Connect with us

Awareness

The Shocking Truth Behind Breast Implants. Still Considering Them?

Published

on

Each year in the United States approximately 300,000 women and teenagers undergo breast augmentation. It’s thought that the total number of implants carried out each year worldwide is anywhere between 5 to 10 million.

advertisement - learn more

Before the operations women are often told by their surgeons that it is a safe procedure with “very little” risk. The FDA also says breast implants are relatively safe.

Yet most of these women don’t know that this is simply not the case.

They do not last. They rupture. And the longer they’re in the body the more likely they are to rupture. The statistics are kind of scary, because around about 50 percent are ruptured by 10 years. And when it gets to 15 to 20 years you’re looking at almost 90 percent of implants that are ruptured.

What is most worrisome is that while most of the silicone is contained within the capsule, some of it leaks out, we don’t know where it goes, we don’t know what it does, we have no idea. – Dr. Ed Melmed, Board Certified Plastic Surgeon

There is in fact a growing body of evidence, in conjunction with thousands of horror stories from women all over the world who have had implants which have ended up in disaster, to prove that they are not safe and are actually causing debilitating autoimmune disorders and other physical problems in many women.

advertisement - learn more

If you have breast implants, or are considering them, I urge you to take this article very seriously. And if any of your friends or family members already have implants, please show them this article. Their health and life (as well as your own) may depend on this knowledge.

This is a lengthy article but much has to be shared with you so that you can have a deeper level of knowledge.

pamelaquote

Like many women, I grew up not feeling very confident with my body. At age 30, after gaining some weight, I chose to have breast implants. The surgery, whilst extremely painful, went “very well” according to the surgeon.

I was pleased to hear that I could have mine in for the “rest of my life,” so I wouldn’t have to spend any more money on them.

But what I didn’t know is that this was a lie. My surgeon actually gave me extremely dangerous and possibly deadly advice.

The truth is no implant on the market today can last a lifetime. Every type (which I will cover shortly) is prone to leaking and rupturing, and in cases of the saline valve implants, they can even become black with mold, causing a systemic fungal problem in a person’s body.

What women don’t know is that whilst they may be happier with how their breasts look, they may end up with auto-immune disorders that are so bad they end up in wheelchairs, or develop arthritis, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, and a whole host of other problems.

In the eyes of some plastic surgeons (typically the ones that are cleaning up the damage from implant operations), breast implants are a ticking time bomb that put all women are at risk.

breast-implant-placement-2

Typical Breast Implants Placement

Silicone Breast Implant Scandal

We’ve known from fairly recent history that breast implants have caused serious health problems, but for most of the public, that problem is assumed to be an historic one, and that because those implants were removed from the market, the current implants on the market must be very safe.

While the FDA now openly mentions problems that often occur in many women with breast implants, such as leaking and rupturing, they fail to warn the public about the more dangerous connection to auto-immune disorders.

The FDA actually allowed implants to be put onto the market for over 40 years without formally approving them, so it’s not always wise to trust what they say. (1)

You may remember hearing in the media about the huge lawsuit in the late 90’s involving 450,000 US women who took to court Dow Corning, one of the world’s main manufacturers of silicone implants.

While Dow Corning never admitted that their implants were dangerous, they paid out enormous amounts to the victims. Their implants of the 1970’s had a very thin outer shell, were “greasy,” and had a high leakage rate. Many women even lost their lives from illness caused by these implants, whilst waiting for the court to fine Dow.

It was also found that, according to a whistleblower, staff at Dow Corning knew for a very long time that their implants were toxic, yet covered it up for as long as they could.

v18nspea04f07

In their own animal studies, researchers found that silicone could easily leak into the body, and caused tumours in up to 80% of the rats that were being tested on. The numbers were so alarming that the FDA, instead of being concerned, called these studies “erroneous,” which basically means they ‘must’ have been incorrect. The FDA then approved the Dow Corning implants, despite protests from some staff members that there were troubling warning signs.

We’ve also heard about the now infamous French PIP implant scandal which hit worldwide news recently. These implants (which were found to contain toxic chemicals used in mattresses and not approved for human use) are now banned, and women in the UK were offered free treatment to have them removed.

Silicone Implants Now Back On The Market

Despite the huge lawsuits that affected the main silicone manufacturers Dow Corning, Bristol-Myers Scribb, and Baxter Healthcare Corporation (who were sued a whopping 3.7 billion combined), silicone implants are now back in use. They have been added back on the market without adequate long term studies, and the available data on their safety is very concerning.

Shocking Ingredients Found In Dow Silicone Implants

When women are told that their implants contain silicone or saline, they often don’t tend to ask if anything else is being used alongside it. They certainly aren’t told this by the surgeons, who more than likely don’t even know themselves.

Check out the long list of alarming ingredients used in Dow’s silicone implants which came out during their court case when they were forced to disclose what was in their dangerous implants:

  • Methyl ethyl ketone (neurotoxin)
  • Cyclohexanone (neurotoxin)
  • Isopropyl Alcohol
  • Denatured Alcohol
  • Acetone (used in nail polish remover and is a neurotoxin)
  • Urethane
  • Polyvinyl chloride (neurotoxin)
  • Amine
  • Toulene
  • Dicholormethane (carcinogen)
  • Chloromethane
  • Ethyl acetate (neurotoxin)
  • Silicone
  • Sodium fluoride
  • Lead Based Solder
  •  Formaldehyde
  • Talcum powder
  • Oakite (cleaning solvent)
  • Methyl 2- Cynanoacrylates
  • Ethylene Oxide (Carcinogen)
  • Xylene (neurotoxin)
  • Hexon
  • 2-Hedanone
  • Thixon-OSN-2
  • Stearic Acid
  • Zinc Oxide
  • Naptha (rubber solvent)
  • Phenol (neurotoxin)
  • Benzene (carcinogen/neurotoxin)
  • Lacquer thinner
  • Epoxy resin
  • Epoxy hardener
  • Printing Ink
  • Metal cleaning acid
  • colour pigments as release agents
  • heavy metals such as aluminium (neurotoxin linked to Alzheimer’s and auto immune disorders)
  • Platinium
  • Silica * (2)

It’s frightening, to say the least.

Whats In Implants Today?

The problem we have currently, is we just don’t know. Its very difficult to find out exactly what is in current implants in use today. I cannot find any information that shows a full ingredient list.  I have asked plastic surgeons to tell me and they have ‘never seen a full list’. I have looked at implant websites, and none disclose what is in their products. It seems impossible to find out. The fact that ingredient information is not at all easy to find, it tells me that the manufactures might not want us to know.

I asked Dr Susan Kolb about current ingredients used and this is what she had to say:

The above list reflects what was in the silicone implants (not just Dow, but all silicone) at the time of the moratorium. It is possible that the list is still accurate if Dow Corning is still manufacturing the silicone that is used to make the implants.

Some scientists have been taking an in-depth look at the platinum, a toxic salt, found in silicone implants and its connection to ill health. However, after looking at this list above, it seems ludicrous to suggest that one individual ingredient would be the sole cause of these health problems. It’s clear that breast implants are completely toxic.

Its important to know that saline implants ALL have silicone outer shells, so these too can leak silicone and other ingredients into the body, either through rupturing or when the textured surface flakes off.

Absolutely-Safe-3

One to watch: Absolutely Safe – A documentary on the dangers of implants – click the image to go their website

Types of Breast Implants Used Today

Silicone Implants

Many women opt out of having silicone implants due to the Dow Corning Lawsuit. But a growing number of women are now choosing to have them again due to the implant’s ability to look more natural than other types. These implants have an elastic type envelope which is pre-filled with a sticky, clear, jelly-like form of silicone. There are a few varieties of shapes to choose from, with smooth or textured surfaces.

With the FDA allowing silicone implants to come back on the market, it is very concerning to know that statistics show (according to Nancy Bruning, author of Breast Implants — Everything You Need To Know) that almost half of all women who have this type of implant will experience a rupture within 6-10 years, and one in five women were found to have silicone migrate to other parts of their bodies.

According to Dr Susan Kolb, world expert on breast implants, silicone implants should be completely avoided

saline-breast-implant

Saline implants – silicone outer shell, saline liquid inserted during surgery by surgeon

Saline Implants

Saline implants are commonly thought to be safer, yet according to Dr. Kolb, they too have their own very concerning problems which I will cover further on. Saline implants have a silicone shell filled with a saline water, which is salt based and ‘sterile.’ Some types are inserted empty which the surgeon will inflate during surgery with this saline liquid. There is another type of saline implant, which also has a silicone shell, but the inside contains a gel like texture. There are smooth surface saline implants and textured surface saline implants.

According to Nancy Bruning, 60% of women with these types of implants have complications within four years, and one out of five require additional surgery within three years.  This is worrisome since we are commonly told that implants either never need to be removed or should be removed every ten years.

textured-and-saline-breast-implant

Other types of saline implants

Video: Dr Melmed and the FDA showing a severely ruptured implant

Possible Side Effects After Having Implants Inserted:

This is what your surgeon won’t tell you may happen.

  • tenderness, lumpiness, or discomfort around the implants
  • change in the shape of your breast(s)
  • change in the consistency of your breast, such as increased softness
  • change in the way your breast moves – all of these symptoms may be a sign your implant has ruptured.
  • hardening of breast tissue
  • muscle pain
  • pain and swelling of the joints
  • pain in the soft tissues
  • a burning sensation of pain
  • tightness, redness, or swelling of the skin
  • swollen glands or lymph nodes
  • unusual, extreme, or unexplained fatigue
  • swelling of the hands and feet
  • unusual hair loss
  • rashes
  • skin thickening or hardening
  • dry eyes, mouth, or vagina
  • loss of memory, mental confusion, or ‘fogginess’
  • autoimmune disorders such as fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, multiple chemical sensitivity disorder, cancer, and biotoxicity problems.

This list was found in the book Breast Implants – All You Need To Know by Nancy Bruning.

Ruptured_silicone_implant

A ruptured silicone implant. The red is tissue that had to be removed from the patient. The sticky consistency on the right is what comes out when ruptures and leakage occur.

It’s rare that something shocks me. But I sat on the panel in ’92 and that was 11 years ago. How we could have come from 11 years ago, where we were going to collect data, to a point where we have a year’s data simply boggles the mind. — FDA Panelist Nancy Dubler in 2003 at the hearings on implant safety

Breast Implants Can Cause Cancer 

It might not surprise some of you reading this to learn that there is a link between cancer and implants. Just recently in France, their National Cancer Institute released a study that found a “clearly established link” between Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) and breast implants.

French officials have now recommended that breast implants in their country must carry a “cancer warning.”

There is also more evidence to back this connection now that a study conducted by Cambridge University in the UK found that nearly all cases of ALCL were discovered in women who had breast implants.

When you think about how breast implants are inserted — indeed it is quite gory and gruesome surgery — and about the horrific chemicals they are comprised of, it makes sense that they would, of course, pose a cancer risk. And now we have the data to support this.

breastimplantrisks-2-665x1024

Systemic Problems Caused By Mold

Another little-known but very serious problem associated with breast implants is that they can grow mold and bacteria, which can wreak utter havoc on the immune system. This is why Dr. Kolb feels saline implants could be just as dangerous as silicone implants. If you have the saline implants that have a valve — designed to allow the solution to be inserted during surgery — and if that implant is damaged later on due to a car accident, hard bump, or mammogram, serious bacterial and fungal problems, known as “biotoxicity,” can ensue.  Dr. Kolb discussed this with Dr Mercola:

Once the valve is damaged, especially in certain implants, mold and bacteria can grow inside the implant. If the valve damage causes the implant just to deflate, then the woman will go ahead and get it changed out, and she won’t become ill. But in some implants, the valve injury does not cause the fluid to leak out, but can allow bacteria and especially mold and fungus inside the implant.

I’ve had patients who have had inside the saline in this implant a mold called pennicillium growing. Whenever somebody hugged them too hard or even [due to] breast exams … the patient can become very ill, specifically because she was allergic to penicillin. She would have an anaphylactic-type reaction whenever her implant was manipulated. It can be very, very serious.

… In general, women who have this … bacterial and mold infection in their chest are deathly ill. The mold produces a biotoxin that’s also a neurotoxin. Many of my women come in in wheelchairs. They come in with the diagnosis of MS and lupus together. Fortunately, they have neither.

But some of them are incredibly ill. They have severe mental clouding. They can’t even have a conversation. They can’t hold their head up … Many doctors have said they’re going to die, but of course, they find me and come in.

implant_infected

An originally clear implant which turned black with mold

Video: Breast Implants Can Poison Body With Black Mold

Suicide Risk

Another little known factor about breast implants is that there is a connection between suicide. While this connection might be more about the woman’s mental status prior to having the surgery (perhaps she suffered from low self esteem and thought implants would make her much happier), it could also be because of the stressful impact the implants have on the body and its many important systems. As we have seen above, implants are linked to neurological disorders, amongst other concerns.

Women who have implants are at least 3 (some sources say 4) times more likely to commit suicide than those who do not have them.

Doctors Who Say “Absolutely Safe” Profit From Breast Implants

Sadly, most surgeons will say to unsuspecting women that breast implants are very safe. With the FDA only really focusing on rupture or leakage problems, then this too also makes the surgeons think the problems are only in one main area.

Perhaps many of them are in denial. They simply do not want to believe that they are in fact dangerous, can cause cancer, and trigger immune problems in many women. They probably have never looked into it further than what the FDA tells them.

Let us not forget that most plastic surgeons make the majority of their money from this increasingly popular operation. Who wants to be told that something that earns them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year may in fact be incredibly harmful to their patients?

Check out this video below from a wealthy US Plastic Surgeon, Dana Goldberg, who went out of her way to make a YouTube video saying that “breast implants are safe and that there is no cancer risk” and that the information going around is just “scaremongering.”

Plastic Surgeon Dana Goldberg’s “Breast Implants Are Safe” Video

I personally would worry that any concerns I raised with her or a surgeon like her would be dismissed.

Breast Implant Studies

It may come as no surprise to discover that most of the breast implant studies which ‘prove’ the safety of this procedure come from the manufacturers themselves. Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D, was involved in more than a dozen congressional investigations (in the 90’s) which discussed breast implant safety (and its serious lack thereof). She raised questions about the huge lack of safety data about implants. This is what I found in Nancy Brunning’s book Breast Implants – Everything You Need To Know:

The poor quality of these studies is why I keep saying we don’t know whether implants are safe over the long term, because the studies were not well enough designed to be persuasive. The information on the IOM panel studied was based on studies that had substantial flaws. There was no federally funded research until recently. Virtually all research done was paid for by the manufacturers or plastic surgeons, and, not surprisingly, their research found that implants were safe. If the only research on cancer and smoking we had was funded by Philip Morris, we would still be listening to the scientists who were saying there’s an association but that doesn’t mean causation.

There have been federally funded studies into longer term safety about breast implants. One of them, which was the first study to ever follow women with ruptured implants, was conducted by the FDA. The researchers found that the women who had this problem were more likely to report also having fibromyalgia or other “potentially fatal” autoimmune diseases or related illnesses such as dermatomyositis, hashimotos thyroiditis, polymyaligia and polyositis, and pulmonary fibrosis. This was because the silicone gel had migrated from the scar tissue into the body. (2)

Another two separate studies, both of which were conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), found the following alarming information: Women who had breast implants, compared to other plastic surgery operations, were three times more likely to die from cancer of the lung or suffer with emphysema or pneumonia. They were also twice as likely to die from brain cancer.  (3)

The other study by NCI found that women with implants experienced a 21% increased cancer risk. These types were mainly brain cancers, cervical cancer, leukaemia, vulvar cancer, and respiratory cancer. This often fatal lung-disease connection is from ruptured implants causing an increased incidence of lung disease. (4)

While there has been an improvement in the quality of studies, we cannot guarantee that they are all being done accurately. More recently in 2013, Dr. Zuckerman released a statement regarding the FDA’s quiet approval (which did not have a public Advisory Committee meeting to discuss data, unlike other breast implant approvals) of a new type of silicone implant called Natrelle 410, manufactured by the company Allergen. This is part of what she wrote:

Unfortunately, Allergan has not done a good job of doing post-market studies once their implants have been approved. And, even if they do these studies, by the time these studies are done to find out what the risks are, hundreds of thousands of women could have these inadequately studied devices in their bodies, and could have been harmed by them.

The FDA even admits that Allergan’s own studies didn’t compare the effectiveness and safety of their new implant to other previously approved silicone gel-filled implants on the market.

Not very reassuring is it? Other studies have been performed to examine what happens to some of the autoimmune disorders and other unwanted symptoms after the implants are removed or have not been removed.

97% of women reported vast improvement after removal and in the 96% that did not have them removed their symptoms worsened.

I think it’s safe to say, at least in my own opinion, that breast implants are simply a danger to the body.

Mammograms Can Rupture Breast Implants

Mammography

Mammogram on a patient without implants – note how squashed the tissue is, how would this be ok for a breast in general, let alone ones filled with implants?

If you have implants, you need to be aware that having mammograms can actually do serious damage to them. Because the procedure involves intense squashing down of the breast tissue, this has been known to cause ruptures, and if the implants do begin to leak, what is inside them will likely leak into your body.

Video: A lady’s experience with ruptured implants caused by Mammogram 

It must be said that there is also alarming information that mammograms are not safe to have, even if you don’t have implants.

Video: Dr. Mercola interviews world renowned expert on the dangers of implants, Dr. Susan Kolb MD. F.A.C.S. A.B.I.H.M who is also the author of The Naked Truth About Breast Implants 

Is There A Safe Implant?

If you absolutely must get implants, then according to breast implant expert Dr. Susan Kolb, the safest type is the saline implant that has a smooth surface and does not have a valve. This is because the textured implants have been found to have particles flake off into the person’s body which can then attack the immune system. And if there is a valve, as mentioned previously, a systemic fungal infection can ensue.  But even with this type, problems can happen down the track. I personally believe there is no such thing as a safe implant.

Checking Up On Your Implants

A good way to check up on your implants is to use ultrasound testing

If you already have implants, I’d be willing to wager that, like myself, you were never told to have them checked for leakage or problems every few years. But this is what we should have been told.

There are a few ways to monitor any possible problems. The first is by ultrasound and the second is by MRI scans. Both of these can pick up on ruptures and leaking. I would personally go for the ultrasound as MRI’s have their own risks too.  I urge you to consider having checkups done so you can keep an eye on how they are doing inside your body.

And, I am very sorry to say this but even check ups can not give you a guarantee that the implants are not causing you problems. Some women who developed auto-immune reactions to their implants, had them checked and scans were ‘all clear’. Because tiny particles can flake off and the chemicals they are made of can be easily absorbed by the body, this is why the scan’s aren’t able to tell you the full story.

2AD151B900000578-3173992-image-a-4_1437780342136

Reality TV star and wife of music genius David Foster, Yolanda Foster has had her breast implants removed. She is also suffering from Lyme disease.

Removal Process: Difficult, Risky, and Surgeons Often Have Not Done Many Correctly

If you decide to have your implants taken out, it might not be as simple as you would like to think. If you have health problems associated with your implants, such as leakage or mold, you will need a surgeon who is highly skilled in the removal process.  Dr. Kolb was interviewed by Dr Mercola about this:

I would advise people to ask a surgeon how many explantation surgeries they’ve done. Unlike putting implants in, taking them out is very technically difficult, especially if they’re under the muscle. There can be a very thin layer of tissue between the lung and the capsule. You have to know how to do this correctly, or you can get what we call pneumothorax or entering into the chest cavity, which is where you’re not supposed to be.

Surgeons who have not done at least 50 explantations do not know about all the different things you might encounter, and are not comfortable removing the entire capsule. They probably should not be doing the surgery. Leaving the capsule behind is quite dangerous in terms of the patient not getting well. There is not only silicone in that scar capsule, but there’s a biofilm of bacteria, fungi, and other elements we don’t know. Biofilm is very difficult to treat with anything other than surgery, and women simply don’t get well.

Many surgeons don’t use drains. Surgeons not using drains are not good because that fluid needs to drain out because after all, fluid in the chest wall is a nice warm, dark space that can grow fungus. It can grow bacteria. Women often become way more ill after surgery because their surgeons gave them antibiotics without giving them antifungals. I tell all my patients, “For the rest of your life, you’re going to need to take antifungals whenever you take antibiotics.” And it’s so true.”

You must also be aware (and rarely do the surgeons stress this to you) that when you sign up to have implants, they must be changed every 8- 10 years so that they remain in the “best and safest” condition.  

I was personally told by my clinic in Europe that mine would “last a lifetime.” I also was told they were so robust that they would not burst and could even have a car driven over them! I now feel very cheated knowing this is dangerous and highly incorrect advice.  

What they should have said to me is this:

All breast implants will eventually break, but it is not known how many years the breast implants that are currently on the market will last. Studies of silicone breast implants suggest that most implants last seven to 12 years, but some break during the first few months or years, while others last more than 15 years. (5)

If you are contemplating having implants, it’s wise to think realistically about the longterm cost of breast implants,  as they are not just a ‘once off.’ If you are to do it as ‘safely’ as possible, and have them replaced every decade or so, then you could be looking at spending tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime.  Can you really afford this, or the care that is needed if something goes wrong?

You must also remember that there are no guarantees that they will even be safe for those ten years — you could run into problems months or even a few short years after initial implantation.

You’ve got to ask yourself, is it really worth all that money, pain, and possible risks to your health?

Wanting Them Out May Not Be Immediately Possible 

As someone who has implants myself (I have entered into my 9th year which is now creeping right into the danger period of when problems can occur), it’s incredibly frightening to have this knowledge, and of course as soon as I did this research, I wanted them taken out immediately.

However just like having many mercury fillings in your mouth — and realising you want them removed asap yet can’t afford to — removing implants with a skilled surgeon is a very costly procedure and has to be done by someone highly qualified (who might not be that easy to find).  

And if, like me, you also don’t have the money, it becomes extremely difficult to just suddenly decide, “I am going to have them out ASAP.”

Personally, I have two problems right now: one is a lack of funds, and the other is that even if I had the money, I am soon to be expecting my second child in just a few weeks’ time, so I now cannot possibly have them removed, as I want to breastfeed.

Worryingly, information is now emerging that mothers having breast implants may be risking the health of their children!

Baby-breast-feeding

As discussed in the article What You Need To Know About Breast Implants, the authors wrote about the concerns with breastfeeding and toxicity:

According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), women with any kind of breast surgery, including breast implant surgery, are at least three times as likely to have an inadequate milk supply for breastfeeding. Concerns about the safety of breast milk have also been raised, but there has not been enough research to resolve this issue. A study of a small number of women with silicone gel breast implants found that the offspring born and breastfed after the mother had breast implants had higher levels of a toxic form of platinum in their blood than offspring born before the same women had breast implants. 

I’m taking measures to decrease my toxic load until I have my implants removed, yet it still is a big worry to me about what I could be doing to the health of my daughter and any future babies. I will be testing both my children for heavy metals and ensuring they are on a very good diet and supplement protocol.

11060470_1571070396510923_4839663338610845104_n

Actress Jennifer Connelly, another celebrity who is rumoured to have had their implants taken out. She is much thinner in the right picture but the breast size difference seems to be more than just losing weight.

Research Thoroughly Before You Decide

Before I had my operation, I spent hours trying to find the ‘right’ clinic and surgeon. But none of my research involved looking at this other, ‘darker’ side to breast implant surgery. If only I had looked into this more before I made such a serious decision.

Perhaps I never looked into this side because my vanity took precedence over safety. Even with this alarming information I have presented, many women may still want to ignore it because the thought of having their implants taken out — and what that will do to their self esteem — worries them more than these health risks.

Dr Frank Vasey suggests that the cosmetic and psychological benefits of implants are so powerful that they keep women in denial, reluctant to even consider the possibility that in order to get healthy, they may have to give up their implants. I find this true even when we experience definite physical symptoms such as pain, tightness, and hardness. Most of us love(d) our implants. We got them because we wanted them; we were willing to undergo surgery for them – some of us many times. Symptoms, no matter how severe, have a tough time outweighing the desire to be whole again or to fulfil our society’s standard of beauty. – Nancy Bruning 

Ladies, if you want bigger breasts because you don’t think what you have is good enough, please think very carefully about having breast implants for just that reason. They may end up causing you much more trouble than they’re worth. 

There may well be a place for breast implants, especially for those who have suffered breast cancer or serious disfigurement, and as I have covered previously there is a type of implant that is thought to be the ‘safest,’ but even then, these implants may in fact put women’s lives at further risk.

These women would need to regularly check that their implants were not leaking or have ruptured and it would also mean getting them replaced within the specified time. They would also really need to gauge their health and see how they feel as time goes on. 

Please check out Susan’s experience that really turned into an utter nightmare for her, which is still affecting her health today. Below is a picture of her implants that she had recently removed.

10408693_516470035186407_6632726130872222195_n

Susans implants which were moved back in April this year. The one on the left was so ‘jelly like’ it had to be scraped off her ribs. The right one, although looks quite normal, actually had a small rupture too. The red tissue is what the surgeon also had to remove to ensure all the silicone was gone.

003poshDM2711_468x467

Victoria Beckham is amongst many celebrities who have had their obviously fake implants removed. Doesn’t she look so much better!

The Urgency To Change Society’s Obsession With Appearance

As a society, it is urgent that we stop making women (and young girls especially) feel they are less than perfect if they don’t measure up to the air-brushed models and celebrities we see in magazines. Living in our superficial world today is much more challenging for young people, who are growing up seeing so much emphasis placed on looks; it’s no wonder that they have such low self esteem and often think, “If only I was prettier, richer, famous, had bigger boobs, then I would be much happier.”

We’ve got to somehow stop our children and teens from becoming narcissistic and obsessed with beauty. We need people to see what breasts are really for, and that is for feeding children. They have become so sexualized that we have collectively forgotten their purpose.

It’s great to see many famous celebrities opting to have their implants taken out. I am sure you might agree with me that they look much better with their natural, smaller breasts.

Why do we want to mess with our breasts (and our bodies in general), cause unnecessary stress on our health, and risk developing cancer and debilitating autoimmune disorders, just so we can look better?

scarlett-johansson-breast-reduction

Actress Scarlett-Johansson who is rumoured to have had her breast implants taken out. Another person who looks better without them!

No one told me there were risks in having implants. I was young and did not think having foreign objects in my body could cause any problems. I was wrong.  My breast implants started to cause me a lot of pain and then they ruptured. I became extremely sick and at first didn’t know why.

 As I look back 15 years ago, the year I got my saline implants under my muscle, I had many health issues. I had my gallbladder out due to illness, a staph infection & a terrible flu. Was it all due to the fact that my immune system was compromised because of these foreign objects called implants?

No one warned me. I am lucky that I came across information about the dangers of breast implants. My original surgeon said that they were not the cause of my problems. He was wrong. There is evidence out there to prove their is a connection. There needs to be information given to every woman out there.

How many women right now are suffering similar problems yet are being told it’s all in their head. Women who undergone mastectomies and have implants after having breast cancer often have no idea that putting these chemically based products into their bodies CAN CAUSE further health problems. Leigh, Laguna Beach CA

If you’d like to join my Facebook group I have just created, called Breast Implants The Ticking Time Bomb please click here: 

References and further research resources:

51T+wzx3TdL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

(1) FDA Allowed Implants Onto Market Without FDA Formal Approval

(2),(3),(4) Breast Implants – Everything You Need To Know by Nancy Bruning

(5) The Naked Truth About Breast Implants, Kolb S 2010.

Further Research:

Video: Breast Implants & Health Problems with Dr. Ed Melmed on Know The Cause 

Books: The Naked Truth About Breast Implants by Susan Kolb MD

Breast Implants – Everything You Need To Know by Nancy Bruning

Helpful Websites:

History of Breast Implants
www.humanticsfoundation.com
www.breastimplantinfo.org
What The FDA Says About Implants (mentions ruptures and the need to replace them, but nothing about autoimmune disorders)

Explant Website

Articles:

Breast implants and cancer
Read this brilliant article about Saline implant dangers
This is an excellent article to read about Silicone implants
What You Need To Know About Implants
Explant Breast Implant Removal
Breast Implant Ruptures
Breast Implant Horror, Leaky, Scarring, Black With Mold 

Support Groups:

TITTS Committee The Implant Survivors
Breast Implant Removal & Detox

World Wide:

List Of Highly Skilled Explant Surgeons

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