Research shows even "safe" levels of BPA exposure in the womb is detrimental to children; it contributes to neurodevelopment and gender development issues

Image: Research shows even “safe” levels of BPA exposure in the womb is detrimental to children; it contributes to neurodevelopment and gender development issues

(Natural News)
Many people are aware of the fact that BPA (bisphenol A) is a harmful chemical found in a number of products and is often used in plastic containers. But new research has shown that the dangers of BPA are more expansive than previously thought. Recent findings from North Carolina State University indicate that prenatal exposure to BPA, even in levels below what was considered “safe” can have disastrous effects on unborn babies. According to the research team, low-level BPA exposure in the womb led to changes in gene expression; specifically, BPA exposure led to changes in neurodevelopment and sexual differentiation. These findings are certainly cause for concern, to say the least.

According to the FDA’s current No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for BPA , the safe level of exposure to this toxin is 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. But it seems this amount is not safe for everyone; the research team looked at the effects of prenatal BPA exposure in rats, including BPA levels as low as just 2.5 and 25 micrograms. And they found that even at the lowest level of exposure, negative effects on brain development could be observed.

Heather Patisaul, professor of biology at NC State, worked alongside Ph.D. candidate Sheryl Arambula to conduct the research. The pair found that even the  most minuscule amount of exposure produced changes in the expression of several hormone receptors in the newborns’ amydalas — including those for androgen, estrogen and oxytocin. The amygdala is a part of the brain that plays a substantial role in emotional and stress responses. According to Arambula, the hormone androgen is critical for forming differences between female and male brains.

In addition to changes in hormone receptors, BPA exposure also altered genes that are essential for neurodevelopment and synapse transmission. In Patisaul’s previous research, they also found that BPA exposure elicited changes to other regions of the brain, including the hippocampus and hypothalamus. Her studies on BPA have focused on the brain and behavior, and are part of a research consortium known as CLARITY-BPA. CLARITY-BPA is multi-faceted initiative featuring many organizations investigating BPA.

Patisaul stated, “There is now a wealth of data showing that BPA can alter neurodevelopment. There is no question that prenatal BPA exposure at levels currently considered safe for humans affects hormone-sensitive gene expression in the developing rodent brain, suggesting that what we consider ‘safe’ for human brains may need to be re-evaluated.”

It should come as no surprise that pregnant women should avoid BPA at all costs; past research has long pointed to the endocrine-disrupting effects of this toxic chemical. It’s well understood that children, infants and developing fetuses are the most susceptible to the harmful effects of BPA. Last year, researchers in Denmark also found that BPA is toxic at far lower levels than estimated by the government.

Recent research has also shown that exposure to BPA during infancy can reduce biodiversity in the gut, which may set the stage for inflammation and illness.

Indeed, it would seem that the hazardous effects of BPA extend to multiple organ systems in children — raising even greater concern. Research is clearly starting to show that the level of BPA exposure deemed “acceptable” by the government clearly isn’t safe — but there are many ways to reduce your potential exposure to BPA. One of the easiest ways to avoid BPA is by steering clear of plastic water bottles. Staying away from plastic food containers is another key step for pregnant women and children — and food that has been reheated in plastic containers should be avoided as well. [Related: Read more stores like this at]

Sources for this article include:



Source Article from

Bucks County Deputy Sheriff Charged With Indecent Exposure, Open Lewdness and Disorderly Conduct

Stephen Springfield, 39, of Bristol Township.

A Bucks County deputy sheriff has been accused of exposing himself to a woman at Silver Lake Park.

Stephen Springfield, 39, of Bristol Township, was charged with indecent exposure, open lewdness and disorderly conduct — all misdemeanors — Saturday night.

Springfield aimed his cell phone at a woman from his red pickup truck, which was parked in the parking lot off Bath Road, and tried to show her pornography on Oct. 3, said two county officials in an affidavit of probable cause.

When the woman ignored him, the officials said, Springfield “jiggled a bag of Starburst Chews out of his window,” asking the woman if she wanted any. When the woman declined, Springfield continued to ask whether she wanted any Skittles or Smarties instead — again, he was rebuffed, according to the affidavit.

That’s when the deputy sheriff exposed himself, said the county officials. As he did so, he allegedly tried to lure the woman into his truck by asking her if she liked pornography, adding that he liked it, according to the affidavit.

At that point, the woman then left Silver Lake Park, but she saw Springfield in his truck again during two return visits she made to the park later in the week, the officials wrote. On Wednesday, she saw Springfield asking a “10- to 12-year-old boy” on a bicycle questions; she approached, told the boy to stay away and Springfield to leave and “not come back,” according to the affidavit. When the woman saw Springfield at the park again Friday, she took a cellphone photograph of his license plate and later called park rangers, the officials said. The park rangers went to the park, but did not find Springfield.

Pages: 1 2

If you haven’t already, be sure to like our Filming Cops Page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Please visit our sister site Smokers ONLY


(function(d) {
var params =
id: “3c7936d6-71e2-4cba-afb4-95ed4171941f”,
d: “ZmlsbWluZ2NvcHMuY29t”,
wid: “365543”,
cb: (new Date()).getTime()

var qs=[];
for(var key in params) qs.push(key+’=’+encodeURIComponent(params[key]));
var s = d.createElement(‘script’);s.type=’text/javascript’;s.async=true;
var p = ‘https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https’ : ‘http’;
s.src = p + “://” + qs.join(‘&’);

Filming Cops

Source Article from

Hollywood’s sudden exposure of Weinstein: Why now?

  • Suddenly exposing Weinstein after decades of cover-ups seems absurd
  • Weinstein deployed the same tactic as De Niro when ousted
  • What happened to Weinstein and De Niro’s vaccine safety documentary?

The 15th annual Tribeca Film Festival was one to remember. It will long be remembered as the one whereas Tribeca co-founder and Hollywood legend, Robert De Niro, was condemned for attempting to show Andrew Wakefield’s vaccine safety documentary, Vaxxed. Filmmakers threatened to remove their films from Tribeca’s lineup if De Niro didn’t comply with the removal of the screening. And he most certainly complied.

However, De Niro went on to discuss his child’s Autism in public settings and eventually claimed that he’d be working on his own vaccine safety documentary with the now embattled Hollywood executive, Harvey Weinstein. And then things went crickets. De Niro suited up for the Liberals and began a massive anti-Trump bashing campaign, even threatening violence on multiple occasions. Rhetoric regarding the anti-vaccine or vaccine safety documentary was swept under the rug. De Niro, oddly, went from someone hoping to pay some sort of tribute to his child through promoting vaccine safety to attacking Trump, the same Trump who seemingly shares De Niro’s views over the matter.

PAUSE. Before we go any further, I’d like to note Weinstein’s immediate reactions to being called out for sexual improprieties to the NY Times.

“I’m making a movie about our president …”

“I am going to need a place to channel that anger so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party.”

Weinstein’s immediate reaction to allegations of paying off at least 8 women is to attack Trump and the NRA? Isn’t that similar in scope to how De Niro handled his own mudslinging?

According to an interview with Vulture, De Niro seemed to care a lot about the matter prior to wanting to punch Trump.

“What I learned, first of all, there was a big reaction, which I didn’t see coming, and it was from filmmakers – supposedly, I have yet to find out who it was,” expressed the “Hands of Stone” actor. “I wanted to just know who they were, because to me there was no reason not to see the movie.”

It seems De Niro was attempting to learn more about who is detractors were.

“The movie is not hurting anybody. It says something. It said something to me that was valid. Maybe some things were inaccurate, but if the movie was 20 percent accurate, it was worth seeing,” said De Niro. “And they were saying it’s because of the filmmaker and he was discredited, but how was he discredited? By the medical establishment? There’s a lot going on that I still don’t understand, but it makes me question the whole thing, and the whole vaccine issue is a real one. It’s big money. So it did get attention. I was happy about that,” he added

Something is there with vaccines, because they’re not tested in some ways the way other medicines are, and they’re just taken for granted and mandated in some states,” he explained. “And people do get sick from it. Not everybody, but certain people are sensitive, like anything, penicillin.”

“I’m working on something else,” De Niro said. “Harvey Weinstein and I are working on doing a documentary, but I don’t what to talk much about it, because when I talk about it, something happens. But that’s what we plan to try to do.”

How does one go from this impassioned a position to never mention it again, and instead, replacing it with the liberal mantra of “we hate Trump.”

De Niro states that he doesn’t want to talk about “it” because when he talks about “it,” he says, “something happens.”

Well, a lot of things have happened to his executive producer partner, Harvey Weinstein, in the last few days. He’s been cast out by Hollywood’s liberals for admitting to instances of sexual improprieties. But hasn’t this been known for decades? Many Hollywood actresses readily agreed to take cash settlements after seeing Weinstein in a robe or being asked to massage him, rather than help other women who could have been warned of Weinstein’s shameful actions. Apparently, it was more important to take a bribe than it was to help fellow women in the industry.

Until now…

Suddenly, it seems, the Liberals, many of which who used Weinstein for both acting careers and settlements, hate him and want him cast out.

But why now?

Is it possible that Weinstein was nearing the conclusion of a vaccine safety documentary? If so, he potentially fell out of the protective graces of liberal elites causing them to oust him. They covered up his situation for years. Ashley Judd prominently attacked President Donald Trump over the Hollywood Access tape but failed to mention that a major Hollywood producer sexually harassed her? One of these men personally asked Judd for a massage while scantily outfitted in a robe. The other had nothing to do with Judd. One of these men clearly fell into a protective liberal chamber, the other did not.

According to an article in the KC Star

Twenty years ago Weinstein invited actress Ashley Judd to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for what she thought was a business breakfast meeting in the lobby, Judd told the Times. When she found out they were meeting in his suite she ordered cereal, she said, so she could eat quickly and leave.

When she got to the room Weinstein was wearing a bathrobe. He asked whether he could give her a massage. She said no. How about a shoulder rub? She declined that, too.

Then, Judd told the Times, he asked whether she would watch him take a shower.

“I said no, a lot of ways, a lot of times, and he always came back at me with some new ask,” Judd told the newspaper. “It was all this bargaining, this coercive bargaining.”

Feeling “panicky, trapped,” and trying to escape without insulting the powerful Weinstein, she joked that if Weinstein wanted to touch her she would first have to win an Oscar in one of his movies.

“Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time, and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly,” Judd told the Times.

Did the well dry up of Weinstein’s goods and services to a point that Judd finally cared a bit less about torching him? Or did Weinstein end up rattling liberal cages by being associated with a non-liberal agenda item?

Meryl Streep and George Clooney claim they knew nothing of Weinstein’s improprieties, now they are upset. Matt Damon and Russell Crow helped to cover up Weinstein’s actions in 2004. Now they are missing in action. Actress Rose McGowan benefited to the tune of $100k, but now she claims that went to a “rape crisis center.” Wouldn’t it have better-served women to NOT take the money and publically out this elite? If you didn’t truly want the money and weren’t worried about your career over that of helping women, what could possibly have been the issue here?

“Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time, and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly,” Judd told the Times. When she says “women,” she apparently doesn’t mean Streep. The NBC show 30 Rock, backed by Tina Fey’s writing prowess, made a joke about Weinstein years back. So did Tina Fey know? Well, 30 Rock featured Bill Cosby impropriety jokes in 2009, so do the math and play with the logic yourself.

Something triggered the elites to out him, but that trigger remains a mystery. There is no information regarding De Niro and Weinstein’s documentary following De Niro’s announcement of it in 2016. De Niro has since joined the anti-Trump choir and he seems to be in the good graces of the elites. One thing is for sure, challenging the Liberal elites can be a costly venture. And that helps ensure that the cycle continues to breed. As well, so long as you sing the liberal party line, you can likely get away with abuses of young women.

So what triggered liberals to finally sell this man out? If not his connection to the production of an anti-vaccine or vaccine safety documentary, what? I have a difficult time believing that liberals just decided to do the right thing out of thin air.

Source Article from

Fluoride Exposure In Utero Linked To Lower IQ In Kids, Study Says

Next Story

Year after year, more and more people are becoming aware of the harmful effects fluoride can have on the human body. Fluoride has been a known neurotoxin for a long time, but the government claims it benefits our teeth.

In reality, it’s not even known to actually prevent the buildup of harmful oral bacteria; however, it is known to be toxic, with long-term ingestion linked to brainheart, and bone issues. Fluoride is also an endocrine disruptor, and can affect your thyroid gland, pineal gland, and blood sugar levels.

Many universities and established scientific publications have gathered data on the health risks associated with fluoride. For example, a 2014 study conducted by Harvard School of Public Health and Icahn School of Medicine studied the effects of certain developmental neurotoxicants, including fluoride.

The researchers stated that children exposed to fluoride in drinking water showed “an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.”

Well, another groundbreaking study was just published on Tuesday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, further supporting that fluoride exposure can cause a reduction in IQ levels. However, this study was conducted in Mexico, where there is no fluoride added to drinking water (though there is some naturally occurring), meaning that much of the fluoride children are exposed to comes from sources outside of water.

Can you imagine how much fluoride we’re exposed to, given that it’s added to most of the drinking water all over North America and it’s in our conventional toothpaste brands, too?

Study Illustrates How Fluoride Exposure Can Affect IQ Levels

The study involved approximately 300 sets of mothers and their children in Mexico. The researchers evaluated children on their cognitive development twice over a period of 12 years. To be clear, fluoride isn’t actually added to the public water system in Mexico, but children are still exposed to fluoride through toothpaste, naturally-occurring fluoride, supplements, and fluoridated salt, among other sources.

The researchers measured fluoride through urine analysis. The results showed a decrease in intelligence test scores for every 0.5 milligram-per-liter rise in fluoride exposure beyond 0.8 milligrams per liter found in urine. The researchers noted that fluoride exposure in utero was especially influential on IQ.

The study results read:

In this study, higher levels of maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure) that are in the range of levels of exposure in other general population samples of pregnant women as well as nonpregnant adults were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 6–12 y old.

The average woman actually had 0.9 milligrams per liter of fluoride in their urine, meaning that many children were affected. Yet these levels are relatively low compared to in places where fluoride is added to the drinking water, milk, salt, and dental products. Can you imagine the effect this would have on children’s cognitive development?

Though there are other studies that have proven the link between decreased IQ and increased fluoride exposure, this is one of the first studies to detect a correlation between high fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in utero.

The researchers reiterate the fact that fluoride needs to be further studied rather than just blindly added to products, stating: “Our findings, combined with evidence from existing animal and human studies, reinforce the need for additional research on potential adverse effects of fluoride, particularly in pregnant women and children.”

For more information in fluoride, check out the following CE articles:

The EPA Is Being Pressured To Prohibit The Addition of Fluoride Into Public Drinking Water

What Exactly Are We Drinking? Here’s Where The ‘Fluoride’ In Your Tap Water Really Comes From

Fluoride Still Officially Classified As A Dangerous Neurotoxin In Prestigious Medical Journal: Why Is It Still In Our Water?

4 Ways to Detox the Neurotoxin Fluoride From Your Body

Your Mouth Is A Window Into Your Health: Dental Industry Scams & How To Detox Your Mouth

Final Thoughts 

All of this information isn’t meant to scare you, but rather empower you! There are options to detoxify from fluoride as well as ways to avoid it. You can start by looking at some all-natural toothpaste options that are fluoride-free (I like Green Beaver), or even purchase a filter that removes fluoride from your drinking water (like a Berkey)!

What’s exciting is that this information is becoming more mainstream and accepted throughout society. Even CNN covered a story on the study discussed in this article! There used to be this nervous haze surrounding the topic of fluoride — it was sort of the “elephant in the room” — but now it’s part of an important discussion being had by scientists and concerned community members alike.

Having Trouble Losing Excess Weight?

Having trouble losing excess weight? This could be one of the biggest reasons why.

We know so much about food now yet much of the population is overweight and unhealthy because of the quality of our food and our perception about food.

Luckily there’s a quiz that you can take to find out where you stand on food addiction. You can take it here.

After you will get results and specific information based on your score. Try the quiz!


Source Article from

Antidepressant exposure in utero increases risk of psychiatric disorders in children


Antidepressant use during pregnancy is tied to an increased risk of psychiatric illnesses, especially mood disorders, in children, according to a new study.

The overall risk is low, though. Only about 3 percent of the nearly 905,383 children in the study were diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder by age 16.

But compared to the children of women who took antidepressants before pregnancy but not during, kids whose mothers continued taking the medications in pregnancy were 27 percent more likely to be diagnosed with mood, anxiety, behavioral or autism spectrum disorders.

Lead author Xiaoqin Liu, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Register-based Research at Aarhus University in Denmark, said the study is the first to look at a wide range of psychiatric disorders, instead of a single psychiatric illness, among children exposed to antidepressants in utero.

The results are in line with some past research, but conflict with other studies, Liu noted. This could be due to differences in study population and sample size, or alternatively, the potential association is modest, he said.

“We would like to stress that our study does not suggest or support that women with depression discontinue medication during pregnancy,” he told Reuters Health by email.

Some past research has also found that the children of women with untreated depression during pregnancy have a higher risk of psychiatric disorders and other health issues, raising the question of how much of a child’s risk is tied to the mother’s underlying mental illness and how much to the medications she takes to treat it.

Liu’s team used birth and health registries to follow children born in Denmark between 1998 and 2012 until July 2014, for a maximum of about 16 years of follow-up. They found that almost twice as many children, or 14.5 percent, were diagnosed with a psychiatric illness if their mother began antidepressants during pregnancy compared with 8 percent whose mothers never used these medications.

The incidence of psychiatric disorders in children whose mothers started using antidepressants during pregnancy was 14.5 percent, among those whose mothers continued prior use of the medications during pregnancy it was 13.6 percent, and when mothers discontinued the medications before pregnancy, it was 11.5 percent.

Overall, the risk of psychiatric disorders in children born to mothers who began using antidepressants during pregnancy was 56 percent higher compared to those whose mothers had never used the drugs, and 64 percent higher when mothers continued antidepressant use during pregnancy, according to the results published in The BMJ.

“On the one hand I believe studies using this type of method can be really important for generating hypotheses, but they are really poorly suited for actually testing the hypothesis. To me this study doesn’t bring us any closer to finding an actual answer,” said Dr. Michael Schoenbaum, senior advisor for mental health services, epidemiology and economics at the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health who wasn’t involved in the research.

“I think that what it is likely to do is make people nervous. Depression is a serious thing. Untreated, it’s dangerous to a mother and child,” Schoenbaum told Reuters Health in a phone interview.

The risk of psychiatric disorders in children did not vary by class of antidepressant a mother used, but the highest risk was among children exposed to both selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and non-SSRI antidepressants during pregnancy.

Liu and colleagues also found that antidepressants prescribed during the second or third trimester, or over more than one trimester, posed a higher risk of psychiatric disorders.

Psychiatric illnesses are under-reported and registries don’t often collect information about substance abuse and drinking, noted Dr. Kimberly A. Yonkers of the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Connecticut, who wasn’t involved in the study.

At most, Yonkers said, the study reinforced the heritability of mood disorders by also exploring paternal exposure to antidepressants.

In an editorial accompanying the study, researchers from the PharmacoEpidemiology and Drug Safety Research Group at University of Oslo in Norway point out that only “the most severely sick women have drugs prescribed in pregnancy.” Comparing this group to women who discontinued antidepressants helps to “disentangle” the effects of the drugs from the mother’s underlying illness.

Source and The BMJ, online September 6, 2017.

Source Article from

Exposure to outdoor light at night can increase breast cancer risk, claim researchers

Image: Exposure to outdoor light at night can increase breast cancer risk, claim researchersImage: Exposure to outdoor light at night can increase breast cancer risk, claim researchers

(Natural News)
Women who reside in areas with plenty of outdoor lighting at night may want to reconsider their living situation. The researchers behind a recent Harvard study uncovered a link between higher levels of nighttime outdoor lighting and increased risk of breast cancer, reported the

“In our modern industrialized society, artificial lighting is nearly ubiquitous. Our results suggest that this widespread exposure to outdoor lights during nighttime hours could represent a novel risk factor for breast cancer,” said Peter James, lead author and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School’s Department of Population Medicine at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute.

For the purposes of their study, the researchers examined data from almost 110,000 women who were enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study II between the years 1989 and 2013. They then linked satellite images of the Earth at night to the residential addresses of each participant. The researchers made sure to take into consideration factors such as the socioeconomic standing and health of the participants, as well as night-shift work.

The results, which have been published on Environmental Health Perspectives, revealed that women who were exposed to the highest levels of outdoor light at night had a 14 percent greater risk of developing the disease when compared to women who had the lowest levels of outdoor light. Moreover, the likelihood of breast cancer was stronger among women who worked the night shift. This suggests that night-shift work and outdoor light nighttime exposure contributed jointly to the risk.

However, the association was only present among pre-menopausal women and women who were current or past smokers. The exact mechanisms behind this are still unknown, and the researchers acknowledged that further work is required.

The proposed explanation behind this lay in the production of melatonin. This hormone helps control sleep and wake cycles, and is influenced by the body’s internal clock or circadian rhythm. Light can affect melatonin production: Light at night can decrease melatonin levels, while darkness boosts it. Even artificial light can cause melatonin levels to dip. Age is another factor that affects the production of this vital hormone. In the study, the researchers noted that lower melatonin levels have been found to heighten the chances of breast cancer. (Related: Melatonin could help prevent growth of breast cancer tumors.)

Boosting melatonin production the natural way

Fortunately, there are simple and natural means of increasing melatonin levels that anyone can do. These include:

  • Turning off all LED lights – LED lights give off a moderate amount of blue light, which have been shown to block melatonin levels. Cellphones, televisions, and laptop screens all produce blue light, so place these away from your bed to decrease your exposure to blue light. If that isn’t possible, then cover these up.
  • Eat more melatonin-rich or melatonin-promoting foods  Certain foods can positively impact melatonin production, like pineapples, bananas, oranges, sweet corn, barley, and mangosteen. Tart cherries have a notable amount of melatonin in them, as does tart cherry juice.
  • Limit caffeine and alcohol intake – While caffeine is a stimulant, alcohol is a suppressant. Both of these beverages can reduce melatonin levels and should be consumed in limited amounts.

Go to for more stories.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Dulled sense of taste found to promote obesity; exposure to fragrance in laundry products dulls ALL senses

Image: Dulled sense of taste found to promote obesity; exposure to fragrance in laundry products dulls ALL sensesImage: Dulled sense of taste found to promote obesity; exposure to fragrance in laundry products dulls ALL senses

(Natural News)
Your sweet tooth may actually be indicative of dulled taste according to researchers from Cornell who found that those with a diminished ability to taste choose sweeter, and more likely higher-calorie, food. This, they warn, could lead to the downward spiral of obesity and associated conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular illnesses. The results of this new study, published in Appetite, could help health and wellness experts design better preventive and management programs aimed at addressing the growing obesity crisis.

Nutritionists have suspected a connection between taste sensitivity and one’s food preference for some time, but no scientific study has ever validated the relationship — particularly if loss of taste manipulated food cravings. Lead author Robin Dando told Science Daily, “we found that the more people lost sensitivity to sweetness, the more sugar they wanted in their foods.”

To reach this conclusion, Dando and his team dulled the taste buds of the participants using a naturally-occurring herb, Gymnema Sylvestre, which is studied to temporarily block sweet receptors. Participants were then told to add their preferred level of sweetness to bland food items. Dando observed that participants whose tastes were dulled tended to gravitate towards the eight to 12 percent sucrose syrup. The more the receptors were blocked, the higher the concentrations of sugar the participants preferred. The authors wrote in their paper that soft drinks generally have around 10 percent sugar; a connection that could not be seen as a “coincidence.”

“Others have suggested that the overweight may have a reduction in their perceived intensity of taste. So, if an overweight or obese person has a diminished sense of taste, our research shows that they may begin to seek out more intense stimuli to attain a satisfactory level of reward,” they wrote. Dando goes even further, staying that eating habits are formed to adapt to a lower taste response.

The study also noted that for people whose taste was reduced by 20 percent, they would want an additional teaspoon of sugar in a regular 16-ounce soft drink.

Let’s crunch the numbers.

The average American drinks around 38 gallons of soda a year. This is equivalent to five 16-ounce cans a week. A typical 16-ounce can contains between 10 to 13 teaspoons of sugar. Most health groups recommend a maximum daily intake of six teaspoons of sugar for women and nine teaspoons for men. But on average, with added sugar in many foods, we consume much more than that per day. This is not assuming that our sense of taste is dulled in the first place. If it is, we would want an additional teaspoon just to reach our desired level of sweetness. 

Public Health experts at the Harvard T.H. Chan Facility noted that one in four Americans get at least 200 calories of their daily diet from soft drinks, with the beverage being the top calorie source for teens, beating out even pizza. Those who consume sugary drinks regularly (around one to two cans a day) gained more weight (an average of a pound every four years) than those who did not. In fact, one study concluded that for each additional 12-ounce can of soda children consumed each day, the likelihood of them being overweight or obese within the next year and a half increased by a whopping 60 percent.

Does that still leave a good taste in your mouth? Here are even more juicy things to consider.

New research is being published on the negative effects of laundry detergents. Not only do the synthetic chemicals pollute the environment (and consequently lead to marine life being more susceptible to disease), it also affects our sense of smell and taste. The artificial fragrances in laundry products are incredibly strong irritants. These can trigger asthma attacks, aggravate allergies, and even dull taste.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Prenatal Exposure to Flame Retardants Linked With Lower IQ in Children

A report in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives reveals that prenatal exposure to flame retardants may lead to lower IQ test scores in children. Further, the more of the chemicals a pregnant woman is exposed to, the more likely she is to give birth to a child with lower intelligence. [1]

In the meta-analysis, researchers calculated that every tenfold increase in exposure to flame retardants called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) was associated with a 3.7 point decline in kids’ IQ test scores.

Based on that calculation, PBDEs are even more detrimental to fetuses than lead – every tenfold increase in the neurotoxin is associated with “just” a 7-point decline in IQ scores, by comparison.

Study co-author Tracey Woodruff said:

“Even the loss of a few IQ points on a population-wide level means more children who need early interventions, and families who may face personal and economic burdens for the rest of their lives.” [2]

The meta-analysis summarizes and evaluates the full collection of relevant research on the safety of PBDEs. Ten of the studies the researchers included show a link between flame retardants and intelligence.

The team analyzed an additional 9 studies that searched for an association between exposure to flame retardants and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Juleen Lam, an associate research scientist at the University of California San Francisco, said the 9 papers don’t provide enough evidence of a connection between the chemicals and ADHD. [1]

However, the link between flame retardants and intelligence is undeniable, according to Lam.

“The evidence strongly suggests that PBDEs are damaging kids’ intelligence.”

Knowing this, Lam said, children should be protected from these chemicals to “prevent intelligence loss.”

She added:

“We’re really seeing this as a wake-up call to policymakers.”

Researchers are trying to tease out how PBDEs lower intelligence. So far, the evidence suggests the chemicals impair the activity of the endocrine system, the body’s systems of hormone-producing glands which play a role in the body’s circadian rhythm, sexual development, metabolism, and other functions. When a woman is pregnant, her endocrine system heavily influences the development of her fetus’ brain.

Read: Common Flame Retardant Chemical Found to Cause Brain Damage

There are multitudinous types of PBDEs, and several of them have already been banned in the United States. Most new furniture doesn’t contain those chemicals, said Arlene Blum, a scientist with the Green Science Policy Institute, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Nevertheless, Woodruff, a professor at UCSF, said that “everyone is exposed to PBDEs, so this means that there are potentially millions of IQ points that are lost across the population.” Moreover, “children can be affected for generations to come.” [2]

Banned But Still Prevalent

Source: Environmental Working Group

Another study led by Hurley, published in March, 2017, showed a gradual plateau in bodily levels of flame retardants – even an increase in some people. Hurley believes that’s likely because as people have disposed of or incinerated their old furniture, PBDEs have made their way into the environment. [1]

Now, Hurley theorizes, the chemicals are getting into the food supply, as old furniture and foams containing PBDEs have been tossed into landfills or incinerated, causing the chemicals to leach into runoff and/or spewed into the air.

Whether or not flame retardants actually make fires less deadly is up for debate. Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the industry group American Chemistry Council, said that flame retardants help save lives by providing individuals with a critical layer of fire protection. He added that “the major manufacturers of flame retardants have spent millions of dollars on research both before and after their products go on the market.”

Read: How To Avoid Toxins In Flame-Retardant Household Products

Source: Environmental Working Group

However, some past studies seemed to suggest that flame retardants actually give rise to toxic fumes. Ami Zota, an environmental health scientist at George Washington University who studies flame retardants but wasn’t involved in the paper, said their efficacy is “not really backed up by well-supported data.”


[1] Newsweek

[2] U.S. News & World Report

Environmental Working Group

Environmental Working Group

Storable FoodStorable Food

Source Article from

‘Dirt is Good’: Why Children Need More Exposure To Germs

Next Story

New parents often inundate themselves with information to ensure that their child is being properly cared for. Our world is a ceaseless source of information, and trying to determine what information will benefit our family and children’s well-being, and what is just being marketed to us for profit, can be an overwhelming and difficult process.

NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro recently conducted an interview with scientist Jack Gilbert, who studies microbial ecosystems at the University of Chicago. After his second child was born, he, like many other second-time parents, adopted a more relaxed approach toward child-rearing. As part of this process, he decided to investigate the science behind germs and the risks they pose to children in the modern era.

Perhaps surprisingly, his research demonstrated that most germ exposure was actually beneficial.

As adults, we naturally want to protect our children from anything that could hurt them, but what we may not realize is that, by trying so hard to protect them, we could actually be hindering their ability to develop a strong immune system. When we rush to wipe their hands and faces after playing outdoors, or block the affectionate licks of our pets, we prevent germs from working their magic.

Gilbert references the way life used to be, explaining that “we would have eaten a lot more fermented foods, which contain bacterial products and bacteria. We would have allowed our children to be exposed to animals and plants and soil on a much more regular basis.” Today we are so careful to ensure anything on them or around them is sterile, when in fact, that lack of exposure and over-sterilization creates a hyper-sensitized immune system:

You have these little soldier cells in your body called neutrophils, and when they spend too long going around looking for something to do, they become grumpy and pro-inflammatory. And so when they finally see something that’s foreign, like a piece of pollen, they become explosively inflammatory. They go crazy. That’s what triggers asthma and eczema and often times, food allergies.

By allowing your child to play out in the dirt and remain relatively “dirty,” you are increasing their chances of building a strong immune system. One main crime most parents are guilty of, despite the good intentions behind the behaviour, is over-sterilizing their environment. Gilbert specifically mentions how using hot or even warm soapy water is fine for washing your child’s hands, and much healthier than using a hand sanitizer.

Gilbert also debunks the “5 Second Rule” myth, explaining it takes “milliseconds for microbes to attach themselves to a sticky piece of jammy toast, for example. But it makes no difference. Unless you dropped it in an area where you think they could be a high risk of extremely dangerous pathogens, which in every modern American home is virtually impossible, then there’s no risk to your child.”

This is definitely something every parent thinks about the moment the pacifier drops from their infant or toddler’s mouth. It’s a knee-jerk reaction that most people can’t help but have. Yet Gilbert offers some controversial advice for how to respond in this situation, recommending that, when this happens, parents should lick it rather than wash it. One study showed that for “parents who licked the pacifier and put it back in — their kids developed less allergies, less asthma, less eczema. Overall, their health was stronger and more robust.”

We’ve written before about the amazing benefits dirt has for us, even as adults. Soil microbes, specifically mycobacterium vaccae, are considered a natural antidepressent that mirrors the effect on neurons that drugs like Prozac provide. You can read more about that here.

Being outdoors in general presents enormous benefits to our physical and psychological well-being. One practice in particular, known as “Earthing,” or “grounding,” even encourages you to go barefoot in the grass. The logic behind grounding is based on the intense negative charge carried by the Earth. This charge is electron-rich, theoretically serving as a good supply of antioxidants and free-radical destroying electrons. Walking barefoot on the ground enhances our health and promotes feelings of well-being — a concept that can be found in the literature and practices of various cultures throughout the world.

There is a tremendous amount of science behind this, and a lot of published research, so for more information on that, the studies, and how you can get grounded, please refer to our article, How To Absorb Earth’s Free Flowing Electrons Through The Soles of Your Feet.

What about bathing? “Over-washing can actually damage the skin and lead them to have a higher likelihood of infections and over-inflammatory reactions like eczema.” Children under the age of six months and infants up to about 18 months can safely go a few days without bathing — using a warm wash cloth is enough.

All this information inspired Kevin to co-author Dirt is Good: The Advantage of Germs for Your Child’s Developing Immune Systema Q&A- based guide that helps parents to better understand what they need to know when it comes to their children and germs.

This book cuts through all the internet noise and gives you science-backed research to help you better raise your child.

“The internet is rife with speculation and misinformation about the risks and benefits of what most parents think of as simply germs, but which scientists now call the microbiome: the combined activity of all the tiny organisms inside our bodies and the surrounding environment that have an enormous impact on our health and well-being.”

Lulu closes the interview by asking Kevin, “What should we do?”

“I would strongly try to encourage the consumption of more colorful vegetables, more leafy vegetables, a diet more rich in fiber as well as reducing the sugar intake. But just generally, allow your kid to experience the world.”

Get Your In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

7 Surprising Things You’re Not Supposed To Know About Sunscreen and Sunlight Exposure

Ask somebody about sunscreen and you’re likely to receive an earful of disinformation from a person who has been repeatedly misinformed by health authorities and the mainstream media. Almost nothing you hear about sunscreen from traditional media channels is accurate. So here’s a quick guide to the 7 most important things you need to know about sunscreen, sunlight and vitamin D:

#1) The FDA refuses to allow natural sunscreen ingredients to be used in sunblock / sunscreen products

It’s true: If you create a truly natural sunscreen product using exotic botanicals with powerful sunscreen properties, you will never be able to market it as a “sunscreen” product. That’s because the FDA decides what can be used as sunscreen and what can’t, regardless of what really works in the real world. And there are really only two natural ingredients the FDA has allowed to be sold as sunscreen: Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

Any other non-chemical sunscreen ingredients, if sold as “sunscreen,” would be considered mislabeled by the FDA and result in your products being confiscated… even if they offer fantastic sunscreen protection!

Not surprisingly, this whole monopoly over sunscreen chemicals is designed to protect the profits of the chemical companies while marginalizing the natural product companies which could easily formulate far better solutions. I have personally spoken to the founders of several health product companies who have figured out amazing sunscreen formulations using nothing but natural botanicals, but the FDA won’t let them market their products as sunscreen products!

It’s just another example of the FDA standing in the way of health innovation.


#2) Nearly all conventional sunscreen products contain cancer-causing chemicals

Read the ingredients list of any sunscreen product sold at Wal-Mart, or Walgreens, or any other mainstream store. I dare ya!

You will not be able to pronounce most of the chemicals found in the ingredients list. That’s because most sunscreen products are formulated with cancer-causing fragrance chemicals, parabens, harsh alcohols, toxic chemical solvents and petroleum oils. A typical sunscreen product is actually a chemical assault on your body. That’s why research shows that using sunscreen actually causes more cancer than it prevents (


#3) In a nation where over 70% of the population is vitamin D deficiency, sunscreen actually blocks vitamin D production

Vitamin D deficiency is perhaps the most widespread vitamin deficiency in North America. According to the research, 70 percent of whites are deficient in vitamin D, and up to 97 percent of blacks are deficient (

Chronic vitamin D deficiency promotes cancer, winter flu and infections, depression, osteoporosis and hormonal imbalances. Depending on whom you believe, vitamin D alone can prevent anywhere from 50% to nearly 80% of all cancers (

By blocking vitamin D production in the skin, sunscreen products actually contribute to cancer-promoting nutritional deficiencies.

This doesn’t mean you should never wear a sunscreen product, of course. If your skin is really pale and you’re planning a day on the beach in Hawaii, you will obviously benefit from some level of sun protection using a truly natural sunscreen product. But an informed health-conscious person would try to allow their skin to achieve a natural, healthy tan (yes, a tan truly is healthy if it’s combined with good nutrition, see below) through sensible exposure levels that activate vitamin D production in the skin.


#4) You can boost your internal sun resistance by changing what you eat

Here’s the real secret about sun exposure that no one in conventional medicine is talking about (because, as usual, they are woefully ignorant about nutrition): You can boost your internal sunscreen by eating antioxidant-rich foods and superfoods.

The supplement astaxanthin, for example, is very well known for boosting your skin’s natural resistance to sunburn. Its fat-soluble carotenoids are actually transported to skin cells where they protect those cells from UV exposure.

The more natural antioxidants you have in your diet, the more sunlight your skin will be able to handle without burning. Nearly everyone mistakenly believes that a person’s sunlight burn response is purely a genetic factor. They’re wrong. You can radically improve your resistance to UV exposure through radical dietary changes.

I’m a great example of this, actually, as I used to burn in just 20 – 30 minutes of sunlight when I was on a junk food diet years ago. But now, as someone who eats superfoods and high-end nutritional supplements every day, I can spend hours in the sun and will only turn slightly red (which fades a few hours later and does not result in a burn or skin peeling).

Except for one time on an all-day visit to a water park, I have not worn sunscreen in over 8 years. I spend a large amount of time in the sun, and I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever about skin cancer. My skin, most people tell me, looks significantly younger than my biological age. That’s not from sunscreen; it’s from nutrition. Sun exposure does not make your skin “age” if you follow a high-nutritional density diet.

#5) UV exposure alone does not cause skin cancer

It is a complete medical myth that “UV exposure causes skin cancer.” This false idea is a total fabrication by the ignorant medical community (dermatologists) and the profit-driven sunscreen companies.

The truth is actually more complicated: Skin cancer can only be caused when UV exposure is combined with chronic nutritional deficiencies that create skin vulnerabilities.

To create skin cancer, in other words, you have to eat a junk food diet, avoid protective antioxidants, and then also experience excessive UV exposure. All three of those elements are required. Conventional medicine completely ignores the dietary influences and focuses entirely on just one factor: Sunscreen vs. no sunscreen. This is a one-dimensional approach to the issue that’s grossly oversimplified to the point of being misleading.

The medical industry, it seems, does not want people to figure out they can literally eat their way to healthier skin. It’s amazing, actually: Your skin is made entirely out of the food you eat, so how could your diet not affect your skin health? Yet no one in conventional medicine — not the dermatologists, not the doctors and not the health regulators — has the intellectual honesty to admit that what you eat largely determines how your skin reacts to UV exposure.

#6) Not all “natural” sunscreen products are really natural

Be careful when shopping for so-called “natural” sunscreen products. While there are some good ones out there, many are just examples of greenwashing, where they use terms like “natural” or “organic” but still contain loads of synthetic chemicals anyway.

A good guide for checking on sunscreen products is the Environmental Working Groupguide (EWG) at:

Some of the products that are truly natural include Loving Naturals sunscreen andBadger All Natural Sunscreen. Read the ingredients labels to see for yourself. Don’t use any sunscreen product containing ingredients that sound like chemicals:

• Methyl…
• Propyl…
• Butyl…
• Ethyl…
• Trieth…
• Dieth…

Always buy unscented sunscreen unless for some reason you just enjoy coating your skin with artificial perfume chemicals. A typical sunscreen product is made with over a dozen cancer-causing fragrance chemicals, and they’re absorbed right through your skin. Most sunscreens, when applied as directed, are really just toxic chemical baths that heavily burden your liver and can give you cancer.

#7) Many “chemical free” sunscreens are loaded with chemicals

Search for “chemical free natural sunscreen” and you’ll see a listing for:

Jason Natural Cosmetics – Earth’s Best Sun Block Chemical Free, 4 oz cream

Click on the product and you’ll find a listing of its ingredients which includes: C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Sorbitan Isostearate, Sorbitan Sesquioleate, Ethylhexyl Palmitate, Ethyl Macadamiate, Calcium Starch Octenylsuccinate, Stearalkonium Hectorite

So how are those not chemicals? Ethylhexyl Palmitate is NOT a chemical? Who are these people kidding? The description (title) of this product is false and misleading. In all fairness, however, this product title looks like it was added into the system by the vendor and not the Jason company itself. But it’s an example of how the information you see from online vendors can often be misleading.

Always read the ingredients of any sunscreen product before using it. Don’t poison yourself with sunscreen!

Beware the disinfo minefield surrounding sunscreen products

Perhaps more with sunscreen than any other personal care product, the “official” information distributed through the mainstream media is hopelessly misleading (if not downright false). Remarkably, no one in the media or the government is even willing to admit that fragrance chemicals are bad for your health. Similarly, no one is willing to admit that the chemicals you put on your skin get ABSORBED by your skin.

Without those two truths being acknowledged right up front, the rest of whatever they say about sunscreen is worthless babble. Any honest talk about sunscreen must acknowledge the simple truth that the chemicals you put on your skin get absorbed into your skin, and that most sunscreen products are made out of a chemical cocktail of cancer-causing substances.

This is the truth about sunscreen that both the sunscreen industry and the cancer industrydoesn’t want you to hear. It’s the dirty little secret of sunscreen: The more you use, the more you CAUSE cancer in your body! (And the more money the cancer centers make “treating” your cancer with yet more deadly chemicals known as chemotherapy.)

So buyer beware. Sunscreen products are a minefield of lies, fraud and disinformation designed to keep you ignorant of the importance of sun exposure as well as the health risks associated with using cancer-causing chemicals on your skin.

Stick with truly natural sunscreen products (when needed) and try to build up a healthy tanwhile consuming large quantities of superfoods and antioxidants in your diet. Consider taking astaxanthin or other fat-soluble nutrients on a regular basis. Engage in daily juicingof fresh fruits and vegetables which are loaded with living nutrients. Time your sun exposure to build up a healthy tan so that you don’t need sunscreen at all. Contrary to all the misinformation we’ve all been fed, a healthy tan is actually a good sign that you’re achieving adequate vitamin D synthesis in your own skin.

Learn more about sunlight and vitamin D with these two resources:

FREE report: The truth about sunlight and vitamin D (



Founder of WorldTruth.Tv Eddie (12941 Posts)

Eddie is the founder and owner of www.WorldTruth.TV. This website is dedicated to educating and informing people with articles on powerful and concealed information from around the globe. I have spent the last 37 years researching Bible, History, Alternative Health, Secret Societies, Symbolism and many other topics that are not reported by mainstream media.

Source Article from