Vaccine, Autism and Jenny McCarthy

It appears as though many vaccine "activists" are very upset that Jenny M. has been set to replace another host on, "The View."  I don't get much of a chance to watch that particular show, so I have no opinion about that particular choice by either ABC or Barbara Walters.  I do know something about Jenny and her views as to a possible connection between vaccinations and autism.

Since "science" insists on irrefutable evidence to confirm or deny any particular links associated with autism, I truly doubt that a link between vaccine and autism will ever be accepted.  I know that Jenny's son was diagnosed with autism soon after the MMR vaccine was given to him, but I don't believe that necessarily shows definitive connection between the two.  Mercury used to be used as a preservative in all vaccines and that has now changed.  Perhaps, in part, because of the light that Jenny and others shined into a dark corner.  How the medical profession could ever have thought that adding a heavy metal to a vaccine was a good and safe idea, I will never know.

I don't believe that there is only one reason for this horrendous upsurge in autistic diagnoses over the past two decades.  Adding heavy metals to a vaccine is never a good idea and may certainly have been a contributing factor, but if that were the only factor, we should be seeing a decline in autism and we are not.  Could the live attenuated viruses that are being given in the exact same dosages to 6 week old babies as for 4 and 5 year old children be a contributing factor?  Could this massive influx of virus be too much for a baby's immune system?  I think it reasonable to at least consider those as viable possibilities.  I know that there are some veterinarians that believe vaccinations of animals can be too much for their immune systems and don't agree with the necessity for the administration of vaccines that are widely done each day.  Aren't our children as important to us as our pets?  One would think more, but I don't want to get into that discussion.  I also believe that the widespread existence of electromagentic radiation can be a cause for autism and other significant neurological deficits.  Please refer back to my blog called, "And the children shall lead us," if you need to refresh your memory about those effects.  I have also written a series concerning the problems caused by exposure to emfr's and will publish some of that, again, in the future.

No matter which side of the argument about vaccinations and their possible causal relationship to autism and other neurological imbalances one is on, I just cannot understand why there isn't a calm, mature dialogue going on in the scientific world about this topic.  This subject appears to engender a good deal of anger, fear and resentment among those conducting the discussions.  Look at the reaction of the "pro-vaccination," representatives about Jenny McCarthy. Frequently, money is at the root of heated disagreements and posturing and I have to wonder if this isn't the case, here. 

I do believe that certain vaccinations have helped save the lives of countless children and adults, over the years.  That doesn't mean that we cannot listen to each other, both scientists and laymen.
<ahref=http://fixdhealthcare.com>

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fixd-Health-Care/123810761130727

A Nifty App to ID GMO-friendly Companies

Recently, a patient showed me an application that she had downloaded onto her hand-held mobile device. With this app, she is able to identify the companies who offer natural and organic brands that paid to defeat Proposition 37, the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative.

This is how it works: After downloading the application, “buycott,” one can go to the grocery store and point your device at the bar code of any product. Immediately, you'll be shown if the company gave monies to defeat Prop 37 and how much. Our patient told us that she was astounded at what she learned. Many of the “organic” companies were the largest contributors to the proposition's defeat and a number of the “regular” companies that she thought would have contributed, did not. “Hood,” was one example of a company that surprised her when she learned that it didn't participate in the defeat of Prop 37.

The developers of this application have made it simple for most to easily identify and, hopefully, hold accountable those participating companies that sell organic products and use our money to pay for their blocking our right to know what other GMO-containing products they sell.

Our hats off to the developer of “buycott,”and to our patient, G.W., for telling us about it. We so appreciate being kept current about the latest trends as we aren't particularly technologically savvy.

<ahref=http://fixdhealthcare.com>

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fixd-Health-Care/123810761130727

For Women who take Statins

Here's some information that might be of interest to women who are taking statin drugs for cholesterol regulation.  I include the specifics concerning the study for those who would like to read more on the topic:

A new study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention indicates that women who are long-term users of statin drugs have between 83-143% increased risk of breast cancer. 

