Mohamed ElBaradei: "If not now, when?"

By Robert Naiman

If Western leaders, who have backed the dictator Mubarak for 30 years, cannot stand before the Egyptian people today and say unequivocally, "we support your right of national self-determination," when can they do it?

That's the question that Egyptian democracy leader and Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei has put before Western leaders today.

Speaking to The Guardian UK in Cairo, before the planned protests today, ElBaradei stepped up his calls for Western leaders to explicitly condemn Mubarak, who, as The Guardian noted, has been a close ally of the US:

"The international community must understand we are being denied every human right day by day," he said. "Egypt today is one big prison. If the international community does not speak out it will have a lot of implications. We are fighting for universal values here. If the west is not going to speak out now, then when?"

Giving forceful illustration to ElBaradei's words that "Egypt today is one big prison," Egyptian police later doused ElBaradei with a water cannon and beat supporters who tried to shield him, AP reported, then trapped ElBaradei in a mosque by surrounding it with tear gas:

Police fired water cannons at one of the country's leading pro-democracy advocates, Mohamed ElBaradei, and his supporters as they joined the latest wave of protests after noon prayers. They used batons to beat some of ElBaradei's supporters, who surrounded him to protect him.

A soaking wet ElBaradei was trapped inside a mosque while hundreds of riot police laid siege to it, firing tear gas in the streets around so no one could leave.

As I can attest from personal experience, having been under "hotel arrest" in Egypt during the Gaza Freedom March a year ago, this is a standard tactic of Egyptian police - prevent you from participating in a demonstration by detaining you where you are.

Do you like this? Click here to get Truthout stories sent to your inbox every day - free.

What does it say that ElBaradei, a Nobel Prize winner, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a former assistant to the Egyptian foreign minister, not to mention a 68-year-old man - is not allowed to peacefully raise his voice in protest against the Egyptian government?

Some folks in Washington still seem to be laboring under the illusion that the US can wash its hands of this matter, like Pontius Pilate.

If the Egyptian government were not one of the largest recipients of US "foreign aid," largely military "aid," it might be a different story. If the protesters in Egypt weren't painfully aware that the US has long backed Mubarak to the hilt, it might be a different story.

But that's not the world in which we live. The world in which we live is the one in which people in Egypt know that the US has backed Mubarak to the hilt. FDR famously said of the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." But FDR didn't say that in 2011. The world has changed. Expectations have been raised. US leaders today have to meet a higher standard today. "Our son of a bitch" isn't going to wash on the streets of Cairo.

ElBaradei told CNN on Tuesday:

"I was stunned to hear Secretary Clinton saying that the Egyptian government is 'stable,' and I asked myself at what price stability. Is it on the basis of 29 years of martial law? ... Is it on the basis of rigged elections? That's not stability. That's living on borrowed time. Stability is when you have a government that is elected on a free and fair basis. And we have seen how elections have been rigged in Egypt, we have seen how people have been tortured. And when you see today over 100,000 young people, getting desperate, going to the street, asking for their basic freedoms, I expected to hear from Secretary Clinton ... democracy, human rights, freedom."

In cities across Egypt today, thousands of people, young and old, secularists and Islamists, Muslims and Christians, workers, lawyers, students and professors, have placed their bodies on the line. Their willingness to sacrifice forces us to consider ElBaradei's question: if not now, when? As Rabbi Hillel said,

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

If I am only for myself, what am I?

If not now, when?

Original article with comments.

Fighting a common enemy on the GMO battlefield

By the Center for Food Safety

Yesterday’s announcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that it will once again allow unlimited, nation-wide commercial planting of Monsanto’s genetically-engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa, despite the many risks to organic and conventional farmers, is deeply disturbing, but not surprising.

