According to Time Magazine – The Top 10 Green Ideas
By Mark Schauss | March 6, 2008
Time Magazine had an article about the top 10 Green Ideas. The health of our environment is critical as our own health is closely tied to it. Here is Time’s top 10:
#1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – This group of scientists were the ones to come out and show, global warming is real and we need as interconnected humans, to do something and to do it now. We have to stop the denial and move ahead before we are so overwhelmed, we would be unable to make a difference.
#2. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – Since our government is idiotically refusing to lead the charge against global warming, corporations together with the USCAP are taking over. According to the Time article “USCAP called for mandatory cuts of 60% to 80% in carbon emissions by 2050, and a uniform nationwide market for carbon. When big business is this far ahead of government, it’s clearly time for a change.”
#3. The Green Supply Chain – Companies like Wal-Mart, Procter and Gamble as well as Unilever are pressuring their suppliers to cut greenhouse-gas emissions and try to combat climate change.
#4. Avoided Deforestation – This is a no-brainer. We need our forests to save us from ourselves. We need to stop cutting down trees with no thought of tomorrow.
#5. Green-Collar Jobs – Instead of thinking that we cannot become more efficient because we will lose jobs, which is what our present Administration in the White House thinks, we can build jobs by creating new jobs that are green and friendly to the environment like organic biodynamic farming.
#6. Plug-in Hybrids – There is a company that can convert a car into a plug-in hybrid. CalCar is the company and while it is expensive, the technology is moving forward.
#7. E-Flex – Cars that can be made to run on newer technologies as soon as they came out.
#8. Congestion Pricing – Make people pay to use their cars in cities like New York. When I visited there I was astonished at how many people drove cars into Manhattan unnecessarily. It was insane. London and Singapore have already implemented this system.
#9. Carbon Capping – This idea puts a limit to how much carbon burning companies can do. The government would charge a fee for each unit of burning and then refund it to the people most needing help.
#10. Geo-engineering – This idea is to create large projects to help cool the planet. No one know if any idea on the table will work, but there is a sense of urgency to start thinking about ways before it is too late.
What I would add to the discussion is the need for everybody to do something, anything, each and every day to help combat global warming and also to reduce our polluting ways. Stop using pesticides, buy only organic when possible, vote with your dollars and buy ecologically superior products. We can do something, the important thing is to do it and do it now.
Topics: Environment, Global Warming, Health, Toxicity | No Comments »
More Proof Our Health Care System Needs A Major Overhaul
By Mark Schauss | March 5, 2008
The start of the Reagan Administration in 1981 was supposed to bring us something known as trickle down economics whereby giving large tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations would trickle down to the rest of us and make our lives better. While I don’t want to get into a political debate here, what I do want to point out is that the exact opposite is happening based on a study in the recent PLoS Medicine.
Nancy Krieger of Harvard University found that the death rate in people under 65 in the poorest sections of society were 60% higher than among the rich. You might say that this may be caused by a higher murder rate, or other reasoning but the problem lies in the fact that this percentage is double what it was in 1980. Because of the high cost of medicine, failure to prevent disease, and this insatiable thirst by big pharma to excite Wall Street with a new blockbuster drug to treat a disease that they invented to increase profits makes taking care of those of with limited financial resources impossible.
I don’t espouse a welfare state but I do feel that we are leaving a significant part of our society behind and in turn creating anomosity between our citizens. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing people yet we subsidize the wealthy and large corporations such as the pharmaceutical industry on the shoulders of the middle class.
Topics: Health, Healthcare, Opinion, Research | No Comments »
Bye, Bye Dr. Jarvik
By Mark Schauss | March 4, 2008
In one of my earlier blogs, I talk about the insipid ads put out by Pfizer that use Dr. Robert Jarvik to tout its best selling drug Lipitor. I’ve blogged before about who this guy really is and how he should not be the spokesperson as he never practiced medicine and he is no expert on coronary heart disease. Because of pressure from Congress, Pfizer has pulled the plug on his ads.
Pfizer claims, “The way in which we presented Dr. Jarvik in these ads has, unfortunately, led to misimpressions and distractions from our primary goal of encouraging patient and physician dialogue on the leading cause of death in the world — cardiovascular disease. We regret this,” Ian Read, Pfizer’s president of worldwide pharmaceutical operations, said in a statement.
Problem here is that the damage was done and there were no repercussions to Pfizer for having deceived the public yet again. Sadly, money triumphs over medicine and science.
Topics: Health, Opinion | No Comments »
More Tips on Lowering Your Carbon Footprint
By Mark Schauss | March 4, 2008
In an earlier post, I gave you 25 different ways of “greening” your life. Here is a great little pamphlet on how to lower your carbon footprint from the Fight Global Warming website from Environmental Defense . Here is one for your kids to get involved, and a discussion on what the real science says about global warming.
Topics: Environment, Global Warming, Opinion | No Comments »
Combinational Toxicity – The Toxic Soup Within Our Bodies
By Mark Schauss | March 3, 2008
In an article published in the British journal, New Scientist, author Bijal Trivedi reports on how combinations of the toxic effects of the toxins within our bodies can be far greater than the sum of the toxins. Say if the lethality of each of 8 chemical toxicant by themselves was .01 on a scale of 0-5, with 0 being non-toxic and 5 being deadly. Put them together in your blood stream and the toxicity goes to 4, you can see that each alone add up to just .08, but combine them and they become much more toxic, you see why scientists in the field of toxicology are getting nervous seeing that there are an estimated 75,000 artificial chemicals that you and I are exposed to every day.
As Mr. Trivedi point out, “Most toxicity testing has been done on a chemical-by-chemical basis, often by exposing rats to a range of concentrations to find the maximum dose that causes no harm.” Dr. Andreas Kortenkamp from the University of London found that when he added 8 chemicals ranging from plasticisers, sunscreen ingredients and others found in cooling and insulating fluids in quantities that were considered very low or the level toxicologist call “no-observed-effect concentration, something strange happened. The chemical combination created an endocrine disruption which should not have logically happened. The effect is called “the new math – zero plus zero equals something.”
As noted phthalate researcher Shanna Swan said “People can’t keep phthalates [or other chemicals] out of their air, water or food.” So what to do? Make your body an efficient detoxifier. Make sure you eat organic when possible and test yourself for toxins to see if you have high levels in your body. One real good test is the Environmental Pollutants Biomarker from US Biotek, From that test you can find out what detoxification protocol you need to do to the best protect yourself from the inevitable exposures you face each and every day.
Topics: Environment, Health, Laboratory Tests, Opinion, Research, Toxicity | No Comments »
Chemicals Found In Children – No Problem If You Believe Professional Denier
By Mark Schauss | February 29, 2008
Elizabeth Whelan, the President of the American Council on Science and Health said in response to a report by CNN about levels of dangerous chemicals being found in children “My concern about this trend about measuring chemicals in the blood is it’s leading people to believe that the mere ability to detect chemicals is the same as proving a hazard, that if you have this chemical, you are at risk of a disease, and that is false.” Huh???
Dr. Whelan is the same women who claims that nutritional supplements are wastes of money and dangerous while working with the well-known anti-supplement Dr. Fredrick Stare, is a shill, for major corporations wanting the public to continue to be blissfully unaware of the toxins being dumped on each of us. All you need to do is look at who funds her so-called public health advocacy organization. As long as you define public as polluting corporations and health as sick people being treated with drugs, well then I guess that’s ok.
Money pays for the “experts” to continue to deny reality. Big tobacco claimed that cigarettes were safe for decades (and guess who ratted them out, yup she did), now Elizabeth Whelan tells you to stop worrying. Remember she worked for many years for the Chemical Manufacturers Associtation so her opinion is highly biased. Don’t listen to her, it does matter. Stop buying toxic substances and go green. Your children will thank you.
Topics: Environment, Health, Opinion | No Comments »
Don’t Use Nalgene Bottles
By Mark Schauss | February 28, 2008
According to researchers at the University of Cincinnati, Nalgene bottles will leach the chemical bisphenol A into water at room temperature. I had previously warned people at my lectures to avoid hot water and Nalgene but now it looks like even normal water temperatures will cause leakage. Read this report from the Environmental Working Group.
Topics: Environment, Health, Research, Toxicity | No Comments »
Antidepressants – Hidden Drug Trials Show Negative Results
By Mark Schauss | February 28, 2008
It almost seems to be an everyday issue, but more and more we see how drug trials that don’t show benefits are being either ignored, hidden or modified by the pharmaceutical industry. In a review of the studies on 12 antidepressant drugs, researchers led by Erick H. Turner found that 31% of the studies on these drugs went unpublished and the majority were negative or were conveyed to have a positive outcome which was contrary to the data. The paper was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, in their January 17, 2008 issue. What was truly remarkable was how much the perceived benefits of the drugs were changed because of the lack of publication of all of the data. According to the authors, if you looked at the published research, the antidepressant drugs had positive outcomes 94% of the time. If you include the unpublished research that number drops to a mere 51%. This is a huge difference and should make everyone think twice before agreeing to be put on the medications or at least safer, alternatives should be investigated first.
According to the papers conclusion, “We cannot determine whether the bias observed resulted from a failure to submit manuscripts on the part of authors and sponsors, from decisions by journal editors and reviewers not to publish, or both. Selective reporting of clinical trial results may have adverse consequences for researchers, study participants, health care professionals, and patients.” In my opinion, it is the sponsors who are probably most likely to apply pressure to stop publication. This would mean that the pharmaceutical industry is to blame. We need to take research on drug efficacy out of their hands and into the hands of real researchers without the onus of pressure and conflict of interest.
Why is this so damaging? When you do a search on meta-analysis of antidepressant drugs, you find a number that show how beneficial the drugs are, like the one by Drs. Dubika, Hadley and Roberts entitled, “Suicidal behaviour in youths with depression treated with new-generation antidepressants” published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2006. Would that study’s conclusion, which is that “Antidepressants may cause a small short-term risk of self-harm or suicidal events in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder” have changed to a large short-term risk or a small long-term risk or maybe worst case scenario, a large long-term risk? Chances are, based on the Turner paper that the answer is yes, the results would have changed but by how much, we cannot tell.
What we can say is that there is a major problem that needs a solution and it has to come sooner than later. How many of us are on medications that may not be helping us or maybe damaging our health and that of our loved ones?
So what do we do about it? Determine biochemical imbalances and toxicity influences on behavior as well as inflammatory processes that have been shown to cause depression in people for decades. The research exists but it is being downplayed by greedy pharmaceutical giants whose obvious intention is to make money at all costs and deflect criticism and downgrade safe alternatives.
Topics: Drugs, Neurological Disorders, Opinion, Research | No Comments »
Pesticides and Autism – More Data Supporting My View on the Effect of Toxins
By Mark Schauss | February 27, 2008
At the AutismOne conference back in 2005, I was in room #2 talking about the link of multiple toxins and autism. In room #1 was Dr. Rasheed Buttar who was all about mercury. I told my audience that one day, the multiple toxin theory was going to be in room #1 eventually, maybe not with me in it, but eventually the day would come. One more study, published by the journal Environmental Health Persepectives, has led credence to my theory.
In the October 2007 issue, researchers led by Eric Roberts et al, published a paper called Maternal Residence Near Agricultural Pesticide Applications and Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children in the California Central Valley (click on the link and you get to read the entire paper free of charge). In this paper the authors find that there was an increase in the incidence of autism the closer the pregnant mothers were to certain organophosphate pesticide applications. For years I have said that toxic exposures to the mother can cause fetal developmental disorders depending on the time of the exposure. This is just more data to back up my claims.
My theory has always been than somehow my daughter Tasya was exposed, while in fetal development, to some form of toxin to cause the brain dysfunction that caused her unusual epileptic disorder. I feel that many people with children have had the same issue whether it be autism, epilepsy or even other neurological or health related disorders. Fetuses are very suceptible to the dangers of toxins, more so than anyone else.
One other issue I want to bring up is the preposterous article that gave a clean bill of health to thimerasol by authors publishing in the New England Journal of Medicine. You would be hard pressed find a more poorly done study, misreported by the media, than this. Instead of listing my thoughts on all of the poor study parameters, follow this link to the Adventures in Autism blogsite, run by Ginger Taylor. The one really striking part of her eight part rebutal to this paper is that no autistic children were included in the study. Now that is a convenient way of avoiding finding a link between autism and thimerasol.
Two other very disturbing issues come up as well. First, that around 70% of the participants in the study dropped out. When I worked in the pharmaceutical clinical trial business, it was pretty well known that when you have a drop out rate any where near that level, the study is pretty much worthless. The data cannot be used to make any kind of a judgement. Second real major issue is the huge conflicts of interest among the authors of the study as each one has significant ties to the vaccine manufacturers! Poor judgement on the part of the NEJM to publish this paper, worse than that, for the media to so misrepresent the data.
As you can see from the first part of my post, I do not believe that mercury is the sole cause of autism. It isn’t. Having said that, I believe it is one of the factors in the epidemic of autism.
Topics: Health, Neurological Disorders, Opinion, Research, Toxicity | No Comments »
Prozac – A Failure to Heal
By Mark Schauss | February 26, 2008
In an article published in PLoS Medicine by Drs. Kirsch and colleagues shows that the drug Prozac is no better than placebo in treating depression. Given that placebo has no side-effects, this means that Prozac is not only worthless, but dangerous. By including unpublished, negative studies, the authors found out that the drug is a waste of money and does not benefit the nearly 40 million people taking it.
Better therapies include the use of amino acids among other more natural treatments. When I was suffering from depression back in the early 1980s, I used electrolytes developed by my late mentor John Kitkoski of Life Balances to help. Since my first exposure to them in 1984, I haven’t had one episode of depression. Because of that I developed a line of electrolytes for Crayhon Research called Peltier. Now be forewarned, this is not to be considered a treatment or cure of depression, it is something I feel personally helped me and may help others.
Another ares to look at would be environmental toxins as some of them are known to cause depression. A deficiency of Prozac does not cause depression but an elevated level of lead or mercury can. Excessive exposure to solvents may also dampen mental acuity which in turn can bring on depression. Go to Crayhon Research’s website for more information about the types of tests that can help your health care practitioner determine your level of toxic exposure.
Topics: brain nutrition, Drugs, Environment, Health, heavy metals, Laboratory Tests, Neurological Disorders, Petrochemicals, Research | 1 Comment »