babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » rabble columns   » Mallick - Boycotting is my new drug of choice

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Mallick - Boycotting is my new drug of choice
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 July 2005 11:32 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't buy American goods if I can avoid it, never buy from big Bush donors, only buy Fairtrade food and organic food so that farmers aren't forced to buy genetically modified seeds, and so on. It's intellectually absorbing, this boycott habit of mine, though not nearly as much fun as filling my young body with drugs without thought for the morrow.

Heather Mallick


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 04 July 2005 12:01 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't imagine boycotting american. It would be almost impossible. I've tried to boycott other things and truly it's frustrating. It's very hard to be effectual at it and I always feel hopeless it will change anything.

At the farmers market I deliberately won't buy from most farmers unless it's some of the smaller scale vegetable growers if it's vegetables that I don't have. I mostly love the arts and crafts.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 July 2005 12:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the one hand, I was really pleased to see our Heather return to blistering form this weekend, after the strange affair of the ... ties? (See somewhere below.)

On the middle hand (I have three), I was glad to see her zoom in on specific and serious abuses of Big Pharma, which I am trying to track m'self.

On the other (the third hand), I sometimes worry about how much our Heather has to pack into a single column. The fight against Big Pharma is a Big Fight, one of the biggest around. It is going to take a lot of slow, careful steps.

This is a great rant, but unless you know the background behind every single sentence, it appears to collapse into a defensive position against the imperial colossus and nothing more.

The truth about Big Pharma is that it is international, and most of the head offices are in Europe. They are parasitical on the USian market, of course, but.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 04 July 2005 12:29 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been semi-boycotting "made in America" for years. It's working, USA is now the world's largest debtor nation...I'd pat myself on the back for that but the osteo arthritis is really acting up today and I can barely move my arms... recently I drove for fifteen minutes to get to a farm outlet to buy Vancouver Island spuds..the ones in the supermarket were from Washington State and from Idaho and I just flatout refuse.. but it's difficult...and since I've widened my prejudice to try to include China I find I'm having a real challenge... but if my strategy works and China becomes the world's second largest debtor nation I might fix my aging eyes on some other target... an acquaintance tried to tell me I was wasting my time because the same 32 corporations control everything world wide... when I pointed out my sucess with the USA and it's failing economy I was told I was delusional. I don't think so. I will continue my sometimes lonely crusade. And after China... well, we'll see... we'll see...
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 04 July 2005 12:36 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hailey:
I can't imagine boycotting american. It would be almost impossible. I've tried to boycott other things and truly it's frustrating. It's very hard to be effectual at it and I always feel hopeless it will change anything.

At the farmers market I deliberately won't buy from most farmers unless it's some of the smaller scale vegetable growers if it's vegetables that I don't have. I mostly love the arts and crafts.


Odd about the farmer's market - wouldn't you want to buy from a local farmer, rather than a middleman?

As for boycotting American, though it is impossible to do completely, I try to make a point of it. Since the beginning of the war, I haven't bought much from the US that I couldn't get from another supplier.

It won't make a lick of difference, but it does mean that I'm minimizing any direct or indirect support for that war.

Boycotts serve two purposes.

1 - Try to affect the behaviour of a producer. Except in rare cases, this almost never happens.

2 - Keep your hands clean. Don't profit or benefit from the exploitation of others, or the murder of innocents. This one is personal, and I'm surprised conscious consumption not at the centre of many Christian and other congregations.

Unfortunately, for many people, if it doesn't happen to them or anyone they know, it is an unavoidable consequence of the free market. If it does happen to them, it's too late, they've already lost.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 04 July 2005 12:39 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Odd about the farmer's market - wouldn't you want to buy from a local farmer, rather than a middleman?


I felt that way until during the last election some of them were displaying conservative campaign items. I'm not interested in supporting someone who supports that.

I'm not going to lie and say that I've never bought something from someone I knew was a hard-line conservative but those tend to be people that I already know and care about! Also people who have enough business sense to keep politics private.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 July 2005 12:43 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anne: heroic success so far with the Americans -- brava!

But China: who else is making bumbershoots? I have looked. If you need an umbrella, it is very difficult not to buy from China.

I blame Bombardier and Jean Chretien and Bob Rae for all this. I feel that I could have negotiated better with the Chinese, to our mutual benefit.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 04 July 2005 12:56 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been boycotting American for several years. I started when they put the tariff on softwood lumber. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to do. Sometimes I have neatly dodged a "Made in USA" label and Canadian or other only to find that some long arm of a US conglomerate owns controling interest, etc.

It is not enough to boycott. We have to tell them why. We have to send emails to American companies and Chambers of Commerce and web sites and newspapers and tell them why we don't want their stuff.

And how many of you can boycott American movies and television? IIRC, cultural products amount to about a third of American exports. If you want to hurt them change channel.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 04 July 2005 12:59 PM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I had not heard of the "Eli Lily Act" before but am not surprised at all.

Bravo to Heather Mallick for her rant.


From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 04 July 2005 01:19 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
what's an MMR shot, and why was it used?

when it comes to food, i try boycotting american produce because i feel that they are more likely to be genetically modified; although i recognize this as irrational thinking on my part because canada is no better for saying no to GM crops. don't know what it is that makes me more suspicious about american food. maybe its cause i know less about their approval process for GM crops than canada's system.

when it comes to clothes, there's an awesome store a block away from me in which the store owner sells a lot of clothes that are made by local, aspiring fashion artists. it's nice too cause my clothes don't look like what everybody else is wearing. he also likes travelling to india, and brings back accessories and clothes from his travels.

funny thing about the farmer's market, and i wanted to mention this on babble a few weeks ago, but i forgot. all the stalls, except for 2, say that their vegetables and fruit are products of USA. how does this work? isn't the market supposed to be full of local farmers, and food grown locally? i can really only shop at one stall and safely avoid american produce. it says everything's locally grown (from simcoe) and organic. maybe i oughta hop into the market's office, and inquire about this.

quote:
posted by skdadl:
If you need an umbrella, it is very difficult not to buy from China.

we could boycott umbrellas. i do. i have a visceral hatred for those contraptions, aka monsterellas. they only work in the summer against the sun, or when there's absolutely no wind when it rains. they also don't keep legs dry when the rain falls at an angle which it almost always does. a wee bit of wind, and the top goes inside out, the stem breaks, and i'm desperately trying to fix the umbrella, trying to stay dry, and everyone around me is laughing at me. bah!.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 983

posted 04 July 2005 01:41 PM      Profile for dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
MMR = mumps, measles and rubella. It was (is?) a standard shot given to infants to protect from those childhood diseases.

That's actually the one problem I had with the article. I'm not familiar with some of the drugs mentioned and others I'm only recently familiar with due to school. A little more background would have been helpful.

As for boycotting, I think I suffered from a form of boycott burnout and as a resultn I used to boycott far more than I do now. It just seemed that everytime I changed my purchasing habits the change was little, if at all better than my original choice. That and I simply cannot afford to always take the high road and buy more expensive items. I still try to purchase locally and from independant business where possible but it's tough to keep with it all the time.


From: pleasant, unemotional conversation aids digestion | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 04 July 2005 04:36 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some of the farmers markets in Calgary really stress having vendors that sell Alberta produce; but some things do have to come from elsewhere. Most fruit is from BC; they may sell US cherries, etc., for a week or two until the BC cherries are ripe; but people definitely prefer to buy the BC ones. [And some vendors may lie about having BC cherries when they are really from Washington.]

There are some vendors who sell all sorts of fruit and vegetables including bananas and other tropical things; they seem to just be outdoor grocery stores, and I prefer to buy from the people selling homegrown stuff.

[ 04 July 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Granola Girl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8078

posted 04 July 2005 04:49 PM      Profile for Granola Girl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
anne: you crack me up

I've been boycotting the US on and off for a while now and I admit its frustrating. Usually I try to let the company know I am boycotting them through a ohone call or a letter. For instance, I ditched MBNA as one of my credit carriers because of the compmany's contributions to the Republican party and I told them that specifically. They didn't seem terribly impressed - but I felt pretty righteous! Sadly the feeling was fleeting and I've had to find other things to boycott to keep up the thrill...

The hardest thing to boycott in Canada is Nestle. They own everything! Almost all bottled water sold in Canada is distributed through Nestle, for instance, even Perrier! So I know what you mean, Dee, its virtually impossible to buy all ethical - unless you have plenty of time and money. In the ned, you have to work within the system that you live in, even if its hopelessly corrupt.

[ 04 July 2005: Message edited by: Granola Girl ]


From: East Van | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 July 2005 05:18 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I personally don't understand the whole bottled water thing, myself. It's no better than municipal tap water, and at least with tap water, you're not destroying the environment with a hunk of plastic every time you have a drink.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 04 July 2005 05:21 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Granola Girl:
The hardest thing to boycott in Canada is Nestle. They own everything! Almost all bottled water sold in Canada is distributed through Nestle, for instance, even Perrier!

why not use tap or, even better, filtered water? bottled water is not necessarily cleaner. this idea of buying and selling water really bothers me. it gives private water companies a toehold in our country, and you know, they are eyeing canada's freshwater lakes.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Granola Girl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8078

posted 04 July 2005 05:43 PM      Profile for Granola Girl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I usually use tap water personally. I was just using the water thing as an example of Nestle's conrol of the grocery market.

But thanks for the pile driving anyway.


From: East Van | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 04 July 2005 05:48 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
when it comes to clothes, there's an awesome store a block away from me in which the store owner sells a lot of clothes that are made by local, aspiring fashion artists. it's nice too cause my clothes don't look like what everybody else is wearing. he also likes

I am jealous!

And I faithfully boycott Nestle's after learning about the Africa situation.

And I too will never get bottled water. Turn on the tap and save some cash.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 04 July 2005 06:58 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Granola Girl:
I usually use tap water personally. I was just using the water thing as an example of Nestle's conrol of the grocery market.

But thanks for the pile driving anyway.



sorry 'bout the "pile driving". but you never gave any indication that you don't use bottled water, and that you were just using it as an example.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 04 July 2005 07:34 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm lucky, I live in Tahsis and what comes out of our taps is the best water I have ever tasted. Visitors come and talk about how good the water is. I still see people, even here, buying bottled water and I have to really work to resist the impulse to give them a lecture on what PLASTIC does to food! Plastic secretes psuedo estrogens into the food or water, these go to and fill the receptors intended for actual estrogen...and that is not good news for anybody!

Umberellas...I have only had two in my life... one got left somewhere by one of my kids, the other seems to have just..maybe the dust buggers took it...we get TONS of rain here but I don't think I'm aware of anyone who uses a bumbershoot. Of course the way the wind blows,they might have ALL had one when they left home and the wind tore them out of their hands... or maybe the people I see don't really live here, they got flown in by bumbershoot express on the last gust...

I will continue my boycott (womancott?) of all things USian. A plague on your white house and it's occupants, I say. A plague on your softwood tariff, your mad cow hysteria and your !@#$%^ NAFTA!!


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 04 July 2005 09:47 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
I have to really work to resist the impulse to give them a lecture on what PLASTIC does to food! Plastic secretes psuedo estrogens into the food or water, these go to and fill the receptors intended for actual estrogen...and that is not good news for anybody!

i wouldn't mind getting a lecture on the dangers of plastic, anne, since i know next to nothing about it. i've heard that microwaving food in plastic containers or with plastic wrap covering the plate/container is bad. but that's the extent of my knowledge. how does length of time spent in plastic containers play into the amount of toxins emitted? when i buy foods in bulk, i have to put them into little plastic bags at the store. i always buy a plastic bagful of almonds, and they last me a long time cause i only have 8 almonds a day. most storage containers are plastic, and i often have leftovers.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 04 July 2005 10:00 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Snopes lists that one as false, though if you read their article closely it's not quite so clearcut as that:
quote:

the results of the experiment described tended to indicate that diethylhexyl adipate (DEHA) and xenoestrogens could migrate from plastic wraps into microwaved food (specifically olive oil, the "food" used in the experiment), but only with some brands of plastic wrap (primarily ones not sold as "microwave-safe") and only when the plastic wrap was in direct contact with the food being heated; moreover, no research has yet demonstrated that DEHA poses a significant cancer risk to humans at the levels noted here (even though they exceed FDA standards) or that xenoestrogens are a direct cause of breast cancer in women or reduced sperm counts in men.


There's a lot of hedging in there, and I 'm inclined to think Snopes should have listed it as "uncertain" rather than "false".

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 04 July 2005 10:25 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since I eat all organic, I'm still hoping anne can provide a source for this claim she made in the "mad cow disease" thread:
quote:
And even "organic" no longer is, the US courts have bowed to pressure from agribusiness who argued that anything which grows is "organic", and now much of what is so labelled in the stores is not organic in the sense we expect it to be.