For the past four years, there has been a ban on the planting and sale of GE alfalfa, as a result of a lawsuit brought by the Center for Food Safety (on behalf of farmers) against USDA. In 2007, a federal court ruled that the USDA’s approval of GE alfalfa violated environmental laws by failing to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa, the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and increased use of glyphosate herbicide, sold by Monsanto as Roundup.  The Court banned new plantings of GE alfalfa until USDA completed a more comprehensive assessment of these impacts via an environmental impact statement (EIS). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed the national ban on GE alfalfa planting.  In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa until and unless future deregulation occurs.

Last spring more than 200,000 people submitted comments to the USDA highly critical of the substance and conclusions of its draft EIS on GE Alfalfa. Instead of responding to these comments and concerns, including expert comments from farmers, scientists, academics, conservationists, and food safety and consumer advocates, the USDA has chosen instead to listen to a handful of agricultural biotechnology companies.

USDA’s decision to allow unlimited, nation-wide commercial planting of Monsanto’s GE Roundup Ready alfalfa without any restrictions flies in the face of the interests of conventional and organic farmers, preservation of the environment, and consumer choice. USDA has become a rogue agency in its regulation of biotech crops and its decision to appease the few companies who seek to benefit from this technology comes despite increasing evidence that GE alfalfa will threaten the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment. CFS will be suing on this decision, and we anticipate we’ll have to litigate on GE sugar beets and other pending approvals as well.

For the rest of the article, please click here.

Fear extreme islamists in the Arab world? Blame Washington

By Jeff Cohen

In the last year of his life, Martin Luther King Jr. questioned US military interventions against progressive movements in the Third World by invoking a JFK quote: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Were he alive to witness the last three decades of US foreign policy, King might update that quote by noting: "Those who make secular revolution impossible will make extreme Islamist revolution inevitable."

For decades beginning during the Cold War, US policy in the Islamic world has been aimed at suppressing secular reformist and leftist movements. Beginning with the CIA-engineered coup against a secular democratic reform government in Iran in 1953 (it was about oil), Washington has propped up dictators, coaching these regimes in the black arts of torture and mayhem against secular liberals and the left.

In these dictatorships, often the only places where people had freedom to meet and organize were mosques - and out of these mosques sometimes grew extreme Islamist movements. The Shah's torture state in Iran was brilliant at cleansing and murdering the left - a process that helped the rise of the Khomeini movement and ultimately Iran's Islamic Republic.

In a pattern growing out of what King called Washington's "irrational, obsessive anti-communism," US foreign policy also backed extreme Islamists over secular movements or government that were either Soviet-allied or feared to be.

In Afghanistan, beginning BEFORE the Soviet invasion and evolving into the biggest CIA covert operation of the 1980s, the US armed and trained native mujahedeen fighters - some of whom went on to form the Taliban. To aid the mujahedeen, the US recruited and brought to Afghanistan religious fanatics from the Arab world - some of whom went on to form Al Qaeda. (Like these Washington geniuses, Israeli intelligence - in a divide-and-conquer scheme aimed at combating secular leftist Palestinians - covertly funded Islamist militants in the occupied territories who we now know as Hamas.)

This is hardly obscure history.

Except in US mainstream media.

One of the mantras on US television news all day Friday was: Be fearful of the democratic uprisings against US allies in Egypt (and Tunisia and elsewhere). After all, we were told by Fox News and CNN and Chris Matthews on MSNBC, it could end up as bad as when "our ally" in Iran was overthrown and the extremists came to power in 1979.

Busy schedule? Click here to keep up with Truthout with free email updates.

Such talk comes easy in US media where Egyptian victims of rape and torture in Mubarak's jails are never seen. Where it's rarely emphasized that weapons of repression used against Egyptian demonstrators are paid for by US taxpayers. Where Mubarak is almost always called "president" and almost never "dictator" (unlike the elected president of Venezuela).

When US media glibly talk about the Egyptian and Tunisian "presidents" being valued "allies in the war on terror," it's no surprise that they offer no details about the prisoners the US has renditioned to these "pro-Western" countries for torture.

The truth is that no one knows how these uprisings will end.

But revolution of some kind, as King said, seems inevitable. Washington's corrupt Arab dictators will come down as surely (yet more organically) as that statue of Saddam, another former US ally.

If Washington took its heel off the Arab people and ended its embrace of the dictators, that could help secularists and democrats win hearts and minds against extreme Islamists.

Democracy is a great idea. Too bad it plays almost no role in US foreign policy.

Original article with comments.

Wall street gets off free

Egyptian unrest continues

Zeitgeist 3. Moving forward

There are 300 000 people watching it every day. Available for free.

Healthcare fraud crackdown reveals pharmaceutical companies among America's top defrauders

By Rick Ungar

A Dept. Of Health & Human Services report out today reveals that the government managed to reclaim $4 billion dollars in health care rip-offs last year – the largest amount ever recovered from those attempting to defraud seniors and taxpayers.

Working in concert through the Health Care Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (“HEAT”), the Justice Department and HHS were able to track down the $4 billion improperly collected by a wide array of bad guys between October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2010.  As you would expect, a chunk of the fraud was the work of seedy operators turning in Medicare claims for wheelchairs that were never sold to recipients who never knew they needed mobile assistance. Then there were the run of the mill physician overcharges, billing scams, etc.

But get this – a full one half of the money ripped off was done at the hands of some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the nation.

Some examples from the past year in drug crime and civil wrongdoing of the corporate variety -

Fortune 500 company, Allergan, (AGN) paid the government $600 million to settle criminal and civil charges arising from the company selling their Botox product as a remedy for headaches – despite forgetting to get FDA approval to do so.

Novartis (NVS) coughed up $422.5 million to get rid of criminal and civil liability problems for illegally marketing some of their products.

AstaZeneca (AZN) kicked in $520 million for marketing an anti-psychotic drug for uses not approved by the FDA and for paying kickbacks to doctors.

While these companies clearly are the poster children for increasing government regulation, we shouldn’t judge the entire industry by the behavior of the few. Maybe most of the drug businesses play it by the book.

Or not.

In fact, the entire pharmaceutical industry is much, much worse when it comes to not playing by the rules, defrauding the taxpayer and illegally pushing drugs in a way that can damage or kill people.

The fines imposed on each of the 2009-2010 rogues gallery is a mere drop in the bucket when compared to what Pfizer paid into the government till in the year preceding the period covered by today’s report. Pfizer’s payment of a $1.2 billion fine for illegally promoting their drugs for uses not approved by the FDA not only established an all-time record for the pharmaceutical industry but was the largest criminal fine ever paid in our nation’s history.

And still, Congressional Republicans tell us that over-regulation of America’s industries are at the very heart of all that ails us.

Maybe they are right. Maybe a pharmaceutical industry freed of the regulatory shackles that force them to defraud our seniors and the nation’s taxpayers in order to maintain their position as one of the most profitable industries in our economy, would be a kinder, gentler, more loving industry without the government telling them what to do.

After all, this life of crime is really not their fault. They’re simply a product of their regulatory environment.

In fact, the next time you see a drug company executive walking off the 18^th green or heading into a five star restaurant, go on up and give that executive a big hug. Tell her you understand. Let that person know you feel her pain.

Why?

Because the drug companies didn’t really want to break the law – it was the devil government that made them do it.

Link.

The world according to Monsanto

The chemical corporation who gave us agent orange, aspartame and Bovine Growth Hormone, now wants to control our food supply through genetically modified patented seeds. If you thought that GMO-s are the solution to feed the hungry, you are unfortunately seriously mistaken.

Monsanto is also responsible for serious dioxin and PCB contamination of both people and the environment and highly toxic herbicides such as its blockbuster chemical Roundup. Which is by the way already insufficient in fighting the super weeds it has created.

A quote from a Vietnam veteran:

"Vietnam vets consolidated suit against them proves they knew about the health hazards and possible death of persons exposed! The memo found sent out by Monsanto saying to other chemical co. involved, “Do not leak that dioxin is a health hazard and could cause death!” This is their memo, not mine nor anyone using the chemical. That’s why the Veterans won their case! However on that point, the $285,000,000 awarded by the court judge, only came to $900 each for the 400,000 vets involved. The lawyer got $1,000,000 the day of the decision. The veterans got their money as late as years later. How fair is that? Believe me as a suffering vet who didn’t get any money from this suit, as I didn’t qualify under guide lines at that time. I do now, but, oh how sad for me. Let’s have a pity party for me. No, lets get rid of Monsanto! Then and only then will I be a little happy. I could get millions and not be happy. It’s not about the money, like it is for them! I’ll never be the same and I’m sure I’ll die before I am supposed to because of my exposure. So will millions around the world! They are still selling dioxin to third world countries and they are going to poison the populations in the gene pool of seeds and ban organic crops that they don’t own. They will own any crops that pollen from their crops germinate and they will then own that crop! Listen to the issue on this in the documentary!"

Interview with Charlotte Gerson

Charlotte Gerson says it all. The daughter of Max Gerson reveals the truth about the power of big pharma (the most profitable industry in the world), politics, the FDA (Food and Death Administration), the uselessness of conventional medicine, drugs, chemotherapy; the suppression of alternative therapies and successful cancer treatments. The whole interview consists of 5 parts. 

Related post:
Food matters

My Blackberry is not working! :D

What's wrong with the body scanners?

In short: EVERYTHING!
If you want to catch "terrorists", go and learn from the Israelis and do profiling.



To read about the health hazards of going through the full body scanners or just standing next to them during a shift and be exposed to background radiation, click here.

Kissinger about the China - US relations

Listen carefully what he is saying....

Action Alert - The FDA is going after intravenous vitamin C

From The Alliance For Natural Health

The FDA has just notified one pharmacy that it will no longer be allowed to manufacture or distribute injectable vitamin C—despite its remarkable power to heal conditions that conventional medicine can’t touch. Please help reverse this outrageous decision!

Let’s get this straight. The government acknowledges the risk of a worldwide flu pandemic. It acknowledges that conventional drugs cannot cure big viruses-like the mononucleosis and hepatitis viruses, many influenza viruses, and many others. It acknowledges that many bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics and are killing increasing thousands. It acknowledges the risk of a worldwide drug-resistant TB pandemic.

Despite acknowledging all this, it now insists on wiping out one of the best potential treatments for these conditions and for certain cancers as well. And why is this being done? What possible rationale is offered? Because it’s dangerous? No. Because it can’t be patented and therefore won’t be taken through the standard FDA approval process. No matter that vitamin C is one of the least toxic components of our food supply and liquid forms of it have been used safely for decades.

By the way, here is what is not safe. Don’t substitute home-made vitamin C solution for pharmaceutical grade liquid. That is not safe for injection. If the FDA action leads someone to do that, the FDA should be held responsible for the results.

The government, instead of banning intravenous vitamin C, should instead be supporting research into it. Even though IV C is being used in burn units around the world, including in the US, and has been adopted by the military for this purpose, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) refuses to fund any studies using intravenous C in patients. There are privately funded studies currently underway, but of course these cannot continue if the FDA bans the substance.

With this pharmacy, the FDA also banned injectable magnesium chloride and injectable vitamin B-complex 100. These two substances are routinely added to intravenous C to make the “Myers Cocktail,” used especially for conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome, and infectious diseases such as hepatitis, AIDS, mononucleosis, and flu. The FDA is not going after the Myers Cocktail directly, but is rather attacking each individual substance used to make the cocktail, and may conceivably be going after injectable vitamins and minerals in general, despite such injections being given under the care of a qualified physician.

Please contact the FDA right away, and tell them to stop this foolish war on intravenous vitamin C!

Each of us reading this should think, “Intravenous C could someday save my life.” Dr. Jonathan Collin, editor of the Townsend Letter, discusses the case of a man in New Zealand who nearly died from swine flu. After developing a severe fever and upper respiratory infection, his condition deteriorated and he became comatose. Eventually even a ventilator was insufficient to keep him breathing because his lungs were so compromised by pulmonary edema. After weeks of heroic intervention, doctors decided there was no chance of survival and nothing further should be done for him.

The family asked the hospital to administer intravenous vitamin C. After much disagreement, the hospital gave him 25 grams of vitamin C every 6 hours. There was so much improvement over the next two days that the hospital decided to reinstate his intensive care—but they discontinued the vitamin C, saying that he had improved only because they had rolled him onto his side or his stomach instead of keeping him on his back! Not surprisingly, his condition once again deteriorated.

The family moved him to another facility that reluctantly allowed the IV vitamin C (albeit at a lower dose), and his lung function gradually improved. He came out of coma after four weeks, and after taking vitamin C orally, he gradually improved enough to be discharged. One year later, he was back to flying his plane and surveying his farm in New Zealand. None of the doctors who fought so hard to prevent his treatment with vitamin C have ever acknowledged their error.

Even people in perfectly good health may not be getting enough vitamin C. We recently noted the research that up to 87% of Americans are vitamin D deficient. But studies also show that many people may be deficient in vitamin C as well. A recent study on 1,000 Canadian adults found 33% had suboptimal levels of vitamin C—one in seven was “very deficient”—which could place them at increased risk for chronic health problems. Those who were vitamin C deficient were also more likely to have larger waists, greater body mass, and higher blood pressure.

The study’s author, Dr. Ahmed El-Sohemy, suggested eating fruits and vegetables high in vitamin C, such as citrus fruits and peppers, or taking supplements. The recommended dietary allowance (RDA) in nonsmoking adults is 90 mg per day for men and 75 mg for women, though some experts say a minimum daily dose of 120 to 200 mg is more appropriate, and some routinely take much higher doses themselves. Research also shows that people suffering from various diseases may benefit from larger amounts. In the case of the common cold, a review of published trials found that amounts of 2 grams per day appear to be more effective than 1 gram.

But there is a big difference between oral vitamin C and intravenous C. One maintains your health. The other seems to directly attack pathogens and cancer cells. Vitamin C taken orally will not do this, because the concentration does not seem sufficient to accomplish the task.

Please take action immediately! Please contact the FDA, and tell them to take their job of protecting our health seriously—by allowing injectable vitamin C, magnesium chloride, and vitamin B-complex 100 to continue being manufactured and sold! And don’t accept the answer that these substances need to be taken through the full FDA approval process. These are not patentable substances and no one will pay billions to do that. To require a standard approval process for them is identical to banning them, as the FDA know full well.

Link

More

Related post

Intravenous vitamin C treatment

Breastfeeding study and baby food firms link revealed

By Martin Johnson

Three scientists who controversially cast doubt on the safety of exclusively breastfeeding babies until six months old have links to infant formula and baby food companies, breastfeeding advocates say.

In a paper in the British Medical Journal, paediatrician Dr Mary Fewtrell and colleagues said exclusive breastfeeding to six months was associated with a higher risk of iron deficiency anaemia, food allergies and coeliac disease.

There was also a "relatively unexplored concern" that it may lead to children never developing a taste for bitter foods.

But breastfeeding advocacy group La Leche League New Zealand and the British children's charity Unicef United Kingdom have hit back.

La Leche director Alison Stanton said yesterday the paper was not new research but a report on studies selected by the four authors, of whom three had a conflict of interest because of their connections to infant formula and baby food industries.

The four said they received no external funding in preparing their paper but Dr Fewtrell and Alan Lucas, of University College London, and David Wilson, of Edinburgh University, said that in the past three years they had worked as consultants and/or received research funding from infant formula and baby food companies.

Unicef concluded: "Less breastfeeding and earlier introduction of solid food will lead to greater profit for this industry."

"Breastfeeding reduces the risk of infections, as well as the risk of diabetes and obesity in children and breast cancer in mothers."

Unicef said iron deficiency anaemia was related to the mother's iron levels, the length of gestation and cutting the umbilical cord too soon.

"Ensuring that the mother is not anaemic and that cord cutting is delayed will in turn ensure that the baby's own body-stores and breast milk will provide sufficient iron for over six months."

Unicef said the paper's intimation that early introduction of bitter tastes would increase acceptance of green leafy vegetables was speculative.

The World Health Organisation, in responding to the paper, has reiterated that evidence shows six months of exclusive breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of gastro-intestinal infections for the baby, faster maternal weight loss after birth, and delayed return of menstrual periods.

The WHO recommends mothers exclusively breastfeed babies for six months, then add solid foods "and continue breastfeeding up to the age of 2 years or beyond".

La Leche League NZ and the Health Ministry advise introducing some solids from around six months.

Source

Blueberries in your food or something else?

Food manufacturers have managed to come up with something again to save costs. Instead of real blueberries, they feed you artificial colors, partially hydrogenated oils (like soy and cottonseed!),  and liquid sugars like high fructose corn syrup. My guess is that these are all GMO-s too. You can find fake blueberries in cereals, muffins, bagels and bread. So instead of believing the packaging, you have to read the labels! 

Related post:
Metal filings in your enriched cereal.

Whistleblower exposes GlaxoSmithKline's dangerous practices

Drug company whistle-blower Cheryl Eckard talks about her experience trying to fix problems at GlaxoSmithKline. Her discoveries about the dangerous practices of the company made her a key figure in a federal lawsuit.

Original interview and video.

Mercola's take on Avandia, another dangerous GSK drug.

"...GSK's blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia made headlines again last year when it became clear that the drug not only had major risks, but that GSK kept the dangers of the drug under tight wraps—for a very long time.

As it turns out, GSK spent 11 years covering up trial data that showed that Avandia was a risky drug for the heart—again providing indisputable evidence that the drug paradigm is about money, not health. Avandia topped the list of drugs linked to fatal adverse events in 2009, according to an analysis of U.S. FDA records, with 1,354 deaths reported that year alone. As a result, the FDA recently decided to restrict access to the drug.

In the US, Avandia is now only available to new patients if they are unable to achieve glycemic control using other medications and, in consultation with their health care professional, decide not to take a different drug for medical reasons. Europe decided to ban the drug due to its exaggerated health risks."

"One aspect that truly worries me is that while the criminal cases we've seen in the past several years are related to drugs, many of these companies, including GSK, also produce VACCINES.

And guess what?

They're typically not liable for damages from, or harm done by, contaminated or otherwise dangerous vaccines! We've recently seen evidence of "mistakes" in vaccine manufacturing as well, but vaccine makers are rarely if ever punished for these willful errors and omissions, which should provide you some further food for thought..."

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield

232 toxic chemicals found in 10 babies

From Mercola.com

Laboratory tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group have detected bisphenol A (BPA), a plastic component and synthetic estrogen, in umbilical cord blood of American infants.

Nine of 10 randomly selected samples of cord blood tested positive for BPA, an industrial petrochemical.

BPA has been implicated in a lengthening list of serious chronic disorders, including cancer, cognitive and behavioral impairments, endocrine system disruption, reproductive and cardiovascular system abnormalities, diabetes, asthma and obesity.

In all, the tests found as many as 232 chemicals in the 10 newborns, all of minority descent. The cord blood study has produced hard new evidence that American children are being exposed, beginning in the womb, to complex mixtures of dangerous substances that may have lifelong consequences.

And in a separate study, researchers found that complications of pregnancy, such as preterm labor, preterm birth, and infection were lowest in women with the highest vitamin D levels.

Blood levels of activated vitamin D usually rise during very early pregnancy, and some of it crosses the placenta to bathe the fetus, especially the developing fetal brain, in activated vitamin D. But many -- in fact most -- pregnant women do not make as much vitamin D as they need.

4,000 IU of vitamin D per day during pregnancy was found to be safe (not a single adverse event). However, this amount only resulted in a mean vitamin D blood level of 27 ng/ml in the newborn infants, indicating that even 4,000 IU per day during pregnancy is not enough.

Babies are born at considerable risk nowadays due to the toxic load of their mothers. If a baby is exposed to numerous toxic compounds in utero, changes may occur that either directly cause cancer, or lengthen the period of sensitivity to carcinogens, therefore making the child more susceptible to cancer, and other diseases, later in life.

This EWG study is the first to detect BPA in umbilical cord blood, which is a very concerning finding considering this chemical has been linked to endocrine system disruption, reproductive and cardiovascular system abnormalities, diabetes and more at very low levels.

However, it is not the first to show just how extensive a chemical cocktail newborn babies are being exposed to.

Exposure to Nearly 300 Toxic Chemicals … Before Birth

A prior study by EWG found that blood samples from newborns contained an average of 287 toxins, including mercury, fire retardants, pesticides, and Teflon chemicals.

Of the 287 chemicals EWG detected in umbilical cord blood, it’s known that:

• 180 cause cancer in humans or animals
• 217 are toxic to your brain and nervous system
• 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests

Children, meanwhile, experience greater exposure to chemicals pound-for-pound than adults, and have an immature and porous blood-brain barrier, which allows greater chemical exposures to reach their developing brain.

Children also have lower levels of some chemical-binding proteins, according to EWG, which allows more of a chemical to reach their organs, while systems that detoxify and excrete chemicals in adults are not fully developed. These factors, coupled with the fact that a child will be around for 80 years or more, allowing more than enough time for chemicals to do their damage, signals a major challenge for kids born today.

Experts believe rising rates of birth defects, asthma, neuro-developmental disorders and other serious diseases in U.S. children are a result of these early chemical exposures.

BPA: A Toxic Plastic Chemical to Watch Out For

Plastics chemicals are among the most pervasive and potentially damaging toxins for a fetus, so if you’re pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, now is the time to start limiting your exposure.

This includes BPA, which EWG detected in newborn umbilical cord blood. BPA is an endocrine disruptor, which means it mimics your body‘s natural hormones and can trigger major changes in your body. Of 115 published animal studies, 81 percent found significant effects from even low-level exposure to BPA.

This toxic chemical first caught researchers’ attention after normal mice began to display uncommon genetic abnormalities. The defects were linked to plastic cages and water bottles that had been cleaned with a harsh detergent, causing BPA to leach out of the plastic. After determining how much BPA the mice had been exposed to, the researchers realized even an extremely small dose of 20 parts per billion daily, for just five to seven days, was enough to produce effects.

Some of the greatest concern surrounds early-life exposure to BPA.

This can lead to chromosomal errors in the developing fetus, which can cause spontaneous miscarriages and genetic damage. And being exposed to just 0.23 parts per billion of BPA is enough to disrupt the effect of estrogen in a baby's developing brain.

Again, for this reason women of childbearing age and those who are pregnant should be especially diligent at avoiding BPA, but practically no one is immune. A study last year found the chemical can lead to heart disease, diabetes and liver problems in adults, and previous research has linked BPA to:

• Structural damage to your brain
• Hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, and impaired learning
• Increased fat formation and risk of obesity
• Altered immune function
• Early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development, disrupted reproductive cycles, and ovarian dysfunction
• Changes in gender-specific behavior, and abnormal sexual behavior
• Stimulation of prostate cancer cells
• Increased prostate size, and decreased sperm production
• Diabetes
• Heart disease
• Liver damage

As it stands, BPA is one of the world's highest production-volume chemicals and is widely used in the production of:

• Plastic water bottles

• Plastic gallon milk bottles

• Plastic microwavable plates, ovenware, and utensils

• Tooth sealants

• Canned foods and soda cans (most have plastic lining in the cans)

• Baby toys, bottles, pacifiers, and sippy cups

Avoiding these items is an important step to limit your BPA exposure, and you can find even more tips in this past article.

Phthalates: Another Plasticizer Chemical to Avoid

Phthalates, or “plasticizers,” are a group of industrial chemicals used to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. They’re also one of the most pervasive of the endocrine disrupters.

These chemicals have increasingly become associated with changes in development of the male brain as well as with genital defects, metabolic abnormalities and reduced testosterone in babies and adults.

Phthalates are found in, among other things:

• Processed food packaging
• Hoses
• Raincoats
• Shower curtains
• Vinyl flooring and wall coverings
• Lubricant and adhesives
• Detergents
• Beauty products like nail polish, hair spray, shampoo, deodorants, and fragrances
• Toys

11 Tips to Minimize Your Chemical Exposure

There are about 75,000 chemicals regularly manufactured and imported by U.S. industries. Rather than compile an endless list of what you should avoid, it’s far easier to focus on what you should do to lead a healthy lifestyle with as minimal a chemical exposure as possible:

1. As much as possible, buy and eat organic produce and free-range, organic foods to reduce your exposure to pesticides and fertilizers.

2. Rather than eating conventional or farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury, supplement with a high-quality purified krill oil, or eat fish that is wild-caught and lab tested for purity.

3. Eat mostly raw, fresh foods, steering clear of processed, prepackaged foods of all kinds. This way you automatically avoid artificial food additives of all kinds, including dangerous artificial sweeteners, food coloring and MSG.

4. Store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap and canned foods (which are often lined with BPA-containing liners).

5. Have your tap water tested and, if contaminants are found, install an appropriate water filter on all your faucets (even those in your shower or bath).

6. Only use natural cleaning products in your home.

7. Switch over to natural brands of toiletries such as shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group has a great safety guide to help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates and other potentially dangerous chemicals.

8. Avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners or other synthetic fragrances.

9. Replace your Teflon pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.

10. When redoing your home, look for “green,” toxin-free alternatives in lieu of regular paint and vinyl floor coverings.

11. Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric.

Vital Information Every Pregnant Woman Needs to Know

Just as important as avoiding potentially harmful substances is making sure you’re getting enough of the good ones – and one of the most important is vitamin D.

I am convinced that in the not too distant future it will be mandatory for women to receive regular vitamin D blood test levels.

Why?

There is powerful new evidence emerging that sufficient vitamin D levels can reduce your risk of having a premature delivery. It can also help protect your newborn baby from other health problems.

In what is considered the first scientific trial that meets the most stringent criteria for “evidence-based inquiry,” U.S. researchers Drs. Hollis and Wagner divulged their findings at a recent international vitamin D research conference in Brugge, Belgium.

Their findings included:

• Mothers who took 4,000 IU’s (ten times the RDA of 400 IU) of vitamin D during pregnancy had their risk of premature birth reduced by half
• Premature babies born to women taking high doses of vitamin D were reduced by half at both 32 and 37 weeks
• There were also fewer babies who were born “small for dates”
• Women taking high doses of vitamin D had a 25 percent reduction in infections, particularly respiratory infections such as colds and flu as well as fewer infections of the vagina and the gums
• The “comorbidities of pregnancy” were reduced by 30 percent in the women who took the high-dose vitamin D. (Including diabetes, high blood pressure, and pre-eclampsia -- a potentially deadly increase in blood pressure and fluid)
• Babies getting the highest amounts of vitamin D after birth had fewer colds and less eczema

Another 2009 study on vitamin D deficiency in newborns with acute lower respiratory infection confirmed a strong, positive correlation between newborns' and mothers' vitamin D levels.

That study found that over 87 percent of all newborns and over 67 percent of all mothers had vitamin D levels lower than 20 ng/ml, which is a severe deficiency state. As a result, the researchers recommended that all mothers optimize their vitamin D levels during pregnancy, especially in the winter months, to safeguard their babies' health.

In addition, numerous other studies have found that vitamin D may protect against a number of birth defects and autism.

But many -- in fact most -- pregnant women do not make as much vitamin D as they need.

It is absolutely imperative that pregnant women maintain a blood level of between 50 and 70 ng/ml of 25 hydroxy D. So please watch my free one-hour vitamin D lecture to find out how to get your levels optimized.

Link.