Jean A McDougall, Kathleen E Malone, Janet R Daling, Kara L Cushing-Haugen, Peggy L Porter, Christopher I Li. Long-term statin use and risk of ductal and lobular breast cancer among women 55-74 years of age. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Jul 5. Epub 2013 Jul 5.


I am not a fan of statins as a preventative for possible cardiovascular disease.  Regular cardiovascular exercise coupled with a diet oriented towards decreasing inflammation in the vasculature and the gut are much more likely to be of greater benefit, in the long run, than medications. 

<ahref=http://fixdhealthcare.com>
drkollars@gmail.com

Some Ideas About Milk

I read this article the other day.  For an allopathic view, it has some merit.  Most of you know that we recommend no one either needs or should drink cow's milk.  Conventional cow's milk contains rBGH, a genetically modified growth hormone that affects human glands and is associated by some researchers with breast and prostate cancer:  Your Life in Your Hands, Jane Plant, PhD.

Another serious consequence of cow's milk is its role in causing allergies.  Without going into too great of detail, the proteins in cow's milk are very large, much larger than the proteins in mother's milk or goat's milk.  These proteins are seen as foreign invaders by our body and cause significant problems in our small intestines.  This causes nutrients to no longer be absorbed by the intestinal villi in the area they were intended to be absorbed and nutrients then can become irritants.  The body reacts by initiating an antigen-antibody response and we become sensitized and even allergic to normal nutrients.  Just fyi--there is much more calcium/magnesium/Vit.D in dark green leafy vegetables than you'll ever get from milk.

So, for those who like to drink cow's milk, here is some interesting information from the medical profession:



 "Celebrities are constantly asking if you’ve got any, because, as the long-running ad campaign says, it does a body good. But a Harvard pediatrician is arguing that the current U.S. recommendation of three servings of dairy a day isn’t necessarily one-size-fits-all. For some, it may be a significant source of additional sugar and calories. 

 “This recommendation to drink three cups a day of milk – it’s perhaps the most prevailing advice given to the American public about diet in the last half century,” says David Ludwig, who wrote the editorial published online today in the journal JAMA Pediatrics. Ludwig is the director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital. “As a result, Americans are consuming billions of gallons of milk a year, presumably under the assumption that their bones would crumble without them.”

Drinking reduced fat milk in particular is recommended as a way Americans can meet dairy intake guidelines and also avoid saturated fat, which is linked to weight gain and heart disease. But when the fat is reduced in milk or yogurt products, it's often replaced with sweeteners, which makes it taste better, but also adds sugar and calories.

“The worst possible situation is reduced-fat chocolate milk: you take out the fat, it’s less tasty," Ludwig says. "So to get kids to drink 3 cups a day, you get this sugar-sweetened beverage.”

One cup of low-fat chocolate milk is 158 calories, with 68 calories coming from solid fats and added sugars, according to the USDA . By comparison, one cup of unflavored, reduced-fat milk (2%) is 122 calories, with 37 calories from solid fats and added sugars.

People with a high-quality diet -- those who get adequate protein, vitamin D and calcium from things like leafy greens, legumes, nuts and seeds -- may get little or no added nutritional benefit from consuming three servings of dairy a day, Ludwig argues.

“The point is, we can get plenty of calcium from a whole range of foods,” says Ludwig, who's also a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. “On a gram for gram basis, cooked kale has more calcium than milk. Sardines, nuts seeds beans, green leafy vegetables are all sources of calcium.”

That’s certainly true for the kale-consuming diet perfectionists among us -- but for many Americans, cow’s milk is an inexpensive, easily accessible source of important nutrients. That’s why Ludwig cautions that for people who are eating a lower-quality diet – especially children – milk is still important.

“For a child or an adult – but especially a child - eating a poor quality diet, three cups a day of milk may be the most helpful thing,” Ludwig says.

Trouble is, we are not great at judging our own quality of diet, says Greg Miller, executive vice president for the National Dairy Council. To skip milk -- but continue to get the recommended levels of nutrients like calcium, vitamin D and protein -- would require a big change in diet for many Americans, he says. The current recommended intake of calcium for adults, for example, is 1,000 milligrams per day for people ages 19 to 50; for those older than 50, it's 1,200 milligrams a day. A cup of cooked kale has about 100 milligrams of calcium; a cup of two percent milk, on the other hand, has about 300 milligrams of calcium.

And kids especially, “aren’t all of a sudden going to start eating bok choy, kale and spinach," Miller says.

Research has linked soda, fruit juice, sports drinks and energy drinks to weight gain, diabetes and heart disease, prompting groups like the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend limiting calorie-containing beverages. However, milk -- even sugary chocolate milk -- is typically left out of the conversation, Ludwig says.

“It’s about the whole big push of, what lengths are we taking to modify plain old milk to get people to drink more?” says Madelyn Fernstrom, Ph.D., certified nutrition specialist and NBC News diet and health editor.

Many nutritionists encourage the three servings of dairy a day recommendation "at any cost," Fernstrom says -- even if that means adding extra sweeteners like chocolate or strawberry flavoring to milk or yogurt to make it tasty enough for kids and adults to actually want to eat or drink it.

“So this newer idea of having low-fat, sweetened milk, like low-fat chocolate milk -- these cancel each other out. You’re cutting out the fat, but you’re replacing it with extra sugar,” Fernstrom says. It's the same with yogurt, too; the added sugar from the vanilla or strawberry-banana sweetener, in many cases, outweighs the nutritional good of the dairy.

“No matter what dairy product you’re choosing, stick with low-fat, but also no sugar,” Fernstrom says. “Cutting down the fat in yogurt and milk but adding extra sugar – that’s a wash.”

Miller believes getting kids to stop drinking sugar-sweetened beverages like soda is a bigger battle than flavored milk.

In his editorial, Ludwig recommends broadening the current recommendation from “three” to “zero to three,” something that Fernstrom says makes sense for some people. (Of course, switching to non-dairy milks like soy or almond is also an option.)

“This will depend upon the quality of your overall diet,” Fernstrom says. “But even in the best of circumstances, dairy products are part of a balanced diet.” She calls dairy a “triple-duty food,” in that it provides protein, calcium and vitamin D. “These are three big nutrients that many Americans don’t get enough of elsewhere.”

<ahref=http://fixdhealthcare.com>

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fixd-Health-Care/123810761130727

New Study Shows Benefits of Natural Thyroid vs. Synthetic

Our office sees quite a few patients whose medical doctors have either put them on synthroid or who have recommended this medication to them.  We see many savvy women who have done their research and have decided to see if there are any natural nutritional formulas that would offer support for their thyroid as opposed to taking the traditional allopathic approach.  Once a patient has been taking a synthetic thyroid for more than 9-12 months, it is impossible to stop taking that medication.

I came across this article written by a medical doctor that I thought would interest many of you.  He is not your traditional allopath and I find that when I reference studies written by medical doctors, our more skeptical patients are sometimes more inclined to accept the idea that there are many different ways to approach healing and wellness.  We have worked with a number of patients whose medical doctors were open and supportive of allowing us to use homeopathic remedies for women who were interested.  In each case, their thyroids had returned to normal without the use of medications.

Here is the doctor's website:
http://jeffreydachmd.com/2013/06/natural-thyroid-is-better/?goback=%2Egde_1851206_member_257392611

<ahref=http://fixdhealthcare.com>

Thought as an Addiction

When many of us think of addiction, we envision those who are addicted to alcohol, illicit drugs, pain killers, smoking and food. There is one addiction, however, that affects all of us and can potentially be as damaging as any “traditional” addiction. It is the addiction of thought.

With the invention of technology that allows us to map the brain, neuro-scientists have been able to identify how patterns of neurons are laid down in the brain. There is an understanding that as we mature and make choices and decisions, pathways (not unlike highways) of information are created. That way, whenever we perform repetitive functions, we don't have to “think” about how to do them. We now know that this same pathway creation that is associated with mechanical and logical functions also occurs within the emotional realm. When we react to an emotional stimulus, pathways of thought connected to that stimulus are created. Thus, when any new situation occurs, that information is directed to an existing neural pathway unless we intentionally create a new pathway or new way of thinking about that new situation. Perhaps an equally descriptive term might be, “unintentional thinking.”

Have you ever had thoughts that begin with: “Why does this always/never happen....?” or, “That person/situation/circumstance/political party/religious group/child/husband etc. will never change...” or, “I'll never get better...”? This is addictive thinking.

Addictive thinking allows us to categorize anything or any situation that we encounter and gives us the confidence that we are right or correct in what we think. Generalization allows us to not think or, perhaps, allows us to assume without thinking or reasoning.

We encountered a situation just the other day with a patient that illustrative of this type of thought process. Some weeks ago, an older patient came to our office with ever-increasing pain symptoms that the allopathic doctors were unsuccessful in helping. In five visits, the pain levels decreased from 10 (worst pain) to 2 (very mild). The patient then went on vacation. Later, we called to see how this person was doing and were told that the pain levels had increased from a 1-2 to a 4-5. Coincidentally, the individual was watching a Dr. Oz show in which a chiropractor who uses cold laser technology for pain relief was demonstrating how effective this instrument is. As we always use cold laser for pain at our office, one might think that this person would have liked to continue this therapy, as it had proved highly effective. Instead, we were told, “Oh, that (cold laser) can't help me, no one can help me.” Now, logic would say that of course the individual was helped and significantly so, but, as this patient is convinced that the pain is something that has to be accepted and as the brain has laid down those neural pathways, the thinking slipped easily back into the old familiar negative thought patterns. Until such time as this person decides to break the addictive thinking, no amount of pain relief will be consciously registered and life will continue as before.

This is not an isolated or unique situation. We encounter this fairly regularly. There is no amount of reasoning that will change a person's belief if that person is trapped by his/her addictive thinking. If we find it easier to set our brains on, “auto pilot,” we will not be able to allow new thoughts or neural pathways that carry those thoughts to be created. We can step back, any time we choose, and question our reasoning or the validity of what or how we have been taught since childhood. If we are particularly adventurous, we can even question what we believe as adults. Questioning why we believe what we do is always a good way to determine our methods of reasoning. It can shake us out of our complacency and intractable thought patterns; it may even allow us to eschew long-held physical and emotional dogma and open us to new and exciting possibilities.

<ahref=http://fixdhealthcare.com>

Paging, Dr. Google or Please be Kind to Us, Your Doctors

A few weeks ago, I was listening to a Harvard educated medical doctor talk about her actor-sister who the whole family refers to as, “Dr. Google.” The doctor recounted an amusing anecdote in which her sister, after calling and asking for medical help, proceeded to google the answer and then tell the medical doctor how she was wrong because her answer didn't agree with the information found on the internet. The sister was even given a gift of scrubs with the title, “Dr. Google,” inscribed on them, one Christmas.

While both the audience and the medical doctor laughed about this, as is true with any joke or funny story, there was a lot of truth to this, as we frequently find. Things have certainly changed since we began practicing 25+ years ago. On the whole, patients used to be willing to talk about their problems and allow us the time needed to accurately diagnose their problem. Now, we find that many people use the internet as their source of expertise, assuming that all there is to diagnosis is to simply plug in a set of symptoms and, voila, they know what you need to do to help.  Additionally, if we don't agree or give them what they want, we are the ones in error or don't know what we're talking about.