From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 04 July 2005 11:17 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi, Bittersweet (great name!). The source? Well, I have no idea how you'd google it but a court decision in the USA about a year ago was covered in the news quite extensively. Agri business went to the Supreme Court to argue that anything which grew was "organic". The Supreme Court backed them and they can now use the term because, it seems, once again, "we" goofed and didn't copyright the term . Or some arcane point of law.

I've also been told by someone who works at a Canadian border crossing that any food of any kind which comes over the border sits on a siding and is flooded with a thick heavy mist of pesticides, fungicides, and who knows what-icides to prevent accidental importation of venomous snakes, spiders, and various kinds of fungus. I don't know how you'd check that, either.

As for psuedo (spelling doesn't look right) estrogens: I think it was W-5 had a one hour programme probably two years ago about a woman doing research in the states who came back after a weekend off and checked her samples and the results were off the map completely. She thought she'd made a huge mistake, thought she was going to have to go to square one..then found out that over the weekend the test tubes and pipettes, etc., which had formerly been glass had been replaced by plastic and it was the plastic caused the skewed results and put the estrogen levels over the top.

W-5 has done some excellent stuff, as well, on the impact of pulp mills on the reproductive capabilities of aquatic life, particularly in Jackfish Bay in Ontario where turtles, frogs, etc., have "mutated" to a point it is impossible for anyone to tell if they had originally been intended male or female.

"Organic" is a much better choice than just accepting whatever they're trying to sell you but even when buying at the farm gate I wonder what the food has been exposed to from, for example, exhaust on a busy highway, or coming from the sky from busy overhead traffic near airports.

I think we can only do the best we can do. But I think of the scientist whose work was messed up by plastic in just one weekend and I look at those plastic bottles of water and I wonder... and am glad all over again that I get my drinking water from McKelvie Creek!

My question is: I researched fluoride and am still reeling from some of the very negative stuff I read...and now they're saying it doesn't even protect teeth..does anyone know about this?

Thank you if you know and respond!


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 05 July 2005 08:20 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:

As for psuedo (spelling doesn't look right) estrogens: I think it was W-5 had a one hour programme probably two years ago about a woman doing research in the states who came back after a weekend off and checked her samples and the results were off the map completely. She thought she'd made a huge mistake, thought she was going to have to go to square one..then found out that over the weekend the test tubes and pipettes, etc., which had formerly been glass had been replaced by plastic and it was the plastic caused the skewed results and put the estrogen levels over the top.


Interesting, but it's worth repeating the point in the Snopes article- not all plastics are alike.
quote:

W-5 has done some excellent stuff, as well, on the impact of pulp mills on the reproductive capabilities of aquatic life, particularly in Jackfish Bay in Ontario where turtles, frogs, etc., have "mutated" to a point it is impossible for anyone to tell if they had originally been intended male or female.


No doubt- but my guess as to the cause would be dioxins and furans from the pulp mills, not plastics. Of course, that's rather worrisome in itself, especially for those of us who, as kids, chewed on paper in school (until recently, I believe, most paper contained rather high levels of dioxins), or those of us who live near pulp mills and the like.

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
HalfAnHourLater
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4641

posted 05 July 2005 01:35 PM      Profile for HalfAnHourLater     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:

As for psuedo (spelling doesn't look right) estrogens:


I might be wrong here, but doesn't 'estrogen' have an 'o' ie. oestrogen? I don't know if this is what you meant though? (it's pseudo)


From: So-so-so-solidarité! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 05 July 2005 05:03 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i believe it's eostregens.

i've heard that consuming high levels of flouride can lead to brittle, deformed bones, pain and greater risk of fracture. i think that only a very small amount is all that's needed to prevent tooth decay. the decision to flouridate drinking tap water, and by how much, is made by provinces or local municipalities (not sure which). so, you only really need a tiny bit of toothpaste on your toothbrush, and make sure, if your taking supplements, that they don't contain flourine. i found a website that gives more info about dental fluorosis. lovely pictures and all. sounds like there's more of a threat from ingesting fluoride toothpaste (it has to enter the bloodstream) than from just brushing alone - unless your gums bleed when you brush.here are the pics, and here are the faqs. it's really interesting.

it's true about organic foods not always being organic, bittersweet. i can't point you to a source; it's what my best friend (a nutritionist) told me after going to a health conference. you really have to read the ingredients. maybe 1 or 2 will be organic, and the rest come from who knows what laboratory. i tend to be more suspicious of the corporate brand names like heinz and PC. it's also getting more and more difficult for real organic farmers to get organic certification for their crops because of the natural migration of GE seeds into their fields.

also what my nutritionist friend told me: kellog's gets away with saying their corn flakes are so bloody nutritious because they spray the crop with lots of vitamins and minerals. but then, the crop goes through a very destructive crushing process that kills all the sprayed on vitamins and minerals. the end product is actually less nutritious than cardboard. now, if only kellog's could find a way for our bodies to digest cardboard!


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
baba yaga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6781

posted 05 July 2005 06:00 PM      Profile for baba yaga     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is a very interesting discussion! I get e-newsletters from The Organic Consumers Association, whose website has a ton of info on organics, genetically engineered foods, fair trade, the corporate takeover of organics, globalization & politics, community supported agriculture, etc. It is a us-ian site, but obviously when they make a noise, we hear it here. OCA also runs campaigns, i.e. the one to Safeguard Organic Standards.

quote:
Stung by a nationwide backlash by Organic Consumers Association members and the entire organic community, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced May 26 that it would rescind controversial policies issued last month that would have undermined organic standards and violated federal law requiring public input.

In April, the USDA announced that it would no longer monitor organic labels on non-food products, and added that pesticides, animal drugs, growth hormones, antibiotics, and tainted fishmeal would be allowed on organic farms. In response to this frontal assault on organic integrity, the OCA immediately sent out an Action Alert and launched a media campaign to pressure the USDA into reversing its controversial directives.

Thanks to all of you in our network, within two days, over 5,000 petition signatures were gathered and a landslide of faxes, emails and phone calls hit the USDA and National Organic Program offices. Amplifying OCA efforts, other public interest groups such as the Consumers Union and the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture joined the fray, while the Organic Trade Association rallied industry support. Meanwhile a class action lawsuit against the USDA was being prepared by Dr. Bronners (an organic soap and hemp bar company), the OCA, and others. The USDA ultimately capitulated on May 26, when it became clear that America's 30 million organic consumers were not going to accept the agency's dictatorial practices.

Unfortunately, consumers are still being locked out of many important policy discussions at the USDA, and of course Congress is still subsidizing--with our tax dollars--genetically engineered crops, factory farms, and chemical-intensive agriculture to the tune of $20-30 billion a year, while giving crumbs (less than $5 million annually) to organic programs for research, promotion, and monitoring. But the OCA, with your support, will continue to safeguard organic standards and move organic agriculture from a $15 billion dollar industry to becoming the dominant force in America's $800 billion food and fiber market.


Another item I'm watching is the campaign for safe cosmetics and personal care products (which is why I was in a quandry when Mallick mentioned 'exfoliating' & other "beauty regimes" she partakes in, in her article last week).

The European Union has a new law that requires cosmetics companies to remove reproductive toxins, mutagens and carcinogens from personal care products. This law went into force in early September 2004.

*quote*
"The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is asking companies to make safer, reformulated products readily available in the U.S. and in every market they serve.
Because at this time, the oversight of the cosmetics industry is virtually non-existent by the federal government, some states are taking their own action to limit toxic chemicals in cosmetics.
The federal government does not protect consumers from toxic chemicals used in many personal care products, cosmetics, home pesticides, and PVC children’s toys."

I'm not sure where Canada stands on this, probably somewhere in the middle. Mind, safecosmetics.org calls for more testing of products and doesn't dialogue about the cruelty of animal testing.

[ 05 July 2005: Message edited by: baba yaga ]

[ 05 July 2005: Message edited by: baba yaga ]


From: urban forests | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 05 July 2005 06:15 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ooh, i have to tell you about my new moisturizer i discovered about 2 months ago. it's made by alba; it's 72% organic, 100% vegetarain (actually, ingredients sound vegan to me), and no animal testing. i use the kukui nut body cream, and it smells delicious. i found it in a health food store. Nature's Gate makes good vegan and/or organic soaps, shampoos, conditioners and moisturizers. it's an californian product though; but surely, there are some american products that don't deserve to be boycotted?

i find it annoying that there are so many cosmetics on the shelves of stores like shopper's drug mart and pharma plus that don't say a thing about animal testing. so, maybe they test their products on animals, and maybe the labelling standard doesn't require companies to state if animals have been tested or not.

[ 05 July 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
sub lite
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8918

posted 06 July 2005 05:26 AM      Profile for sub lite   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HalfAnHourLater:
I might be wrong here, but doesn't 'estrogen' have an 'o' ie. oestrogen? I don't know if this is what you meant though? (it's pseudo)

< threaddrift >

oestrogen = estrogen
adrenaline = epinephrine
acetaminophen = paracetamol
orthopaedics = orthopedics
paediatrics = pediatrics
encyclopaedia = encyclopedia
colour = color
oesophagus = esophagus

What I'm trying to say is that it depends on where in the world you are. The North Americans in my programme here get teased a bit for spelling things 'wrong'.
< /threaddrift >


From: Australia via the Canadian Wet Coast | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 06 July 2005 10:58 PM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We westerners like the black and white viewpoints, but here is something that is more sustainable: semi-boycotts. ie. avoiding something unless it is too difficult (for whatever reason) at any given point, or boycotting for a set period of time, say a month or so. The idea of contacting the company is a good one, these things do seem to have an effect, especially since only a tiny fraction of people who avoid a company do so (ie. your message will suggest than 10, 50, 100, etc. people besides you are doing the same for similar beliefs.) If the boycott results in less purchases, you can give the rest to charity and improve your karma at the same time.

As for microwaving, it can destroy nutrients and change the e-m (electro-magnetic) properties of food, I have personally used stoves instead for 2 years now without any trouble.

Re. most flouride, some say it was a toxic waste product that was too expensive to dispose of properly (and had the added benefit of pacifying people, always good for the business elite), and that was why it was made out to be a good idea to put it in water. European countries who don't flouridate their water seem to be none the worse for it, it appears.


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
mellowyellow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9159

posted 07 July 2005 02:56 AM      Profile for mellowyellow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is curious that Mallick has based her ideological/consumer/lifestyle choices on what is, by all accounts, nothing more than an urban legend.

quote:
What shocked me into it was the latest news about autism.

Mallick seems to have been asleep at the switch. As I recall, the whole elaborate anti-MMR/autism conspiracy hysteria has been around for a decade -- at least.

quote:
British parents had begun to suspect that the MMR shot, three vaccines in one, was responsible for the increase in autism. Corporations and governments said pish posh, what nonsense, and the issue faded.

Well, yeah, governments, corporations, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together -- given the complete lack of credible evidence to substantiate the theory.

quote:
Now Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says the villain was the 1991 introduction of thimerosal, a mercury-based additive that preserved vaccines and made them more profitable for Big Pharma to inject en masse.

Well, if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says so, it simply must be true. What medical or scientific degree does he have again? Mallick never does explain how increasing the shelf life of a drug automatically translates into higher profits. Wouldn't they make more profit from something with a short shelf life? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Is it just possible extending the shelf life of a drug might result in a lower cost to the end-user? Naaaaah ...

Here's what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has to say about the whole thimerosal / MMR vaccine hysteria:

quote:
There is no conclusive evidence that any vaccine or vaccine additive increases the risk of developing autism or any other behavior disorder. Rather, evidence is accumulating of lack of any harm resulting from exposure to vaccine containing-thimerosal as a preservative. In a 2004 report, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that there is no association between autism and vaccines that contain thimerosal as a preservative.

More information here, and here.

Article written by a doctor. He's probably in on the conspiracy, so just ignore this.


From: Salt Spring Island | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
mellowyellow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9159

posted 07 July 2005 03:04 AM      Profile for mellowyellow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:

As for microwaving, it can destroy nutrients and change the e-m (electro-magnetic) properties of food, I have personally used stoves instead for 2 years now without any trouble.

Well, uh, yeah, one would hope a microwave oven alters the electromagnetic properties of food -- that's kinda the idea. Given that thermal radiation is an "electromagnetic property" which varies with the temperature of an object (among other factors), then, yes, the "electromagnetic properties" are changed.

One possible reason your stove might not change the "electromagnetic properties" of your food (ie., make it hot), is that you haven't plugged it in.

Just a guess ...


From: Salt Spring Island | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 07 July 2005 11:38 AM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
European countries who don't flouridate their water seem to be none the worse for it, it appears.


Hmm you've obviously never seen british teeth (or the bad teeth problem endemic in europe)


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeatherM
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9829

posted 07 July 2005 09:59 PM      Profile for HeatherM        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, it's me, Heather Mallick. I'm afraid I must object to Mr. Mellow Yellow not using his real name when he mocks the suggestion that mercury might not be good for infant brains. There is no need for vaccines to contain mercury.
The reason I question your need for anonymity is that a very similar attack was published in a newspaper today by a distinguished doctor (one who says in speeches to other doctors that worried parents are "scientifically illiterate." )He did not mention that he is a consultant to Aventis-Pasteur, one of the world's biggest vaccine makers. I have never heard of anything so unethical.
When you're discussing a question this important, it's cowardly and unethical to hide behind a silly name.
After writing that column, I start to realize how venomous doctors and Big Pharma can get when their expertise is questioned. Frankly, it disappointed me. I had expected better.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 07 July 2005 10:23 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oh my god, heather, you just made the hairs on my head stand up!! i had earlier accused mellowyellow of working for monsanto. for sure, he/she's (let's call mellowyellow 'it') one of those corporate types, and lord knows why it's pretending to be a spiritual advisor! you oughta read the bullshit it's been spewing out on the national food fight launched thread. so contradictory to what i imagine a spiritual advisor would say.

p.s: is this against babble rules to talk about someone this way? my apologies then. but i just got so excited thinking that maybe heather unearthed mellowyellow's real identity. i just can't find it within me to be nice to this doofus. (okay, ephemeral, enough smilies. get out before somebody throws a brick at your head).


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 07 July 2005 10:27 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:
Re. most flouride, some say it was a toxic waste product that was too expensive to dispose of properly (and had the added benefit of pacifying people, always good for the business elite), and that was why it was made out to be a good idea to put it in water.

that almost sounds too scary to be true, like a conspiracy theory. what do you mean by "pacifying people"? do you have any reliable sources that say the same? not saying you're wrong, just want to confirm if it's true.

[ 07 July 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 07 July 2005 10:38 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sorry for the triple post, but while we're on the subject of boycotting:

tomatoes from tomatoville, i.e., leamington, ontario is (one of?) the last bastion of slavery and opression in canada. workers, usually from mexico, are brought into canada under the 'seasonal agricultural workers program'. supported by the mexican government, workers must have less than a grade school education. they are not permitted to bring family to ensure their return. cramped living conditions and lack of privacy for the workers. they are not trained on the use of pesticides, though are expected to use it. they work 7 days a week, 10-20 hours a week at $8/hr, must work holidays, they get no overtime pay, must pay into EI and CPP, but can't collect. they are also unable to change farms or jobs. i get my info from the movie 'el contrato'. apparently, jack layton has started to take notice last year and talked to vincente fox about it, but that's the extent of my knowledge. i know nothing's changed on the farm. maybe i'll have more info after this weekend.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
mellowyellow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9159

posted 08 July 2005 01:06 AM      Profile for mellowyellow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quoting HeatherM (if, indeed, that is her real name?!):

quote:
Yes, it's me, Heather Mallick. I'm afraid I must object to Mr. Mellow Yellow not using his real name when he mocks the suggestion that mercury might not be good for infant brains.

A lot of things "might not be good for infant brains". But we're not talking about pure mercury in this case, are we? Nice use of the have you stopped beating your wife rhetorical technique, by the way. I commend you on your sensationalistic juxtaposition of "mercury" and "infant brains". It conjures up images of Doctor Josef Mengele in his mad-scientist laboratory and all that. By some incomprehensible miscarriage of meritocracy, someone actually pays you to write that stuff.

Regarding your paranoid obsession with my real name, I can assure you I've had it legally changed to Mellow Yellow. It even says so on my driver's licence. Then again, even if I did use my real name, I'm sure you'd simply accuse me of using a fake name, anyway. I don't know if you've heard the recent news about the Internet, but almost nobody is dumb enough to use their real name.

Okay, I confess. You've worn me down. My puppet-masters at the CIA/General Motors/Monsanto/World Bank/Sears Roebuck/Blockbuster Video Store/Freemasons have transmitted secret orders to the microchip implanted in my scalp, to contradict your looney pseudo-science with, um, you know ... facts. Happy now?

quote:
The reason I question your need for anonymity is that a very similar attack was published in a newspaper today by a distinguished doctor (one who says in speeches to other doctors that worried parents are "scientifically illiterate." )He did not mention that he is a consultant to Aventis-Pasteur, one of the world's biggest vaccine makers. I have never heard of anything so unethical.

Okay, in this very thread, you have people who actually believe municipal water fluoridation is a Commie mind-control plot, and some guy who thinks microwave ovens make his food radioactive, or some such nonsense. And you think a scientist who happens to work for a certain company pointing out the fact that many people are scientifically illiterate is ... unethical?!

Sounds more like this doctor is calling a spade a spade, if you ask me.

What is completely bizarre, though, is that you seem to be suggesting that only one person -- cleverly adopting various fake names, of course -- could possibly take issue with your rantings!

Bizarre -- yet hilarious!

However, your seeming obsession with my annonymity is merely a distraction which you deploy in order to avoid addressing the overwhelming weight of legitimate evidence which contradicts your paranoia-infused arguments about "Big Pharma"(tm).

Simply put, you have now resorted to a lazy ad-hominem position. You attack the person, rather than address the issues. A cheap shot.

quote:
There is no need for vaccines to contain mercury.

Very good then, Dr. Mallick. I suppose, by your logic, there is also no need to have untainted vaccines. Imagine how much better that would be for "infant brains", to use vaccines contaminated with pathogens.

What does Dr. Mallick suggest as a replacement? Chocolate sauce? Surely chocolate sauce wouldn't harm swaddling babes? It's yummy, and doesn't sound all spooky like MERCURY: THE ANT-CHRIST OF THE PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS! Besides, everyone knows Mercury was the Roman god of merchants and trading -- how appropriate for the sinister KKKapitalists of "Big Pharma"(tm).

Coincidence? I don't think so.

quote:
When you're discussing a question this important, it's cowardly and unethical to hide behind a silly name.

Yes, you're big on bravery and ethics -- too bad you're also a little stingy with the facts.

quote:
After writing that column, I start to realize how venomous doctors and Big Pharma can get when their expertise is questioned. Frankly, it disappointed me. I had expected better.

Venomous? Excuse me? Have you actually read any of your own rantings? From what I've read, you are the very definition of hissing, spitting, un-hinged apoplexy.

quote:
I had expected better.

No you didn't.

In closing, please feel free to continue avoiding the objective facts with your paranoid innuendo, misrepresentations and ad-hominem attacks. Stick with what you're good at. Rational, honest debate is clearly not your strong suit.


From: Salt Spring Island | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 08 July 2005 01:24 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can you say "projection", boys and girls?
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
mellowyellow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9159

posted 08 July 2005 01:33 AM      Profile for mellowyellow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what beluga2 is trying to say is:

"I know you are, but what am I? Nyah-nyah!"


From: Salt Spring Island | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 July 2005 03:42 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pay no attention to the yellow one, Heather. His mother paid for all those books, and he still can't read a simple graph.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 08 July 2005 04:08 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ugly
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 July 2005 04:51 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
rutabaga
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 08 July 2005 10:20 AM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Here's the thing people. m-y obviously has half a brain, and knows a fair bit of stuff.

and for the record, a lot of people on babble, including myself, are willing to believe the worst about corporate science with relatively little evidence to go on. [F'r instance, i once did some reading on the mercury scare in tooth fillings, and found that (whatever the reality that i'm not fit to judge) the pro-mercury writers did a far better job of presenting their case, while the anti-mercury crowd kept repeating the same uninvestigated argument over and over.]

but here's the other thing. from the get-go, m-y starts off with condescension and insults (and then pretends to get offended when people begin to respond in kind).

but here's the main thing: m-y is dishonest. for whatever reasons, (personal shortcomings or or mercenary interests, or whatever) m-y chooses to ignore or clumsily denigrate uncomfortable counterarguments that are founded on strong science. (And this is pretty blatant, and wrecks m-y's credibility to an extent that he/she is laughably unaware.) whatever m-y might have had to contribute is negated by this dishonesty and trollish behaviour.

for my part, i'm going to regard m-y as a corporate shill, and i'd advise everyone else to do the same.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 July 2005 10:39 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
p.s: is this against babble rules to talk about someone this way? my apologies then. but i just got so excited thinking that maybe heather unearthed mellowyellow's real identity.

Attempts to out babblers, or badger them into outing themselves, are generally frowned upon. If your credibility here is nil until everyone knows the name your parents gave you then we're all sunk, with a small handful of exceptions.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeatherM
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9829

posted 08 July 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for HeatherM        Edit/Delete Post
I started reading m-y's thing and then stopped. What pointless inarticulate rage floats in this person's mind, and why?
I had a wonderful email exchange today with a doctor who emailed me to disagree with my column. In the end, we found we agreed on everything but thimerosal. It is true that we know very little about the diseases that vaccines prevent. Perhaps if we knew more about them, we would demand exquisite and expensive government testing of all pharmaceuticals rather than leaving it basically up to the industry to police itself. And then we would be able to trust our vaccines.
In the U.S. the deregulation that began with Reagan is the villain, for it leaves industry to its own devices. The FAA, for instance, has to contract out its investigations of plane crashes, for instance, because they don't have the money and staff they need.
Something has gone very wrong in the drug research/testing/marketing chain. I do not trust thimerosal for one moment. But there is a bigger problem behind this. At the end of the chain, of course is the autistic child, now abandoned by provincial governments. Could we perhaps put children first?
You see, civilized discussion comes up with interesting ideas.
As for this m-y person, I tire of dealing with mad people. When you're a columnist you hear from a lot of them. Thanks to the Babblers who are civilized, good-humoured and above all, funny!
Best,
Heather

From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 08 July 2005 07:00 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heather:

I read RFK Jr.s column and have been spreading it far and wide ever since. I would trust Mr. Kennedy far more than I would ANY flack for Big Pharma or the bought and paid for doctors that front for the drug companies.

The reason?

I have two sons. One was born in April 1989 and received his shots. The other was born in January 1991 and received all of his shots. Both from the same doctor and hospital.

Check the dates of thimerosal injections and guess which one has autism?

Unless you see it happen, unless you connect the dots, unless you really DIG and read into the research on the data, the secret meetings, all the things that Kennedy DID, you don't know, you can't have a clue as to these skyrocketing rates of autism.

I will NEVER accept the drug industry's or the government's whitewash on this and neither will the thousands of parents of children who contracted autism (yes contracted) during the period of years where thimerosal was put into the vaccines.

They protect their damn Wall Street margins while our kids struggle to make it through the world with a condition still little understood and in many cases socially tolerated.

The bastards who sat around the table at the Simpsonwood conference can rot in hell for all I care.

I missed you people,

Keith


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 08 July 2005 08:09 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Welcome back, AE.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rabelais
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6230

posted 08 July 2005 10:32 PM      Profile for Rabelais     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So what about the thousands of kids who get vaccinated with MMR and /don't/ get autism? I just did a simple PubMed search on MMR and autism and got a wide range of population studies, sich as this one:

quote:
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9.
No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.

Yokohama Rehabilitation Center, Yokohama, Japan. honda@yokohama.email.ne.jp

BACKGROUND: A causal relationship between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and occurrence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has been claimed, based on an increase in ASD in the USA and the UK after introduction of the MMR vaccine. However, the possibility that this increase is coincidental has not been eliminated. The unique circumstances of a Japanese MMR vaccination program provide an opportunity for comparison of ASD incidence before and after termination of the program. METHODS: This study examined cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven for children born from 1988 to 1996 in Kohoku Ward (population approximately 300,000), Yokohama, Japan. ASD cases included all cases of pervasive developmental disorders according to ICD-10 guidelines. RESULTS: The MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or thereafter. In contrast, cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993. CONCLUSIONS: The significance of this finding is that MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD.


[ 08 July 2005: Message edited by: Rabelais ]


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 09 July 2005 03:51 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.
However, the claim has been made that the conclusions of that study are not supported by its own data; rather that the data better fit the case for a link between MMR vaccine and autism.

[ 09 July 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rabelais
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6230

posted 09 July 2005 08:16 AM      Profile for Rabelais     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That site looks awfully biased to me. There seems to be all sorts of stuff premised on the conclusion that "of course it causes autism". I'd like to see the qualifications of the people who run that site, to be honest.

And that's hardly the only study.

quote:
MMR vaccination and autism : what is the evidence for a causal association?

Madsen KM, Vestergaard M.

Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, The Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, Aarhus, Denmark. KMM@dadlnet.dk

It has been suggested that vaccination with the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. The wide-scale use of the MMR vaccine has been reported to coincide with the apparent increase in the incidence of autism. Case reports have described children who developed signs of both developmental regression and gastrointestinal symptoms shortly after MMR vaccination.A review of the literature revealed no convincing scientific evidence to support a causal relationship between the use of MMR vaccines and autism. No primate models exist to support the hypothesis. The biological plausibility remains questionable and there is a sound body of epidemiological evidence to refute the hypothesis. The hypothesis has been subjected to critical evaluation in many different ways, using techniques from molecular biology to population-based epidemiology, and with a vast number of independent researchers involved, none of which has been able to corroborate the hypothesis.


quote:
MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study.

Smeeth L, Cook C, Fombonne E, Heavey L, Rodrigues LC, Smith PG, Hall AJ.

Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. autism@lshtm.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: Concern that measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination might cause autism has led to a fall in vaccine coverage. We investigated whether MMR vaccination is associated with an increased risk of autism or other pervasive developmental disorders. METHODS: We did a matched case-control study using the UK General Practice Research Database. Cases were people born in 1973 or later who had first recorded diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder while registered with a contributing general practice between 1987 and 2001. Controls were matched on age, sex, and general practice. FINDINGS: 1294 cases and 4469 controls were included. 1010 cases (78.1%) had MMR vaccination recorded before diagnosis, compared with 3671 controls (82.1%) before the age at which their matched case was diagnosed. After adjustment for age at joining the database, the odds ratio for association between MMR and pervasive developmental disorder was 0.86 (95% CI 0.68-1.09). Findings were similar when restricted to children with a diagnosis of autism, to those vaccinated with MMR before the third birthday, or to the period before media coverage of the hypothesis linking MMR with autism. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that MMR vaccination is not associated with an increased risk of pervasive developmental disorders.


Now, I'd happily suggest that we should think about removing thimerosal from the vaccines, but my reasoning would be that since there are people who are that convinced there is a link, harm reduction would suggest we find another option for people who won't vaccinate their kids for fear of autism, simply so that their kids don't end up witn measles, mumps or rubella.


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 09 July 2005 06:17 PM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Welcome back A.E., missed you.

"Ethlymercury, combined with certain other substances, produces what is known as "synergistic toxicity". Three known synergistic toxins of ethlymercury are antibiotics, aluminum, and testosterone.

Synergistic toxins are substances that enhance the toxicity of mercury. Many children diagnosed with autism have a history of multiple rounds of antibiotics for ear infections. Antibiotics are a synergistic toxin with mercury and also damage the gut flora of the intestine, which is one of the primary means the body uses to excrete mercury. A mother who receives antibiotics during pregnancy in combination with her own mercury body burden would create the same impact on the fetus. Aluminum is another toxic metal found in vaccines. The combination of aluminum means that toxicity goes from 1+1=2 to 1+1=60 or more. Testosterone accelerates mercury's toxicity and helps explain why approximately 80%-90% of the cases of autism are male. Here is Donald Miller, M.D. Professor of Surgery, University of Washington, discussing aluminum and synergistic toxicity:

"Another important factor with regard to mercury on the mind, which officials at the CDC, FDA and the professors in the IOM do not consider, is synergistic toxicity - mercury's enhanced effect when other poisons are present. A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that will kill 1 in 100 rats, when combined have a striking effect: all the rats die. Doses of mercury that have a 1 percent mortality will have a 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there. Vaccines contain aluminum."

Here


From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
mellowyellow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9159

posted 10 July 2005 06:12 PM      Profile for mellowyellow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quoting HeatherM:

quote:
What pointless inarticulate rage floats in this person's mind, and why?

Still avoiding the issue by frantically trying to change the subject, and continuing with your ad-hominem attacks, I see. Well, at least you are consistent.

quote:
Perhaps if we knew more about them, we would demand exquisite and expensive government testing of all pharmaceuticals rather than leaving it basically up to the industry to police itself. And then we would be able to trust our vaccines.

Let me get this straight -- This "exquisite and expensive government testing" would be performed by the same government agencies whom you accuse of infinite corruptibility at the hands of your dreaded "Big Pharma"(tm)?

So your solution to this alleged governemt corruption and incompetence would be to have even more government? And that would win your trust?

O-kaaaay ...

quote:
In the U.S. the deregulation that began with Reagan is the villain, for it leaves industry to its own devices. The FAA, for instance, has to contract out its investigations of plane crashes, for instance, because they don't have the money and staff they need.

That's complete bullshit. The FAA carries out it's own investigations. It doesn't contract them out.

In any case, contrary to your theory, the data clearly shows air safety has become more safe -- not less safe -- since deregulation. Or is increased air safety the "villain" to which you refer? You seem a little inarticulate here.

Oh, and in other recent news, in the U.S., the airline industry was deregulated in 1978. The U.S. President at that time would have been not Reagan, but Jimmy Carter.

You also "forgot" to mention thimerosal was introduced -- again, not during the Reagan administration -- but in the 1930s, which I believe would have been during the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. You're not even close.

quote:
Something has gone very wrong in the drug research/testing/marketing chain. I do not trust thimerosal for one moment.

You keep repeating this claim, yet repeatedly provide no evidence to back it up, or to contradict the the overwhelming mountain of authoratitive evidence to the contrary.

quote:
Could we perhaps put children first?

Of course, the classic WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!!! gambit. Nice to see you are branching out from your customary ad-hominem and are employing the classic appeal to emotion maneuver.

quote:
You see, civilized discussion comes up with interesting ideas.

Before you get too carried away with self-congratulations, perhaps you might actually want to try some of this "civilised discussion" first?

quote:
As for this m-y person, I tire of dealing with mad people.

With one notable exception. Can we assume you still haven't read any of your own frothings?

quote:
When you're a columnist

I confess, this still baffles me.

[ 10 July 2005: Message edited by: mellowyellow ]


From: Salt Spring Island | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
mellowyellow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9159

posted 10 July 2005 06:32 PM      Profile for mellowyellow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rabelais:
Now, I'd happily suggest that we should think about removing thimerosal from the vaccines, but my reasoning would be that since there are people who are that convinced there is a link, harm reduction would suggest we find another option for people who won't vaccinate their kids for fear of autism, simply so that their kids don't end up witn measles, mumps or rubella.

I agree that children should not have to suffer, due to the unreasonable or misinformed decisions made by their parents. However, I think pandering to irrational hysteria also tends to exacerbate the problem in the long run. That's how we ended up with "child-proof" cigarette lighters.


From: Salt Spring Island | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 13 July 2005 06:16 AM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ephemeral - sorry for the late response, I visit the forum here irregularily and wasn't expecting a question.

The flouride question was in a book I read (and was based on claims of it being added to the diet of POW's), the title of which I can no longer recall.
A couple of articles on flouride can be found at:
http://www.livingnow.com.au/issues/s1issuesstories1.htm
http://www.johnleemd.com/store/essay_fluoride.html

I would suspect further investigation could prove (or perhaps disprove) the idea, something I am not inclined to do this at this time. I would think that someone more inclined than myself could come up with a meta-analysis on the subject based on a good sample of flouridated areas and comparable non-flouridated areas. If so, I would like to see it.

mellowyellow - the e-m change was said to be towards frequencies that integrated poorly with the human body, as you might have guessed if you were were being honest and intelligent about it, and not just trying to be rude or troll-ish.

I also suspect I will be ignoring most - if not all - of any of your posts I see in the future due to your rude behavior and seeming lack of desire to seek either consensus or truth. Either you are a committed troll or you are severely lacking in communication skills much beyond the ability to mock and insult. Besides perhaps the ability to spark debate and the slight humour aspect of your posts aside, I view your commentary as negative overall. I would hope you would modify this for not just the board as a whole, but also for your own mindset and karma, if you are so inclined to believe. Your intelligence seems to be decent, you could offer and gain much from this site if your intent was cleaner and more open.

Re. the vaccines - colloidal silver, vitamin C, and Alpha-lipoic acid are all solid antibiotics that IMO could very well replace most (maybe all) shots and allopathic antibiotics. Vitamin C and ALA are extremely safe even in large quantities, while colloidal silver is extremely effective, but should be used in more limited quantities.

Good books on the the vaccine question can most likely be found at your local library. There is much more to it than meets the eye at first glance, IMO.


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 14 July 2005 03:06 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
anonymous, no worries about the late response. i know what that's like. thanks for the links. i clicked on them to see how long they were. i am going to read them later cause my computer time is limited today.
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
mellowyellow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9159

posted 16 July 2005 05:32 PM      Profile for mellowyellow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quoting Mr. Anonymous:

quote:
the e-m change was said to be towards frequencies that integrated poorly with the human body

Interesting, but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying? What exactly is the nature of this "e-m change"? I have to admit I'm not familiar with the technical jargon.

Also, you mention certain "frequencies that integrated poorly with the human body".

Specifically, what are those frequencies? What part of the electromagnetic spectrum do they occupy? i.e., 60 Hz, 1.43 kHz, or what?

I'm also unclear as to what you mean by "frequencies that integrated poorly with the human body"? How can one determine that a given frequency is "integrating poorly" vs. "integrating well"? Is some sort of measuring instrument used? What is meant by "integrating"?

I'd appreciate any insight you could provide.

quote:
as you might have guessed if you were were being honest and intelligent about it, and not just trying to be rude or troll-ish.

I'm sorry you feel that way, though in my defense, I've never claimed to be either honest or intelligent.


From: Salt Spring Island | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 July 2005 11:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm sorry you feel that way, though in my defense, I've never claimed to be either honest or intelligent.

That would be pushing it, even for you.

[ 17 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 18 July 2005 02:15 AM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ephemeral: Your're welcome.

mellowyellow: While I'm not fully up on the science myself, these links might give you something to think about:

http://www.mercola.com/article/microwave/hazards.htm
http://www.cam.net.uk/home/Nimmann/healing/microwaves.htm
http://www.life-enthusiast.com/news/s_microwave.htm

The last two links are short and to the point, while the first link is longer. The first site contains a number of interesting links and articles on everything from aspartame to vaccines as well.


From the third article on microwaves:


RESULTING EFFECT ON THE HUMAN BODY

Digestive System: The unstable catabolism of microwaved foods alters their elemental food substances, causing disorders in the digestive system.

Lymphatic System: Due to chemical alterations within food substances, malfunctions occur in the lymphatic system, causing a degeneration of the body's ability to protect itself against certain forms of neoplastics (cancerous growths).

Blood: A higher-than-normal percentage of cancerous cells in blood serum (cytomas) can be seen in subjects ingesting microwaved foods.

Brain: Their residual magnetism effect can render the psychoneural-receptor components of the brain more subject to influence by artificially induced, microwave radio frequency fields from transmission stations and TV relay networks.

Free Radicals: Certain trace mineral molecular formations in plant substances (in particular, raw-root vegetables) form cancer-causing free radicals.

Stomach and Intestinal Cancers: A statistically higher percentage of cancerous growths result in these organs, plus a generalized breakdown of the peripheral cellular tissues and a gradual degeneration of digestive and excretory functions.


The work of Robert Becker might also be of interest from a scientific standpoint.

Hope that helps.

[ 18 July 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 08 August 2005 06:01 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
in case folks don't know, flouride-free toothpaste can be obtained at most health food stores, or organic/all-natural food stores. i just found out a few days ago myself. i found Tom's flouride-free toothpaste (never heard of this brand before), and Nature's Gate. I quite like Nature's Gate products. Both brands contain no animal ingredients, and they don't test on animals.

btw, i realize now that i have mild, very mild flourosis in my teeth. but one really has to stare to notice it.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 08 August 2005 06:13 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:
mellowyellow: While I'm not fully up on the science myself, these links might give you something to think about

Yellow hasn't been around since (s)he was asked how (s)he came across a Bush/Cheney04 campaign sign on Salt Spring Island. I don't know if Yellow's absence is intentional or not.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 08 August 2005 06:27 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
yellow probably gave up posting when he/she realized that nobody was taking him/her seriously anymore, and that m-y was just becoming somebody to laugh at. good riddance, i say.
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 31 January 2006 08:00 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know this may be a little late, but after briefly looking at this old thread that was recently bumped, I couldn't help but wonder if PereUbu and mellowyellow know each other. Do they know each other very well? Would people say those 2 are like "peas in a pod?" I just saw this today, hence that's why I haven't brought this up earlier.
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 03 February 2006 10:08 AM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's a good possibility of that.
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 18 February 2006 05:59 PM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Instead of starting a new thread...
http://flouridealert.com/
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/

Yes, toxic waste really is bad for you (go figure).

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca