Wash Avocados?

I’m way ahead of the power curve on that one.

I’ve been washing almost EVERYTHING with a wee bit of soap, water, and common unscented household bleach for a very long time. And I mean EVERYTHING. Including mushrooms.

Blueberries? Yup. Cherries? Yup. Strawberries? Yup. Melons? Yup. Grapes? ESPECIALLY! And yes, that includes avocados.

Frankly, you should

Should you drink Bottled Water?

Hello?

Pure & safe drinking water is but one thing taxes are used to provide to the general public.

Hello? Anybody home?

—

Bottled Water Vs. Tap Water

Remember the drinking fountain, that once ubiquitous, and free, source of H2O? It seems quaint now. Instead, bottled water is everywhere, in offices, airplanes, stores, homes and restaurants across the country.We consumed over eight billion gallons of the stuff in 2006, a 10 percent increase from 2005. It’s refreshing, calorie-free, convenient to carry around, tastier than some tap water and a heck of a lot healthier than sugary sodas. But more and more, people are questioning whether the water, and the package it comes in, is safe, or at least safer than tap water — and if the convenience is worth the environmental impact.

What’s in That Bottle?
Evocative names and labels depicting pastoral scenes have convinced us that the liquid is the purest drink around. “But no one should think that bottled water is better regulated, better protected or safer than tap,” says Eric Goldstein, co-director of the urban program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a nonprofit organization devoted to protecting health and the environment.

More than 25% of bottled water comes from a public source. – Dave Robertson/Masterfile

Yes, some bottled water comes from sparkling springs and other pristine sources. But more than 25 percent of it comes from a municipal supply. The water is treated, purified and sold to us, often at a thousandfold increase in price. Most people are surprised to learn that they’re drinking glorified tap water, but bottlers aren’t required to list the source on the label.This year Aquafina will begin stating on labels that its H2O comes from public water sources. And Nestlé Pure Life bottles will indicate whether the water comes from public, private or deep well sources. Dasani acknowledges on its website, but not on the label itself, that it draws from local water.

Labels can be misleading at best, deceptive at worst. In one notorious case, water coming from a well located near a hazardous waste site was sold to many bottlers. At least one of these companies labeled its product “spring water.” In another case, H2O sold as “pure glacier water” came from a public water system in Alaska.

Lisa Ledwidge, 38, of Minneapolis, stopped drinking bottled water a couple of years ago, partly because she found out that many brands come from a municipal supply. “You’re spending more per gallon than you would on gasoline for this thing that you can get out of the tap virtually for free,” she says. “I wondered, Why am I spending this money while complaining about how much gas costs? But you don’t ever hear anyone complain about the price of bottled water.” Ledwidge says she now drinks only filtered tap water.

The controversy isn’t simply about tap vs. bottled water; most people drink both, knowing the importance of plenty of water. What they may not know is that some bottled water may not be as pure as they expect. In 1999 the NRDC tested more than 1,000 bottles of 103 brands of water. (This is the most recent major report on bottled water safety.) While noting that most bottled water is safe, the organization found that at least one sample of a third of the brands contained bacterial or chemical contaminants, including carcinogens, in levels exceeding state or industry standards. Since the report, no major regulatory changes have been made and bottlers haven’t drastically altered their procedures, so the risk is likely still there.

The NRDC found that samples of two brands were contaminated with

More May Be at Risk as U.S. Meningitis Outbreak Widens

Welcome back to the world of “de-regulation”! You know… the one that existed before the FDA was created.

Now, do you really want it to be like that?

Probably not.

—

More drugs from the pharmacy at the center of a meningitis outbreak may be contaminated, putting additional people at risk of contracting the deadly infection, U.S. regulators said.

Any drug meant to be injected that was manufactured by New England Compounding Center may be tainted, the Food and Drug Administration said yesterday on its website. The agency doesn’t know how many people may have received potentially tainted shots, Sarah Clark-Lynn, a spokeswoman for the FDA, said in an e-mail. The agency is working with the Framingham, Massachusetts-based pharmacy to gather more information about product distribution, she said.

The fungal meningitis outbreak that began with a steroid used for back pain has led to 214 infections in 15 U.S. states, killing 15 people, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. A second steroid to treat inflammation manufactured by the pharmacy has been linked to

Pharmaceutical Firms Lie, Cheat & Steal from America’s Elderly, Orphans, Poor and Helpless

A few points for the reader to consider:
This fraud was national in scope, involving a $3 BILLION settlement, of which the North Carolina Attorney General was able to recoup $31.8M. Pfizer, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Forest Labs, Eli Lilly, Astrazeneca have also all plead guilty to deceptive and fraudulent marketing. It’s very likely a drop in the bucket in comparison with the greater scope.

The four most expensive Pharmacy frauds in the United States history have occurred since George W. Bush oversaw the rewriting of the Medicare Part D drug benefit in 2003. In order of their value, they are:
GlaxoSmithKline – $3 Billion, 2012
Pfizer – $2.3 Billion, 2009
Abbott Laboratories – $1.5 Billion, 2012
Eli Lilly – $1.4 Billion, 2009

The so-called “doughnut hole” in the Medicare prescription Part D drug plan was closed by President Obama. That “doughnut hole” was created under the George W. Bush administration, who caved in to lobbyists from BIG PHARMA, and allowed them to write much of that aspect of the 2003 revision of the Medicare Part D law (also known as the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA), and refused to allow Medicaid the opportunity to bargain for prices with pharmaceutical firms.

Advertising is expensive. Advertising for medications on television, radio, Internet, magazines, billboards, buses, and any other place where advertising is sold, is illegal in some nations. It was once illegal in the United States, until the 1980’s when the FDA OK’d it under pressure from the Reagan administration.

IMS Health, a medical data firm, calculates that drug companies’ business in the United States alone earns more than $300 billion a year.

Last year, GSK had $20 Billion gross profits on $27 Billion in revenue. So don’t let anyone EVER fool you into believing that drug companies don’t make enough money, don’t have enough profits, or enough profit margin.

Pharmaceutical companies spent

Blood thinners Pradaxa & Xarelto exceedingly more dangerous & costly than Coumadin/Warfarin

If you’re presently taking the “blood thinner” medications in this news item, it may be in the best interest of your health, and life, to reconsider and stay with warfarin/coumadin.

At least with warfarin/coumadin, we have an antidote, and it has far fewer risks associated with it.

In short, it has evidence for greater safety.

Here’s the long & short of it:
Deaths associated with Warfarin/Coumadin in 2011 = 72
Deaths associated with Praxaxa in 2011 = 542

There was NO OTHER MEDICINE with such a high rate of death associated with death.

Annual Cost of Medicine: Pradaxa & Xarelto = $3,000
Annual Cost of Medicine: Coumadin/Warfarin = $200

You do the math.

Wanna’ be a statistic?

—

Insight: Top heart doctors fret over new blood thinners

By Ransdell Pierson
NEW YORK | Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:37pm EDT

(Reuters) – For millions of heart patients, a pair of new blood thinners have been heralded as the first replacements in 60 years for warfarin, a pill whose hardships and risks have deterred many from using the stroke-prevention medicine.

A sign is seen at the entrance of an anti-coagulation clinic at the Staten Island University Hospital in Staten Island, New York May 7, 2012. For millions of heart patients, a pair of new blood thinners have been heralded as the first replacements in 60 years for warfarin, a pill whose hardships and risks have deterred many from using the stroke-prevention medicine. Picture taken May 7, 2012. REUTERS/Allison Joyce

But growing complaints of risks and deaths tied to the new crop of drugs have made some top U.S. cardiologists hesitant to prescribe them. Some are proposing a more rigorous monitoring regimen for when they are used.

Most concerns revolve around Pradaxa, a twice daily pill from Boehringer Ingelheim that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October 2010 to prevent strokes in patients with an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation. It was the first new oral treatment for that use since warfarin was introduced in the 1950s.

“The good news is you now have an alternative to warfarin,” said Dr. Alan Jacobson, director of anti-coagulation services at the Veterans Administration (VA) healthcare system in Loma Linda, California. “The bad news is you can kill a patient as easily with the new drug as you could with the old drug” if it is not handled properly.

“The average patient doesn’t understand anything

Pradaxa & Xarelto: Are they worth the risks & costs?

What dangers lurk ahead for new “blood thinner” medications?

Could we unwittingly be participating in our own destruction?

Not only that, but these new medications are exorbitantly expensive, as well.

Are they worth it in the long run?

Should we continue to use the ready stand-by?

The new meds have no antidote. The old one does.

Too little too late, or too much too soon?

Are we playing with fire?

Only time will tell.

—

Insight: Top heart doctors fret over new blood thinners

6:50am EDT, 14 June 2012

By Ransdell Pierson

NEW YORK (Reuters) – For millions of heart patients, a pair of new blood thinners have been heralded as the first replacements in 60 years for warfarin, a pill whose hardships and risks have deterred many from using the stroke-prevention medicine.

But growing complaints of risks and deaths tied to the new crop of drugs have made some top U.S. cardiologists hesitant to prescribe them. Some are proposing a more rigorous monitoring regimen for when they are used.

Most concerns revolve around Pradaxa, a twice daily pill from Boehringer Ingelheim that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October 2010 to prevent strokes in patients with an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation. It was the first new oral treatment for that use since warfarin was introduced in the 1950s.

“The good news is

FDA Announces Food Recalls

To ensure public health and safety, the United States Food and Drug Administration has recently announced recalls of certain food items.

And, if you can imagine it – believe it or else – there are politicians and people who say the FDA should be eliminated. Hint: They’re “TEA Party,” Libertarian or Republican. And you know what their argument is? It’s not in Constitution.

Honestly, that stupefies me. It boggles my imagination.

Following are the two most recent recall announcements.

How can I tell if the eggs in my refrigerator are affected?

Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced a recall of millions of poultry eggs after finding evidence of widespread contamination.

Here’s the official web page to determine if your groceries were involved.

When the treatment is worse than the disease

“Simponi can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. Serious and sometimes fatal events can occur – such as infections, cancer in children and adults, heart failure, nervous system disorders, liver or blood problems and allergic reactions. Before starting Simponi, your doctor should test you for TB and assess your risk of infections, including fungal infections, and hepatitis B.”

– from a teevee commercial/advertisement for a once-a-month, self-injectable “drug/medicine” branded “Simponi” purported to treat rheumatoid arthritis

“SIMPONI^™ can lower your ability to fight infections. There are reports of serious infections caused by bacteria, fungi, or viruses that have spread throughout the body, including tuberculosis (TB) and histoplasmosis. Some of these infections have been fatal. Your doctor will test you for TB before starting SIMPONI^™ and will monitor you for signs of TB during treatment. Tell your doctor if you have been in close contact with people with TB. Tell your doctor if you have been in a region (such as the Ohio and Mississippi River Valleys and the Southwest) where certain fungal infections like histoplasmosis or coccidioidomycosis are common. Unusual cancers have been reported in children and teenage patients taking TNF-blocker medicines. For children and adults taking TNF blockers, including SIMPONI^™, the chances for getting lymphoma or other cancers may increase. You should tell your doctor if you have had or develop lymphoma or other cancers.”

– from the http://www.simponi.com/ website

The word “medication” can be simply defined as “a compound or preparation used for the treatment or prevention of disease,” while the word “cure” can be simply defined as to “relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition.”

Should a “cure” cause disease?

What the hell was the FDA thinking when they approved this “medicine”?

What sense does it make to create a “medicine” for which the company knows causes cancer? Is that not a class action lawsuit waiting to happen? Would the American Cancer Association approve this medication?

Would YOU recommend this “medicine” to your family and friends?

Would YOU take this “medicine”?

Should this “medicine” be banned?