Edwin Jewett: Naked Truths: Nasty Dirty Sex Slavery at the UnChristian YMCA


Stephen E. Arnold: Cheap, Convenient, and Much Too Easy: Fabricated Twitter Trends

Cheap, Convenient, and Much Too Easy: Fabricated Twitter Trends Here is some news out of Turkey that perked our ears. News EPFL reports, “Mass Scale Manipulation of Twitter Trends Discovered.” Is Turkey an outlier when it comes to digital baloney? Perhaps a little, for now, but this problem recently uncovered by researchers appears to occur …

Mongoose: DHS warns ‘perfect storm’ of ‘violent extremist-white supremacists’ is imminent

Alert Reader: This is absolute crap. There is no violence precisely because everything is under control behind the scenes and we are all waiting patiently for the election fraud dominos to fall and the reversal by the Supreme Court (Thockmorton: when fraud is revealed, it reverses the outcome based on fraud) of the stolen election. …

Nearly Half of US Cosmetics Contain This Toxic Chemical

If you’ve been reading my newsletter, you know that cosmetics and personal care products have often tested positive for toxic chemicals. Now, a new study1 conducted by researchers at the University of Notre Dame found that more than half of common U.S. cosmetics tested contain high levels of industrial compounds associated with various health conditions, including cancer.

One chemical found in an “alarming” number of products from popular stores such as Target, Ulta, Sephora and Bed, Bath and Beyond was fluorine, which is part of the alphabet soup known as perfluorinated chemicals, historically abbreviated as PFC. Perfluorinated chemicals include perfluorocarbons and other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, collectively known as PFAS,2 but also referred to as PFOA and PFOS.3

PFAS are sometimes referred to as “the Teflon chemicals”4 or “forever chemicals” since they do not breakdown in the environment.5 They are used by manufacturers to make products water-, oil-, grease- and stain-resistant. They are also found in firefighting foam.

According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,6 there are more than 4,700 PFAS chemicals in existence and the number continues to rise as the industry invents new forms. Prompted by pressure from the FDA, DuPont and 3M voluntarily phased out two of the thousands of PFAS chemicals, PFOS and PFOA, in the early 2000s.7

While these two chemicals are no longer manufactured in the U.S., documentation from the FDA reveals that “phased out” doesn’t necessarily mean “not being used” anywhere. In fact, there are limited ongoing uses of PFOS8 and the EPA says:9

“Although PFOA and PFOS are no longer manufactured in the United States, they are still produced internationally and can be imported into the United States in consumer goods such as carpet, leather and apparel, textiles, paper and packaging, coatings, rubber and plastics.”

This means that although the manufacture of these toxic chemicals may have stopped in the U.S., they still can arrive back in the country via products made elsewhere. And, when it comes to cosmetics, the three-year study at Notre Dame, published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters,10 clearly indicates that the problem of PFAS chemicals in makeup is an ongoing issue, including a lack of labeling.

Forever Chemicals Found in Nearly Half of Cosmetics Tested

To assess the potential environmental burden of PFAS in makeup, researchers from the university purchased 231 cosmetic products in eight categories commonly purchased throughout the U.S. and Canada. The categories included lip, eye, face and eyebrow products and foundations, mascaras and concealers.11

The researchers purchased cosmetics from stores in Indiana and Michigan and tested them for fluorine. Although the ingredients lists didn’t show PFAS by name, the scientists found that a number of products had precursors of the harmful chemicals in them, including fluorine, in:12

  • 56% of foundations and eye products
  • 48% of lip products
  • 47% of mascaras

Many of the products that tested positive were also labeled “long-lasting” or “wear-resistant.”13 The researchers did not identify specific cosmetic companies, instead calling the issue “widespread.”14

Fluorine is a PFAS chemical that contaminates the water supply and can bioaccumulate in the body. The researchers also found the products tested positive for alcohol, methacrylate and phosphate esters that are precursors to PFAs, also known to be harmful to human health.15

The presence and amount of these chemicals was concerning. Just as important was the revelation that only one of the products tested listed PFAS chemicals on the ingredient label. Graham Peaslee was the principal investigator. He spoke with a journalist from The Washington Post saying:16

“We were shocked to see how much is in some of these products … There’s no way for an average consumer to read a label and understand what’s in the product they just purchased. They can’t trust the label and that can be fixed.”

Senate Bill Proposed to Ban PFAS in Makeup

In June of 2021, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced a bipartisan bill that would require the FDA to ban all PFAS chemicals in cosmetic products. The bill is called the “No PFAS in Cosmetics Act.” Collins and Blumenthal believe that “Americans should be able to trust that the products they are applying to their hair or skin are safe.”17

The Act is intended to direct the FDA to issue a rule that bans the intentional addition of PFAS in cosmetics. Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group (EWG) said in a press release from Collins:18

“Toxic forever chemicals have no place in personal care products. PFAS have been linked to serious health problems, including cancer and harm to the reproductive and immune systems. EWG applauds Senator Collins for introducing the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act. Once again, Senator Collins is making the safety of cosmetics and other personal care products a top priority.”

Collins has introduced other legislation in the past alongside Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Together they have championed the Personal Care Products Safety Act that was introduced in the Senate over four terms.19,20,21

The Act was a sweeping bill written to reform the regulation of personal care products and empower the FDA to review ingredients.22 The FDA would have been given authority to inspect factories, records and require recalls of dangerous products. Cosmetic companies would also have been charged with providing $20.6 million annually in fee revenue.

The first time it was introduced in the House in 2013-2014,23 Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill., sponsored the legislation. The most recent reintroduction to Congress was the 2019-2020 term. In each term, the bill was defeated.

The new No PFAS in Cosmetics Act has a more finite mandate to ban a specific chemical in cosmetic products. Without the added fee structure and additional power given to the FDA in past legislation, this may be the inroad needed to start protecting consumers. Janet Nudelman, director of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners’ Campaign for Safe Cosmetics said:24

“It is beyond outrageous that PFAS chemicals that are contaminating our drinking water and threatening human health because of their links to breast and other cancers, reproductive harm and endocrine disruption are hiding in the beauty and personal care products women use every day.”

Food Packaging and Drinking Water Are Contaminated

Unfortunately, one common belief is that if a product is released on the market and sold to the public it must be safe. In 2020, 33 scientists signed a consensus statement to plead with lawmakers to take “swift action to reduce exposure” to plastics in food packaging.25,26 In it they included 1,200 peer-reviewed studies to support their statement. One of those plastics is PFAS.

Nearly 10 years ago there were 6,000 authorized chemicals that could be used in food packaging. Jane Muncke of the Food Packaging Forum, and one of the consensus statement contributors, states that the latest number is nearly 12,000.27

The Environmental Defense Fund has written about the FDA process that led to the acceptance of plastics in contact with food. They have clarified a few misconceptions, some of which include:28

  • Manufacturers’ claims that anything in contact with food, such as PFAS, must be reviewed before being marketed and sold — Actually, manufacturers use a loophole in the “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) rule meant to exempt common ingredients such as vinegar and baking soda, to bypass FDA review of their chemicals.
  • The FDA requires in-depth toxicology studies before allowing chemicals in contact with foods on the market — In reality, all a company has to do is provide the chemical, toxicological and environmental data it has.
  • Manufacturers’ data sheets are clear and concise — On the contrary, in an EDF review of 31 applications accepted by the FDA, the amount of information varied, but the toxicity data was consistently poor.
  • The FDA continually reviews product safety — The truth is once a food contact substance is allowed, there is no process to evaluate further evidence the chemical may be dangerous, and the agency has no duty to reassess the decision.

These dangers are also reaching your drinking water. The EWG commissioned a test in dozens of U.S. cities which showed contamination had been dramatically underestimated. EWG scientists believe the family of PFAS chemicals may be:29

“… detectable in all major water supplies in the U.S., almost certainly in all that use surface water. EWG’s tests also found chemicals from the PFAS family that are not commonly tested for in drinking water.”

A collaboration between Consumer Reports and The Guardian30 analyzed the water supply of 120 people who volunteered to send in water samples from around the U.S. The group represented a cross-section of each of the EPA’s 10 jurisdictional regions. The analysis showed that of the 120 water samples, 118 had high levels of PFAS or arsenic, as well as detectable levels of lead.

According to the report from Consumer Reports, filtration systems exist that can clean the contaminants and “yet they are not being uniformly used by community water systems.”31

An analysis published by the EWG32 showed there were 2,337 sites in 49 states with known PFAS contamination. Unfortunately, while evidence continues to mount demonstrating forever chemicals are hazardous, the EPA is unwilling to protect consumer health. According to the EWG, the EPA:33

“… recently released a so-called PFAS action plan,42 but it is woefully inadequate. The EPA plan will not address ongoing sources of PFAS pollution, will not clean up legacy pollution and will not even require reporting of toxic PFAS releases.”

Frightening Levels of Forever Chemicals Found in Breast Milk

In one study published in Environmental Science & Technology,34 researchers analyzed PFAS in a group of breastfeeding women in the U.S. The data were gathered from a cross-section of socioeconomically and geographically diverse groups of women, and yet it showed PFAS contamination in all samples.

The samples showed levels ranging from 50 ppt to more than 1,850 ppt in women’s breast milk.35 Even though there are no set standards for breast milk yet, as a comparison, the Environmental Working Group36 advises a target for drinking water at 1 part per trillion (ppt) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)37 recommends 14 ppt for PFOS (a component of PFAS38) in children’s drinking water.

Evaluating the effects on infants is difficult. Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana, a co-author of the study and pediatrician with the University of Washington, spoke with a reporter from The Guardian.39

She said that studies in older children and adults have shown these chemicals damage the immune system and create hormonal disruption. This is particularly problematic for infants as their immune system is not yet mature.

Evidence from the study also suggested the challenge with PFAS bioaccumulating in people is getting worse. As reported in The Guardian, when data from the current study was compared to one spearheaded by the EWG in 2005,40 the researchers found there was an increase in the amount of new-generation PFAS in breastmilk.

How to Avoid Toxic PFAS Chemicals

In May 2015, more than 200 scientists from 40 countries signed another consensus statement called the Madrid Statement.41 The scientists warned about the potential harmful effects of PFAS, including associations with liver toxicity, adverse neurobehavioral effects, hypothyroidism and obesity.

They recommended avoiding all products containing PFAS. You’ll find more additional helpful tips in the Environmental Working Group Guide to Avoiding PFCS.42 Here are several items to avoid that I’ve suggested in the past:

Pretreated or stain-repellant treatments — Opt out of treatments on clothing, furniture and carpeting. Clothing advertised as “breathable” is typically treated with polytetrafluoroethylene, a synthetic fluoropolymer.

Products treated with flame retardant chemicals — This includes furniture, carpet, mattresses and baby items. Instead, opt for naturally less flammable materials such as leather, wool and cotton.

Fast food and carry out foods — The containers are typically treated.

Microwave popcorn — PFASs may be present in the inner coating of the bag and may migrate to the oil from the packaging during heating. Instead, use “old-fashioned” stovetop non-GMO popcorn.

Nonstick cookware and other treated kitchen utensils — Healthier options include ceramic and enameled cast iron cookware, both of which are durable, easy to clean and completely inert, which means they won’t release any harmful chemicals into your home.

Personal care products containing PTFE or “fluoro” or “perfluoro” ingredients — The EWG Skin Deep database43 is an excellent source to search for healthier personal care options.

Unfiltered tap water — Unfortunately, your choices are limited when it comes to avoiding PFAS in drinking water. Either you must filter your water or get water from a clean source. Although you may think that opting for bottled water is safe, it’s important to realize that PFAS are not regulated in bottled water, so there’s absolutely no guarantee that it’ll be free of these or other chemicals.

Bottled water also increases your risk of exposure to hazardous plastic chemicals such as bisphenol A, which has its own set of health risks. Most common water filters available in supermarkets will not remove PFASs. You really need a high-quality carbon filtration system.

Updates on the Fight to End Water Fluoridation

It’s Fluoride Awareness Week here at Mercola.com, and I spoke with Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), for the occasion. Connett has been instrumental in catalyzing the movement to remove fluoride — which is neurotoxic — from water supplies in the U.S. as well as internationally, and he shared some exciting updates that have us moving closer to a post-water-fluoridation world.

First up is an update to the historic lawsuit that FAN filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal court. In 2016, FAN and coalition partners filed a petition asking the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The EPA dismissed FAN’s petition, prompting FAN’s lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial. Although the EPA filed a motion to dismiss the case, the motion was denied by the court in 2017.1 The trial was held in June 2020, and while the judge has yet to make a final ruling,2 it’s moving in a positive direction.

“We had a recent hearing in which the judge denied the latest effort by the EPA to get the case dropped,” Connett said in our interview. “He’s ruled in our favor several times now on key decisions. What he made clear is he’s very interested in the science of this issue. He wants to wait before he makes his ruling.”

Judge Plans to Review New Fluoride Study Showing IQ Reduction

The judge hearing the case plans to review two things before making a decision: the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) final review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity when it comes out, along with a benchmark dose study (BMD) study that was recently published on fluoride’s effects on IQ levels.

“So, half of what the judge wants to see has come out,” Connett said. Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an internationally known expert in environmental epidemiology, with ties to both Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Southern Denmark, is the EPA’s go-to person on mercury’s neurotoxicity3 and he has warned about the risks of exposing children to neurotoxicants during early life and in utero.

Grandjean and colleagues just published a landmark study showing that exposure to very low levels of fluoride during pregnancy impairs the brain development of the child.4 The study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ by one point.

Not only do the findings suggest that water-fluoride recommendations meant to protect pregnant women and children should be revised,5 but they show that there’s significant risk even at current fluoridation levels. Connett said:

“What they found, they would predict a lowering of IQ in children if the pregnant mother’s urine was at 0.2 milligrams per liter … To put that into perspective, the average in north California and in Canada, two studies, is between 0.8  and one part per million. So in other words … four to five times more.

So you could predict (because this is a linear relationship), the average loss of IQ for children born in the United States, if their mother drinks fluoridated tap water, is going to be between four and five points, and that’s massive when you look at the impact on a whole population. Massive.”

As Stuart Cooper, FAN’s campaign director, previously stated, “It has been well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000. Summed over the whole population we are talking about a loss of billions of dollars of earning ability each year.”

The trial is moving along in a positive direction, but they’re not out of the woods yet. Connett noted that there is evidence from confidential sources that pressure has been put upon the NTP, so there is concern that their findings could be whitewashed. “Once again, we might be confronted with the best science being nullified by political interference,” he said.

fluoride awareness week

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Expert Research Highlights Fluoride’s Dangers to Children

One of the experts who testified during the trial was Dr. Bruce Lanphear, who is known as “the EPA’s ‘go-to man’ on lead’s neurotoxicity, and his work shaped their lead standards.”6 Lanphear’s JAMA Pediatrics study, published in 2019, found that every 1 mg/L increase in fluoride in Canadian pregnant women’s urine was linked to a 4.5-point decrease in IQ in their male children.7

The study is one of several NIH-funded studies8 that Connett believes will be key to the case. “Fabulous methodology, the best methodology to date,” Connett said. Other NIH-funded studies include:

In a study of 213 Mexican mother-child pairs, higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)9

Babies fed formula mixed with fluoridated water had IQs that were lower than babies fed formula mixed with nonfluoridated water, and researchers noted, “Consumption of formula reconstituted with fluoridated water can lead to excessive fluoride intake.”10

According to Connett, “So the only difference was whether these children got fluoridated tap water in their formula when they were babies. A staggering 13 IQ points dropped, staggering.”

In a study of 299 mother-child pairs in Mexico, higher prenatal exposure to fluoride, in the range of exposure levels reported for pregnant women in other areas, was associated with lower cognitive function in the children at ages 4 and 6 to 12 years.11

The collective exposure of children to fluoride in drinking water is a major public health threat. Going back to Grandjean’s study showing that even very low exposures to fluoride in utero are toxic, Connett explained:

“He [Grandjean] said, right now the damage to children’s brains in the United States is probably greater for fluoride than it is for lead, arsenic and mercury. Now he’s not saying that atom for atom fluoride is more toxic than lead, mercury or arsenic …

He’s just saying, if you look at what’s happening today, fluoride is doing more damage to our kids’ brains than these other well-known neurotoxic substances, lead, mercury and arsenic. The reason of course is the exposure. There are millions of children that are being exposed to fluoridated tap water on a daily basis. Millions of pregnant women.”

Damaging People From ‘Womb to Tomb’

It’s not only children who are at risk from fluoride’s adverse effects. A Swedish study published in April 2021 found that rates of hip fractures among postmenopausal women were higher in regions with higher levels of fluoride in drinking water.12

In this case, the fluoride was naturally occurring in the water at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L, making their total exposures similar to those of women living in regions with artificial water fluoridation. While rates of all types of bone fractures were elevated in areas with higher fluoride in drinking water, the link to hip fractures was particularly strong. Connett said:

So they worked out their individual exposure to fluoride and, low and behold, they found that postmenopausal women drinking the same range of fluoride concentration that we have in fluoridated communities in the United States had a 50% increased prevalence of hip fracture.

As you know, hip fracture is very serious. We have about 300,000 hip fractures in the elderly in the United States and 30% of those women who get those hip fractures are dead within a year. Many of them do not regain an independent existence …

Hip fractures are a very serious issue for elderly people. So we may be damaging people from womb to tomb. Damaging the fetus and then damaging our bones over a lifetime, which has fatal consequences when you reach old age.”

FAN Catches Head of CDC’s Oral Health Division in a Lie

The CDC’s Division of Oral Health is still actively promoting water fluoridation, and the CDC just recently gave a large grant to Mississippi to do so, Connett said. “Now let me explain who they are,” he said, referring to the Division of Oral Health:

“There’s only about 30 people who are interested in teeth, and they’re nearly all dentally trained, and they work hand in hand with the ADA [American Dental Association]. So they’re a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of supporting fluoridation, and they heavily influence local decisions. So, although the federal government doesn’t accept responsibility for it, they’re encouraging communities to do it …

This Oral Health Division has worldwide influence. There’s not a day that goes by that somebody, some doctor, some dentist, some public health official, some politician says that fluoridation is one of the top public health achievements of the 20th century. So enormous influence, but no responsibility for harm.”

CDC’s Oral Health Division is primarily made up of those trained in dentistry — not specialists looking at the effects of fluoride on the brain and body. “Let’s have a group at the CDC that promotes fluoridation based upon what they think it does for teeth, and let’s have another group of people that, regardless of promotion, is looking very carefully at all the evidence which indicates harm to the bone, to the brains and so on,” Connett said.

FAN also caught Casey Hannon, director of the CDC’s Division of Oral Health in a lie. According to Connett, “He said, ‘These NIH-funded studies were done at levels much higher than the water fluoridation programs.’ Absolute nonsense. They were done either at doses equivalent to what people in fluoridated communities get, or they were actually done in fluoridated communities themselves.”

This prompted FAN and over 100 professionals to write a letter to the new CDC director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “We weren’t after punishment of Casey Hannon, the head of the Oral Health Division. We were after a change of policy. He’s only doing what all the previous heads of the Oral Health Division have done, which is to promote fluoridation as being safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective.”

FAN is hopeful that with a new person in the position, being informed about the latest fluoridation/IQ studies, positive changes will continue. Already, they’ve gotten a response from Dr. Karen Hacker, the director of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“The important point for us is that we’ve now got engagement at the CDC above the Oral Health Division. We don’t get these platitudes about how wonderful it [fluoridation] is for teeth,” Connett said.

Help End the Practice of Water Fluoridation

The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline.

“Fluoride is following the same trajectory as lead,” Connett said, “because basically, whether or not you found a neurotoxic effect for lead was simply a function of how well designed your study was. The better your study was designed, the more likely you were to find that lead was lowering IQ. The same thing is happening with fluoride.”

If you’re concerned about the health effects of fluoride, please support FAN with your tax-deductible donation today. Mercola.com will match your donation, dollar for dollar, up to $25,000, during Fluoride Awareness Week.

donate today

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

How will FAN use the funds? They’re expecting a mini trial to come up soon, and they’ll need to provide expert witnesses to give commentary on the final version of the NTP report and the BMD analysis. They’re also revamping their website, FluorideAlert.org, to make it easier for people to use and access information (especially for those who do so via cell phone).

“We have the largest health database in the world, bigger than many governments, maybe all governments, on the health effects of fluoride. We want to make that more accessible,” Connett said. FAN also uses funding to help communities end water fluoridation or keep it out of their cities:

“Right now, Spokane [Washington] is trying to keep fluoridation out, I think for the fourth time. Calgary is trying to put it back in … They’re claiming that tooth decay has gone up dramatically in Calgary since they stopped fluoridation, and that’s simply not true.

… our mission is to get this information to as many people as possible, so with their help we can take this information to the power structures. We’re doing it in federal court and we’re doing it with our website. Right now, we’re doing it by engaging with people at the CDC above its Oral Health Division.”

On a practical level, if you live in an area with fluoridated water, you can protect your health by filtering your water. While Connett travels to a natural spring to collect pure water every few weeks — the ideal solution — this won’t be possible for many people.

Because fluoride is a very small molecule, it’s difficult to filter out once added to your water supply, but reverse osmosis filtration is effective for fluoride removal.

The simplest, most effective and most cost-effective strategy is to not put fluoride in the water to begin with, but while we work to end water fluoridation, you do not want to expose yourself or your family to fluoride, so be sure to find a fluoride-free source of pure drinking water.