Connect with us

Health

CDC’s ‘Universal’ Recommendations for Infant Hep B Vaccine Not Based on Science, But Assumptions (Part 3)

Avatar

Published

on

Putting the majority of U.S. children at unnecessary risk of neurodevelopmental injury with incalculable costs to society.

advertisement - learn more

[Note: This is the last installment of a three-part Hep B series examining the CDC’s rationale for its universal infant hepatitis B vaccination recommendation. Part 1 explores the risk to infants of a Hepatitis B infection. (The vast majority of children in the US today are not at significant risk of hepatitis B infection.) Part 2 reveals how the agency began recommending vaccination for pregnant women and infants despite a complete lack of randomized, placebo-controlled trials demonstrating that these practices are safe. Part 3 examines the CDC’s 1991 policy shift to recommending that infants be ‘universally’ vaccinated, typically on the first day of their lives, thus placing millions of children at unnecessary risk of neurodevelopmental harm from the vaccine. Read the full series.]

-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe and Dr. Madhava Setty deliver a special report aimed at gaining clarity around the COVID-19 vaccine. Is it safe and effective? Can it actually change your DNA? Click here to listen!

Given the low risk to most newborns of Hepatitis B infection, the routine screening during pregnancy to identify at-risk newborns and the availability of HBIG treatment for exposed infants (that is 75 percent effective at preventing chronic infection), coupled with the lack of studies to determine the safety of vaccinating pregnant women and infants, what was the scientific medical rationale underlying the CDC’s decision in 1991 to recommend that all newborn babies be vaccinated?

The simple answer is that there wasn’t one. The ACIP’s recommendation was not based on science, but on the CDC’s desire to achieve its goal of eliminating transmission of HBV by achieving high vaccination rates. Indeed, the CDC was actually quite explicit about this at the time.

The stated reason why the CDC wanted to vaccinate all infants was not because all infants were at risk of infection, but simply because its strategy to vaccinate high-risk populations was failing.

The CDC’s “rationale for a comprehensive strategy to eliminate transmission of hepatitis B virus in the United States” was published in its journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) on November 22, 1991. The new strategy included “making hepatitis B vaccine part of routine vaccination schedules for all infants.” The stated reason why the CDC wanted to vaccinate all infants was not because all infants were at risk of infection, but simply because its strategy to vaccinate high-risk populations was failing.

advertisement - learn more

In the CDC’s own words, “In the United States, most infections occur among adults and adolescents. The recommended strategy for preventing these infections has been the selective vaccination of persons with identified risk factors. However, the strategy has not lowered the incidence of hepatitis B, primarily because vaccinating persons engaged in high-risk behaviors, life-styles, or occupations before they become infected generally has not been feasible.” (Emphasis added.)

As the CDC reiterated, “Efforts to vaccinate persons in the major risk groups have had limited success.” Furthermore, “Educational efforts alone are not likely to fully eliminate the high-risk behaviors responsible for HBV transmission.”

Infants, of course, do not engage in those high-risk behaviors. The CDC’s reasoning was simply that, since adults tended for various reasons to not to get the vaccine, it would eliminate the choice by vaccinating everyone at birth, regardless of individual risk.

It would be cheaper and easier, the CDC argued, just to vaccinate everyone at birth than to continue targeting high-risk populations. “In the long term,” the CDC judged, “universal infant vaccination would eliminate the need for vaccinating adolescents and high-risk adults.”

Continuing, the CDC noted that the older, plasma-derived vaccine was no longer produced in the US, having been replaced by the recombinant vaccine technology. Like the older vaccine, both brands of the newer HepB vaccine contained aluminum and mercury.

The CDC acknowledged that no long-term studies had been done to determine the effectiveness of the new vaccine. Instead, its effectiveness was judged on the basis of studies done for the older, plasma-derived vaccine. With the older vaccine, protective antibody levels were initially provoked in most subjects, but waned over time so that after nine years as many as 60 percent of subjects no longer had detectable antibodies. However, the vaccine seemed to induce immunologic memory so that subjects remained immune despite waning antibody titers. For children vaccinated at birth, the protective effect of the vaccine persisted for “at least 5 years”.

Hence, the CDC’s recommendation was not based on scientific studies demonstrating that the recombinant HepB vaccine administered in early childhood would confer immunity throughout adulthood. Instead, the CDC’s policy was faith-based, resting on the mere assumption that it would do so.

… it’s very easy to say that there is no apparent evidence of harm when studies to determine the risk have not been done.

The CDC’s new policy was even more faith-based when it came to the question of the new vaccine’s safety. It produced no studies demonstrating that exposing fetuses and infants to these neurotoxins was safe. Instead, citing its own unpublished data, the CDC judged on the basis of “limited experience” that there was “no apparent risk” to developing fetuses of vaccinating pregnant women. Of course, it’s very easy to say that there is no apparent evidence of harm when studies to determine the risk have not been done.

The CDC also once again employed the non sequitur fallacy that, since the viral antigen particles in the vaccine were noninfectious, the vaccine “should cause no risk to the fetus”—thus once again demonstrating the institutionalized failure to consider the potential for neurodevelopmental harms from mercury and aluminum.

Beyond that, the best the CDC could do to reassure the public about the vaccine’s safety was to add that “Hepatitis B vaccines have been shown to be safe when administered to both adults and children. Over 4 million adults have been vaccinated in the United States, and at least that many children have received hepatitis B vaccine worldwide.”

Of course, this, too, was a non sequitur fallacy, as the conclusion that the vaccine is safe does not follow from the premise that it had been injected into four million children globally. (Consider how many cigarette smokers there must have been in the world already before the government and tobacco industry finally acknowledged that smoking can cause lung cancer.)

In the CDC’s faith-based judgment, the benefit of possibly preventing an estimated 2,000 to 5,000 annual deaths from HBV-related liver disease outweighed any potential harms, including the risks of unnecessarily exposing millions of fetuses and newborn babies to the neurotoxic effects of mercury and aluminum.

In 1999, the decision was made to eliminate the mercury-based preservative thimerosal from most vaccines routinely recommended for children. This was done because it had become known that the CDC’s schedule was exposing children to cumulative levels of mercury that exceeded the safety guidelines of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, thimerosal is still used in multi-dose vials of influenza vaccines, and both hepatitis B vaccines licensed for use in infants still contain aluminum.

Evidence of Neurological Harm from the HepB Vaccine

Despite widespread concerns about the possibility of neurodevelopmental harm from the HepB vaccine, which is administered to more than 70 percent of newborns worldwide, still twenty-five years after the CDC implemented its universal infant vaccination regimen, as a team of Chinese researchers noted in a study published in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology, “Whether this neonatal vaccination affects brain development is unknown.”

previous study by the same team, published in the Journal of Neuroimmunology a year prior (2015), was the first to examine the question of “whether neonatal vaccination could influence brain development in a physiological manner.” Studying the effects of vaccination in rats, among their findings was that it triggered an increase in “pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α”, which research had focused on “as having a detrimental effect on neuronal function and synaptic plasticity.” The increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines was part of “a neurotoxic expression profile” exhibited by HepB-vaccinated rats. Their data confirmed “that altered immune status induced by vaccination modulates hippocampal synaptic plasticity during early life”. The vaccine induced a bias toward an antibody response, or humoral immunity, in relation to cell-mediated immunity. This skewing of the immune system, they concluded, “exerted detrimental effects”.

… early vaccination with [hepatitis B vaccine], which induces strong immune activation, is suspected to influence brain development and behavior.

In their study the following year, the researchers elaborated: “Perinatal immune activation has been demonstrated to influence brain development and behavior. The brain is still developing in the early postnatal time period and thus immune activation can impact the developmental programming of the brain. . . . Therefore, early vaccination with [hepatitis B vaccine], which induces strong immune activation, is suspected to influence brain development and behavior.”

Furthermore, the balance between cell-mediated (Th1) and humoral immunity (Th2) “serves as an important mediator for the effects of immune activation on the central nervous system (CNS).” The HepB vaccine, as previously reported, induced a Th2 bias, which “is regarded as neurodetrimental” and “has been reported to be associated with cognitive deficits”. Their new study demonstrated that early HepB vaccination impaired the behavior, the synaptic plasticity of the hippocampal part of the brain, and the growth of nerve tissue of mice in early adulthood. These detrimental outcomes were all possible effects of “the alterations in the brain neuroimmune milieu following the systemic Th2 bias.”

The researchers concluded that early HepB vaccination “induces impairments in behavior and hippocampal neurogenesis”, with their data “supporting the long suspected potential association of [hepatitis B vaccine] with certain neuropsychiatric disorders such as autism and multiple sclerosis.”

In a third rodent study published in the journal Cytokine in October 2018, the researchers highlighted how HepB vaccination “induced an instant anti-inflammatory cytokine response and a subsequent proinflammatory cytokine response in the hippocampus.” Notably, behavioral impairment appeared in mice vaccinated on the day of their birth at eight weeks of age, coinciding with “the delayed hippocampal neuroinflammation”. A dramatic increase in pro-inflammatory cytokine levels (IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α) as compared to controls was observed between thirty-five to forty-two days post-vaccination.

Naturally, such evidence of delayed neurological harm couldn’t possibly have been detected in the uncontrolled clinical trials with only four or five days of follow-up that were used by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline to obtain the FDA’s stamp of approval for getting their products to market.

As Children’s Health Defense contributing writer J.B. Handley has remarked with respect to this series of studies, “It’s reasonable to say that the way Hepatitis B vaccine was tested and the way Hepatitis B causes brain damage (on a delayed schedule) means our health authorities have no idea how much brain damage Hepatitis B vaccine is causing our children. None.”

Conclusion

While public health officials and the corporate news media mock and scorn anyone who dares to question the wisdom of vaccinating children strictly according to the CDC’s recommended childhood schedule, including vaccination of newborn babies on the very first day of their lives, what the science is telling us is that there are very legitimate reasons for concern. At the very least, there ought to be open discussion and debate about the practice of vaccination, yet instead we are witnessing a concerted effort to silence critics and more strictly enforce vaccine mandates required for school entrance.

While we’re told that the hepatitis B vaccine is a “crucial shot” for infants, the reality is that the vast majority of children are not at significant risk of infection. The CDC’s recommendation to vaccinate newborns universally was not based on science, but on the assumptions that the vaccine would effectively reduce HBV-related liver disease mortality and—to paraphrase the words of FDA microbiologist Richard Daemer—would be incapable of causing harm to pregnant women’s developing fetuses or newborn babies.

Instead, what science is telling us is that the CDC’s recommendation to universally vaccinate newborns at birth puts the majority of children in the US at a completely unnecessary risk of neurodevelopmental harm from the hepatitis B vaccine, with incalculable costs to society.

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.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Norway Investigates 29 Deaths in Elderly Patients After Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccination

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Norway has registered a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first Covid-19 vaccination shot, raising questions over which groups to target in national inoculation programs.

  • Reflect On:

    Should freedom of choice always remain here? Should governments and private institutions not be allowed to mandate this vaccine in order to have access to certain rights and freedoms?

What Happened: 29 patients who were quite old and frail have died following their first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination. As a result, Norwegian officials have since adjusted their advice on who should get the COVID-19 vaccine.

This doesn’t come as a surprise to many given the fact that the clinical trials were conducted with people who are healthy. Older and sick people with co-morbidities were not used in the trials, and people with severe allergies and other diseases that can make one more susceptible to vaccine injury were not used either. It can be confusing given the fact that vaccination is being encouraged for the elderly in nursing homes and those who are more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

On the 15th of January it was 23 deaths, Bloomberg is now reporting that a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first COVID-19 shot. They point out that “Until Friday, Pfizer/BioNTech was the only vaccine available in Norway”, stating that the Norwegian Medicines Agency told them that as a result “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine.”

“There are 13 deaths that have been assessed, and we are aware of another 16 deaths that are currently being assessed,” the agency said. All the reported deaths related to “elderly people with serious basic disorders,” it said. “Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”

Madsen also told the BMJ that,

There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly. We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease. We are not asking for doctors to continue with vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it. This evaluation includes discussing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the patient and their families to decide whether or not vaccination is the best course.

The BMJ article goes on to point out that the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany is also investigating 10 deaths shortly after COVID-19 vaccination, and closes with the following information:

In a statement, Pfizer said, “Pfizer and BioNTech are aware of reported deaths following administration of BNT162b2. We are working with NOMA to gather all the relevant information.

“Norwegian authorities have prioritised the immunisation of residents in nursing homes, most of whom are very elderly with underlying medical conditions and some of whom are terminally ill. NOMA confirm the number of incidents so far is not alarming, and in line with expectations. All reported deaths will be thoroughly evaluated by NOMA to determine if these incidents are related to the vaccine. The Norwegian government will also consider adjusting their vaccination instructions to take the patients’ health into more consideration.

“Our immediate thoughts are with the bereaved families.”

Vaccine Hesitancy is Growing Among Healthcare Workers: Vaccine hesitancy is growing all over the globe, one of the latest examples comes from Riverside County, California. It has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50 percent of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it.  At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County’s frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials. You can read more about that story here.

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having  stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.

A study published in the journal EbioMedicine  as far back as 2013 outlines this point, among many others.

Pfizer’s Questionable History:  Losing faith in “big pharma” does not come without good reason. For example, in 2010 Robert G. Evans, PhD, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC, published a paper that’s accessible in PubMed titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR.”

In it, he outlines the fact that,

Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The 2.3-billion settlement…set a new record for both criminal fines and total penalties. A link with Pfizer might well advance the commercialization of Canadian research.

Suppressing clinical trial results is something I’ve come across multiple times with several different medicines. Five years ago I wrote about how big pharma did not share adverse reactions people had and harmful results from their clinical trials for commonly used antidepressant drugs.

Even scientists from within federal these health regulatory agencies have been sounding the alarm. For example, a few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the  Spider Papers.

The Takeaway: Given the fact that everything is not black and white, especially when it comes to vaccine safety, do we really want to give government health agencies and/or private institutions the right to enforce mandatory vaccination requirements when their efficacy have been called into question? Should people have the freedom of choice? It’s a subject that has many people polarized in their beliefs, but at the end of the day the sharing of information, opinion and evidence should not be shut down, discouraged, ridiculed or censored.

In a day and age where more people are starting to see our planet in a completely different light, one which has more and more questioning the human experience and why we live the way we do it seems the ‘crack down’ on free thought gets tighter and tighter. Do we really want to live in a world where we lose the right to choose what we do with our own body, or one where certain rights and freedoms are taken away if we don’t comply? The next question is, what do we do about it? Those who are in a position to enforce these measures must, it seems, have a shift in consciousness and refuse to implement them. There doesn’t seem to be a clear cut answer, but there is no doubt that we are currently going through that possible process, we are living in it.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Awareness

Psycho-Acoustic Medicine: Science Behind Sound Healing For Serotonin Production

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A number of studies and experiments have shown that sound can be used as medicine for various ailments and diseases.

  • Reflect On:

    Is our modern day medical industry truly interested in the health and well-being of people, or do profit and control take more priority?

Mental illness has reached an all time high in the world, and yet the modern day medicines to relieve symptoms have gained controversy. This is, in part, why people have dug up the past to better understand alternative ways of healing.

Sound, for instance, has been a tool for promoting the physical and emotional health of the body for as long as history can account for, deeply rooted in ancient cultures and civilizations. The ancient Egyptians used vowel sound chants in healing because they believed vowels were sacred. Tibetan monks take advantage of singing bowls, which they believe to be “a symbol of the unknowable” whose “vibrations have been described as the sound of the universe manifesting.”

“Our various states of consciousness are directly connected to the ever-changing electrical, chemical, and architectural environment of the brain. Daily habits of behavior and thought processes have the ability to alter the architecture of brain structure and connectivity, as well as, the neurochemical and electrical neural oscillations of your mind.”

Psychoacoustics is the scientific study of the perception of sound, and it has fueled researchers paths to better understand how it can be used as medicine. For instance, in 1973, Dr. Gerald Oster, a medical doctor and biophysicist, proved, in his research paper, “Auditory Beats in the Brain,” how sound affects the how the brain absorbs new information, controls mood, sleep patterns, healing responses, and more, and how quickly. Thus, specific frequencies of sound and music can be used to generate neurotransmitters such as serotonin.

brain_scan

To understand the fundamentals of sound in healing, we must first understand our brain waves. The nucleus of our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, is the communication between neurons. Brain waves are generated by way of electrical pulses working in unison from masses of neurons interacting with one another. Brain waves are divided into five different bandwidths that are thought to form a spectrum of human consciousness.

The slowest of the waves are delta waves (.5 to 3 Hz), which are the slowest brain waves and occur mostly during our deepest state of sleep. The fastest of the waves are gamma waves (25 to 100 Hz), which are associated with higher states of conscious perception. Alpha waves (8 to 12 Hz) occur when the brain is daydreaming or consciously practicing mindfulness or meditation.

According to Dr. Suzanne Evans Morris, Ph.D., a speech-language pathologist:

Research shows that different frequencies presented to each ear through stereo headphones… create a difference tone (or binaural beat) as the brain puts together the two tones it actually hears. Through EEG monitoring the difference tone is identified by a change in the electrical pattern produced by the brain. For example, frequencies of 200 Hz and 210 Hz produce a binaural beat frequency of 10 Hz (The difference in 210 Hz and 200 Hz is 10 Hz). Monitoring of the brain’s electricity (EEG) shows that the brain produces increased 10 Hz activity with equal frequency and amplitude of the wave form in both hemispheres of the brain (left and right hemisphere).

It is thought that different brain wave patterns are connected to the production in the brain of certain neurochemicals linked with relaxation and stress release, as well as better learning and creativity, memory, and more. Such neurochemicals include beta-endorphins, growth factors, gut peptides, acetylcholine, vasopressin, and serotonin.

A series of experiments conducted by neuro-electric therapy engineer Dr. Margaret Patterson and Dr. Ifor Capel, revealed how alpha brainwaves boosted the production of serotonin. Dr. Capel explained:

As far as we can tell, each brain center generates impulses at a specific frequency based on the predominant neurotransmitter it secretes. In other words, the brain’s internal communication system—its language, is based on frequency… Presumably, when we send in waves of electrical energy at, say, 10 Hz, certain cells in the lower brain stem will respond because they normally fire within that frequency range.

Additional research upholds the beliefs of mind-body medicine in this sense, stating that brainwaves being in the Alpha state, 8 to 14 Hz, permits a vibration allowing for more serotonin to be created.

It’s important for us to come to terms with the fact that there is science behind age-old medicinal practices that do not require putting unknown substances in our bodies to alleviate issues like stress, depression, anxiety, and more.

But even more intriguing is to think something as simple as sound, as music, which we have come to treat as utterly pleasurable entertainment, has not only been used to promote healing and well-being, but has proven to work through research as well.

If your mental health is of concern, try listening to a binaural beat to generate alpha waves between 8 and 14 Hz to produce more serotonin. Another option is to take advantage of music that promotes a relaxed alpha state in the brain such as classical music.

Related CE Article: Research Shows We Can Heal With Vibration, Frequency & Sound

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Awareness

Study: Short Break From Cosmetics Causes “Significant Drop of Hormone Disrupting Chemicals”

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study led by researchers at UC Berkeley and Clinica de Salud del Valle de Salinas demonstrates how even a short break from certain kinds of makeup, shampoos and lotions leads to a large drop in levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals in the body.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is this industry so poorly regulated?

A study led by researchers at UC Berkeley and Clinica de Salud del Valle Salinas has demonstrated how taking even a short break from various cosmetics, shampoos, and other personal care products can lead to a substantial drop in the levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals present within the body.

The results from the study were published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Researchers gave 100 Latina teenagers various personal care products that were labeled to be free of common chemicals including phthalates, parabens, triclosan, and oxybenzone. These chemicals are used regularly in almost all conventional personal care products such as cosmetics, soap, sunscreen, shampoo, conditioner, and other hair products, and animal studies have shown that they directly interfere with the body’s endocrine system.

“Because women are the primary consumers of many personal care products, they may be disproportionately exposed to these chemicals,” said study lead author Kim Harley, associate director of the UC Berkeley Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health. “Teen girls may be at particular risk since it’s a time of rapid reproductive development, and research has suggested that they use more personal care products per day than the average adult woman.”

Results

After just a three-day trial with the girls using only the lower-chemical products, urine samples showed a significant drop in the level of chemicals in the body. Methyl and propyl parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, dropped 44% and 45%, respectively, metabolites of diethyl phthalate, used often in perfumes, dropped by 27%, and both triclosan and benzophenone-3 fell 36%. The authors of the study were surprised to see an increase in two lesser common parabens, but, being minor, could easily have been caused by accidental contamination or a substitute not listed on the labels.

Co-director of the study Kimberly Parra explains why having local youths participate in the study was of particular importance:

The results of the study are particularly interesting on a scientific level, but the fact that high school students led the study set a new path to engaging youth to learn about science and how it can be used to improve the health of their communities. After learning of the results, the youth took it upon themselves to educate friends and community members, and presented their cause to legislatures in Sacramento.

Included in the CHAMACOS Youth Council were 12 local high school students who helped design and implement the study. One of the teen researchers, Maritza Cárdenas, is now a UC Berkeley undergraduate majoring in molecular and cell biology.

“One of the goals of our study was to create awareness among the participants of the chemicals found in everyday products, to help make people more conscious about what they’re using,” said Cárdenas. “Seeing the drop in chemical levels after just three days shows that simple actions can be taken, such as choosing products with fewer chemicals, and make a difference.”

The researchers noted that cosmetics and personal care products are not well-regulated in this country, and that getting data about health effects from exposure, particularly long-term ones, is difficult. But they say there is growing evidence linking endocrine-disrupting chemicals to neurobehavioral problems, obesity and cancer cell growth.

What Can You Do?

Well, you can be sure to check the labels on any products you purchase. Most personal care products contain a list of ingredients, but unfortunately many cosmetics do not. If you use a particular brand that you really love you can try contacting the manufacturer directly and asking them for an ingredient list.

You can also opt for more natural and organic products, but be sure to keep in mind that in the industry of personal care products, the words “natural” and “organic” are often meaningless. A safe bet would be to buy these products from a health food store and be sure to read the ingredients or ask the sales clerk. Generally, when products do not contain specific chemicals, the manufacturers are happy to label them as such.

The less demand for these chemically-laden products there is, the less these chemicals will be used. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR! We have the power to create the type of world we want. Be the change.

Check out The Story Of Cosmetics below!

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!