my current trend of socio-ecological ranting and take a parenting tangent for a while. I have received an inordinate amount of advice from a wide range of people recently. But it all turns out to be crap in the end. It is almost like the litigious aspects of our society permeate everywhere and effect even any tip or suggestion we can possibly think of. Everything is punctuated by "no offense" or "within reason" even statements like "moderation" and "with caution" are just constant in our vocabulary. It is so tiring to talk about anything these days.

I am just sick of everything being a "not really". Take, for example, talking to experts or "people in the field" about 3 year old behavior. Everything is punctuated with statements like activities which are age appropriate or age appropriate behavior. When you talk about age appropriate behavior your are then told that all children vary. This basically means that each child's age appropriate behavior is individual to the child... so, basically, that means the answer is a statement which will not answer any of you questions but make the professional feel helpful. So much for toys marked for 3+ years and older.

Advice just seems riddled with new and broader aspects today. No one wants to offend someone or misunderstand the situation or to offer any advice which could possibly make them liable for anything that might conceivably happen after they open their mouth... It is too the point of craziness these days. I have written in another blog post about greenwashing and included a little rant about a baby blanket I bought...

I am going to paraphrase here... Although I do not know if it is in bad taste to paraphrase your own blogs... bear with me. When our son was born in October of 2008 we were given a number of gifts. One of the gifts was a blanket. Since my kids have been born I started reading a lot more labels. The label for this blanket was ridiculous!!!! It was a cheap little thing but the label on the blanket clearly stated, in bright and decorated type, BABY BLANKET. The funny thing is that the care instructions label then stated "Danger, suffocation hazard. Decoration purposes only. Not for use as a blanket."

Let me try and parse this so I understand it: This is a baby blanket which cannot be used as a baby blanket? Am I missing something? If my baby had suffocated (knock on wood, genuflect, cross fingers and hope to die) while using this blanket would that statement hold up in court? Why put it on there? Why even get yourself in the business of baby blankets if your own advice is not to use them? Why can't anyone answer these questions without a Ph.D. or a legal disclaimer?

So I am sure that you can see where I am headed here. I am finding it hard to be a modern parent, having to weed out the legalese from the real intent, so much so that you can get lost in it all. I wonder, sometimes, how we ever survived... Think about it for a minute will you? Our parents did everything wrong... we slept on our stomachs, we ate home made baby food and even played with wooden or metal toys. For God's sake we drank tap water straight from the faucet!!!

I am just so tired of trying to find the real message under all of the other bullshit. It is like having an additional day job.

Meat Recall and a little thing called the NAIS

2009-05-22T18:36:00.009-04:00

So there has been a huge meat recall, in case you have not heard it on the news. Valley Meats LLC has had to recall 95,898 pounds of beef possibly contaminated with E. coli. And we all know that E. coli is bad but I swear if I hear the term "potentially fatal" again I fear I will lose my mind at the stupidity of the entire thing. Too much oxygen can be fatal but there are no nationwide warnings about the potentially fatal air...

One of the interesting points of this article is that the company submitted the contamination report to the Ohio Board of Health on May 13th but apparently there was a delay in processing the information, or some underpaid worker just sat on it, and the rest of us did not find out until May 21st. That does not seem to be an appropriate response time to me... but then when you get down to it contamination scares like this do not seem appropriate to me.

How do we fix it?
Well the Department of Agriculture would like us to institute a program called the National Animal Identification System. This system is supposed to be the solution to all our meat contamination problems. It has been designed to regulate large scale animal operations and tends to ignore the fact that small farms and even individuals own animals. You know I honestly think that it would really help regulate food borne problems in industrial animal operations - but they want to implement this program across the board.

What does that mean to me?
What does that mean to you... Well right now the NAIS is a voluntary program which the USDA is trying to make mandatory. It would require that if you own livestock at all (including: cattle, poultry, horses, donkeys, mules, sheep, goats and swine, as well as bison, deer, elk, llamas, alpacas and even some fish species, under the heading of aquaculture) you need to register your premises as a farm and tag all of your animals. You will need to place a subcutaneous (under the skin) electronic barcode/id in each animal and register it with the government. Once the animal is tagged the owner will then need to file a registration for each tagged animal. You will be required to pay for the id, the registration and subsequent veterinary visits for observation to ensure the animals health.

Corporate Farms get a better deal
From the ground up this bill is intended to benefit large scale farms and possibly to drive small farms out of business -so there is more control over where the food comes from. That should upset you by the way. Most pathogen outbreaks occur on large scale factory farms due to the poor conditions that the animals actually live in... you have seen some of the pictures I am sure, that is not mud they are standing in by the way. Since the system is designed to benefit the large ops small farmers are obviously against it but there are a number of animal owners who do not even realize it includes them. People who have chickens or pigeons for their own food will also have to register as farms and pay these fees. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

In this scenario most of the costs of this expensive tracking system will fall on small farms and families, allowing corporate farms increased profits and lower costs. According to the USDA's NAIS User Guide (p27)[16], the cost of the various animal identification devices ranges from as little as $1 to as much as $20. For example, as indicated in that guide, an RFID ear tag costs from $2 to $3, while implantable transponders can cost up to $20, plus associated veterinarian costs. Consider the family chicken farmer, who will have to place a $1 visual tag on each chicken, while the corporate farmer will have to tag only one chicken in each flock, giving the corporate farmer a 1$ cost savings per chicken, over the family farmer. This disparity will further tip the scales in favor of corporate farms and give them greater ability to out-compete smaller farms, hastening the demise of the small family farm.

Currently this system excludes cats an dogs but who knows what the future might bring? This system violates civil rights, the rights to own a small farm, the right to raise your own food and also some religious rights as well. The Amish have religious laws concerning their animals and this system will require that they also register their animals.

What can I do?
There is a review period before regulations are signed into law. This period is used for public feedback on the regulation. There is a review period RIGHT NOW on this regulation, which means if you do not comment on it the regulation will become law. You can visit some sources if you need more information. I personally commented on it stating that I felt it was intended to drive small farms out of business and that should something like this be implemented it needed to stay at the industrial level. Here are the links:

Wikipedia Entry: NAIS
NoNAIS Organization
USDA NAIS Homepage

Farm to Consumer Defense Fund: Action Alert

You will find links to Regulations.gov to enter comments online during the current "listening period." Do not think that this will not effect you because you do not have animals yourself. This will raise costs of organic, sustainable, locally grown food to a point that we may not be able to purchase it anymore. The only groups winning out here are the corporate fat cats who already have too much leniency. We do not need more regulation - we need the USDA and the FDA to implement the regulations we already have and work with small farms instead of abolishing them.

Don't Eat that Pork... you'll get sick?

2009-05-21T12:32:00.005-04:00

This post is literally to propagate the spread of an article I think is worth reading. The full article can be read at the Nature's Child Blog: Smithfield Foods Blamed in Swine Flu Death

But the swine flu spread is at least partly caused by current factory farming practices. And that's what the first step toward a wrongful death lawsuit alledges. You may have heard that one of the States' swine flu deaths was that of a pregnant woman, whose daughter was born by emergency C-section because of the illness. So tragic.

Her husband, Texas resident Steven Trunnell, is now taking the inital step in suing the Virginia-based Smithfield Foods.

So far, it's in the petition stage, looking for answers about Smithfield's plant in Perote, Mexico, near the village of La Gloria, where the earliest cases of the new H1N1 flu were detected. It will investigate the massive pork farm there and whether the H1N1 virus may have been caused in part by the conditions under which the farm operates. The Perote operation raises about 1 million pigs annually.

If filed, it will be the first suit of its kind. In an interview with Time, Trunnell's lawyer, Marc Rosenthal, said of the pig farm:

We think that the conditions down there are a recipe for disaster. This type of virus is more likely to evolve and mutate in this much filth and putrescence. It's more than a mere coincidence that the first cases emerged right there in La Gloria.

Read more at the Nature's Child Blog: Smithfield Foods Blamed in Swine Flu Death

Clean Coal?

2009-05-17T10:49:00.008-04:00

There is an article about "clean coal" in the April/May edition of National Wildlife magazine. I can barely express enough contempt for that statement. The article is called Coal Reality: A Dirty Little Secret. I have discussed Greenwashing before and used gas as an example. Coal and Gas energy are some of the worst pollutants humans have ever created. By definition they cannot be "green."

This article goes on to talk about the million dollar campaign that the coal industry is involved with:

LISTEN TO TELEVISION ads—1,000 times over—promoting “clean coal” and you begin to believe that clean coal actually exists. At least that is the aim of the $45 million propaganda campaign paid for by about 40 coal and power companies euphemistically called the “American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.” Ubiquitous ads are camouflaging a morally outrageous situation where continued coal burning is harming our children’s health and jeopardizing the future of much of life on Earth. Coal Reality: A Dirty Little Secret

The Washington Post says:

Clean coal: Never was there an oxymoron more insidious, or more dangerous to our public health. Invoked as often by the Democratic presidential candidates as by the Republicans and by liberals and conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress toward a sustainable energy policy. 'Clean' Coal? Don't Try to Shovel That

And one last quote from the CLEAN Organization:

Clean Coal Doesn't Exist. The coal industry is spending millions of dollars to try to convince America that coal can be clean. Coal is dirty, and the Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology (CCS) they tout does not exist. To be clear: clean coal doesn't exist; it isn't likely to; and most importantly, it doesn't need to. CLEAN Movement

What the Hell is wrong with this picture?
When did the supply and demand principle disappear? Don't know what I mean? Look around you. People are clamoring left and right for "green" products and the products have started to "go green" - some really have gone the green route while others have simply changed their names. Because we all know that adding a leaf to the label fundamentally changes the product... doesn't it? NO of course not... but studies show that it does fundamentally change your impression and chance of selecting the product.

There is a DEMAND for clean energy -not pretend clean- and no one steps up to the plate. Why? Why not take that $45 million and create a new line of wind turbines that can be installed on residential homes? On new solar power technologies which increase the the efficiency of solar panels? No we will just change the name to "Clean." If someone takes a crap in your toilet and does not flush you cannot just close the lid and make it go away... Telling people that you did something cannot change anything.

The REAL issue
But the real problem here is that people are buying this hook, line and sinker. We have become so susceptible to advertising that we do not even realize that it is all a sham. This is one of my biggest issues with food labels. One actually needs to investigate if something is healthy. Sometimes your doctor does not even know what to recommend these days. We can say things like "The Cigarette Companies did this before and it didn't work." But you know what IT DID WORK... for many, many, years. They tried convincing us cigarettes were good for us and then ignored the health problems until the law required them to look (and pay damages).

The Autism Factor
The NWF article goes on to talk about the mercury and radiation (you know like x-ray) that coal plants produce. Studies on Autism rates show that cases decrease for every 10 miles out you travel from a polluted area.

