- The Facts:
This article was written by Sayer Ji, founder of Greenmedinfo.com, and posted here with permission.
- Reflect On:
Are our airplanes really as safe and health as they are marketed to be?
The aviation industry hangs its hat on air travel being “the safest way to travel.” The truth, however, is that it has harbored a dark secret since its inception: it’s poisoning its passengers and crew due to deeply flawed aircraft design, de-prioritizing safety in favor of profit.
In flight, every crew member and passenger relies on an air supply. The assumption, of course, is that this air is filtered if not fresh. Perhaps you have sensed (and promptly dismissed) that there may be quality control issues around cabin air. The problem goes further than that, however, and astoundingly, this is not by accident but by design.
What’s more concerning is the fact that the industry has known about this completely preventable health hazard for at least 40 years, but no attempts have been made to filter this cocktail of hundreds of chemicals (including organophosphates in the same category as toxic nerve agents like Sarin) out of the cabin air before travelers are forced to breath them in. Nor has the root cause of the problem — unsafe aircraft design and the deprioritization of human safety — been effectively addressed.
A history of cabin air supply
Essentially, the problem comes from the need to supply the jet airliners with warm compressed air while flying at high altitudes. In order to do so, all planes used by commercial airlines since 1963 inject the cabin with air directly from the compressors of their jet engines in what is known as ‘bleed air.’ In the 50’s, engineers designed airplanes which pulled fresh air into the cabin, but this “modification” was deemed too costly by decision-makers at the time. As a result of poor design, every breath that the crew and passengers take today, consists of a 50/50 mix of recirculated cabin air and bleed air, the latter of which can contains a wide range of synthetic chemicals, such as tricresyl phosphate (TCP or TOCP), an organophosphate which is highly neurotoxic to humans. In fact, the World Health Organisation stated in 1990 that “Because of considerable variation among individuals in sensitivity to TOCP, it is not possible to establish a safe level of exposure” and “TOCP are therefore considered major hazards to human health.”1
And so, with the exception of single aircraft — the new Boeing 787, where cabin air is taken directly from the atmosphere with electrically powered compressors — all flights today involve a high risk of exposure to these neurotoxic chemicals. When you consider there are about 100,000 flights a day (only 5% of which occur on “safe” Boeing 787’s, with at least 1 in 100 flights experiencing a major ‘fume event,’ this amounts to the health endangerment of millions of daily passengers. Entire advocacy organizations exist which are dedicated to exposing the truth about the dangers of toxic airplane air, and pressuring the industry to initiate reform.
One such group Aerotoxic Association, discusses the bleed air problem in greater detail on its website:
“Bleed air comes from the compressor section of the jet engine, which has to be lubricated. Jet engines mostly have “wet seals” to keep the oil and air apart, which cannot be 100% effective. Furthermore these seals, like any mechanical component, slowly wear out and their effectiveness gradually declines. This wear can occur more rapidly when the engine is working hard, such as climbing under full throttle. They may also fail suddenly and will then let a significant amount of oil into the very hot compressed bleed air, resulting in fumes and/or smoke entering the cabin. This is known as a “fume event”.
There are no filters in the bleed air supply to stop this happening.
Note that the oil used to lubricate jet engines is not based on petroleum hydrocarbons, as are lubricants for internal combustion engines used in motor cars, outboard motors, tractors etc. Jet engines operate at much higher temperatures and, therefore, use special synthetic chemicals as oil. They also contain organophosphate additives as antiwear agents and other aromatic hydrocarbons as antioxidants. Some of the oil gets partially decomposed, i.e. chemically altered (‘pyrolysed’) due to the high temperatures in the engine.”
Watch the teaser for the new documentary Unflitered Breathed In – The Truth about Aerotoxic Syndrome:
Purchase access to the full film here [not an affiliate link]
A complex toxicological assault
Since at least 1977, with the first documented case of a C-130 Hercules navigator becoming incapacitated after breathing contaminated cabin air, the aviation industry’s secret has remained hidden…
One thing that has worked in their favor is the common belief that the fatigue, malaise, and similar complaints experienced after a flight are caused by “jet lag”; presumably solely a byproduct of ‘disrupted circadian rhythms,’ (medically referred to as desynchronosis) and not the 800lb gorilla of neurotoxic organophosphate exposures sitting next to every passenger on each flight.
