the holistic radical

September 29, 2008

Jon Barron Gives the Definitive Slam on High Fructose Corn Syrup

Folks, this stuff is not food and has caused the spike in obesity in recent decades. HFCS is not good for human consumption in any amount! The truth will be told–

This is definitely the best article I’ve seen about why HFCS is bad for you as a human being. Kudos to Jon Barron. This is a must-read.

Interesting that even tonight’s “King of the Hill” had a main character getting type 2 diabetes, which at least 40-50% of Americans have–a conservative estimate–whether they know it or not. Around 50% of the US population is obese, and diabetes is a surefire consequence of obesity, beginning with chronic high blood sugar caused by bad diet and inactivity. Diabetes is best reversed through an attentive diet and exercise.

Let’s get HFCS out of our food supply now! Put pressure on the FDA!

Stop eating fake food, people!

The cycle is like this: government subsidies to fake food makers–> people get deadly non-food (filled with HFCS, aspartame/equal, MSG, sucralose/ Splenda, and other toxins)–> Big Pharma jumps in with lots of medications for you to be dependent on forever!

All of which could be prevented by eating natural foods that do not have any ingredients you can’t pronounce or don’t know the origin of!

Also, if something has more than 5 ingredients, it better have a reason to have more than 5 ingredients. Read labels!

A preview:

” Despite claims to the contrary, there is a wide body of research that validates the concept of sugar “addiction.” To be clear, we’re not talking about a physical addiction comparable to a drug here, but the simple fact that the more sugar you eat the more you want to eat. Also, studies show that the high levels of isolated fructose (as found in HFCS) cause a reduction in circulating insulin and leptin, which effectively turns off the body’s appetite control mechanisms, thus causing you to eat more.
Bottom line: the words moderation and HFCS don’t actually go together.”

———

http://www.jonbarron.org/diabetes-program/2008-09-29.php

High Fructose Corn Syrup, Oh Boy!

Date: 9/29/2008
Posted By: Jon Barron

This month, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) launched the first of a series of television ads that are planned to run for the next 18 months as part of a campaign to “make-over” the image of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The core message of the ads is that high-fructose corn syrup is made from corn, has no artificial ingredients, has the same calories as sugar, is okay to eat in moderation — and that it’s endorsed by the AMA and the FDA. The ads are priceless in their misrepresentation of facts and in their total lack of respect for the intelligence of the viewing public — although experience says they are, nevertheless, likely to win over large numbers of people. Before we go any further, you probably need to see one of these ads.

Isn’t that delightful? Absolutely! But let’s take a look at what HFCS actually is and at the key points in the ad one-by-one to see how they stack up on the “truth meter.” Then we can examine the so called “endorsements” from the AMA and the FDA. And finally, we’ll take a look at the reality behind high fructose corn syrup.

Definition of high fructose corn syrup

HFCS doesn’t actually exist anywhere in nature. It is a manufactured product created by using enzymes (two natural, one synthetic) to increase the fructose content of corn syrup to about 90%. This super high fructose syrup is then blended “down” with a 100% glucose corn syrup to create various mixes. HFCS 55, for example, which is 55% fructose and 45% glucose is the mix used most commonly in beverages. HFCS 42 is the blend used more commonly in baked goods.

As a point of comparison, table sugar (sucrose) is a disaccharide comprised of a molecule of fructose and glucose bound together. It is very easily digested in the stomach into its component sugars, and in that respect is not unlike an HFCS 50 mix. However, it should be noted that table sugar, like HFCS, is not a naturally occurring substance itself and must be “refined” (although not chemically altered) through manufacturing processes before it sits on your table. And keep in mind, it’s no badge of honor for the HFCS industry to claim that there’s no difference between HFCS and sucrose since heavy consumption of sucrose has been linked to everything from obesity to diabetes.

High fructose corn syrup is made from corn

cornYes, it’s absolutely true that high fructose corn syrup is made from corn, but it doesn’t mean anything. Biodiesel is made from corn too, and you wouldn’t want to see that used as a food additive. Or take castor oil. It’s used as a food grade additive, in flavorings, and in chocolate as a mold inhibitor. And the FDA has categorized castor oil as GRAS (generally regarded as safe) for use in laxatives. Unfortunately, castor beans also happensto be the source of one of the most deadly poisons known to man, ricin — made famous as a tool of assassination used by spies. The bottom line is that just because you start with a natural, safe substance doesn’t automatically make derivatives of that substance safe. So much for the first argument.

High fructose corn syrup has no artificial ingredients in it

According to the high fructose corn syrup industry itself, most claims that HFCS is not a natural product arise as a result of the fact that corn starch is treated with three different types of enzymes in order to produce HFCS. Two of the three enzymes used in HFCS production are naturally occurring enzymes; one (glucose-isomerase) is synthetic — the synthetic enzyme being the cause of concern. The industry’s counter argument is that the synthetic enzyme is never actually added to the HFCS, rather the sugar mixture is simply passed over it and it interacts with glucose to produce fructose.

In point of fact, the statement and argument are both disingenuous. Most claims concerning the artificiality of HFCS have nothing to do with the enzymes used in processing, but rather relate to the fact that chemical bonds are broken and rearranged in the manufacturing process. (Note: this does not happen in the process of refining table sugar.)

High fructose corn syrup has the same calories as table sugar

That it does. And once again, comparing HFCS to table sugar in this regard is not necessarily something you want to brag about. At first glance, it doesn’t look that bad. Both sugar and HFCS contain about 15 calories per teaspoon. The problem is how quickly that builds up. Soft drinks and fruit punches (think back to the ad we looked at earlier) contain about 1 teaspoon of sweetener per ounce — so you’re looking at about 150 calories per 12 ounce can of soda and about 180 calories per 12 ounce glass of fruit punch (as seen in the ad). Have 3-6 servings a day, as many people are wont to do, and you’re looking at 500-1,000 empty calories per day. That could actually mean as much as 2 lbs of extra body-weight gained each and every week.

High fructose corn syrup is okay to eat in moderation

Ahhh! That’s the issue isn’t it? The simple fact is that it’s almost impossible to consume HFCS in moderation. If you think about it, even a single serving of fruit punch, which contains 43 g of sugar, is already well beyond moderate. Have two to three servings a day and you’re into sugar la la land. And did you get alook at the serving size mommy is hefting about in the ad? That’s a one gallon jug. Yes, there’s nothing like a gallon jug to say “moderation.”

Then, of course, there are the cravings.

Despite claims to the contrary, there is a wide body of research that validates the concept of sugar “addiction.” To be clear, we’re not talking about a physical addiction comparable to a drug here, but the simple fact that the more sugar you eat the more you want to eat. Also, studies show that the high levels of isolated fructose (as found in HFCS) cause a reduction in circulating insulin and leptin, which effectively turns off the body’s appetite control mechanisms, thus causing you to eat more.
Bottom line: the words moderation and HFCS don’t actually go together.

High fructose corn syrup is endorsed by the American Medical Associationamerican medical association

Despite CRA’s use of the AMA quote in their ads, the AMA’s position is significantly more nuanced than implied by the isolated quote. In fact, the CRA used only the first half of the first sentence taken from the June 17th AMA press release:

“After studying current research, the American Medical Association (AMA) today concluded that high fructose syrup does not appear to contribute more to obesity than other caloric sweeteners.”

In fact, the last half of the sentence adds an immediate qualifier:

“But [the AMA] called for further independent research to be done on the health effects of high fructose syrup and other sweeteners.”

They then went on to say:

“We do recommend consumers limit the amount of all added caloric sweeteners to no more than 32 grams of sugar daily.”

And as we already know, a single 12 oz serving of fruit punch as featured in the CRA ad contains 48 g, 1/3 more than the AMA’s maximum allowance — for an entire day — in a single serving.

Finally, the AMA press release concludes with a statement that hardly qualifies as a ringing endorsement for HFCS. In effect, they say they just don’t know.

“Currently, there are few available studies on the health effects of high fructose syrup and most are focused on the short-term effects.”

High fructose corn syrup is endorsed by the FDA

The simple truth of the matter is that the FDA does not actually “endorse” HFCS. All they did was come out with a statement/letter from Geraldine June, Supervisor of the FDA’s Product Evaluation and Labeling Team at FDA’s Office of Nutrition, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements written to the Corn Refiners Association that said HFCS could be labeled a “natural” ingredient.

“[the FDA] would not object to the use of the term ‘natural’ on a product containing the HFCS produced by the manufacturing process…”

But even that statement is far more nuanced than it might appear. First of all, as made clear in the letter, it’s actually a reversal of a previous position taken by Supervisor June just two months earlier based on a clarification of the process used by one manufacturer only — it’s not a blanket statement:

“The use of synthetic fixing agents in the enzyme preparation, which is then used to produce HFCS, would not be consistent with our (…) policy regarding the use of the term ‘natural’. Consequently, we would object to the use of the term ‘natural’ on a product containing HFCS.”

But more importantly, it makes clear that the FDA’s definition of “natural” probably is not the same as yours. You might think that “natural” has something to do with “as it exists in nature.” Not so for the FDA. Their definition is restricted to the fact that nothing artificial or synthetic “has been added.” It absolutely avoids the issue of whether something that might have started out from a natural source might be altered or made “unnatural” in its processing. Or to look at it another way, according to the FDA, Frankenstein’s monster would be considered a “natural” creation because nothing artificial or synthetic has been added — just all “natural” dead body parts assembled and electrified to make the monster. “It’s alive! It’s alive!”

That definition might work for the FDA, but I doubt if it works for most of you.

The bottom line on high fructose corn syrup

Manufactures love high fructose corn syrup because it’s cheaper than table sugar and easier to transport and work with (it’s a liquid). Unfortunately, the human body is not designed to handle high levels of isolated fructose.

Since the dawn of man, humans have consumed fructose (mostly in fresh fruit where the fructose is actually bound to the fruit fiber, thus slowing its absorption in the body), at about 16–20 grams per day. The heavy use of HFCS, though, has resulted in significant increases in consumption of fructose isolate, leading to typical daily consumption reaching an average of 85–100 grams of fructose per day — again, not bound to fiber. And remember, the AMA recommendation is 32 g a day — maximum. Yet in 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. And by 1994, those numbers had climbed to 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose. Today, it’s almost impossible to find a commercial food that doesn’t have added sugar — predominantly HFCS with its high content isolated fructose.

The problem is that fructose is absorbed differently than other sugars — and fructose isolate as found in HFCS even more so. It causes major health problems. For example:

  • The exposure of the liver to such large quantities of fructose leads to rapid stimulation of the breakdown of fats and the concomitant rapid accumulation of triglycerides, which in turn contributes to reduced insulin sensitivity, insulin resistance, and glucose intolerance.
  • Unlike glucose, fructose doesn’t stimulate insulin production, which means it isn’t utilized for energy, but rather is stored in the liver as triglycerides.
  • Again, unlike glucose, HFCS doesn’t increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin. (These are hormones that play a primary role in appetite control.) The net effect is that HFCS encourages you to eat more…the more of it you eat. In effect, HFCS is addictive and encourages weight gain and obesity.
  • And if that were not enough, it appears that HFCS distorts the body’s magnesium balance, thereby accelerating bone loss.

Finally, it’s true that medical authorities and publicity seeking politicians took on trans fats, but that was a relatively easy target. Let’s see if they have the cojones to take on high fructose corn syrup, which has replaced trans fats in my book as the number one dietary killer. So far, at least, it appears they do not.

Advertisements

March 26, 2008

The Dangers of Artificial Food Colorings

Filed under: autism/adhd, big agriculture, FDA — Tags: , , , , , , — sesame seed @ 3:09 pm

Many people with autism/adhd have had great success following the Feingold diet, which, in part, eliminates all foods with conventional (read: unnatural) food colorings. Do a web search for the “Feingold diet.” In general, white/refined sugar and wheat, colorings, and flavors aren’t good for anyone, but especially not autistics.

——-

How food companies fool consumers with food coloring ingredients made from petrochemicals

by Mike Adams

Have you ever wondered why companies use artificial colors? You might think it’s because they want to make their food look good, but there’s another reason — a far deeper reason — why companies use artificial colors to make their foods more appealing to consumers. Keep reading to learn what that is.

Why do foods with more vibrant, saturated colors look more appealing to consumers? Why does a bright-red apple look more appealing than a dull-red apple or a green apple? Why are foods sold to us in neon green, yellow and orange packages? The reason is that of the color of food speaks to humans’ innate perceptions about the value of food items.

Humans are born with brains that are preprogrammed with the ability to learn language; or to recognize certain inherent dangers such as falling off a ledge. We also have all kinds of behaviors built in for survival. One of the survival strategies our ancestors developed was the ability to recognize foods containing usable energy or nutrition. They could walk through a field and instantly spot foods that contained potent, healing phytonutrients and calories that would give them usable energy, healthy brain function, boost immune function and boost overall survivability. The natural medicines found in food often appear in bright colors, and calorie-rich foods designed to appeal to primates (such as apples or berries) are also brightly colored. It is these colors that appeal to our built-in perceptions about the value of food. (Birds have a similar system and also tend to judge food by its color.)

Color is a reliable indicator of the healthful quality of foods. An apple that has red in its peel, for example, actually sends a message: “Hey, I’m here. I have some healing medicine in my skin.” That’s why humans are naturally attracted to more vibrant-looking apples. Berries, fruits, root vegetables and other foods broadcast similar messages through their own coloring.

Eating the rainbow diet

You may have heard of the rainbow diet, in which you eat foods of different colors. It is based on the idea that different foods carry different energies and provide different types of nutritional medicine. There is a real science to that, and an art as well. You can examine phytochemicals and their healing effects, and categorize them by color. There are foods that are purple, blue, green, yellow, red, orange, brown — all the colors of the spectrum — and each food has a different medicine. Our ancestors learned to recognize foods by their color, and they also learned that foods with more vibrant colors in their natural environment contain a lot more medicine.

For example, a red cabbage that is actually a dull grey doesn’t look very appealing, but a purple cabbage with a saturated, bright-purple color looks fantastic. That’s because we have an innate perception gauge telling us we should be attracted to these foods — they are healthier for us, and the health quality is indicated by the saturation of the color.

This is what food-manufacturing companies are exploiting when they enhance colors artificially.

Food makers use harmful dyes to get you to buy

When you shop for oranges, you’re looking for a bright, deeply colored orange. You don’t want a yellowish orange, because that tells you it’s not ripe; if it’s not ripe, it hasn’t developed all its medicine. (That’s one reason why so much of the produce available in grocery stores lacks real nutrition these days — it’s all picked before it has a chance to ripen on the plant.)

Growers know about this color preference, so some of them — in Florida for example — hijack that instinctual process by dipping some of their oranges in a cancer-causing red dye that makes the peel look more orange. The FDA has banned that dye from use in foods, because it is a carcinogen, but they say it’s okay to dip an orange in it, because people don’t eat the peel. If a consumer is comparing two oranges — one of them is yellow, and one of them is deep, rich orange — most consumers are going to pick up the deeper, richer looking orange.

Food manufacturers use artificial colors because, when they make their foods more colorful, it turns on the light switch in our brains that says, “This is good stuff.” We’ve been fooled; we’ve been drawn like a moth to a flame. If you took one nacho chip with flavors but no color and put it beside another nacho chip with the exact same flavors but lots of artificial colors to make it look more orange, and you asked people to pick which chip they think would taste better, almost everyone will choose the chip with the color. The color can actually fool your mind into thinking that these foods taste better.

Food colors are made from petroleum

Coal tar and petrochemicals are the sources of the artificial colors that go into our foods, and these artificial coloring ingredients are dangerous to our health. The human body was not designed to eat petrochemicals. You don’t see people digging up petroleum and drinking it with a straw. That’s not the kind of energy we’re designed to run on. So why are we putting petrochemicals in our foods?

The food companies are doing it to sell a product and generate a profit, regardless of the health effects on consumers — and the health effects have been worrisome. In fact, more than one artificial color has been banned and pulled off the market over the last several decades because it was ultimately found to cause cancer. The safety of those still allowed on the market is highly questionable.

Eventually, artificial colors used in the food supply will likely be outlawed because they contribute to all sorts of health problems, the most notable of which are the symptoms diagnosed as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a behavioral pattern often brought on by Yellow #2 food dye. Children are being fed these chemicals in such large quantities that they begin to have nervous system malfunctions that ultimately are misdiagnosed as ADHD, learning disabilities, or violent behavior.

If you want to reverse these so-called diseases in your children, one of the best things you can do is stop feeding them petrochemicals. That means you, as the parent, have to understand that your very instincts are being hijacked by food companies’ use of artificial colors to sell their garbage products. It’s automatic, it’s innate and it’s unconscious. You look at foods and you instantly evaluate them by their color. It’s something that you can’t stop doing because it’s part of your perception hardware. Food companies know this and they exploit it to sell you unhealthy foods artificially colored to look nutritious.

How to defend yourself against dishonest food companies

So what’s your defense against this? How can you take control over your own mind and make better decisions at the grocery store? You’re taking the first step right now by reading this: you’re educating yourself. All you have to do is take this information and apply it by reading ingredient labels. Look for artificial food coloring ingredients like Yellow #2, Red #5 or Blue Lake #40, and then avoid them. Don’t buy those products. It’s as simple as that. Instead, you look for natural food coloring ingredients. There are products colored with beet juice, a much healthier way to color food; annatto, a very healthy plant source; or turmeric, a fantastic herb with anticancer, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.

With a little checking around, you will discover that all the cheap, low-grade, disease-promoting products in the grocery store tend to use these artificial colors. You will also find that the same snack chips, processed foods, boxed dinner meals, and junk food made by the biggest food companies also contain refined white flour, MSG and hydrogenated oils. It’s really no surprise they mostly all contain an artificial color of one kind or another.

Also, you should watch out for artificial colors in fruit drinks and candy. There are loads of artificial colors in candy, which makes for a very bad combination — especially for children. If you give kids a load of sugar and petrochemicals together in the same meal, their nervous systems go crazy. That’s why you have kids climbing the walls after feeding them candy and sugary drinks with artificial colors.

Another repeat offender in this category is “sport drinks,” which are loaded with petrochemical artificial colors that have no purpose other than to make the beverage visually appealing to consumers. There’s no nutritional value whatsoever to using artificial colors, which means most sports drinks are a complete waste of money: they’re just salt water with sugar and artificial colors added. If you want a real sports drink, you should juice some celery and cucumber, or just drink coconut water. That’s real replenishment.

The confectionery industry relies heavily on artificial colors to make its foods — like cake and icing — look appealing as well. Icing is usually made of hydrogenated soybean oil, which is a nerve toxin, combined with refined sugars, which are dietary poisons that cause diabetes. The petrochemical-based artificial colors are used to top it off. If you really want to commit nutritional suicide, eat a lot of icing. Get yourself some iced doughnuts, cakes and pastries, and load up.

You’ll notice artificial colors in foods like blueberry muffins or blueberry bagels, too. Read the ingredients on blueberry bagels at your local grocery store next time, and you’ll find that there are really no blueberries but plenty of artificial blue and green colors to create the impression of little blueberry bits. They can’t even put blueberries in their bagels. They have to trick you with artificial colors.

Do you know what liquid they’re using to hold the color? Propylene glycol — the same chemical you put into your RV when you want to winterize it. It is antifreeze. You’re eating antifreeze and petrochemicals — and that’s just the blueberry part. We haven’t even gotten to everything else, like refined sugars, chemical preservatives and refined bleached white flour, which has diabetes-causing contaminants. A blueberry bagel is no longer a blueberry bagel. When you really understand what’s in the foods, it’s mind blowing.

Artificial colors sometimes find their way into salmon before it even becomes food

Artificial colors turn up in a lot of interesting places. Many salmon farms are adding artificial color to their food to make the salmon flesh appear more red because that’s what consumers will buy. They’ll buy red or pink salmon over grey salmon any day of the week because their instincts tell them deeper, richer colors are healthier. Imitation crab meat has artificial colors added to make part of the meat look red — but at least the label includes the word “artificial,” so you can avoid it if you read labels.

The biggest form of dishonesty across the entire food industry is the use of artificial colors that influence you to buy and consume foods that actually harm your health (such as snack chips made with MSG). The food companies have figured out how to hack into your perception hardware. They send one message to your eyes, but they manufacture foods out of something entirely different. The bottom line is that foods, through the use of artificial colors, are sending an incongruent message: “I’m a healthy food.” But the reality is, “I’m harmful junk food.”

These companies employ tens of thousands of food scientists in the United States alone. They figure out how to make foods more palatable and less expensive by using the cheapest ingredients possible while prettying them up with artificial food colors made from petrochemicals.

Food coloring from insects

I have one more interesting tidbit I’d like to share with you. You may be familiar with a red color ingredient called carmine; it can be found in strawberry yogurt and a variety of other products. Carmine is sourced from a mash made by grinding up beetles grown in Peru and the Canary Islands. The mash is strained out to obtain a red liquid. That liquid, made from insects, is then shipped to the United States to food companies, where it is dumped into the yogurt to make it look like there are strawberries in there. Folks, it’s not strawberry. It’s insect juice. That’s what’s in your yogurt (and a lot of candy and children’s foods as well).

Some people have a dangerous allergic reaction to this ingredient. They can go into anaphylactic shock, which puts them in a coma (or worse!). As this demonstrates, some of these color additives can be extremely dangerous, but you’ll notice companies don’t put this information on their labels. “Insect juice” is never listed on your yogurt. They merely list “carmine,” and they leave it up to you to figure out what that means. Ninety-nine percent of people in this world have no idea what carmine really is, but now you do.  

http://www.naturalnews.com/z022870.html

March 19, 2008

Outrage of the Day: Protest the MOTHERS Act

If you need an explanation of why antidepressants aren’t good for fetuses (let alone adults and teens), I don’t know what to say. Read the article, sign the petition, contact your representatives. Psychotropic drugs–> mind control. Herbs, diet, and exercise–> things Big Pharma can’t profit from. We must be the change! Social change can come from good health and good nutrition. Don’t make yourself a hostage to Big Pharma!

NaturalNews.com printable article

Originally published March 6 2008

MOTHERS Act Seeks to Drug Expectant Mothers with Antidepressants to “Treat” Postpartum Depression

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) A new law being considered in the U.S. Congress would attempt to prevent postpartum depression in new moms by drugging them with SSRI antidepressant drugs while they’re still pregnant. This legislation is being aggressively pushed by pro-pharma front groups in an effort to expand the customer base for SSRI drugs by targeting pregnant women as new “customers” for the chemicals. It’s an example of the latest insanity from Big Pharma, whose drugs are already killing over 100,000 Americans each year while inciting violence and suicides in teens. Every single shooting massacre we’ve seen in the last ten years has been carried out by a person taking SSRI antidepressant drugs. The mainstream media pays no attention to this link, and the FDA ignores the reports in order to keep these drugs on the market.

SSRI drugs have never been approved for use on newborns, yet this new MOTHERS Act will effectively drug unborn babies and newborns with drugs like Prozac. This will certainly have an impact on their developing brains, and the bulk of the research available today shows that the impact will be negative. Will these children be more prone to violent thoughts and behavior? Will they contemplate suicide at younger ages? And what will be the impact of the drugs on the mother?

For one mother who was drugged with antidepressants — Amy Philo — the drugs caused her to experience thoughts of violence against her own newborn babies. After taking antidepressants prescribed by her doctor, she had visions of killing them (and herself). Upon returning to her doctor, Amy was told to increase the dosage! Eventually, Amy realized the drugs were wrecking her own brain chemistry, and she stopped taking the pills entirely, causing the thoughts of violence and suicide to subside.

Now, Amy is leading a campaign to stop the MOTHERS Act. She’s posted a heart-wrenching 5-minute video on YouTube that tells her story (with pictures of her babies, too!):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQW23XCmOCw

A local news station also covered her story, and that report can be viewed here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W4B8I_8wz6I

An article explaining more about the effort to stop the MOTHERS Act is found here:
http://birthfriend.wordpress.com/2008/0…

As you’ll learn from these videos and articles, the real purpose of the MOTHERS Act is to drug the mothers. Thus, it should really be called the Drug the MOTHERS Act! It’s being pushed by drug companies, of course, and backed by psychiatrists and corrupt government officials who have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The whole point of this act is not to protect mothers from depression, but to recruit mothers as patients and, by doing so, also expose newborns to psychiatric drugs that will destroy their normal brain function and turn them into lifelong customers requiring ongoing chemical treatment.

We must stop the MOTHERS Act. It is a dangerous law created for marketing purposes, not medical purposes. Treating pregnant women with antidepressant drugs (and thereby exposing their unborn babies to those drugs) is one of the most outrageous pro-pharma ideas to come along in many years. It’s not enough to drug the teenagers and children with these dangerous pharmaceuticals, now Big Pharma wants to start drugging children before they’re even born!

If this law is passed and implemented, I fear for the future of our babies. Imbalanced by these dangerous pharmaceuticals, mothers are likely to commit acts of extreme violence against their children. Then they will be thrown into the prison system, of course, where they will be drugged with yet more psychiatric drugs (generating yet more profits for Big Pharma). Their children, meanwhile, will be taken away by Child Protective Services and treated with psychiatric drugs under the care of a “psychiatric doctors” who, of course, will poison that child’s brain with a never-ending regimen of Big Pharma’s chemicals. Do you see the scam here? By “screening” pregnant women for depression, they can create TWO new patients for psychiatric drugs, even though a family is destroyed in the process.

This is precisely the aim of Big Pharma: Sell more drugs, create more markets, and earn more profits regardless of the cost in human suffering. Big Pharma has zero concern for families and zero compassion for human beings. It only seeks to poison the minds of the people through television advertising and psychiatric drugs, all while maximizing its own profits.

What you can do to stop the MOTHERS Act

We must work together to stop this dangerous act that would recruit mothers to be treated with dangerous psychiatric drugs (while exposing their unborn babies to those same drugs).

Sign the petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-t…

Also, see Unite For Life at:
http://uniteforlife.org/MOTHERSact.htm#…

By the way, this is not an article about pro-life vs. pro-choice on the issue of unborn babies, and I use the term “unborn babies” in a purely humanitarian sense, because a child that’s in the womb and about to be born is clearly an “unborn baby” whose health must be protected. I am opposed to the drugging of mothers during any trimester. Pharmaceuticals simply do not belong in expectant mothers. Those pharmaceuticals pass straight through to the blood of the fetus. Regardless of whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice on the issue of abortion, I hope you agree that pregnant women should not be drugged with antidepressants!

Press release from UNITE / CHAADA

UNITE / CHAADA / ICFDA / COPES Foundation Objection to the Proposed MOTHERS Act – Bill before Senate Puts Young Children and Mothers in Serious Danger

To the HELP Committee of the United States Senate:

For years, the March of Dimes has warned not to use meds while pregnant. Why now encourage mothers to take drugs?

Please register this extreme objection to the proposed MOTHERS Act (S. 1375) which is now before you in committee. It is my earnest hope that you will immediately defeat this bill in committee. The bill has been brought to you under the guise of ensuring safety or support for new mothers; however, nothing could be further from the truth.

The bill was originally proposed in response to the death by suicide of Melanie Stokes, a pharmaceutical rep. who took her own life by leaping from a balcony several stories off of the ground. Contrary to popular understanding it was not post-partum depression that killed Melanie, but the numerous antidepressant drugs she was taking, which the FDA confirmed double the suicide risk.

Nobody is suggesting that new moms do not ever experience mood swings, depression, or even psychotic episodes. The more important issue is what the effect of this bill will be and why nobody is addressing potential methods of prevention. Everyone knows how many young moms experience gestational diabetes, but who is addressing the even higher rate of gestational hypoglycemia, which often initially manifests as depression? This is a physical condition that is treated with diet and is exacerbated by antidepressants (which list hypoglycemia as a side effect).

To simply screen women for post-partum mood disorders and ensure that they get “treatment,” we would be setting families up for the expectation of tragedy and increasing the chances of that actually happening when we refer them to medical “professionals” who are oblivious to the negative mind-altering effects of psychiatric drugs. A popular opinion among medical caregivers these days is that “post-partum mood disorders” must be a sign of an underlying biochemical imbalance and would be corrected with drugs.

Current drugs used on post-partum women include SSRIs, atypical antidepressants, and even antipsychotic drugs. These pose a significant risk to the immediate safety and health of women as well as their children and families. SSRIs carry a black box warning for suicide and the most popular one, Effexor (the same medication Andrea Yates was taking when she drowned her 5 children), has the words “homicidal ideation” listed as a side effect. Nearly every recent case of infanticide which has made news can be clearly linked back to a psychiatric drug. These drugs endanger babies and mothers.

Additionally, the drugs can be extremely addictive and also pose a risk to nurslings or babies exposed in subsequent pregnancies. Some babies have died from SIDS linked to exposure from pregnancy or nursing; others have experienced coma, seizures, GI bleeding, heart defects, lung problems, and many babies died before reaching full term or soon after birth.

The bill does not address the fact that studies show that biological agents (antidepressants for example) cited in the bill and already prescribed to pregnant women can cause congenital heart birth defects where children have had to undergo open-heart surgeries to correct this. Also, some babies are being born with organs outside their bodies, requiring immediate surgery.

In closing I want to re-emphasize the total lack of any real answer to post-partum depression posed by this bill. If we can prevent post-partum depression or support moms through it, or offer proven SAFE and EFFECTIVE natural alternatives to dangerous drugs, then we should. However we should never, ever become party to a pharmaceutical campaign to push drugs on the public. We will set ourselves up for disaster if we allow an invasion into the privacy of every family in the country and suggest to our most vulnerable citizens that they might be mentally ill.

We must do everything in our power to protect innocent children, and giving their mothers addictive drugs which pose a significant risk of causing suicide and violence does not protect anyone. It does cause the child to become addicted while still in the womb and sets up drug dependence which can be lifelong.

We still have no idea what effect most drugs have on developing brains. It might take decades for the impact on the developing brain to become apparent.

For information on the research pertaining to the risks of antidepressants and other treatments for new moms and their babies, details about the Melanie Stokes case (or you can read the letter by Dr. Ann Blake Tracy at http://uniteforlife.org/MOTHERSact.htm#…), as well as information on prevention strategies and safe, effective treatments for post-partum mood disorders, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Amy Philo
Founder, www.uniteforlife.org
Co-Founder, www.chaada.org

Camille Milke
Founder, www.copesfoundation.com
New Mexico State Director of the ICFDA http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Mother of a victim of psychiatric drug-induced suicide and grandmother to a now motherless child

Dr. Ann Blake Tracy
Executive Director of the ICFDA
http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Author of Prozac: Pancaea or Pandora? Our Serotonin Nightmare

December 13, 2007

Another Great Report from Dr. Mercola: What in the World Are You Putting on Your Skin and In Your Body?

Filed under: alternative health news — Tags: , , , , , — sesame seed @ 8:28 pm

The Skin is Our Largest Organ. It does absorb what we put on it; that’s how transdermal drugs work.

http://products.mercola.com/natural-body-butter/

Why don’t you run and get a bottle of any of the skin moisturizers that you are currently using. You might find that your personal care products contain one or probably more of many possibly dangerous ingredients.

Here are a few of the most common suspicious ingredients:

  • Mineral Oil, Paraffin, and Petrolatum – Petroleum products that coat the skin like plastic, clogging pores and creating a build-up of toxins, which in turn accumulate and can lead to dermatologic issues. Slows cellular development, which can cause you to show earlier signs of aging. Suspected cause of cancer. Disruptive of hormonal activity. By the way, when there’s an oil spill in the ocean, don’t they rush to clean it up – fast? Why put that stuff on your skin?

  • Parabens – Widely used as preservatives in the cosmetic industry (including moisturizers). An estimated 13,200 cosmetic and skin care products contain parabens. Studies implicate their connection with cancer. They have hormone-disrupting qualities – mimicking estrogen – and interfere with the body’s endocrine system.

  • Phenol carbolic acid– Found in many lotions and skin creams. Can cause circulatory collapse, paralysis, convulsions, coma and even death from respiratory failure.

  • Propylene glycol – Used as a moisturizer in cosmetics and as a carrier in fragrance oils. Shown to cause dermatitis, kidney or liver abnormalities, and may inhibit skin cell growth or cause skin irritation.

  • Acrylamide– Found in many hand and face creams. Linked to mammary tumors in lab research.

  • Sodium laurel or lauryl sulfate (SLS), also known as sodium laureth sulfate (SLES)– Found in car washes, engine degreasers, garage floor cleaners… and in over 90% of personal care products! SLS breaks down the skin’s moisture barrier, easily penetrates the skin, and allows other chemicals to easily penetrate. Combined with other chemicals, SLS becomes a “nitrosamine”, a potent class of carcinogen. It can also cause hair loss. SLES is sometimes disguised with the labeling “comes from coconut” or “coconut-derived”.

  • Toluene Poison! Danger! Harmful or fatal if swallowed! Harmful if inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Made from petroleum or coal tar, and found in most synthetic fragrances. Chronic exposure linked to anemia, lowered blood cell count, liver or kidney damage, and may affect a developing fetus. Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) contains toluene. Other names may include benzoic and benzyl.

  • Dioxane– Found in compounds known as PEG, Polysorbates, Laureth, ethoxylated alcohols. Common in a wide range of personal care products. The compounds are usually contaminated with high concentrations of highly volatile 1,4-dioxane, easily absorbed through the skin.

    Dioxane’s carcinogenicity was first reported in 1965 and later confirmed in studies including one from the National Cancer Institute in 1978. Nasal passages and liver are the most vulnerable. Dioxane is easily removed during the manufacturing process by “vacuum stripping”. Warning: It is a synthetic derivative of coconut. Watch for hidden language on labels, such as “comes from coconut”.

So, do you want to put these chemicals on your skin? Hopefully not…

You’d be better served by switching to skin care products made of plant names you recognize, can pronounce, and could even eat (if you had to).

–I suggest reading the whole page, useful information…

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.