Mercury.......Hmmmm

Seafood Mercury Warning (comic)

Commentary by Mike Adams, the creator of this cartoon:

American consumers, it seems, are frequently warned about the mercury content of seafood. Even the FDA now warns pregnant women not to eat seafood due to its mercury content. But did you ever wonder about the health effects of all the mercury being put into the mouths of children and adults in the form of mercury fillings? (Dentists call them "silver fillings" to conceal the fact that they're made with about 40% mercury.)

Thanks to the continued promotion of mercury fillings by the American Dental Association and conventional dentists, consumers continue to be poisoned by this heavy metal that's intentionally placed into their mouths. There's so much mercury currently being put into the mouths of humans that the total volume of mercury being dumped into the environment from mercury fillings is nearly equal to that emitted by coal plants.

In fact, the mouth of the average consumer is so toxic that ocean creatures should be warning each other about eating humans. To consume a human being, to put it bluntly, would be extremely unhealthy for any animal. Humans carry the highest concentration of toxic chemicals of all creatures on the planet. Their livers, hearts, kidneys and brains are so heavily contaminated with hundreds of different synthetic chemicals that if humans were slaughtered as a meat source, they'd never pass USDA food safety standards. (Soylent Green, anyone?)

Did you ever wonder what ocean creatures might say to humans if they could speak English? Maybe something like, "Hey, stop flushing all your crap into our homes!" And they'd be right to complain about it, too.

To put this into perspective, imagine all the dolphins, whales, lobsters, stingrays, swordfish and octopi in the ocean suddenly marching up the beaches, sloshing their way into your home and taking a crap in your living room. We do far worse to them, however, because we don't just dispose of organic matter, we actually lace it with fragrance chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, medications, heavy metals, industrial waste and even radioactive substances.

Cruise ships and Navy vessels routinely flush raw sewage overboard, right into the ocean, even though doing so is a violation of international law. Out in the middle of the South Pacific, who's watching anyway?

There are some parts of the ocean where currents concentrate human garbage that will float: soda bottles, yogurt cups, milk jugs, styrofoam packaging and the like. The stuff is so thick that you can actually walk across this "island of garbage" on foot, unaided, without sinking. It's as if humans were creating another land mass made out of landfill. Soon, somebody will probably build condos there are sell them online as "ocean front property!"

If there's any group of beings on this planet that should be warned about another group of beings, it's the ocean creatures who should be warned about humans. In fact, there should be a large red warning side slapped on the side of the planet, clearly visible to all creatures and interstellar visitors, that reads:

WARNING: Don't feed the humans.
(They haven't yet learned how to clean up after themselves.)

We're still chewing on mercury, for crying out loud. How stupid is that?

P.S. Did you know you can protect yourself from mercury using nutritional supplements and superfoods? Taking chlorella and spirulina helps remove mercury and other heavy metals. Drinking cilantro in a smoothie also does the trick. Uber-nutritionist Jon Barron has a product called Metal Magic that combines these two ingredients. Check out www.BaselineNutritionals.com

Dr. Gabriel Cousens also uses Natural Cellular Defense to help remove heavy metals. He's a raw foods guru and a pioneer in vibrational nutrition. Check out his info (and his raw foods retreat) at www.TreeofLife.nu

Learn More: CLICK THE LINK FOR THIS POST TO LEARN MORE FROM MIKE ADAMS!!!!

Mercury Threat to Babies: How the Post Got It Wrong – and Refuses to Make It Right

Mercury Threat to Babies: How the Post Got It Wrong – and Refuses to Make It Right

On Oct. 4, The Washington Post had a scoop: According to a front-page story by Sally Squires, a new report by “top scientists from private groups and federal agencies,” advised pregnant and breast-feeding women to eat at least 12 ounces of fish a week “to ensure their babies’ optimal brain development.”

The public health community, including Environmental Working Group (EWG), was stunned. The official guidance of the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency is clear: To protect babies against mercury, which damages the developing brain, pregnant and nursing women should eat no more than 12 ounces a week of any seafood, no more than 6 ounces of albacore tuna per week, and no shark, tuna, mackerel, or swordfish at all.

But according to the Post, the report from the Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition (HMHB) – whose members include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) – urged mothers and mothers-to-be to eat as much fish as they want, even from the government’s do-not-eat list. The Coalition said eating more fish was essential for moms and babies to get enough omega-3 fatty acids — although health experts agree that the solution is to eat other foods high in omega-3s that don’t contain mercury.

Something was fishy. And we weren’t the only ones who thought so.

