Pain and swelling. Life-threatening muscle weakness. Blood clots in the heart and lungs.
The deaths of 32 innocent girls and young women.

You might think I’m talking about a deadly new disease or a global epidemic…  I’m not.
Sadly, it’s more sinister than that. The health threats listed above have all been linked with Gardasil, the so-called “cervical cancer vaccine.” And thanks to pharma giant Merck, desperate parents and naive young women believe this vaccine saves lives… they couldn’t be more wrong.

That’s why HSI’s Jenny Thompson has released a new video in which she exposes the deception for what it is…and reveals some truly shocking information no one else is talking about.

Please, if you have daughters, granddaughters or friends who might be considering this terrible vaccine, you must watch not give it to them and learn more about it.. and not from yoru doctor who is paid to give it to you. Please forward this info to all young girls and their mothers.

If you think you know the whole story on Gardasil, I think you’ll be shocked by what you will learn. Save a young girl’s life and don’t give them Gardisil.

Below I have copied and pasted a full article on this so called vaccine with evidence backed by the NYTimes and Judicial Watch.

The Gardasil HPV vaccine may be as dangerous as it is unnecessary

Stop Right There

Your pediatrician is about to give your daughter a Gardasil vaccination – designed to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV), one of the causes of cervical cancer.

But before he does, he turns to you and says, “I should mention that thousands of CDC adverse event reports, which include paralysis and seizures, have been made in connection with this vaccine. Some of the girls receiving the vaccine required hospitalization. At least seven young women died suddenly shortly after receiving the vaccine, although in some cases the exact cause of death hasn’t been determined.

“So should we go ahead with it?”

Many parents would stop it right there, while others would have no qualms about going ahead with the shot.

But they might have second thoughts if their doctor kept up the conversation

Talkin’ the talk

“So should we go ahead with it?”

At this point a parent might say, “Well, it’s mandated by the state, so we have to.”

(New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Virginia require the vaccine for all girls entering the sixth grade. Similar legislation is pending in other states.)

Doctor: No, you can easily opt out. In this case “mandatory,” isn’t really mandatory.

Parent: Right, but the state wouldn’t well, let’s say, “strongly encourage” the vaccine for all girls if it didn’t prevent cervical cancer.

Doctor: Actually, the vaccine prevents HPV, which is just one of the causes of cervical cancer. The best way to decrease your daughter’s risk of invasive cervical cancer is to teach her to be disciplined about getting regular gynecological exams.

(According to the American Cancer Society, when pap tests detect early cervical cancer, survival rate is more than 90 percent.)

Parent: So you’re telling me that the state makes it SEEM like this expensive vaccine is mandatory, and yet getting vaccinated doesn’t guarantee that my daughter will avoid cervical cancer?

Doctor: That’s right.

Parent: And what are those adverse side effects again?

Junkyard dog

A recent report from Judicial Watch (a public interest group that promotes government accountability) leads off with this quote from Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton: “The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors. Any state or local government now beset by Merck’s lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports.”

If those state and local governments follow Mr. Fitton’s advice, they’ll have quite a bit of reading to do.

Less than one year after the FDA approved Merck’s Gardasil in June 2006, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request and received more than 1,600 reports that were submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System regarding Gardasil. Three months later, Judicial Watch filed another request and found that nearly 200 new reports had been added to the list.

Some of the adverse events that show up frequently in the reports include:

* Dizziness
* Fainting
* Seizures
* Convulsions
* Guillain-Barre Syndrome (a central nervous system disorder in which weakness and tingling sensations in the legs spread to the upper body, sometimes causing paralysis)

Parent: Okay, those are troubling side effects. But given the thousands of young women who have received the vaccine, the chances of experiencing those events are very small. So isn’t the vaccine worth the risk?

And here’s what the doctor is not likely to admit: According to a Journal of the American Medical Association study, less than two percent of all women develop the two types of HPV that are responsible for 70 percent of all cervical cancers. And American Cancer Society guidelines state that 90 percent of adolescent HPV infections are resolved without treatment – the same is true for about 75 percent of HPV infections in adults.

