Connect with us

Awareness

A Mother’s Struggle: “Your Child Is Vaccine Injured, Just Like Mine”

Published

on

The following story is a personal account of a mother’s struggle with a vaccine injured child. The story evokes compassion and empathy as we read the long and continuous journey of a mother and her family who were shunned by doctors and a community of pro-vaccine advocators and who were left to fend for themselves. Robyn Charron has made her story public, appearing on various blogs and news websites such as The Huffington Post, and as much backlash as she receives Robyn persists with sharing her tale of a lone mother standing up against an established system of misinformation and corruption – one with a tenacious ego backed by an army of conditioned thinkers. Please share Robyn’s story.

advertisement - learn more

h-ROBYN-CHARRON-960x540

Robyn Charron and her son

Robyn’s Story:

“If you wait until your child is born to think about vaccines, a vaccine injury is almost impossible to recognize.  You are too tired and overwhelmed when it strikes.  You are too immersed in the trees to see the forest.  Too busy putting band-aids on symptoms to see the syndrome.  You might be told that you have a sensitive, high-needs baby on your hands and his sensitivities manifest as colic, reflux, head-banging, food allergies, or contact rashes.  You will be told that it is all normal, which is the truth, considering what passes for normal these days.  Now I see these signs in other infants and I try to intervene.  I try to warn the parents that these sensitivities mean so much more than their doctor tells them.  I know that these parents are too down in it to see for themselves.

My son was born and like a lot of people, we put more thought into the paint in his bedroom than we had into vaccinations.  I knew one person, nearly a decade ago, who didn’t vaccinate his children.  He said, “We don’t put that crap into our kids.”  He scared me.  I thought he was a conspiracy theorist.  I would never be like that guy.

advertisement - learn more

vaccinechild2

Day before 2 month vaccination

We were presented with the Hepatitis B vaccine paperwork on our child’s third day of life, just before leaving the hospital.  I have a Bachelor of Science in Biology but I didn’t know what Hep B was.  None of the parenting books I’d read mentioned that I would be expected to make a decision I knew nothing about while I was high on painkillers.  If you don’t already know, Hep B is a sexually transmitted blood borne disease that is also spread through using dirty needles. Children don’t catch Hep B at the playground, or from a sneeze, or from drinking water. The vaccine administered to a newborn baby will have long worn off by the time the child becomes sexually active.  If a mother is Hep B positive and has been receiving prenatal care, she certainly knows her status prior to the baby arriving.

So why are hospitals vaccinating all of our newborns for Hepatitis B? Because they can.  Because almost no one says “No.”  It is as simple as that.

We all want to trust our doctors. No one wants to believe that the CDC and the AAP aren’t looking out for our best interests. No one wants to retroactively realize they were responsible for harming their babies. No one wants to debate their child’s pediatrician. No one wants to have this battle with their spouse.

We allowed the Hep B vaccine that day. We actually said, “It must be a really big deal or it wouldn’t come with all of this consent paperwork,” but allowed it anyway. We took our baby home that evening and spent the wee morning hours wishing we could put that hysterical child back into my body. We didn’t make a connection between the two events. We were already too down in it to see.

A week later we were still miserable. My husband would race home from work to help me. I would still be in my pajamas, covered in spit-up, leaking milk. Our baby would be crying. I would be crying. I wouldn’t have fed myself, brushed my teeth or folded any laundry. At two weeks old our son was diagnosed with “classic colic” and it did not let up for the next five months. It was the most severe case of colic anyone in our lives had ever seen. We ended up medicating him with an antispasmodic to save our marriage.

When he was nine weeks old I took my fussy baby in for his 2-month checkup and was attacked with paperwork.  I wasn’t prepared for what the check-up would entail.  “Sign here, sign here, sign here, he needs his vaccinations.”  They were four injections and one oral that covered 7 diseases. “Is this safe?  Why are there so many?”  They don’t want you to ask questions. They don’t have any answers. There is a list of side-effects on the package inserts but they do not share it with you. You are rushed to hurry up.

They try to strip you of all maternal instinct when you are in your most vulnerable postpartum state. 

My postpartum anxiety was sky-high. I was a shell of my former self and sleep-deprived. I had been screamed at for hours on end by this tortured baby. I was too down in it to think.

