Re: Big corperations are hurting our children

[Guest guest]

So the connection...does the " war on autism " have parallels to the

war on cancer? ... a (somewhat) major policy initiative by a failing

government that has lost respect on all parts of the political

spectrum seeks to divert populace from failed innitiatives elsewhere

by throwing mega-billions (over the years) into extremely lucrative

but ultimately bureaucratic and yes even corrupt expenditures to a

few large " research " corporations? (Sorry- going on a bit of a rant.

The war on cancer turned out to be such a complete farce of

incompetence ... you don't get that level without there also being at

least a considerable amount of " soft " self-dealing corruption.)

Heph

You Hit the nail on the head welcome to the industry of the next

several generations. money money everywhere and no help for anyone

because the loss of this " industry/political mill " would cripple the

next several administrations. You know what would really roast their

marshmallows?!? If our children would become self aware and able to

live without aid and speak for themselves. You know what is most

dangerous to our way of life?? (in government terms) US ARTICULATE<

ABLE< COMPASSIONATE AUTISTIC HUMANS, That can and do work for the

betterment of their children with success. THAT IS WHY RAVEN " S SON

IS BEING FOUGHT FOR!!!!! IF RAVEN CAN DO WHAT ALL THE PROFESSIONALS

CAN'T THEN SHE PROVES THAT SHE/WE DON'T NEED THEM. WE PROVE THEY

EXASERBATE THE PROBLEMS AND DON'T SOLVE THEM. The Simpsons air as

usual, poker gets played alcohol get drunk and kids get addicted to

drugs, families fall apart and it is BUSINESS AS USUAL!!!!!!!!!!

ARGGGGGGGGGHHHH. And children humans people PAY with their lives. A

society without problems is broke and policyless!!!!

[Guest guest]

I've read a few articles lately that trace amounts of lead and mercury are the least of the problems. What is more worrying is that genes for antibiotic resistance have been turning up in bacteria even in some of the most remote places. It is believed that this is due to the fact that 95% of antibiotics pass through the body unaltered. Thus they enter nature and can cause resistance to develop in wild bacteria. The largest source of this contamination comes from the meat industry where strong antibiotics are used to encourage growth and reduce disease in crowded conditions in the factory type ranches.

There problem there is that bacteria exchange DNA with each other, even across species. This would mean resistance could spread from specie to specie over time. It also increases the odds that a formerly innocuous bug could become dangerous and antibiotics could not treat it. Already some germs are showing resistance to even the strongest medicines we have today.

I see this as a greater problem than mercury and such because those things can be cleaned up and stopped from entering the environment. The bacteria, however, are always going to be around. If we end up with several widespread species with strong resistance, it could be a series and permanent threat to life. It might never get that way, of course, but there is the chance.

Interestingly, the worst of these is a staph infection that is very common in hospitals. A few countries in Europe are cracking down on it with simple procedures that don't cost much and have had great effect. The US and most other countries aren't doing this, however, and the biggest stumbling blocks are the doctors themselves, who don't want to be bothered with the extra steps, and the hospital bean counters who resist the small extra cost (never minding the many thousands in extra cost per patient that gets one of these infections, not counting lawsuits).

[Guest guest]

DMSA, DMSP, EDTA and I'm sure a few others are very effective and yes, the vital minerals must be replaced during the chelation. The problem is, alot of cases are not taken seriously by the parents and the doctors. Maybe they don't approach it cautiously enough. I'm skeptical about the National Institutes of Health in the first place. Mercury gets chelated/replaced with selenium, Lead chelated/replaced with trace elements. They may use sodium selenite instead of L-selenomethionine. That is not good. There are so many things that the paper left out. miminm <mnmimi@...> wrote: As more and more parents adopt cures just as damaging to their children as the toxins themselves, the administrators of cures make big money while the children themselves suffer. I have commented that Natural chelators, that don't strip children of vital nutrients and vitamins are better for their delicate systems. Sciece seems to be thinking it is true, but natural remedies are too available and not as costly.Pros and Cons of Therapy for Lead ExposureLead chelation therapy can lessen learning and behavioralproblems due to lead exposure, but the therapy adversely affected rats with no lead in their systems, a Cornell study shows. The finding has implications for the treatment of autistic children.http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/525949/Newswise - Lead chelation

therapy -- a chemical treatment to removelead from the body -- can significantly reduce learning and behavioralproblems that result from lead exposure, a Cornell study of young ratsfinds.However, in a further finding that has implications for the treatmentof autistic children, the researchers say that when rats with no lead intheir systems were treated with the lead-removing chemical, they showeddeclines in their learning and behavior that were similar to the rats thatwere exposed to lead.Chelating drugs, which bind to lead and other metals in the blood, areincreasingly being used for the treatment of autism in children."Although these drugs are widely used to treat lead-exposed children,there is remarkably little research on whether or not they improve cognitiveoutcomes, the major area of concern in relation to childhood leadpoisoning," said Barbara Strupp, Cornell associate professor

of nutritionalsciences and of psychology and the senior author of the study, which waspublished in a recent issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.Studies on the safety or effectiveness of the drugs for treatingautism are similarly lacking, Strupp said.Strupp added that to her knowledge this is the first report that showsthat chelation therapy can reduce behavioral and learning problems due tolead exposure as well as the first to show that this type of treatment canhave lasting adverse effects when administered in the absence of elevatedlevels of heavy metals.The study used succimer (brand name, Chemet), the most widelyprescribed drug for the treatment of lead poisoning. Doctors prefer succimerto other such drugs because it can be given orally on an outpatient basis,and it leaches less zinc, iron and other essential minerals out of the body.Although the Centers for Disease

Control recommends chelation therapy onlyfor children whose blood lead levels exceed 45 micrograms per deciliter,such drugs as succimer are commonly administered at much lower levels ofexposure, due to concerns about lasting complications with even slightlyelevated blood lead levels.It is important to remove lead from the body as quickly as possible toprevent or lessen lasting damage to the developing brain. High-lead exposurefrom peeling lead-based paint can lead to coma, convulsions and even death.At lower levels, lead exposure causes attention deficits, delinquency anddifficulty regulating emotions and can lower IQ scores at a rate of aboutone IQ point per microgram/deciliter of exposure.The study used rats -- whose mental and behavioral responses to leadexposure are similar to humans' -- and exposed them to moderate- andhigh-lead levels (administered via mothers' milk). A third

group -- thecontrol -- was not exposed. Exposures were followed by a treatment withsuccimer or placebo. Immediately thereafter, the researchers conductedautomated tests over six months on the rats' attention, memory and abilitiesto learn and regulate emotions.The rats with moderate-lead exposure benefited greatly from thesuccimer: Their test results were indistinguishable from the control testresults. Rats exposed to higher lead levels showed benefits in the emotionaldomain: After succimer treatment, they behaved similarly to the controlgroup. However, the treatment only slightly improved their learning deficit.In the group that had no lead exposure but were given succimer, "wefound lasting cognition and emotion-regulation [deficits] that were aspervasive and large as rats with high lead exposure," said Strupp. She addedthat one possibility is that succimer, in the absence of lead, may

disruptthe balance of such essential minerals as zinc and iron. "These findingsraise concerns about the use of chelating agents in treating autisticchildren," she said.The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.Among other colleagues, Diane Stangle, a psychology graduate student,and Stephane Beaudin, a research associate in nutritional sciences,contributed to this work. __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/7/2007 3:29:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, drumthis2001@... writes:

Viruses, a few types of bacteria, trace metals, Candida albicans fungi overgrowth due to antibiotics, and the government stepping in and halting the progress of science. Also, one can't believe generalities in a news format. That's only fear tactics and scandal. You are correct though. Bacteria are quickly becoming immune to antibiotics. What's more is antibiotics are over-prescribed and they are not at all effective for most of the reported conditions they're prescribed for.

I don't think government would have to halt to progress of science, but should rather make a couple of simple reforms.

First off, they would have to get doctors to stop prescribing antibiotics for every little thing. Instead, a new class of drugs should be, and should have been, developed that would boost the immune system. Such medicines would primarily be vitamin and herb based, preferably in two separate tablets in case someone has an allergic reaction to the herbs. Some chemicals could be added to a second tier version for more serious infection to be used with the first treatment option or in addition to antibiotics. This would make it easier for the body to fight infection without need for powerful drugs.

Second, farmers should have to reduce their use of drugs on their animals. Alternatively, they should have to catch and treat run off from the livestock pens, or use much lower doses of antibiotics. The best option though would be to use them only on actually sick animals. This might mean more land would be need for farms, but that is fine. Just give the farmers a tax break on their land to compensate. This would also work to limit urban sprawl.

Third. Anyone with a drug resistant strain of a disease, such as Tuberculosis should be temporarily confined in a sanitarium until they complete a round or two of treatment. Most people with such diseases are allowed to live in public and often don't finish their treatments, which only makes the disease stronger. I can't tell you how horrified I was while watching a program to see a woman in Los Angeles come in for a check up. She had drug resistant TB and the doctors but on gloves and masks and put her in a sealed chamber to have her cough to get samples. Then they let her walk out the door, where she walked into a crowd, coughing. If the doctors were that afraid of catching it, how on earth could they turn her loose on an unsuspecting public? even 50 years ago people with TB and Typhus were put away until they were cured.

Nanoparticles could help to clean up some of this mess, but then they can also cause trouble too. We don't really know what those things will do, and some are strongly suspected of causing brain damage, though that is hard to confirm and not much research is being done along those lines.

I also don't think it is a fear tactic to be concerned about new diseases. Until penicillin, plain old garden variety diseases were the leading killer in the world, and still are in some places. The weaker antibiotics get, the closer we come to returning to that kind of age. There could always be another Black Death, probably Avian Flu, but it could also be a bacteria.

At any rate, it is something that should be addressed. Really it should have been addressed 50 years ago when doctors were foolish enough to think we had beaten the microbe. Managed to forget all about evolution. If a clamp down had been done in the 1970's we'd be better off today.

[Guest guest]

There's the certain Staphylococcus that has an orange tint as it contains beta-carotene like compounds. Viruses are pretty rampant. Helicobacter Pylori is killed with antibiotics. H.Pylori causes stomach cancer. The scientists have come up with solutions to these problems. However, like you said there are obstacles. The obstacle is one thing: money. If drug companies are to make money there must be disease. They want to ensure that people keep getting diseases because their only obligation is to make a dollar or 50 trillion. Those animals are diseased because yes, they are crowded and number two because they are fed grains which aren't a part of their natural diet. The problems are: Viruses, a few types of bacteria, trace metals, Candida albicans fungi overgrowth due to antibiotics, and the government stepping in and halting the progress of science. Also, one can't believe generalities in a news format. That's only fear tactics and scandal. You are correct though.

Bacteria are quickly becoming immune to antibiotics. What's more is antibiotics are over-prescribed and they are not at all effective for most of the reported conditions they're prescribed for. Nanoparticles are going to be used for waste management and I imagine they'll use them for cleaning up antibiotics eventually too. VISIGOTH@... wrote: I've read a few articles lately that trace amounts of lead and mercury are the least of the problems. What is more

worrying is that genes for antibiotic resistance have been turning up in bacteria even in some of the most remote places. It is believed that this is due to the fact that 95% of antibiotics pass through the body unaltered. Thus they enter nature and can cause resistance to develop in wild bacteria. The largest source of this contamination comes from the meat industry where strong antibiotics are used to encourage growth and reduce disease in crowded conditions in the factory type ranches. There problem there is that bacteria exchange DNA with each other, even across species. This would mean resistance could spread from specie to specie over time. It also increases the odds that a formerly innocuous bug could become dangerous and antibiotics could not treat it. Already some germs are showing resistance to even the strongest medicines we have today. I see this as a greater problem than mercury and such because

those things can be cleaned up and stopped from entering the environment. The bacteria, however, are always going to be around. If we end up with several widespread species with strong resistance, it could be a series and permanent threat to life. It might never get that way, of course, but there is the chance. Interestingly, the worst of these is a staph infection that is very common in hospitals. A few countries in Europe are cracking down on it with simple procedures that don't cost much and have had great effect. The US and most other countries aren't doing this, however, and the biggest stumbling blocks are the doctors themselves, who don't want to be bothered with the extra steps, and the hospital bean counters who resist the small extra cost (never minding the many thousands in extra cost per patient that gets one of these infections, not counting lawsuits). __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

william,

I like what you have written but there are several inhibitors to the

concept. Loss of profit and consistancy, consideration and

dilligence. The community at large and the medical community are not

really willing to risk a paradigm shift. So many people subsist on

the " status quo " . The risk to lifestyle and the resistance to change

aren't just Aspie traits. Paradigm shifts are necessitated by things

like the " Black Death " monumental suffering bordering on a wiping

out of the human species, seem to be the necessary elements. Gee,

lucky for us cataclismic events seem to be on the horizon. So wanted

or not desired or not change will be comming. The environment and

our own Genome will push the envelope. The Black death only took 300

years to tease out. Fifty years is mere infancy to the correction of

problems. Many have yet to realize that there are any problems.

Even with our advances (I say " our " and yet my degree in bioscience

seems to be missing) In communication medicine and information/data

transfer people still take in information slowly. We can only hope

our discussion will have an impact in the next 50 years and that

those people will be in time to inact the changes we are discussing

now. Evolution stops for noone. It is still my strong feeling that

AS/ASD is part of that matrix. Change is imminent, consideration,

cultivation, determination. Those willing to nurse the new idiology

into place will be the mavericks, and trail blazers. Don't leave it

to the sheep. As I have stated I love people from afar but up close

I find them obtuse, uninformed, and near oblivious. People don't

seem to want to work, they want to bask in the sun, having not earned

it. While other run around like the little red hen. In my life I am

a red hen (actually it is my zodiAC symbol (well the rooster anyway))

The point being all we really can do is Red hen the lives we

ourselves touch. You know the corny saying. Be the change you want

in the world. I focus on mine we all focus on our own and in that

way we all enact change.

Different focuses= varied widespread change. Happy new year mimi

[Guest guest]

Drugs aren't the answer and never have been. Yes, antibiotics are prescribed because doctors don't have the time to run extensive tests on toxins. I found out I'm allergic to St. 's wort. So, yeah there are allergies. It's literally sickening how much estrogen is shot into the farm animals. It's no wonder that there are new endocrine disorders popping up out of the blue. Yes, docs are pressured by colleauges and so forth. I'll have to finish this up tomorrow. Yikes. I have to be at work in five minutes. VISIGOTH@... wrote: In a message dated 1/7/2007 3:29:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, drumthis2001 writes: Viruses, a few types of bacteria, trace metals, Candida albicans fungi overgrowth due to antibiotics, and the government stepping in and halting the progress of science. Also, one can't believe generalities in a news format. That's only fear tactics and scandal. You are correct though. Bacteria are quickly becoming immune to antibiotics. What's more is antibiotics are over-prescribed and they are not at all effective for most of the reported conditions they're prescribed for. I don't think government would have to halt to progress of science, but should rather make a couple of simple reforms. First off, they would have to get doctors to stop prescribing antibiotics for every little thing. Instead, a new class of drugs should be, and should have been, developed that would boost the immune system. Such medicines would primarily be vitamin and herb based, preferably in two separate tablets in case someone has an allergic reaction to the herbs. Some chemicals could be added to a second tier version for more serious infection to be used with the first treatment option or in addition to antibiotics. This would make it easier for the body to fight infection without need for powerful drugs. Second, farmers should have to reduce their use of drugs on their animals. Alternatively, they should have to catch and treat run off from the livestock pens, or use much lower doses of antibiotics. The best option though would be to use them only on actually sick animals. This might mean more land would be need for farms, but that is fine. Just

give the farmers a tax break on their land to compensate. This would also work to limit urban sprawl. Third. Anyone with a drug resistant strain of a disease, such as Tuberculosis should be temporarily confined in a sanitarium until they complete a round or two of treatment. Most people with such diseases are allowed to live in public and often don't finish their treatments, which only makes the disease stronger. I can't tell you how horrified I was while watching a program to see a woman in Los Angeles come in for a check up. She had drug resistant TB and the doctors but on gloves and masks and put her in a sealed chamber to have her cough to get samples. Then they let her walk out the door, where she walked into a crowd, coughing. If the doctors were that afraid of catching it, how on earth could they turn her loose on an unsuspecting public? even 50 years ago people with TB and Typhus were put away until they were cured. Nanoparticles could help to clean up some of this mess, but then they can also cause trouble too. We don't really know what those things will do, and some are strongly suspected of causing brain damage, though that is hard to confirm and not much research is being done along those lines. I also don't think it is a fear tactic to be concerned about new diseases. Until penicillin, plain old garden variety diseases were the leading killer in the world, and still are in some places. The weaker antibiotics get, the closer we come to returning to that kind of age. There could always be another Black Death, probably Avian Flu, but it could also be a bacteria. At any rate, it is something that should be addressed. Really it should have been addressed 50 years ago when doctors were foolish enough to think we had beaten the microbe. Managed to forget all about evolution. If a clamp down had been

done in the 1970's we'd be better off today. __________________________________________________