Natural Family Awareness

ASK YOUR PEDIATRICIAN

DTaP

1.. How much thimerosal is in this vaccine?
2.. How many cases of tetanus do you encounter?
3.. Can you give me a 100% guarantee that giving my child diphtheria, tetanus and Pertussis will give them immunity to the diseases?

Hepatitis B

1.. How is my child at risk if I’m not infected with hepatitis b?
2.. How many cases of this disease have you seen in which the patient was not immunized and did not recover?
3.. How much thimerosal is in this vaccine?
4.. Isn’t there human aborted fetal tissue in this vaccine according to the package insert?

Hib

1.. Isn’t there 25 mcg of thimerosal in this vaccine?
2.. Isn’t this the virus that CDC says is known to cause bacterial meningitis in children?
3.. Can you guarantee me that my child will not come down with bacterial meningitis from this vaccine later down the road?

Pneumococcal

1.. Isn’t there 25 mcg of thimerosal in this vaccine?
2.. Can you guarantee me that my child will not come down with Pneumonia after the vaccination?

Polio

1.. Isn’t this the vaccine known to carry the herpes virus which also causes bacterial meningitis?
2.. Can you guarantee me that this does not have any thimerosal in it?
3.. Can you guarantee me that the cancer causing SV40 monkey virus is not a contaminant of this vaccine?
4.. Can you guarantee me that there are absolutely NO contaminants in the vaccine?

Meningococcal

1.. I read in a package insert for the Prevnar, that of children inoculated with this vaccine for the controlled study, 21+ died of SIDS. Can you guarantee me that this vaccine did not contribute to those SIDS cases or is not a threat for my child after this inoculation?
2.. Can you guarantee me that this vaccine will not contribute to meningitis later down the road for my child?
3.. CDC says meningitis has resulted in encephalitis (an infection of the brain).� Can you guarantee this will not be a future case as a result of this vaccine?

MMR

1.. What is the guarantee that the MMR will not contribute to any future onset of autism?
2.. The vaccine measles, mumps and rubella strains are found in the spinal fluid, blood brain barrier and colon of autistic children.� Can you guarantee me that this will not be a problem?
3.. CDC says mumps contribute to bacterial meningitis.� What’s the guarantee this will not be a future case after the vaccination?
4.. CDC says the MEASLES is grown on chicken embryos known to carry the avian leukemia.� What’s the guarantee this will not be an introduction to future leukemia?

Influenza

1.. Aren’t the 3 viruses in this vaccine mutations of years past?
2.. Will this keep away infection of the this year’s influenza virus?
3.. Does this vaccine have 25 mcg of thimerosal?
4.. CDC says the viruses in this vaccine were grown on chicken embryos known to carry the avian leukemia. What’s the guarantee that this vaccine is not an introduction to future leukemia?

1.. Isn’t thimerosal used in the manufacturing and left in the vaccine so that the vaccine does not have to be produced in a sterile environment? � Isn’t this also to keep any possible contaminants from multiplying and or mutating?
2.. You must know what the safe level of thimerosal injection is for my child, WHAT IS IT?
3.. Can you guarantee me that all the thimerosal in the vaccines will not contribute to any neurological diseases in the future?
4.. Do you have the studies proving that the human aborted fetal tissues in the vaccines will not hybridize and or mutate, thus cause further health consequences later in life?
5.. What is the guarantee that my child will not suffer anaphylactic shock or cardiac arrest after vaccination?
6.. What is the guarantee that my child will not suffer seizures or convulsions at any time after vaccination?
7.. Can you give me a 100% guarantee of the safety and efficacy of these vaccines for my child?
8.. Who will be held responsible if my child is to suffer cardiac arrest, anaphylactic shock, seizures, convulsions, epilepsy and some of the other known adverse reactions to vaccines stated by CDC?� Will I be able to hold you legally responsible?

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/07/06/27/How_to_Prevent_and_Treat_Sunburn.htm

It used to be that sunburns were as much a part of summer as picnics and pool parties. Today, we know that too much sun — i.e. when your skin gets red and feels hot to the touch — can, over time, result in dry, wrinkled skin, liver spots, and even skin cancer.

Experts say 15-20 minutes of sunlight a day is an ideal amount for a light-skinned person to produce health-promoting vitamin D. Darker skinned people need a bit longer.

At the very least, sunburn is painful and can lead to headache, fever and fatigue. Preventing sunburn is important to protect your skin and your future health — and to really enjoy your summer.

How Much Sun is Too Much?

Getting some sun, experts now conclude, is indeed essential to health. Most importantly, safe sun exposure allows your body to produce vitamin D, which is often referred to as the “sunshine drug.”

“Enzymes in our skin make vitamin D when skin is exposed to sunlight,” says Dr. Julia Knight, a researcher at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto.

Maintaining healthy vitamin D levels is known to protect against cancer, strengthen your bones, and, according to the Vitamin D Council, plays a positive role in the following conditions:

* Heart disease, stroke and hypertension
* Autoimmune diseases
* Diabetes
* Depression
* Chronic pain, muscle weakness and muscle wasting
* Osteoarthritis and osteoporosis
* Birth defects
* Periodontal disease

Sun exposure is an easy, not to mention inexpensive way to get plenty of vitamin D, so experts now recommend spending a bit of time in the sun to maintain your levels.

“You don’t need much sun for your body to reach its maximum level of vitamin D,” Knight says. “In the summer, a lighter-skinned person would reach their maximum level in about 15 minutes. People with darker skin would need a bit more time.”

So while a short stay in the sun is healthy, too much longer can be harmful. You know you’ve been in the sun too long if your skin looks pink or red, feels hot to the touch, or is painful. Once you feel this, however, it’s likely too late.

Aloe vera is an incredibly soothing salve for burns of all kinds (including sunburn). Just break off a leaf and apply the gel inside to the burn.

How to Prevent Sunburn

Most sunburn symptoms don’t show until a few hours after exposure, but the full extent of the burn may not appear for a day or more. So it makes sense to be careful when you’re in the sun to avoid getting burned in the first place.

* Don’t stay out long between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. This is when the sun’s rays are the strongest. If you’re outdoors during this time, keep in mind that you’ll burn faster than at other times of the day.
* Wear protective clothing. If you’ve been out in the sun for a while and want to cover up, use clothing such as cover-ups, long loose-fitting pants and tops, and wide-brimmed hats. Opt for lightweight fabrics that are cool, but will still give you sun protection. And don’t forget your sunglasses (your eyes can get sunburned too).
* Try natural sunblock. Sunblock will protect your skin from the sun’s rays, but be aware that many contain questionable chemicals that are not usually regulated. Opt for natural varieties from your health food store, and be sure to reapply the sunblock if you have been in the water or have been sweating.
* Get some shade. A simple way to avoid sunburn is to go in a shaded area to get out of the sun. If a shaded area (such as under a tree) is not available, use an umbrella.

How to Soothe Sunburn

Surgeon’s Skin Secret Moisturizing Sticks

If your skin is sunburned, keep it moisturized with the all-natural, hypoallergenic Surgeon’s Skin Secret Moisturizing Sticks.

If your preventative measures have failed and you’ve gotten sunburned, here are some simple tips to soothe the pain and swelling:

* Cool the area. Dampen a washcloth with cool water and apply it to the area, or take a cool bath or shower. Adding some baking soda to your bathwater can help to soothe your skin.
* Keep your skin moisturized. A gentle, non-irritating moisturizer such as Surgeon’s Skin Secret Moisturizing Sticks can help relieve the dryness and tightness that accompanies sunburn.
* Soothe your skin. Aloe vera gel is an excellent soothing salve, particularly if you have access to a living plant. Simply break off a leaf and apply the gel inside to the burn. Witch hazel also works well to relieve sunburn pain.
* Drink plenty of water. Sunburn can be dehydrating, causing fluid loss through your skin. Drinking water is essential to healing sunburn.
* Leave blisters alone, if they form. The fluid inside acts as a protective agent for your skin. Breaking the blisters will slow healing and increase the risk of infection.
* Avoid topical “-caine” products. Over-the-counter creams that end in “caine” (such as benzocaine) are sometimes advertised to relieve sunburn. However, according to the Mayo Clinic they can actually irritate the skin or cause an allergic reaction.

Finally, if you are sunburned treat it as any other illness. Your body will need time to recover, so put on some comfortable, loose-fitting clothing, rest, and eat and drink healthy foods to give your body all the support it needs to heal.

http://www.thebestcontrol.com/bugstop/control_mosquito.htm

Mosquitoes are blood-feeding ectoparasites of people and animals. The English call mosquitoes “gnats”. There are about 100 trillion mosquitoes with at least 3,450 different species in the world. They are found from the tropics to the Arctic regions. All of the families belong to the order Diptera and are related to house flies, gnats and midges. What makes mosquitoes different from all other flies is the presence of a long, piercing mouthpart called a proboscis and the scales on the hind margins and veins of their wings. Morphologically, mosquito males differ from females in that they have feathery antennae, long feathery palps and smaller mouthparts. Mosquitoes develop through complete metamorphosis and have four distinct states: egg, larva or “wriggler”, pupa or “tumbler” and adult.

Mosquito eggs can be classified into three groups: 1. eggs laid singly on the still or very slow-moving water surface (Anopheles), with each egg having a series of “floats” along its perimeter; 2. eggs laid in groups forming rafts made by the adult females that float on water surfaces (Culex and Culiseta); and 3. eggs laid singly out of the water in the mud (Aedes and Psorophora). Mosquito larvae are aquatic; they feed on water mites, water fleas, algae, protozoans and minute organic debris by sweeping the food into their mouths with a pair of feeding brushes.

Mosquito pupae also live in the water. Adult mosquitoes are small, about 1/8″ long, with a single pair of membranous wings and are free living. A typical mosquito weights about 2.5 milligrams, or about 20,000 mosquitoes per pound. Females of most species require a human and/or animal blood meal before oviposition, utilizing the protein in blood to produce their eggs and bring them to maturity. There are an estimated 10 trillion mosquitoes produced just in the U. S. each summer with about 170 species. To give you some idea how many 10 trillion is - that amounts to 41,000 mosquitoes for every man, woman and child or enough to fill the entire Grand Canyon! A mosquito’s brain is the size of the period at the end of this sentence, yet it has outwitted man’s “controls” since the dawn of recorded history! It still can not find a way to fly into a 3 mph wind, however.

Mosquitoes seriously harm vast numbers of people worldwide by transmitting pathogenic organisms that cause disease and death, especially in tropical areas. Including Eastern, Western, California and St. Louis encephalitis, heartworm, malaria, yellow fever, dengue and filariasis. Malaria is a constant threat even in the United States where known vectors exist. Malaria, among all insect-borne diseases, has been the most deadly in modern history. During the last century alone it had killed between 100 - 300 million people, mostly babies and small kids and it infects and debilitates hundreds of millions of others each year per WHO! CNN Trivia 2/4/98 noted that 700,000,000 people a year are infected by diseases carried by mosquitoes. In comparison, only 21 million people died in combat in World War I, World War II and the Korean War combined.

Over 60 species of Anopheles mosquitoes are known to be capable of transmitting malaria. Travelers returning from abroad can constantly introduce the causal agents of malaria, which are microscopic protozoa in the genus Plasmodium spp. On average, one person dies every 30 seconds as a result of a little mosquito “bite”. In Canada hordes of mosquitoes can actually darken the sky - researchers were bitten about 9,000 times per minute; at that rate they could lose 1/2 their blood in 2 hours and die from blood loss! But our primary reason for controlling mosquitoes usually is only to lessen the annoyance caused by their bites and then only secondarily to reduce the transmission of human and equine viral encephalitis and dog heartworm.

The annoyance caused by mosquito feeding can include the itching, restlessness, loss of sleep and nervous irritation in all people, pets and domestic animals that suffer from their attacks. Mosquitoes do not really “bite”, but they penetrate their victim’s hide or skin with their proboscis or hollow, flexible snout. The female has a pump in her head which she uses like a turkey baster to suck in your blood. The average meal takes about 1 millionth of a gallon per bite. Their saliva makes us itch. Usually this minor annoyance can not be documented in terms of economic loss, but, obviously, there may be some major economic losses, e.g., decreased recreation income and lower milk and beef production due to blood loss and irritation. Occasionally extremely large numbers of mosquitoes can actually cause the death of domestic animals through blood loss and anaphylactic shock from reactions to mass injections of mosquito saliva.

Mosquitoes are not strong fliers - so fans easily blow them away. The reproductive success of mosquitoes depends in a large part on the ability of gravid females to locate and select oviposition sites that will support the growth development of their offspring. Safe Solutions, Inc. Enzyme Cleaner with Peppermint diluted in water (1 part per 50,000 parts of water) create an adverse environmental condition that renders the water repellent and/or lethal to all stages of growth.

Maintain tight screens and weather-stripping. Use sodium vapor lamps or yellow non-attractive light bulbs at outside entrances. Remove or empty frequently any containers that may hold rainwater (flower pots, tires, cans). Clean out clogged roof gutters holding stagnant water. As a last resort, add light-weight oil to surfaces of ponds, ditches and even animal hoof prints in mud where mosquitoes may breed. Community effort is needed. Try the proper, professional use of entomopathogenic bacteria, e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis strains (Bt) or Bacillus sphaericus (Neide) (Bs), another important pathogen of mosquitoes, diluted Safe Solutions, Inc. Enzyme Cleaner with Peppermint, dehumidifiers and/or fans and other Intelligent Pest Management® controls before spraying any volatile, synthetic pesticide poisons.

1. Remove all sources of stagnant or standing water if possible, e.g., old tires, bird baths, cans, trash barrels, wading pools, etc., or add Safe Solutions, Inc. Enzyme Cleaner with Peppermint, at a rate of 1/3 oz. per gallon of water.
2. Spray the area and drains with Safe Solutions, Inc. Enzyme Cleaner with Peppermint (1 oz. per quart of water). Remove or spray bushes and dense shrubbery and vines by doors and patios with hose end sprayers and enzymes (1 - 2 oz. per gallon of water).
3. Turn on fans to “blow them away.” Sit in the breeze (even if it is from a fan). They will not bother you.
4. Mosquito bite relief: Soak bites in Epsom salt water or apply a paste of salt mixed into lard or cold cream.
5. Lighting fogging or spraying diluted Safe Solutions, Inc. Enzyme Cleaner with Peppermint (2 oz. per gallon) or garlic oil will control mosquitoes immediately.
6. Rub citronella oil or scented geraniums on clothing or exposed areas or burn citronella candles or wash yourself, your pet and your clothes with Safe Solutions, Inc. Enzyme Cleaner with Peppermint.
7. Pennyroyal, rubbed on the skin (if your are not sensitive), tansy or scented geraniums planted near a door, or basil plants will repel mosquitoes. Wear protective clothing or vinegar on the skin. CNN 8/28/01: Iowa State says catnip is 10x more effect than DEET, so a very small amount of catnip oil can be a very effective mosquito repellant.
8. Practice proper exclusion; repair 16 to 18 mesh screens; seal windows and doors and caulk.
9. Caution - Test anything you want to put on your skin only on a small area first.
10. Some people are more attractive to mosquitoes than others. Mosquitoes are attracted to dark clothing, carbon dioxide and sweat. Prime feeding times are late dusk and early evening. Some people react more seriously to mosquito saliva, the chemical that causes the bites to swell and itch. Carry a small “spritzer” bottle filled with very diluted Safe Solutions, Inc. Enzyme Cleaner with Peppermint, apply and rub into to bite area - this normally will reduce the swelling and itching.

Most folks assume that a chicken nugget is just a piece of fried chicken,
right? Wrong! Did you know, for example, that a McDonald’s Chicken McNugget is 56% corn?

What else is in a McDonald’s Chicken McNugget? Besides corn, and to a
lesser extent, chicken, The Omnivore’s Dilemma describes all of the
thirty-eight ingredients that make up a McNugget – one of which I’ll bet
you’ll never guess. During this part of the book, the author has just
ordered a meal from McDonald’s with his family and taken one of the flyers
available at McDonald’s called “A Full Serving of Nutrition Facts: Choose
the Best Meal for You.”

These two paragraphs are taken directly from The Omnivore’s Dilemma:
“The ingredients listed in the flyer suggest a lot of thought goes into a
nugget, that and a lot of corn. Of the thirty-eight ingredients it takes to
make a McNugget, I counted thirteen that can be derived from corn: the
corn-fed chicken itself; modified cornstarch (to bind the pulverized
chicken meat); mono-, tri-, and diglycerides (emulsifiers, which keep the
fats and water from separating); dextrose; lecithin (another emulsifier);
chicken broth (to restore some of the flavor that processing leeches out);
yellow corn flour and more modified cornstarch (for the batter); cornstarch
(a filler); vegetable shortening; partially hydrogenated corn oil; and
citric acid as a preservative. A couple of other plants take part in the
nugget: There’s some wheat in the batter, and on any given day the
hydrogenated oil could come from soybeans, canola, or cotton rather than
corn, depending on the market price and availability.

According to the handout, McNuggets also contain several completely
synthetic ingredients, quasiedible substances that ultimately come not from
a corn or soybean field but from a petroleum refinery or chemical plant.
These chemicals are what make modern processed food possible, by keeping the organic materials in them from going bad or looking strange after months in the freezer or on the road. Listed first are the “leavening
agents”: sodium aluminum phosphate, mono-calcium phosphate, sodium acid
pyrophosphate, and calcium lactate. These are antioxidants added to keep
the various animal and vegetable fats involved in a nugget from turning
rancid. Then there are “anti-foaming agents” like dimethylpolysiloxen
e, added to the cooking oil to keep the starches from binding to air
molecules, so as to produce foam during the fry. The problem is evidently
grave enough to warrant adding a toxic chemical to the food: According to
the Handbook of Food Additives, dimethylpolysiloxene is a suspected
carcinogen and an established mutagen, tumorigen, and reproductive
effector; it’s also flammable.But perhaps the most alarming ingredient in a Chicken McNugget is tertiary butylhydroquinone, or TBHQ, an antioxidant
derived from petroleum that is either sprayed directly on the nugget or the
inside of the box it comes in to “help preserve freshness.” According to A
Consumer’s Dictionary of Food Additives, TBHQ is a form of butane (i.e.
lighter fluid) the FDA allows processors to use sparingly in our food

Russell B.Olinsky, M.S.
Environmental Specialist

http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/browse.php?sunscreens=1&best=1

There are no federal sunscreen safety standards in the U.S., even though
the FDA has been drafting them for the past 29 years. And did you know that
SPF ratings only cover UVB rays, which cause burns, but not UVA rays, which
raise skin cancer risk?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/21/nbeauty121.xml

Body absorbs 5lb of make-up chemicals a year

By Paul Stokes

Women who use make-up on a daily basis are absorbing almost 5lb of chemicals a year into their bodies, it is claimed.

Many use more than 20 different beauty products a day striving to look their best while nine out of 10 apply make-up which is past its use by date.

Dependence on cosmetics and toiletries means that a cocktail of 4lb 6oz of chemicals a year is absorbed into the body through the skin.

Some synthetic compounds involved have been linked to side effects ranging from skin irritation to premature ageing and cancer.

Richard Bence, a biochemist who has spent three years researching conventional products, said: “We really need to start questioning the products we are putting on our skin and not just assume that the chemicals in them are safe.

“We have no idea what these chemicals do when they are mixed together, the effect could be much greater than the sum of the individual parts.” Mr Bence, an advocate of organic beauty products, believes that absorbing chemicals through the skin in more dangerous than swallowing them.

He said: “If lipstick gets into your mouth it is broken down by the enzymes in saliva and in the stomach. But chemicals get straight into your bloodstream, there is no protection.”

Warnings over using out-of-date lipstick and mascara have also been issued by the Royal College of Optometrists which believes such items are a “hothouse” for harmful bacteria.

Clio Turton, of the Soil Association, said: “Many women are using over 20 different products a day, bombarding themselves with hundreds of different chemicals. They should be asking themselves ‘is that eyelash conditioner really essential?’ ”

Among chemicals under scrutiny are parabens (para-hydroxybenzoic acids) which are preservatives used in products including soap, shampoo, deodorant and baby lotion. Traces of parabens have been found in breast tumour samples, although its link to the development of the cancer is disputed.

Sodium lauryl sulphate, used to help create lather in soaps, shampoo, shaving foam, toothpaste and bubble bath, can cause skin irritation.

The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association said there was no reason for worry because the products were covered by European Union rules requiring them to be safe.

A spokesman said: “The cocktail effect is an urban myth. We do know how different chemicals react individually and can predict how they interact with each other and this is taken into account when the safety of products is assessed.”

http://ezinearticles.com/?Vaccines—Why-Fear-Sells&id=610035

Vaccines - Why Fear Sells
By Sherri Tenpenny, DO

It’s interesting how a discussion about vaccination can quickly become
heated and sometimes even hostile. Would the same debate rage over an
antibiotic or an antihypertensive medicine if there was evidence the drug
was causing harm? When it becomes obvious that thousands have been injured
by a drug such as Vioxx, it is removed from the market. We stop the use of
drugs until they are proven safe. And we sue.

Not so with vaccines. Vaccines are promoted with fanfare until they are
statistically proven to cause harm to a large number of persons. The
thousands of individuals who suffer from vaccine reactions in proportion to
the millions who have been vaccinated are not considered to be a
mathematically significant statistic. However, the more than $1billion that
has been paid to vaccine-injured persons shows that safety is not all that
is it promoted to be. Why the double standard?

Vaccination is built around a “belief system.” We believe vaccines are
safe; we believe vaccines are important to health; we believe the stories
that vaccines are solely responsible for the elimination of smallpox and
polio. And we really want to believe that our doctors have read all the
available information on vaccines–pro and con–and are telling us the
complete truth about vaccines.

However, belief is based on faith, not necessarily on fact. For example, we
want to believe that vaccinating our children will keep them from getting
sick with measles or chickenpox. However, there is a plethora of
information documenting this is not necessarily so.

Why is there an almost desperate need to defend the current belief–and
trust–in vaccines? The public’s view of disease seems to be similar to our
current view on terrorism: Random attacks that are potentially deadly. The
media hawks this view of childhood illnesses and the need for vaccines.
Pharma sells it, doctors push it, and educational institutions reinforce
it. They keep selling it because most readily buy into it, without
question. There is a “just in case” or “better be safe than sorry”
mentality when it comes to vaccination and illness with children.* After
nearly 200 years of use, fear still sells vaccination.

What do we really know about vaccines? A review of the literature and the
CDC documents reveals the following:

1. Vaccine safety studies are relatively small and include only healthy
children. However when a vaccine trial has been completed, vaccines are
given to ALL children, regardless of the condition of their health, family
history or genetics.

2. Vaccine safety studies are short. Most clinical trials monitor for side
effects a paltry 21 days, sometimes, it is only for 5 days. It can take
months before immune system complications appear. This arbitrary deadline,
established by the FDA, precludes associating vaccines with chronic health
disorders. “Safe” is a designation given based on limited information.

3. Vaccine safety studies do not use a true placebo.One of the Gold
Standards in medical research is the “placebo-controlled” trial. An
inactive substance such as a sugar pill is given as a placebo to one group
of participants, while the treatment group is given the new drug. The data
is analyzed to compare the number of side effects that occurred in those
given the drug compared to the numbers of side effects that occurred in
those given the placebo. However, the “placebo” used in vaccine research is
not an inert substance such as sterile water; it is another vaccine. Inert,
sterile water doesn’t cause a reaction; as substitute vaccine can. If both
groups of babies in a trial have the same number of reactions, the study
reports that the vaccine “is as safe as a placebo.” This is deceptive science.

4. Vaccine-induced antibodies do not correlate with protection. In fact,
the esteemed journal, Vaccine stated this clearly “…It is known that, in
many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate with
protection.” The full reference can be found at PMID: 11587808

Vaccination has been accepted as safe, effective and protective. The shots
can be described as a medical “sacred cows,” by definition, “a medical
procedure unreasonably immune to criticism.” The strong response is the a
reaction to a suggestion that the “cow” should be “sacrificed.” It is
heresy to suggest that the status quo is wrong.

When Copernicus insisted that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the
solar system, it went against the philosophical and religious beliefs held
during the medieval times. When two other Italian scientists of the time,
Galileo and Bruno, embraced Copernican theory their comments were
considered blasphemous. Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned
and burned at the stake in 1600. Thirty years later, Galileo was brought
forward and in front of his “Betters,” was forced to renounce his beliefs
under the threat of torture and death. Even after his confession, he was
sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.

The more one investigates vaccination and studies the adverse effects that
have been attributed to vaccines, the more one becomes a Copernican
heretic, speaking out against the status quo can have deadly consequences.
I have personally invested more than 8,000 hours in revealing the truth
about vaccines. If the result of this inquiry and exposure is to be called
a heretic, than I am in wonderful company.
____________________________

*My thanks to Judy Converse for these insights.

Dr. Sherri J. Tenpenny is respected as one of the country’s most
knowledgeable and outspoken physicians regarding the negative impacts of
vaccines on health. Through her education company, NMA Media Press, she
spreads her vision of retaining freedom of choice in healthcare, including
the freedom to refuse vaccination. Her three hour DVD, Vaccines: The Risk,
The Benefits and The Choices , her new book FOWL! Bird flu: It’s Not What
You Think, and many other books, tapes and materials are available at
http://www.osteomed2.com

May/June 2007 Issue
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/05/teflon_is_forever.html?welcome=true

Teflon is Forever

For decades, DuPont has sold the answer to crud, gunk, and grime. What the
company didn’t advertise was that its nonstick wonder sticks—to us.

Leslie Savan
May/June 2007 Issue

Congresswoman Pat Schroeder was scrambling eggs, one day back in 1984, when
she coined one of the most durable political metaphors of our time. Her
1984 description of Ronald Reagan as “the Teflon President” became instant
vernacular, attaching itself to everyone from “Teflon Tony” Blair to
“Teflon Don” John Gotti.

It is all the more ironic, then, that our favorite metaphor for bad press
that won’t stick comes from a product whose toxic legacy will stick around
forever. Teflon, it turns out, gets its nonstick properties from a toxic,
nearly indestructible chemical called pfoa, or perfluorooctanoic acid. Used
in thousands of products from cookware to kids’ pajamas to takeout coffee
cups, pfoa is a likely human carcinogen, according to a science panel
commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency. It shows up in
dolphins off the Florida coast and polar bears in the Arctic; it is
present, according to a range of studies, in the bloodstream of almost
every American—and even in newborns (where it may be associated with
decreased birth weight and head circumference). The nonprofit watchdog
organization Environmental Working Group (ewg) calls pfoa and its close
chemical relatives “the most persistent synthetic chemicals known to man.”
And although DuPont, the nation’s sole Teflon manufacturer, likes to chirp
that its product makes “cleanup a breeze,” it is now becoming apparent that
cleansing ourselves of pfoa is nearly impossible.

DuPont has always known more about Teflon than it let on. Two years ago the
epa fined the company $16.5 million—the largest administrative fine in the
agency’s history—for covering up decades’ worth of studies indicating that
pfoa could cause health problems such as cancer, birth defects, and liver
damage. The company has faced a barrage of lawsuits and embarrassing
studies as well as an ongoing criminal probe from the Department of Justice
over its failure to report health problems among Teflon workers. One
lawsuit accuses DuPont of fouling drinking water systems and contaminating
its employees with pfoa. Yet it is still manufacturing and using pfoa, and
unless the epa chooses to ban the chemical, DuPont will keep making it,
unhindered, until 2015.

The Teflon era began in 1938, when a DuPont chemist experimenting with
refrigerants stumbled upon what would turn out to be, as the company later
boasted, “one of the world’s slipperiest substances.” DuPont registered the
Teflon trademark in 1944, and the coating was soon put to work in the
Manhattan Project’s A-bomb effort. But like other wartime innovations, such
as nylon and pesticides, Teflon found its true calling on the home front.
By the 1960s, DuPont was producing Teflon for cookware and advertising it
as “a housewife’s best friend.” Today, DuPont’s annual worldwide revenues
from Teflon and other products made with pfoa as a processing agent account
for a full $1 billion of the company’s total revenues of $29 billion.

Teflon is not actually the brand name of a pan; it’s the name of the
slippery stuff that DuPont sells to other companies. Marketers deploy the
trademark as a near-mystic incantation, a mantra for warding off filth:
Clorox Toilet Bowl Cleaner With Teflon® Surface Protector, Dockers Stain
Defender™ With Teflon®, Blue Dolphin Sleep ‘N Play layette set “protected
with Teflon fabric protector.” In one TV spot, an infant cries until Dad
sets him down on a Stainmaster (with Advanced Teflon® Repel System) carpet,
where baby, improbably, falls into blissful slumber.

Breathing in dust from Teflon-treated rugs or upholstery as they wear down
is one way we may be ingesting pfoa. Food is another: Pizza-slice paper,
microwave-popcorn bags, ice cream cartons, and other food packages are
often lined with Zonyl, another DuPont brand. Technically, Zonyl does not
contain pfoa, but it is made with fluorotelomer chemicals that break down
into pfoa. Regardless of how it gets into our bodies, once there, pfoa
stays—quietly accumulating in our tissues, for a lifetime.

Teflon is not the only nonstick, non-stain brand that has turned out to be
stickier than advertised. Scotchgard and Gore-Tex, to name just two, are
also made with pfoa or other perfluorochemicals (pfcs). Last year the epa
hit the 3M corporation, maker of Scotchgard, with a $1.5 million penalty
for failing to report pfoa and pfc health data. Chemicals similar to pfoa
have recently turned up in water supplies of suburban Minneapolis and St.
Paul, near 3M facilities.

Unlike DuPont, though, 3M no longer sells pfoa: In the late 1990s, when
testing blood samples for a health study, the company found pfoa even in
the “clean” samples from various U.S. blood banks that it had planned to
use as controls. “They realized they were contaminating the entire
population,” says Richard Wiles, the Environmental Working Group’s
executive director. In 2000, 3M announced that it was discontinuing pfoa
production.

When 3M got out, DuPont, which until then had bought its pfoa from 3M,
jumped in. Now the company’s bottom line depends on whether its product’s
mythic reputation—Teflon’s own Teflon—remains intact.

So far, it seems to be holding. Nonstick pots and pans account for 70
percent of all cookware sold. “Amazingly enough, all the publicity has had
no impact on sales,” says Hugh Rushing, executive vice president of the
Cookware Manufacturers’ Association. “People read so much about the
supposed dangers in the environment that they get a tin ear about
it”—though sales of cast-iron skillets, touted as a safer alternative, have
doubled in the last five years, in large part because of “the Teflon
issue,” according to cast-iron manufacturer Lodge.

In fact, nonstick pans are not a major source of exposure to pfoa, because
almost all of the chemical is burned off during manufacture. Still, when
overheated, Teflon cookware can release trace amounts of pfoa and 14 other
gases and particles, including some proven toxins and carcinogens,
according to the Environmental Working Group’s review of 16 research
studies over some 50 years. At 500 degrees, Teflon fumes can kill birds; at
660, they can cause the flulike “polymer fume fever” in humans. Even at
normal cooking temperatures, two of four brands of frying pans tested in a
study cosponsored by DuPont gave off trace amounts of gaseous pfoa and
other perfluorated chemicals.

A $5 billion multistate class-action lawsuit representing millions of
Teflon cookware owners alleges that DuPont has known for years that its
coatings could turn toxic at temperatures commonly reached on the stove,
but failed to tell consumers. DuPont’s website recommends not heating
Teflon above 500 degrees (so it doesn’t “discolor or lose its nonstick
quality”) and advises that when overheated, “nonstick cookware can emit
fumes that may be harmful to birds, as can any type of cookware preheated
with cooking oil, fats, margarine and butter.” But who knows how hot a pan
gets, and who looks out for birds before fixing dinner? Even while
researching this story, I left a nonstick skillet on the stove. The fumes
smelled like fried computer, and I vowed not to do it again. But I also
decided to go with the hazardous-waste flow, figuring, “We’re all toxic
dumps anyway.” (ewg studies have found a “body burden” of 455 industrial
pollutants, pesticides, and other chemicals in the bodies of ordinary
Americans.) With toxic substances unavoidable, or at least key to
convenience, we run our own self-interested cost-benefit analyses. I throw
out the Teflon-coated Claiborne pants my mother-in-law sent my son, but I
let him play on swing sets made of arsenic-treated wood because I don’t
want to face a tantrum.

Still, consumers of Teflon pans and pants (not to mention the mascara,
dental floss, and other personal care products made slippery with a touch
of Tef) have it relatively safe. The people who make the stuff, and who
live near the plants, face far worse dangers. The granddaddy of trouble
plants—and the one inspiring a range of lawsuits—is DuPont’s plant near
Parkersburg, West Virginia. Residents there have sued DuPont for polluting
their drinking water with pfoa, and in March 2005, DuPont settled the case
for $107 million. If an independent science panel finds links between pfoa
and various health problems, DuPont will have to pay up to an additional
$235 million to monitor the health of 70,000 people for years to come.
Meanwhile, as part of the court order, the company is supplying the entire
population of one nearby town with bottled drinking water.

The epa’s $16.5 million fine against DuPont for concealing evidence of
health risks traces back to the same Parkersburg plant. According to the
epa, workers were reporting health problems there for years, including
birth defects in their children; as far back as 1981, DuPont scientists
knew that pfoa could cross the placenta and thus contaminate fetuses.
DuPont also knew that some of its workers’ babies had been born with eye
defects similar to those 3M had just then reported in rats exposed to pfoa.
At that point, rather than risk finding more evidence, DuPont terminated
its study and didn’t report the troubling data to the epa as required by
law. “Our interpretation of the reporting requirements differed from the
agency’s,” the company explained in 2005.

Today, DuPont remains adamant that pfoa—whether in pots, pants, or drinking
water—is no threat. The epa may say studies show unequivocally that in
“laboratory animals exposed to high doses, pfoa causes liver cancer,
reduced birth weight, immune suppression and developmental problems,” but
DuPont’s website quotes Dr. Samuel M. Cohen of the University of Nebraska
Medical Center, who says, “We can be confident that pfoa does not pose a
cancer risk to humans at the low levels found in the general population.”
But, notes Robert Bilott, one of the lead attorneys in the Parkersburg
suit, “the general population isn’t drinking it. And they have five parts
per billion in their blood. Near the West Virginia plant, it’s in the
hundreds of parts per billion; and in the elderly and in children, several
thousand parts per billion.”

DuPont is hardly unique in trying to cast unflattering data as incomplete
or uncertain. As epidemiologist David Michaels wrote in a 2005 essay in
Scientific American titled “Doubt Is Their Product,” many corporations have
followed the tobacco (and more recently, global warming) model of insisting
that the scientific jury is still out, “no matter how powerful the
evidence.” Michaels took his title from a 1969 memo written by an executive
for cigarette maker Brown & Williamson: “Doubt is our product since it is
the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind
of the general public.” Even the indoor tanning industry, notes Michaels,
“has been hard at work disparaging studies that have linked ultraviolet
exposure with skin cancer.”

Chemical companies caught a break with the passage of the 1976 Toxic
Substances Control Act (which they helped write), a measure so weak it
doesn’t require industrial chemicals to be tested for toxicity. Only toxic
effects, often found after a product has become ubiquitous in the
environment and in people’s bodies, must be reported—and even that rule, as
DuPont discovered, can be broken with only a minor hit to profits.

In the case of pfoa, it was left to the epa to finally investigate the risk
to public health. That assessment, begun in 2000, is expected to go on for
years. If pfoa is determined to be a proven (not merely likely) carcinogen,
says agency spokeswoman Enesta Jones, “this chemical could be banned.” It
would be one of the epa’s very few outright bans since 1996, when it
proscribed ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons. DuPont was the world’s
biggest producer of those too.

For now, DuPont is subject only to the epa’s voluntary “stewardship”
program, under which it has agreed to reduce pfoa emissions from products
and factories by 95 percent by 2010 and 100 percent by 2015. DuPont says it
is likely to meet those deadlines: In February, the company announced it
had found a new technology that reduces by 97 percent the pfoa used in
making Teflon and other coatings, and it has vowed to “eliminate the need
to make, buy or use pfoa by 2015.”

“It’s interesting how DuPont says they’re going to eliminate the ‘need’ to
make, buy, or use pfoa,” says Rick Abraham, an environmental consultant for
the United Steelworkers, which represents workers at DuPont’s plants. “It’s
a self-imposed need. They need it to make money. Are they going to
stockpile it, make as much as they can by 2015? Given DuPont’s history,
that’s very possible. They need to make public a time frame for annual
production and have it subject to third-party verification.” DuPont
spokesman Dan Turner responds, “We’re going to eliminate it, period.” As
for time frames, he says, “I can’t get into specifics. I can only say we’re
moving as quickly as the technology allows.”

Meanwhile, DuPont has been applying a protective layer of PR to the
problem. Last year, caught in a flurry of bad publicity about fines and
lawsuits, the company took out full-page newspaper ads. One stated,
“Teflon® Non-Stick Coating is Safe.” And, as if to flip the bird at
workers’ complaints, it ran an ad in Working Woman showing a female factory
worker and declaring: “DuPont employees use their skills and talents to
make lives better, safer and healthier.” This year, DuPont plans to
advertise its pfoa-lowering measures only in trade publications, perhaps
because it’s tricky to boast of reduced pfoa while also maintaining that
the chemical is harmless. “No one is better than DuPont at greenwashing,”
says Joe Drexler of the Steelworkers’ DuPont Accountability Project.

Possibly. Recall DuPont’s 1990 “Ode to Joy” commercial, in which seals
clapped, penguins chirped, and whales leapt to honor DuPont for using
double-hull tankers to “safeguard the environment.” The seals evidently
didn’t realize that a law passed after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill
required double-hull tankers. The penguins probably didn’t connect the ice
melting under their flippers with DuPont’s chlorofluorocarbons either. The
company fought against regulating them right up until they were banned.

It is in such ads that corporate fantasies and our individual ones meet and
agree to ignore unpleasantries. Corporations lie to us, sure, but we make
it easy for them with the little lies we tell ourselves. Especially when it
comes to our everyday conveniences, it’s easier to accept the company line
that there is no risk than it is to accept that authorities won’t
necessarily protect us from risk. Jim Rowe, president of the union local at
DuPont’s Chambers Works plants in New Jersey, told me that despite the
science about birth defects among DuPont employees, many of his coworkers
have convinced themselves that there’s nothing to worry about: “When we
took blood tests and interviewed them, they said they were told ‘pfoa’s not
a problem—it’s even in polar bears.’” Precisely. And even if DuPont (and
companies that make pfoa in Europe and Asia) stopped producing and using
the chemical tomorrow, the millions of pounds of it already on earth would
remain in the environment and in our bodies “forever,” says the ewg’s
Wiles. “By that we mean infinity.”

Denial, avoidance, and magical thinking aren’t new. Like Teflon, they’re
barriers that keep unpleasant things at bay, and like Teflon, they’re
entrenched deep inside us.

le has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the
Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2007 The Foundation for National Progress

http://www.newstarget.com/021896.html

Canada has done what the U.S. refuses to do: Protect the health of its people through a national program of encouraging vitamin D supplementation. While U.S. cancer groups like the American Cancer Society stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the benefits of vitamin D supplements in cancer prevention, the Canadian Cancer Society is launching a program to make sure every Canadian citizen receives a level of vitamin D sufficient to prevent most cancers, including breast cancer.

The U.S., in contrast, has no interest in preventing cancer… even when a simple, virtually free substance like vitamin D could drop national cancer rates by more than 75 percent.

New research published this month shows that vitamin D supplementation produces an astonishing 77 percent reduction in all cancers in women, making it the single most effective medicine for preventing cancer that has ever been discovered by modern medical science. The American Cancer Society, however, seems stuck in the nutritional dogma of the 1950’s and continues to claim that only drugs, radiation and surgery can treat cancer, and that nutritional supplements have no role to play whatsoever in cancer prevention. This view is so out of date that it belongs in a museum of medicine, not on the agenda of an advanced nation. (Stating that vitamin D has no useful role in preventing cancer is as hopelessly outdated as claiming the Earth is flat.)

The politics of cancer: Keep ‘em sick!
As usual, America’s abandonment of the world’s best natural anti-cancer medicine has nothing at all to do with science, but everything to do with politics and profits. If vitamin D were a cancer drug made by Pfizer, the American Cancer Society would likely be pushing it as the next “miracle” drug and calling for everyone to be put on the drug. But since it’s a nutrient that cannot be patented, and can actually be manufactured for free by exposing your skin to natural sunlight, the entire U.S. cancer industry now laughingly pretends that vitamin D supplementation offers no benefits.

Each day that the American Cancer Society, the AMA, the FDA and others in conventional medicine refuse to acknowledge the benefits of vitamin D supplements for preventing cancer, they lose yet more credibility and slip one step closer towards global humiliation and irrelevance. It is difficult to imagine how anyone from conventional medicine can show up at a health event and say, with a straight face, that they’re doing everything they can to fight cancer when in reality they are willfully ignoring a prevention medicine that really works: Vitamin D. It’s simple, safe and virtually free, and it has no negative side effects, requires no patent royalties, and is available right now to everyone.

If there were ever a cancer prevention strategy to get behind, this is it! The people in the cancer industry, if they had any sense, should be leaping out of their chairs, fumbling over each other in a mad rush to the press conference podium to announce their support for vitamin D. And yet what do we hear in the United States? Complete apathy. It’s as if these people somehow believe that a vitamin manufactured by the human body itself has no role in human nutrition. The depth of blind ignorance at work here is mind boggling. Someone should actually start a psychological study of the people in the cancer industry to figure out how their minds can work that way. It should be called, “The Madness of Crowds and the Illusion of Cancer Treatments in Western Medicine.”

To not get behind vitamin D is to miss the cancer prevention opportunity of a lifetime. Imagine: For every 100 women that will someday get breast cancer, more than 75 of them could entirely avoid breast cancer through the use of vitamin D. That’s 75 women out of 100 who could have their health (and their lives) given back to them through a nutrient that is essentially free. (Add in green tea and some rainforest herbs, and this number leaps to around 90 percent, by the way.) Why wouldn’t everyone in the cancer industry want to save 75% of these women from breast cancer?

I’ll tell you why, and you won’t like the answer. It’s because the cancer industry depends on all 100 of those women being diagnosed with cancer and treated with profitable cancer “management” protocols like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Preventing cancer in 75 percent of women (or more) would deny the cancer industry three-fourths of its revenue. It would shrink the industry, reduce funding, and result in a mass exodus of cancer jobs. Donations would dry up and cancer non-profits (which thrive on the continuation of cancer) would lose big. This is why they won’t support cancer prevention that really works. Preventing cancer is simply not in the self interest of the cancer industry. Prevention is bad for business.

When will America show interest in cancer prevention?
Canada, not surprisingly, is a little quicker to catch on to the enormous benefits of vitamin D in preventing cancer. “We are monitoring the evidence and believe there is a real role for vitamin D to reduce our risk for cancer and so far there are very few side effects,” the Cancer Society’s Heather Logan said in a CTV News report. Actually, there are side effects: Reduced risk of diabetes, obesity, depression, mental disorders and all sorts of cancers. Vitamin D is the miracle medicine the cancer industry claims it’s searching for when it asks you to donate for those “run for the cure” events. But the cure already exists, and it’s available for free.

When it comes to the cancer industry, Canada is the first western nation to stand up and say, “The Emperor has no clothes!” It makes you wonder how long it’s going to take before America will finally stop supporting the cancer industry at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives each year and, instead, start getting serious about cancer prevention. How many Americans have to die before the criminally-operated U.S. cancer industry will be forced to let go of its stranglehold over the American public and finally acknowledge that we can slash national cancer rates by nearly 80% right now by urging people to get more sunlight and vitamin D?

Corporations and governments, of course, view lives as expendable. Encouraging sickness, disease and cancer is a high priority to those who profit from such sickness. And if a few hundred thousand Americans have to die in order to meet next quarter’s corporate profits, then so be it. Americans are expendable. Lives are cheap. They’re so cheap, in fact, that most of the people living in America today take no steps to protect themselves against cancer. I guess some corporations figure, hey, if the people are willingly giving themselves cancer through their foods, cigarettes, toxic cosmetics and chemical exposures, then why should we stop them?

Screening and treatment = Recruiting and profit-taking
The more cancer there is, the richer the drug companies and radiological equipment manufacturers become. More cancer means more profit, and more profit means more influence in Washington. And that explains why nobody in Washington seems to express any interest whatsoever in actually preventing cancer in this country. (Trying to get lawmakers to pass a cancer prevention bill is about as useless as trying to get them to pay off the national debt and balance the federal budget.)

With the cancer industry, the entire focus is on “screening” and “treatment.” Those terms can be more accurately translated into “recruiting” and “profit-taking.” Screening is simply a way to recruit patients into a highly profitable assembly line of cancer treatments which offer no cures and no prevention, only the “management” of the disease so that the maximum profits can be extracted from the patient without actually eliminating their disease. It’s quite a clever scam, and it explains why screening is so often offered for free: It’s just like a crack dealer offering a free hit, but only once. After you’re hooked, you gotta pay.

The cancer industry tries to promote this “recruiting & profit-taking” propaganda through lies like, “Early detection saves lives.” Oh really? Actually, early detection generates more profits, since 9 out of 10 “early detection” positives are, in fact, completely bogus. The cancer detection technology today is so incredibly advanced that it can even detect cancers that aren’t there! (And then the patient is urged to undergo chemotherapy “just in case.”)

Prevention is the only real solution
The only way out of this cancer madness is through prevention. As Dr. Cedric Garland, professor at University of California, San Diego, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine and Moores Cancer Center said about Canada’s decision, “I think this is an important and historic step in the right direction. I think it will offer leadership in the world… as Canada will be the first country in the world to adopt this public health recommendation… Over time, this finding has the potential of eliminating a quarter of a million cases of cancer in North America annually and about 100,000 deaths from cancer annually.”

The U.S., of course, will likely be the last modern nation to reluctantly admit that cancer can be prevented with vitamin D. That’s because the U.S. is “profit central” for the disease industry that preys upon cancer victims and, in fact, encourages cancer by actively preventing cancer prevention. To learn more, click here to see my previous article on the cancer industry and vitamin D.

The U.S. government has no interested in protecting its citizens from disease. Rather, the government actually conspires with pharmaceutical companies and non-profit disease groups to keep the American public in a state of chronic disease through nutritional deficiencies, exposure to toxic chemicals and side effects of pharmaceuticals. And it’s working! The U.S. is the most diseased nation in the world, sporting higher rates of degenerative disease (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, depression and obesity, combined) than any other nation. On top of that — get this — we pay the highest health care costs in the world!

All that money apparently isn’t doing any good. Meanwhile, free cures for cancer are available right now in the form of natural sunlight. Nearly-free prevention methods are well documented and include nutritional supplementation with vitamin D. We know how to prevent cancer, it’s just that the corrupt politicians and dirty non-profits in charge of this country won’t allow the disease to be prevented at all. There’s too much money to be made in treating cancer, and there’s no incentive whatsoever to teach the public how to prevent cancer and avoid becoming cancer patients.

The curtain is closing on America’s future
America is a public health disaster. And it’s going to pay the ultimate price: As I’ve stated before, I believe that health care costs and the mass poisoning of the American people will ultimately cause this nation to self destruct. The “America experiment” is nearly over, and when the whole giant mass of disease and debt collapses, we’re going to be left with a nation of mutant humans hopped up on pharmaceuticals… infertile, mentally impaired, emotionally imbalanced and nutritionally devastated.

We have very nearly lost the battle for the future of this country. The next generation of Americans is already being raised on junk foods, dosed on Ritalin, injected with mercury vaccines, coated in toxic sunscreen chemicals and taught a lifestyle of debt, over-consumption and use of natural resources that simply cannot be sustained for even one more generation. When reality hits the fan, these kids are going to be shocked beyond belief. They have no clue of the tidal wave of poverty, misery and destruction headed their way, courtesy of the extremely corrupt political leaders who have sold out the future of this country in order to win their next election.

Cancer is one area where the science clearly and inarguably shows how we could save trillions of dollars and millions of lives over the next century. Here’s a segment repeated from my previous story on vitamin D. It’s important. Soak this in:

Did you know that reducing the cancer death rate by just 1% would be worth almost $500 billion to the U.S. economy over the next hundred years or so? (Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) Drop the cancer rate by 10% and it’s worth $5 trillion dollars to the economy. These gains are due to increased productivity and life spans of working, contributing people.

We know right now that vitamin D and calcium can slash cancer rates by 77 percent. Do the math on that, and you realize that sunlight and calcium could result in a $38.5 trillion boost to the U.S. economy over the next century.

That’s enough economic productivity to pay off our entire national debt, build new schools in every town and city in the country, provide free college educations to all young people who wish to go to college, invest billions in new energy technologies and even fund massive health education campaigns to keep our population healthy. With that kind of increased abundance, we could build a whole new society of health, wealth and education.

That’s the future being denied by the cancer industry today. They have sold out our future in a desperate grab for next quarter’s profits. They’re not interested in the future of America, or the health of future generations or even the pain and suffering of people battling cancer right now. They’re only interested in one thing: Power. Power over people and money. And the more cancer that exists in the world, the more power they have. Cancer prevention is a threat to the cancer industry, pure and simple. And yet, at the same time, the cancer industry is a threat to America’s future. We cannot save this nation from self destruction if half our population is dying from cancer. (That statement should seem obvious, but it’s way over the head of just about every politician in Washington these days.)

Action items
Here’s what you do:

1) Get natural sunlight on your skin as often as you can. The darker your skin, the more sunlight you need. Read our free report on sunlight and vitamin D for more detailed tips.

2) Never, ever submit to chemotherapy or radiation. These procedures cause severe harm and can ultimately kill you. Seek naturopathic cancer therapies only. Don’t submit to mammograms, either, since they actually cause cancer!

3) Don’t ever give financial support to prominent cancer non-profits, which are almost universally allied with drug companies and radiology equipment manufacturers.

4) Don’t get suckered into visiting an oncologist. Using fear, intimidation and authority, they will lure you into an extremely harmful system of treatments that are dangerous to human health. Instead, visit naturopathic physicians only (N.D.).

5) Prevent cancer in your own life by getting sunlight, eating lots of raw, fresh produce, taking superfood supplements (like spirulina, green tea and rainforest herbs) and engaging in regular exercise. Two of the best anti-cancer supplements I know of are Blood Support from www.BaselineNutritionals.com and Arcozon from the Amazon Herb Company: www.amazondreams.amazonherb.net (Note: I have absolutely no financial interest in any products mentioned in this article)

6) Avoid all cancer-causing food ingredients (like sodium nitrite), cosmetics (all popular brands), personal care products, home cleaning products, cigarettes, etc. Nearly everyone who has cancer gave it to themselves! You can avoid that by avoiding the things that promote cancer (like hair coloring chemicals, nail polish, chlorine pools, etc.)

7) Educate yourself. The more ignorant you remain of cancer, the more easily the cancer industry can manipulate you and seduce you into their system of harmful treatments. By teaching yourself the truth about cancer prevention, you’ll avoid being exploited by an oncologist.

Finally, I’d like you to know that among the well informed natural health practitioners, cancer is considered as easily curable disease in stages 1 - 3. (Only late-stage cancer is challenging.) One alternative cancer doc I know of describes cancer as, “More easily curable than the common cold.” He has helped thousands cure cancer. Curing cancer is incredibly easy when you use natural medicine and make radical changes to your diet and lifestyle. Conventional medicine, however, is clueless, and conventional therapies like chemotherapy actually make the patient weaker and more susceptible to cancer. Once you undergo chemotherapy, all bets are off. Your immune system is severely compromised. So in my opinion, avoiding chemotherapy is essential to curing cancer.

And don’t think you can “play it safe” and do both chemotherapy and natural medicine. You have to make a choice: Death or life. If you want death, go with chemotherapy. It’s known as “legalized euthanasia” in medical circles. But if you want to live, go with natural medicine.

There’s really no such thing as “cancer”
Remember this: I’ve had cancer a thousand times in my life already. So have you. We beat it automatically, unknowingly, routinely… with a functioning immune system and a little help from nature’s medicines (found in foods and botanicals). Every person gets cancerous cells in their body, no exceptions. So don’t be scared by talk that you’ve “GOT cancer.” There is actually no such thing as a “cancer” disease. It’s simply a name that doctors have given to observable symptoms that they can make money treating. A cancer tumor is not a disease, it is a symptom of a severe metabolic or immunological imbalance. You can’t cure cancer by removing the symptom, you can only cure it by rebalancing the body and activating the body’s own natural anti-cancer defenses.

Preventing cancer is child’s play. It’s so simple that it should be taught in the first grade. And yet the whole subject mystifies all the cancer doctors and researchers who remain stuck in the upside-down universe of chemical treatments and medical reductionism. It’s amazing how people who are so smart can ultimately act so stupid. But it just goes to show you: Being book smart doesn’t necessarily help you in the real world. I’d rather be “sun smart” and soak up some healthy rays while the pale-skinned genius cancer docs are choking down chemo drugs and trying to figure out why they’re all so diseased.

Some folks just don’t get it. You won’t find answers in that microscope, my friends. Back away from the technical gear and start to look at the big picture: The human experience, the planet, the universe… nature! This is where the answers are found, on the macroscopic scale, not the microscopic. Mark my words: Cancer will never be cured chemically. It can only be prevented and overcome holistically. The massive “search for a cure” was doomed to fail from the very start, because it could not (and still cannot) view a patient from a holistic perspective.

You could pour ten trillion dollars into cancer research and still never find a single chemical that will cure it. There is no chemical cure, there are only holistic cures provided by nature and the healing power of the human body.

http://www.newstarget.com/021903.html

The idea that sunscreen prevents cancer is a myth. It’s a myth promoted by a profit-seeking tag-team effort between the cancer industry and the sunscreen industry. The sunscreen industry makes money by selling lotion products that actually contain cancer-causing chemicals. It then donates a portion of that money to the cancer industry through non-profit groups like the American Cancer Society which, in turn, run heart-breaking public service ads urging people to use sunscreen to “prevent cancer.”

The scientific evidence, however, shows quite clearly that sunscreen actually promotes cancer by blocking the body’s absorption of ultraviolet radiation, which produces vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D, as recent studies have shown, prevents up to 77 of ALL cancers in women (breast cancer, colon cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer, brain tumors, multiple myeloma… you name it). Meanwhile, the toxic chemical ingredients used in most sunscreen products are actually carcinogenic and have never been safety tested or safety approved by the FDA. They get absorbed right through the skin (a porous organ that absorbs most substances it comes into contact with) and enter the bloodstream.

The benefits of sunscreen are a myth. Proponents say sunscreen prevents sunburn, but in fact, the real cause of sunburn is not merely UV exposure: It is a lack of antioxidant nutrition. Start eating lots of berries and microalgae (spirulina, astaxanthin, blue-green algae, etc.), and you’ll build up an internal sunscreen that will protect your skin from sunburn from the inside out. Sunburn is actually caused by nutritional deficiencies that leave the skin vulnerable to DNA mutations from radiation, but if you boost your nutrition and protect your nervous system with plant-based nutrients, you’ll be naturally resistant to sunburn. The same nutrients, by the way, also protect the optic nerve and eyes from radiation damage. That’s why the consumption of berries and carrots, for example, has historically been associated with healthy eye function. (The same nutrients that protect the eyes also protect the skin.)

Medical nonsense
If sunscreen is so bad for humans, you might ask, then why do so many doctors recommend using it? This might be hard for you to believe, but it wasn’t too long ago that doctors routinely recommended smoking cigarettes, too. The Journal of the American Medical Association, in fact, ran numerous ads promoting Camels as “recommended by more doctors than any other cigarette!” Doctors talked up the “benefits” of smoking cigarettes, urging people to start smoking in order to improve brain function or even — get this — make their teeth stronger!

The truth is doctors are easily influenced by commercial interests and can be readily convinced to recommend practically any product, no matter how toxic, unhealthy or deadly to consumers. Just look at how many doctors wrote prescriptions for Vioxx, for example, after being visited by a Vioxx drug rep pushing it as a “miracle drug” for joint pain.

Also keep in mind that doctor-prescribed medications are the fourth leading cause of death in America today. About 100,000 Americans die each year from following the advice of their doctor. Does it really make any sense to get your health advice from a group of professionals who kill more Americans each year than all the terrorists have ever killed in the history of this country? Besides, doctors know that if they start recommending sunlight and vitamin D, they’ll lose patients and profits because people will start getting well and have no need to keep visiting the doctor. Vitamin D, as you will learn in our free report, The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D, prevents not only cancer, but also diabetes, osteoporosis, depression, heart disease and obesity. It’s the miracle nutrient of the millennium, and yet the entire medical profession tries desperately to pretend that vitamin D has no biological function whatsoever. Hence the support of sunscreen (the anti-vitamin D product).

Sunscreen directly promotes vitamin D deficiency. You show me a person who regularly uses sunscreen, and I’ll show you a person who’s on the road towards cancer and other degenerative diseases. People who use sunscreen are killing themselves and they don’t even know it!

The sunscreen marketing con
The marketing of sunscreen is another great example of consumer product companies fabricating a need in order to sell a high-profit product made mostly with toxic chemicals. There is no need for sunscreen, but the cancer industry and sunscreen manufacturers have created a fictitious need through a campaign of fear and disinformation, hypnotizing practically the entire population into believing one of the most ridiculous ideas in the universe: that sunlight is bad for human health.

Think about it. Our ancestors did not have indoor lighting; they exposed their skin to the sun regularly. They didn’t run and hide from the sun, they used it as nourishment to generate a crucial vitamin that supports human health in a multitude of ways. The idea that “the sun is bad for you” makes about as much sense as “water is bad for you” or “the Earth is flat.” This persistent myth was invented, marketed and publicized by an industry that profits from a gullible public believing demonstrable falsehoods.

But why would the cancer industry go along with the deception, you might ask? Because the continued commercial success of the cancer industry depends on more people getting cancer. In previous articles, I’ve clearly shown that the cancer industry has no interest whatsoever in preventing cancer. The industry, in fact, takes steps to interfere with prevention efforts and thereby ensure the growth in the number of future cancer patients.

The American Cancer Society, for example, still will not recommend that anyone take vitamin D supplements, even though the vitamin can prevent nearly 4 out of 5 cancers. The cancer industry simply has no interest in preventing cancer. It is only interested in treating cancer and profiting from those treatments. (That’s why genuine cancer cures have been routinely suppressed, censored or discredited in the United States.) Read my book, Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them, to learn the shocking truth about how the cancer industry really operates in America today.

The promotion of sunscreen products is a way for the cancer industry to ensure future profits from the treatment of cancer. The more people use sunscreen products, the more they’ll get cancer. And that’s due to two primary reasons: 1) Sunscreen blocks vitamin D production, a nutrient that strongly prevents cancer, and 2) Sunscreen products almost always contain cancer-causing chemicals that are absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream where they cause severe DNA damage, leading to cancer.

Seven important questions about sunscreen
The next time you see some public service advertisement urging you to smother yourself and your children with sunscreen chemicals, think hard before taking action. Ask yourself these seven commonsense questions:

1) Is the sun really dangerous to humans? If so, how did humans survive for the last 350,000 years on planet Earth?

2) Have the chemicals used in sunscreen products ever been safety tested or approved by the FDA? (The answer is no.)

3) Who financially benefits when you keep buying and using sunscreen products?

4) What is the environmental impact of sunscreen chemicals washing off into the ocean, a lake, a swimming pool or being washed down the drain in your shower?

5) Sunscreen manufacturers say the skin doesn’t absorb their chemicals. If that’s true, then how do nicotine patches work? How do transdermal drugs get absorbed through the skin if sunscreen chemicals don’t? (Answer: ALL these chemicals get absorbed through the skin. The skin is not selective about what it chooses to absorb.)

6) If the sun is so dangerous, then why is the vitamin generated by sunlight (vitamin D) so healthy for humans? Why would humans evolve a mechanism for generating a vitamin from sunlight if we weren’t supposed to be exposed to sunlight in the first place?

7) If sunlight is so dangerous, then why is virtually every living creature on planet Earth dependent on sunlight for survival? Plants use sunlight to generate their nutrition, too, and most animals eat either plants or other animals that originally ate plants. Nearly all life on planet Earth is powered by sunlight. Why does the cancer industry believe sunlight causes death when, in reality, sunlight delivers life?

Once you answer these questions, the reality of the situation becomes obvious: Sunlight is good for you, and sunscreen is a hoax.

Action items
Be sure to read our free report on this: The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D. This provides tips on how to safely gauge your level of exposure to sunlight. Don’t just rush out and get burned; boost your nutrition and work up a natural tan as nature intended.

See the article: Vitamin D slashes cancer risk by 77 percent.

Visit our topic page on Vitamin D.

If you choose to buy sunscreen, only buy natural sunscreen products containing no petrochemicals! One brand I recommend is Caribbean Blue Natural Basics “Sun Shield.” You can find more at www.gocaribbeanblue.com

Smearing berries on your skin also works as a natural sunscreen, as does smearing aloe vera gel on your skin. Amazon Herb Co. distributors use a product called Camu C Serum as a natural suncreen. It works great! http://www.amazondreams.amazonherb.net

The best sunscreen, however, is an internal sunscreen built with nutrition. Eat chlorella, spirulina, goji berries, raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, astaxanthin, carrots and nutrient-rich superfoods to boost your skin’s natural UV protection (takes about 30 days of nutrition to boost skin levels).