I asked to nurse him through the shots and was denied. I signed off on the vaccines. Within 20 minutes he fell into a deep unwakeable sleep. This colicky child of ours did not usually fall asleep out in the middle of commotion. He did not ordinarily pass out the moment I put him into the car. I called my husband to tell him that something was wrong. I put our son into his crib but even the transition did not wake him. I hovered over him as he slept for hours—something he’d never done before.

When he finally did wake, he screamed a high pitched scream I’d never heard before or since.

I remember running into his room and standing over him with the phone, letting the nurse at the doctor’s office listen. She insisted this hysteria was due to “pain from the injection site” and said I should give him more Tylenol.  I didn’t believe her. The note they sent me home with said to call if he had a high-pitched scream so why were they saying it was normal?

He didn’t want to be held. He didn’t want me touching him. After 15 minutes of ear-splitting screams I nursed him back to sleep. I was sitting inches from him in his baby hammock chair when he woke the second timeI will never forget the way his arms stiffened up and shot out from his body with his piercing screams. His eyes scrunched tightly shut as he put every ounce of his energy into the terrifying sounds coming out of his teeny, tiny person. He wasn’t looking at me. He didn’t even know I was there.  He went back to sleep and the scream stopped.

I stayed up all night doing the research I should have done 2 months before.

His scream was cry-encephalitis, also known as the DTaP scream. It is brain inflammation. It is literally an allergic reaction to vaccines in the brain. It is not uncommon. Had I taken him to the ER, it would have been documented with an EEG. Instead I was lied to by my pediatrician’s office until the event had passed.

That was the beginning of the end of vaccines for us.

Children do not have the requisite myelin sheath coating their nervous system pathways to withstand bombardment of viruses, aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, MSG, and animal DNA. Damage to the nerves not covered by myelin sheath is autism. It is Asperger’s. It is epilepsy. It is asthma. It is well-documented and accepted by mainstream media that damage to the myelin sheath is physically and mentally debilitating in head injuries, yet the connection to autism remains unacknowledged.

Believe me, it made me sick to think about not vaccinating my child. I flip-flopped on my stance countless times. I told myself that at his next vaccinations we would go wait in the parking lot of the emergency room just in case.  Then I told myself that was crazy talk—what kind of mother would subject her child to something that might send him to the emergency room? The day before his 4-month doctor appointment I finally got up the nerve to tell his doctor we were holding off on more vaccinations until he turned one. The doctor took the news so well that I felt silly for making myself sick over it.

Our baby now had eczema all of the time. At 4 months he was covered head to toe in a body rash from his first tablespoon of banana. We held off two more months for solid food. At 6 months old he developed a contact rash on his face from sweet potatoes. I pushed his doctor for answers, and a blood test came back positive for a peanut allergy.

My 6 month old breastfed baby had a deadly peanut allergy. I didn’t see a connection. I was way too down in it by now.

At 12 months old his pediatrician who promised us that he “wasn’t a stickler” for the CDC vaccination schedule kicked us out of the practice for not resuming the shots. “It’s stressing me out not to vaccinate your child,” he said.  I was holding my baby in my arms, trying to explain our fears, describing how horrible that terrifying day ten months prior had been. I told him how worried I was that we would end up in the ER this time. I was humiliated.  He’d told his entire staff he was kicking us out that day. I left in tears. I thought of all of the things I’d wished I said to him for months to come.

We never did resume the vaccines. It took some time to feel confident in that decision. My supportive husband stood by me in our defiance even though neither of us knew what we were doing, and man we were scared.

vaccinechild

Today at 4 years old

At 13 months old our child broke out in hives at a birthday party from bites of a meatball that contained walnut.  At 16 months we’d had enough and took him to an allergist for a $600 skin test. He was officially diagnosed with allergies to wheat, egg, melon, cat, ragweed, grass, cedar, tree nuts, and a deadly peanut allergy. We’ve since learned that he can’t have corn or potato and still can’t eat banana. My baby has a dozen allergies.

I had to learn how to feed him all over again.  The natural process of these eliminations led to putting him on an organic Paleo/Primal diet, and my husband and I followed suit ourselves six months later.

My child was 16 months old when he was diagnosed with the slew of allergies and I didn’t make the connection that he was harmed by the vaccines even then. I was mystified. I asked the allergist what caused these problems in my child. His answer was, “He’s under-vaccinated. We need vaccines to challenge our immune systems in order to eat food without our bodies attacking it.”

Although I did not believe such an unfounded statement, I was too busy putting band-aids on symptoms to see the syndrome. It wasn’t until The Greater Good was released in October of 2011—nearly 2 years after the fateful vaccinations—that the anvil hit me on the head. It all made sense. The colic, the encephalitic scream, the rashes, the mast cell issues, the hyper-vigilant immune system.

There is now no doubt in our minds what path we were forcing our sensitive child to go down had we continued vaccinating. I know in my heart that he cannot handle vaccines and he would have autism today had we continued.  All the signs were there. My second child who statistically shares half of his DNA is nothing like this. A needle has never pierced her skin. She can eat anything. She does not get contact rashes. She never had colic. She does not have eczema.

This is what really gets to me, though:  The staunchest defenders of vaccines. The parents who will go toe-to-toe with me in a public forum saying what a bad parent I am for not vaccinating. And then what do I find out months later, years later, always in private?

Their child has food allergies. Their child has a learning disability. Their child is medicated for ADHD. Their child is crippled with asthma. Their child is on the spectrum.

How do they publicly proclaim, “We vaccinated on schedule and my child turned out just fine!” but in private they are dealing with these problems?

Welcome to the new normal. Your child isn’t fine. Your child is vaccine injured– just like mine”

Read the full article at Lioness Arising Mother

The vaccine argument is on-going, and the two sides are undyingly insistent with their veiwpoints. However, there is something inside each of us that is the same, and that is our empathy for one another. We all share an innate benevolence, a sincere understanding of another human being’s heartbreak. Regardless of where we stand in the vaccine debate, at the very least we can find compassion in our hearts for Robyn’s story.  Much love <3

Explore CE’s library, read more on vaccines:

New Study Links Multiple Infant Vaccines To Increased Death 

Millions Estimated To Have Been Contaminated With SV40 Virus Through Polio Vaccine

Document Reveals Death Of At Least 36 Infants After Infanrix Hexa Vaccine 

Scientific Evidence Suggests The Vaccine-Autism Link Can No Longer Be Ignored 

Vietnam Discontinues Hepatitis B Vaccine After Three Babies Die 

Polish Study Confirms Vaccines Can Cause Large Number of Adverse Effects

What Happened When I Refused My Tetanus Vaccine

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out—Getting Paid to Play

Published

on

[Note: This is Part IX in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]

The vaccine industry and its government and scientific partners routinely block meaningful science and fabricate misleading studies about vaccines. They could not do so, however, without having enticed medical journals into a mutually beneficial bargain. Pharmaceutical companies supply journals with needed income, and in return, journals play a key role in suppressing studies that raise critical questions about vaccine risks—which would endanger profits.

Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.

An exclusive and dependent relationship

Advertising is one of the most obviously beneficial ways that medical journals’ “exclusive and dependent relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry plays out. According to a 2006 analysis in PLOS Medicinedrugs and medical devices are the only products for which medical journals accept advertisements. Studies show that journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.” The pharmaceutical industry puts a particularly “high value on advertising its products in print journals” because journals reach doctors—the “gatekeeper between drug companies and patients.” Almost nine in ten drug advertising dollars are directed at physicians.

In the U.S. in 2012, drug companies spent $24 billion marketing to physicians, with only $3 billion spent on direct-to-consumer advertising. By 2015, however, consumer-targeted advertising had jumped to $5.2 billion, a 60% increase that has reaped bountiful rewards. In 2015, Pfizer’s Prevnar-13 vaccine was the nation’s eighth most heavily advertised drug; after the launch of the intensive advertising campaign, Prevnar “awareness” increased by over 1,500% in eight months, and “44% of targeted consumers were talking to their physicians about getting vaccinated specifically with Prevnar.” Slick ad campaigns have also helped boost uptake of “unpopular” vaccines like Gardasil.

Advertising is such an established part of journals’ modus operandi that high-end journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) boldly invite medical marketers to “make NEJM the cornerstone of their advertising programs,” promising “no greater assurance that your ad will be seen, read, and acted upon.” In addition, medical journals benefit from pharmaceutical companies’ bulk purchases of thousands of journal reprints and industry’s sponsorship of journal subscriptions and journal supplements.

advertisement - learn more

In 2003, an editor at The BMJ wrote about the numerous ways in which drug company advertising can bias medical journals (and the practice of medicine)—all of which still hold true today. For example:

  • Advertising monies enable prestigious journals to get thousands of copies into doctors’ hands for free, which “almost certainly” goes on to affect prescribing.
  • Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.
  • Journals will guarantee favorable editorial mentions of a product in order to earn a company’s advertising dollars.
  • Journals can earn substantial fees for publishing supplements even when they are written by “paid industry hacks”—and the more favorable the supplement content is to the company that is funding it, the bigger the profit for the journal.

Discussing clinical trials, the BMJ editor added: “Major trials are very good for journals in that doctors around the world want to see them and so are more likely to subscribe to journals that publish them. Such trials also create lots of publicity, and journals like publicity. Finally, companies purchase large numbers of reprints of these trials…and the profit margin to the publisher is huge. These reprints are then used to market the drugs to doctors, and the journal’s name on the reprint is a vital part of that sell.”

… however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry.

Industry-funded bias

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), nearly three-fourths of all funding for clinical trials in the U.S.—presumably including vaccine trials—came from corporate sponsors as of the early 2000s. The pharmaceutical industry’s funding of studies (and investigators) is a factor that helps determine which studies get published, and where. As a Johns Hopkins University researcher has acknowledged, funding can lead to bias—and while the potential exists for governmental or departmental funding to produce bias, “the worst source of bias is industry-funded.”

In 2009, researchers published a systematic review of several hundred influenza vaccine trials. Noting “growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence underpinning [influenza vaccine] policy recommendations,” the authors showed that the vaccine-favorable studies were “of significantly lower methodological quality”; however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry. The authors commented:

[Studies] sponsored by industry had greater visibility as they were more likely to be published by high impact factor journals and were likely to be given higher prominence by the international scientific and lay media, despite their apparent equivalent methodological quality and size compared with studies with other funders.

In their discussion, the authors also described how the industry’s vast resources enable lavish and strategic dissemination of favorable results. For example, companies often distribute “expensively bound” abstracts and reprints (translated into various languages) to “decision makers, their advisors, and local researchers,” while also systematically plugging their studies at symposia and conferences.

The World Health Organization’s standards describe reporting of clinical trial results as a “scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility.” However, it appears that as many as half of all clinical trial results go unreported—particularly when their results are negative. A European official involved in drug assessment has described the problem as “widespread,” citing as an example GSK’s suppression of results from four clinical trials for an anti-anxiety drug when those results showed a possible increased risk of suicide in children and adolescents. Experts warn that “unreported studies leave an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the risks and benefits of treatments.”

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science.

Debased and biased results

The “significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions” can play out in many different ways, notably through methodological bias and debasement of study designs and analytic strategies. Bias may be present in the form of inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up periods, inappropriate placebos or comparisons, use of improper surrogate endpoints, unsuitable statistical analyses or “misleading presentation of data.”

Occasionally, high-level journal insiders blow the whistle on the corruption of published science. In a widely circulated quote, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of NEJM, acknowledged that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” Dr. Angell added that she “[took] no pleasure in this conclusion, which [she] reached slowly and reluctantly” over two decades at the prestigious journal.

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science. In formulaic articles that medical journals are only too happy to publish, the conclusion is almost always the same, no matter the vaccine: “We did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.” As an example of the use of inappropriate statistical techniques to exaggerate vaccine benefits, an influenza vaccine study reported a “69% efficacy rate” even though the vaccine failed “nearly all who [took] it.” As explained by Dr. David Brownstein, the study’s authors used a technique called relative risk analysis to derive their 69% statistic because it can make “a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is.” However, the absolute risk difference between the vaccine and the placebo group was 2.27%, meaning that the vaccine “was nearly 98% ineffective in preventing the flu.”

… the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had ignored important evidence of bias.

Trusted evidence?

In 2018, the Cochrane Collaboration—which bills its systematic reviews as the international gold standard for high-quality, “trusted” evidence—furnished conclusions about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that clearly signaled industry bias. In May of that year, Cochrane’s highly favorable review improbably declared the vaccine to have no increased risk of serious adverse effects and judged deaths observed in HPV studies “not to be related to the vaccine.” Cochrane claims to be free of conflicts of interest, but its roster of funders includes national governmental bodies and international organizations pushing for HPV vaccine mandates as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—both of which are staunch funders and supporters of HPV vaccination. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s president is a former top CDC official who served as acting CDC director during the H1N1 “false pandemic” in 2009 that ensured millions in windfall profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Two months after publication of Cochrane’s HPV review, researchers affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre (one of Cochrane’s member centers) published an exhaustive critique, declaring that the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had “ignored important evidence of bias.” The critics itemized numerous methodological and ethical missteps on the part of the Cochrane reviewers, including failure to count nearly half of the eligible HPV vaccine trials, incomplete assessment of serious and systemic adverse events and failure to note that many of the reviewed studies were industry-funded. They also upbraided the Cochrane reviewers for not paying attention to key design flaws in the original clinical trials, including the failure to use true placebos and the use of surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer.

In response to the criticisms, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library initially stated that a team of editors would investigate the claims “as a matter of urgency.” Instead, however, Cochrane’s Governing Board quickly expelled one of the critique’s authors, Danish physician-researcher Peter Gøtzsche, who helped found Cochrane and was the head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Gøtzsche has been a vocal critic of Cochrane’s “increasingly commercial business model,” which he suggests is resulting in “stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests.” Adding insult to injury, Gøtzsche’s direct employer, the Rigshospitalet hospital in Denmark, then fired Gøtzsche. In response, Dr. Gøtzsche stated, “Firing me sends the unfortunate signal that if your research results are inconvenient and cause public turmoil, or threaten the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings, …you will be sacked.” In March 2019, Gøtzsche launched an independent Institute for Scientific Freedom.

In 2019, the editor-in-chief and research editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine—the journal that published the critique of Cochrane’s biased review—jointly defended the critique as having “provoke[d] healthy debate and pose[d] important questions,” affirming the value of publishing articles that “hold organisations to account.” They added that “Academic freedom means communicating ideas, facts and criticism without being censored, targeted or reprimanded” and urged publishers not to “shrink from offering criticisms that may be considered inconvenient.”

In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists.

The censorship tsunami

Another favored tactic is to keep vaccine-critical studies out of medical journals altogether, either by refusing to publish them (even if peer reviewers recommend their publication) or by concocting excuses to pull articles after publication. In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists. To cite just three examples:

  • The journal Vaccine withdrew a study that questioned the safety of the aluminum adjuvantused in Gardasil.
  • The journal Science and Engineering Ethics retracted an article that made a case for greater transparency regarding the link between mercury and autism.
  • Pharmacological Research withdrew a published veterinary article that implicated aluminum-containing vaccines in a mystery illness decimating sheep, citing “concerns” from an anonymous reader.

Elsevier, which publishes two of these journals, has a track record of setting up fake journals to market Merck’s drugs, and Springer, which publishes the third journal as well as influential publications like Nature and Scientific American, has been only too willing to accommodate censorship requests. However, even these forms of censorship may soon seem quaint in comparison to the censorship of vaccine-critical information now being implemented across social media and other platforms. This concerted campaign to prevent dissemination of vaccine content that does not toe the party line will make it harder than ever for American families to do their due diligence with regard to vaccine risks and benefits.


Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Awareness

60% of Kale Samples Contaminated With Cancer Causing Pesticide – Organic Is Key!

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has found a high level of Dacthal in non-organic Kale.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do we justify the spraying of poison on our food? How does this make any sense? These substances have been linked to several diseases, how are they approved and marketed as safe in many countries? Why are they banned in so many others?

Do you still think organic is not necessary? A recent study published in the journal Environmental Research examined four families who eat conventional diets. Pesticide levels were measured via urine before switching to an organic diet for 6 days. A dramatic drop in pesticide levels was found. Another study conducted by researchers from RMIT University, published in the journal Environmental Research, found that eating an organic diet for just one week significantly reduced pesticide (commonly used in conventional food production) exposure in adults. This study found a dramatic 90 percent drop in pesticide levels. Both studies used urine samples to measure pesticide accumulation. You can access those studies and read more about them here and here.

A lot of these agents were initially developed as nerve gases for chemical warfare, so we do know that they have toxic effects on the nervous system at high doses. Conventional food production commonly uses organophosphate pesticides, among many others, which are neurotoxins that act on the nervous systems of humans by blocking an important enzyme. Recent studies have raised concerns for health effects of these chemicals even at relatively low levels.

There is no question or doubt about it, organic food not sprayed with pesticides is much better for our health, and eating organic is a great way to prevent multiple diseases, including cancer. Despite all of the publications and research on this subject, it’s confusing how cancer awareness initiatives continue to focus on raising money without ever addressing the root causes of the disease, one of which is clearly exposure to herbicides and pesticides.

This is why the Environmental Working Group (EWG) advocates buying organic products. Since its inception in 1993, EWG has fought for consumers’ rights to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. EWG’s very first report in 1993, “Pesticides in Children’s Foods,” played a pivotal role in Congress passing the Food Quality Protection Act two years later. They are a well known group of scientists and activists doing great work.

Recently, they discovered that approximately 60 percent of kale samples sold in the United States were contaminated with another carcinogenic pesticide, according to the  EWG’s analysis of the 2017 Department of Agriculture’s test data.

The pesticide is called DCPA, often marketed as Dacthal,  and it’s a substance that the EPA classified as a possible carcinogen in 1995. In 2005, its major manufacturer voluntarily terminated its registration for use on several U.S. crops, including artichokes, beans and cucumbers, after studies found that its breakdown products were highly persistent in the environment and could contaminate drinking water sources. This is why in 2009, the European Union prohibited all uses of Dacthal, enforcing a complete ban on it. With all this being said, the fact remains that it is still used in the U.S. on crops including kale, broccoli, sweet potatoes, eggplant, turnips, and who knows what else.

advertisement - learn more

Even as kale’s popularity as a health food rich in vitamins and antioxidants has soared in recent years, the level and type of pesticide residues on kale has expanded significantly. EWG’s new analysis places it third on the 2019 Dirty Dozen™, our annual ranking of the fruits and vegetables with the most pesticide residues. Recent EWG-commissioned tests of kale from grocery stores found that on two of eight samples, Dacthal residues were comparable to the average level reported by the USDA.

The USDA has not tested kale for pesticides since 2009, when it ranked eighth on the Dirty Dozen. Between 2007 and 2012, the acres of kale harvested in the U.S. grew by more than 56 percent, with more than 2.5 times as many commercial farms growing it.

Conventional kale farming relies heavily on the use of several synthetic pesticides, including Dacthal. The EPA’s 1995 classification of it as a possible carcinogen noted increases in liver and thyroid tumors. Dacthal can also cause other kinds of harm to the lungs, liver, kidney and thyroid.

According to U.S. Geological Survey data from 2016, about 500,000 pounds of Dacthal was sprayed in the U.S., mostly in California and Washington state. In California, the only state where all pesticide use must be reported, nearly 200,000 pounds were sprayed in 2016.

In states with high Dacthal use, concerns have grown about the capacity of its breakdown products to contaminate surface and groundwater. Not only can Dacthal contaminate areas near its use, but studies indicate it can also travel long distances in the atmosphere as well. (EWG)

You can read more from EWG on the subject here.

The Takeaway

Again, multiple agents can be found on non-organic produce, but this article just outlines one. At the end of the day, the choice is up to you whether or not you buy your fruits and vegetables organic. If you can afford conventional produce, you can afford organically grown produce as well. One helpful tip is to cut out junk food from your purchases if you have any, and that can make room for organic produce. Another way to look at it is spending the extra few bucks to invest in your health.

It’s unfortunate that organic food is more expensive, especially when organic food in general could be provided to the entire world if we actually utilized our fullest potential. It’s actually cheaper to produces, it’s just that governments subsidize convention farmers, not organic ones. At the end of the day, kale is extremely nutritious. It’s high in vitamins A, K and iron, and consumption of leafy greens is associated with reduced risk of various diseases. It’s best if we keep it that way by only growing organic kale.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Awareness

A List of Children’s Foods That Are Contaminated With Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the Roundup herbicide that was manufactured by Monsanto, has been found in multiple foods that've been marketed to children. You can view the list below.

  • Reflect On:

    With countless scientific publications and examples of fraud clearly showing that glyphosate is a major health and environmental hazard, how is it still on the market in multiple countries? Why? What is going on here?

It’s very confusing as to why poison is still being sprayed in our environment, and how anybody could ever justify the use of these poisons. Justification has come from mass brainwashing, marketing campaigns, and just downright deception. There are many examples of deception when it comes to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. A great example comes from Europe, where the product was recently re-licensed and approved by European Parliament. However, MEPs found the science given to them was plagiarized, full of industry science written by Monsanto. You can read more about that here.  Another example would be the corruption that plagues our federal health regulatory agencies, which have been completely compromised by big corporations. There are several other great examples that illustrate this point, in fact there are decades of examples. One of the best would be the SPIDER papers. A group called the CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER, put a list of complaints in a letter to the CDC Chief of Staff and provided a copy of the letter to the public watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).

We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency.  It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors.

When it comes to glyphosate, there are currently more than 10,000 pending cases with regards to ailments it’s caused people, and we are now starting to see cancer cases go through courts of law. One of the latest examples would be school groundskeeper Dewyane Johnson, who was awarded a victory after a jury found Bayer (Monsanto) to be guilty of causing/contributing to his terminal cancer. You can read more about that story here.

This is why it’s a bit concerning that this substance is ending up in our food, and that includes food that’s being marketed to children.

For example, Moms Across America, a National Coalition of Unstoppable Moms, recently discovered glyphosate in multiple brands of popular orange juice. You can read more about that hereThe full report can be seen here. The testing methodology was “Glyphosate and AMPA Detection by UPLC-MS/MS.”

Furthermore:

advertisement - learn more

Major food companies like General Mills continue to sell popular children’s breakfast cereals and other foods contaminated with troubling levels of glyphosate, the cancer-causing ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. The weedkiller, produced by Bayer-Monsanto, was detected in all 21 oat-based cereal and snack products sampled in a new round of testing commissioned by the Environmental Working Group. All but four products contained levels of glyphosate higher than what EWG scientists consider protective for children’s health with a sufficient margin of safety.

The new tests confirm and amplify EWG’s findings from tests in July and October of last year, with levels of glyphosate consistently above EWG’s children’s health benchmark. The two highest levels of glyphosate were found in Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch, with 833 parts per billion, or ppb, and Cheerios, with 729 ppb. The EWG children’s health benchmark is 160 ppb. –  Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., senior science advisor, and Alexis Temkin, Ph.D., Toxicologist for the Environmental Working Group (EWG)(source)

The EWG recently purchased a number of products via online retail sites, and then they packed and shipped approximately 300 grams of each of the products they purchased (listed in the chart below) to Anresco Laboratories in San Francisco. Glyphosate levels were analyzed using a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method described here.

The Takeaway

Glyphosate is used mostly as a weedkiller on genetically modified corn and soybean crops. But it is also sprayed on oats just before harvest as a drying agent or desiccant. It kills the crop, drying it out so it can be harvested sooner, which increases the likelihood that glyphosate ends up in the foods children love to eat. It’s present almost everywhere and it’s a great example of how we don’t really live in a democracy, and how big corporations are operating without any concern for human health or the health of our planet. So far, more than 236,000 people have signed a petition directed at these food companies, calling on them to take action to protect consumers’ health.

The best way for you to combat something like this is to help share information like this in any way you can and go organic. Multiple studies have shown that pesticide exposure dramatically drops from consuming organic food. Just one week of eating an organic diet can drop pesticide levels in the body up to 90 percent in both children and adults. You can read more about that study here.

There are more concerns here, as it’s not just glyphosate, but also pesticides like organophosphates, which are sprayed on our food and have been linked to multiple diseases. A lot of these agents were originally developed as nerve agents for warfare.

Change starts with you, so you can go organic and spread awareness. Just five years ago not many people would have even known what glyphosate is, so things are definitely changing for the better.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod