Archive for the ‘Food Additives and Poisons’ Category

Scuba Diving in the Gulf Oil Spill

This just makes you want to cry……a scientist who has been studying the coral and diving in the Gulf for years takes us on a scuba dive to see just what is in the water now….


Deet Mosquito Repellent is Neurotoxic

(NaturalNews) New research shows that the insect-repelling chemical deet actually functions in the same way as deadly nerve gases and dangerous pesticides, by attacking the nervous systems of both insects and mammals.
“These findings question the safety of deet, particularly in combination with other chemicals,” said researcher Vincent Corbel of Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement in Montpellier.
The chemical known as deet (for N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) is found in nearly every commonly used mosquito repellent in the world, and eight billion doses have been applied since its introduction to the consumer market in 1957. The chemical was originally developed as an insect repellent by the U.S. Army in 1946, following experience with jungle warfare in World War II.

Deet’s popularity comes largely from its effectiveness in repelling a variety of medically significant insects over longer periods of time than more natural repellents (such as certain vegetable-based oils), and the fact that it can be incorporated into sprays, liquids or lotions. Yet although researchers have long insisted that the chemical is safe, they still recommend that consumers use the minimum amount of repellent necessary to cover exposed skin or clothing, and that deet repellents not be applied directly to any irritated or injured skin. While the United States allows the sale of 100 percent deet repellents, many other countries limit maximum concentrations of the chemical to 30 or 50 percent.

In spite of the chemical’s long use, researchers are unsure exactly how deet functions to repel mosquitoes. It has long been believed to affect mosquito behavior without harming the insects, probably by interfering with their sense of smell and their ability to find human prey.

Yet the new study, published in the journal BioMed Central Biology, suggests that deet may function by interfering directly with insects’ nervous systems.

“We’ve found that deet is not simply a behavior-modifying chemical but also inhibits the activity of a key central nervous system enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, in both insects and mammals,” the researchers said.

In experiments performed in cockroaches and rats, the researchers found that deet blocked the action of the neurological enzyme acetylcholinesterase. This is the same mechanism that causes the toxic effects of popular carbamate and organophosphate pesticides, as well as chemical weapons such as sarin and VX nerve gas. This may mean that deet repellants are actually insecticides and could damage the human nervous system.

Organophosphates are among the pesticides most commonly implicated in pesticide poisoning worldwide, and are also a commonly used suicide method in agricultural areas. Like nerve gases, organophosphates irreversibly inactivate acetylcholinesterase, leading to excessive salivation and eye watering at low doses, and muscle spasms or death at higher doses. Although carbamates are not as toxic as organophosphates, their effects can be just as severe at high enough doses.

Strong evidence also links these pesticides to dangerous health effects caused by long-term exposure even at low doses.

Previous studies have implicated deet in causing seizures in children, but the current study is the first to uncover how the chemical acts directly on the nervous system.

The researchers also found that the effects of deet were enhanced when it was used in combination with organophosphates or carbamates, as in mixed repellent-insecticide products.

Bahie Abou-Donia of the Duke University Medical Center said that the new findings are consistent with previous research into the risks of deet.

“Deet is a good chemical for protection against insects,” Abou-Donia said. “But prolonged exposure results in neurological damage, and this is enhanced by other chemicals and medications.”

The researchers in the new study suggested that pregnant women and children under the age of six avoid using deet-containing mosquito repellents. Abou-Donia went farther, calling for such products to carry warning labels about deet’s potential to cause neurological harm.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a review of deet’s safety planned for 2012.

Sources for this story include:;;;

Credit for the article goes to:

I have done my own research, and the Australian product “OFF!” falls under this banner too.  I just checked – it contains 150grams per kilo – dammit I only bought it because I thought it was a low toxicity repellent.

More on the Swine Flu Hoax

Here in Australia the Government set up a “Swine Flu Hotline”.

Patients were asked a few general questions (that could easily fit the normal seasonal flu).  Then, if they answered yes to “have you experienced coughing, sore throat, nasal congestion” etc, they were told they had swine flu!!

This is how the numbers of the “pandemic” (hah) were obtained!   I know who the “swines” in this case were, and I’m not talking about 4 legged pigs!