Until listening to what the medical doctor had to say about her sister's penchant for self-diagnosis, I had thought that this behavior was, perhaps, focused on us, as chiropractors, and localized to this area of the country.  However, after reading an article written by a medical doctor entitled, "Please be Kind to Us, Your Doctors,"  I realized that this Dr. Google phenomenon was part of a larger picture.  In both instances, similar sentiments to mine were being expressed.  While I think that the internet offers reliable generalized information, I would not recommend its use for specific problems, let alone assuming an accurate level of diagnosis and therapy.

Most symptoms are caused by multiple systems imbalances and examining the whole person, and not just the area of complaint, is necessary to offer an accurate assessment and diagnosis. How can some unknown person, inputting information, know anything about an individual's unique needs? Could there possibly be any misinformation on the internet? Is it possible that the lay person could be misinterpreting their symptoms or omitting vital information that they don't even know is important to their diagnosis and treatment options.

I believe that people should gather whatever information they want or need and then listen to what their doctor has to say, without prejudice or preconceived notions. We are all fallible human beings who deserve to be treated with respect and kindness. This is something that both doctors and patients sometimes forget. Perhaps, it is something that all of us, from time to time, forget.

<ahref=http://fixdhealthcare.com>

Brain Function, Aluminum & Chemtrails....a bizarre connection

 

"Even with the increases in preventable illnesses, the issue that has not been linked or addressed ­with what Clifford Carnicom rightly calls "aerosol crimes"­ is the deterioration of cognitive function. Our immune system is already under siege daily; and this has resulted in millions (possibly billions) of people with not just one illness, but often multiple ones. The skin, the largest organ in our body, is a permeable membrane. This means that invisible toxins in our air, including Chemtrails and other highly dangerous chemicals, go right into our skin. Poisoned rainwater (or snow touching our skin) does the same thing. When the air we breathe is filled with a dangerous assortment of toxins, with each breath we take, these poisons assault our entire immune system. These poisons also affect our brain and, thus, our cognitive function.

 

Aluminum is another major component in these aerosols. Although it is our planet's most abundant metal, our body has no biological need for it. Pesticide Action Network North America [PANNA] lists it as "toxic to humans, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and acute toxicity."  Yet, aluminum is commonly used [this is a very short list] in vaccines, deodorants and anti-perspirants, over-the-counter medications, soft drink and beer cans [aluminum leeches from the cans], baking powder, cake mixes, processed cheeses, and other food products and additives.

 

Over years, aluminum accumulates in the brain, tissues, and to a lesser amount the bones. It causes brain degeneration, dysfunction, and damage ­due to the blockage and reduced blood flow and oxygen of brain arteries. The brain shrinks, as brain cells die. This causes dementia. Symptoms include: emotional outbursts, paranoia, forgetfulness and memory loss, speech incoherence, irritability, diminished alertness, changes in personality, and poor/bad judgment. All these are on the rise, as more than 4-million Americans are afflicted. Brain deterioration and dementia take decades to cause serious and visible harm. Eventually, however, dementia is fatal. "Alzheimer's" is now being used incorrectly as a catch-all term for all kinds of dementia. Just a few days ago, the front page of the New York Times had a headline: "More with Dementia Wander from Home."  People afflicted with, what the Times terms "Alzheimer's" were interviewed. One person mentioned he "has a diagnosis of Alzheimer's." This is patently wrong. Alzheimer's dementia can only be accurately diagnosed after death when a post-mortem can be done. However, heavy metals poisoning can be diagnosed through lab testing; but this is rarely done for basic check-ups.

 

What is not addressed in this increase in dementia is the more than 10 years of breathing Chemtrails with nano aluminum-coated fiberglass. Billions of tons have been sprayed on us.

 

With all these sources of aluminum added to the air we breathe with each breath, the cumulative toxicity is very high. Even in daily events, it is obvious ­to anyone who is paying attention­ that many people are behaving oddly. While it may be considered "anecdotal" reporting, there are millions of people whose behavior is strange. There have been numerous times in just the past year when I have asked someone a question and received an answer that is totally unrelated. There have been more and more uncontrolled outbursts in public areas: someone "snaps" for no apparent reason. Violence levels are up in our society; and we already have epidemic proportions of it. Look at all the shootings on school campuses. There are more unexplained auto accidents that never should have happened. In just one day a few weeks ago, I witnessed three traffic accidents that need not have happened. The news is full of these stories.

 

Add to this already highly toxic body burden is the US military's use of aluminum in its aerosols. It is used because of its electrical conductivity, durability, and light weight. The US Air Force reported in 1997 that it released "2 million, 6-7 ounce bundles of CHAFF." These are laid by military aircraft form 15-50 miles in length.(14) Other unanswered questions: Why are they using this toxin? Why is the USAF not releasing up-to-date figures?

 

A 2002 report notes that: "over the last 25 years, the US Navy [has released from planes] several hundred thousand pounds of aluminized chaff during flight operations over a training area on the Chesapeake Bay."  If the Navy used hundreds of thousands of pounds in just this small area of the US, what could be extrapolated for the release of possibly billions of tons of nano aluminum by all the military divisions throughout the US and Canada more recently than 2002? CHAFF is also being stored that has lead in it. Has that been released, without our knowledge, and added to these aerosols? What enormous, yet invisible, harm has that created for all of us?

 

Dr. Hildegarde Staninger reported last year that "exposure to aerial emissions of nano composite materials resulted in cholinesterase inhibition."  The human body has three kinds of cholinesterase: for the brain, for plasma (manufactured by the liver), and red blood cells. Some pesticides and nerve gases inhibit cholinesterase. VX nerve gas, an organophosphate, has been burned and released into the air by the Army at Umatilla, Oregon, for the past five years. This deadly toxin is in the air all over the Pacific Northwestand there was very little public discussion. The chronic inhibition of this enzyme (that normally circulates in red blood cells), and caused by the spraying of these Chemtrails aerosols [for weather modification, is also used for mosquito and other insect eradication]. This causes chronic poisoning. This exposure causes severe neurological disorders, including paralysis in humans.

 

In a ground-breaking 2003 online essay, Dr. Kaye Kilburn, asks: "Why is Chemical Brain Injury Ignored?"  His article lists 13 concealed factors that affect our willingness to believe that dangerous chemicals do affect the brain. They include: 1. "It's all in your head" [meaning real symptoms are ignored by allopathic medicine].

2. Resistance to vulnerability [individuals, and society collectively, cannot believe the brain is at risk].

3. The acceptance of mind-altering prescription drugs [such as Paxil] that can and do affect the brain [millions are on anti-depressants ­what long-term damage does that also do to cognitive thinking?].

4. Chemical brain injury is considered not to be "an imminent threat."

5. Competition from other serious threats [causing indifference or denial];

6. Delay in acknowledging health risks.

7. Economic interests [delaying tactics by big corporations are well known ­delay continues profits and ignores taking responsibility. We are all expendable for corporate profits].

8. The field of neurology has been slow to consider causes [how many independent researchers are left who do not have any ties to the pharmaceutical/chemical companies?].

 

In all these valuable reasons for not addressing this human crisis, the one that Dr. Kilburn has not addressed directly is the chronic assault of breathing/absorbing these now billions of tons of hazardous aerosolized Chemtrails and heavy metals over more than a decade without our informed consent. When one does not look for or address primary causes, then other issues can be blamed. This, on top of a government's silence or refusal to respond and the corporate media's complicity, make for an extremely dangerous combination that puts us all at grave and daily risk. As brain function is diminished, and other things are blamed for it, any population is easier "to control."

 

Dr. Kiburn's research clearly shows that chemicals do affect and seriously harm the brain [and, thereby, cognitive function]. Chemicals ­especially a daily onslaught of toxic chemicals over many years­ can damage our ability to think clearly. Even if we find this hard to believe, the evidence is there. Dr. Kilburn has expanded this essay into the first book to research this: "Chemical Brain Injury" (published in 1998). Dr. Kilburn notes:

 

The brain's preservation represents the only possibility of survival for mankind. To find in many parts of the country and in many individual patients that its function is eroded seriously by chemicals, chemicals that have been introduced into the environment basically in the last 50 years, is bad news indeed."

<ahref=http://fixdhealthcare.com>

More Bad News About Bottled Drinking Water

According to a 2009 study published by 9 scientists, including 6 from Harvard, it was determined that drinking bottle water is not safe.

The study concluded that after a ONE WEEK exposure to plastic bottles, the participants experienced a two thirds increase in the amount of BPA found in their urine.

The endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA) has recently garnered heightened attention because of widespread human exposure and disruption of normal reproductive development in laboratory animals [Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) 2008; Chapin et al. 2008; Goodman et al. 2006; European Union 2003; vom Saal and Hughes 2005]. BPA is thought to disrupt normal cell function by acting as an estrogen agonist (Wozniak et al. 2005) as well as an androgen antagonist (Lee et al. 2003). In animal studies, prenatal and neonatal exposure to BPA has been linked to early onset of sexual maturation (Howdeshell et al. 1999), altered development and tissue organization of the mammary gland (Markey et al. 2001), induction of pre neoplastic mammary gland (Durando et al. 2007) and reproductive tract lesions (Newbold et al. 2007), increased prostate size (Timms et al. 2005), and decreased sperm production (vom Saal et al. 1998) in offspring. Most recently, exposure to BPA has also been associated with chronic disease in humans, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and serum markers of liver disease (Lang et al. 2008).

We can’t help buy wonder… why do so many people feel safe drinking from plastic bottles?

<ahref=http://fixdhealthcare.com>

Companies Selling Organic Brands that Want to Use GMO Products

Many of us purchase organic products believing that we won't have to be subjected to GMOs in our foods. Surprise! The parent companies of a number  of the organic label foods that we regularly buy have been and are presently lobbying to defeat any propositions/bills by the states to require GMO labeling of foods. I hope others will find this as outrageous, hypocritical and unacceptable as I. Included below is a list of products and their parent companies, as well as contact information, that spent millions to defeat Prop 37, the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative.

I am encouraging you to take time from your busy schedules to either call or post on these companies' Facebook pages. Let them know you'll support their brands as soon as they publicly and financially support your Right to Know, please.

I have the names and phone numbers of all the companies, so you may e-mail me if you are interested in calling or posting on their Facebook pages. I include the url, below, for a complete listing of all the companies and their brands that participated in this defeat. I will say that the largest contributions came from PepsiCo (Naked Juice, Tostito's Organic and Tropicana Organic), Kraft (Boca Burgers), Safeway (O Organics), Coca-Cola (Honest Tea and Odwalla), General Mills (Muir Glen, Larabar and Cascadian Farm), Con-Agra (Orville Redenbacher's Organic, Lightlife, Hunt's Organic & Natural Brands and Alexia) and Kellogg's (Bear Naked, Gardenburger and Kashi).

I was unhappy to see Muir Glen, Cascadian Farms and Kashi listed because we use these brands all the time. I'll be posting on their parent Facebook pages....I hope you will do the same for the products you use. Of course, there are more, such as Hershy's, Dean Foods and Smucker's, as well as others. Look here for the list: http://www.orgcns.org/V13Kvx.

This information is provided by the Organic Consumers Association and the Organic Consumers Fund. They contributed more than $1.4 million to support Prop 37. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned companies and their partners in crime donated over $13 million to defeat it...rather lopsided, wasn't it?

<ahref=http://fixdhealthcare.com>

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fixd-Health-Care/123810761130727