TRICLOSAN

Sunday, August 29, 2010

FDA Looking into Triclosan?

 
UPDATE: 8/29/10  Triclosan and antibacterial warnings -
Updates at Natural Healing through Natural Health -

New article here from Jill Richardson, compiling much of what we have been teaching about the risk of triclosan since the late 80s.

from Natural Health News...
Apr 09, 2010
In a claim filed Tuesday, the National Resources Defense Council says the FDA didn't regulate the levels of triclosan and triclocarban in the soap, two toxic chemicals that can cause problems with reproductive organs, sperm quality and ...
Apr 16, 2005
The main reason for my advice has been that these chemicals, such as triclosan, disturb the balance of naturally occurring staph bacteria on the skin's surface (epidermis). Now here is more convincing evidence. ...
Nov 01, 2009
If the product contains Triclosan, also be cautious: Researchers who added triclosan to water and exposed it to ultra-violet light found that a significant portion of the triclosan was converted to dioxin. Triclosan reacts with chlorine ...
May 26, 2008
But I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has some
Dec 26, 2009
These contain Triclosan and will kill off naturally occurring bacteria on your skin that serves to protect you from infection. Many non-effective anti-biotics are on the market today and some of these have very serious side effects.


UPDATE: 8/21/10 - Two Dangerous Ingredients in Everyday Products That Are Threatening Our Health
Triclosan and triclocarban are widely used in antibacterial soaps, body washes, deodorants, lip glosses, dog shampoos, shave gels and even toothpastes. Read more...
UPDATE: 7/30/10 - 

Health Group Sues FDA Over 'Dangerous' Antibacterial Soap

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is being sued by a nonprofit environmental group for what the members claim is dangerous “antimicrobial” soap, Reuters reports.
In a claim filed Tuesday, the National Resources Defense Council says the FDA didn’t regulate the levels of triclosan and triclocarban in the soap, two toxic chemicals that can cause problems with reproductive organs, sperm quality and the production of thyroid and sex hormones.
Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, is named as a defendant in the suit, but no specific manufacturers or retailers were mentioned, according to Reuters.
The nonprofit claims it first approached the FDA about regulating this soap and other personal care products for over-the-counter use more than 30 years ago, but no action has been taken.
According to the lawsuit, the FDA proposed a ban from interstate trading of both chemicals in 1978 but nothing changed until 1994 when some ingredients were reclassified, Reuters reports.
The FDA said in April that the ingredient triclosan has not been shown to be harmful
to humans and that further study is needed.
The plaintiffs are requesting the FDA be given a deadline to complete its study on the conditions for using these products.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted April 2010: It never ceases to amaze me just how slow out US government agencies are slow to act to protect the citizenry. And they won't comment until sometime in 2011. Maybe an addendum to the health bill should require that the FDA clean up its political quagmires.

I've been warning about triclosan for at least 15 years, based on the science and at least the MSDS data.

What is so bad about triclosan is that is destroys what is referred to as the protective "acid mantle" of the skin, and creates a breeding ground for infection because it destroys the healthy bacteria on your skin:the healthy bacteria that is there to protect you from infection.

This is one time it pays to read labels and another to look to the use of natural castile soaps without fragrance and using truly health promoting skin lubrication like you can get from my colleague at Kettle Care.

FDA Warns of Risk in Antibacterial Additive
By Cole Petrochko, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: April 08, 2010


WASHINGTON -- The FDA has notified consumers that the antibacterial agent triclosan's safety data is being reviewed due to concerns raised in lab tests on animals.
Research from the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development found triclosan had thyroid and estrogen effects in animals.
The agent is a common ingredient in antibacterial soaps and washes, toothpastes, and cosmetics, all of which are regulated by the FDA.
The ingredient's profile was raised in January when Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, wrote the FDA to ask about a review of triclosan's use in consumer products.
Additional investigation was deemed necessary after animal studies showed potential negative effects of the ingredient, the FDA said in a prepared statement. Though studies are ongoing, the FDA does not currently have enough evidence to suggest a change to any consumer products with triclosan.
The FDA noted that although triclosan provided a clear benefit in some consumer products, the extra health benefit it offered in others was not as apparent.
The agency advised consumers that the ingredient poses no apparent danger to humans, but that soaps and body washes with triclosan may not provide additional health benefits over soaps without the additive; consumers concerned about its potential health hazards should switch to regular soaps without triclosan.
The FDA announced it will work with other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to study the effects of triclosan on humans, animals, and the environment.
The agency said it planned to publish its findings in spring 2011.
Chloroform Danger With Antimicrobial Soap, a 2005 post from Natural Health News
Nov 01, 2009
If the product contains Triclosan, also be cautious: Researchers who added triclosan to water and exposed it to ultra-violet light found that a significant portion of the triclosan was converted to dioxin.Triclosan reacts with chlorine ...
May 26, 2008
But I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has some ...
Dec 26, 2009
These contain Triclosan and will kill off naturally occurring bacteria on your skin that serves to protect you from infection. Many non-effective anti-biotics are on the market today and some of these have very serious side effects. ... 

Saturday, April 16, 2005:  Chloroform Danger With Antimicrobial Soap

 
It's now been over six or seven years that I have advised people not to use hand soaps with anti-bacterial ingredients. The main reason for my advice has been that these chemicals, such as triclosan, disturb the balance of naturally occuring staph bacteria on the skin's surface (epidermis). Now here is more convincing evidence.

The problem remains that this substance is not just in soaps, but many other items labelled as "anti-bacterial". It has been proven over the years that the process of hand washing, and the friction it causes, aids in the removal of dirt, grime and bacteria. A best bet is to get our natural hand cleaner with pure essential oils, and switch to one of our recommended 'safe'soaps, herbalYODA Says! 

By Kellyn Betts, Environmental Science & Technology
4-15-5

Washing dishes by hand with an antibacterial dishwashing liquid can do more than just ensure that the plates, glasses, and silverware are free from grease and germs, according to Peter Vikesland of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In research published this week on ES&T's Research ASAP website (es048943+), he and his colleagues show that the triclosan antimicrobial agent used in household dishwashing soaps reacts with chlorinated water to produce significant quantities of chloroform. The research also suggests that the reaction of triclosan with chlorine could be producing highly chlorinated dioxins in the presence of sun
light. 

Because of its antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral properties, triclosan is found in toothpastes, acne creams, deodorants, lotions, and hand soaps. It is also incorporated into a wide range of consumer goods, including kitchen tiles, children's toys, cutting boards, toothbrush handles, hot tubs, and athletic clothing. As triclosan flows down drains, it is making its way into surface waters and sewage treatment plants, the bile of fish, and breast milk, according to the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, a consumer group. Since 2000, the American Medical Association has been urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to closely monitor and possibly regulate the home use of antimicrobials such as triclosan. 

The formation of chloroform from triclosan is of concern because the U.S. EPA classifies the compound as a probable human carcinogen. Moreover, the presence of trihalomethanes such as chloroform in drinking water has been linked with human bladder cancers and miscarriages.

The reaction of phenols such as triclosan with free chlorine is well known, but Vikesland's research is important because "it ties the use of a household product [to] increased exposure to a disinfection byproduct," says David Sedlak, a professor in the civil and environmental engineering department at the University of California, Berkeley. "This research is important for demonstrating that the chlorination of triclosan can occur under environmentally relevant conditions," says Kristopher McNeill of the University of Minnesota's department of chemistry. "The fact that you can chlorinate triclosan [under] pretty mild conditions is troubling," he adds.

Since writing the paper, Vikesland's team has conducted follow-up research under conditions that more closely mimic those found during home dishwashing. The new experiments used EPA's maximum allowable residual disinfectant concentration of 4 milligrams per liter in tap water and were conducted at 40 C, which fits well with the cleaning recommendations of the Soap and Detergent Association. (The association's website says that dishwater temperatures of less than 33 C, even with sufficient detergent, are likely to leave a greasy film, while the hottest water most people's hands can tolerate is about 43 C.) 

Under these conditions, triclosan reacts with free chlorine to generate more than 50 parts per billion (ppb) of chloroform in the dishwater. When combined with the other trihalomethanes in the water, the additional chloroform could easily ratchet up the concentration of total trihalomethanes to 80 ppb, which is EPA's maximum allowable amount, or higher, Vikesland says. 

"Since chloroform and other trihalomethanes and disinfection byproducts are already likely to be present in the tap water, and since chloroform, the other THMs, and many other [disinfection byproducts] are highly volatile, there is a very real likelihood that washing dishes with triclosan-containing liquid could cause additional and troubling significant exposure to these volatiles through inhalation and potentially through dermal absorbtion," says Erik D. Olson, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental group. Olson calls the research "significant." 

Water treatment plants are working hard to keep the levels of trihalomethanes in tap water below 80 ppb, Vikesland says, noting that the admissible level has recently decreased from 100 ppb. If there is any bromide in the water, the level of trihalomethanes produced during dishwashing is likely to shoot up even higher, he says. 

The research makes clear that it is always wise to wear gloves when dishwashing, says Doris Day, M.D., an assistant professor of dermatology at New York University Medical Center. In light of previous studies showing that the levels of trihalomethanes in people's blood increase when they shower, the research raises questions about exposures to chloroform when antimicrobial soaps are used. At this point, however, no one knows what risk they may pose. 

Vikesland's research also shows that triclosan's reaction with free chlorine produces a number of chlorinated triclosan intermediates, including 2,4 dichlorophenol. In the presence of sunlight, these chlorinated intermediates could be producing dioxins, say McNeill and his colleague, William Arnold of the University of Minnesota's department of civil engineering. The two have recently demonstrated that sunlight readily converts triclosan in river water to produce dioxins (Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2005, 24, 517ñ525). But the more highly chlorinated dioxins that could be generated photochemically from chlorinated triclosan intermediates could be far more toxic, says McNeill. 

It is unlikely that such dioxins would be generated during dishwashing even near a window on a sunny day because the glass would screen out most of the ultraviolet light necessary to produce the dioxin. But the research suggests that dioxins could be forming near swimming pools in some situations. "There's triclosan in hand soaps and moisturizers. [If] someone who has triclosan-containing moisturizer [on jumps] into the pool Ö they're a potential source for chloroform [and chlorinated dioxin] formation," Vikesland says. The same is true for a child using an antimicrobial soap before getting into the pool, McNeill and Arnold agree. "You could produce a dioxin on the surface of your skin [that] gets absorbed through the skin," Sedlak adds. 

McNeill and Arnold say that the research also calls for more detailed studies of whether chlorinated triclosans are being released from wastewater treatment plants. Because triclosan is widely found in the environment, chlorinated triclosan could be a source of toxic dioxins in the environment, says Arnold. Research has already shown that the presence of triclosan can affect algae populations (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 162Añ164A). 

Copyright © 2005 American Chemical Society 

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/apr/science/kb_chlorine.html
Share:

Our Best Wishes for Your Naturally Healthy New Year


"Medicine doesn't get to the root of the trouble. It only conceals it. The result is a more highly poisoned condition which may become chronic disease. All drugs are harmful to the system. They are contrary to nature.

Mark my words.

There is no way to health except the natural way."

("M" to Bond 007, in Thunderball.)
Share:

FLUORIDE: Protecting the Public From Harmful Dentist Dogma

No need for me to say more. You can use our search function to locate other articles we have posted on the hazards of fluoride.

The Basics of Regulatory Toxicology: Protecting the Public from Harmful substances By Paul Connett

A note to readers Some readers may find this bulletin a little daunting but please don’t be put off. Take it step by step. If you do you will know more about this subject than most of the proponents of fluoridation. We need you to be better armed than they are so please struggle if necessary to get on top of this. I am happy to answer any questions you may have on this topic (write to pconnett@gmail.com).
Many promoters know little about toxicology So many of the statements and arguments coming from proponents of fluoridation betray their lack of knowledge of basic toxicological principles especially as it is applied in the regulatory field. It is one thing when such poorly informed positions emanate from lay persons but quite another when it comes from pediatricians or people at the very top of large organizations promoting fluoridation. Here is one shocking example. The appalling toxicological ignorance of the American Dental Association (ADA) was demonstrated when it dismissed the relevance of the landmark review by National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) on the very day it was published in 2006. The same ignorance was displayed by the CDC Oral Health Division six days later. Both organizations argued that the NRC (2006) was not relevant to water fluoridation because the panel (they claimed) only looked at harm in communities with fluoride levels between 2 and 4 ppm. There are four major problems with this position: a) The NRC panel looked at several studies in which harm was found at less than 2 ppm b) Chapter 2 of the NRC (2006) review consisted of an exposure analysis that concluded that certain subsets of the US population (including bottle-fed babies) drinking water at 1 ppm were exceeding the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) safe reference dose for fluoride (0.06 mg/kg/day). c) Neither the ADA or the CDC Oral Health Division appears to realize that there is a difference between concentration and dose. When comparing two populations and considering whether a certain concentration is safe or not one must first calculate the dose involved. This depends on how much water is consumed. As far as a harmful dose is concerned there will be an overlap between the doses ingested by individuals when comparing two communities – one drinking water at 1 ppm fluoride and one drinking water at 4 ppm – and even more so when comparing 1 ppm and 2 ppm. This overlap will occur even before we consider individuals exposed to other sources of fluoride. It is the total daily dose that is the critical calculation as far as harm is concerned. So both the ADA and CDC are incorrect when they imply there is a margin of safety simply because harm has been found at a higher concentration (in the studies cited by the NRC) and not necessarily at the 1 ppm used in water fluoridation. Concentration is not an appropriate basis for comparison as far as toxicity or safety is concerned. d) They also ignored the need to use a safety factor when extrapolating from small studies to estimate a safe dose needed to protect everyone in a large population.
I will now go into more detail on these issues below.
The difference between concentration and dose.
Concentration is measured in milligrams (mg) of fluoride per liter (1 mg/liter = 1 part per million or ppm). This can be controlled at the water works. Dose is measured in mg/day and this cannot be controlled as it depends on how much someone drinks – and some drink a lot – and how much fluoride they are getting from other sources. It is the total dose that has the potential to harm someone. The concentration (mg/liter) offers no guarantee of safety. It is actually worse than that, which brings us to part b) above.
The difference between dose and dosage. The same dose (mg/day) can have different affects on different people. There are two reasons for this: 1) because in a large population there is a large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance (more about that later) and 2) because the same dose can have a very different affect on people of different body weights. This is especially relevant when comparing the impacts of the same dose on adults and infants. That is why toxicologists use a different measure called dosage. In this they take account of body weight by dividing the dose in mg/day by the adult’s average body weight of 70 kg. Thus supposing it was determined that 7 mg/day was safe for an adult (for some health end point), then the safe dosage (sometimes referred to as a safe reference dose) which can be applied to anyone of any weight including an infant, would be 0.1 mg/kg body weight per day. 7mg/day divided by 70 kg = 0.1 mg/kg/day Going from safe dosage to safe dose for a particular body weight From a safe dosage we can work out a safe dose for any age range by multiplying the safe dosage by the average bodyweight for that age range. Thus for a 7 kg infant the safe dose for this hypothetical situation would be 0.7 mg/day and for a 20 kg child it would be 2 mg/day.
The EPA’s Iris Reference Dose (Dosage) Going back to the real world. The (EPA) determined a safe reference dosage (for the end point of moderate dental fluorosis) of 0.06 mg/kg/day (the so-called IRIS reference dose). Using this Iris reference dose we can determine the safe dose for a bottle-fed infant – at least for dental fluorosis. Assuming an average bodyweight of 7 kg, the safe dose would be 7 kg x 0.06 mg/kg/day = 0.42 mg/day. A 7 kg infant drinking 800 ml of formula per day made up with fluoridated water at 1 ppm, would receive 0.8 liters x 1 mg/liter/ day = 0.8 mg/day. In other words a bottle-fed baby consuming water at 1 ppm fluoride would get about twice the safe dose based upon the EPA’s IRIS safe reference dose.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s safe reference dosage for bone ATSDR’s reference dosage for the end point of bone damage was set at 0.05 mg/kg/day. A 70 kg adult would exceed this safe reference dosage if they ingested more than 3.5 mg/day (0.05 mg/kg/day x 70 kg = 3.5 mg/day). Such an adult could exceed this safe reference dosage by i) drinking 3.5 liters of water at 1 ppm (3.5 L x 1 mg/Liter/day = 3.5 mg/day) ii) drinking 2.5 liters of water at 1 ppm and getting 1 mg/day from other sources. iii) drinking 1.5 liters of water at 1 ppm and getting 2 mg/day from other sources. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s (DHHS) report from 1991 estimated that the range of exposure of the American adult was 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day from all sources.
The large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance In any large population we can anticipate a very large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance. Like other human traits such sensitivity follows a normal distribution curve (the famous bell-shaped curve). The average person will have an average response but at the two tails – we will have people who are very sensitive at one end and very resistant at the other. Typically we assume some people are going to be 10 times more sensitive than others. This is then used to generate a safety factor of 10 (sometimes referred to as the intra-species safety factor). Thus if we find harm in a small human study and wish to determine the level that would protect everyone in a large population from that harm this is what we do. We take the dose, which has been found to cause no harm (the so-called no observable adverse effect level or NOAEL) and divide that dose by 10 to give a safe dose for the most sensitive individual in the population. Frequently we don’t have a NOAEL and so we have to use a LOAEL (the lowest observable adverse effect level) and divide that by 100. Sometimes this process is corrupted and it is the LOAEL not the NOAEL that is divided by 10.
Margin of Safety Analysis Applying these calculations in a real world situation is called a Margin of Safety Analysis and shockingly it is very seldom considered by people who promote fluoridation. They simply use the very crude and highly misleading approach of comparing the concentration used in the study group with the concentration of the fluoride in the water of the fluoridated population as discussed above.
An example of a Margin of Safety analysis using an IQ study Here I will attempt a real world calculation for lowered IQ. I will use the study by Xiang et al. 2003 who reported a threshold for lowering of IQ at 1.9 ppm of fluoride in the water. Our first task is to estimate the dose range this represents for the children in the study – which of course, will depend on how much water they drink and how much they get from other sources. We believe very few of these rural Chinese children use fluoridated toothpaste and thus their daily dose comes largely from the water. • If they drank 2 liters of water per day at 1.9 mg/liter their daily dose would be (2 L x 1.9 mg/L ) = 3.8 mg/day. • If they drank 1 liter of water per day their daily dose would be 1.9 mg/day • If they drank 0.5 liters of water per day their daily dose would be approx 1 mg/day. In other words a reasonable estimate of the range of dose leading to a lowered IQ was approximately 1- 4 mg/day. If we treat this as a NOAEL the safe range of doses of fluoride to protect the most sensitive child in a large population would be 0.1 to 0.4 mg/day (1-4 mg/day divided by 10). In other words we wouldn’t want a child in a large population drinking more than 400 ml (0.4 L) of water (0.4 liters/day x 1 mg/liter = 0. 4 mg/day). If the Xiang’s et al. study is valid a responsible regulatory authority would not allow water fluoridation. Little wonder then that fluoridation promoters are doing everything they can to criticize the methodology of the Xiang et al. study and the methodology of all the other 36 studies (out of 43) that have found a lowering of IQ associated with drinking naturally occurring fluoridated water ranging from 0.9 to 11.5 ppm. Fourteen of the studies, ten of which were part of the 27 studies reviewed in the meta analysis carried out by the Harvard team (Choi et al., 2012), found a lowering of IQ at or lower than 3 ppm. Using the same calculation as above the lowering of IQ was associated with a range of fluoride from 1.5 – 6 mg/day in these fourteen studies. Thus dividing by the safety margin of 10 a dose estimated to be safe for the most sensitive child in a large population would range from 0.15 to 0.6 mg/day. Even if we take the highest (i.e. least conservative) estimate, such a dose would be exceeded by a child drinking about two large glasses of 1 ppm fluoridated water per day (it could be worse than that because I am using these doses as NOAELs and not LOAELs).
US EPA Office of Water is Not Doing its job. Using a large amount of taxpayers’ money the US EPA paid the NRC to do the review of their safe drinking water standards discussed above. When the NRC panel released its report in March 2006 it concluded that the EPA’s current safe drinking water standard of 4 ppm (both the MCL and the MCLG are set at 4 ppm) were not protective of health. The panel recommended that the EPA Office of Water perform a new risk assessment and determine a new safe MCLG (maximum contaminant level goal).
The difference between an MCL and an MCLG The MCL (or maximum contaminant level) for the contaminant in question is a federally enforceable standard and for fluoride it was set at 4 ppm in 1986 by the EPA Office of Water. The MCLG (or maximum contaminant level goal) is a goal based upon the best science as far as determining harm is concerned with a margin of safety analysis applied sufficient “to protect the most vulnerable from known and reasonably anticipated health effects.” As the name suggests this is not a standard but an ideal goal. Incredibly this was also set at 4 ppm for fluoride in 1986. What frequently happens for naturally occurring contaminants (e.g. arsenic) is that the economic costs of removing the contaminant to the desired goal (i.e. MCLG) is prohibitively expensive and so a compromise is set between the ideal goal and what can be achieved economically. It is this compromise level, which is the MCL. For arsenic - because it is a known human carcinogen - the MCLG is set at 0. The MCL is set at 10 parts per billion (ppb).
The EPA has not determined a new MCLG after 7 years It is extremely disturbing that after nearly 7 years the EPA’s Office of Water has not completed the needed risk assessment to determine a new MCLG. Had the EPA used any one of several end points finding harm in the NRC (2006) review (but particularly the IQ studies) and performed an appropriate margin of safety analysis as discussed above a new MCLG would have to be set well below 1 ppm and thus end water fluoridation immediately. However, it may be that the EPA’s Office of Water is not anxious to remove the rug from under the program that the DHHS (or its preceding agencies) have championed for over 68 years.
Going from a safe reference dose to an MCLG for fluoride Once one has determined a safe dose sufficient to protect for the full range of sensitivity in a large population the following steps are needed to determine a safe drinking water standard or in this case the MCLG (the maximum contaminant level goal). We will use another real world example. As explained above using the 14 IQ studies that found a lowering of IQ at 3 ppm or lower a conservative safe dose would be 0.6 mg/day (actually more conservatively it would be 0.15 mg/day). Now we would have to subtract from this the dose ingested from other fluoride sources. For many children this would be well over 0.6 mg/day (from swallowing toothpaste and food sources). Thus the regulatory agency would have to conclude that given current exposures to fluoride no extra fluoride could be condoned. Thus the MCLG would have to be set at ZERO ppm (like arsenic and lead) – and that dear readers would be the end, finito, morte for water fluoridation!* This looks like a clear example of bad politics keeping fluoridation afloat. If you can follow the above arguments you will understand this and be in a better position to argue the case. Given a fair hearing, an application of honest and standard risk assessment procedures and an open-minded judge fluoridation would be over. It is a matter of simple arithmetic and scientific integrity. There’s the rub. Between that arithmetic and this result are powerful political forces who – for reasons I for one cannot fathom - feel the need to keep this practice alive at any cost. That cost today probably includes the lowering of the IQ of our children. The shift in IQ maybe small, but as Philippe Grandjean (one of the authors of the Harvard meta-analysis by Choi et al, 2012) in his new book (Only Once Chance) explains, a small shift in IQ in the whole population is incredibly serious. For example, a negative shift of 5 IQ points would halve the number of geniuses in our society and double the number of mentally handicapped.
How you can help protect our children We urge you to support FAN’s mission to educate as many citizens, decision-makers and media persons about fluoridation’s dangers – as well as the political forces that are keeping those dangers hidden from the public - as possible. We need education not fluoridation. Please help us end this unacceptable practice immediately.
*Completing the MCLG calculation Had the number after subtraction of other sources of fluoride from the safe dose yielded a number greater than zero then a MCLG would be determined on the basis of an estimate of how much water people drink per day. Typically the EPA assumes that the average person drinks 2 liters of water per day. However, this assumption does not protect a higher-than-average water drinker. Thus at this point the EPA would have to determine what percentage of the population it wishes to protect. In the 1986 derivation of the MCLG the EPA derived a safe dose of 8mg/day. Then ignoring other sources of fluoride, they assumed an average water consumption was 2 liters per day and thus declared that 4 mg/liter was a safe level. i.e. if someone drank two liters of water at 4 ppm per day they would get 8 mg/day, 2 L/day x 4mg/L = 8 mg / day.
For more information on Margin of Safety calculations and risk assessment procedures please see chapter 20 in The Case Against Fluoride, by Connett, Beck and Micklem (Chelsea Green, 2010)
Share:

Necessary Niacinamide


We all know that for about the past 50 years antibiotics have been greatly overused in people and animals. This abuse of oft needed antibiotics has created a period of difficulty wherein most antibiotics no longer are effective when necessary. If you're a regular reader of Natural Health News, the internet's first natural news site, you recognize that we have informed readers on the many helpful uses of niacin, niacinamide, or as it is commonly known, vitamin B3. Now a new study shows us what may be another valuable use -
Vitamin B3 offers superbug protectionThe September, 2012 issue of The Journal of Clinical Investigation reported the discovery of Cedars-Sinai researchers of a protective effect for vitamin B3 against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a type of staph infection that is resistant to antibiotic treatment. The finding is the result of research concerning a rare disorder known as neutrophil-specific granule deficiency, which involves a mutation in the gene CEBPE that regulates some of the body's antimicrobial factors. Afflicted individuals have weakened immune systems that render them vulnerable to infections such as staph. "Our goal in studying a rare disorder is that it may give us broad insight into the immune mechanisms that protect healthy individuals against staph infections," noted first author Pierre Kyme, PhD, who is a researcher at Cedars-Sinai's Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases in the Maxine Dunitz Children's Health Center and the Immunobiology Research Institute. "We found that if you over-express the gene in normal individuals, the body's immune cells do a better job of fighting off infection." The team determined that a high dose of a form of vitamin B3 known as nicotinamide or niacinamide stimulates CEBPE, which enhances white blood cells' ability to combat staph infections. When the vitamin was tested in human blood, it boosted the immune system's staph-killing ability up to 1,000-fold in a matter of hours compared to treatment with saline. And in mice that received injections of 250 milligrams nicotinamide per kilogram body weight prior to staph infection, bacterial counts in the animals' spleens and kidneys were 100-fold lower after 48 hours compared with animals injected with saline. The researchers suggest that targeting CEBPE with other compounds than nicotinamide could also help treat staph infections. Senior coauthor and Cedars-Sinai professor of medicine Phillip Koeffler, MD remarked that "There's more research to be done, but we believe that vitamin B3, and other compounds that are able to increase the activity of this particular gene, have the potential to be effective against other antibiotic-resistant bacteria in addition to strains of staph." "It's critical that we find novel antimicrobial approaches to treat infection and not rely so heavily on antibiotics," stated pediatric infectious disease physician and coauthor George Liu, MD, PhD, of Cedars-Sinai's Maxine Dunitz Children's Health Center. "That's why this discovery is so exciting. Our research indicates this common vitamin is potentially effective in fighting off and protecting against one of today's most concerning public health threats." SOURCE

Selections from Natural Health News

Cholesterol, Dementia, Schizophrenia, Detoxification,

Share:

Calculating Cholesterol

Natural Health News has over eight (8) pages of articles addressing the cholesterol charade.  I am posting the top four (4) in light of the new push to get more people on a very dangerous drug that in reality has no real benefit to protect you from cardiovascular disease.
What statin drugs and other anticholesterol pharmaceuticals do is harm your health in so many other ways it is almost unfathomable that doctors them selves do not do more deep research on the concept.
You are at risk of muscle damage and kidney failure, heart failure, liver failure, diabetes, dementia, cancer and many more health derangements should you fall into this drug deception.
There are many safer and more natural ways to keep cholesterol in balance.  It is something you need not something to be depleted.
If you are interested in balancing cholesterol please contact us for more information and natural suggestions that do work with a lack of serious adverse effects.
And consider this -  Misled over the benefits of statins

Natural Health News: Cholesterol: Another Wrong Conclusion
Feb 21, 2011
I don't know where people's heads have been since the cholesterol bonanza began, but my stand is that these pundits overlooked a known fact, which now seems to be getting press after some 30 years. It's triglycerides!
Dec 23, 2008
UPDATE: Women in Government have a new ad campaign to push you to get cholesterol testing. This same organization has been behind the Gardasil propaganda campaign. For women especially, it is very important to get ...
Feb 23, 2008
Some studies have linked low cholesterol levels to higher death rates from cancer in general, Dr. Kouichi Asano, of Kyushu University, Fukuoka, and colleagues explain in the International Journal of Cancer. "With respect to ...
Nov 14, 2008
It's been going this way for a while: even healthy people should be on the cholesterol-reducing drugs known as statins. That, in a nutshell, is the verdict of a study published over the weekend which found that even in people ...


Share:

Can we please hear both sides

Another pertussis cluster has led to the banning of non-vaccinated children from a school district in the Tucson area.  In all the news reports the issue of "non-vaccinated children" is the target or emphasized catch phrase.

I recall writing an article in the mid 90s after interviewing a California (MD) pediatrician who also included homeopathy in his practice.  His emphasis was that it is the non vaccinated child who is always the healthiest and has the most resistance to disease.

From NHN 2008: New Focus: Responding to Specific Queries

Now the idea today is that it is the non-vaccinated adult whose childhood vaccine has worn off and has not gotten a booster shot may be the new target.  Or it could be a combined attack.

A funny way to approach public health if you ask me, after spending the bulk of my work over decades with a strong public health focus.

Sadly little has changes at WA DOH since Selecky's departure.  Inslee replaced her with another non- responsive bureaucratic hack.

Maybe, prhaps, this article will get some courageous health care providers thinking outside the box and give this a shot.

But alas, "here we are."***

While it is a tragedy that people are dying from the current pertussis outbreak, I believe it is important for facts rather than propaganda be provided to the community at large.
The AMA (American Medical Association) knew in the late 1920s that pertussis vaccine caused neurological problems.
Now we know that the pertussis vaccine is often associated with whooping cough outbreaks and many who have had the vaccine contract the disease.
And of course the friendly people at WA DOH are announcing everywhere that the only thing that will help this is to get the jab.
New Article re: WA DOH Vaccines and Fluoride
I encourage people to get the facts before you get the shot because the government or anyone giving out these vaccines is required by law to explain it to you, and give you the risk and benefit data as well.  Usually you are not provided with this information in my experience.
You are probably not told that for whooping cough especially, that vitamin C is a valid and effective help.  Vitamin A in the oil form (not single beta carotene) in short runs of high doses will help fight off pneumonia, and it works well with vitamin C.  Usually I use liposomal vitamin C and Hanna Kroeger’s Sunny A.

Babies Sleep Better If They Are Drugged And Vaccinated In The Afternoon

Here is some information from a 1937 medical journal addressing this concern -
“Ascorbic acid has a definite effect in shortening the period of paroxysms from a matter of weeks to a matter of days. We have not checked by cough plates or otherwise in this preliminary work to see whether the infectivity subsides simultaneously with the spasmodic symptoms, but are continuing with a larger series of cases in which these and other tests will be employed.

TABLE

Case
Age
(years)
Sez
Contact
Duration of
Symptoms
Treatment
Results
1
R.T.
6
M
School
6 weeks—typical
150 mg. per day
7 days—cough reduced markedly
10 days—cough disappeared
2
C.H.
1�
M
Unknown
Temperature 102 F.
Bronchopneumonia
when men
3 weeks—typical
10 days “fever”
at home
inhalations
sinapisms
expectorants
}3 daysNo effect
7 days—temperature normal, cough reduced
14 days—cough disappeared
175 mg. daily—11 dys
3
M.C.
12
M
School
10 days—typical
200 mg. daily
6 days—cough reduced
13 days—only occasional night coughs
15 days—all cough absent
4
J.P.
6
F
School
over 4 weeks—
typical
200 mg. daily
3 days—cough less, no vomiting
7 days—occasional cough
5
B.O.
2�
M
Known case
2 weeks—typical
250 mg. daily
5 days—cough disappeared
6
H.F.
7
M
School
2 weeks—typical
375 mg. daily
4 days—cough less
9 days—night cough only
11 days—all cough absent
7
E.H.
22

Maid
Child in house had
whooping cough
4dys., paroxysmal
cough, vomited
once, no whooping
500 mg. daily—3 days
125 mg. daily.
4 days—cough less, no vomiting
6 days—coughed only once in 2 days
11 days—cough absent
8
B.P.
4
M
Known case
10 days—typical
500 mg. daily—4 days
250 mg. daily—4 days
5 days—cough disappeared
9
M.W.
6�
F
School
2 weeks—typical
500 mg. daily—4 days
250 mg. daily—5 days
4 days—cough reduced
7 days—coughed once in 24 hours
9 days—cough disappeared
10
W.C.
4�
F
Sister (Case 9)
1 week—typical
500 mg. daily—4 days
250 mg. daily—5 days
Same as for Case 9
The dosages used have been empirical with a tendency to use larger doses early in the disease as our experience of its effects progressed. The acid is available at reasonable prices, and the danger of overdosage seems negligible. Animals have received 2,000 times their estimated requirements without any deleterious effects. Any excess is excreted by the kidneys.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. A method has been described for the treatment of whooping cough by ascorbic acid (vitamin C).
  2. Ascorbic acid definitely shortens the paroxysmal stage of the disease, particularly if relatively large doses are used early in the disease.
The ascorbic acid used by us was the Hoffmann-LaRoche product sold under the trade name of “Redoxon”. Grootton and Beszonoff 4 have shown that the product is identical chemically, physically and biologically with the original product prepared by Szent-Gy�rgi.

REFERENCES

  1. , T.: Vaccination against whooping cough, J. Am. M. Ass., 1933, 101: 137.
  2. , F.: Internat. Med. Digest, 1936, 29: 121.
  3. , H. H.: Whooping cough. Clin. J., 1936, 65: 246.
  4. , O. and Beszonoff, N.: Action de la vitamine C sur la toxine diphth�rique, et sensibilit� du bacille de la coqueluche vis-a-vis de l’hydroquinol et de le vitamine C. Ann. de l’Inst Pasteur, 1936, 56: 413.
  5. , P. and Sala, T.: Rev. fran�. De P�d., 1921. 4: 509. (Quoted by Grootton and Beszonoff).
  6. , J. and Niederberger, W.: Vitamin C In der Pneumonie-Behandlung., M�nch. med. Wochschr.. 1936, 83: 2074.
  7. , A.: Beobachtungen �ber Ascorbins�urewirkung bei der krupp�sen Pneumonie, Wien. Arch. f. inn. Med., (in press). (Quoted by Gander and Niederberger).
  8. , G. J. and Daniels, A. L: Vitamin C studies with children of pre-school age, J. Nutrit., 1936. 12: 15.
  9. , O. A. and King, C. G.: The distribution of vitamin C in plant and animal tissues and its determination, J. Biol. Chem., 1933. 103: 687.
  10. , M. Almaden, P. and King, C.G.: Vitamin content of human tissues, J. Biol. Chem., 1934, 106: 525.

From The Canadian Medical Association Journal, Volume 37, August 1937, Number 2, pp. 134-136″
This article was originally entered here in April 2012: 
http://blog.seattlepi.com/naturalnotes/2012/04/04/can-we-please-hear-both-sides/

*** with thanks to Baba Ram Das and Bill Greenberg, MD (Harvard)
Share:

FLU FOR YOU? or Prevention

The fact is the practice of flu vaccination in the elderly is not based on evidence, but an article of faith.
Should the Elderly Get the FLU jab? 

Use the search window in the right column to find our numerous posts on vaccines, flu, vitamin D, vitamin C, and more Natural Health News to keep you healthy and well...

From Dr Eisenstein
 

The risk of children suffering from flu can be reduced by 50% if they take vitamin D, doctors in
Japan have found. The finding has implications for flu epidemics since vitamin D, which is
naturally produced by the human body when exposed to direct sunlight , has no significant side effects, costs little and can be several times more effective than antiviral drugs or vaccines according to research in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Only one in ten children, aged six to 15 years, taking the sun shine vitamin in a clinical trial came down with flu compared with one in five given a dummy tablet. Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the Japanese doctor who led the trial, told The Times that vitamin D was more effective than
vaccines in preventing flu.

Vitamin D was found to be even more effective when the comparison left out children who were already given extra vitamin D by their parents, outside the trial. Taking the sunshine vitamin was then shown to reduce the risk of flu to a third of what it would otherwise be.

Dr. Damien Downing, a doctor and medical consultant has publicly stated that governments "do like" epidemics as a chance to impose their will. The London based doctor has been advising patients to increase their vitamin D intake rather than get the vaccine.

You might be shocked to know that there are many physicians in both Canada and the United
States who prescribe as much as 50,000 IU of vitamin D daily as a treatment for a long list of
chronic diseases.

Dr. John Cannell, MD, suggests high dose vitamin D (50,000 IU) be consumed for three days at the first sign of a cold or the flu. If you have an infection, the truth is you need more vitamin D. In other words, vitamin D acts as a natural antibiotic. It works against every type of microbe (viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites).

Vitamin D deficiency is common during the winter months, especially in countries far north of
the equator. Vitamin D acts as an immune system modulator, preventing excessive production of inflammatory cytokines and increasing macrophage (a type of white cell) activity. Vitamin D
also stimulates the production of potent antimicrobial peptides in other white blood cells and in epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract, protecting the lungs from infection.

50 Percent Reduction In Flu Infections Using Vitamin D

Altogether 354 children took part in the trial. Vitamin D was found to protect against influenza A but not against the less common influenza B.

The trial, which was double blind, randomised , and fully controlled scientifically, was conducted by doctors and scientists from Jikei University School of Medicine in Tokyo, Japan.
The children were given a daily dose of 1200 IUs (international units) of vitamin D over a period of three months. In the first month children in the group taking the vitamin became ill just as often as those taking the dummy tablet. But by the second month, when the vitamin level in the children’s blood was higher, the advantage of the vitamin was clear.

The Japanese scientists, writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, say that the anti-
viral drugs zanamivir and oseltamivir reduce risk of flu infection by 8 percent in children who
have been exposed to infection, compared with a 50 percent or greater reduction with vitamin D.

Antivirals are typically more effective than vaccines for the influenza virus which suggests that
both forms of medical intervention would consistently fail in similar studies when pitted against
vitamin D.

Antivirals are expensive, and possibly toxic. Vitamin D additionally supports bone health but is believed to reduce risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other illness, including various bacterial and viral infections.

The Japanese finding supports a theory that low blood levels of the sunshine vitamin occurring in winter explain why flu epidemics generally peak between December and March.

1. Get a Vitamin D blood test25(OH)D
2. Make sure your whole family has adequate blood levels of Vitamin D this flu season (>50 to 80ng/ml). Most children and adults Vitamin D blood level is <30ng font="" ml.="">
3. Adults .................................. 5,000 IU daily.
4. Children ............................... 1,000 IU/25lbs.
5. Chronic conditions....................... 10,000IU daily 
6. At the first symptoms of a cold or flu 1,000IU/ lb. daily for 7 days.
 
Examples:
 50 lb daily         50,000IU daily.   
 
100 lb daily       100,000IU daily.
150 lb daily       150,000IU daily.
200 lb daily       200,000 IU daily.

NB from Natural Health News: 

Vitamin A will assist in protecting lung health and against pneumonia. Vitamin E is also helpful to carry oxygen across the alveolar membrane in the lungs into the blood.

Healthy fat in your diet is required to absorb Vitamins A-D-E-K.

Add adequate daily vitamin C and probiotics. Always stay hydrated.
Share:
← Newer Posts Older Posts → Home