Swine flu drug hand-out service raises concerns

Page last updated at 23:05 GMT, Sunday, 4 July 2010 00:05 UK

By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News Man sneezing Swine flu was the first pandemic for 40 yearsJust 12% of patients who got anti-flu drugs using the swine flu hotline and website actually had the virus, figures obtained by the BBC suggest.

More than 1.1m people collected the drugs – which can cause side effects such as nausea – after being diagnosed by the National Pandemic Flu Service.

But figures obtained under a freedom of information request show that of 16,560 people swabbed, 1,932 tested positive.

The Patients Association said this raised questions about the system used.

The flu service was launched last July at the height of the pandemic. It was the first time that prescription drugs had been handed out en masse by the NHS without a patient having to consult a doctor.

Instead, people who felt ill were put through an electronic check-list. Those with swine flu symptoms were then given a voucher number to collect anti-viral drugs, which were used to relieve the illness.

The drugs – Relenza and Tamiflu – both caused a number of side-effects, including nausea and, in some cases, vomiting.

Continue reading the main story

It is always easy to say in hindsight, but we really do need to review this

Katherine Murphy Patients Association

Concerns were also voiced that over-use could have led to resistance – many other countries used them much more sparingly.

There was also a debate about how effective the drugs were.

The independent review of the flu strategy, which was published last week, called for a full evaluation of the flu service, admitting it was a controversial issue.

It cost £13.5m to set it up, although the bill for running it until it closed in February this year has never been published because of commercial sensitivity.

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said the findings suggested the government had “over-reacted”.

“It is always easy to say in hindsight, but we really do need to review this. It is a low number and we have to bear this in mind when thinking about pandemic planning.”

Dr Richard Vautrey, of the British Medical Association’s GPs committee, agreed “lessons must be learned”.

But he added: “It must be remembered the service played a valuable role relieving the pressure on the health service.”

Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said he was looking to change the funding system to tackle the issue.

He added: “Unnecessary emergency admissions create a burden on the NHS. We know that what matters most to patients is the outcome they get and their experience of the NHS – not simply how quickly they are seen.”

Credit for this article goes to:

Corrupt Medical Research on Drugs

Never trust an expert!  Ever wondered why so much health advice is contradictory? It’s because two-thirds of medical research is wrong or fraudulent

By David H Freedman

Last updated at 3:42 AM on 6th July 2010

Have you been left confused by expert health advice? Even people like me, with years of experience in science and medical journalism, are left scratching our heads when research is contradicted by other studies or turns out to be wrong.

In early 2008, new guidelines for life-saving emergency heart attack treatment said you should no longer bother with the ‘mouth-to-mouth’ part of CPR (­cardiopulmonary resuscitation). Instead, you should pump the chest non-stop.

Having got my Red Cross certificate some years ago, I wanted to know more – but discovered that while this change was endorsed by the European Resuscitation Council, the Red Cross still trains people to give mouth-to-mouth.

Scientist looking at liquid in test tubesTesting, testing: Medical research can often result in incorrect conclusions

So I asked Paul Schwerdt, a cardiac resuscitation expert who restarts hearts daily. He told me to forget about CPR, because even trained laypeople rarely do it well enough to make a difference.

He said the best thing is an Automated External Defibrillator – a portable, easy-to-use device that is increasingly available in public places.

I found an article that said it can raise the survival rate for people having heart attacks outside hospital from 1 per cent to 80 per cent. But then I read another study saying such devices don’t increase survival compared with CPR.

Little wonder that ‘expert’ health research leaves many of us confused – and that includes medics, too.

John Ioannidis, a doctor specialising in infectious diseases who is also a medical research analyst, has looked at hundreds of studies and discovered that two in every three conclusions published in medical journals are later found to be wrong.

The problem is that those are the sorts of conclusion your doctor reads when deciding if it makes sense to prescribe an antibiotic for your child’s ear infection, or if the benefits outweigh the risks in suggesting that middle-aged men take a small daily dose of aspirin.

The two-out-of-three wrongness rate Professor Ioannidis found could be worse: he examined only the less than one- tenth of 1 per cent of research that makes it to prestigious journals. So, what is going on?

Here are some of the reasons why experts get it so wrong:


The research community likes to say that the high-profile cases of fraud we see in the media – such as the South Korean researcher Woo Suk Hwang’s fake claims to have cloned human stem cells in 2005 – are rare events.

Another notorious example was that of the cancer researcher William Summerlin, who won praise for achieving skin grafts on genetically incompatible black and white mice.

In fact, he had used a marker pen to blacken patches of fur on white mice. But research fraud appears to be rife.

In an anonymous survey of 3,200 medical researchers in the journal Nature, a third confessed to at least one fraudulent act or ‘massaging’ research results.

In a similar survey, half the research workers said they knew of studies that involved fraud.

The proportion that are caught is minuscule. What motivates such surprising levels of dishonesty?

The answer is simple: researchers need to keep on publishing impressive findings in scientific journals in order to keep their professional careers alive, and some seem unable to come up with them through honest work.


Highly respected scientists toss out data all the time. They pretty much have to. It would be hard to justify keeping ‘findings’ when a key piece of equipment is faulty or if patients in studies are caught not sticking to their drug or diet regimens.

The problem is that it’s not always clear where to draw the line between data that is bad and data that the researcher just doesn’t like.

Douglas Altman, who directs the Centre for Statistics in Medicine in Oxford, examined more than 100 drug studies, comparing raw data and published results.

He found that in most studies some data was left out – and more often than not it didn’t fit the conclusions and might raise difficult questions.

The ultimate form of data cleansing is throwing away a whole study’s worth of information by not submitting it for publication because the results aren’t the ones hoped for.

Often, these ‘lost’ negative results are from studies funded by drug companies – if you are trying to get a medicine onto the market, you don’t want to publish research that makes it look bad.

A study two years ago revealed that 23 out of 74 antidepressant trials were not published.

All but one had found the drugs to be more or less ineffective compared with a sugar pill placebo.

In contrast, all 37 positive studies were published.


The reason trials may prove untrustworthy is because they study the wrong people. A study might be virtuous about its results, except it was assessing a drug’s effects on the wrong people – those who do not represent the patients who would need the drug.

Sometimes people in medical studies are particularly health conscious or unusually ill. Then there is the fact that many studies pay you to take part, which results in a high percentages of poor people, and sometimes alcoholics, drug misusers and the homeless. These sway the results.

Studies in the Nineties appeared to prove hormone replacement therapy (HRT) reduced the risk of heart disease by 50 per cent. Then a large study in 2002 seemed to prove HRT increased the heart disease risk by 29 per cent.

Why the huge discrepancy? It turned out the groups had significantly different balances of people: the first had relatively young women, the second older women, leading both to produce misleading results.


Sheer chance means that in a medical or psychological study, you will always see improvement in a group of people over time – a slight loss in excess weight, for instance.

That change needn’t have anything to do with what is being tested, but the researcher can then claim it was due to whatever was being tested by writing up the study as if that change was what was being tested for.

‘It’s like throwing darts on a wall and then drawing a dartboard around them,’ says Douglas Altman.

He has compared study proposals submitted by researchers with the published findings: ‘We found the stated focus of research was different in more than half the cases.’

In other words, half the results were flukes that had been turned into alleged scientific fact.


In a notorious incident four years ago at Northwick Park Hospital, Middlesex, an experimental leukaemia drug was given to six volunteers.

They all quickly fell seriously ill. The drug had been safety-tested beforehand and passed with flying colours. But it had been safety- ested on animals, where it had shown no harmful effects, even at doses up to 500 times higher than those given to the volunteers.

Health research has become dependent on animals. Treatment breakthroughs you see in the media frequently turn out to be based on studies of mice. But often the results don’t translate to humans.

Three-quarters of drugs fail human trials because of dangerous side-effects or simply failing to provide cures.

Adapted from Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us And How To Know When Not To Trust Them by David H. Freedman (Little, Brown, £12.99). To order a copy (P&P free), call 0845 155 0720.

Good article isnt it – once again I’m being lazy by using others’ work – but when that work is well written and researched and I give the credit where due – why not?

Poisoning our Children!

I am reproducing this article from The Vaccine Resistance Movement – the article can be found at:


‘Food and Drug Administration inspectors found in April that McNeil Consumer Healthcare, which has voluntarily recalled certain lots of its children’s and infants’ Tylenol products, knowingly used bacteria-contaminated materials to make them, a report posted Tuesday by the agency says.’

6th May 2010 – By Joel Lord

McNeil Consumer HealthcareRaw materials used to make over-the-counter infant’s and children’s medications, which are subject to a massive recall, tested positive for bacterial contamination, according to a Food and Drug Administration inspection report released late Tuesday.

The report, which also found more than a dozen other violations at the facility used to make the products, detailed a series of sloppy manufacturing processes including failure to maintain equipment, properly train employees and correctly weigh ingredients. The report also indicates that the drug maker, Johnson & Johnson’s McNeil Consumer Healthcare subsidiary, failed to investigate “46 consumer complaints regarding foreign materials, dark or black specks,” some dating to June 2009.

“They’ve had a number of recalls and some observers are starting to question the integrity of the supply chain. The trend we’ve seen is not positive,” said industry analyst Les Funtleyder at Miller Tabak & Co.’,0,3649117.story

‘Food and Drug Administration inspectors found in April that McNeil Consumer Healthcare, which has voluntarily recalled certain lots of its children’s and infants’ Tylenol products, knowingly used bacteria-contaminated materials to make them, a report posted Tuesday by the agency says.’

Tylenol banFDA REPORT: ‘McNeil Consumer Healthcare and FDA notified healthcare professionals of a voluntary recall of certain over-the-counter (OTC) Children’s and Infants’ liquid products manufactured in the United States, including Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec, and Benadryl products. McNeil Consumer Healthcare is initiating this voluntary recall because some of these products may not meet required quality standards. This recall is not being undertaken on the basis of adverse medical events. However, as a precautionary measure, parents and caregivers should not administer these products to their children. Some of the products included in the recall may contain a higher concentration of active ingredient than is specified; others may contain inactive ingredients that may not meet internal testing requirements; and others may contain tiny particles. While potential for serious medical events is remote, the company advises consumers who have purchased these recalled products to discontinue use.’

Product Brands On Recall List –


A) Failure to investigate “46 consumer complaints regarding foreign materials, dark or black specks,” some dating to June 2009.

B) 50 variations of infant’s and children’s Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec and Benadryl tested positive for bacterial contamination.

C) The report documents “numerous deficiencies,” including “a failure to sufficiently investigate problems in its manufacturing and in its drugs,” failure to maintain proper testing facilities, and making changes in manufacturing processes without assuring that they would not harm consumers.

D) According to USA Today McNeil KNOWINGLY used bacteria-contaminated materials to make them.

E) The inspection was triggered at least in part by a warning letter sent to a McNeil plant in Puerto Rico in January in connection with another recall involving medications tainted by a chemical found in wooden shipping pallets. A foul odor associated with the chemical temporarily sickened about 70 people. In that letter, FDA cited ongoing concerns with the company’s quality control.

F) The weekend recall was the ninth product recall for McNeil this year, according to FDA figures.

FDA VERDICT: ‘No decision has been made about what further action, if any, the FDA will take, officials said. Options range from sending a warning letter to seeking criminal penalties.’

The FDA routinely turns a blind eye to Big pharma malfeasance. Frequently major violators  are given nothing more than a token slap on the wrist; their product then quietly diverted to countries outside the ire of the spotlight – always accompanied by a Media blackout. A landmark case Bayer Corporation, owned by Nazi sympathizer I.G.Farben, were caught red handed distributing Factor 8 (a blood thinner for Hemophiliacs)  tainted with the HIV Aids virus to tens of thousands of hemophiliacs in the United States.  The FDA imposed a toothless ban with the assurance Bayer would clean up their act. The CEO’s at Bayer avoided any serious recrimination. Within weeks the tainted supplies were quietly shipped for sale to Europe, Asia & Latin America. The vast majority of victims around the world suffered and/or died in silence. Finally in 1997 Bayer was pinned down in Court; with thousands of hemophiliacs involved compensated $100,000 each. However most never saw such token justice.

‘Even if McNeil had been operating up to proper standards, many of its children’s formulations are still filled with questionable chemical ingredients like aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, sucralose (Splenda), artificial colors and preservatives, and even parabens, all of which are approved by the FDA for use in children’s and infants’ formulas.

The shocking truth is that, even in their approved and “safe” forms, most OTC children’s medicines are nothing more than dangerous chemical cocktails being peddled as medicine. They’re filled with so much harmful garbage that they can hardly be considered beneficial. Most of them are outright useless. These OTC children’s medicines are the quackery of modern medicine.’ Mike Adams, Natural News

“Tylenol uses up glutathione (GSH) stores and metabolites of acetaminophen accumulates causing direct damage to liver cells. You want their glutathione levels to be optimum because GSH main purpose is for detoxifying and eliminating heavy metals and other environmental toxins…it is essential for the function of the gut, maintains Vitamins C and E, maintains mitochondrial integrety, protects against intracellular viruses and so much more. Anything that compromises the level of glutathione needed to maintain health like Tylenol should be avoided.” Brian Jepson, MD

‘People who take NSAIDs for prolonged periods of time can develop several GI side effects, such as stomach aches, indigestion, or even ulcers. Ulcers can eventually lead to GI bleeding or may even perforate, spilling the contents of the stomach or small intestine into the sterile abdominal cavity. Every time they come in with bleeding, they have a 10% chance of dying.’ Dr. Joseph Mercola

Book Review….


Something alittle bit different tonight – Im doing a Book Review!

“The Pandora Prescription” by James Sheridan.

For all those intrepid seekers of truth, this is another one to add to your reading list.

If you liked The Da Vinci Code et al, then this is another eye-opener that will make little warning bells go off in your heads!

Let me start by telling you why I was intrigued with this book, and why I believe it has alot of fact  in amongst the fiction…

Years ago in New Zealand, I remember my parents discussing a Doctor of Medicine who was run out of NZ for claiming he could cure Cancer with his unique treatment of administering Laetrile.   Now, Laetrile is a substance found in Apricot kernels, and also in much smaller concentrations in nuts and berries in general.   This Doctor (and Im sorry but I cant remember his name) was forced to leave NZ  by the Medical Association, labelled a “quack” and rip-off artist, and was threatened with incarceration and having his licence revoked if he continued to make his claims.

Hundreds of patients claimed he had cured them,  after the medical establishment had basically wiped their hands of them stating they were incurable.  Last I heard of the good Doctor, he had set up a clinic on a Pacific Island and was still having great success with the cure rates of patients that still flocked to him.  So, now I have given you the background, lets on with the story…..

A US Secret Service agent tapes a secret meeting between the Bilderberg Group Meeting where the head of the American Medical Association, the head of the American Cancer Society, the head of the Food and Drug Administration, and the head of the National Cancer Institute meet with the Vice President of the USA to discuss ways to prevent the information about Laetrile from going public.

Basically, all these people at the meeting are OWNED in one way or another, by the huge Pharmaceutical Companies (Big Pharma).  Politics and political parties are funded by the Big Pharmas, millions of jobs are provided by these companies, basically our economies are now so entrapped with these companies that without their funding, society as we know it would collapse.

The Big Pharmas admit Laetrile works – scientific studies have shown the results to be conclusive, but no way must this be allowed to come out.  If the average Joe on the street can go down the Health Food Shop and buy some organic apricot seeds, then no profit can be made by these companies.  They know damn well that Chemotherapy kills more patients than it cures (if at all), and that Radiation Therapy is the same, but they dont care because it all comes down to PROFIT AND CONTROLLING THE MARKET!

Enter the Codex Elementarius –  because Laetrile is basically B17 which can be bought over the counter without prescription,  these huge multi-national companies are now trying to control the Vitamin and Supplement industry too with this new legislation.  This is all happening now – google Codex and see what I mean.  These Big Pharmas cant make a profit from natural products, you cant patent herbs and vitamins, so they are trying to stop us being able to buy them, and arresting and fining anyone who makes claims that their supplements and natural products work!

The book is very well written, easy to understand, covers so many different aspects of whats happening behind closed doors by the huge companies that control the media, the government, and the medical establishment!

A must read!


I was surfing around YouTube the other day, and found a truly awful video on the effects of Aspartame on the human brain.  I have known Aspartame was a poison for years now, and had avoided it like the plague, so this info just reinforced my opinion.

The awful thing i spotted was that they are adding it to Protein Powder and Diet Shakes (amongst alot of other products), but this really hit home as both my grown sons are body builders/kick boxers and they live on the stuff!

So out we get the huge container and yep, sure enough, its in there alright!!  No mention of quantity though which I find absolutely shocking!  The two baddies are listed as 954 and 952 (google them you will see).   One of these toxins has been banned in the USA since 1977 – but can still be found in the Australian product. WTF????

You will be happy to know my sons have now found alternative protein powders without those hideous poisons.