The morning the Post ran its front-page story, National Public Radio’s consumer health reporter, Alison Aubrey, attended the Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition’s press conference. A reporter asked the Coalition’s spokesperson, Betty Jordan, “if there was any link between the more-fish-is-good-for-you recommendations and the National Fisheries Institute,” the seafood industry’s lobby. As Joe Neel reported that afternoon on NPR’s News Blog:

The answer from Jordan: Yes, the HMHB did take $60,000 from NFI specifically to design a "micro" Web site to promote the new guidelines and to produce other "educational" materials. On further probing, the docs said they hadn't taken any money — though a couple said they'd taken "honorariums" for coming to coalition meetings. At deadline this afternoon, the HMHB still hadn't returned NPR's phone calls seeking more information.

Meanwhile, Aubrey's calls were turning up other problems. The American Academy of Pediatrics told her that the group had no idea it was being associated with the guidelines, with which it disagrees. Strongly. Ditto the March of Dimes, CDC and at least one agency at the NIH. By 2 p.m., we noticed that the list of members on HMHB's Web site was shrinking — the pediatricians were no longer there. (We're still watching.)

More details emerged: In addition to the $60,000 for website development, the National Fisheries’ Institute had paid $14,000 to cover travel expenses, as well as honoraria, for doctors who had served on the panel that wrote the report. NPR was also first to report that the vice chairman of the Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition works for Burson Marsteller, a K Street lobbying and PR firm that also represents the National Fisheries Institute and formerly represented the tuna industry.

NPR’s vigilance alerted a number of other reporters, including Tom Pelton of The Baltimore Sun and Lisa Stiffler of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Pelton was clear that Squires blew it, but on his blog he observed:

This is a growing problem for reporters. The public relations industry is becoming increasingly well funded and sophisticated, as the number of professional journalists declines. Fewer reporters have less time to check things out -- meaning the world is increasingly dominated by "news" that is really just someone's ad.

The Post wasn’t the only news outlet to omit the Coalition’s industry ties. Reuters initially made the same mistake, but quickly issued a correction. In her blog on Oct. 5, Stiffler noted that more than 48 hours after the front-page story ran, the Post had not bothered to fix its mistake.

What's also troubling about this bait-and-switch story is that the Post hasn't seen fit to write a follow up clarifying this little funding conundrum -- at least nothing I could find.

Over the next two weeks, EWG worked to turn the story around. On Oct. 11, Executive Director Richard Wiles published a blog on Huffington Post that said:

Our organization is in the business of researching chemical threats to human health and fighting to improve protections when they are supported by the science. When we release a report, we expect and welcome thorough scrutiny from reporters and independent experts about our findings, methodology and funding. When a non-peer reviewed "study" recommends dramatically increasing pregnant women's consumption of mercury above guidelines from FDA and leading medical organizations, shouldn't the same standards apply?

There is no controversy about whether pregnant women should avoid fish high in mercury, and reporting this fabricated controversy is more than factually wrong, it is irresponsible and downright dangerous. If mothers-to-be actually followed the industry's advice there would be an epidemic of mercury-damaged children in this country.

Stories in Washington’s City Paper, the watchdog website Media Matters for America and the alternative news service Alternet also set the record straight and called on the Post to acknowledge the error. But the Post was in denial mode. City Paper reported:

“The question of backing from the National Fisheries Institute is one of the first questions that I asked of National Healthy Mothers/Healthy Babies,” writes Squires via e-mail. That line of inquiry, writes Squires, “was one of those things that dropped out of the daily story”—primarily because the $60,000 in funding to the Healthy Mothers group was for dissemination of the information, not for its generation.

On Oct. 12, Wiles wrote to Squires, her editor and Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell. He pointed out that none of the medical associations or federal agencies cited by Squires agreed with the Coalition’s report, and that “several have gone on the record quite pointedly to that effect.” He asked that the Post publish a full correction.

The next day, the Post published a letter from officials from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control, “Why We’re Not Backing This Seafood Suggestion:”

The recommendation by the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition that pregnant women consume more fish [front page, Oct. 4] has not been endorsed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the Health Resources and Services Administration.

The three agencies, all within the Department of Health and Human Services, were not participants in the formulation of this recommendation, learned about it only after it was announced, have not had the opportunity to review the data on which it was based and therefore cannot support it. These agencies have worked collaboratively with the Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition on many projects. However, we are not aware at this time of any new evidence sufficient to change the current guidelines set forth by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, that pregnant women should consume no more than 12 ounces of fish per week. We continue to support those guidelines.