I hope you’ll share this e-Alert with your friends and family who are parents of young daughters. Let them know that the Gardasil vaccine is potentially dangerous, but guaranteed to do only one thing: Make billions of dollars for Merck.

Sources:
“Judicial Watch Investigates Side-Effects of HPV Vaccine” Judicial Watch, 5/14/08, judicialwatch.org
“The Rush to Vaccinate” Sigrid Fry-Revere, New York Times, 3/25/07, nytimes.com

To most Americans, sun protection means tossing a bottle of sunscreen in your beach bag. But not all sunscreens are created equal.

But some groups, such as the American College of Preventive Medicine, have called into question claims that sunscreen is all it’s chalked up to be. They point out that the evidence supporting sunscreen’s cancer-preventive capability is incomplete, especially with regard to malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.

Personal Health Issues

There are two different types of active sunscreen ingredients: chemical UV absorbers (which absorb rays that come in contact with skin) and physical UV blockers (which reflect rays before they can do any damage).

Most of the health concerns around sunscreens have to do with the chemical UV absorbers. Many have been found to act like estrogen in the body: benzophenone, oxybenzone, octinoxate (also called octyl methoxycinnamate) and homosalate are all chemical sunscreens to avoid for this reason. In a 2004 Environmental Health Perspective study, another sunscreen chemical, Padimate O, was found to cause breast cancer cells to multiply in test tubes. Benzophenone may also cause allergic reactions, and all of these chemical sunscreen ingredients have been found to increase skin absorption of pesticides on people who were wearing them during pesticide application.

There’s also evidence that the chemical Avobenzone (also called Parsol 1789) degrades quickly when exposed to sunlight, and according to a 2007 report from the Environmental Working Group, many chemical sunscreens break down is as little as 30 minutes when exposed to sunlight.

Along with all the active chemical ingredients, sunscreens also contain many ingredients listed on our “Dirty Dozen” list of chemicals to avoid. Allergenic synthetic dyes and fragrances that contain hormone-disrupting phthalates are common, as are parabens (preservatives that also act like estrogen in the body) and urea preservatives that emit formaldehyde as they break down.

Environmental Issues

The same chemicals that interfere with human hormones were recently found to cause bleaching and death of corals. Seventy-eight million tourists visit areas with coral reefs every year, leaving behind 4,000 to 6,000 tons of sunscreen-and because many sunscreens are petroleum-based, they don’t break down quickly in water. An April 2008 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives revealed that, when exposed to benzophenone or cinnamate-based sunscreens, coral developed viral infections that led to bleaching. The same happened when coral were exposed to paraben preservatives.

What to Look For

Skin cancer is the most common of all cancers in the U.S., and as many as one million people are diagnosed with it every year. Despite these high numbers, skin cancer is preventable with proper protection.

Mineral Ingredients

Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are minerals that physically block ultraviolet (UV) rays from reaching your skin, as opposed to other sunscreens that use chemicals to absorb UV rays. Minerals are considered the best protection against sunburn because they block both UVB rays (which cause sunburns) and UVA rays (which cause skin aging and cancer). Chemical sunscreens, on the other hand, don’t always protect against UVA. And some break down in sunlight in as little as half an hour, while also interfering with your hormonal systems (see The Backstory).

All the sunscreens listed on our Product Comparisons page use either titanium dioxide, zinc oxide or a combination of both. None contain chemical sunscreens.

Protection Rating

SPF (or sun protection factor) is an FDA-regulated rating system that represents how long it will take for exposed skin to burn with the sunscreen applied. For example, if your unprotected skin usually burns in 10 minutes, a sunscreen with an SPF 15 would prevent a sunburn for 15 times that length of time, or 150 minutes (two and a half hours). However, SPF only rates UVB rays, not skin damaging UVA rays. For that reason, never rely entirely on a sunscreen’s SPF, and look for products that advertise “broad-spectrum protection,” which means it protects against both types of rays.

Fabrics and sun-protective clothing are rated according to UPF (ultraviolet protection factor), which measures how well these items prevent sunburn in the same way that SPF does. While UPF does apply to both UVA and UVB rays, UPF claims aren’t federally regulated, as SPF ratings are.