Autism prevalence is linked to mercury emissions and is reduced by 1 percent to 2 percent with each 10 miles of distance from the pollution source; and for every 1,000 pounds of mercury released by power plants in 1998, there was a corresponding 3.7 percent increase in autism rates in Texas school districts in 2002. Coal Reality: A Dirty Little Secret

What can you do?
Sign a petition, write a letter, post the information to your blog. You can actually do a lot. We have been convinced that we as individuals cannot do anything, on purpose, this is a diversionary tactic intended to stop you from changing anything... I have included a link to the CLEAN website. They have a ton of information on who to call, write to, or what to sign. It is soooooooo easy to do something.

On a lighter end note...
Here is a funny video I found on YouTube about Bush's last days in office. It addresses "clean coal" and the EPA ignoring it's own findings then breaking environmental laws and polluting our water. I give you the MSNBC Lame Duck Watch.

Ladies Home Journal: Binge and Purge

2009-05-15T22:24:00.022-04:00

My mother-in-law, bless her soul, is a sweet woman so I have a problem just telling her that I can't stand the magazines she sent me. I have a Better Homes & Gardens and a Ladies Home Journal subscription which she ordered for me, as a gift. I cannot tell her because that would be rude. But what I can do is tell you why they should be forbidden from selling this trash or even printing it. This garbage is not worth the paper it is printed on.

This post is regarding: Ladies Home Journal, June 2009, Cover: Paula Abdul. (Just so you know we are on the same issue, in case you have a mother-in-law as well...)

Let us take a look at the cover first. "Being Fat Ended my Marriage" is one of the main articles in this. Then there is "Build a Strong Body for Life"... and lets not forget the "LOSE WEIGHT IN JUST 4 WEEKS" attention grabber. We are just on the cover and that is three articles about body weight and body image. JUST THE COVER!!!!!

Wait till we get going...
After going through the magazine with a pen, so I could actually keep count, I discovered that there were 17 "incidents" of diet related items. These include articles on weight loss and problems because of weight, advertisements for weight loss products (including diet plans, creams and devices), and foods advertised as low fat or healthy because of reduced calories.

Margarine Tangent...
Take note that the margarine companies are now advertising like the high fructose corn syrup companies. There is a full page ad from margarine industry about how bad butter is and how much better margarine is for you, here is the website version. Of course they intentionally omit that by definition margarine contains trans fat and over emphasize that their products contain no trans fats per serving. Of course a serving of margarine is a tablespoon and it contains 0.5g of trans fats per serving. Most people have several "servings" per meal and sometimes per item. That means that you might be having upwards of 2-5g of trans fats per day depending on your use of this low calorie trans fat free product.

The Shedd Spread website, Country Crock, has an FAQ on trans fats and it states that there is an insignificant amount of trans fats per serving so their products are labeled as trans fat free.

The FDA Says: Trans fat behaves like saturated fat by raising low-density lipoprotein (LDL or "bad") cholesterol that increases your risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Trans fat can be found in some of the same foods as saturated fat, such as vegetable shortenings, some margarines, crackers, candies, cookies, snack foods, fried foods, baked goods, and other processed foods made with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.

This ad is so offensive and misleading I have decided to write a letter to the FDA to complain about it. There is no information about who paid for it or what studies it is based on. It took me considerable time to find out that it was all sponsored by Unilever. It is basically a health pamphlet without a reference section... The only thing that IS clear are the products they want you to buy. So sure lets all just blindly accept that these people have our best interests at heart and drop common sense for sensationalist advertising.

Now lets get to the Good Stuff...
In this same "health conscious" magazine there are 27 "incidents" of food items related to deserts and snacks. This count includes advertisements for candy, cakes, cookies, pudding, ice creams, potato chips and a lunch meat. It also includes recipes for deserts both in ads and independent recipes throughout the magazine. I have omitted food items that were not related to "poor dietary choices" such as dinner suggestions, recipes and ads for dinner entries and boxed meals. I included the lunch meat because everyone knows that lunch meat is crap in a bag. Maybe it is better than chocolate cake - but not a grilled chicken breast or any other choice you might have for lunch.

Take a look at those numbers. 17 weight loss and 27 garbage food. What exactly is that supposed to convey? I did not even get into the other foods or the full page ads for medications, sometimes spanning 2-3 full pages. Most of the medication products are for lowering cholesterol but lets not ignore the "safe" prescription version of amphetamine marketed for our children.

NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED. Can you even imagine what this is doing to children? You cannot just say one thing and do another. Children are NOTORIOUS for doing what you do and not what you say. They are the reason for the term "Practice What You Preach." I cannot even imagine what signals this sends to a young girl. Obsession with body weight while eating foods marked as healthy and low calorie... and all the while gaining more and more weight.

The FDA and Special Interest Groups constantly ignore and modify our natural diets, every year there is a new "scare" and new "discovery" about things we should and should not be eating. Michael Pollan believes that it is because we lack a dominant culture here in America. Populations that have a deeper culture tend to have ritual eating habits and better overall health. We lack both.

I have returned to a more traditional diet and make whole foods for my family. Not by shopping at Whole Foods stores... but by really cooking food and monitoring what I put in the mix. I have gone back to making simple things, like mayonnaise and ketchup. And you know what the best part about it is... they TASTE better. It is kinda like having your cake and eating it too...

Take a look at this cookbook, which has changed a lot of our eating habits, called Nourishing Traditions. Written by Sally Fallon, of the Weston Price Foundation, it talks about historically nutritional foods which have left our tables over the last 20 years... and the increase in illness and decrease of overall health in the average American. The book can be a little preachy at times but she offers practical alternatives for people on a budget or fixed income. There is also a section of sources so when you cannot find some of the items in your local store... you can still get a hold of them.

Lemon Crunch Home Cooking

2009-05-15T09:55:00.005-04:00

We got a cake the other day. Desert is a rare treat in our house and my husband picked up an Entenmann's Lemon Crunch cake. I looked at the ingredients listed on the side, guess how many there are... 51. Fifty-one ingredients in this "cake", if you can believe it.

I have read a number of nutritional books and papers and seen a number of videos. I have even watched news broadcasts on television and all them state you should not eat anything with more than 5-10 ingredients listed on the box. That means that this "cake" has FIVE TIMES more ingredients than recommended. Even the McDonald's lawsuit regarding their chicken nugget ingredients, at a total of 38, dealt with less processing. In fact as a result of that court case McDonalds reformulated their ingredients and removed some.

One of the things that surprised me the most is the redundancy of several of the ingredients. For example, the cake contains annatto and turmeric used as natural food coloring. However, in addition to the annatto and turmeric there is Yellow# and Red#.

Why bother using both?
The UK has done a study on artificial food colorings and determined that they "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children." This statement is also going to be placed on foods which contain artificial coloring agents once their version of the FDA gets its head out of it's...

Food Colouring Confirmed Bad for Children
Super Toxic Cocktails

However, this is the UK we are talking about and I am so sure that the United States will ignore this study that I am willing to bet money on it -maybe even an organ, maybe...

What do they say!!!?
Your excited to know... I will tell you. These studies show that children exhibit behavioral problems and symptoms of ADD and ADHD after consuming foods and beverages with artificial coloring. This study was conducted using a large group of children and also pooled information from previous studies. It was determined that "...even allowing for publication bias and other limitations, there was evidence that some AFCs contribute to hyperactivity." (ISIS)

So why do we need both sets of colorings?
Maybe it was just not yellow enough... Can Americans get over food looking like it should? Can we cope with the fact that there are no marshmallow stars in nature? These seem like stupid questions but in reality they are important. We are so removed from our food sources that we do not even know WHAT food looks like in its natural state.

My daughter wants "yellow" nuggets when she wants lunch (store bought, bagged, processed chicken nuggets) and not my home made nuggets which are INFINITELY better and tastier as well. Once they are in front of her she eats them with fervor but the idea is that the store bought ones are special somehow. Maybe it is because they look different or that the taste could not possibly be replicated in the kitchen (thank God).

My friend's little sister got mad one day at a restaurant because there was a bone in her pork chop. "Pork chops don't have bones," she said and was really upset that something had challenged this. One wonders if she even knew that a pork chop came from a pig. That her food actually came from a live animal that gave its life so that she could eat it and bitch about it. It is hard when most of your food comes from a box which shows an idyllic image on the front and not the real deal.

Homemade Chicken Nuggets
3-4 chicken thighs, skinned and de-boned
1 tbsp of butter
2-3 tbsp safflower or olive oil (olive oil is stronger)
1 egg, beaten
1 cup of matzo meal bread crumbs

Defrost, if frozen, till most of the chicken is soft. I find that partly frozen chicken is easier to cut into small portions. Cut the chicken into 1 inch slices. Using three bowls place egg in one bowl, bread crumbs in a second, and use the last bowl for the breaded nuggets. Dip each piece of chicken in the egg then breadcrumbs, place "finished" nuggets in last bowl and set aside. Once all the nuggets are breaded put oil in a large saute pan and set to medium-high heat. You do not need to cover the nuggets in oil or deep fry them. I use a quasi stir-fry method for my nuggets which reduces the amount of oil you need to use. pan fry the nuggets and turn them over after a minute or two. They do not take long to cook. Using thighs makes tender nuggets which just taste better.

But what about Saturated Fats?
Before you flip out on saturated fats be aware that the breastmilk you lovingly insisted that your children get, for nutritional reasons, is 50% saturated fat and high in cholesterol. These are ESSENTIAL for development. So stop putting your kids on a diet and go back to feeding them REAL food. If you want more information on fats visit the Weston Price Foundation and read up on the articles about fats.

Weston Price Foundation: Know your Fats

Gardening, Back to Basics?

2009-05-14T18:29:00.002-04:00

I have decided I am going to garden, not flowers, food. I am going to try and "put my money where my mouth" is so to speak. After listening to and reading commentary about Vandana Shiva I realize that there is no reason I cannot do this. Her guidance on planing vines and then foods that can be grown on those vines made me realize that space, which is the often cited excuse, is no longer an obstacle. We do not have a large lawn but there is no reason some of it cannot be adapted to growing some of what we need or even like.

We have fencing which can be used like a trellis to facilitate growing beans and squash or other plants that like to climb. I also have an abandoned flower garden, from the previous owners, against the back of the house which may be a great place to plant some herbs or edible flowers.

The only foreseeable problem is this black thumb that I have... I could kill a cactus or even one of those air plants if given the opportunity. But I am going to give this one my best though, why not? I would like to grow some green squash, beans and maybe some onions. I am sure that once I learn the basics through trial and error it will be okay. I mean how do these plants survive in the wild without anyone to tend them? I just need to find a good place to start.

I think the best thing to start with might be parsley. I will need to research this to make sure I am not barking up the wrong tree with that... but from what I understand a lot of herbs used to be regarded as weeds. And we all know weeds do not require anything but annoyance to thrive. I am going to buy from Cook's Garden since they have assured me that none of their seeds are genetically modified and they also have a certified organic seed selection for only a little more.

I am willing to get dirty on this one and maybe it will be fun too.

Swine Flu Swill...

2009-05-13T11:55:00.006-04:00

There are probably millions of posts about this swine flu "pandemic," which has decimated the population here in the United States, so I thought I would write one too. In case you have not seen the wooden wagons and criers calling to "bring out your dead" let me warn you that the tally in the US alone is... wait... I cannot seem to find a number anywhere. There has got to be one... ah... here we are. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) report that there are 3352 confirmed cases of swine flu in the US with a total of 3 deaths. Guess I jumped the gun on that wagon o'dead people.

Does the term "MASS HYSTERIA" mean anything to ANYONE these days? In the US alone there are anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 deaths a year from seasonal forms of influenza, not the new and improved versions they keep coming out with these days. Of course there are going to be deaths, that is the nature of the illness. Do not get me wrong, I would be one of the first people lined up to kill someone if my family suffered a death due to the flu, but this is ridiculous.

Take a look at this headline: Total Infected With Swine Flu Hits 44, Number Expected To Grow. What an obtuse statement. You might as well say "More Births in the US, number of people breathing expected to grow." Again, what a stupid statement. I just cannot understand how the media can play this out like we are living a re-enactment of 12 Monkeys.

Aside from scaring everyone half to death the media are actually promoting illness. It is well documented that negative thoughts, panic and thoughts of fear change the chemicals released in your brain. One of these is adrenaline. Adrenaline can cause all kinds of problems when it is released without need, like panic attacks, heart palpitations, irrational behavior, violent behavior... the list does go on. We now hear the term pandemic every year. Wikipedia defines pandemic to be an illness that covers vast areas, like a continent, and kills large numbers of people like HIV/AIDS and The Black Plague or even the Spanish Influenza which killed so many. Not just 3 people in America.

Even ABC is criticizing the WHO's handling of the situation. BILLIONS COULD DIE... And then I like this article about so much bacon... Pandemic Or Just Makin' Bacon?

One of the things that I do not understand is why the push is for constant medical treatment in loo of common sense. Why do we need a vaccine when we can cover our mouths, stay home if we are sick, and as the Asian's do, wear a mask when you are sick so that you do not spread it. And why for God's sake DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD TO COVER YOUR MOUTH? Think about it. Cover your mouth, wash your hands, stay home if you are sick. An idiot could follow those instructions. My three year old can follow those instructions but full grown adults need to be told? Nations of full grown adults need to be told to cover their mouths when they cough. No wonder the pharmaceutical companies are making a killing, we have all gone insane! We need VACCINES VACCINES VACCINES!!!!!

My husband came down with the flu or a seasonal virus (there ARE other viruses out there folks) and went to see the doctor. Without even a diagnosis of "pig" flu he was given a prescription for Tamiflu and told to stay home for the week. No blood tests no nothing... Have you read the side effects of Tamiflu? probably not so here they are: Tamiflu Side Effects, Full List

Here is a partial list: Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); confusion, hallucinations, or other unusual changes in behavior; fever or sore throat; reddened, blistered, or swollen skin; seizures; severe or persistent vomiting or diarrhea.

I do not know about you, but when I get sick it is not usually as bad as those side effects not to mention that Tamiflu only reduces the flu by 24 hours. My husband took it for 1 day and developed side effects. We had a debate about it and he agreed that he would not finish the package. Our insurance also would not cover the medication fully since it is "not preferred" so we had to make it up out of pocket. The only thing that stopped me from going to the doctor's office to demand that he refund our money and threaten him with malpractice was the fact that I would probably have been arrested.

Ecofeminism, a new way of life?

2009-05-09T21:00:00.005-04:00

I never considered myself to be much of anything. I am not an activist or a liberal, neither a conservative nor a capitalist. I never even considered myself to be particularly creative... I was always just "me." I have always, and still do, considered myself to be a normal, boring, everyday (maybe somewhat angry) modern woman. I have recently begun to see myself as a mother and a wife, and I have started to explore what those labels mean to me and those around me. Within the past few months I have had a radical, life-changing experience which has caused me to become more aware of my surroundings.

I have mentioned in other posts that my son suffers from allergies and may possibly have asthma, which is also considered to be an allergy-related illness, though not in all instances. In an effort to educate myself about allergies, I seem to have opened a can of worms that seems to have no bottom. Most people today have allergies. In fact, from my reading, it appears that more of today's children today have allergies, than do not. I am including nasal and seasonal allergies in this category, as well as more serious food allergies. Across the board, kids are having more problems than ever before. MY kids are having problems. There is always some a**hole ready to say "Well, my kids are fine," as though years of medical research on certain issues can just go straight to the bottom of the pile because their kids appear to be lucky.

Take a look at my household. Statistically, 100% of my household is affected by allergies, some severe. Then there is asthma: 50% of our household suffers the effects. That is fairly significant when you take a look at a number of families -just like mine- all over the United States.

What are allergies, anyway?...
This is an important question, though it may not seem like it because allergies are so common these days. In fact, I used to dismiss them as unimportant as well. "What do you mean you can't do it because you have allergies? Give it up..." Then I developed allergies. They really suck. You cannot breathe, your body hurts, sometimes you get headaches, a runny nose, itchy eyes... Of course I am referring to the seasonal, nasal allergies which most people have. So, to the point... allergies are a reaction to something external that the body mistakenly thinks is a toxin. Allergies are essentially an auto-immune disorder.

What is an auto-immune disorder?
There are a number of auto-immune disorders out there today, more than ever before. Rheumatoid arthritis, Fibromyalgia, Lupus and Crohn's Disease are some of the big names that you hear today. Basically, your body attacks itself because the cells are confused, or we are missing something significant, and kills its healthy cells in an attempt to rid itself of toxic cells. Your body treats itself as an allergen and attacks itself with its own immune system.

What the hell does this have to do with Ecofeminism...?
As I mentioned previously, in my quest to learn more about these problems affecting my family, the analysis came back over and over (and over again, with some "over" on the side) to what people are eating and how food is made. How food is made is actually pretty terrifying if you are forced to really think about it. And, once you start digging you can never go back. I will never again be able to eat something without a hyperawareness of the complexities involved in getting it to my table, and that may be why most people do not go looking for this information. They do not want to know. But the fact is we HAVE to know. We have to know that one of the main reasons why we have these health problems is because of factory farming, because of the sick animals being sold to us as food, the antibiotics being used on animals at every meal, the pesticides that are sprayed on vegetables and fruits, the waxes and petroleum-based additives and the added chemicals derived from butane and rocket fuel. These things are in our FOOD.

How can this NOT BE AN ISSUE?
Why aren't more people angry about this?
Do people just not know?

I have decided that it is most likely the latter. People do not know and do not want to know. People (including myself) have done a lot to ensure that we do not know where (or how) our food is made because, unconsciously, we KNOW that anything with 20 ingredients (most of which require a PhD in chemistry to really understand) cannot be good for us and cannot possibly come from "wholesome" sources. Think about if for a minute, do you even know what maltodextrin is? I thought not... If you would like to know, it is a polysaccharide derived from starch, normally corn, used as an additive in foods. That is just what it is, not why it is used... and you will still need to lookup what a polysaccharide is in order to understand what maltodextrin really is.

This brings me to Ecofeminism...(finally)
There is a theory called Ecofeminism. I am going to try an explain it, from my perspective. The first part of this is understanding feminism and not the politically correct "women with penises" version of feminism. The real feminism that means being a woman, and all aspects of womanhood, are exceptional and important. That includes birthing children, becoming mothers and wives and learning what it means to be a woman again. Not putting on a suit, with a skirt instead of pants, and working in an office. That is not feminism, that is removing women from one stereotype and forcing them to mold to another in the name of progress. Working for a living is not my issue -it is the little men theory that pisses me off. This version of feminism that says because I had a child I am somehow less of a woman than someone who decided to have a fast paced career. That to me is feminism gone wrong. It is the radical idea that women are people too, as my husband likes to say.

The second part of this theory is that ecology and the treatment of women are interconnected becuase of the parallels between them. The efficent, male dominated, way of agriculture suppresses the land in the same way that women are suppressed in our societies (in variying degrees). One of the key parallels is the terms we use to refer to things that happen to the land. For example, one "rapes the land", one "reaps the bounty" of the land, and one "tames" the land. There is also the issue of that annoying mother figure... you know the one "Mother Nature." She can be a real bitch sometimes.

A leader in this movement is Vandana Shiva. From my reading I have learned that she is really an amazing woman. The green revolution has actually hurt us deeply and most people are not even aware of it. In India she has helped women feed their families with NO LAND AT ALL. She has taught women how to plant creeping vines along their homes and then plant beans and squash along the vines so that they attach to the vines and grow up the wall. How simple. Well it is saving peoples lives. Almost all of the major farm land in India is dedicated to cotton. You find this in a lot of areas, not just in India. People are forced to grow crops which are inedible or food for export. This means that they cannot even feed themselves. I have heard the term "green desert" used a lot lately. As with most important things a lot of this has to do with politics. There are clear and easy ways to make food in an ecologically sound and sustainable fashion. The problem with this is that it returns rights back to the farmers and takes profits from the monolithic companies now in charge of agriculture.

In fact farms used to be very self sustaining. Farmers would have a number of varied animals and crops. The crops would feed the animals and farmer then they in turn would feed the plants in the form of compost. This cycle returned nutrients to the earth lost through farming. This is essential and one of the main reasons nitrogen based fertilizers are used so widely. Commercial farming depletes the soil badly without returning much to it. Compost is also wasted (ha ha) in the modern factory farm as it contains so many toxins that it will kill plants so farmers cannot even put in on their crops.

Here are some links of note for more information on Vandana Shiva, Ecofeminism and some information sources on sustainable agriculture at the ISIS Foundation.

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SACI.php

How 'bout some GMO corn... for your coffee?

2009-05-06T09:56:00.012-04:00

So a friend of mine recommended a book called The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan. I have not even finished the first chapter and already he has reiterated my personal theory several times over. We have, as a ~~culture~~ society, become too far removed from our food. When we go to the grocery store we see clean quartered pieces of meat and do not even think that this was once a living animal. Let alone an animal that was living in squalor subsisting on food so far removed from its natural diet it is unrecognizable.

Companies toss around the word "natural" as if it means something and should indemnify them from the fact that their product has more chemical and processed ingredients than anything natural or nutritional. One of the things I was shocked to discover was that most of these products are all derived from the same source... CORN. Not just corn, but genetically modified corn.

"Don't be silly... That is science fiction. There is no gene splicing in our foods... is there?" Actually there has been for the better part of 15 years. You didn't know that did you - neither did I. One of the main reasons you do not know is because of that gut reaction you are having right now... That it is unnatural and possibly dangerous so why would you buy it? Companies caught on to that really early in the development process which is why they lobbied so hard to restrict labeling policy that would require them to tell you which foods are modified. The labels would clearly state that the item was genetically modified or from genetically modified sources in the case of prepared foods.

Nine out of ten people polled want a labels on foods that are genetically modified. That is SO significant, I am going to repeat it, 9 out of 10 people want GMO foods labeled as such. And you didn't even know that you were eating it... for over 10 years!!!

How could this happen?
There are a number of reasons. Mainly, as with most things, it has to do with money. There is a company called Monsanto which sells seeds to farmers. Monsanto also produces a pesticide/herbicide called Roundup. You have seen it, you may have even used it yourself. I know that when we moved into our house there were three containers of it in the shed for general weeds. Problem with Roundup is that it kills everything it touches. It is basically agent orange, in a small bottle. Monsanto had an idea that they could genetically engineer a plant not to die when sprayed with Roundup. This way the could exclusively provide not only their patented seed but the pesticide/herbicide combination to the farmer. So as you can see it is about money.

Wait... they own life?
Apparently, according to the Canadian Supreme Court they do. Because genetic modification is a process that leaves specific markers and modifies the gene in specific way the plant grown then becomes an object subject to patent. Monsanto is also working on this other little project called the "Terminator Seed." I bet that you can guess what this seed does - but just in case you are in as much disbelief as I was - I will tell you anyway.

Suicide Gene for Plants
The largest current threat we have to our way of life is the company Monsanto and this "terminator seed" project. They have genetically engineered a seed to produce one crop and then die. What does that mean? If you are having trouble with this and are not wholly TERRIFIED by it you do not understand what is actually happening. What this means is that Monsanto's patented GMO Corn will only produce one harvest and then become sterile. All the seeds that the farmer's would normally save from year to year to produce more plants the following year will be dead, they will not sprout into new plants. That's it - life cycle over. But Monsanto assures us that they will be able to provide us with more seeds, we can purchase from them, for the following year's crops.

That would be like buying a car and driving it for a month before it exploded and having GM promise to have more cars available for you, to purchase at full price, for the following month. Maybe you should buy cars in bulk before a big vacation or something - just to make sure you have enough. It is absurd in this context isnt it. Will it is fucking TERRIFYING in the real context. Monsanto is not going to stop now that they are able to patent their seeds and any seeds they can get their hands on.

Well why not just stop using GMO Seeds?
Well there is this little thing called cross pollination that occurs with plants, especially corn. The beautiful breeze comes along and blows pollen from one farmer's GMO crop to the neighboring "Certified Organic" farm down the way. Guess what happens. Not only is the farm down the way no longer able to produce organic corn but all their seeds are going to DIE. You may not know this, again since we have become so removed from our food, but farmers save seeds from year to year. Some farmers have cultivated seeds for a hundred years. Some, in hard times, even share their seeds with others to get over the hump. Monsanto has decided that this practice of reusing seeds needs to stop and is ruthless in its attempts to achieve seed domination. Again, please do not take my word for it.

SnagFilms has a collection of documentaries which you can view online for free. Take a look at one called Future of Food. I commented about it before and will actually dedicate an entire post to it at a future date. This film will walk you through the process of what is happening here in America, right under your nose, and you never even knew it existed. There is slavery right here in America, again, and this time is holding an entire class of citizen hostage: farmers.

SnagFilms:: Future of Food (click to watch film)

Institute of Science In Society
There is an organization called ISIS or the Institute of Science In Society. Their mission is "promoting critical public understanding of science and enhancing the gm debate." This is ONE of the HUNDREDS of resources, mostly outside of the United States, which is concerned with the public right to know and the corporate trend of denial, misdirection and misinformation. There is an article called GM food nightmare unfolding in the regulatory sham

Abstract
Our regulators are ignoring the precautionary principle, manipulating and corrupting science, sidestepping the law, and helping to promote genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the face of massive public opposition and damning evidence piling up against the safety of genetically modified (GM) food and feed.

You can read the full article in PDF format at this link http://www.i-sis.org.uk/pdf/GM_food_nightmare.pdf Notice that MASSIVE PUBLIC OPPOSITION statement in there?

The Public is ignorant...
You probably did not even know you were eating GMO food, I certainly didn't. How can you complain? How can you stop the problem if you were not even told that there was a problem. That is the basis for the ISIS foundation. I have written a letter to my local representatives DEMANDING that they return my choice back to me. You can do this easily. You can also sign petitions and buy organic. Organic is still technically safe because individuals complained so vehemently to the possibility that GMO's could be classified as organic.

Here are some links for you, they have really opened up my eyes to a lot of the policy, or lack there of, which is being made while our minds are on the DEADLY SWINE FLU AFFECTING 8 NJ RESIDENTS... Or a past president's blow job.

GMO Information Links
Genetic Engineering - Agriculture
Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare?
Non-GM Breakthroughs Leave GM Behind
Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety

Cause & Awareness Sites
Citizens to Label Genetically Engineered Food
The Center for Food Safety
GRAIN

Poll Results: BPA

2009-05-01T16:35:00.009-04:00

So, I half-jokingly put up a poll on the site about BPA. I thought my vast readership base might be interested in taking a poll now and again. There are three of you! YES! That is awesome... I had no idea that anyone even read my blog. One of you even made a recommendation on a book for me... that's just awesome.

Anyway, the poll was about BPA additives in plastics and whether people consider their presence to be a problem or not a big deal. 33% of you voted that it was not a problem and 66% thought it was a serious problem. (Do you like how I used percents to inflate my readership?)

I personally believe that BPA is a big problem, but not in the sense that BPA itself is harmful. It has been shown to cause developmental problems at a cellular level in animals and insects. But the problem is not just with baby bottles or BPA. A number of other additives have also been identified as estrogen-mimics. Two, including BPA, are found in common plastic products. The Environmental Health News published an article about the offenders: Food may contain environmental estrogens. This is interesting because they are talking about the number of products on the market today that use these plastics, and the level of these chemicals found in human urine and blood.

So it comes back to that moderation issue I talked about in the HFCS posting. Whose version of moderate are we going by and what is "too much"? The main problem is that no one knows what these chemicals do to us because we have never studied it before. Science assumes that because the presence of these chemicals is 0.008% less than what we already produce naturally, it will not affect us. But I think the main problem is that science underestimates how much of these chemicals we are collectively consuming, once you factor in all the products we use that contain these chemicals.

There is also new research that shows that very small amounts of these estrogen-like compounds is, ironically, more dangerous than large doses. From the reading I did it seems that the body can recognize them as toxins and filter them out consumed in large doses. But small doses sneak in under the radar and cause problems at a cellular level.

Before you pass judgment on estrogen compounds not being a problem in our daily diet or in other products we inject, ingest or absorb in some way, take a look at the side effects listed on estrogen therapy products - both over the counter and prescription-level. Many of these contain soy-based phytoestrogens. The side effects are really quite serious. I have talked to a number of older women who feelthat the side effects are worse than menopause. These are the same compounds we are talking about. The soy that I am referring to is the quasi-natural one, as most soy in this country is genetically modified, but some is man made. This is the same reason why steroids are dangerous -- they really mess with our mechanics. Our bodies work the way they do because, in part, certain hormones tell the body what it needs to be and to do. These chemicals interfere with that process at a metabolic level.

The Psychology Behind Milk

2009-04-28T22:28:00.023-04:00

So what is the deal with milk? There is an entire culture behind milk which no one even thinks about. We drink it straight, we eat it in yoghurt, cheese, kefir and other aged products. We use milk products as additives in packaged foods, beverages, to feed our infants and in thousands of other products. So why is there a debate about milk? What debate...?

The Debate...
What is the debate? Well, there are a few debates. The first one I am going to touch on is infant formula vs. breast feeding or human milk. That's right... let's say it again without the "politically correct" twist on it. HUMAN MILK. We are mammals. We produce milk to feed our young - that's what boobs are really for, guys! But there is a pervasive mindset that human milk is "yucky" or "nasty," is only fit for infants and that breastfeeding should be stopped almost before it starts, some suggest at 3 months and certainly should not be continued beyond one year. We are socially convinced that milk from a different species is a more acceptable, if not superior, replacement for our young based on our lifestyle

From the title of my blog you probably can guess how I feel about hurting someone's feelings. However, my comments are not directed at moms or children who have physical or other medical problems associated with breastfeeding or pumping. And, because I feel so strongly about it I have donated excess milk to several families. So all of you with a legitimate need to use formula - ignore my vicious commentary.

The second debate arises over the concept that "dead" milk is better than "live" milk. (This can apply to cow or human milk). I am not sure how many of you know that milk is technically alive. There are bacteria, antibodies, enzymes, proteins and other UNKNOWN substances in milk. That's right... unknown. Science has not been able to identify them or what they do and certainly cannot duplicate them. Pasteurization kills milk. The process destroys most of the wonderful, and essential, aspects of milk. In fact, I have learned that the test for proper pasteurization is the verification that the milk is dead... i.e. that all of the live aspects are removed. Here is a quote from the Campaign for Real Milk:

Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamins C, B12 and B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer. Calves fed pasteurized milk do poorly and many die before maturity.

Notice the last line in there about calves that eat pasteurized milk... AND THE FACT THAT MANY OF THEM DIE.

Our country is obsessed with pasteurization and sanitation. It is so pervasive that every cleaning product we sell has a commercial about eradicating everything in its path. Almost all scientists agree that the biggest problem we are going to face in the future is a bacterial or viral scourge we cannot rebound from. They also all agree that we are creating an environment that our own bodies will not be able to recover from by making everything sterile. We are causing the problem. We can wipe away the bacteria and it will be fine but we need to destroy it and prevent it from entering our bodies at all costs. We are making ourselves weaker because of it.

Bottle vs. Breast...
I have a theory about why many people are so much more comfortable using formula than breast milk. We use milk in everything, even if we do not realize it. But we use cow milk. There are a number of other animals we have traditionally used milk from, such as goats and sheep. But if you ask someone on the street today if they would try a glass of goat milk they would probably say "no" and curl their nose up. "Nasty." What makes the cow so friggin' special? Well, everything is made from cow dairy and it is so pervasive that most people do not even think about it. The only people who eat other types of milk tend to be "foodies" looking for a culinary experience. We see milk everywhere and know that it comes from cows. I think that this, over time, has caused us to believe subconsciously that it is more acceptable that our own milk.

I think that there is also a certain element of skeeviness to human milk. What else do we produce from our bodies? Urine, feces, saliva... not one of these is something you would voluntarily put back in your body, is it? Certainly not someone else's, unless... well, this is not THAT kind of blog.

We have become so accustomed to the cow as a source for dairy that we have forgotten our own ability to produce milk of our own. I saw an article in the Lala Times, that a man out in California is making yoghurts from human milk. There were several articles and blogs about it at the time. There were comment sections on several pages that had COUNTLESS replies. One of the funniest (well, really the saddest when you get down to it) was from an ignorant person warning everyone that the yoghurts could spread disease and that you could not safely buy a product like that. They went on for some time about pathogens and, perhaps unsurprisingly, HIV.

The entire article was fictitious but the comments were shocking. The majority of the comments were against the product and thought that it was a terrible idea, disgusting several people even said. So, to me, this demonstrates that we have become so removed from our natural selves that we can no longer even recognize something like this as an obvious choice for yoghurt. In fact, I have made it myself.

Studies show...
There are studies that show that raw milk, human or cow, has antibacterial properties. That means that if you put a glass of raw milk on the counter, in one hour there would be less bacteria in the glass. Try that with pasteurized milk or infant formula. The dairy companies hold such sway in this country that we cannot even legally buy milk at a store which has not been processed in some way. This, we are told, is to prevent disease and bacteria from spreading and giving us food poisoning. Did you read that information above? That raw milk has antibacterial properties?

Factory Farming
What pasteurization protects is really factory farming. With pasteurization farmers do not need to care for their animals using the same standards organic or pasture fed animals are provided. Diseased animals can still be used for milking because pasteurization will render the milk "safe" for consumption.

Without pasteurization, factory farmers could not exist. They would be the #1 cause of unsafe dairy products made in the United States. No one would be able to consume that milk because of the disease and health problems in the animals themselves, which is partly caused by their corn/soy-based diets, their sunless environment and the hormones that they are given to produce more milk.

So why can't we buy raw milk? Because... that would mean giving the farms back to families, and reducing the size and profits made by these conglomerate farm operations. We would need to buy local products, as in "within miles" of your home not "states away." The dairy industry's financial stake in the operation is too high to allow this to occur. And don't forget my post about eating posh... and where that money really ends up. Why wouldn't a modern farmer want to use a cow that produces several times the natural amount of milk? Why wouldn't that farmer pump the cows full of hormones and feed them an unnatural diet so that they produce more milk at less expense? It means the difference between bringing home money for their families and being destitute. Wouldn't you do the same thing for your family? Sure you would. The problem is that the United States does not subsidize the foods that they themselves recommend.

We subsidize corn, plants for oils and meat... all of the things that are recommended to be consumed either in moderation or not at all. Did you know that in the US it is cheaper to buy High Fructose Corn Syrup than sugar? That is why it is in everything.

Cheaper, cheaper, cheaper...

Greenwashing -- What is it?

2009-04-28T09:33:00.008-04:00

In an earlier post I referred to something called "greenwashing." This is a new twist on an old idea in advertising. This is the practice of ignoring, omitting, lying about or emphasizing the "green" aspects of a product. It is questionable at best, but it is extremely common for most items on the market.

My husband and I were in the car the other day and heard a commercial on the radio for natural gas heat. They called it the GREEN CHOICE... This illustrates the fundamental concept behind "greenwashing." We all know that natural gas, while not as bad as coal, is a fossil fuel which is mined from the earth. It is impossible for this product to be "green" as it is the very epitome of the opposite. Below is a graph showing the carbon emissions of coal, gas, gas combination, solar, wind, nuclear and water power:

image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

I mean, it even SOUNDS nice, doesn't it? "Natural" gas...

Ahhh... how refreshing - so nice and clean. But, the graph shows that gas is one of the highest polluting energy sources. Regardless, the gas companies are right -- ruining acres of land to drill for dinosaur remains, generating enormous emissions and waste products which damage the earth, the atmosphere and our bodies is certainly the "Green Choice" isn't it?

The Energy Efficient SUV...
This is another PERFECT example of greenwashing. Take the modern Sport Utility Vehicle. We have all seen and heard the commercials for the SUV that is so fuel-efficient, getting a whopping 15 miles to the gallon. This flies in the face of common sense. Clearly there is nothing fuel-efficient about a vehicle that gets 15 mpg or even 20 mpg.

The Source...
I have found an organization that reviews companies and products for this type of advertising. They are similar to Consumer Reports, only they do not release product or company information to the consumer. The theory behind this is based on the assumption that the consumers need to be aware and educate themselves - not avoid specific companies or products. The site is called Sins of Greenwashing and it is funded by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing.

The site indicates that children's products, cosmetics and cleaning products are the main categories where "green" claims and greenwashing occur the most. The report talks about the increase of "green" advertising and overall increase of better products - but I have found a staggering amount of greenwashing used to advsertise most of the products on the market.

A good example of some of the claims reviewed has to do with fresheners. CFCs or Chlorofluorocarbons may not be used in products due to their link to ozone layer depletion. Their use has been outlawed in aerosol cans since 1978. So, stating that your product is "CFC-Free" is like saying that soda does not contain gasoline. It is not permitted to put CFCs in them -- so why emphasize it? "This daycare center is abuse-free!" This type of advertising implies that there is some certification process for the product and that it is a better choice as a result. The Greenwashing Report calls this sin: the Sin of Irrelevance.

I have included an excerpt of the article below, as it pertains to the word "natural." I have previously talked about this in my High Fructose Corn Syrup post. This term is NOT regulated by the FDA and is used with such abandon that it is almost criminal. I am writing a letter to the FDA recommending regulation, since its abuse is so pervasive.

Greenwashing, naturally.
‘Natural’ is a powerfully resonant term. It appeals to us at a fundamental level and its frequent use by marketers is clear evidence of its popularity. It can also be dramatically misleading, and can contribute to greenwashing, since most consumers assume it to mean ‘safe’, ‘good’, or ‘green’. Arsenic is natural. So are cyanide and mercury and formaldehyde. All are hazardous. Although a standard definition has been proposed by the Natural Products Association, none of the products in the study bore that mark. Unexplained, as it was in every case in which it was found in this research, ‘natural’ risks misleading consumers. Therefore, these claims all commit the Sin of Vagueness. (From Greenwashing Report 2009)

I highly recommend reading this report for yourself. It is amazing what companies get away with. There is no regulation and no liability for making any of these claims. One last story I will share in this post is about another absurd product. This is to illustrate that these "sins" are not only present in "green" or "eco" products - but are everywhere.

My son was born in October of 2008 and we received a number of gifts from friends and family. I tend to read labels since the kids were born and it becomes habitual after a while. I got a polyester blanket -- a cheap little thing really, but useful. The label on the blanket clearly - in bold and decorated letters - says "BABY BLANKET" and then on the additional label and care instructions the text reads as follows: "Danger, suffocation hazard. Decoration purposes only. Not for use as a blanket." So let me get this straight... it is a baby blanket that cannot be used as a baby blanket?

Yep. That one really makes the ol' head spin.

Eating right, the new Posh, Part II

2009-04-24T08:14:00.026-04:00

Well, I ran out of steam in my last post about Posh Eating. What does that mean? What do I mean by "Posh?" I'll tell you. Next time you are at the grocery store, take a look at the cost difference between organic tomatoes and standard farm-raised tomatoes. The organic tomatoes generally cost ¢20 to $1 more per pound. Why is that? Does it matter? Why would I pay that for a tomato?

If you knew what they did to the standard "all-natural" tomato, you would probably not ask that question. Here are some educational films that I think everyone should see.

The problem with these films is that they are generally only popular in circles that already know about the problems plaguing our food supply. That is all well and good, but they need to be in the general public's eye. If these issues are not out there, in the public's face, then no one knows about what is happening. Unless the public sees, with their own eyes, what is happening on farms, they will just assume that things like animal waste to animal feed and pus in your milk are myths or just outright lies intended to get you spend more money. People raised on what I call the "diet pill myth" are not going to believe that what they want is actually bad for them - unless you show them.

These films show us why it is so important to eat high-quality organic food, organic pasture-fed meats, pasture-fed eggs and organic, preferably non-homogenized, non-pasteurized milk. You cannot legally buy non-pasteurized milk, it has been demonized to such an extent. But, you can purchase genetically-modified foods without your knowledge, foods that have been PROVEN to increase allergies.

I cannot even talk about genetically-modified (GM) foods right now. After watching the movie Future of Food I am in such shock I cannot even think of anything to say - other than to say that my family is going to eat organic food when we can afford it, without question. But that is the key issue, when we can afford it. We are not "poor," and I define this as being fortunate enough to afford what we need and sometimes what we want. We have bills, like most people, and we get by like most people. So how can we afford to eat right?

One thing that people in general do not realize is that our food was not always so cheap. These choices are even more difficult now that we are faced with situations like having to choose between genetically-modified corn and organically grown corn that costs twice as much. This becomes even harder because of our financial times. But, did you know that most farmers do not actually make any money on the produce that they sell? In fact, they LOSE money on every crop. That is why there are staggering farm subsidies paid out by our government every year. Farmers cannot afford to make a living wage.

Take this scenario...
Imagine that you worked for a major company - and maybe you do not have to imagine. You go to work six days a week and your wage is, for argument's sake, $15.00 an hour. However, your company is located out in the middle of nowhere and is serviced by a parking garage that is independently owned and operated. The odd thing is that the company which owns the garage is the parent company of company you work for. This parking garage is the only place that you can park and they charge $15.00 dollars an hour per car or per person, in case you carpool out of a fit of madness.

There is also a cafe in the building which is independently owned and operated. Again, the odd thing is that the company which owns the cafe is also the parent company of the company you work for. The main company policy stipulates that you cannot bring external food or beverages on to the property and that you also may not leave the premises until your shift has ended. The cafe charges a minimum fee of $6.00 per person per meal. Are you following me on this so far?

So, at the end of your 15 hour work day you have actually paid all of your hard-earned money to the company for the privilege of working for it. That is the ESSENCE of farm subsidies. These people work one of the most important jobs of all time... not just in the US or just for today... of all time. They make the food that we eat to SURVIVE and they wind up with less money at the end of the day than they started with.

I have since learned that there is a term for this type of business, it is called vertical integration. To sum it up the practice is basically a legal form of a monopoly and is rampant in America. The food companies, gasoline companies, and telephone companies are good examples. Think of the company system as a type of umbrella. There is a main company at the top with a number of smaller companies all owned by the main company. This gives the illusion of diversity in the public eye -but all the profits wind up in one place in the end. In the farming example above the company Monsato owns seeds, patents on GM seeds, fertilizer, bug spray, anti-fungals and in some cases the land. So in the end, guess who gets the subsidy money?

Paying the living wage...
In order to live they need a living wage, just like we do, and that is why that organic tomato costs $1 more per pound. It never should have cost ¢20 per pound in the first place. We need to recognize that these people are the most important people in our lives.

What can you do?
Support your local farms. It is not hard to do, but it costs a little more, and that can be a difficult choice. We have started with the staples because it is hard for us, too. We have decided that we are going to start with eggs and milk. These are products that we consume every day. This way the food we eat most often is also the highest quality. Don't you find it funny that the more references to quality on the label the less likely it is to be good for you or from a quality source? Why did we start with eggs? Well, the "quality eggs" at the store are from farms like this:

Image courtesy of Mom's on the Roof Again

I don't live near farms...
Yes, you do. Yes, you do. You just don't know it. There are many resources now that offer searches and directories to help you locate local foods. There are a number of types. You can belong to some groups and get baskets of produce each week or month. You can go pick up items at the farm and you can also mail order items too - including eggs and milk. You have heard the term "vote with your dollars." You do not know how many laws or public policy have been created or altered because we voted with our dollars. It is one of the most important votes we have.

High Fructose Corn Syrup... the "Natural" choice.

2009-04-23T14:54:00.027-04:00

You have seen those new ads by the corn industry, telling you to learn the truth about High Fructose Corn Syrup. You know, the ads showing a serene day with a couple sitting out for a picnic... Take a bite of popsicle... it is not bad for you. There is nothing wrong with it...

Ingredients for Popsicle Super Twin® Cherry: Water, Sugar, Corn Syrup, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Artificial Flavor, Citric Acid, Guar Gum, Locust Bean Gum, Red 40.

I personally do not see a whole lot of natural or nutritious in that list. We can only assume they are still using a stick made from real wood these days. Notice the listing of 3 different sweeteners. I am sure one is for texture, one is for consistency, one is for something else... But, how can you say something like this is good for you? There is also a clinical study that shows that Red 40, derived from coal tar, can cause behavioral problems in children.

SweetSurprise.com talks about the benefits of sweeteners and actually claims that High Fructose Corn Syrup is a NATURAL product. Would you like to know how Merriam-Webster defines "natural"? The definition, or a portion of it, is set forth below.

Main Entry: nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \na-chə-rəl, nach-rəl\
Function: adjective
2 a: being in accordance with or determined by nature b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature 10 a: growing without human care; also : not cultivated b: existing in or produced by nature : not artificial c: relating to or being natural food
natural. (2009). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

So clearly HFCS is not remotely natural. Thing is... it is not nutritional either. There is a good deal of research that shows HFCS is metabolized differently than sugar and can cause or contribute to serious health problems, including diabetes. Why doesn't SweetSurprise.com talk about those problems? Well, they do. They claim that there are no known health risks with "moderate use" of HFCS.

Define moderate...
Don't you wish more people talked about their definition of moderate? Do you know how many products contain HFCS? Go to your cabinet take a look for yourself. It's not just in the products you think of as sweet... like chocolate syrup and jam or jelly but boxed meals, pastas, drink mixes, pancake mix, sauces, peanut butter, ketchup and cereal. Where else did you find it? So then... whose version of "moderate" are we talking about? What does "moderate" mean?

It is also interesting to note that the SweetSurprise website talks about the criteria for a valid study and the results of that study. They indicate that you should read studies published in high quality journals. Trust studies that are lead by groups with no vested interest in the outcome of the study... which is interesting since the Corn Industry funded most of the studies on HFCS.

It really is criminal that, in this country, studies performed by groups having a direct financial interest in a product often get the outcome they desire regardless of the facts. Tests and research performed by non-biased groups tend to be undermined by industry-funded tests regardless of the results unless, of course, those results are beneficial to the industry funding the study.

Artificial Food Coloring...
There is a lot of evidence that chemical food color, and that is beyond a doubt what they are, causes behavioral problems in children. Did you know that food dye used to be derived from Coal Tar... what is that? Take a look at wikipedia.org/coal_tar. That is correct, it is a by-product of coal production. The coal we used to power the world. Apparently someone along the way decided it was a nutritious additive to foods, like DDT or something. Thank goodness we have moved away from those coal tar days... or have we.

I have heard that modern food dyes are derived from petroleum. You mean as in petroleum jelly? Yeppers, I do. Chris Gupta explores a number of topics about food dyes and the problems that they are known to cause. You can view a few of the articles below:

Eating right, the new Posh.

2009-04-21T17:44:00.025-04:00

Because I do not have enough to worry about I have decided that the family needs to eat better. This was not just some isolated decision. My son has allergies and in the wake of trying to find foods that do not contain cow dairy or soy products I am left with these options:

Make my own food
Make my own food
Make my own food

So as my options are limited I have decided it might be wise to make my own food. And of course everyone today wants to "go green" even though most companies "greenwash" their products so extensively it is hard to even determine what is green. My husband and I heard a commercial on the radio for natural gas heating... THE GREEN CHOICE... I mean it even sounds nice doesn't it? Natural... Gas... Ahhh so nice and clean. But you're right, ruining land to drill for petrified dinosaur remains, generating emissions and waste products which damage the earth and the atmosphere is definitely the Green Choice.

What the hell is Greenwashing?
Well I will tell you. Greenwashing is marketing a product to the consumer by lying, omitting or emphasizing "green" aspects of the product. You have all heard the commercials for the SUV that is staggeringly fuel efficient at 15 miles to the gallon. That is greenwashing. There is nothing fuel efficient about an sport utility vehicle, period. There is actually an organization which reviews products for this, similar to the Consumer Reports people. The site is called Sins of Greenwashing and it is sponsored by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing. See my post about it for more information.

Organic Produce
So we start shopping for better food choices. What does that mean? No more prepackaged foods. Everyone pushes organic items nowadays because of the hormones, pesticides and additives you would not even recognize as food. There is medical science that shows many people who have allergies are not actually allergic to a number of these foods in their “raw” form... what does that mean. Basically the natural and organic version of these foods.

Lets take milk for example...
Many people who have allergies/sensitivities to milk find that they can drink raw milk without problems. Some can have organic milk that is non-homogenized and then also non-pasteurized or “raw” milk without a problem. I am not a scientist but doesn't this seem obvious? So they are not allergic to milk that comes from cows who are not pumped with hormones, fed soy and poop (oh yes folks... I said poop), antibiotics and living in conditions that would be considered against any form of moral code if it was applied to humans. Lets think about this for a minute... It is so hard to do that these days, we are all so busy being, well, busy.

Take human milk for example, yuck - I know. If a breastfeeding woman drinks a beer and then pumps breastmilk or breastfeeds a baby guess what is in the milk. You got it... the alcohol. So when you apply the principle to the cow guess what is in their “breast” milk? After all that is what those dangling things are, they are cow boobs. So we get hormones (although the food administration assures us there is no difference), poop, antibiotics, soy and corn... who knows what other stuff is in the milk. That is not complicated. So what are people really allergic to? Shouldn't we be trying to find out?

Now were you paying attention when I mentioned that poop (as in feces, fecal matter, shit) is additive in our farm animal diets? You can't be serious about that... I am 100% serious. There are many resources that talk about this. Farming today is based on one thing: Profit. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something. Farmers, and I should specify Factory or Battery Farmers, do not have to care about the animals anymore. They do not have to care about you anymore. The only thing they need to care about is making sure they are within the confines of the law (or that they do not get caught outside it) - which is not as healthy or safe as you may think. Here are some links about the poop in the animal feed given most farm animals today:

These links talk about the addition of animal waste, corn, soy and even their dead brethren into large quantities of animal chow. You may have read Hannibal by Thomas Harris. In this book a character named Mason Verger is out for Hannibal Lecter. However there is a lot of detail in the story about Mason's background. His family breeds pigs. There are several parts in the story where they talk about his father and how he used to add the dead pigs and also their shit back into their food - just skating the edge of legality and sometimes crossing the line. It is comforting to think of the book in terms of fiction and assuming that all aspects are then fictitious. But in this case Mr. Thomas may have drawn from actual farm techniques in the United States.

Is it Whole Foods or a Whole Charade?
We have been looking around at the local Whole Foods store as well. Let me say right now that this is the biggest rip off you will ever find. Unless you are going for grass-fed meat or local produce the other products are a WASTE of time. Out of 7 brands of milk only one was non-homogenized and only used standard pasteurization processing instead of the new improved ultra-pasteurization process which allows milk to stay fresh for weeks. We have a local dairy farm, Halo Farms, that uses ultra-pasteurization as a tag line of what you should avoid in milk.

There was also the issue of the eggs. In a grocery store dedicated to whole food, whole health, and peace of mind about your food choices there was not ONE brand of pasture fed eggs. You may not know what that means or understand what the difference is, and that is not your fault, it is the FDA's. There are several classifications for eggs and chickens now. All of them sound really good and politically correct unless you are vegan, then they are still a form of the devils plan.

Cage Free, Free Range, Free Roaming.
You have seen the label. Nice happy chickens, not living in cages. Those awful cages that are so small, the same size as a peice of letter paper. They peck each other, need all those hormones and antibiotics. No WAY not for me, cage free is the only way to go... right? Well the only difference between "standard" or battery chicken/egg farming and cage free is that they open the doors. Literally. So all those chickens are still in a warehouse with no daylight, eating poop and other chickens, getting antibiotics (that they really need now because they are walking in feces all day), and hormones out the wazoo.

Images of Free Range chickens (Crunchy Granola Head Warning or CGH Warning)
Egg Industry's History of Deceiving Consumers
Eggs: Good, Bad, Organic or Cheap

This last link has a major error in the "all natural" section. Naturally Raised is now being regulated by the FDA and it can include animals given antibiotics to prohibit parasites, it can include cloned and genetically engineered animal stock, physically altered animals and animals raised in confinement without ever seeing the sun. This is what the United States defines as Naturally Raised food. The only eggs or meat you can get with any assurance is certified organic pasture fed/grass fed animals. It must be BOTH. An organic egg does not necessarily come from a pasture raised chicken.

Then there is the issue of pus in Milk...
If we jump back to milk for a second... Wait, what the hell are you talking about, that is disgusting. Yummy tasty pus. In order to produce more milk modern dairy farms feed cows high protein diets and give them growth hormones. This includes adding foods like soy and BGH shots which increase lactation (milk production). Here is a quote from an article by a dairy farming couple:

Milk production is pushed upwards with a high protein diet, a diet to which the udder responds with the production of pus. The average life span of the modern factory cow has declined to about 42 months. In fact, she is only bred once, then milked for as long as 600 days. After that, she is shipped off to the butcher.
http://www.realmilk.com/real-milk-canada.html (...Real Milk in Canada)

Here is another one from the Weston Price Foundation:

According to the Humane Farming Association, The FDA admits that BGH injections increase sickness and drug use in dairy cows. Consumer's Union reports that because of increased udder infections, it is more likely that milk from treated cows will be of lower quality--containing more pus and bacteria--than milk from untreated cows."
http://www.westonaprice.org/transition/dairy.html (Does a Body Good?)

One last one for you from the Campaign for Real Milk:

Raw milk sours naturally but pasteurized milk turns putrid; processors must remove slime and pus from pasteurized milk by a process of centrifugal clarification. Inspection of dairy herds for disease is not required for pasteurized milk. Pasteurization was instituted in the 1920s to combat TB, infant diarrhea, undulant fever and other diseases caused by poor animal nutrition and dirty production methods. http://www.realmilk.com/what.html (What is Real Milk)

Well... I think that this is all the energy I can muster on this one for now. Course I have not even touched on the fact that we, nor anyone we know, can afford to eat right and pay the prices for pasture raised organic foods. I will talk about that one next time...

Measles is good for you?

2009-04-21T10:47:00.024-04:00

So I got this magazine today in the mail called "Health Keepers." I have no idea how they found me, since I already mentioned that I am not a crunchy granola head type. The address does say "or Current Resident" so maybe they did not send it to me, per se.

GUESS WHAT THEY SAY (you're excited too, right?)

Headline: Measles may Protect Kids from Allergies.

THAT'S RIGHT, you read correctly -- protect them from allergies.

The article appears in Health Keepers Magazine Volume 11, Issue 1. There are current studies in Europe... OF COURSE... because the US cannot be bothered by anything that could affect the bottom line of lobbyists. The study compares children who received the vaccine with children who have not and then with children who had not been vaccinated but also had a bout of Measles. The children who were vaccinated had more allergies, in this case nasal allergies.

This study appears in the medical journal "Pediatrics." You need to subscribe to Health Keepers and/or Pediatrics in order to view the article and study but you can view a related article from Reuters here and an abstract of the study on Pediatrics here.

Now I know that the topic of vaccines is a hot one, as it should be. This issue has volatile written all over it because of a number of reasons. Vaccines should be good for us and when you think about this it makes sense. After all vaccines were designed to mimic the bodies mechanisms in resisting disease and producing antibodies. They just felt that we should not get the disease in order to get the antibodies… who wants to get the measles? Not me, right? But you know what if I have the choice of the measles or auto-immune disorders, allergies, diabetes, autism and a number of other illnesses I will take measles. But that is the problem, you do NOT have a choice.

In New Jersey there are mandatory vaccines for thirteen different illnesses, which means that children get thirty-five doses, including booster shots, of vaccines in the lovely Garden State. That is more vaccines than any other state or country in the world! You know that line is so important I am going to repeat it for those of you who did not hear it properly. That is more vaccines than any other state or country in the world! Do you know what else we have more of than any other state or country in the world? I bet you do… Come on… it begins with an “A.”

AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER

That is right. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself at NJ Vaccine Choice. This site is a desperate attempt by New Jersey parents to stop this violation of civil rights and return our children's health back to parents. To stop the local government from forcibly making our children inject something which is bad for them. Do you even know how MAJOR a civil rights violation this issue is? Think about it for a minute...

Can the government require that you take medication? No.
Can the government require that you take birth control? No.
Can the government require that you inject a toxic substance? No.
Can the government require that you take a vaccine? No, unless you' re under 18.

Still don't see the civil rights issue?

How about now?

Now do not get me wrong. I am all for vaccines, if they work and are safe. Someone said to me the other day "Well I am pro-vaccine so..." What a F%$#&ING STUPID statement. Like that means I am pro-childhood-diseases-that-kill? I am not against vaccines. I am against that there is no regulation, no proper clinical testing, toxic ingredients, heavy metal ingredients and mandatory vaccines for things like the flu or chicken-pox.

Lets take a look at Chicken Pox:
Most deaths related to chicken pox occur in adults or young adults over the age of 20. Most material I have read indicates that there are more problems from the vaccine complications than the disease itself. And there is no guarantee that you will not catch the illness. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) states that 20% of children who have been vaccinated will get chicken pox anyway. You can check out the facts for yourself if you do not believe me. This article, Chickenpox Party: Developing Natural Varicella Immunity, from Mothering magazine has a good bibliography listing of 35 references. There are many doctors and health care providers that oppose the Chicken pox vaccine.

In Illinois, Fran Eaton, the sole dissenting member of the immunization advisory committee, put it: "Chickenpox is not running rampant in our state. Save . . . the mandates for emergency, life-threatening crises."

How about the "Flu," everyone gets that...
There is considerable evidence that adults who get regular flu shots have a SIGNIFICANTLY higher risk of Alzheimer's Disease. There is also the fact that most people who get influenza have been vaccinated. So why take the risks. Where is the proof? What proof ...that they work? That they don't work? That they cause problems? That they are implicated in a multitude of illnesses... Here are some more sources.

Now we are REQUIRED BY LAW to vaccinate our preschoolers and school age kids against supposedly rampant strains of influenza, annually, the strains that plague the United States decimating our young and elderly populations yearly. You have seen the bodies haven't you?

Have you actually ever had the influenza virus?
No, you probably haven't. That coughing fit, stuffy nose "flu," that you called it, is not an influenza virus... but a seasonal virus that people get all the time. It clears up in a week and you are fine. The REAL flu is influenza. This can effect you for weeks, generally 2 weeks, before you get over it. For more information see the Wikipedia entry. Unfortunately most of the information you find is clearly influenced by the pharmaceutical companies.

Back to Tin Foil...
Well not really tin foil but aluminum. Did you know that aluminum is a heavy metal? I didn't. Yeah... you know like lead, mercury and arsenic (bet you didn't even know arsenic was a metal). Here is a partial list of household items that contain aluminum:

aluminum foil, antacids, aspirin, baking powder, beer, bleached flour, cheese, cigarette filters, color additives, cookware, cosmetics, dental amalgams, deodorants, drinking water, drying agents, dust, insulated wiring, milk products, nasal spray, pesticides, salt, tap water, tobacco smoke, toothpaste, treated water, vanilla powder.

So what? Wait I am eating tin foil?
Yes, aluminum is in a lot of items we eat daily. It is also not required to be listed on any ingredient listings for food. But back to vaccines. Why does it matter that aluminum salts are in my kids vaccines? Well if you have the time take a look at what Dr. Sears thinks in his article: Aluminum, the new Thimerosal? But if you do not have time let me sum it up for you:

Hospitals use intravenous products for feeding and other needs when you are in the hospital. It is well documented that the aluminum in these products can be lethal for neonates (babies) and adults with poor kidney function. There is information on the FDA site and the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) which states that you should not receive more than 4 to 5 mcg (micrograms) of aluminum per kilogram of body weight.

An adult without kidney problems may have toxic levels of aluminum in their system if they receive more than 500 mcg. That is you, me or anybody with normal kidney functions. BUT what is this... vaccines have about 200 - 625 mcg PER SHOT. What does that mean for your 6 month old? Well what does that mean? Lets do the math shall we... Next time the doctor comes into the exam room with a handful of needles and says "Okay, here are todays vaccines," count the shots. When this happened to me my son was 3 months and they came in with 7 vaccines. SEVEN vaccines at once... for a 3 month old. Aside from the fact that if he had an allergic reaction to something we would not even know what it was, there is the aluminum tally in these shots. Lets take the lowest number of micrograms, for arguments sake, and tally it that way.

200 mcg per shot, exclude the rotovirus (THAT WAS RECALLED), and go with the six injectable vials. 200 mcg times 6 vaccines is a whopping 1200 mcg of aluminum at once. Okay lets back track... and I will just write it again so you do not have to scroll back up... How many mcg were safe for a normal adult? Do you remember? You are currently being quizzed and I expect your answers... 500 mcg for an adult like you or I. So that means that we are just throwing out that 4-5 mcg per kilogram of body weight out the window now because... well because... why?

So WTF do you do?
I do not know. But I do know that I do not want my kids to have anymore until these problems are addressed and accepted by the majority of the medical community.

Lead in my raincoat?

2009-04-20T12:42:00.004-04:00

So I recently got on a email list for an all natural pet store... I have no idea how they got my email address. I do not care about organic pets or natural fiber sweaters for my nonexistent schnauzer. But I skimmed it before throwing it in my trash folder...

The article touched on the melamine products that had been found in the foods from China and the number of deaths from the food. However the newsletter also talked about PVC and Vinyl pet toys and the dangers. Dangers? In pet toys?

Well yes actually, lead had been found in some toys. Now I like my cats. A lot. A whole lot. However if I cannot eat something or go out on the weekend why would I buy them something I cannot afford for me? But I also understand that some people will give their pets better food, toys and clothing (oxymoron) than they will give themselves or their children. So some pet fanatic actually tested their dog toys for lead... and found some. After a bit more investigation I learned that 1 in 3 household toys, for children and not dogs, has excessive lead in it.

Now lets be clear... about what most people do not generally know - because who the hell tells you? Lead is illegal in children's products manufactured in the United States. This does not mean that there is no lead in your toys or that only toys from China have lead in them. In fact most of our toys are made in China and the percent of contaminated toys is equal that of the toys we get from other countries as well. It just looks like China is to blame because so many toys come from there. Don’t be fooled, manufacturer’s all over the world see lead ingredients as an opportunity to enrich our children’s lives.

In the U.S. anything over 500pbm (parts per billion) needs to be removed from the shelves. The product is only considered toxic if it is over 500pbm. That means that the Hanna Montana charm set you just purchased for your pre-teen is technically safe... with 450-480pbm of lead in the paint. Did you know that? Because I didn't...

Take a look at the following resources if you need more information.

These sources are independent organizations that test toys at their own expense to verify lead content and a number of other chemicals that our kids absorb through the skin, inhalation, and through the mouth. The CEH offers toy screening for the public (in CA) and has a schedule on the site.

Get to the Raincoat already...
So how do we arrive at the raincoat? Well. My eco-pet newsletter had a link in it for the toys which also had a list of recalled lunchboxes. They were vinyl lunchboxes that had high levels of lead in the liners.

We think lead... we think paint. That is not the case.

I had gone to BJ's Wholesale Club and purchased a raincoat for my daughter. Easy. Simple. Cute. Pink flowers and stuff. It smelled like a factory when I opened the bag. I actually aired it out because it was so strong. But that is not really the point. I read up on these lunch boxes and decided to check the coat after reading some blogs, newsletters, information sites and others about lead in our toys... yummy lead. Make you vapid and drool lead...

1 in 3 toys in your house -RIGHT NOW- has excess lead in it. Most lead recalls are prompted by consumers who have tested for it.

"Shut up you alarmist," you may be thinking. And I agree.

The first thing I thought was WTF now I have to worry about this too? I have enough to worry about. This is just a war cry for those dissidents and nutcases who do not want us buying from China. I mean we do not live in an old house with paint chips. And even if we did I do not let the kids lick the wall. In the end I decide I am going to buy lead kits.

I order a lead check test kit from LeadCheck.com and tried it out. The first one is a dud - nooooo problem. Second one is positive. Well that is no big deal I mean it is because the raincoat is pink right? Nope. Third test is also positive. The instructions (clear concise and easy to read) call that lead. The instructions say “If the swab changes color there is lead. The product should be taken away immediately.” Okay, now my daughter is yelling at me because I am a mean mommy and she cannot have her pretty flowers!!!

Who the hell cares?
Apparently no one. I called the following groups, people, departments…

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
New Jersey Department of Health
Mercer County Health Department
Department of Consumer Affairs

The NJ Department of Health even transferred me to another department for that... They decided that the Appellate Division was equipped for this type of problem. The Appellate Division, for those of you who do not know, works with court case appeals just above the Superior Court. Apparently they were the ones to talk to, although the people who picked up at the Appellate Court did not think so.

The EPA said that they only get involved in chemical spills, area disasters and the like. Which makes sense, I mean really this is just a raincoat. The problem is that their number was listed on a contact sheet for lead problems which I found on the Department of Health website. The NJ Department of Health put me on hold 8 times (I am serious) and transferred me 6 times to various departments (not kidding either) and disconnected me from the line twice (not a joke). The Department of Consumer Affairs also disconnected me twice. After making a dozen calls and speaking to no one who cared, knew who I should talk to, or could help me... Finally I got to the number for a local branch of my Department of Health.

I would love to help but...
I spoke to an awesome woman at my local health department who assured me that it was serious and that we should take the coat away. She and I spoke at length about the test I used and the instructions, that I followed properly, we also discussed what to watch for. She indicated that someone would probably need to call me back, she was just the RN they asked to call me back. "Hey can you call the crazy lady with the lead?" We talked for some time and she told me after she consulted with the other people in the department she would get back to me... no later than tomorrow she promised.

She promptly called back later that afternoon to let me know that she was informed that the department only got involved if there was a case of lead poisoning, since my daughter was not hospitalized or suffering symptoms they did not provide services. So she could not do anything unless my daughter was sick enough to warrant their help, I see. That makes sense. She recommended I try consumer affairs again.

The third call to consumer affairs landed me a "customer service style" conversation with someone about the “supposed” lead in the product. She first indicated that the tests I used were probably faulty. Then she told me that I probably performed the tests wrong. She then preceded to explain that the faulty tests I used improperly probably just detected the lead that was already in the product but was at a safe level... so which is it?

When we get to it...
Another thing that shocked me was that the statement "If we decide to investigate" was used 5 times in our conversation. When I asked the representative to clarify what "if we decide to investigate" actually meant she told me they “might” investigate the report. She did not specify what criteria needed to be met in order to be investigated or what the likelihood of having an investigation was. She told me I should probably take it away from my daughter, if I thought there was a problem. I was also told that I could pursue the matter through a private lab to have the coat tested "properly." But in the event the Consumer Affairs did investigate the report they would need to get it from me in order to test it themselves, if they ever got around to investigating that is.

So now what. I have a lead raincoat which has to sit in my house in case someone decides to investigate that my daughter was exposed to lead.

That is just awesome.

Soy Formula

2009-04-19T15:42:00.009-04:00

I have, as previously mentioned, a son. He is currently six months old and was diagnosed with "colic" when he was younger. For those of you who do not know what that means, it is basically "really upset baby." No... it is not hereditary, thank you. The idea is that the medical profession does not know what causes colic since it is a "spectrum" illness or disorder, which basically boils down to the doctor not being able to tell you why it is happening and not being able to help you stop your child from screaming for around 3-4 hours a day.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Baby colic (also known as infant colic, three-month colic, and infantile colic) is a condition in which an otherwise healthy baby cries or screams frequently and for extended periods without any discernible reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic

My husband and I learned, through trial and error, that our son was allergic to milk and suffered from acid reflux. To remedy this he had to sleep, and basically do everything, sitting up. We could not lie him on his back, or he would vomit. He would also scream and scream if he (or I) had anything with milk in it.

Now, I am not going to start a rant (in this post, at least) about breastfeeding. I am only going to state that I breastfed/feed both of my children. When I brought the milk issue to the attention of my son's first pediatrician it was recommended that I stop breastfeeding and go to formula. I could use milk-based, soy-based or the hypoallergenic kind (if I found that it helped).

EXCUSE ME?

I'm sorry, I think I am having trouble hearing you because my son is screaming so loudly. Did you say I should feed him milk-based formula because he is allergic to milk? Oh... there is a hypoallergenic formula and that one does not contain cow's milk? Oh wait, you are saying it does have cow milk and also lactose? Can we back track here? I am confused. Oh... okay, I can give him soy-based formula. That makes sense. Here are some headlines:

Vegan parents jailed... Infant starves on Soy milk. SEXY!
Israeli Health notice, Children under 18 should not eat Soy.
Soy Infant Formulas Deficient in Amino Acids.
Soy Formula Kills Three Babies, Remedia Recalled. REALLY SEXY!

Here are some actual facts about soy formula that you may not know. These are set forth in several studies that (SURPRISE) the infant formula companies do not want you to see. Well, that might be a bit harsh -- maybe they'll just ask you if you believe in aliens or if you really like tin foil if you ask about them.

It affects hormone levels estrogen and testosterone
It affects thyroid function
It increases the risk of behavioral problems
It contains natural estrogen, similar to taking 5 birth control pills a day
It contains high concentrations of aluminum and manganese

When I told the doctor I was concerned about the phyto-estrogens, that is phyto (plant) estrogens (hormones), and wanted to know if she had any information on the effects of soy formula, she told me it should not affect infants that much. Now, I have always said that "I do not know" is an acceptable answer as long as it is then followed by, "Let's find out." However, it is clear to me that she had ABSOLUTELY NO information on this at all. So, now we have changed to a new doctor who, by the way, shook his head sadly when I explained that the previous office conglomerate had recommended that I stop breast feeding instead of simply avoiding dairy products myself. But now I am worried about the soy exposure my daughter has had.

Being somewhat health conscious, at least in regard to our kids, we thought that soy would be a good alternative to cow's milk since she got a lot of gas and bloating with dairy. And there are, after all, those helpful labels on the Silk package that make your shopping choices healthier. If you are not familiar with them, take a look at the Silk Website. Panacea right? AWESOME. But those natural isoflavones are the problem. They cause health PROBLEMS, not health benefits. The American Heart Association has retracted its statement that soy protein is good for your heart. However, the FDA decided that the American Heart Association didn't really mean it and, in OUR best interest, has allowed that statement to be printed on soy foods. The only positive aspect of that entire situation is that now companies flaunt that they are using soy in their products and it can make it easier to spot soy in the ingredients. Companies used to, and still do, hide it in the ingredients under names like textured protein, lecithin, isolate and vegetable oil.

If you have a concern about soy, if you think soy is awesome and that I am nuts, or if you have no idea that soy is contained in anything other than tofu and soy milk you need to see these sites:

This page, the Soy Alert has an index at the bottom containing dozens of resources for more information on health relating to soy. There are studies, articles, activism and other interesting things. Please take a look at it for more information.

The stuff is in EVERYTHING. And it is so bad for you. We had no idea until we tried to purchase goods without soy in them. You cannot buy prepackaged goods without soy in them. They do not exist. Out of 15 varieties of mayonnaise and 7 brands, all used soy. It is even in PEANUT BUTTER. Jif and Skippy both contain it for filler oils. You get it in inks and in cardboard, in candles and in foods. However, did you know that most farmers cannot use more than 10% of soy in their feeds... why is that?

No more than 10% Soy in Feed?
It is a healthy and safe food, isn't it? Not really. The first thing I did after reading the links above was dismiss the situation and assume they were nutcases that suffered from overweening tin foil fetishes. I mean really, come on already. And I suppose the kids have lead in their toys, too...

There is a list of studies on the FDA website, in their -wait for it- POISONOUS PLANT DATABASE related to soy, or soya as it tends to be called in scientific circles. There are more than 200 studies dating back to the 1950s on soy and the problems it causes when used in animal husbandry. But -- people are not cows (silly), or chickens, or pigs, or horses, or goats... I mean, we are mammals... only the chicken isn't a mammal... Does the chicken count? Are we splitting hairs here? Farmers know that they cannot feed soy to their livestock because it causes numerous health problems, so they have found a solution: They are going to feed it to YOU.

Eat up, folks!

This is my first blog.

2009-04-18T14:46:00.006-04:00

This is my first blog posting to this site. I have no idea if I am going to keep up with this, if anyone is even interested, or if it is worth the time spent on it. So here we go anyway...

As mentioned, in my comments about this blog, I have a daughter [currently 3y] and a son [currently 6m] and since I have become a parent I have had my head turned backwards and inside out on just about anything and everything. I am so sick and tired of everyone and everything I could scream. I am furious about so many things and there seems to be no recourse. I can try and give you a list of items to start with:

Vaccines
Plastics
Hormones
Food Additives
Endocrine Disruptors
Education
Physical Health
Behavioral Health
and finally Taxes

Each and everyone of these items has become a daily issues and moved to the forefront of our lives. So, what is an angry mom to do? I do not know either. Someone said to me the other day "If you thought about all that you would go crazy, I just don't think about it anymore." Well see I have a problem with that statement... Lets parse it shall we?

If you thought about all that you would go crazy,
I do feel like I am going crazy sometimes. One of the main reasons I feel I am going crazy is because a lot of information out there proves that most of this stuff is toxic to us and that infants and children are more susceptible than most... but we cram this stuff down their throats without a second though. If you say ANYTHING about it you are a left wing dissident who just wants to cause problems, you are uneducated and trying to cause problems or you are just a nutcase and you are trying to cause problems. See a pattern here? I am not a tree hugger, not famous or rich, not a vegan activist. I am not going to tie myself to a bulldozer because they are going to take down a cool building. I do not spend 80$ per ones-e just to make sure that it is organically grown cotton fiber spun by Indonesian virgins. I do not wear tin foil on my head to keep the alien rays from getting in my brain. I am a normal everyday person who is trying to hack it in real life.

I just don't think about it anymore.
I cannot do this. Just because I stop thinking about ethyl-mercury does not make them remove it from my kid's vaccines. Every where I turn I see that ethyl-mercury, although not "officially" mercury, is deadly to most animals, plants and fish but it is apparently not to human infants and children. There is also the issue of aluminum which, most people do not know, is also a heavy metal. Then there is the fact that we gave my daughter soy milk after she turned one because milk disagreed with her. There are kids going through puberty at the age of 4 and 5 years old because of the plant estrogen. There are boys not going through puberty at all and they say this stuff is SAFE FOR YOU?

Well studies show...
Lets take a look for a moment on WHO does those studies? During the bulk of the BPA issues there were over 100 studies reviewed. Of the studies performed by the plastics industry (that by the way is the people who make the BPA) not one of their studies showed any health risks. However most of the studies performed by educational and non-industry groups almost ALL showed health risks. How can this be? Studies in Canada, Great Britain, and Australia also show BPA causes health problems, but well other countries do not have the same safety regulations we do...

Other countries do not have the same safety regulations we do...
You sure are right about that. In other countries they tend to be broader, safer and regulated more thoroughly. But if you want to pretend that our FDA is looking out for you that is fine with me. Just take a look at Vioxx and all the other medicines on the market today. We take more medication, that is PILLS, than ever before and we are sicker than we have ever been. Next time you are not sure what I am talking about and the kids want chicken nuggets for lunch read off the first 5 ingredients on the list. One of the first items will be hydrogenated or partly hydrogenated soybean oil. That is a trans fat people.... now that you have read the listing go back up to the nutrition facts section and tell me what you see under trans fats... I bet your box full'o nuggets it is a huge whopping zero. Well it can't be that bad for you... can it? I mean it is in our food right? I am not going to pretend that I cannot see it anymore. I just need to vent now and again until I figure out how I can help change it.

I need a break now.