Fluoride: Calcifier Of The Soul

The Discovery

Research published in 2001 showed that fluoride (F) deposits in the pineal gland with age and is associated with enhanced gland calcification. Eleven aged cadavares were dissected and their pineal glands assayed:

 “There was a positive correlation between pineal F and pineal Ca (r = 0.73, p<0.02) but no correlation between pineal F and bone F. By old age, the pineal gland has readily accumulated F and its F/Ca ratio is higher than bone.”

What Is The Pineal Gland?

The pineal gland is a small endocrine gland in the vertebrate brain, and is sometimes called the “third eye” as it is a light sensitive, centrally-located organ with cellular features resembling the human retina.

One article describes the role of the pineal gland in more technical terms here:

“The role of the nonvisual photoreception is to synchronise periodic functions of living organisms to the environmental light periods in order to help survival of various species in different biotopes.”  Source

The pineal gland is best known for its role in producing the hormone melatonin from serotonin (triggered by the absence of light) and affects wake/sleep patterns and seasonal/circadian rhythms. Like a tiny pea-sized pine cone it is located near the center of the brain, between the two hemispheres and is a unique brain structure insofar as it is not protected by the blood-brain-barrier. This may also explain why it is uniquely sensitive to calcification via fluoride exposure.

More Than An Endocrine Gland

Technically the mammalian pineal gland is neural tissue, and the cells within the pineal gland – the pinealocytes – have characteristics that resemble the photorecetpor cells in the retina.

This has given rise to the opinion that it should be reclassified:

“In our opinion, the main trend of today’s literature on pineal functions–only considering the organ as a common endocrine gland – deviates from this structural and histochemical basis.” Source

The pineal gland has been a subject of much interest since ancient times. Galen described it in the 3rd century, and the philosopher René Decartes (1596-1650) identified the pineal gland as the “seat of the soul.” His explanation for this conclusion is quite interesting:

“My view is that this gland is the principal seat of the soul, and the place in which all our thoughts are formed. The reason I believe this is that I cannot find any part of the brain, except this, which is not double. Since we see only one thing with two eyes, and hear only one voice with two ears, and in short have never more than one thought at a time, it must necessarily be the case that the impressions which enter by the two eyes or by the two ears, and so on, unite with each other in some part of the body before being considered by the soul. Now it is impossible to find any such place in the whole head except this gland; moreover it is situated in the most suitable possible place for this purpose, in the middle of all the concavities; and it is supported and surrounded by the little branches of the carotid arteries which bring the spirits into the brain.” Source: Wikipedia.

Decartes was one of the few philosophers who was experienced in vivisection and anatomy, and who righly pointed out the unique nature of the pineal gland’s location in the brain and blood supply.

The “third eye” is also a well known symbol in Eastern literature, and may be concretely grounded in the anatomical structure and function of the pineal gland.

Calcium Stones In the Brain

Pineal gland calcifications upon dissection resemble gravel, and are composed of calcite (calcium carbonate) and/or calcium hydroxylapatite, the latter of which is not unlike dentin or bone.  (Source)

Pineal gland calcification is associated with a number of diseases in the medical literature:

1. Alzheimer Disease


2. Bipolar Disease


3. Circadian Dysregulation


4. Hormone Imbalances: Low Melatonin


5. Insomnia


6. Low Back Pain


7. Parkinson Disease


8. Schizophrenia


9. Sleep Disorders


10. Stroke

Fluoride As A “Therapeutic” Neurotoxin?

Now that it has been established that fluoride (F) exposure contributes to the calcification of the pineal gland, the question remains: what are the subjective affects of these tissue changes to those who undergo them?

Prozac may represent an archetypal example of how fluoride affects the personality/soul. This drug (chemical name fluoxetine) is approximately 30% fluoride by weight and marketed as an “antidepressant,” even while a major side effect of its use and/or withdrawal is suicidal depression.  Modern psychiatry often treats depressive disorders – the “dark night of the soul” – as an organic disorder of the brain, targeting serotonin reuptake by any chemical means necessary. Fluoride and fluoxetine, in fact,  may accomplish their intended “therapeutic effects” by poisoning the pineal gland.  Animal studies confirm that when mice have their pineal glands removed they no longer respond to fluoxetine.  Source

Perhaps the primary reason why Prozac causes a favorable reaction in those who are treated (poisoned) with it, is that it disassociates that person from the psychospiritual conflicts that they must normally suppress in order to maintain the appearance of sanity and functionality in society, i.e. it is control and not health that is the goal of such “treatment.”

If Prozac and other sources of fluoride in our environment deposits within the pineal gland, accelerating the transformation of functional pineal tissue into calcification, is it possible that it works by dehumanizing and flattening the affect of those who are under its influence?

How Do We Prevent Pineal Gland Calcification?

Eliminating exposure to fluoride is the #1 priority.  We can start by being careful about surreptitious forms of fluoride in Teflon, foods and beverages produced with muncipal water, tap water, infant formula, fluoride containing drugs like Prozac, toothpaste, etc. We have collected a number of studies from the US National Library of Medicine on natural substances which mitigate fluoride toxicity.  We also have a section on our database dedicated to finding substances which prevent or reverse other forms of pathological calcification which may have relevance for pineal gland calcification, such as ectopic calcification. Lastly, there is research on the potential value of magnesium and phytate in reducing pineal gland calcification.

© March 31, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Fluoride: Calcifier Of The Soul appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

BPA Continues To Pervade Food Supply

BPA, or bisphenol-A, is an endocrine disruptor you’ve likely heard about a few times on this blog. It’s been shown to mimic hormones in the body–namely estrogen–and contribute to hormone imbalance. According to a new survey of over 250 brands of canned food, nearly 50% of respondents reported using BPA in their products. ^[1] Around 109 of those surveyed did not respond, so the percentage of those who use the chemical compound may be even higher.

The Troubling Facts about BPA

Because of its numerous uses in products like food packaging, dental sealants, and even paper receipts, BPA is ubiquitous in the environment. Virtually everyone on the planet has trace amounts of BPA in their body at any given time. Research into BPA has found that the chemical compound has links to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and even obesity. ^[2] Could BPA, along with diet and other factors, be a contributor to these disease epidemics?

Food manufacturers are not required to disclose that they use BPA in the lining of their canned foods, so it can be challenging at times to discern between brands that do contain the compound versus those that don’t. Generally, BPA-free labels will give it away, but be aware that the substitutes used to replace BPA may be just as bad. BPS, or bisphenol-S, is a common replacement that has been shown to promote similar health effects.

What Can I Do?

In order to reduce your BPA and BPS consumption, the best thing would be to eat more whole foods and become less reliant on processed or packaged foods. Make your meals from recipes that only use fresh, whole, living foods, and ditch foods that come in boxes, cans, and jars. If you are going to use a processed food that has the BPA-free label, contact the company to make sure they’re using safer substitutes for BPA. Also, a 9-step body cleanse may be helpful for reducing toxic compounds like BPA.

Were you aware of BPA and its pervasiveness in our world? What do you do to avoid it? Let us hear your thoughts in the comments below!

References:

1. Brian Bienkowski. Survey of canned-good brands finds hormone-mimicking compound still widely used. Environmental Health News.


2. Vom Saal FS, Nagel SC, Coe BL, Angle BM, Taylor JA. The estrogenic endocrine disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA) and obesity. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2012 May 6;354(1-2):74-84. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2012.01.001.

Chemicals Banned in Kids’ Toys Found in Mac and Cheese

Boxed macaroni and cheese is often a favorite food among youngsters, but a recent study suggests the packaged food contains dangerous, endocrine-disrupting chemicals that have been banned in toys: phthalates. [1]

Phthalates are a group of toxic additives in plastics. They’re used to make plastics soft and flexible, and are commonly found in artificial fragrances, inks, coatings, adhesives, and other consumer and industrial products, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) explains.

These chemicals are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in equipment and materials for food handling, processing, and packaging. Because of this, phthalates often wind up in high-fat, highly-processed foods.

The Coalition for Safer Food Processing & Packaging – which includes the NRDC – recently sent a small sample of mac and cheese and other popular cheese-food items for laboratory testing, and received some unsettling results.

Phthalates were found in 10 varieties of macaroni and cheese, including 8 out of 9 Kraft products. [2]

It’s Time to Remove Phthalates from Food Products

The coalition believes the federal government should step in to regulate and ultimately ban phthalates, but since that is unlikely to happen anytime soon, the onus is on Kraft Heinz to remove phthalates from its food products.

Kraft not only has the largest market for powdered cheese in the industry, but the company has taken action in the past to remove unsafe ingredients from its products (largely due to increasing consumer pressure). For example, in 2016, the company quietly removed artificial dyes from its Mac & Cheese recipe and replaced them with paprika, annatto, and turmeric.

In total, the coalition tested 30 samples – 10 cheese powder, 5 sliced cheese, and 15 natural cheese samples – and 29 of them were found to contain phthalates. Some of the products tested were labeled organic. The highest levels of phthalates were found in the powdered macaroni and cheese samples.

Mike Belliveau, the executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center, said:

“The phthalates concentrations in powder from mac and cheese mixes were more than 4 times higher than in block cheese and other natural cheeses like shredded cheese, string cheese, and cottage cheese.” [3]

These chemicals are accidentally making their way into the food system, via processing and packaging. It’s not that Kraft workers are standing over giant vats of powdered cheese, dumping phthalates into them. The key to keeping dangerous substances out of the bellies of hungry kiddos is to ensure safer food processing and packaging methods are in place. [2]

The European Union (EU) has already taken the crucial step of banning phthalates in food contact materials.

Coalition member Peter Lehner said in a statement:

“Parents and their children should not have to wait longer to know that their food does not contain toxic chemicals. We are asking manufacturers to act now.”

No word from Kraft Heinz just yet.

Tom Neltner, the chemicals policy director for the Environmental Defense Fund, said:

“A chemical is not allowed in food unless there is a reasonable certainty it will cause no harm. We don’t think the FDA can say there is a reasonable certainty of no harm.” [3]

Phthalate Dangers

Once you consume phthalates, they can travel through your bloodstream to your organs. Prenatal phthalate exposure is especially concerning, since the chemicals can easily cross from the mother’s body into the placenta. Phthalates can also wind up in breast milk. [1]

Researchers have linked prenatal phthalate exposure to impaired neurological development in children, lower IQ, learning and memory impairment, and antisocial behavior. Boys that are exposed to phthalates in-utero run the risk of genital defects.

In 2008, Congress prohibited the use of DEHP, a chemical known to negatively affect the development of the testicles and the production of normal sperm in young animals, in toys and childcare products. It is considered a “gender-bending” chemical because it can cause males of all species to adopt more female traits.

In 2015, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) proposed a ban on several additional phthalates used in toys and other children’s products, but the proposal has yet to be finalized.

A report released in late 2015 showed that more than 81% of 164 dollar-store products tested contained concerning levels of at least 1 toxic chemical. Everything from toys to jewelry, to personal care products contained chemicals that were carcinogenic, or otherwise hazardous.

Sources:

[1] Natural Resources Defense Council

[2] New York Daily News

[3] Popsugar

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Sunscreen Ingredient Becomes Toxic in Sunlight and Water

A chemical commonly found in sunscreen breaks down into toxic compounds when exposed to sun and water, research shows.

Avobenzone is an oil-soluble compound that is notable for its ability to absorb ultraviolet (UV) light. It is most often an ingredient in sunscreen and cosmetics, including lip balms and moisturizers. The compound converts UV rays into safer wavelengths that don’t damage the skin, and transforms UV energy into thermal energy. [1]

The chemical was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in commercial cosmetics in 1988. It is a known endocrine-disruptor.

According to researchers in Russia, exposure to water and sunlight causes avobenzone to break down into chemicals that are potentially dangerous to people.

When the team exposed avobenzone to a chlorinated water solution simulating that used in swimming pools, the ingredient broke down into a mix of aromatic acids, aldehydes, phenols, and acetyl benzenes, several of them extremely toxic. Researchers tracked the process using chromatomass spectrometry. [2]

Albert Lebedev, a chemist at Lomonosov Moscow State University, said in a news release:

“On the basis of the experiments one could make a conclusion that a generally safe compound transforms in the water and forms more dangerous products. In spite of the fact that there are no precise toxicological profiles for the most established products, it’s known that acetyl benzenes and phenols, especially chlorinated ones, are quite toxic.” [2]

Read: Environmental Working Group Releases 2017 Guide to Sunscreens

He added:

“Studying the products of transformation of any popular cosmetics is very important as very often they turn out to be much more toxic and dangerous than their predecessors. In principle, basing on such researches, one could obtain results, which could restrict or even put under a ban the usage of one or another product, and preserve health of millions of people.” [1]

Lebedev and his colleagues are now studying how avobenzone breaks down in seawater and freshwater.

Sources:

[1] UPI

[2] R&D

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

Environmental Working Group Releases its 2017 Guide to Sunscreens

If you’re planning to spend summer days by the pool or beach-side, you’ll likely reach for a bottle of sunscreen to prevent you from becoming red and crispy. These products are not all created equal, however, and it can be difficult to know what to purchase when you’re staring at the multitude of options available at the supermarket. Thankfully, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has put out a list of the best and worst sunscreens every year since 2007 to help you decide.

This year, nearly ¾ of the products EWG examined offered inferior sun protection, or contained ingredients that can harm humans and/or the environment. One of those ingredients is oxybenzone, an endocrine-disrupting chemical which has also been linked to coral reef deaths.

The group says it has discovered a dramatic increase in the availability of mineral-only sunscreens, up from 17% of products in 2007 to 34% in 2017. Zinc oxide and titanium oxide products typically get positive reviews, as they are more stable in sunlight, offer a better balance between protection from both UVA and UVB rays, and rarely contain potentially harmful additives.

EWG says on its website that it remains concerned that a common sunscreen additive, a form of vitamin A called retinyl palmitate, can harm skin. It notes that government test data shows more skin tumors and lesions on animals treated with retinyl palmitate. Fortunately, the use of this potentially hazardous ingredient in sunscreen has decreased greatly – from nearly 40% of products in 2007, to just 14% of products reviewed in 2017.

Read: Synthetic Vitamin A Found in Sunscreens Linked to Skin Cancer

It should be noted that EWG considers sunscreen a last resort, behind the following protective measures:

• Wearing clothing, which can reduce your risk of suffering a nasty sunburn by 27%;

• Planning your day around the sun – the sun is lower in the sky and there is less of a burn risk early in the morning and in the late afternoon;

• Finding or making shade, which can reduce the risk of multiple burns by 30%;

• Sunglasses, which protect the eyes from UV rays;

• Checking the UV index.

Of course if you know that you’ll be out in the sun for any extended period of time, I’d still recommend using sunscreen over turning into a lobster and suffering from UV damage.

Concerning Chemicals

Source: Yahoo Health

• Oxybenzone is the EWG’s biggest concern health-wise, and for good reason. The endocrine disruptor is pervasive and has been detected in nearly every American. It has also been detected in breast milk. Oxybenzone is associated with relatively high rates of skin allergy.

• Octinoxate (Octylmethoxycinnamate) has been detected in breast milk, is an endocrine disruptor, and has been shown to alter animals’ behavior and thyroids in studies. It is associated with moderate rates of skin allergy.

• Homosalate has been found in mothers’ milk; disrupts estrogen, androgen, and progesterone; and leaves behind toxic breakdown products.

• Octocrylene has shown up in breast milk, and is associated with relatively high rates of skin allergy.

A High SPF Doesn’t Always Mean More Protection

If you’re light-haired and fair-skinned, you should not assume that a higher SPF sunscreen offers significantly more protection than a lower one. EWG writes on its website:

“Theoretically, applying sunscreen with a sun protection factor, or SPF, of 100 would allow beachgoers to bare their skin 100 times longer before suffering a sunburn. Someone who would normally redden after 30 minutes in the midday sun could stay out for 50 hours.

But for high-SPF sunscreens, theory and reality are two different things. Many studies have found that people are misled by the claims on high-SPF sunscreen bottles. They are more likely to use high-SPF products improperly and as a result may expose themselves to more harmful ultraviolet radiation than people relying on products with lower SPF values.”

An SPF 100 product should – theoretically – provide twice as much protection as an SPF 50 sunscreen. But, in truth, the difference is negligible. A sunscreen with an SPF of 50 blocks 98% of UVB rays, while an SPF 100 blocks 99%. If you apply a sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or a little more , you should be adequately protected from developing a sunburn, no matter how fair you are.

Source: The New York Times

High-SPF products may come with greater health risks, as well. These sunscreens require higher concentrations of sun-filtering chemicals than low-SPF sunscreens, and these chemicals have been linked to tissue damage and potential hormone disruption, not to mention skin allergies. The risks simply aren’t worth it – they don’t do a better job of protecting you.

Which Sunscreens You Should buy

This year, Environmental working Group gave 239 beach and sport sunscreens a green rating, the highest rating assigned to products by the group. There are also 239 green-rated sunscreen lotions for kids.

EWG also lists the worst of the worst sunscreens in its report, which includes recognizable names such as Banana Boat, Coppertone, CVS Health, Equate (Wal-Mart brand), and Neutrogena.

Source:

Environmental Working Group’s Guide to Sunscreens

Image Sources:

The New York Times

Yahoo Health

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.