Nano-sized or Micronized Particles?

The primary drawback to sunscreens with titanium dioxide or zinc oxide is that they can leave a white tint on your skin. To make the lotions transparent, manufacturers shrink titanium dioxide or zinc oxide particles down to nano-sized particles–less than 100 nanometers (nm); for comparison, a human hair is about 80,000 nm in diameter. Because smaller particles can act differently than larger particles when they enter the body, these nano-sized particles have been cause for concern: Research indicates that nanoparticles of titanium dioxide are small enough to bypass your body’s “blood-brain barrier” (a natural defense against foreign substances in the bloodstream) and enter the brain where they can damage brain cells. Larger particles, however, are blocked by that barrier and don’t pose this problem. Fortunately, a 2006 Australian government literature review on the topic found that neither titanium dioxide nor zinc oxide penetrate the skin deep enough to actually enter the bloodstream, and most scientific evidence supports the fact that nano-sized particles of these ingredients are often trapped in the outer layer of the skin and not absorbed (they should always be avoided when used in powders that may be inhaled). However, if you’d rather err on the side of safety, opt for sunscreens that use micronized ingredients (particles larger than 100 nm), which are mostly transparent but may still offer a slight tint.

Safe Use Tips

No sunscreen will block 100 percent of the sun’s rays, but smart and regular application will reduce your risk of sunburns and UV damage.

Apply sunscreen generously to exposed skin at least 30 minutes before going out into the sun, and use 1 ounce (enough to fill a shot glass).
The Skin Cancer Foundation recommends reapplying sunscreen every two hours, regardless of SPF.
“Waterproof” and “water resistant” claims aren’t regulated and are often inaccurate. Always reapply lotions after getting out of the water, toweling off or sweating heavily.
Don’t forget to cover sensitive areas like the ears and feet.
Avoid using sunscreens on children younger than 6 months, unless there is no other way to protect them. Keep them out of the sun, instead, to prevent burns and overheating.
If you’re swimming in the ocean, choose sunscreens with plant-based ingredients to avoid damaging coral (see The Backstory)

Shade and Clothing

Avoiding sunlight during peak sun hours (10 a.m. to 4 p.m.) is the best way to defend yourself, but that’s not always possible, nor is it much fun. Clothes provide a more consistent level of protection than even the best sunscreens, but some weaves and fabrics offer more protection than others:

According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, the tighter the weave and the darker the color of a garment, the higher the SPF protection. (If you can see through it, it probably isn’t doing a great job of blocking UV rays.)
Opt for organic or unbleached cottons; bleaching can destroy a fabric’s integrity.
Tightly woven cotton, wool and even polyester offer better protection than thinner fabrics, such as linen, acetate and rayon.
Most fabrics lose their ability to protect when wet.
A wide-brimmed hat affords much more coverage than a baseball hat.
Protect your eyes with sunglasses that have UV protection. The Mayo Clinic recommends photochromic lenses, which reduce glare, sun and UV radiation without reducing visual acuity or distorting color.

For a list of comparisons on sunscreens.. click here

White coffee filters, white toilet paper, white tampons, what sugar, white, white, white! Does it all have to be white?

I think their is an unknown obsession with white items.. and its killing us.

Personally I don’t care what colour my sugar is as long as it tastes like sugar. As long as my coffee filter, filters my coffee I am good there too. Tampons, well I dont use them but them miss does and I have read and hear some things about the chemicals used in bleaching those and how it can and I am pretty sure she would not care if they were not white either.

This obsession with white is killing people and they just don’t see it.

Now the companies who make these items say to us “the chemicals that can leech out of the product are minimal and harmless in such small amounts”. That is if they say anything at all. Now lets take a minute and add up how many times a day you drink coffee, times that by the week, times that by the month, then times that by the year… you will see that it adds up to a MASSIVE NUMBER and a boatload of bad chemicals being put into your body.

Then add in other items you use during the day that have been bleached white with harmful chemicals like your toilet paper, tampons, and more.

See there is a much bigger picture here.. its not about just one thing. Its about a little bit of everythign adding up to a big problem.

So.. next time you go to get your coffee filters.. reach for the unbleached tan looking ones. When it comes to toilet paper.. get the recycled kind, since it ends up rather non white in the end anyways.

It will do your body good!

P.S. And don’t forget to tell your store manager your not a fool and to stop using the word ORGANIC and NATURAL as a reason to over price items and rip us off.

I really suggest that everyone uses glass to drink from. Unfortunately that is hard with babies and water bottles. But .. I do it as much as I can and try to keep my family using glass also.

Here is my advice to avoid all these problems that you are seeing come up now and will see a lot more of in the future. Think about what your great, great grandparents lived like and used to live and do that.

On a side note. There are many good baby bottle products out there. So don’t think you are screwed.

TORONTO (CP) – Armed with tests that suggest the body of every Canadian carries trace evidence of dangerous chemicals, Ontario’s New Democrats are spearheading an effort that would help them learn exactly what carcinogens or toxins they are exposed to on a daily basis.

Toxic chemicals are in many everyday products, from household cleaners and laundry detergents to hair dyes and cosmetics, said NDP environment critic Peter Tabuns, who is pushing for a new law that would compel manufacturers to disclose dangerous ingredients in their products.

Consumers would demand changes if labels told them exactly what a product contains, Tabuns said in an interview.

“Right now, most people don’t know whether or not products that they buy have cancer-causing agents in them.”

Tabuns hopes to convince Ontario to follow the example of California, where community right-to-know legislation has helped get arsenic out of bottled water and lead removed from some candies. Manufacturers there opted to find alternatives rather than list carcinogens on their labels, he said.

“They are not going to want to have that label on their products,” Tabuns said. “They know that consumers, especially parents, don’t want to subject themselves to exposure.”

He cited the example of Gillette, which reformulated Liquid Paper correction fluid to eliminate trichloroethylene, a suspected carcinogen, rather than comply with California’s 15-year-old law to label the product with a warning that the ingredient could cause cancer.

The members of Canada’s Chemical Producers Association believe in right-to-know legislation, but “the devil is in the details,” said Michael Bourque, the association’s vice-president of public affairs.

He cautioned against labelling products that contain only a few parts per billion of a certain chemical – levels that scientists say are safe.

“One problem (is) where you provide a fire hose of information that no one can drink from it, or you provide lists of things that are in such minute quantities that we don’t know whether there’s an impact,” Bourque said.

“Do we support giving people information that’s going to confuse them, alarm them unnecessarily? No, we don’t.”

The lobby group Environmental Defence has issued three reports since 2005 detailing tests on Canadian children, adults and even four federal MPs that found evidence of 68 different chemicals, including pesticides, PCBs, stain repellents, fire retardants, mercury and lead.

Environmental Defence policy director Aaron Freeman said legislation like that proposed by Tabuns is “absolutely essential” in order to help protect consumers.

“You’re seeing consumers making environmentally sound choices when they’re given information, (such as) the slow-motion explosion toward organic food and non-toxic alternatives in areas like pesticides and cosmetics,” he said.

“It’s true that some chemicals are only in certain products at very small amounts, but for some chemicals, those small amounts are still very toxic. At a very basic level, if something is toxic, we have a right to know.”

Tabuns’ private member’s bill, dubbed the Community Right to Know act, has received second reading in the Ontario legislature, but there’s no indication the Liberal government will agree to hold public hearings on the bill or allow it to come back to the legislature for third and final reading.

Anne O’Hagan, the senior communications adviser to Environment Minister Lauren Broten, said the government supports the general idea behind the bill. “More information can only be a good thing when it comes to the environment.”

Tabuns’ bill also calls for better worker access to warnings about harmful chemicals they are exposed to on the job, and he plans to introduce companion legislation, a Toxic Use Reduction act, to force companies to cut the use, waste and spillage of toxic chemicals.

The European Union and the state of Vermont have similar product-labelling laws, and Tabuns said it’s time Canada started catching up with those jurisdictions that help protect consumers from dangerous chemicals.

“This issue really has arrived, and the political momentum among the public is there,” he said. “If the (Liberals) don’t act, they will face the loss of support from environmentalists and public health advocates in the next election.”

Written by: KEITH LESLIE