On Oct. 17, the most influential food reporter in the U.S., Marian Burros of The New York Times, published a column that reported the dismay of organizations and agencies that had been falsely listed as endorsing the Coalition’s findings:

* “We are appalled,” said Dr. Frank Greer, chairman of the nutrition committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics. . . . “Plus it’s paid for by the National Fisheries Institute, which is a real conflict of interest.”
* “Until we have a solid convincing argument we are not going to change” our fish advisory, said Michele Kling, a spokeswoman for the March of Dimes.
* “We think we are pretty much aware of everything that is out there in terms of scientific studies and data,” said Julie Zawisza, a spokeswoman for the Food and Drug Administration, “and we haven’t seen any data that we believe would support a change in our current recommendations.”
* The coalition’s recommendation “has created an artificial controversy,” said Dr. Kathryn Mahaffey, a senior scientist with the E.P.A. “I talk to a number of very well educated pregnant women and when they hear these messages they find themselves confused. It undermines what regulatory agencies have to say. You can have omega-3’s without having much mercury, but you have to make really careful choices and try to follow our guidelines.”

Finally, on Oct. 21, the Post finally came clean – though not with a full correction, and not without letting the seafood industry defend its involvement. In her regular Sunday column, Ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote:

NFI spokesman Mary Anne Hansan said the group did not pay for any of the research.

"New and independent scientific research about eating fish deserves a full and fair hearing, which is why the seafood industry openly supported this public discourse," she said. James McGregor, a visiting professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Southern California and convener of the Maternal Nutrition Group, said he asked the NFI for the money because "there's only so many ways to get people together."

Science Editor Nils Bruzelius said he and Squires were aware of the institute money and "in hindsight, I wish we had included it." He said he did not realize that coalition members were not endorsing the advisory. "I had the impression they had endorsed these recommendations, which went into my thinking in offering the story for Page 1."

Squires is writing a column on the controversy for Tuesday's Health section. The confusion over who was endorsing the recommendation should have led to a prompt second story or a clarification.

When Squires’ column appeared Oct. 23 – nearly three weeks after the original story – she wrote:

I've spent the last couple of weeks interviewing numerous scientists, doctors and environmental experts and reading as many scientific papers and reports about methyl mercury, omega-3s, fish and pregnancy as possible. To my surprise, I found a lot of scientific agreement that I hope will help guide your decisions about seafood. . . . Until scientists sort out all the details, many think that the message to the public ought to be eat fish, just make it the fish lowest in methyl mercury, especially when pregnant. That means choosing salmon, sardines, tilapia, anchovies, shrimp and light tuna, not albacore.

That’s a lot closer to the truth. But it still fails to note the important fact that the government advisories are based on the amount of mercury actually measured in fish, and the safest way to avoid too much mercury is to eat no more than 12 ounces of any seafood. And, as for her failure to report the conflicts of interest in the Coalition’s relationship with the seafood industry, Squires says only that those were “omissions I regret.”

What is regrettable is the Post’s weeks of inaction and refusal to do all it can to correct the serious mistakes that were made in its reporting. This was not a movie review with a few typos. This was a front-page article that sent a very clear and potentially dangerous signal to millions of pregnant women across the country that concerns over mercury exposure to babies should be ignored.

Todays's Topic: ADD/ADHD

ADHD, or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Hyperkinetic Disorder in the UK), is defined by Wikipedia as "a developmental disorder, largely neurological in nature, affecting about 5% of the world's population". It is characterized by "a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity, as well as forgetfulness, poor impulse control or impulsivity, and distractibility".

There are 3 levels of ADD/ADHD, the types & diagnosis of which is performed as follows:

1. ADD, Combined Type: if both criteria 1A and 1B are met for the past 6 months
2. ADHD Predominantly Inattentive Type: if criterion 1A is met but criterion 1B is not met for the past six months
3. ADD, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type: if Criterion 1B is met but Criterion 1A is not met for the past six months

Criterion:
DSM-IV Criteria for ADD
I. Either A or B:

Inattention
A. Six or more of the following symptoms of inattention have been present for at least 6 months to a point that is disruptive and inappropriate for developmental level:

-Often does not give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities.
-Often has trouble keeping attention on tasks or play activities.
-Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly.
-Often does not follow instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions).
-Often has trouble organizing activities.
-Often avoids, dislikes, or doesn't want to do things that take a lot of mental effort for a long period of time (such as schoolwork or homework).
-Often loses things needed for tasks and activities (e.g. toys, school assignments, pencils, books, or tools).
-Is often easily distracted.
Often forgetful in daily activities.

Hyperactivity
B. Six or more of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have been present for at least 6 months to an extent that is disruptive and inappropriate for developmental level:

-Often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat.
-Often gets up from seat when remaining in seat is expected.
-Often runs about or climbs when and where it is not appropriate (adolescents or adults may feel very restless).
-Often has trouble playing or enjoying leisure activities quietly.
-Is often "on the go" or often acts as if "driven by a motor".
-Often talks excessively.

Impulsivity
-Often blurts out answers before questions have been finished.
-Often has trouble waiting one's turn.
-Often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into conversations or games).

ALSO:
II. Some symptoms that cause impairment were present before age 7 years.
III. Some impairment from the symptoms is present in two or more settings (e.g. at school/work and at home).
IV. There must be clear evidence of significant impairment in social, school, or work functioning.
V. The symptoms do not happen only during the course of a Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Schizophrenia, or other Psychotic Disorder. The symptoms are not better accounted for by another mental disorder (e.g. Mood Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dissociative Disorder, or a Personality Disorder).

Hmm.....
Sounds like most of the kids that I know!!! But, now that we have the 'clinical' assumptions/standards, lets look at some other facts:

-ADD or ADHD is the fastest growing diagnosis given to children & adolescents in the US. We've all heard of it - the 'problem child' syndrome. Parents & teachers alike see these children as 'unmanageable & hard to control'

-Children, by nature, are highly active, exuberant beings who can be rather strong willed and unmanageable at times, more often than the adults in their lives would like!

-Public schools these days force teachers to instruct in a setting in which children are forced to it still for hours on end, work on specific tasks in an alloted amount of time with no breaks in between, and be quiet, compliant robots.

-Parents are working longer hours than ever these days, spending less time with their children due to non-nuclear family situations, financial responsibilities, and outside influences.

-School systems have drastically reduced recess time, physical education, and music classes. Kids these days have less and less outlets for their creative energy than ever before in history.

-It is a common misconception that the cause of ADD/ADHD is a malfunction in the brain. The fact is, after many years of searching, no dysfunction has EVER been found in the brain. In fact, there is NO concrete medical condition at all. ADD has never been proven to be a disease, EVEN AFTER 20+ years of research! One of my favorite sayings on this subject comes from the book Moving Beyond ADD/ADHD - An Effective Holistic Mind/Body Approach: "saying that someone has ADD, with or without hyperactivity, is like saying someone has RND, Runny Nose Disorder, with or without fever".

As for the drugs that are prescribed for these kids, Ritalin & Dexedrine being favorites, they are classified by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as Schedule II drugs (along with morphine and heroine). All highly addictive. Children without these prescriptions steal from those who have them because of this. In fact, the DEA have seen a 1,000% increase in drug abuse injury reports in the 10-14 yr old age group in recent years, for Ritalin. These are MIND-ALTERING drugs. They are NOT prescribed to help the child learn better, as that is not what they are intended for. Kids on these drugs are calmed down by them, much to the relief of their parents. But at what cost? Serious side effects in the kids, that's what. Nausea, listlessness, headaches, stomachaches, facial tics, insomnia, depression, loss of appetite & weight loss, to name a few. Ritalin can cause spaciness, anxious, emotionless, and downright robotic presentation.

Is this what we want for our kids??

So what the hell is going on? First off, misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis is a HUGE problem. In the US, there are 8 MILLION children on Ritalin (that's 10% of boys aged 6-14!!!) . A lot of times, this analysis, diagnosis, and prescription comes after a hurried 5 minute interview with the frustrated parent.

Now, let me say, there ARE children who DO have serious issues with learning and behavior that need help. But lumping them all in one category, shoving drugs down their throats and making them believe there is something wrong with their brain and that this is the only way for them to be 'normal' - IS NOT THE WAY TO GO ABOUT IT!!!

The root of the problem needs to be addressed, not band-aided.

So what might that be? What causes this? There are many known and suspected causes, such as exposure to toxins, alcohol/drugs before birth (way to go mom & dad), poor nutrition, chemical or food allergies, toxins in the environments, metal toxicity, and yeast overgrowth. Childhood vaccinations have even been linked (but of course no long term studies have been done so any direct causal effect for this or anything else is unproven). TV has also been linked with hyperactivity.

What can be done? Are there any alternatives? YES!! First off, these kids need a voice. They need us, as adults, to stand up and DO SOMETHING other than drug them and take away their power & ability to make their own decisions without the drugs.

Please, look into the nutrition of the kids you love. Stop giving them refined sugars & flours, and FOOD ADDITIVES. The brain is very sensitive to chemical changes, which these unnatural substances cause. Also, look into their lives. Are they getting enough attention/ adult interaction? Had it been reinforced over and over to the child that the adults in his/her life BELIEVE in them? This alone goes a LONG way! Work with these kids! Have patience!

And for God's sakes, please don't allow drugs & misconceptions raise them. Do it yourself.

Til next time, Live Well!

Recommendations:

-First off, as always, seek the help of an allopathic physician.

-Secondly, many kids w/ ADHD exhibit symptoms of essential fatty acid deficiency (EFA). It is interesting to note that boys have a higher EFA requirement than girls, and 4 out of 5 ADHD sufferers are male. Symptoms include excessive thirst, dry skin, eczema, and asthma. Research at Oxford University during a double blind trial showed that out of 41 children aged 8-12 yrs w/ ADHD symptoms, those given extra EFA supplements showed improvement in both behavior and learning w/in twelve weeks. (source: The Optimum Nutrition Bible, Patrick Holford, 40:358) DEFINITELY worth checking out!!

-Maximize whole foods, antioxidant fruits and vegetables, iron-rich foods (beets, leafy greens (dark esp.), almonds (raw), sea herbs (kelp, chlorella, spirulina), watercress, dried figs), and zinc-rich nuts & seeds

-Minimize iron-absorption limiting foods (coffee, tea, chocolate, egg yolk, wheat bran)

-Eliminate food additives (coloring, preservatives, sweeteners (esp. Aspartame!), white sugar, refined flour (deplete zinc)

-Watch Out for allergies: common ones are wheat, dairy, eggs, & oranges

-Good to eat: apples, pears, carrots, beets, broccoli, spinach. For Omega 3, fatty fish like herring, mackerel, sardines, tuna. Almonds, kelp, sunflower & pumpkin seeds, and oats are also good choices.

-Herbs: catnip, cinnamon, German chamomile, lemon balm, parsley (limit in pregnancy), St. John's Wort, stinging nettle (1 tsp in smoothies, etc)

PS - the video of the day is long, but goes a long way in showing just how much harm these psychotropic drugs can do (think Columbine). Also, the link at the bottom of this post is to a wonderful article by Mike Adams on NewsTarget.com (he's wonderful......check it out!) It goes into further detail about how food additives are harming our children.


Video of the day:



Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, has a simple cause: poor nutrition and food additives

When Dr.'s Have Nightmares

When doctors have nightmares (comic)

Terrible Animal Skinning in CHINA - VERY GRAPHIC, BEWARE!

This is absolutely horrible. Some of these animals are still alive to endure this suffering, their feet cut off, skin ripped from the tendons of their back legs and then pulled up their body and over their head. The poor animal in this video didn't die until minutes AFTER the skinning was done and she was thrown in a bin of carcasses. Her eyes showing deep pain look at the camera with only eyelashes still intact before she finally, thankfully, dies.
THIS is the cost of vanity to all the rich people in the world who think fur is 'fashionable'.
WAKE UP!!!! Fur IS fashionable. ON THE ANIMALS BORN WITH IT.
Save yourselves tens of thousands of dollars and buy faux. At least protect the bank account you care so dearly about if you cannot care about defenseless animals who suffer for your sins. Pathetic!!!
Til next time, Live Well (and compassionately, please!)

Meet Your Meat

Anyone who knows me knows I am not a vegan. I love a good steak now and again. However, with what I am studying, and the things I am learning (as in this video) - I am definitely changing my views on the sources of things like meat, dairy, eggs, etc.
This is heart wrenching to me as an animal lover. Yes I do believe in survival of the fittest. However this is NOT what that falls under. These are sentient beings, who feel pain, and desire much of what humans do: companionship, freedom to roam as nature intended, shelter, food, and water.
NOTE TO HUMANS: Just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD!
PS - Look for a future post in which I will explain exactly what all of these added hormones and antibiotics do to the bodies of those who consume them. If this cruelty doesn't get to you, maybe the repercussions on your health will.
Til then, Live Well!

Stella McCartney Investigates A Fur Farm

This video is of a fur farm in the US, where standards and regulations are supposed to be top notch. This is just sad. I am a HUGE animal lover, as you will be able to see from my posts. If, after watching these atrocities, you can still condone the wearing of fur...you must have no heart or compassion whatsoever. And please, do us both a favor, gain some!!