Herbicides an insidious enemy of good health POSTED: June 7, 2009
Please help me stop ignorance about herbicides and their effects. The state says you need to die or be in the hospital 25 hours before enforcement, one year in bed doesn't count. You need 10 feral animals to die. I only had five chickens. This problem is invisible. To this day, I have had no recourse but to appeal to the intelligence of the community for a law to control the use of chemical weed killers - possibly limiting use to only those with licenses or permits for any kind of spraying. There are a lot of people out there who think they have arthritis or other health problems who would be surprised that it was caused by checking their mailboxes where herbicides have been sprayed. Look on the Internet for herbicides and death for some good information. Kim Usher Wailuku http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/519464.html
Something very new and exciting-- about test strips that will be the rage! I can hardly wait. I just hope certain corporations don't buy the rights.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac901714h
If you have this illness see your doctor it can be treated with blood thinners or even aspirin works. I am on warfarin.
Red palms, feet and hands turning purple, hard to swallow, swollen joints, pain in organs, can't walk, weakness or anything really strange like miscarriages, strokes or heart attack or just about anything related to your body shutting down.
Hang in there I did-- had a diagnosis, am being treated and survived. If you can catch it quickly there will be less damage to your body.
That guy Don Gerbig at the end of this post is on the State of Hawaii Advisory Committee on Pesticide as an Industry Rep. also he's in the County of Maui Water Supply Board Commission. He wants me to pick weeds. I would if it didn't make me sick. Besides that because of this illness and the effects that it causes I am disabled. It's bad because we really have a fire weed problem ( an invasive species that makes horses and cattle sick if they eat it.)
Everyday we come closer to proving Round-up by Monsanto is causing this condition
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n
and this "Weed killer kills human cells. Study intensifies debate over 'inert' ingredients."
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/roundup-weed-killer-is-toxic-to-human-cells.-study-intensifies-debate-over-inert-ingredients
This is the best I have found explain Antiphospholipid Syndrome
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/333221-overview
Here is a study just out; shows manipulation of data by Monsanto in the study by these scientists. Also says most toxicity is from Roundup.
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
Health is Wealth and GMOs are made for the wealth of the greedy not our Health!
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-16-monsanto-GMO-safety-health/
More good stuff
Pesticide spraying near schools dangerous
Dear Editor: I am upset that the herbicide glyphosate has been sprayed near schools. I was part of the group Citizens Against Pesticide, which got the school to stop using this toxic chemical years ago.
Glyphosate is acutely toxic to people, and it would be toxic for children in small amounts. It has been linked to non-hodgkins lymphoma in studies by Swedish oncologists.
It remains toxic for a long time. Residuals of glyphosate have been found in vegetables planted a year after application.
Weeds are not toxic, and the money for the chemicals could be spent on education -- maybe even about so-called "weeds."
Genie Ogden Madison
FINALLY SOME COMMON SENSE
on April 21, 2009 at 9:50 pm | ReplyK. Jean Cottam, PhD
What is it about pesticides that they are virtually worshiped? Why do industry’s friends constantly praise these toxic poisons, some of which–herbicides–were created for use on the battlefield as defoliants and caused irreparable health harm both to soldiers on both sides as well as several generations of Vietnamese? Why is it assumed that independent professionals are misguided activists, while the self-interested pesticide promoters are the bearers of real truth and wisdom? So science and common sense were supposedly pushed aside by the Ontario ban’s scare tactics and emotion?
What kind of “science” are we talking about? The kind of science that exonerates every pesticide–the kind of science that amounts to nothing more than a primitive, self-interested religion! As to Dean M. Stanbridge of Milton, obviously with strong ties to the chemical industry, it is not surprising that he took a strong exception to the Ontario ban. It speaks volumes–not in his favour–that he was honored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Bush. I happen to be honorary Canadian observer on the Pesticide Working Group based in Washington, D.C. and do know that under Bush it were politicians who called the shots at the EPA, rather than scientists. The EPA was altogether too friendly with the industry at that time, similarly to the predicament of Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency today. How dare the attackers of independent science call it hearsay and rhetoric. It is up to members of this industry to smarten up, adjust and prosper! To say that public health in Ontario will deteriorate because of the ban is to perversely call white “black”. The vast majority of the so-called “traditional” pesticides didn’t exist prior to WWII when lawns were maintained in an appropriate condition using non-toxic methods of lawn maintenance on the basis of healthy soil, currently neglected. The doomsday scenario presented by spokesmen for the industry has no basis in fact and previous experience.
Interestingly enough, Jason Flint, the author of the recent letter from Health Canada’s PMRA to Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, is former General Manager, the Industrial Biotechnogy Association of Canada (IBAC), which illustrates the “cosy” relationship between Health Canada and the industry, with senior employees “commuting” between federal government and industry.
The Ontario ban has nothing to do with political correctness, but everything to do with the Ontario government being compelled to step into the regulatory void at the federal level, in order to protects Ontario citizens against unwarranted cancer risk, endocrine disruption, neurological disorders, neurodevelopment problems and damage to immune and reproductive systems linked to the unnecessary exposures to pesticides.
What is this supposedly science-based regulation that is being promoted? This is nothing but making the interests of the industry paramount regardless of their impact on public health in Ontario, especially the health of young children whose life expectancy due to their unnecessary toxic exposures is estimated to be shorter than that of the older generations.
A comparison between exposures to the danger of leaking car fluids and the inhalation of pesticide residues by the general public, especially young children, is entirely inappropriate.
http://www.flora.org/healthyottawa/
International observer takes issue with Monsanto
Canadian observer on U.S. Pesticide Working Group says chemical glyphosate is plenty to be worried about
Posted By K. Jean Cottam, PhD
Posted 1 month ago
Re: Safety of 'Roundup' brand herbicides, by Donna R. Farmer, PhD, Monsanto Company in St. Louis, Missouri, published in Mid-North Monitor on October 28, 2009.
I am honorary Canadian observer on the U.S. Pesticide Working Group. The glyphosate-based, widely applied herbicide Roundup has become controversial, with independent individuals and organizations urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to discontinue its registration, as new evidence suggests that this herbicide poses unreasonable risk to human and environmental health.
For example, Dr. Warren Porter, professor of Zoology and Environmental Toxicology at University of Wisconsin at Madison, maintains that when humans are exposed to very low doses of this chemical these doses "interfere with the natural biological functions of the body, so you get effects down at the low doses that you never see at high doses."
He explains that the subtle, low-level effects fall within the parts per billion and even parts per trillion ranges. (Herbicide application at Madison schools stirs controversy, published on madison.com, July 13, 2009.)
Porter refers to a number of studies dating back to 1983 that he has been collecting, according to which the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, has many harmful effects. He cites the earliest paper which argues that "glyphosate can decrease the liver's defensive enzymes, which are crucial for fighting off the effects of toxins."
According to a 2005 study, "Glyphosate changes the concentration of a key enzyme called aromatase in placental cells and could have the effect of masculinizing a female fetus," as has been demonstrated in reference to monkeys.
He explains that "the masculinization of the female fetus is important to curb, because as many as 10 percent of women in the U.S. now have the syndrome...which can interfere with ovulation." He writes that the chemical's residues can linger as long as 335 days following the application in some soils.
An article in Environmental Health News by C. Gasniera et al, entitled Popular herbicide more deadly to liver cells than its active chemical alone, 2009.06.06, claims that very low doses of Roundup can disrupt human liver's cell function, thus attributing the toxicity especially to the so-called "inactive" ingredients.
French scientists report that a number of Roundup "inert" formulations tested at very dilute concentrations demonstrated the ability to alter hormone actions and cause human liver cells to die within 24 hours of exposure. The ingredients responsible for the increased potency of Roundup formulations were not identified, as they remain a trade secret.
http://www.midnorthmonitor.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2160916
Here is a fact sheet
http://www.pesticide.org/glyphosate.pdf
one more tidbit
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:bTCb5DoVHSkJ:www.organicfqhresearch.org/downloads/newsletter/OFQNjune2005.pdf+ADVISORY+COMMITTEE+ON+PESTICIDES+hawaii&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbSlUqw2vDfN3A7ZKr_PJPKX99GWHw
Questions abound.
http://boxer.senate.gov/news/pesticidereport.pdf
Unbelievable! You have to go to these news articles that came out today. Just shows how wrong somethings are.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/25-7
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2009-12-14-monsanto-practices_N.htm
from © 2007 by Linda Moulton Howe
[ Editor's Note: An herbicide is a pesticide used to kill unwanted plants or weeds. Selective herbicides kill specific targets while leaving the desired crop relatively unharmed, such as Roundup herbicide manufactured by Monsanto, which is used on genetically modified crops such as corn and soy. The idea is that the sprayed herbicide will kill the weeds, but not the genetically modified crop. However, a new problem is the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds to which farmers must apply more and more toxins.]
Now, you have the increased use of herbicides as a result of herbicide-tolerant crops. About 80% of the crops genetically engineered are designed not to die when sprayed with herbicide. This results in a much higher amount of herbicide use. In the first 9 years, it was about 138 million pound increase in the use of herbicides in the U. S. By 2004, it was estimated there was about 86% more herbicides sprayed on RoundUp-ready soy acres than on non-GM soy acres. What this means is that it changes the whole soil composition, increases the residues in the food, increases fungus in the soil and changes the whole ecosystem in ways that might be very dangerous. In fact, it might get into the ground water and we might be drinking the herbicide.
5 days ago | Delete
Bayer Admits GMO Contamination is Out of Control
Greenpeace International, Dec 8, 2009
Straight to the Source
EXTRACT: Bayer has admitted it has been unable to control the spread of its genetically-engineered organisms despite 'the best practices [to stop contamination]'(1). It shows that all outdoors field trials or commercial growing of GE crops must be stopped before our crops are irreversibly contaminated.
---
---
$2 million US dollar verdict against Bayer confirms company's liability for an uncontrollable technology
Greenpeace welcomes the United States federal jury ruling on 4 December 2009 that Bayer CropScience LP must pay $2 million US dollars to two Missouri farmers after their rice crop was contaminated with an experimental variety of rice that the company was testing in 2006.
This verdict confirms that the responsibility for the consequences of GE (genetic engineering) contamination rests with the company that releases GE crops.
Bayer has admitted it has been unable to control the spread of its genetically-engineered organisms despite 'the best practices [to stop contamination]'(1). It shows that all outdoors field trials or commercial growing of GE crops must be stopped before our crops are irreversibly contaminated.
A report prepared for Greenpeace International concluded that the total costs incurred throughout the world as a result of the contamination are estimated to range from $741 million to $1.285 billion US dollars.(2) The verdict indicates that Bayer is liable for what could turn out to be a large proportion of these costs, as it awards damages in the first two of more than 1,000 currently pending lawsuits. The decision must be used to support all claims for losses incurred by other US farmers whose crops have suffered from GE contamination.
(1) Bayers Defense lawyer, Mark Ferguson as reported in Harris, A. 2009.
Bayer Blamed at Trial for Crops 'Contaminated' by Modified Rice. Bloomberg News 4th November 2009, available at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aT...
(2) E.N. Blue (2007) Risky Business. Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. Report prepared for Greenpeace International, available online athttp://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press....
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 1983 Oct;7(5):451-4.
Effects of acute pesticide poisoning on blood clotting in the rat.
Lox CD.
Male Sprague-Dawley rats were treated with 1 ml of diazinon or malathion, 1750 ppm given orally by gavage. Clotting determinations included the prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, fibrinogen, and coagulation factors II, V, VII, and X, plus the hematocrit and platelet count. The results suggest that insecticides influence the clotting times of rats ingesting these insecticides even after as short a time span as 2 hr.
PMID: 6641583 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6641583
Antiphospholipid syndrome is a life threatening blood clotting disorder. It can have devastating effects if no diagnosis and treatment.
Warning label on Roundup more cautious about use
POSTED: June 30, 2009
Attention Monsanto: Your unofficial spokesman in Lahaina is advising Hawaii residents that "drinking Roundup (is) less toxic than eating salt" (Letters, June 25). I was not aware that Monsanto was advocating the drinking of Roundup - even in the standard 0.0062 concentration with water.
In fact, from reading the warning label for Roundup posted on the Monsanto Web site, I am advised to avoid contact of the chemical with eyes or skin and to avoid breathing the vapor. I am further advised to "wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or using the toilet." I am also told to even discard clothing that becomes heavily contaminated with the chemical and to always wear chemical-resistant gloves when handling Roundup.
I see nothing that indicates that ingesting Roundup is a good idea. Your "spokesman" does not cite any scientific studies in support of his suggestion.
I agree with the statement that chlorine bleach can also be dangerous, due primarily to its alkaline properties. But in the proper concentration (0.00026), it can and is used to purify untreated water for drinking. Water purification is not listed as an approved use for Roundup.
Monsanto lawyers may want to review the "drinking Roundup" letter. I am sure that plaintiffs' attorneys around the country will be reviewing the letter and using it in support of their claims. You may also want to consider limiting the list of people who are authorized to speak on your behalf.
For the rest of us, we will continue to rely on the dire warnings contained on the Roundup label. For many of us, that means that we will avoid using Roundup altogether.
Richard Lucas
Haiku
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/520432.html
Drinking Roundup less toxic than eating salt
POSTED: June 25, 2009
Lately, we have seen letters on how terrible it is to use herbicides, or "toxic herbicides," etc. This is just another tactic to remove all pesticides from the marketplace by scaring everyone.
If you are going to talk toxicity, then let's see some numbers with the application rates. Frequently used Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide in its pure form has is the same oral toxicity as table salt.
When the normal 40 percent concentrate product is used at the rate of two ounces per gallon of water, we end up with 0.0062 ounce of pure Roundup in the gallon of spray mix. Could you even taste this much table salt in a gallon of water, and would it cause cancer, blemishes or some other toxic effect on your body? I think not. Household bleach is more toxic and dangerous.
More environmental scare tactics. If a person does not want the county to use herbicides, then why not volunteer to do hand-weeding on the roadsides and in the parks. Or come and weed the garden spurge out of my paspalum lawn.
Don Gerbig
Lahaina
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/520200.html
I am adding this on July 3, 2010
Because this must be said!
no drug has been approved for the treatment of autism, drugs are routinely prescribed off-label to treat
autistic children,
***********
Psychiatric Drugging of Infants and Toddlers in the US -
Part I,
******
PartII Of all the harmful actions of modern psychiatry, "the mass diagnosing and drugging of children is
the most appalling with the most serious consequences for the future of individual lives and for society,"
warns the world-renowned expert, Dr Peter Breggin, often referred to as the "Conscience of Psychiatry."
"We're bringing up a generation in this country in which you either sit down, shut up and do what you're
told, or you get diagnosed and drugged," he points out.
*******
Devastating Disorder
Tardive dyskinesia is one of the most devastating of all drug-induced movement disorders, according to Dr Peter Breggin, author of about twenty books, including "Medication Madness."
"The abnormal movements or spasms can strike any of the muscles that are under voluntary control, including
muscles of the face, eyes, mouth, tongue, neck, shoulders, arms, legs, hands, and feet," he says.
"Breathing, speaking, and swallowing can also be impaired."
"Tardive dyskinesia often looks so "strange" or "bizarre" that it is mistaken for a mental illness rather
than a neurological disorder," he notes.
Reglan can also cause uncontrolled muscle spasms (dystonia), Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome, Parkinsonism, depression, thoughts of suicide, and suicide. Common side effects include feeling restless, sleepy, tired, dizzy, or exhausted, headache, confusion, and trouble sleeping, according to a June 9, 2009, FDA approved medication guide.
Pregnant Women Targeted
Four months after the black box for TD was announced, a New England Journal of Medicine study claimed that Reglan was safe for pregnant women with morning sickness.
The news of the study was sent out to all the media outlets and a massive off-label marketing campaign
followed to promote the sale of Reglan to pregnant women, with journalists publishing almost identical
talking points.
Reporter, Linda Johnson, put out articles through the Associated Press newswire which resulted in headlines
such as, "Study Suggests Drug Is Safe For Morning Sickness," popping up all over the internet and for major
media stories for a couple weeks.
For instance, in a June 10, 2009, article that appeared in USA Today, on Fox and ABC news Websites, and
even in the UK's Guardian on June 12, 2009, Johnson wrote: "For the first time, a large study shows that
pregnant women who suffer morning sickness are not risking harm to their babies if they take a certain
anti-nausea drug."
"The result may lead more doctors to prescribe the drug metoclopramide and women to feel less guilty about
using it during their baby's crucial first few months of development, experts said," she reported. Johnson
never mentioned the black box for TD in her articles.
The June 10, headline for the same article on the MSNBC Website read: "Morning sickness drug shown safe for babies." On June 11, a Johnson article appeared in the Boston Globe and the same story was in the Durango Herald News as late as June 22.
To begin with, running headlines claiming that Reglan is safe based on the NEJM study was misleading and
irresponsible because the majority of women, 2,502 out of 3,458, only took Reglan for 7 days, or less, in
the first trimester. The average duration of fetal exposure was about a week. Only 164 took the drug for 22
days or more. Plus, the study only looked at harm at birth with no later follow-up on the babies.
There was no mention in the actual study of the black box for TD, or any other adverse effects, that could
harm the mom or the fetus. Yet, the Los Angeles Times ran a June 10, story with claims that the "first
study of the anti-nausea drug metoclopramide in pregnant women has found that it is safe for both fetuses
and mothers." The Times failed to mention any side effects but included the main talking point that as
"many as 80% of pregnant women suffer morning sickness in the first trimester."
Huge Customer Base
Over four million women give birth each year in the US, according to the CDC. The study reported that
between 50% and 80% of pregnant women get morning sickness. Those numbers translate into between 2 and 3.2 million new Relgan customers in the US alone, year in and year out.
The women in the NEJM study took three 10mg tablets per day. The current price of Reglan at DrugStore.com is $182 for 100 tablets. Each pregnant woman could buy 2 or 3 months of Reglan for the first trimester, plus the study notes that nausea and vomiting "can continue beyond the first trimester." Two months of the drug at a cost of $364, times 2.5 million women, could potentially ring up $910 million each year.
********
Tracking the American Epidemic of Mental Illness - Part IV
Non-Profit Advocacy Groups
As a main component of the Psychopharmaceutical Industrial Complex, the so-called "patient advocacy"
organizations have become the leading force behind the American epidemic of mental illness over the past
two decades.
Drug makers, and their foundations, funnel millions of dollars to these non-profits every year. In return,
the leaders recruit their members as foot soldiers to carry out the latest marketing campaigns and to
provide a fire-wall so that no money trail can be tracked back to the drug companies.
Gigantic Pyramid
The psychiatric front groups form a gigantic pyramid and once pharmaceutical money enters the system
through a major organization, it gets channeled into a huge spider-web that weaves through many groups,
making it nearly impossible to keep track of where it came from or where it all went. Often, when the grant
reports of the drug companies list a large donation to one organization, the annual reports of the other groups will show smaller gifts from that same organization.
The "charity" groups are exempt from income tax and the "contributions" funneled through them are tax deductible. The money is used for disease mongering campaigns to both market disorders and pressure public health care programs and private insurers to pay for expensive treatments.
"Presenting themselves as patient advocacy groups is highly disingenuous not only to their membership, many
of which may have a sincere desire to help a loved one or a family member with mental problems, but to
legislators, the press and the American public — for they have consistently lobbied for legislation that
benefits the mental health and pharmaceutical industries which fund them, and not patients they claim to
represent," according to Citizens Commission on Human Rights International, a mental health watchdog group.
Money Laundering Operation
Dr Daniel Carlat, author of the Carlat Psychiatry Blog, and the new book, "Unhinged: the Trouble With
Psychiatry," explains that "much of the continuing medical education (CME) industry in the United States is
a legalized money laundering operation," in a June 10, 2008 blog.
"Rather than paying doctors directly to give accredited CME courses (which is illegal), drug companies pay third party companies to create the courses," he says. "The checks are actually written by the education company, but the ultimate source is clearly the sponsoring pharmaceutical company."
The Harvard scandal represents the "perfect storm" of the CME industry money laundering operation, Carlat
reported on his blog.
It’s clear that "the majority of money received by these doctors did not come directly from drug companies, but indirectly from various third party companies," he says. "And this is likely the key to the mystery of why the doctors assumed they could ethically hide these payments."
After going through the list of payments posted in the Congressional Record, Carlat found it appeared that
"the vast majority of the money eventually reported by the Harvard Trio, a combined $4.2 million over 7
years, was drug company money that was laundered and processed to seem like it wasn't drug company money."
"The most glaring example," he says, "comes from Dr. Wilens disclosures."
Grassley posted slightly more than a third of Wilens’ payments ($612,303 out of a total of $1.6 million).
Only $69,915 of this (11%) came directly from drug companies. Most of the money ($542,388) came from
various third party companies, many, possibly all of which, are CME companies, Carlat reports.
“The biggest tool the industry has for off-label promotion is continuing education," says Adriane
Fugh-Berman, an associate professor at Georgetown University Medical Center, involved with a program called PharmedOut, created to educate doctors about the prescribing influences of big drug companies, in the
Star-Ledger on June 6, 2010.
"Physicians have freedom of speech and aren’t under the same constraints as industry employees,” she
explained.
When drugs are prescribed for off-label or unnecessary uses, public health care programs not only have to pay for the drugs, they must also pay the prescribing doctors' fees and the cost of medical care for any injuries caused by the drugs.
Government spending tied to psychiatric drugs has gone through the roof in the past two decades due to the
bilking of public programs. And no doubt as a result, pharma CEOs are earning over the top pay packages. In
2008, the head of J&J pulled in $29.1 million, Abbott Labs' CEO took home $28.3 million, the top dog at Bristol-Myers earned over $23 million, Lilly's CEO pulled down close to $13 million, Pfizer's took home
over $15.5 million, Wyeth's CEO earned nearly $26 million, and Forest Labs' top official was paid more than
$6.5 million, according to the AFL-CIO's "Executive Pay Watch" website.
American Psychiatric Association
Early on in his investigation, Grassley asked the "American Psychiatric Association," for an accounting of
money received from drug companies and foundations created by drug companies. In 2006, the industry
accounted for about 30% of the Association’s $62.5 million in financing, or about $18.75 million, according
to the New York Times.
The 38,000 member APA describes itself as "a national medical specialty society whose physician members
specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and research of mental illnesses."
The outgoing president of the APA is Alan Schatzberg, the same guy whose name appears on the Grassley list.
The "American Psychiatric Foundation," is the charitable and public educational arm of the APA, according
to its website. In 2009, the Foundation's 15 member board of directors included four Vice Presidents from
the drug companies Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and J&J's Janssen Pharmaceutica division.
On its website, the Foundation identifies drug companies that donate but does not give the exact amount. For example, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers, Lilly, Forest, Janssen, and Wyeth are listed as giving "$40,000 and above." However, the few grant reports publicly available show drug companies may be giving more than ten times that amount. Lilly donated $450,000 to the Foundation in 2007, in addition to the $400,000 given to the American Psychiatric Association.
The Foundation also received one grant from Lilly for $241,915 in 2009, and another $20,000 donation to
fund the Foundation's Newsletter. The Foundation received $102,961 from Pfizer, and $205,400 from Wyeth, in 2009, as well.
In the first quarter of 2010, the Foundation received grants from Lilly of $36,000, $10,000 and $18,000.
Pfizer gave the Foundation $20,000 in the first quarter of 2010.
Pfizer's 2008 grant report shows donations of more than $700,000 to the American Psychiatric Association.
Lilly gave the APA grants totaling more than $600,000 in both the first and second quarter of 2008. Wyeth
donated $43,831 in 2008.
Lilly's 2009 report shows the APA received four grants of $154,575, $142,575, $142,575, and $154,575.
Pfizer gave the group $250,000 in 2009.
The American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education (APIRE), is another philanthropic arm of the
APA, established in 1998 "to establish the leadership role of the APA in contributing to the scientific
base of psychiatric practice and policy," with a stated mission to “improve the quality of psychiatric care
through research, education, health policy analysis, and dissemination."
For the March 6, 2010, paper, "Pharmaceutical Philanthropic Shell Games," in Psychiatric Times, Lisa
Cosgrove, PhD and Harold J. Bursztajn, MD, investigated the financial relationships of the APIRE board
members with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture psychiatric drugs and found 9 of the 16 board
members have industry ties.
"The fact that over half of APIRE’s board has financial ties to industry is problematic, and it is
noteworthy that this percentage is a highly conservative estimate," they wrote.
"Current disclosure policies do not require reporting of pooled industry monies (eg, when companies give
large sums of money to academic departments, units, hospitals, and medical schools)—even when direct
benefit, such as salary, may be derived from pooled funds," they point out.
In addition, one board member who reported “no disclosure” in an APA publication "was found to be on the
speakers’ bureau of multiple pharmaceutical companies," they note.
The APA is currently revising psychiatry's billing bible, the DSM-V. "Approximately 68% of the members of
the DSM-V task force reported having industry ties, which represents a relative increase of 20% over the
proportion of DSM-IV task force members with such ties," Cosgrove and Bursztajn report.
"Also, of the 137 DSM-V panel members who have posted disclosure statements, 77 (56%) have reported having industry ties, such as holding stock in pharmaceutical companies, serving as consultants to industry, or
serving on company boards—no improvement over the 56% of DSM-IV members who were found to have such industry relationships," they point out.
The APA also issues "Clinical Practice Guidelines," with recommendations for the use of specific drugs for
mental disorders. "Ninety percent of the authors of 3 major clinical practice guidelines in psychiatry had financial ties to companies that manufacture drugs explicitly or implicitly identified in the guidelines as recommended therapies for the respective mental illnesses," according Cosgrove and Bursztain.
They also found the corporate advisory council of the Foundation "is made up of pharmaceutical companies that contribute significant funding to APF and that manufacture medications recommended in the APA’s CPG."
On June 11, 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that the APA "has seen a $7.5 million decrease in
pharmaceutical industry dollars over the past year – a more than 10% cut in revenue, which funds its
research and education activities."
"The biggest changes at the APA have come at its money making annual meeting," the Journal said. "Over the
past three years it has been phasing out industry sponsored symposia – dinners and talks." This translated
to a loss of $1.8 million to $1.9 million in industry funding between 2008 and 2009, an APA official told
the Journal.
However, according to Martha Rosenberg's coverage of the group's annual meeting in a May 31, 2010, Scoop article, although 200 protestors were chanting "no drugging kids for money," and "no conflicts of
interest," at the convention hall, "polarizing figures" were still present at this year's event.
For instance, she writes: "Sitting next to outgoing APA president Alan F. Schatzberg, MD, even as
protestors chanted outside, was Charles Nemeroff, MD, former psychiatry chairman at Emory University who
was investigated by Congress."
"And a paper presented about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was co-written by Harvard's Joseph Biederman, MD, also investigated by Congress for pharma financial links and considered the father of the pediatric bipolar disorder craze," she reports. "Nemeroff was signing the Textbook of Psychopharmacology which he co-edited with Schatzberg, also investigated by Congress. Schatzberg, psychiatry chairman at Stanford, consults to seven drug companies, owns stock and patents with others and is on Sanofi-Aventis' Speakers Bureau according to the meeting's Daily Bulletin," she wrote.
National Alliance on Mental Illness
Last year, the National Alliance on Mental Illness became the first patient advocacy group to come under
investigation by Grassley's Committee. In a letter to Michael Fitzpatrick, Executive Director of NAMI, in
April 2009, Grassley asked for "an accounting of industry funding that pharmaceutical companies or
foundations established by these companies have provided," to NAMI since January 2005.
"Based upon reporting in the New York Times," Grassley said, "I have come to understand that money from the pharmaceutical industry shapes the practices of non-profit organizations which purport to be independent in their viewpoints and actions." "Specifically, it is alleged that pharmaceutical companies give money to non-profits in an attempt to garner favor in ways that increase sales of their products," he explained.
In a June 2, 2010, commentary titled, "Psychiatric Fads and Overdiagnosis," on the Psychology Today
website, Dr Allen Frances points out that it "is too bad that there is no advocacy group for normality that
could effectively push back against all the forces aligned to expand the reach of mental disorders."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00099.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1004/S00147.htm,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1004/S00167.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1005/S00223.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1006/S00162.htm
Do you feel like we are being poisoned on purpose?
And why is it I am so concerned besides being made so sick from these chemicals?
I was born, bred and fed through the military/industrial/complex through my father's work.
Last month I found out I lived my toddler yrs on the back door of Du Pont's plant in Pompton Lakes, NJ. Soon another toxic super fund clean-up site through the EPA. The flouride was there along with many other chemicals. Check it out.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/effect.pfos.class.news.38.htm
DUPONT claims Teflon is safe. Teflon is made from flouride.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
According to the Mayo doctors:
“Fluoride toxicity can present in an insidious manner, and clinicians may overlook its signs and symptoms. Unless recognized and the source of excessive fluoride identified and discontinued, fluoride toxicity can be both progressive and crippling.”
In yet another study, presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, doctors reported a similar scenario (2c). A 49-year old woman (without kidney disease) developed skeletal fluorosis by drinking too much instant tea made with fluoridated water. As with the above cases, the woman “developed widespread musculoskeletal pains” and was misdiagnosed for years as having fibromylagia and osteoarthritis. According to the authors:
“we surmise that habitual consumption of 3 quarts daily of some regular-strength preparations for more than 10 years, especially if made with fluoridated water, could cause clinically significant skeletal fluorosis.... This fluoride exposure seems possible for many individuals who like instant or bottled teas. In fact, when a 36-year old coworker learned of our index case, she confided drinking 3-4 qts daily of what she described as a triple strength preparation of Nestea dissolved in unfiltered, municipal tap water over the past year... With increasing use of DXA, additional instances of skeletal fluorosis from instant tea will likely be revealed...”
http://www.fluoridealert.org/2007research/02.html
2003 petition to stop flouridation policies
http://www.fluoridealert.org/integrity.htm
DUPONT stratagies to avoid getting caught and put out of business.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/2006/index.2006.html
DuPont Grapples With Legacy of Benlate.
... Legal maneuvering also continues in Hawaii, where plant growers who settled product liability cases against DuPont in 1994 before learning that the company withheld evidence of widespread contamination of Benlate have brought racketeering and fraud charges against DuPont.
... Drawing on its experience in the Benlate cases, DuPont has adopted a more deliberate approach to multiple lawsuits. The company now uses a holistic strategy that attacks litigation by broadening its legal approach to include such factors as the science involved, the cost to the company, and internal and external communications. The new method is expected to influence how DuPont confronts the rest of the Benlate cases and its Teflon litigation.
... "If you look at the company's stance around Benlate, for years they asserted that this doesn't cause any harm ... but yet they've paid $1.9 billion dollars in litigation costs," said Sanford Lewis, an attorney representing DuPont Shareholders for Fair Value, an investors coalition critical of the handling of concerns about PFOA.
.. During the course of the Benlate litigation, at least three judges took the company to task for withholding evidence from plaintiffs. One judge called the practice "willful, deliberate, conscious, purposeful, deceitful, and in bad faith," and DuPont was ordered to pay millions in court sanctions.
Note from FAN Pesticide Project:
Flusilazole (flusilazol), a highly persistent toxic fluorinated pesticide, was an "undisclosed ingredient in some lots of Benlate 50 DF" (1). According to animal studies (2) and allegations by parents exposed to flusilazole (3), this pesticide induces microphthalmia (undersized eyes) and coloboma, a defect in the structure of the eye. Eye defects were some of the major effects of children born to benlate workers in Florida. Flusilazole is made by DuPont.
(1) Hollingsworth J (1995). Fungicide studies offer little comfort. Memo: BURIED SECRETS PURSUING A MEDICAL MYSTERY. December 18. Tampa Tribune (Florida). page 4.
(2) Health Effects
(3) Leaked letter from DuPont Researcher proves DuPont knew pesticide put babies at risk
Where is the outrage! Bees in Hawaii!
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/fipronil.bees.dec.04.2007.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/fipronil.bees.may%2028.2007.html
What is this? "Hydramethylnon" authorized for use in Hawaii 2003-2004
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/fr.nov.26.2003.htm
Hawaii
Department of Agriculture
Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of calcium hydroxide in outdoor
nurseries, commercial plant nurseries, residential areas, resorts and
hotels, parks, forest habitats, and natural areas to control coqui and
greenhouse frogs; April 26, 2005 to April 26, 2008. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/fr.aug.31.2005.html
Using a flouride for pesticide use in Hawaii grown sugar cane
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/msds/trifluralin.label.hfp.4lb.pdf
Boycott Honolulu Magazine for this
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Hawaii/Why-have-fear-mongers-won-an-important-public-health-debate
But I know it’s more common for people to fear their dentists, maybe especially so in Hawaii. We have higher rates of tooth decay than on the Mainland and less than 10 percent of the population has access to fluoridated tap water.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring element found in water and air. If there’s too much of it in the water supply, people wind up with strong, but discolored, teeth. If there’s too little of it, people have soft, cavity-prone teeth. But when you get the level just right—1 part per million, according to the American Dental Hygienists Association—it lowers the risk of dental decay. Since communities started adjusting their fluoride levels in the mid-1940s, Americans have gotten 50 percent to 60 percent fewer cavities.
But despite 60 years of research, despite constant monitoring by groups such as the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization (WHO), there are still fluoride fear-mongers. In Hawaii, they have the upper hand: We are one of only two states that don’t adjust fluoride levels.
Anti-fluoride activists claim that fluoride leads to everything from lowered IQs and dementia to cancer and chronic fatigue. Yet these groups misunderstand or misrepresent the studies they rely on. Take, for example, a 2006 WHO study, which lists horrible disorders stemming from fluoride. But that study looked at excess levels of fluoride, such as those found in people exposed to fluoride from indoor coal burning. They were getting 9.63 milligrams of fluoride per day. Compare that to the daily .07 to 1.2 milligrams for the average American child.
In 2004, the Honolulu City Council voted against adding fluoride to the water, despite protestations from the Hawaii Dental Association, the Academy of Pediatrics and the state Department of Health.
Because we don’t use this inexpensive and effective public-health method, the state Department of Health’s Dental Health Division has to perform triage. According to its 2008 report, it screened more than 6,890 public-school children in grades K-12 statewide for dental problems, referring nearly a quarter of them for treatment of acute problems. And it uses topical fluoride treatments for schoolchildren.
Topical treatments are far more expensive and time-consuming than fluoridating the water. And this is not just about our children’s teeth. Hawaii also has disproportionally high rates of tooth decay in people who can’t afford medical care, and in other vulnerable populations, such as patients in long-term-healthcare facilities.
Tooth decay, the Dental Health Division notes, is “an insidious and progressive disease” which can put people at risk for potentially life-threatening infection.
In Hawaii we have let a vocal minority—well intentioned as they may be—scare lawmakers into making an important health decision that ignores current science.
And Boycott (the Star Advertiser) the Honolulu Advertiser for this.
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Hawaii/Editorial-Don-t-surrender-to-those-who-resist-fluoridation
THE ISSUE: Legislators are rejecting a bill to create a pilot program to fluoridate water in Maui County.
Intimidated by a resilient band of chemophobes, legislators again are thumbing their noses at ending Hawaii's distinctions of being the only state without fluoridated water and having the worst oral health in the country. In the latest round of craziness, a recommendation by a health task force to begin fluoridating water in Maui County received absolutely no support in the Senate Health Committee. The health community should not give up.
"Fluoridation has been shown to be the most effective and least expensive method to decrease dental decay," the Legislature-created Maui Health Initiative Task Force reported. It recommended that "sound public policy" requires fluoridation of all Maui public water supplies, "where practicable."
The task force is in good company. Fluoridation has been endorsed by the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association and their Hawaii chapters, and every recent surgeon general. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention includes fluoridation among the 10 great public-health achievements of the 20th century.
Three dozen people signed a brief statement opposing the Maui bill, saying they want to continue to "prohibit the introduction of (an) unnecessary chemical" into the Molokai, Maui and Lanai drinking water systems.
Fluoride is naturally present in all ground water in amounts ranging up to 0.4 parts per million. The Maui bill would increase those amounts to a whopping 0.7 parts per million, equivalent in length to one inch in 20.8 miles, in time to one minute in 2.6 years and in money to one penny in $13,000, notes the bill's preface.
It points out that more than 170 million Americans -- about 65 percent of the population -- drink fluoridated water. In recent years, two counties in Utah, including Salt Lake County, began drinking fluoridated water, leaving Hawaii the lone state without fluoridation.
Extremists who used to claim that fluoridation was a communist plot now suggest it carries risks of cancer, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease, thyroid problems, Down Syndrome, reduction of fertility and, most recently, brain damage. All have been discredited, according to the ADA.
Another bill, sponsored by House Health Chairman Josh Green, a Big Island physician, would establish a statewide water fluoridation pilot program to be administered by the state Department of Health. It was held over from last year's session and has received the same lack of consideration this year. (Don't vote for this guy)
Legislators have been derelict in allowing Hawaii's children to suffer from the rates of tooth decay that nearly double the national average and are dramatically higher than those of children at military-base schools, whose water is fluoridated. What Green calls "Hawaii's silent epidemic" should receive the treatment is deserves.
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Hawaii/Editorial-Don-t-surrender-to-those-who-resist-fluoridation
Ammo to fight Flouridation of water supply.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/absurdity.htm
Big Island State Senator Josh Green, MD (D) is a jerk and wants flouridation of water.
Google him.
50 reasons not to fluoridate
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm
TheAntiterrorist on poisons for profit. Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG3DkmYRado
TheAntiterrorist on poisons for profit. Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdLkpJkoKCI&feature=related
TheAntiterrorist on poisons for profit. Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxwmI_xFUm0&NR=1
TheAntiterrorist on poisons for profit. Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OpddW0NGQ&feature=related
Today almost all fluoride put into American water systems comes from China.
Aloha Nui
Something very new and exciting-- about test strips that will be the rage! I can hardly wait. I just hope certain corporations don't buy the rights.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac901714h
If you have this illness see your doctor it can be treated with blood thinners or even aspirin works. I am on warfarin.
Red palms, feet and hands turning purple, hard to swallow, swollen joints, pain in organs, can't walk, weakness or anything really strange like miscarriages, strokes or heart attack or just about anything related to your body shutting down.
Hang in there I did-- had a diagnosis, am being treated and survived. If you can catch it quickly there will be less damage to your body.
That guy Don Gerbig at the end of this post is on the State of Hawaii Advisory Committee on Pesticide as an Industry Rep. also he's in the County of Maui Water Supply Board Commission. He wants me to pick weeds. I would if it didn't make me sick. Besides that because of this illness and the effects that it causes I am disabled. It's bad because we really have a fire weed problem ( an invasive species that makes horses and cattle sick if they eat it.)
Everyday we come closer to proving Round-up by Monsanto is causing this condition
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n
and this "Weed killer kills human cells. Study intensifies debate over 'inert' ingredients."
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/roundup-weed-killer-is-toxic-to-human-cells.-study-intensifies-debate-over-inert-ingredients
This is the best I have found explain Antiphospholipid Syndrome
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/333221-overview
Here is a study just out; shows manipulation of data by Monsanto in the study by these scientists. Also says most toxicity is from Roundup.
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
Health is Wealth and GMOs are made for the wealth of the greedy not our Health!
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-16-monsanto-GMO-safety-health/
More good stuff
Pesticide spraying near schools dangerous
Dear Editor: I am upset that the herbicide glyphosate has been sprayed near schools. I was part of the group Citizens Against Pesticide, which got the school to stop using this toxic chemical years ago.
Glyphosate is acutely toxic to people, and it would be toxic for children in small amounts. It has been linked to non-hodgkins lymphoma in studies by Swedish oncologists.
It remains toxic for a long time. Residuals of glyphosate have been found in vegetables planted a year after application.
Weeds are not toxic, and the money for the chemicals could be spent on education -- maybe even about so-called "weeds."
Genie Ogden Madison
FINALLY SOME COMMON SENSE
on April 21, 2009 at 9:50 pm | ReplyK. Jean Cottam, PhD
What is it about pesticides that they are virtually worshiped? Why do industry’s friends constantly praise these toxic poisons, some of which–herbicides–were created for use on the battlefield as defoliants and caused irreparable health harm both to soldiers on both sides as well as several generations of Vietnamese? Why is it assumed that independent professionals are misguided activists, while the self-interested pesticide promoters are the bearers of real truth and wisdom? So science and common sense were supposedly pushed aside by the Ontario ban’s scare tactics and emotion?
What kind of “science” are we talking about? The kind of science that exonerates every pesticide–the kind of science that amounts to nothing more than a primitive, self-interested religion! As to Dean M. Stanbridge of Milton, obviously with strong ties to the chemical industry, it is not surprising that he took a strong exception to the Ontario ban. It speaks volumes–not in his favour–that he was honored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Bush. I happen to be honorary Canadian observer on the Pesticide Working Group based in Washington, D.C. and do know that under Bush it were politicians who called the shots at the EPA, rather than scientists. The EPA was altogether too friendly with the industry at that time, similarly to the predicament of Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency today. How dare the attackers of independent science call it hearsay and rhetoric. It is up to members of this industry to smarten up, adjust and prosper! To say that public health in Ontario will deteriorate because of the ban is to perversely call white “black”. The vast majority of the so-called “traditional” pesticides didn’t exist prior to WWII when lawns were maintained in an appropriate condition using non-toxic methods of lawn maintenance on the basis of healthy soil, currently neglected. The doomsday scenario presented by spokesmen for the industry has no basis in fact and previous experience.
Interestingly enough, Jason Flint, the author of the recent letter from Health Canada’s PMRA to Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, is former General Manager, the Industrial Biotechnogy Association of Canada (IBAC), which illustrates the “cosy” relationship between Health Canada and the industry, with senior employees “commuting” between federal government and industry.
The Ontario ban has nothing to do with political correctness, but everything to do with the Ontario government being compelled to step into the regulatory void at the federal level, in order to protects Ontario citizens against unwarranted cancer risk, endocrine disruption, neurological disorders, neurodevelopment problems and damage to immune and reproductive systems linked to the unnecessary exposures to pesticides.
What is this supposedly science-based regulation that is being promoted? This is nothing but making the interests of the industry paramount regardless of their impact on public health in Ontario, especially the health of young children whose life expectancy due to their unnecessary toxic exposures is estimated to be shorter than that of the older generations.
A comparison between exposures to the danger of leaking car fluids and the inhalation of pesticide residues by the general public, especially young children, is entirely inappropriate.
http://www.flora.org/healthyottawa/
International observer takes issue with Monsanto
Canadian observer on U.S. Pesticide Working Group says chemical glyphosate is plenty to be worried about
Posted By K. Jean Cottam, PhD
Posted 1 month ago
Re: Safety of 'Roundup' brand herbicides, by Donna R. Farmer, PhD, Monsanto Company in St. Louis, Missouri, published in Mid-North Monitor on October 28, 2009.
I am honorary Canadian observer on the U.S. Pesticide Working Group. The glyphosate-based, widely applied herbicide Roundup has become controversial, with independent individuals and organizations urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to discontinue its registration, as new evidence suggests that this herbicide poses unreasonable risk to human and environmental health.
For example, Dr. Warren Porter, professor of Zoology and Environmental Toxicology at University of Wisconsin at Madison, maintains that when humans are exposed to very low doses of this chemical these doses "interfere with the natural biological functions of the body, so you get effects down at the low doses that you never see at high doses."
He explains that the subtle, low-level effects fall within the parts per billion and even parts per trillion ranges. (Herbicide application at Madison schools stirs controversy, published on madison.com, July 13, 2009.)
Porter refers to a number of studies dating back to 1983 that he has been collecting, according to which the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, has many harmful effects. He cites the earliest paper which argues that "glyphosate can decrease the liver's defensive enzymes, which are crucial for fighting off the effects of toxins."
According to a 2005 study, "Glyphosate changes the concentration of a key enzyme called aromatase in placental cells and could have the effect of masculinizing a female fetus," as has been demonstrated in reference to monkeys.
He explains that "the masculinization of the female fetus is important to curb, because as many as 10 percent of women in the U.S. now have the syndrome...which can interfere with ovulation." He writes that the chemical's residues can linger as long as 335 days following the application in some soils.
An article in Environmental Health News by C. Gasniera et al, entitled Popular herbicide more deadly to liver cells than its active chemical alone, 2009.06.06, claims that very low doses of Roundup can disrupt human liver's cell function, thus attributing the toxicity especially to the so-called "inactive" ingredients.
French scientists report that a number of Roundup "inert" formulations tested at very dilute concentrations demonstrated the ability to alter hormone actions and cause human liver cells to die within 24 hours of exposure. The ingredients responsible for the increased potency of Roundup formulations were not identified, as they remain a trade secret.
http://www.midnorthmonitor.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2160916
Here is a fact sheet
http://www.pesticide.org/glyphosate.pdf
one more tidbit
US: Roundup Twice as Toxic as Glyphosate
An editorial in the latest issue of the peer reviewed scientific Journal Environmental HealthPerspectives has commented on the important issue of testing the whole product due to a studythat shows that both glyphosate and Roundup severely damage placental cells. The journaleditorial stated "Roundup was nearly twice as toxic as the single chemical alone. Further, theviability of cells exposed to glyphosate was considerably reduced when even minute dilutions ofRoundup were added." "The study showed that the effect of Roundup on cell viability increasedwith time and was obtained with concentrations of the formulation 10 times lower than thoserecommended for agricultural use. Roundup also disrupted aromatase activity at concentrations100 times lower than those used in agriculture." The editorial stated "Virtually all previoustesting of Roundup for long-term health damage has been done on glyphosate rather than onthe full herbicide formulation, of which glyphosate makes up only around 40%." This studyhighlights the urgent need for product testing rather than only testing a single ingredient.
Questions abound.
http://boxer.senate.gov/news/pesticidereport.pdf
Unbelievable! You have to go to these news articles that came out today. Just shows how wrong somethings are.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/25-7
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2009-12-14-monsanto-practices_N.htm
from © 2007 by Linda Moulton Howe
[ Editor's Note: An herbicide is a pesticide used to kill unwanted plants or weeds. Selective herbicides kill specific targets while leaving the desired crop relatively unharmed, such as Roundup herbicide manufactured by Monsanto, which is used on genetically modified crops such as corn and soy. The idea is that the sprayed herbicide will kill the weeds, but not the genetically modified crop. However, a new problem is the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds to which farmers must apply more and more toxins.]
Now, you have the increased use of herbicides as a result of herbicide-tolerant crops. About 80% of the crops genetically engineered are designed not to die when sprayed with herbicide. This results in a much higher amount of herbicide use. In the first 9 years, it was about 138 million pound increase in the use of herbicides in the U. S. By 2004, it was estimated there was about 86% more herbicides sprayed on RoundUp-ready soy acres than on non-GM soy acres. What this means is that it changes the whole soil composition, increases the residues in the food, increases fungus in the soil and changes the whole ecosystem in ways that might be very dangerous. In fact, it might get into the ground water and we might be drinking the herbicide.
5 days ago | Delete
Bayer Admits GMO Contamination is Out of Control
Greenpeace International, Dec 8, 2009
Straight to the Source
EXTRACT: Bayer has admitted it has been unable to control the spread of its genetically-engineered organisms despite 'the best practices [to stop contamination]'(1). It shows that all outdoors field trials or commercial growing of GE crops must be stopped before our crops are irreversibly contaminated.
---
---
$2 million US dollar verdict against Bayer confirms company's liability for an uncontrollable technology
Greenpeace welcomes the United States federal jury ruling on 4 December 2009 that Bayer CropScience LP must pay $2 million US dollars to two Missouri farmers after their rice crop was contaminated with an experimental variety of rice that the company was testing in 2006.
This verdict confirms that the responsibility for the consequences of GE (genetic engineering) contamination rests with the company that releases GE crops.
Bayer has admitted it has been unable to control the spread of its genetically-engineered organisms despite 'the best practices [to stop contamination]'(1). It shows that all outdoors field trials or commercial growing of GE crops must be stopped before our crops are irreversibly contaminated.
A report prepared for Greenpeace International concluded that the total costs incurred throughout the world as a result of the contamination are estimated to range from $741 million to $1.285 billion US dollars.(2) The verdict indicates that Bayer is liable for what could turn out to be a large proportion of these costs, as it awards damages in the first two of more than 1,000 currently pending lawsuits. The decision must be used to support all claims for losses incurred by other US farmers whose crops have suffered from GE contamination.
(1) Bayers Defense lawyer, Mark Ferguson as reported in Harris, A. 2009.
Bayer Blamed at Trial for Crops 'Contaminated' by Modified Rice. Bloomberg News 4th November 2009, available at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aT...
(2) E.N. Blue (2007) Risky Business. Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. Report prepared for Greenpeace International, available online athttp://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press....
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 1983 Oct;7(5):451-4.
Effects of acute pesticide poisoning on blood clotting in the rat.
Lox CD.
Male Sprague-Dawley rats were treated with 1 ml of diazinon or malathion, 1750 ppm given orally by gavage. Clotting determinations included the prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, fibrinogen, and coagulation factors II, V, VII, and X, plus the hematocrit and platelet count. The results suggest that insecticides influence the clotting times of rats ingesting these insecticides even after as short a time span as 2 hr.
PMID: 6641583 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6641583
Antiphospholipid syndrome is a life threatening blood clotting disorder. It can have devastating effects if no diagnosis and treatment.
Warning label on Roundup more cautious about use
POSTED: June 30, 2009
Attention Monsanto: Your unofficial spokesman in Lahaina is advising Hawaii residents that "drinking Roundup (is) less toxic than eating salt" (Letters, June 25). I was not aware that Monsanto was advocating the drinking of Roundup - even in the standard 0.0062 concentration with water.
In fact, from reading the warning label for Roundup posted on the Monsanto Web site, I am advised to avoid contact of the chemical with eyes or skin and to avoid breathing the vapor. I am further advised to "wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or using the toilet." I am also told to even discard clothing that becomes heavily contaminated with the chemical and to always wear chemical-resistant gloves when handling Roundup.
I see nothing that indicates that ingesting Roundup is a good idea. Your "spokesman" does not cite any scientific studies in support of his suggestion.
I agree with the statement that chlorine bleach can also be dangerous, due primarily to its alkaline properties. But in the proper concentration (0.00026), it can and is used to purify untreated water for drinking. Water purification is not listed as an approved use for Roundup.
Monsanto lawyers may want to review the "drinking Roundup" letter. I am sure that plaintiffs' attorneys around the country will be reviewing the letter and using it in support of their claims. You may also want to consider limiting the list of people who are authorized to speak on your behalf.
For the rest of us, we will continue to rely on the dire warnings contained on the Roundup label. For many of us, that means that we will avoid using Roundup altogether.
Richard Lucas
Haiku
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/520432.html
Drinking Roundup less toxic than eating salt
POSTED: June 25, 2009
Lately, we have seen letters on how terrible it is to use herbicides, or "toxic herbicides," etc. This is just another tactic to remove all pesticides from the marketplace by scaring everyone.
If you are going to talk toxicity, then let's see some numbers with the application rates. Frequently used Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide in its pure form has is the same oral toxicity as table salt.
When the normal 40 percent concentrate product is used at the rate of two ounces per gallon of water, we end up with 0.0062 ounce of pure Roundup in the gallon of spray mix. Could you even taste this much table salt in a gallon of water, and would it cause cancer, blemishes or some other toxic effect on your body? I think not. Household bleach is more toxic and dangerous.
More environmental scare tactics. If a person does not want the county to use herbicides, then why not volunteer to do hand-weeding on the roadsides and in the parks. Or come and weed the garden spurge out of my paspalum lawn.
Don Gerbig
Lahaina
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/520200.html
I am adding this on July 3, 2010
Because this must be said!
no drug has been approved for the treatment of autism, drugs are routinely prescribed off-label to treat
autistic children,
***********
Psychiatric Drugging of Infants and Toddlers in the US -
Part I,
******
PartII Of all the harmful actions of modern psychiatry, "the mass diagnosing and drugging of children is
the most appalling with the most serious consequences for the future of individual lives and for society,"
warns the world-renowned expert, Dr Peter Breggin, often referred to as the "Conscience of Psychiatry."
"We're bringing up a generation in this country in which you either sit down, shut up and do what you're
told, or you get diagnosed and drugged," he points out.
*******
Devastating Disorder
Tardive dyskinesia is one of the most devastating of all drug-induced movement disorders, according to Dr Peter Breggin, author of about twenty books, including "Medication Madness."
"The abnormal movements or spasms can strike any of the muscles that are under voluntary control, including
muscles of the face, eyes, mouth, tongue, neck, shoulders, arms, legs, hands, and feet," he says.
"Breathing, speaking, and swallowing can also be impaired."
"Tardive dyskinesia often looks so "strange" or "bizarre" that it is mistaken for a mental illness rather
than a neurological disorder," he notes.
Reglan can also cause uncontrolled muscle spasms (dystonia), Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome, Parkinsonism, depression, thoughts of suicide, and suicide. Common side effects include feeling restless, sleepy, tired, dizzy, or exhausted, headache, confusion, and trouble sleeping, according to a June 9, 2009, FDA approved medication guide.
Pregnant Women Targeted
Four months after the black box for TD was announced, a New England Journal of Medicine study claimed that Reglan was safe for pregnant women with morning sickness.
The news of the study was sent out to all the media outlets and a massive off-label marketing campaign
followed to promote the sale of Reglan to pregnant women, with journalists publishing almost identical
talking points.
Reporter, Linda Johnson, put out articles through the Associated Press newswire which resulted in headlines
such as, "Study Suggests Drug Is Safe For Morning Sickness," popping up all over the internet and for major
media stories for a couple weeks.
For instance, in a June 10, 2009, article that appeared in USA Today, on Fox and ABC news Websites, and
even in the UK's Guardian on June 12, 2009, Johnson wrote: "For the first time, a large study shows that
pregnant women who suffer morning sickness are not risking harm to their babies if they take a certain
anti-nausea drug."
"The result may lead more doctors to prescribe the drug metoclopramide and women to feel less guilty about
using it during their baby's crucial first few months of development, experts said," she reported. Johnson
never mentioned the black box for TD in her articles.
The June 10, headline for the same article on the MSNBC Website read: "Morning sickness drug shown safe for babies." On June 11, a Johnson article appeared in the Boston Globe and the same story was in the Durango Herald News as late as June 22.
To begin with, running headlines claiming that Reglan is safe based on the NEJM study was misleading and
irresponsible because the majority of women, 2,502 out of 3,458, only took Reglan for 7 days, or less, in
the first trimester. The average duration of fetal exposure was about a week. Only 164 took the drug for 22
days or more. Plus, the study only looked at harm at birth with no later follow-up on the babies.
There was no mention in the actual study of the black box for TD, or any other adverse effects, that could
harm the mom or the fetus. Yet, the Los Angeles Times ran a June 10, story with claims that the "first
study of the anti-nausea drug metoclopramide in pregnant women has found that it is safe for both fetuses
and mothers." The Times failed to mention any side effects but included the main talking point that as
"many as 80% of pregnant women suffer morning sickness in the first trimester."
Huge Customer Base
Over four million women give birth each year in the US, according to the CDC. The study reported that
between 50% and 80% of pregnant women get morning sickness. Those numbers translate into between 2 and 3.2 million new Relgan customers in the US alone, year in and year out.
The women in the NEJM study took three 10mg tablets per day. The current price of Reglan at DrugStore.com is $182 for 100 tablets. Each pregnant woman could buy 2 or 3 months of Reglan for the first trimester, plus the study notes that nausea and vomiting "can continue beyond the first trimester." Two months of the drug at a cost of $364, times 2.5 million women, could potentially ring up $910 million each year.
********
Tracking the American Epidemic of Mental Illness - Part IV
Non-Profit Advocacy Groups
As a main component of the Psychopharmaceutical Industrial Complex, the so-called "patient advocacy"
organizations have become the leading force behind the American epidemic of mental illness over the past
two decades.
Drug makers, and their foundations, funnel millions of dollars to these non-profits every year. In return,
the leaders recruit their members as foot soldiers to carry out the latest marketing campaigns and to
provide a fire-wall so that no money trail can be tracked back to the drug companies.
Gigantic Pyramid
The psychiatric front groups form a gigantic pyramid and once pharmaceutical money enters the system
through a major organization, it gets channeled into a huge spider-web that weaves through many groups,
making it nearly impossible to keep track of where it came from or where it all went. Often, when the grant
reports of the drug companies list a large donation to one organization, the annual reports of the other groups will show smaller gifts from that same organization.
The "charity" groups are exempt from income tax and the "contributions" funneled through them are tax deductible. The money is used for disease mongering campaigns to both market disorders and pressure public health care programs and private insurers to pay for expensive treatments.
"Presenting themselves as patient advocacy groups is highly disingenuous not only to their membership, many
of which may have a sincere desire to help a loved one or a family member with mental problems, but to
legislators, the press and the American public — for they have consistently lobbied for legislation that
benefits the mental health and pharmaceutical industries which fund them, and not patients they claim to
represent," according to Citizens Commission on Human Rights International, a mental health watchdog group.
Money Laundering Operation
Dr Daniel Carlat, author of the Carlat Psychiatry Blog, and the new book, "Unhinged: the Trouble With
Psychiatry," explains that "much of the continuing medical education (CME) industry in the United States is
a legalized money laundering operation," in a June 10, 2008 blog.
"Rather than paying doctors directly to give accredited CME courses (which is illegal), drug companies pay third party companies to create the courses," he says. "The checks are actually written by the education company, but the ultimate source is clearly the sponsoring pharmaceutical company."
The Harvard scandal represents the "perfect storm" of the CME industry money laundering operation, Carlat
reported on his blog.
It’s clear that "the majority of money received by these doctors did not come directly from drug companies, but indirectly from various third party companies," he says. "And this is likely the key to the mystery of why the doctors assumed they could ethically hide these payments."
After going through the list of payments posted in the Congressional Record, Carlat found it appeared that
"the vast majority of the money eventually reported by the Harvard Trio, a combined $4.2 million over 7
years, was drug company money that was laundered and processed to seem like it wasn't drug company money."
"The most glaring example," he says, "comes from Dr. Wilens disclosures."
Grassley posted slightly more than a third of Wilens’ payments ($612,303 out of a total of $1.6 million).
Only $69,915 of this (11%) came directly from drug companies. Most of the money ($542,388) came from
various third party companies, many, possibly all of which, are CME companies, Carlat reports.
“The biggest tool the industry has for off-label promotion is continuing education," says Adriane
Fugh-Berman, an associate professor at Georgetown University Medical Center, involved with a program called PharmedOut, created to educate doctors about the prescribing influences of big drug companies, in the
Star-Ledger on June 6, 2010.
"Physicians have freedom of speech and aren’t under the same constraints as industry employees,” she
explained.
When drugs are prescribed for off-label or unnecessary uses, public health care programs not only have to pay for the drugs, they must also pay the prescribing doctors' fees and the cost of medical care for any injuries caused by the drugs.
Government spending tied to psychiatric drugs has gone through the roof in the past two decades due to the
bilking of public programs. And no doubt as a result, pharma CEOs are earning over the top pay packages. In
2008, the head of J&J pulled in $29.1 million, Abbott Labs' CEO took home $28.3 million, the top dog at Bristol-Myers earned over $23 million, Lilly's CEO pulled down close to $13 million, Pfizer's took home
over $15.5 million, Wyeth's CEO earned nearly $26 million, and Forest Labs' top official was paid more than
$6.5 million, according to the AFL-CIO's "Executive Pay Watch" website.
American Psychiatric Association
Early on in his investigation, Grassley asked the "American Psychiatric Association," for an accounting of
money received from drug companies and foundations created by drug companies. In 2006, the industry
accounted for about 30% of the Association’s $62.5 million in financing, or about $18.75 million, according
to the New York Times.
The 38,000 member APA describes itself as "a national medical specialty society whose physician members
specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and research of mental illnesses."
The outgoing president of the APA is Alan Schatzberg, the same guy whose name appears on the Grassley list.
The "American Psychiatric Foundation," is the charitable and public educational arm of the APA, according
to its website. In 2009, the Foundation's 15 member board of directors included four Vice Presidents from
the drug companies Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and J&J's Janssen Pharmaceutica division.
On its website, the Foundation identifies drug companies that donate but does not give the exact amount. For example, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers, Lilly, Forest, Janssen, and Wyeth are listed as giving "$40,000 and above." However, the few grant reports publicly available show drug companies may be giving more than ten times that amount. Lilly donated $450,000 to the Foundation in 2007, in addition to the $400,000 given to the American Psychiatric Association.
The Foundation also received one grant from Lilly for $241,915 in 2009, and another $20,000 donation to
fund the Foundation's Newsletter. The Foundation received $102,961 from Pfizer, and $205,400 from Wyeth, in 2009, as well.
In the first quarter of 2010, the Foundation received grants from Lilly of $36,000, $10,000 and $18,000.
Pfizer gave the Foundation $20,000 in the first quarter of 2010.
Pfizer's 2008 grant report shows donations of more than $700,000 to the American Psychiatric Association.
Lilly gave the APA grants totaling more than $600,000 in both the first and second quarter of 2008. Wyeth
donated $43,831 in 2008.
Lilly's 2009 report shows the APA received four grants of $154,575, $142,575, $142,575, and $154,575.
Pfizer gave the group $250,000 in 2009.
The American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education (APIRE), is another philanthropic arm of the
APA, established in 1998 "to establish the leadership role of the APA in contributing to the scientific
base of psychiatric practice and policy," with a stated mission to “improve the quality of psychiatric care
through research, education, health policy analysis, and dissemination."
For the March 6, 2010, paper, "Pharmaceutical Philanthropic Shell Games," in Psychiatric Times, Lisa
Cosgrove, PhD and Harold J. Bursztajn, MD, investigated the financial relationships of the APIRE board
members with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture psychiatric drugs and found 9 of the 16 board
members have industry ties.
"The fact that over half of APIRE’s board has financial ties to industry is problematic, and it is
noteworthy that this percentage is a highly conservative estimate," they wrote.
"Current disclosure policies do not require reporting of pooled industry monies (eg, when companies give
large sums of money to academic departments, units, hospitals, and medical schools)—even when direct
benefit, such as salary, may be derived from pooled funds," they point out.
In addition, one board member who reported “no disclosure” in an APA publication "was found to be on the
speakers’ bureau of multiple pharmaceutical companies," they note.
The APA is currently revising psychiatry's billing bible, the DSM-V. "Approximately 68% of the members of
the DSM-V task force reported having industry ties, which represents a relative increase of 20% over the
proportion of DSM-IV task force members with such ties," Cosgrove and Bursztajn report.
"Also, of the 137 DSM-V panel members who have posted disclosure statements, 77 (56%) have reported having industry ties, such as holding stock in pharmaceutical companies, serving as consultants to industry, or
serving on company boards—no improvement over the 56% of DSM-IV members who were found to have such industry relationships," they point out.
The APA also issues "Clinical Practice Guidelines," with recommendations for the use of specific drugs for
mental disorders. "Ninety percent of the authors of 3 major clinical practice guidelines in psychiatry had financial ties to companies that manufacture drugs explicitly or implicitly identified in the guidelines as recommended therapies for the respective mental illnesses," according Cosgrove and Bursztain.
They also found the corporate advisory council of the Foundation "is made up of pharmaceutical companies that contribute significant funding to APF and that manufacture medications recommended in the APA’s CPG."
On June 11, 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that the APA "has seen a $7.5 million decrease in
pharmaceutical industry dollars over the past year – a more than 10% cut in revenue, which funds its
research and education activities."
"The biggest changes at the APA have come at its money making annual meeting," the Journal said. "Over the
past three years it has been phasing out industry sponsored symposia – dinners and talks." This translated
to a loss of $1.8 million to $1.9 million in industry funding between 2008 and 2009, an APA official told
the Journal.
However, according to Martha Rosenberg's coverage of the group's annual meeting in a May 31, 2010, Scoop article, although 200 protestors were chanting "no drugging kids for money," and "no conflicts of
interest," at the convention hall, "polarizing figures" were still present at this year's event.
For instance, she writes: "Sitting next to outgoing APA president Alan F. Schatzberg, MD, even as
protestors chanted outside, was Charles Nemeroff, MD, former psychiatry chairman at Emory University who
was investigated by Congress."
"And a paper presented about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was co-written by Harvard's Joseph Biederman, MD, also investigated by Congress for pharma financial links and considered the father of the pediatric bipolar disorder craze," she reports. "Nemeroff was signing the Textbook of Psychopharmacology which he co-edited with Schatzberg, also investigated by Congress. Schatzberg, psychiatry chairman at Stanford, consults to seven drug companies, owns stock and patents with others and is on Sanofi-Aventis' Speakers Bureau according to the meeting's Daily Bulletin," she wrote.
National Alliance on Mental Illness
Last year, the National Alliance on Mental Illness became the first patient advocacy group to come under
investigation by Grassley's Committee. In a letter to Michael Fitzpatrick, Executive Director of NAMI, in
April 2009, Grassley asked for "an accounting of industry funding that pharmaceutical companies or
foundations established by these companies have provided," to NAMI since January 2005.
"Based upon reporting in the New York Times," Grassley said, "I have come to understand that money from the pharmaceutical industry shapes the practices of non-profit organizations which purport to be independent in their viewpoints and actions." "Specifically, it is alleged that pharmaceutical companies give money to non-profits in an attempt to garner favor in ways that increase sales of their products," he explained.
In a June 2, 2010, commentary titled, "Psychiatric Fads and Overdiagnosis," on the Psychology Today
website, Dr Allen Frances points out that it "is too bad that there is no advocacy group for normality that
could effectively push back against all the forces aligned to expand the reach of mental disorders."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00099.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1004/S00147.htm,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1004/S00167.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1005/S00223.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1006/S00162.htm
Do you feel like we are being poisoned on purpose?
And why is it I am so concerned besides being made so sick from these chemicals?
I was born, bred and fed through the military/industrial/complex through my father's work.
Last month I found out I lived my toddler yrs on the back door of Du Pont's plant in Pompton Lakes, NJ. Soon another toxic super fund clean-up site through the EPA. The flouride was there along with many other chemicals. Check it out.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/effect.pfos.class.news.38.htm
DUPONT claims Teflon is safe. Teflon is made from flouride.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
According to the Mayo doctors:
“Fluoride toxicity can present in an insidious manner, and clinicians may overlook its signs and symptoms. Unless recognized and the source of excessive fluoride identified and discontinued, fluoride toxicity can be both progressive and crippling.”
In yet another study, presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, doctors reported a similar scenario (2c). A 49-year old woman (without kidney disease) developed skeletal fluorosis by drinking too much instant tea made with fluoridated water. As with the above cases, the woman “developed widespread musculoskeletal pains” and was misdiagnosed for years as having fibromylagia and osteoarthritis. According to the authors:
“we surmise that habitual consumption of 3 quarts daily of some regular-strength preparations for more than 10 years, especially if made with fluoridated water, could cause clinically significant skeletal fluorosis.... This fluoride exposure seems possible for many individuals who like instant or bottled teas. In fact, when a 36-year old coworker learned of our index case, she confided drinking 3-4 qts daily of what she described as a triple strength preparation of Nestea dissolved in unfiltered, municipal tap water over the past year... With increasing use of DXA, additional instances of skeletal fluorosis from instant tea will likely be revealed...”
http://www.fluoridealert.org/2007research/02.html
2003 petition to stop flouridation policies
http://www.fluoridealert.org/integrity.htm
DUPONT stratagies to avoid getting caught and put out of business.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/2006/index.2006.html
DuPont Grapples With Legacy of Benlate.
... Legal maneuvering also continues in Hawaii, where plant growers who settled product liability cases against DuPont in 1994 before learning that the company withheld evidence of widespread contamination of Benlate have brought racketeering and fraud charges against DuPont.
... Drawing on its experience in the Benlate cases, DuPont has adopted a more deliberate approach to multiple lawsuits. The company now uses a holistic strategy that attacks litigation by broadening its legal approach to include such factors as the science involved, the cost to the company, and internal and external communications. The new method is expected to influence how DuPont confronts the rest of the Benlate cases and its Teflon litigation.
... "If you look at the company's stance around Benlate, for years they asserted that this doesn't cause any harm ... but yet they've paid $1.9 billion dollars in litigation costs," said Sanford Lewis, an attorney representing DuPont Shareholders for Fair Value, an investors coalition critical of the handling of concerns about PFOA.
.. During the course of the Benlate litigation, at least three judges took the company to task for withholding evidence from plaintiffs. One judge called the practice "willful, deliberate, conscious, purposeful, deceitful, and in bad faith," and DuPont was ordered to pay millions in court sanctions.
Note from FAN Pesticide Project:
Flusilazole (flusilazol), a highly persistent toxic fluorinated pesticide, was an "undisclosed ingredient in some lots of Benlate 50 DF" (1). According to animal studies (2) and allegations by parents exposed to flusilazole (3), this pesticide induces microphthalmia (undersized eyes) and coloboma, a defect in the structure of the eye. Eye defects were some of the major effects of children born to benlate workers in Florida. Flusilazole is made by DuPont.
(1) Hollingsworth J (1995). Fungicide studies offer little comfort. Memo: BURIED SECRETS PURSUING A MEDICAL MYSTERY. December 18. Tampa Tribune (Florida). page 4.
(2) Health Effects
(3) Leaked letter from DuPont Researcher proves DuPont knew pesticide put babies at risk
Where is the outrage! Bees in Hawaii!
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/fipronil.bees.dec.04.2007.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/fipronil.bees.may%2028.2007.html
What is this? "Hydramethylnon" authorized for use in Hawaii 2003-2004
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/fr.nov.26.2003.htm
Hawaii
Department of Agriculture
Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of calcium hydroxide in outdoor
nurseries, commercial plant nurseries, residential areas, resorts and
hotels, parks, forest habitats, and natural areas to control coqui and
greenhouse frogs; April 26, 2005 to April 26, 2008. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/fr.aug.31.2005.html
Using a flouride for pesticide use in Hawaii grown sugar cane
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/msds/trifluralin.label.hfp.4lb.pdf
Boycott Honolulu Magazine for this
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Hawaii/Why-have-fear-mongers-won-an-important-public-health-debate
But I know it’s more common for people to fear their dentists, maybe especially so in Hawaii. We have higher rates of tooth decay than on the Mainland and less than 10 percent of the population has access to fluoridated tap water.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring element found in water and air. If there’s too much of it in the water supply, people wind up with strong, but discolored, teeth. If there’s too little of it, people have soft, cavity-prone teeth. But when you get the level just right—1 part per million, according to the American Dental Hygienists Association—it lowers the risk of dental decay. Since communities started adjusting their fluoride levels in the mid-1940s, Americans have gotten 50 percent to 60 percent fewer cavities.
But despite 60 years of research, despite constant monitoring by groups such as the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization (WHO), there are still fluoride fear-mongers. In Hawaii, they have the upper hand: We are one of only two states that don’t adjust fluoride levels.
Anti-fluoride activists claim that fluoride leads to everything from lowered IQs and dementia to cancer and chronic fatigue. Yet these groups misunderstand or misrepresent the studies they rely on. Take, for example, a 2006 WHO study, which lists horrible disorders stemming from fluoride. But that study looked at excess levels of fluoride, such as those found in people exposed to fluoride from indoor coal burning. They were getting 9.63 milligrams of fluoride per day. Compare that to the daily .07 to 1.2 milligrams for the average American child.
In 2004, the Honolulu City Council voted against adding fluoride to the water, despite protestations from the Hawaii Dental Association, the Academy of Pediatrics and the state Department of Health.
Because we don’t use this inexpensive and effective public-health method, the state Department of Health’s Dental Health Division has to perform triage. According to its 2008 report, it screened more than 6,890 public-school children in grades K-12 statewide for dental problems, referring nearly a quarter of them for treatment of acute problems. And it uses topical fluoride treatments for schoolchildren.
Topical treatments are far more expensive and time-consuming than fluoridating the water. And this is not just about our children’s teeth. Hawaii also has disproportionally high rates of tooth decay in people who can’t afford medical care, and in other vulnerable populations, such as patients in long-term-healthcare facilities.
Tooth decay, the Dental Health Division notes, is “an insidious and progressive disease” which can put people at risk for potentially life-threatening infection.
In Hawaii we have let a vocal minority—well intentioned as they may be—scare lawmakers into making an important health decision that ignores current science.
And Boycott (the Star Advertiser) the Honolulu Advertiser for this.
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Hawaii/Editorial-Don-t-surrender-to-those-who-resist-fluoridation
THE ISSUE: Legislators are rejecting a bill to create a pilot program to fluoridate water in Maui County.
Intimidated by a resilient band of chemophobes, legislators again are thumbing their noses at ending Hawaii's distinctions of being the only state without fluoridated water and having the worst oral health in the country. In the latest round of craziness, a recommendation by a health task force to begin fluoridating water in Maui County received absolutely no support in the Senate Health Committee. The health community should not give up.
"Fluoridation has been shown to be the most effective and least expensive method to decrease dental decay," the Legislature-created Maui Health Initiative Task Force reported. It recommended that "sound public policy" requires fluoridation of all Maui public water supplies, "where practicable."
The task force is in good company. Fluoridation has been endorsed by the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association and their Hawaii chapters, and every recent surgeon general. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention includes fluoridation among the 10 great public-health achievements of the 20th century.
Three dozen people signed a brief statement opposing the Maui bill, saying they want to continue to "prohibit the introduction of (an) unnecessary chemical" into the Molokai, Maui and Lanai drinking water systems.
Fluoride is naturally present in all ground water in amounts ranging up to 0.4 parts per million. The Maui bill would increase those amounts to a whopping 0.7 parts per million, equivalent in length to one inch in 20.8 miles, in time to one minute in 2.6 years and in money to one penny in $13,000, notes the bill's preface.
It points out that more than 170 million Americans -- about 65 percent of the population -- drink fluoridated water. In recent years, two counties in Utah, including Salt Lake County, began drinking fluoridated water, leaving Hawaii the lone state without fluoridation.
Extremists who used to claim that fluoridation was a communist plot now suggest it carries risks of cancer, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease, thyroid problems, Down Syndrome, reduction of fertility and, most recently, brain damage. All have been discredited, according to the ADA.
Another bill, sponsored by House Health Chairman Josh Green, a Big Island physician, would establish a statewide water fluoridation pilot program to be administered by the state Department of Health. It was held over from last year's session and has received the same lack of consideration this year. (Don't vote for this guy)
Legislators have been derelict in allowing Hawaii's children to suffer from the rates of tooth decay that nearly double the national average and are dramatically higher than those of children at military-base schools, whose water is fluoridated. What Green calls "Hawaii's silent epidemic" should receive the treatment is deserves.
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Hawaii/Editorial-Don-t-surrender-to-those-who-resist-fluoridation
Ammo to fight Flouridation of water supply.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/absurdity.htm
Big Island State Senator Josh Green, MD (D) is a jerk and wants flouridation of water.
Google him.
50 reasons not to fluoridate
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm
TheAntiterrorist on poisons for profit. Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG3DkmYRado
TheAntiterrorist on poisons for profit. Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdLkpJkoKCI&feature=related
TheAntiterrorist on poisons for profit. Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxwmI_xFUm0&NR=1
TheAntiterrorist on poisons for profit. Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OpddW0NGQ&feature=related
Today almost all fluoride put into American water systems comes from China.
Aloha Nui
Thanks for checking out my research.
ReplyDeleteScienceDaily (Nov. 12, 2009) — Scientists in Canada are reporting the development of a fast, inexpensive "dipstick" test to identify small amounts of pesticides that may exist in foods and beverages. Their paper-strip test is more practical than conventional pesticide tests, producing results in minutes rather than hours by means of an easy-to-read color-change, they say.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091104122534.htm
Abstract
A reagentless bioactive paper-based solid-phase biosensor was developed for detection of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors, including organophosphate pesticides. The assay strip is composed of a paper support (1 × 10 cm), onto which AChE and a chromogenic substrate, indophenyl acetate (IPA), were entrapped using biocompatible sol−gel derived silica inks in two different zones (e.g., sensing and substrate zones). The assay protocol involves first introducing the sample to the sensing zone via lateral flow of a pesticide-containing solution. Following an incubation period, the opposite end of the paper support is placed into distilled deionized water (ddH2O) to allow lateral flow in the opposite direction to move paper-bound IPA to the sensing area to initiate enzyme catalyzed hydrolysis of the substrate, causing a yellow-to-blue color change. The modified sensor is able to detect pesticides without the use of any external reagents with excellent detection limits (bendiocarb 1 nM; carbaryl 10 nM; paraoxon 1 nM; malathion 10 nM) and rapid response times (5 min). The sensor strip showed negligible matrix effects in detection of pesticides in spiked milk and apple juice samples. Bioactive paper-based assays on pesticide residues collected from food samples showed good agreement with a conventional mass spectrometric assay method. The bioactive paper assay should, therefore, be suitable for rapid screening of trace levels of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides in environmental and food samples.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac901714h
These strips detect acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors. These inhibitors are what strips the cover off nerve cells. Like being skinned alive on the inside of your body. Very painful!
ReplyDeleteH I just realized that Don Gerbig think's that pesticides might be outlawed. We may be getting to them cause the lies do not hold up too well anymore.
ReplyDelete