This is not to say alterations in bodily rhythms and other ‘natural’ factors like cosmic radiation, dehydration, and the fact that the cabin is pressurized at between 6,000-8,000 feet (which keeps oxygen levels dangerously low), do not play a significant role. They certainly do. But the problem is that the chemical exposures are rarely if ever identified as a problem. When you also figure in the routine use of pesticides in planes, and the subsequent “toxic soup” of hydrocarbons and synthetic chemicals created, the toxicological synergy amplifies the exposure problem far beyond what would be expected if one focuses only on one chemical.
One can only imagine the cumulative role these exposures have had on the notoriously poor health of airline crew, as well. Clearly, there are highly practical justifications for the industry “cover-up,” as the legal liability for the damage already done to the health and well-being of aircrew alone would be astronomical.
What are the symptoms of aerotoxicosis?
In October 2000, the truth started to emerge with the publication of a seminal study titled, “Aerotoxic Syndrome: Adverse health effects following exposure to jet oil mist during commercial flights,” authored by Dr Harry Hoffman, Professor Chris Winder and Jean Christophe Balouet, Ph.D . In the study, the researchers introduce aerotoxic syndrome as a newly identified occupational health condition. They focused on 10 case reports of airline crew who experienced a so-called “fume event,” and subsequent health problems.
The following basic symptoms were identified following single or short term exposures:
“Blurred or tunnel vision, disorientation, memory impairment, shaking and tremors, nausea/vomiting, paresthesias, loss of balance and vertigo, seizures, loss of consciousness, headache, lightheadedness, dizziness, confusion and feeling intoxicated, breathing difficulties (shortness of breath, tightness in chest, respiratory failure), increased heart rate and palpitations, nystagmus, irritation (eyes, nose and upper airways).”
Symptoms from long term low level exposure or residual symptoms from short term exposures include:
“memory impairment, forgetfulness, lack of coordination, nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, respiratory problems, chest pain, severe headaches, dizziness and feeling intoxicated, weakness and fatigue (leading to chronic fatigue), exhaustion, increased heart rate and palpitations, numbness (fingers, lips, limbs), hot flashes, joint pain, muscle weakness and pain, salivation, irritation (eyes, nose and upper airways), skin itching and rashes, skin blisters (on uncovered body parts), signs of immunosupression, hair loss, chemical sensitivity leading to acquired or multiple chemical sensitivity.”
Clearly, if these symptoms are indeed caused by exposure to “bleed air,” or exaggerated ‘fume events,’ these chemicals have the ability to cause profound damage to the human body, particularly the nervous and immune systems.
A 40-Year Long Cover Up Now Exposed
Considering aircraft pilots are continually exposed to jet engine chemicals that can even be found in their blood, the industry lacks any reasonable justification for continuing to ignore the problem. Compromising the neurological fitness of pilots should be taken as seriously as a mechanical defect in the plane. Pilots, after all, are essential to keeping the plane safely in the air.
And significant exposures are not a rare occurrence. A 2007 report by the UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) accepts that fume events occur on 1 flight in 100. The Aerotoxic Association offers a qualification of this statistic, indicating the problem is likely even worse: “However, on some aircraft types crews report that they experience fumes to some degree on every flight and as the definition of “fume event” is not agreed upon, it makes it impossible to give a true figure.”
Under-reporting is epidemic, due to the fact that modern jet aircraft have no chemical sensors installed, and only visible smoke is officially reported in the flight log. Technically, the noses of aircrew are the only detectors being used, and background levels of contamination may not be detectable by smell at all. Likely the most toxic of the hundreds of chemicals present in the bleed air, the organophosphate TCOP, in fact, is odorless. It’s a sad fact, but a U.S. Attorney Alisa Brodkowitz and aerotoxic syndrome expert once correctly opined:
“…the only thing filtering this toxic soup out of the cabin are the lungs of the passenger and crew.”
60-minutes obtained an internal memo from the Boeing aircraft company dated 2007 [watch minute 13:00 of the 60 minutes episode below]. It’s all about toxic air. Excerpts from the report written by a frustrated senior Boeing inspector reveal a well recognized problem within the company:
“Some of the events have been significant, in that the crew reported blue smoke with defined waves in smoke.”
“Who knows what the by-products are in hot synthetic turbine oil? The data sheet has warnings about breathing the fumes.”
60 minutes describes the most startling passage, which “ends on a chilling note. That lives need to be lost before Boeing will act.”:
That tombstone, unfortunately, already exists. Richard Westgate, British Airlines pilot, died at 43 after constantly being exposed to fume events. Doubtlessly, many other aircrew and passengers have suffered a similar fate.
Want Things To Change? It’s Up To You and Me
As we mentioned above, the only exception is Boeing’s new 787, a long haul aircraft serving non-stop, inter-continental travel, with few exceptions. [see list of routes] [another website that keeps track of routes] Not surprisingly, Boeing does not feature the “clean air” design of these planes in its marketing copy. Bringing attention to this feature would also bring attention to the widespread problem, which all of its other aircraft participate in. Despite this, advocacy organizations have publicly congratulated Boeing on its decision to create a non-toxic alternative. For instance, in 2014, The Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE) which represents more than 800,000 airline staff and consumers, put out a press release titled, “Only The Boeing 787 Provides Passengers And Crews With Clean Breathing Air.”
The development and existence of the Boeing 787 represents a tacit acknowledgment of the industry wide problem discussed in this article, and is a wonderful step towards a permanent solution. But the vast majority of planes are still in the technological dark ages, with awareness of the extent of the problem and danger only starting to trickle into consciousness.
It will be consumers and non-governmental advocacy organizations that will force the industry and its regulators to make this issue a priority. If only one airline in this country made the step of addressing the problem, it would see huge support by an increasingly educated consumer base [that’s you and who you share this article with!]
Short of redesigning existing aircraft, the following solutions, offered by the Aerotoxic Association, could also be implemented:
As bleed air is not presently filtered, installation of bleed air filtration systems would eliminate the problem, although a technically efficient system does not yet seem to have been developed.
A less toxic oil formulation could lead to significant improvement. The French oil company NYCO is continuously developing such oils.
Chemical sensors to detect contaminated air in the bleed air supplies – instead of human noses – would alert pilots to problems, allowing prompt preventive action.
As discussed in the conclusion of the seminal paper on aerotoxic syndrome referenced above, the aviation industry is reluctant to acknowledge the problem and reform:
“It has become apparent that the primary safety consideration of the airlines is to keep airplanes flying – the safety of workers appears to have a very low priority to operational safety. Further, the regulatory agency involved in aviation safety (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) admitted in evidence to the Senate Aviation Inquiry that its area of responsibility is airplane safety, not occupational health and safety.
Monitoring studies conducted by aircraft manufacturers and the airlines have failed to detect any major contaminants, although to date most monitoring studies have used inappropriate sampling techniques (such as air collection of poorly volatile contaminants) or inadequate methodologies (such as sample collection time, sample volume, storage of samples, not taking account of altitude). No monitoring has been conducted during a leak incident
Attempts by airlines to address this problem through design, maintenance and operational improvements and through staff support and medical care have not been successful, and in the main, continue to be reactive and piecemeal. Obviously, in some cases, options such as improving engine design are not within the sphere of activity of the operators. The efficacy of recent modifications to the aircraft remains unknown, and leaks are still occurring, albeit at a reduced rate.
An admission was grudgingly made by one airline in 1998 that adverse exposures had been occurring, and that such exposures might cause irritation and transient effects. However, the development of long term symptoms is vigorously denied.
Civil aviation regulations clearly state that “the ventilation system must be designed to provide a sufficient amount of uncontaminated air to enable the crew members to perform their duties without undue discomfort or fatigue and to provide reasonable passenger comfort.” The admission that irritation and transient symptoms can occur demonstrates non-compliance with the above rules.
Further, the adversarial and acrimonious manner in which some airlines have pursued workers compensation cases brought by staff with aerotoxic syndrome indicates a confrontational approach which is unlikely to be beneficial to all parties in the long term.”
The good news is the internet, social media, and consumer-driven platforms like ours have demonstrated how we can all engage the system to change the world. Join our online movement by subscribing to our newsletter if you haven’t already.
First, watch the new documentary on aerotoxic syndrome: UNFILTERED BREATHED IN – The Truth about Aerotoxic Syndrome.
Second, if you are a Facebook user, join the group Angel Fleet, which has almost 9,000 members discussing the problem, and working on solutions together.
Third, get yourself a mask with the capability to greatly mitigate exposures in the case of a leak or “fume event.” This is a relatively affordable one with a charcoal filter that we are presently investigating directly from the Aerotoxic Association website. [not an affiliate link] They will ship to the United States; you can caculate the cost when you put it in your basket.
[Note: we have not yet had the opportunity to extensively evaluate the different masks on the market, but will be following up with a research report once we get better inform you. This will also include strategies to mitigate toxicity].
Four, please share this article help spread the word and change the world with us together.
Downloadable information for your health care provider funded by the FAA:
- Medical protocol for HCP 2008 93.02 Kb
- TFA Aerotoxic syndrome handout for passengers
- TFA Aerotoxic syndrome handout for crew
Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.
If you want to learn more from Greenmedinfo, sign up for their newsletter here.
Fragrance/Perfumes Are Being Labelled As The New ‘Second Hand Smoke’
- The Facts:
Regulation on cosmetics and fragrances, like perfumes, are not quite strong and a host of toxic substances are used in their manufacturing. Over the years, evidence has emerged that these fragrances could be impacting our health in a negative way.
- Reflect On:
With awareness growing, the market for non-toxic replacements for perfumes, and other products, has expanded tremendously. If you're concerned, you can do your research and vote with your dollar.
If you have made an effort to remove as many chemicals from your life, be it in your food, cleaning supplies, personal care products and any other items you purchase, then you may have also found that the more you eliminate the more sensitive you seem to become.
Chemicals unfortunately, are all around us and often this is entirely out of our control. Something as simple as someone’s deodorant can be a smack to the face if you are not used to being bombarded with these smells on a regular basis.
You may be surprised to learn that simply by smelling a scent, you are in fact inhaling tiny molecules of the said scent that is giving off the aroma. Yes, sorry to disturb you or gross you out, but this includes everything that drifts across your nostrils, yes – everything. Unfortunately this means that even though you may do your best to avoid as many chemical toxins as possible in your own life, you are still exposed to them every time you step out into the real, chemical laden world.
Fragrances Being Considered The New Second Hand Smoke
If you’re thinking this is a bit extreme, then there’s a good chance that you are still using an array of chemical products and thus you are somewhat desensitized to these smells. You know that strong smell of someone who keeps reapplying cologne, without taking a shower? They don’t realize that they still smell like their cologne from before and fail to realize that they’ve become to be known as, “nose blind,” to the smell and just keep adding on more so they can smell it. The result of this is a very strong-smelling individual that is somewhat offensive to anyone who has to endure a bus ride with this oblivious culprit.
How about walking into a gift store or candle store? That extremely pungent aroma just hits you as soon as you open the door, sure, some consider these smells sweet or nice, but they are for the most part in fact, toxic. Natural essential oils and scents tend to be a lot more mild, smoother and enjoyable, this is likely because they are not created from a bunch of chemicals derived from petroleum in a lab.
It took decades for the workplace to acknowledge the dangers of smoking and to recognize the deadly effects of exposure to second-hand smoke. Once acknowledged, it was a few more years before the workplace became safe for all workers from the dangers of second hand smoke. We propose in this paper that fragrance is following the same trajectory. To date most of the research on fragrance exposure has been localized in the health care profession and has not received the necessary attention it deserves in the management literature for managers to become knowledgeable about the extent of employer liability and what constitutes a good faith effort to protect workers. This paper serves as a much-needed bridge to fill this vital gap in managerial knowledge. Current laws (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act, Workers Compensation, and OSHA regulations) are identified that can be applied to fragrance exposure. The relevant laws and subsequent court cases are analyzed and the legal liability they create for employers with employees exposed to synthetic fragrance in the workplace are clearly identified. We also provide recommendations for organizations who want to demonstrate a good faith effort and be proactive to reduce or limit employees’ fragrance exposure in the workplace, before being sued We present the results of several organizations that have some experience with addressing the issue in their workplaces and identify the lessons learned We conclude by recommending actions employers can take to proactively respond (react) to common situations of exposure that arise for employees with fragrance sensitivity. (source)
This Is About Much More Than Just Strong Smells & Sensitive Noses
Inhaling these chemicals that are coming from fragrances can cause damaging health effects if we aren’t cautious, but first it’s important that we become aware of the risks. Fragrances or perfumes have been treasured for thousands of years, all the way back to the ancient times, although in those days they were often derived directly from plants as pure, therapeutic essential oils that were sometimes worth more than gold.
Today, many of the chemical based perfumes we are using are still highly regarded as prized possessions, are often a small fortune to purchase, and yet they contain synthetic chemical compounds that have been linked to respiratory issues, diabetes, obesity, ADHD, autism, and hormone disruption.
These synthetic smells come in many forms and aren’t limited to only perfumes or cologne, they are almost always added to scented candles, car and home air fresheners, laundry detergents, personal care products, cleaning products and many more everyday products, many of which you may have not even realized. Even many products that are labeled as “all-natural,” simply aren’t and that word is nothing more than a marketing ploy designed to make you feel like you are purchasing a good, wholesome product for you and your family.
So, What Should We Do?
Of course the first step towards creating any kind of change is by raising awareness. So, getting educated on the matter and sharing it with your friends and family is a great start. Stress the importance of choosing only legitimately natural, pure, products made from organic, therapeutic grade essential oils, or to simplify things and save some money, opt for unscented products. It would still be wise to check these ingredients and opt for plant-based cleaning supplies and personal care products. If you want to take this even a step farther you may want to consider making your own cleaning supplies and personal care products, this way you have absolute control and a complete and thorough understanding about what is actually in said product.
As awareness is growing we have been seeing more and more bans in regards to fragrance, The American Lung Association has created a fragrance-free policy for workplaces and schools in the United States. Also, many Universities and Hospitals are catching on and implementing similar bans.
The most important thing, which almost always is, is to put your money where your mouth is and vote with your dollar. Be sure to check labels, know what you are buying, know what you are using to clean your house and know what you are putting into your body. The less chemicals in your life the better you’re likely to feel and there’s a good chance that you will notice them more, but this is how we create change. We can all do our part.
Association of American Physicians & Surgeons Sues Rep. Adam Schiff For “Censoring Vaccine Debate”
- The Facts:
The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons are suing Rep. Adam Schiff for "censoring vaccine debate."
- Reflect On:
Should information that creates and generates concern among the population about vaccines and vaccine safety be censored, even if it's factual and not actually 'fake news?'
Vaccines are a hot topic right now, and vaccine hesitancy is growing and quickly gaining momentum. The reality of vaccine hesitancy is no longer a secret, as many studies on the matter have been published. And it is no longer simply among concerned parents. This study published in the journal EbioMedicine discusses how practitioners in France are becoming increasingly hesitant to prescribe some controversial vaccines to their patients.
The World Health Organization believes vaccine hesitancy is one of the biggest threats to global health security. Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project, was one of many academics to speak at the World Health Organization’s recent Global Vaccine Safety Summit, where she explained why this is being considered a major problem:
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–and we’re constantly looking on any studies in this space–still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider. And if we lose that, we’re in trouble.
Dissenting Professionals, Conflicting Statements
This type of hesitancy among health professionals has begun to spawn organizations looking for answers to their questions. ‘The Physicians for Informed Consent’ is one of multiple examples. It’s promising that doctors, scientists and health safety advocates that have come together to share resources about vaccines, and more importantly voice concerns that they have about certain vaccines and their safety.
At the summit, Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator of Initiative For Vaccine Research at the World Health Organization, brought up the issue of adjuvants, noting some of the problems with using adjuvants that do not have a proven track record of safety. Many people at the conference also emphasized the need for more safety testing and studies to address the concerns that are being made by vaccine safety advocates. Personally, I think this is encouraging. Science should never cease to question, and who wouldn’t want more safety studies and testing on medications that are being administered worldwide?
As this issue becomes more scrutinized by the public as well as health care professionals, more and more conflicting statements made by high-ranking health authorities are being uncovered, which in themselves may lead to a breakdown of confidence in vaccines. For example, Soumya Swaminathan, MD and Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization, stated at the conference,
I don’t think we can overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions, because we’re not able to give clear cut answers when people ask questions about deaths that have occurred due to particular vaccines… One should be able to give a very factual account of what exactly is happening, what the cause of deaths are, but in most cases there’s some obfuscation at that level and therefore there’s less and less trust then in the system.
Prior to this statement, the WHO released a promotional video just days before the conference began, where Dr. Swaminathan contradicted her statement above, saying “we have vaccine safety systems, robust vaccine safety systems.”
It would be nice to have answers as to why the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid close to 4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children, and what that says about these ‘safety systems’ she is talking about. Clearly, there seems to be a need to make our vaccines safer and more effective. Personally, I believe forced vaccination to be quite unethical given the fact that so many questions remain unanswered.
Read more about the conference here: Scientists Share Facts About Vaccines At World Health Organization Conference For Vaccine Safety
Association of American Physicians & Surgeons Sue Rep. Adam Schiff
The growing vaccine hesitancy has led the pharmaceutical industry and its supporters to a dangerous strategy: mass censorship. For those of you who haven’t heard, politicians and social media outlets are taking action steps to censor information about vaccines that is not aligned with the industry and its regulatory ‘arm,’ the CDC. In other words, just about anyone who is even questioning vaccine safety, let alone providing evidence that vaccines are not safe, is liable to be discredited, de-monitized, or de-platformed from social media.
Leading the charge is Congressman Adam Schiff, an advocate of vaccine safety and friend of the pharmaceutical industry, who has used his power and influence to immediately strengthen censorship efforts. His moves have been seen as unfair, unethical, and even illegal. In fact, on Jan 15, 2020, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with Katarina Verrelli, on behalf of herself and others who seek access to vaccine information, filed suit against Adam Schiff in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Schiff has abused government power and infringed on their free-speech rights.
Here’s how the association characterizes the situation:
Who appointed Congressman Adam Schiff as Censor-in-Chief?” asks AAPS General Counsel. “No one did, and he should not be misusing his position to censor speech on the internet.”
In February and March 2019, Rep. Schiff contacted Google, Facebook, and Amazon, to encourage them to de-platform or discredit what Schiff asserted to be inaccurate information on vaccines. He then posted the letters and press release on the House.gov website.
Within 24 hours of Schiff’s letter to Amazon dated Mar 1, 2019, Amazon removed the popular videos Vaxxed and Shoot ’Em Up: the Truth About Vaccines from its platform for streaming videos, depriving members of the public of convenient access.
Under a policy announced in May 2019, Twitter includes a pro-government disclaimer placed above search results for an AAPS article on vaccine mandates: “Know the Facts. To make sure you get the best information on vaccination, resources are available from the US Department of Health and Human Services.” The implication of this disclaimer is that if information is not on a government website, then it is somehow less credible.
On Facebook, a search for an AAPS article on vaccines, which previously would lead directly to the AAPS article, now produces search results containing links to the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Visits to the AAPS website have declined significantly since March 2019, both in absolute terms and relative to the decline that would result from a story’s losing its recency.
“The internet is supposed to provide free access to information to people of different opinions,” stated AAPS Executive Director, Jane Orient, M.D.
Dr. Orient continues, “AAPS is not ‘anti-vaccine,’ but rather supports informed consent, based on an understanding of the full range of medical, legal, and economic considerations relevant to vaccination and any other medical intervention, which inevitably involves risks as well as benefits.”
AAPS argues in the complaint against Rep. Schiff: “The First Amendment protects the rights of free speech and association. Included within the right of free speech is a right to receive information from willing speakers. Under the First Amendment, Americans have the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their own judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. Content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional, and courts analyze such restrictions under strict scrutiny.”
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943.
The terms “anti vax” and “pro vax” are really not serving in the best interest of the collective. All they do is divide people when in reality, all of us want the same thing, healthy children, and effective and safe medications if we are going to use them. With all of the concerns that are still being made about vaccines, questioning vaccine safety should not be a problem and in fact, should be welcomed by everybody. Forcing mandatory vaccination policy and censoring information on vaccines, in my opinion, seems to be quite tyrannical and immoral at this stage. I may have a different opinion if vaccines were 100 percent safe and effective for everybody, but they’re not.
Togo, West Africa Added To A Growing List of Countries That Are Banning Glyphosate
- The Facts:
Togo, a country in West Africa has decided to ban the use of toxic chemical pesticide, glyphosate because of growing health and environmental concerns.
- Reflect On:
Togo joins 20 other countries who have decided to ban this pesticide, do you think your country will ever do the same?
Recently, a country in West Africa, Togo has prohibited the ‘import, market or use of glyphosate and any other product containing it.’ This decision was finalized in December of last year by the Minister of Agriculture, Animal Production and Fisheries, Noel Kouerta Bataka.
If you are unfamiliar with glyphosate, it is a chemical pesticide made by none other than agricultural giant, Monsanto, Bayer. Glyphosate can be found in RoundUp and used on crops that have been genetically engineered specifically to resist its toxicity, allowing farmers to kill the weeds and pests without killing their crops. The problem is, it is extremely toxic not only for the consumer of products containing it, but for the land and soil as well where it is grown.
There have been numerous studies, many of which CE has reported on that link it to cancer, liver disease, autism, birth defects, brain damage and more.
“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides… Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.” – R. Mesnage (et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014), article ID 179691)
After 2 years of political discussions in Togo, regarding the worlds most popular herbicide, many are celebrating the decision that was finally made to have it outright banned. Bataka has allowed a 12-month moratorium for all of the current glyphosate supplies to be either used or destroyed.
Ban Of Glyphosate Around The World
As awareness grows regarding the health concerns of glyphosate, so does government level support worldwide. Not only has Key West, Los Angeles, Miami and The University of California banned or restricted the use of this toxic chemical so, have 20 countries around the world. These countries are,
- In Africa — Malawi and Togo.
- In Asia — Thailand, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar.
- In Central America — Bermuda, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Costa Rica
- In Europe — Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, The Netherlands
So we still have yet to see bans in Canada, United States, Mexico and many other countries, but hopefully stories such as these will keep the awareness and momentum going and help others to see that this toxic chemical pesticide should not be anywhere near the food we are eating or on our precious Mother Earth.
It’s a big problem, and it’s now entered into our food supply.
How To Avoid Glyphosate
One might believe that they simply have to avoid genetically engineered foods to avoid glyphosate, and while that is a good start, unfortunately it’s not that black and white. There are many non-GMO foods that are still sprayed with this chemical and thus have high concentrations of it.
In reality your best bet would be to grow all of your own fruits, vegetables and even nuts, but unfortunately in this day and age this is not very plausible for everyone.
The foods that are highest in glyphosate are: soy, wheat, almonds, peas, beetroot (including beet sugar), carrots, sweet potatoes, quinoa, peas, tea, meat and dairy, corn and oats. However, many other unsuspecting foods have also have tested positive for high levels of glyphosate including many fruits and berries such as: apples, apricots, cherries, grapefruit, grapes (wine as well), lemons, olives, peaches, pears and more.
To avoid glyphosate altogether sticking to an all-organic diet is necessary. If this is an obstacle for you, consider locally grown produce where you can talk directly with the farmers about their growing practices. Many farmers grow organically , but cannot afford to obtain the organic certification. You can also wash your produce in baking soda and vinegar click HERE for instructions.
While it may seem hopeless at times to even try to avoid environmental toxins like glyphosate, we have to remember that the more we do, and the more we put our money where are mouths are and vote with our dollars, the less these chemicals will be used. We have already seen many big brands step away from using GMO ingredients because of consumer demand, so it may not be as far off as you think.
As countries like Togo step forward and do what is right for their citizens and the planet, awareness will continue to grow and it will assist others in seeing the truth about these chemicals and inspire others to make a change as well. We have more power than we realize and anything can change, with enough awareness.
This Psychiatrist’s Take On Alcohol May Make You Never Want To Drink Again
A psychiatrist gives his insight on just how toxic alcohol is for our mind, body, and soul.
Retired American Bishop Believes The Church Invented Hell & Is In The “Control Business”
Religion is a controversial topic, and I’d like to preface this article by saying that it is not my aim...