Connect with us

Awareness

“Asbestos of the Sky” – The Aviation Industry’s Darkest Coverup

Published

on

In Brief

  • 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. 

advertisement - learn more

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.

advertisement - learn more

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.

Additional References:

1Tricresyl Phosphate Environmental Health Criteria A110. International Programme On Chemical Safety (IPCS) WHO Geneva 1990

Additional Resources:

Downloadable information for your health care provider funded by the FAA:


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.

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