Pharmacists who prepare the chemo drugs, and members of the teams of oncology doctors and nurses who handle the drugs, are getting sick and dying from cancers that are very likely caused by the drugs. The evidence points to a higher incidence of cancers among these workers than the public at large.

A massive, 10-year-long study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) concludes that chemo drugs continue to contaminate the workspaces where they’re used and, in some cases, are still being found in the urine of those who handle it despite knowledge of safety precautions.

Thomas Connor, a research biologist with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), has spent 40 years studying the effect of chemo agents on workers and is one of the lead authors on the latest study.

“There is no other occupation population that handles so many known human carcinogens,” he said.
If chemotherapy is this bad for anyone handling it in the workplace, one can’t help wondering how it could be good for a cancer patient already weakened and made vulnerable by disease.

Several relevant and disturbing facts should be considered:
Chemo drugs are highly toxic and studies have shown that they can actually cause cancer.

Although there are claims that chemo has saved countless lives, there is no credible evidence that chemo actually cures cancer, extends life significantly or improves the quality of life. There is a lot of evidence that it does the opposite.

Polls show 75 percent of oncologists would refuse chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness and “unacceptable level of toxicity”.

Despite the evidence, the cancer “industry” continues to push chemo on cancer patients while ignoring potentially helpful therapies because they “lack scientific evidence.”  Yet, the evidence about chemo drugs is overwhelmingly negative.

Chemo drugs have been classified as hazardous by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) since the mid-1980s. Hazardous drugs are those known to, or even suspected of, causing cancer, miscarriages, birth defects or other serious health problems.

OSHA does not regulate exposure to these toxins, despite multiple studies documenting contaminations and exposures including recent evidence that they are causing cancer in the workplace.

In the long run, it makes sense for anyone involved with chemotherapy, especially cancer patients, to move forward with caution and, while remaining under medical care, to carefully investigate alternatives.

SOURCES: Natural News, July 2010, http://www.naturalnews.com/029191_secondhand_chemotherapy_cancer.html; The Seattle Times, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012327665_chemo11.html;  Philip Day, Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth, Credence Publications, 2000. July 2010, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012327665_chemo11.html Normal 0 0 1 23 135 DSE 1 1 165 10.260 0 0 0 ;  Philip Day, Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth, Credence Publications, 2000.

160 homes in seven U.S. cities were surveyed by Kelly A. Reynolds of the University of Arizona, in Tucson. 100% of the homes tested positive for mold on some inside surface; on average, four sites per house tested positive for mold.

Exact levels of molds were not measured; a “presence-absence” test was performed in order to get a positive or negative result for evidence of mold.

Results of the survey showed mold was present on 88% of window sills, on 83% of refrigerator seals, under 83% of kitchen sinks, and 82% of homes had mold in air vents. Bathrooms were another problem area for mold to breed: particularly in the grouting areas and on the walls above the shower.

Mold releases microscopic fungal spores that can trigger allergy and asthma symptoms in sensitive people, as well as worsens sinus infections, and induce coughing and sniffling.

While 96% of homeowners participating in the study were aware mold could be a problem, only 17% felt their home would be among those to test positive.

SOURCE: USA Today, www.usatoday.com, March 10, 2003

Exercise has a positive impact on the immune system.

Moderate exercise and physical activity enhance immunity and reduce the rate of upper respiratory infections. Stress and obesity suppress the immune system.

Thomas J. Cieslek, a researcher with Brock University in Ontario, Canada analyzed the immunity, physical fitness levels, stress levels, and body fat in a group of fifth-grade children.

The study was conducted from May to June, which is a moderate to high infection season in Canada.
Cieslek found that 22% of the boys and 32% of the girls did not get three hours of physical activity per day. These children had a significantly lowered immune system, more body fat and reported more sick days than active children.

In addition, 40% of the inactive children had more than 25% body fat; these children reported more colds and flu than other children in the study.

Based on the results of the study, Cieslek recommends that parents improve the health of their children by getting them involved in regular physical activity.

SOURCE: Journal of Applied Physiology, December 2003, Vol. 95, pp. 2315-2320; WebMD Health, www.my.webmd.com, December 23, 2003

In the period from the mid-1970s until 2008:
Obesity more than doubled, from 5 percent to 10.4 percent among preschoolers aged 2–5
Obesity tripled, from 6.5 percent to 19.6 percent among 6–11 year olds
Obesity nearly quadrupled, from 5 percent to 18.1 percent among adolescents aged 12–19

Childhood obesity is not being targeted because obese children are teased or unpopular. Childhood obesity is a medically relevant epidemic because it is the stepping stone to life-threatening illnesses, including serious cardiovascular conditions like high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

Furthermore, obesity is the common precursor for Type 2 Diabetes, itself an epidemic in America.
The 2007–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) estimated that 17 percent of American children and adolescents, ages 2–19 years, are obese.

Another important, and often overlooked, factor is that obese children and adolescents are far more likely to become obese as adults than non-obese children.  A study found that 80 percent of kids who were overweight at 10–15 years old were still obese adults at 25.

Another study found that 25 percent of obese adults were overweight as children. And when being overweight began before 8 years of age, adult obesity was even more serious.

Obesity in children is measured using different Body Mass Index (BMI) categories than those used for adults. Overweight and obesity in children and adolescents are age- and sex-specific, because children’s body compositions vary as they age, and also vary between boys and girls.

When the words “overweight” and “obese” are used correctly by health professionals, they mean that the BMI categories for children have been applied correctly:
“Overweight” means a BMI at or above 85 percentile and lower than the 95 percentile
“Obese” means a BMI at or above the 95 percentile

For kids, and for parents who are in charge, it all comes down monitoring diet and exercise. The diet has to be nutritious for growth and health, but it must not contain more calories than a child burns off during normal activities. When calories exceed activity levels, you can expect to see overweight. And a long-term, unhandled overweight condition can lead to morbid obesity.

SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,  http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html

The study, which involved 8,745 cognitively normal, post-menopausal women ages 65 to 79, showed that for every one-point increase in a woman’s body mass index (BMI), a point was lost from her memory score.

The problem for pear-shaped women, who carry the extra pounds on their hips rather than their waist, was more pronounced. Researchers suspect this might be due to the type of fat around the hips having different hormonal effects than the fat that accumulates around the waist.

Further studies need to be done regarding the effects of different types of fat.

“We need to find out if one kind of fat is more detrimental than the other, and how it affects brain function,” she said. “The fat may contribute to the formation of plaques associated with Alzheimer’s disease or a restricted blood flow to the brain.”

Regardless of the type of fat, or where it is on the body, the results of the study are clear.

“The message is obesity and a higher Body Mass Index (BMI) are not good for your cognition and your memory,” said lead author of the study, Diane Kerwin, M.D., an assistant professor of medicine and a physician at Northwestern Medicine. “While the women’s scores were still in the normal range, the added weight definitely had a detrimental effect.”

This is the first study to link obesity and body shape to brain and memory function, and it opens the door to weight loss as a treatment for cognitive function. Simply losing a few pounds could improve memory and the ability to think clearly — in addition to being good for one’s overall health.

SOURCE: Northwestern University. http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2010/07/obesity-reduces-memory.html and http://www.medicine.northwestern.edu/department/10/mar/new-faculty-focus-diana-r-kerwin-md

Kellogg’s said the problem was an “off-taste and smell” that caused the nausea and diarrhea in some “sensitive” people. The company said testing found “slightly elevated levels” of a food packaging “substance” in the box liners. The company did not publicly identify the mystery substance.

However, researchers at the Environmental Working Group (EWG) got in touch with Kellogg’s the next day and discovered the mystery substance to be methylnaphthalene, a petroleum-based chemical which had “leached” into the cereal from the package liner.

Methylnaphthalene is a component of crude oil and coal tar, and is a combustion byproduct of tobacco, wood, petroleum-based fuels and coal. It is produced in enormous quantities in the U.S., but health agencies know next to nothing about its safety, according to EWG findings.

Yet methylnaphthalene is FDA approved and commonly used by the food industry not only in cereal packaging, but also to coat cheese, raw fruits and vegetables. If you’ve ever wondered what that waxy stuff on your food is that you think you probably should wash or peel off—now you know. And yes, wash that apple very thoroughly, and peel that cucumber.

So far, there has been no testing by any federal agency or any published test results. Also, naphthalene and methylnaphthalene are structurally similar and share the same toxicity to lung cells. Naphthalene itself was banned years ago in some applications because of toxicities.

The Kellogg’s incident raises questions for American consumers that need answering:

What are the real dangers, if any, of methylnaphthalene, and in what quantities?
How did it get approved by the FDA for use on food when no safety data exists?
When is the FDA going to address its approvals system, so these things stop happening?

The plus side of this whole debacle is that American consumers have been reminded yet again to ask questions about the foods they are offered for purchase, and to avoid those that are dubious.
It serves everyone’s health and wellness to keep in mind that our government is less than perfect, and that means food safety is ultimately our own responsibility.

SOURCE: Environmental Working Group, “Kellogg’s Cereal Recall: Health Risks from Packaging?” July 12, 2010, http://www.ewg.org/health-risks-from-packaging

The Skin Deep database was created by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), whose goals are to protect the public from health problems attributed to toxic contaminants and to get the federal government to change existing policies so they invest in conservation and sustainable development.

In their own words: “Our research brings to light unsettling facts that you have a right to know. It shames and shakes up polluters and their lobbyists. It rattles politicians and shapes policy. It persuades bureaucracies to rethink science and strengthen regulation. It provides practical information you can use to protect your family and community.”

In the Skin Deep database, accessed at http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com, you can enter the name of any product, ingredient or company to find out more information. It doesn’t contain every product, but the most common products are there, and much more. When you search a product, you’ll find:
The overall level of hazard, rated from 0 to 10.

A summary of the health risks associated with the product.

A list of each ingredient along with its individual hazard rating and a list of the related health concerns.

A clickable link to more information about each ingredient, including the source of the information provided in the database.

Skin Deep is a real time-saving resource you won’t want to be without.

Source: Skin Deep Database: http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com, Environmental Working Group:  http://www.ewg.org

According to the Attorney General of Washington State, AstraZeneca, manufacturer and marketer of the antipsychosis drug Seroquel® will pay for their improper marketing and advice to medical professionals.

Seroquel is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (also known as manic depression) and other specific conditions.

But AstraZeneca saw that more money could be made if medical professionals prescribed this drug for other – but unapproved – conditions. And so, at special doctors’ conferences conveniently located at resorts, or through the use of paid articles for medical publications, AstraZeneca managed to promote the use of Seroquel for unapproved conditions without openly advertising these uses.

And thus it was that between 2001 and 2006, AstraZeneca cleverly succeeded in convincing doctors to prescribe Seroquel to treat “off-label” conditions such as aggression, Alzheimer’s, anger management, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dementia and sleeplessness.

In fact, while Seroquel’s prescribing information clearly states that the drug was not tested or approved for use in children, this sly marketing campaign led health providers to wrongly prescribe the drug to children and adolescents in long-term care facilities. Since many of these facilities are publicly funded, taxpayers ended up paying millions of dollars through the Medicaid program for inappropriate drugging of children.

Ten million dollars will be paid to the Washington State coffers, part of a $520 million settlement AstraZeneca reached with several states and the federal government.

That sounds like a great deal of money, but, put into proper perspective, this is only about 10 percent of the company’s Research and Development budget alone!

In further proof that shady marketing tactics just don’t pay, at the beginning of 2009, AstraZeneca announced the elimination of 15,000 jobs to occur over the next four years. We can only hope that many of those involved in these unscrupulous tactics are among those laid off.

Source: Washington State Office of the Attorney General, AG McKenna announces multi-million dollar settlement with drug maker http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=25638
Source: Seroquel Prescribing Information, January 22, 2010,
http://www.seroquel.info/_mshost7516343/8866822/seroquel-product-information,
Source: AstraZeneca PLC Statement, Fourth Quarter and Full Year Results 2008, January 29, 2009,
http://www.astrazeneca.com/_mshost3690701/content/resources/media/investors/AZN-Q4-2008/q4-results-2008-narrative.pdf

Covered by the recall were liquid infant’s and children’s Tylenol®, Motrin®, Zyrtec®, and Benadryl®.

In the 11 months prior to the recall, the company had received 46 consumer complaints about black specks or foreign material in these drugs. The FDA met with the manufacturer in February 2010 and in April, FDA inspectors walked into the manufacturing plant for an investigation. The day the investigation’s report was issued, Johnson & Johnson announced its “voluntary” recall.

Tests showed that mixing equipment performed inadequately to completely distribute ingredients, meaning that some bottles of medication would contain more or less active ingredients than others.

Not only that, but the FDA inspectors also found manufacturing equipment covered with dirt, dust and grime, a hole in the ceiling and poor and unsanitary maintenance practices in the facility that made 40 of the recalled products. The McNeil plant in Pennsylvania has been shut down until all manufacturing issues have been handled.

The FDA criticized Johnson & Johnson for not doing all it could to promptly investigate reports of contaminants, eliminate any manufacturing conditions that could produce contamination and
not ensuring that contaminated ingredients were kept out of any other products than those covered by the recall.

On May 4, 2010, the FDA held a telephone conference with media representatives, during which the press could ask direct questions. One after another, reporters asked what the contaminants were and how much risk for consumers they presented. Again and again, the FDA only responded that the contaminants were “gram-negative bacteria” and that tests to identify which bacteria were not yet conclusive. FDA staffers also repeatedly stated that the risk to consumers was “remote.” But the list of gram-negative bacteria include these well-known and dangerous bacteria: E.coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Heliobacter, Legionella and organisms that cause gonorrhea and meningitis.

Not such insignificant bacteria!!

If you are curious about what an FDA investigation report looks like, visit this web page:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OR/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM210772.pdf

Source: Transcript for the FDA Media Briefing on the McNeil Product Recall, May 4, 2010, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/News room/MediaTranscripts/UCM211061.pdf
Source: Wikipedia, Gram-Negative Bacteria, April 29, 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram-negative_bacteria
Source: Food and Drug Administration, FDA provides consumer advice following recall of
products for infants and children, May 1, 2010, http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm210441.htm
Source: Food and Drug Administration, Inspection report, April 30, 2010, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM210772.pdf

Heparin is used when patients are going through procedures where blood clots might create life-threatening situations, such as cardiac surgery or kidney dialysis. It’s also used when blood clots are threatened. It is administered as an injection, but it is also present as a coating in some medical devices such as catheters, oxygenators, pumps, filters, and blood reservoirs used during cardiac procedures.

In all of 2006, there were 55 reports of deaths related to the administration of heparin. But between January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2008, there were 246 such reports. In fact, in one month, January 2008, there were 50 reported deaths. Many more reports of allergic reactions to the heparin were received.

After much examination and testing, the culprit turned out to be a contamination of heparin active ingredients manufactured in China. The contaminant proved to be extraordinarily elusive because it “mimics heparin activity” and so did not initially show up on routine testing.

Over the next two years, the FDA carried out investigations, issued warning letters and ordered broad heparin recalls. But by April 2010, the agency still had not determined exactly how the contamination occurred or who was at fault.

Finally, the U.S. Congress tired of the inefficiency of the FDA and slammed their failures in a letter dated April 30, 2010. The FDA was criticized for failing to adequately follow up on credible leads related to the contamination, failing to ensure correction of manufacturing practices in companies to which the contaminated heparin had been traced, failure to be effective in a health emergency and thereby costing lives. This strongly-worded, ten-page letter is available at:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/043010_Letter_to_FDA_Heparin.pdf.
This Committee is now demanding answers from the FDA on why it handled the emergency in this fashion and how it plans to proceed from here.

While the entire matter of the heparin contamination is not yet resolved, it is good to see the U.S. Congress demanding effectiveness from the government agency that is responsible for protecting lives in just this situation.

Source: Food and Drug Administration, Information on Heparin, April 7, 2010, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInfor mationforPatientsandProviders/ucm112597.htm
Source: Food and Drug Administration, Update to Healthcare Facilities and Healthcare Professionals about Heparin and Heparin-containing Medical Products, April 30, 2009, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm135355.htm
Source: Food and Drug Administration, Information on Adverse Event Reports and Heparin, July 1, 2009,
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM112669 Source: Letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg by the U.S. Congress Committee on Energy and Commerce, 30 April 2010,
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/043010_Letter_to_FDA_Heparin.pdf