Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2013

Unhealthy schools are a threat to public health and an injustice to children. Ninety-eight percent of all school-aged children attend school. Other than home, schools are the environment where children spend the most time. Yet tens of thousands of P-12 school buildings are dirty, polluted, or decayed. Many are sited on or too close to hazards. As a result, school environments leave the most vulnerable learners at risk of or with suspected exposures that no agency addresses.   (more…)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Radiation’s Risk to Public Health By Ira Helfand, MD

From the beginning of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011, the public was told repeatedly by industry spokesmen and government officials that the radiation discovered in the air, drinking water and food was “safe” or that it did not pose a threat to public health.  This unfortunately is not true.

 

It is the consensus of the medical and scientific community, summarized in the National Research Council BEIR VII report, that there is no safe level of radiation.  Any exposure, including exposure to naturally occurring background radiation, creates an increased risk of cancer.  The BEIR report concluded that every thousand man-rems of radiation exposure will cause one cancer.

 

While the risk of low-dose exposure may be very low for a given individual, when large numbers of people are exposed, there are health consequences.  If one person receives 1 rem of exposure, he or she has a one in one thousand chance of getting cancer.  But if a thousand people are exposed, one of them will get cancer.  And if a million people are exposed, one thousand of them will get cancer.  If the whole US population is exposed to that dose, there will be 300,000 cases of cancer.  So while the dose of radiation in a glass of drinking water may be so low that any one person does not need to take specific protective measures, the cumulative impact on the whole community may be very significant. (more…)

Read Full Post »

As physicians and other health professionals, we have a unique opportunity to combine awareness of science with our professional experience by advocating to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it uphold its mission.  You do not need to be an expert to do so; as this article will indicate, any informed health professional can support public health by testifying at an EPA hearing.       The mission of the EPA, formed in 1970, is to protect human health and the environment.  EPA reduces environmental risk by setting standards based on scientific research and enforcing federal laws regarding environmental health.  For example, the Clean Air Act, last amended in 1990, is the law that defines EPA’s responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation’s air quality.  National Ambient Air Quality Standards were established in 1970 and currently cover six principal air pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution, and sulfur dioxide. EPA periodically reviews these standards by going through a lengthy process of planning, integrated science assessment, risk/exposure assessment, and policy assessment, followed by the development and publishing of a proposed rule.  Public hearings then occur, after which EPA issues its final rule.  (more…)

Read Full Post »

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/responses/thousands-of-chemicals-on-the-market.html

Humans are exposed to multiple chemicals at a time in a myriad of conditions at all stages of our lives. For example, workers and those living near polluting facilities likely encounter higher exposures than individuals working and living in less polluted settings. Similarly, young children, pregnant women, and others likely have vulnerabilities that our current toxicity testing does not take into account. It has been 37 years since Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which was intended to ensure the safety of industrial chemicals (more…)

Read Full Post »

EPA is currently addressing the challenge of updating its hazardous chemical assessment approaches.  Here I identify critical components of a chemical hazard assessment that reflect the best available science and the recommendations of the National Academies. These elements should be a part of EPA’s chemical assessment paradigm, and included in the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) now circulating in Congress as a reform of the outdated and inadequate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

 

The first task in a chemical assessment is to select the relevant studies for inclusion. Initially, selecting studies should be as comprehensive as reasonably possible, by gathering the published, unpublished, and “grey” literature (publicly available government reports, etc.) as part of the literature search.  This broad inclusive approach is generally supported by regulators, the chemical industry, and independent researchers.

Next, the scientific quality of individual studies should be determined by evaluating possible bias in the study. This can include selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, detection bias, and reporting bias – all of which get to the heart of the “believability” of the study results. The chemical industry and the CSIA favor reporting quality as the preferred measure of study quality.[1] This favors industry-generated studies that adhere to Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). GLP is a standard for reporting and record-keeping, animal care and data collection required for industry laboratories in response to fraudulent practices documented in the 1970s. GLP is not necessarily associated with higher quality research, proper study design or correct statistical analysis.[2] Moreover, GLP studies are usually designed to identify major toxic effects like weight loss or cancer or death, rather than early-warnings of potential toxicity like genetic changes or alterations in hormone levels.  GLP studies aren’t designed to grapple with the problems of low-dose exposures, endocrine or hormonal effects, behavioral or learning effects, or reduced sperm count that predicts low fertility.

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/responses/use-of-best-available-science.html (more…)

Read Full Post »

Re Flu Shots “You can imagine that it began to rub me the wrong way when these very same patients would come in and casually mention that they had gotten a “flu shot”, often without a single medical provider involved (at CVS!), no consent, no discussion.  I didn’t know much about the flu vaccine other than that when I entered medical school, pregnant women and babies were in the “contraindicated” demographic.  I also knew that doctors, residents and med students almost never got the flu shot voluntarily.”

“The better way embraces periodic sickness as part of comprehensive wellness. The only way to truly protect ourselves and our infants is through natural immunity bolstered by wild-type exposure in the community. Once you have a particular flu strain, when it comes around again, you will be uniquely protected, and you will pass on this protection to your newborn. There is no replacement for this. We cannot outsource our health to pharmaceutical companies. They just don’t know what health is.”  ~Kelly Brogan, MD

Dr. Brogan is allopathically and holistically trained in the care of women at all stages of the reproductive cycle experiencing mood and anxiety symptoms, including premenstrual dysphoria (PMDD), pregnancy and postpartum symptomatology, as well as menopause-related illness.

Originally published on Thinking Mom’s Revolution

Reprinted from http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/your-body-your-baby-their-flu?page=1 (more…)

Read Full Post »

Wow, the medical establishment and the status quo cheerleaders have pulled out all the stops in their latest propaganda hit piece published in USA TODAY on November 15, 2013.
It’s enough to make one want to give up hope for any goodness in the human condition.
By   Eric Merola Director, Burzynski Documentary Film Series

The Cancer Establishment of Radiation/ Chemo is  trying to Block Clinical Trials of Randomized Phase III trial for a diffuse intrinsic childhood brainstem glioma. This trial is for the use of Antineoplastons (ANP) for this condition. ANP is the first substance in medical history to cure it

Since 1971, the cancer establishment has taken in over $200 billion in tax payer money to “fight” the disease. If the disease is conquered, that money goes away. Hundreds of universities and hospitals and the tens of thousands of employees working within those institutions rely on a constant influx of taxpayer, corporate, and publicly donated money to keep those institutions in play. If the disease is conquered, all that money goes away. Simple as that. In the USA TODAY story, Dr. Peter Adamson of the Children’s Oncology Group claims that “if Antineoplaston therapy really works, it would be on the market due to its value, and its ability to make so much money.” Dr. Adamson feels a loyalty to this totalitarian system, under the cloak of it being a “free market.” Dr. Adamson is suggesting that Antineoplastons have and will be given a chance to enter the market unabated by the system itself, hence his belief that the system is “free.” Based on 30+ years of resistance to Antineoplastons, from the NCI rigging its own trials to fail, intentionally killing nearly a dozen people, to the NIH’s FDA simultaneously trying to imprison Burzynski while partnering with Burzynski’s own research scientists to steal the medicine’s patents, and this USA TODAY article—historical precendence proves otherwise. 
What Dr. Adamson doesn’t say is that the Children’s Oncology Group is directly responsible for blocking the first ever Randomized Phase III trial for a diffuse intrinsic childhood brainstem glioma. This trial is for the use of Antineoplastons (ANP) for this condition. ANP is the first substance in medical history to cure it. And even with the utterly corrupt FDA, where over 50% of its drug evaluation money comes from the pharmaceutical industry itself—and the FDA’s oncology board comprised exclusively of pharmaceutical executives—the FDA must give the “illusion” of representing the people’s interests for its facade to work. Bound by the duty to adhere to this illusion, the FDA gave permission to allow these monumental Phase III randomized trials to commence. The only problem is—as I illustrated in BURZYNSKI: PART II—organizations like Dr. Adamson’s Children’s Oncology Group have directly blocked and prevented these monumental trials from taking place—blocking every single children’s hospital in the USA, Canada, and the UK from taking part. So everyone will inevitably say, “why won’t he do his Phase III trials?” While simultaneously blocking the very trials they wish to see. It’s very clever indeed.
It’s like the FDA saying, with the Children’s Oncology Group standing behind them:
“Where are the randomized clinical trials for those childhood tumors we gave you permission for?”
Burzynski responds: “No children’s hospital will allow me to do them.”
FDA replies: “I guess we have to shut you down if you refuse to conduct those randomized clinical trials in children we gave you permission for!”
Resulting in technically being “out of the FDA’s hands”—they turn over the dirty work to a system it regulates—to halt the process. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »