Big Pharma Scores Again, EPA And FDA Questions

Yet another faux pas by the fraud and death administration, (FDA), and the Exceptionally Pathetic Administration, (EPA).  This is getting to be a daily game of what next!  The more we learn the less likely we are to trust these agencies.  Now we find out that Triclosan is very possibly one of the worst things you can have around you, and it is in EVERYTHING!  Wondering just which products contain this wonderful germicide?  Click HERE:

No matter how you slice it, Triclosan is bad.  It doesn’t break down when it reaches the soil, is toxic to sea life from algae to phytoplankton, and other aquatic life, and may infect the whole food web if steps aren’t taken to remove it immediately, and it is potentially creating super bugs.

The risk assessment reached by the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety said:

“Widespread use of triclosan, including use in cosmetic products, selects for development of triclosan resistance. Since this may contribute to the development and spread of concomitant resistance to clinically important antimicrobial agents, such use represents a public health risk. Therefore, the use of triclosan should be restricted.”

Super bugs, we need more of those in our environment don’t we?  With so many negative studies done on this product, I started to wonder why the EPA would approve it in the first place. I went looking for information on how the EPA, (exceptionally pathetic administration), approved products. While typical, it was disheartening none the less.

Actions Needed to Improve EPA Chemical Review Program Effectiveness

August 14, 2006 // Published as a news service by IHS

The authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to obtain the data needed to assess existing chemicals does not facilitate its review process because the costly and time-consuming burden of obtaining the data is on the EPA, rather than chemical companies, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Consequently, EPA used its authorities to require testing of fewer than 200 of the 62,000 chemicals in commerce when the EPA began reviewing chemicals under the TSCA in 1979.

To obtain more data on existing chemicals, the EPA implemented its High Production Volume Challenge Program, under which chemical companies voluntarily provide test data on about 2,800 chemicals produced or imported in amounts of 1 million pounds or more a year.

Like I said, exceptionally pathetic administration! Considering that the exceptionally pathetic administration, (EPA), review boards are made up of individuals working for the industry being reviewed, the prospect of real evaluations being done is ridiculous.  Money buys a lot of good will and yes men.  The age of honor in politics and protection agencies is dead and buried, we just weren’t invited to their funeral.

An excellent article to read that is short and to the point is:

Triclosan – A Beyond Pesticides Factsheet (PDF)

There are so many other informative articles out there though.  I checked out what the fraud and death administration had to say about triclosan.  It seems that while animal studies are great for all other scientific research, the fraud and death administration doesn’t believe they apply to humans in this case.

Triclosan: What Consumers Should Know

What is known about the safety of triclosan?

Triclosan is not currently known to be hazardous to humans. But several scientific studies have come out since the last time FDA reviewed this ingredient that merit further review.

Animal studies have shown that triclosan alters hormone regulation. However, data showing effects in animals don’t always predict effects in humans. Other studies in bacteria have raised the possibility that triclosan contributes to making bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

The logic here escapes me. Animal studies aren’t what science uses to predict or infer what happens in humans? Since when?

Rats seem to be the most commonly used animal in scientific studies/testing, however rabbits, frogs, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, primates, farm animals, and even earth worms are used.  Suddenly all these animal tests don’t necessarily apply to humans?  So why do they continue to use animals if the studies don’t correlate with human beings?  Could the fraud and death administration suck up to the industry money men any harder?  I wonder how it smells up there ’cause from here it stinks to high heavens!.

Then we turn to the exceptionally pathetic administration which says the following:

Summary of the findings of the risk assessments

Human Health

EPA conducted a human health risk assessment for triclosan to support the reregistration eligibility decision. EPA evaluated toxicology, product and residue chemistry, and occupational/residential exposure studies as well as available open literature and determined that the data are adequate to support the reregistration decision. EPA conducted these assessments using available animal studies.

In its reregistration review, EPA considered all available data on triclosan, including data on

  • endocrine effects,
  • developmental and reproductive toxicity,
  • chronic toxicity, and
  • carcinogenicity.

The 2008 EPA assessment relied in part on the 2003-2004 data available from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) measurements of urinary concentrations of triclosan in the U.S. population. Therefore, the 2008 EPA assessment is inclusive of all triclosan-related exposures (i.e., EPA and FDA regulated uses).

Oh really? And what planet were they on at that time?

I read the study they are claiming they used.  Nowhere in there did they show a category for testing urine for tryclosan levels.  I’ve included the link so anyone can check it out, (not included on epa website).

Obviously they didn’t study ALL the scientific data out there or we wouldn’t have all these papers and findings to review for ourselves.  Of course, our health is up to us right?  These fraud agencies only cater to corporations.  The fact that they get paid by us to lie, spouting industry biased science, only shows how junkscience has become the norm instead of the aberration.

A study done in 2005 appeared in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal concerning 27 studies done on triclosan examined how well antibacterial soaps containing triclosan actually worked. Authors Allison E. Aiello, Elaine L. Larson, and Stuart B. Levy found that these soaps were “no more effective than plain soap at preventing infectious illness symptoms and reducing bacterial levels on the hands.”

In addition, they said “several laboratory studies demonstrated evidence of triclosan-adapted cross-resistance to antibiotics among different species of bacteria.”

We never had that problem with using plain hand soap.

One of my favorite authors in the fight for health freedom and an outspoken critic of both government and big pharma is Byron J. Richards.  He recently wrote an article on triclosan that brings up many issues, like the war on obesity, could triclosan be linked with obesity?  After all, it works on the thyroid gland and on the liver.


By Byron J. Richards, CCN  April 11, 2010

Almost all man-made chemicals have gotten onto the market through rubber-stamping EPA approval. Similar to the FDA, the EPA’s “advisory boards” are made of industry representatives whose vested interest is having chemicals on the market. Chemicals generally pass a flimsy test of not being too cancer causing. The cumulative burden of all approved chemicals on health and the effects of these chemicals on basic human metabolism have not been benchmarks for approval.

Many chemicals interfere with metabolism at levels far lower than a cancer-causing level of exposure. We know from fat tissue samples taken that exposure to everyone is significant as white adipose tissue typically has at least 100 of these toxic chemicals stored within fat – which obviously disturbs the health of the white adipose tissue that is now recognized as a key endocrine organ.

The weak link in your endocrine system, as far as chemical exposure is concerned, is your thyroid. This likely explains why rates of thyroid cancer in America are steadily rising while most other cancer rates are not. Many chemicals like triclosan have chlorinated structures that easily bind to the thyroid gland, displace iodine, or generally cause free radical distress to thyroid gland function that produces thyroiditis. A chronically inflamed gland that has its antioxidant system depleted from chemical exposure is what sets the stage for cancer.

Now, I’m sure the government agencies as a whole are immune from prosecution, however, the individuals in their respective roles are not. Consider a class action lawsuit against these men and women for fraudulent and junk science, attempted murder, (after all, what else can be said when these chemicals are introduced into our environment without care for what happens to humans and our planet?), and the industry giants who only tell minute portions of the science they hold on their products?  I’ve never heard that lazy was a good excuse for committing a crime.  What about withholding scientific information necessary to make these agencies actually work?

They should stop telling us we are fat, eat less, exercise more, and look at what they are doing to us through the use of chemicals introduced without our consent and without our full knowledge that is damaging, changing, and destroying our bodies.  The Exceptionally Pathetic administration and the Fraud and Death administration were put in place specifically to protect human beings from chemical and drug pollutants.  If they cannot do their jobs they should be abandoned.  Let’s not waste money and time on bad policy and incompetent agencies.

From Wikipedia we have this bit:

Health concerns

Reports have suggested that triclosan can combine with chlorine in tap water to form chloroform gas, which the United States Environmental Protection Agency classifies as a probable human carcinogen. As a result, triclosan was the target of a UK cancer alert, even though the study showed that the amount of chloroform generated was less than amounts often present in chlorinated drinking waters.

Triclosan also reacts with the free chlorine in tap water to produce lesser amounts of other compounds, like 2,4-dichlorophenol. Most of these intermediates convert into dioxins upon exposure to UV radiation (from the sun or other sources). Although small amounts of dioxins are produced, there is a great deal of concern over this effect, because some dioxins are extremely toxic and are very potent endocrine disruptors. They are also chemically very stable, so that they are eliminated from the body very slowly (they can bioaccumulate to dangerous levels), and they persist in the environment for a very long time.

According to the UK warning, which is totally different from what we see here in the u.S.A.:

Triclosan, a chemical used for its antibacterial properties, is an ingredient in many detergents, dish-washing liquids, soaps, deodorants, cosmetics, lotions, anti-microbial creams, various toothpastes, and an additive in various plastics and textiles. However, the safety of triclosan has been questioned in regard to environmental and human health. While the companies that manufacture products containing this chemical claim that it is safe, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered it as a pesticide. The chemical formulation and molecular structure of this compound are similar to some of the most toxic chemicals on earth, relating it to dioxins and PCBs. The EPA gives triclosan high scores both as a human health risk and as an environmental risk.

Someone explain to me why the exceptionally pathetic agency would allow a product it has listed as a pesticide to be used in everyday products and then tell us it is good for us.  Perhaps I’m missing the point here, but I wouldn’t use round-up as a hand lotion, face scrub, in my laundry, or anywhere else but on a weed.  So, are we being lied to here???

We do not get a say in who is placed in charge of these agencies. Like the obaminator announcing that no lobbyists would be nominated to his cabinet, (and how many were???), the men and women working for both the epa and the fda are anything but true to their mission statement.  The disinformation coming out of both the EPA and the FDA make me want to chuck the lot off the highest cliff and see if they can fly.  I’m sick and tired of hearing about government agencies that are incapable of doing the jobs they were hired for.  If We tried to get away with that shit, our employers would have a fit and firing us would be top priority.

I heard a saying once, “Incompetents don’t get fired, they get promoted.”  When I first heard it I thought, “No way,” but it has proven itself over and over again to be the true statement of how government works.  Do you wonder why I don’t watch regular TV, listen to the news, or believe what consumer protection agencies tell me without researching it for myself first?  Your best defense is reading labels.  If you don’t know what something is look it up on the web.  Don’t assume the government knows what it is talking about or that your health is actually their priority.


~ by justmytruth on April 15, 2010.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: