Mothering Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It has been argued here that we can trust regulatory agencies and scientists to create policies that protect consumers and that this trust should extend to vaccines.

I've argued that scientists and regulatory agencies are very slow to find problems if the product involved is profitable. Waiting 30, 40 or even 50 years (in the case of lead, 80 years) to get a product off the market really doesn't build trust in the system.

One of the products I've been pointing to as problematic is soaps and other products containing triclosan.

The antibacterial substance, which was first developed in the 1960s to prevent bacterial infections in hospitals, has since been incorporated into everything from hand soaps to toothpastes to mouthwashes. Manufacturers see it as a marketing bonus, increasing consumer confidence that a particular product kills harmful bacteria. Even some household products—such as kitchen utensils, toys and bedding—include triclosan.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...muscle-function-22127536/#axsQDMKJPxRtDBbz.99

The process of figuring out if this substance is okay or not has taken more than 50 years. In that time it has gotten into every nook and cranny of our environment and our bodies.

The FDA has finally moved on this, but not too vigorously. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm517478.htm

How many babies have been exposed to Triclosan while the FDA ground slowly on? How many more babies will be exposed by the millions of tons of this crap which will be lingering in the environment for many years?
Environmental Effects
We wash our dishes, utensils, hands, and even bodies with soaps containing triclosan. Where does the chemical go once it is out of our sink and showers?
Triclosan and other antibacterial compounds end up in the oceans where they can kill microscopic bacteria that form the base of the food chain. We have been pumping this chemical into the oceans for decades and have observed problems, finding it quite high up in the food chain, even in dolphins.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/fda-rev...-soap-why-triclosan-bad-you-and-planet-245474
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
Ugh.

Take the issue of micro plastics/micro beads.

Research on its negative impact on the marine environment was published in 2004.

In 2004, the findings of a research programme led by Professor Richard Thompson (University of Plymouth) were published in Science and detailed the distribution of microplastic pollution.
http://www.beatthemicrobead.org/en/science

In 2014, dentists started speaking out:

… the beads do not disintegrate and are not biodegradable, and dentists are concerned that they're getting stuck in the tiny crevices between the teeth and gums.
"They’ll trap bacteria in the gums which leads to gingivitis, and over time that infection moves from the gum into the bone that holds your teeth, and that becomes periodontal disease," dentist Justin Phillip said
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-about-the-plastic-beads-in-your-toothpaste/


Guess what? The purpose of the micro beads in toothpaste is simply decorative. :serious:

Here's what Crest had to say in 2014:

While the ingredient in question is completely safe, approved for use in foods by the FDA, and part of an enjoyable brushing experience for millions of consumers with no issues, we understand there is a growing preference for us to remove this ingredient. So we will," the company said in a statement to KNXV.
same WP link as above. my bold

Previously approved by the FDA folks!

Canada banned them in early 2015 and the US in the latter part of 2015 although the ban is not immediate. From the FDA:
The ban takes effect on:

July 1, 2017 for manufacturing.
July 1, 2018 for distributing.
July 1, 2018 for manufacturing a rinse-off cosmetic that is also a nonprescription drug.
July 1, 2019 for distributing a rinse-off cosmetic that is also a nonprescription drug.
http://fda-news.registrarcorp.com/2016/01/usa-bans-microbeads-from-cosmetic-products/

So the fish will be ingesting micro beads for many years to come (and so will you if you eat fish) even though we knew back in 2004 how bad micro beads are.

BTW, it's in salt too.

Microplastic Pollution in Table Salts from China
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b03163
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on microplastic pollution in abiotic sea products.
pub Oct 2015
my bold

Greenpeace has something called - Micro beads Commitment Scorecard. Check out GlaxoSmith Kline's ranking (GSK says it has a portfolio of 30 vaccines available worldwide):
https://secured-static.greenpeace.o...enpeace_Microbeads_Scorecards_Ranking_eng.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Notice they said they could not find sufficient evidence or studies showing it was safe or effective which is why they made the decision they did.

Also notice now that statement is different from "After decades of research involving millions of people from all over the world conducted by hundreds of scientists independent from each other using multiple study designs that found triclosan to be safe and effective, new evidence has come forward showing it to be dangerous and ineffective."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Notice they said they could not find sufficient evidence or studies showing it was safe or effective which is why they made the decision they did.

Also notice now that statement is different from "After decades of research involving millions of people from all over the world conducted by hundreds of scientists independent from each other using multiple study designs that found triclosan to be safe and effective, new evidence has come forward showing it to be dangerous and ineffective."
The real story of vaccines. After lots of very narrow research involving small groups of previously screened people, sometimes involving obviously manipulated results, conducted mostly by scientists who are dependent on vaccine manufacturers for their income, vaccines continue to be declared safe and effective despite large numbers of independent reports of negative outcomes. But it is okay to disregard all negative outcomes because vaccines are so wonderful.

I think both statements are distortions, but I'm pretty sure teacozy will continue to spout her version, no matter how much evidence is brought forward showing problems with vaccines. Scientific consensus, ya know.

And the point on triclosan, is that despite many years of obvious problems, combined with a real lack of any need for soaps and other products laced with a pesticide, the stuff stayed on the market year and after year after year.

Tragic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,724 Posts
I'm pretty sure teacozy will continue to spout her version, no matter how much evidence is brought forward showing problems with vaccines. Scientific consensus, ya know.
You might want to edit your personal comment.

And the point on triclosan, is that despite many years of obvious problems, combined with a real lack of any need for soaps and other products laced with a pesticide, the stuff stayed on the market year and after year after year.

Tragic.
No the point is it's now being recommended to be removed. The point is this is completely different to vaccines. This was regulators moving slowly on a developing consensus that Microbeads were a bad idea.

Vaccines demonstate regulators standing fast behind a body of evidence showing how safe and effective they are despite noisy groups attempting to claim otherwise.

Deborah thinks the evidence is weak. I disagree. And in that I'm going along with hundreds and thousands of researchers who work in this area. So I'm happy with my decision.

And if the evidence started to shift I'm confident the regulators would too eventually. Do you think nvic will ever change their mind if the evidence supporting vaccines gets even stronger? Or will they always find something to object about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: teacozy

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Sciencemum, since you quoted me quoting teacozy, it is now useless for me to edit my post.

I am making two points.

1) That products that shouldn't be approved in the first place are permitted.
2) That once a product is permitted it remains for a very long time, until overwhelming evidence, impossible to ignore, finally makes it impossible for a compliant regulatory agency to support industry any further.

The evidence is perfectly clear. Dangerous products, will stay on the market injuring children, for very long periods of time, if they are profitable to industries with enough clout.

Drug companies and doctors can even get away with the most outrageous stuff--drugging toddlers who supposedly show signs of bi-polar for example?

The evidence is clear. The well-being of babies and children are not a top priority. Hence the lack of trust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
And, of course, those many years of research on vaccines mostly don't include research on recombinant vaccines. Because those have only been out for a relatively brief period of time. Claiming that there is a conclusive scientific consensus on a new product, just because it has the same overall label as an older product is gaming the meaning of consensus.

And, of course, those many years of research on vaccines can't possibly include research on contaminants that have recently been discovered in vaccines...glyphosate for example...claiming that there is conclusive scientific consensus around a problem that was only spotted quite recently, just because it has the same overall label as something that was around before the contaminant was invented is gaming the meaning of consensus.

I think one of the main things that has made me seriously critical of vaccines, besides the attempts to force people to accept them, is the twisting of language and meaning around vaccination.

Consensus?
Safety?
Effective?
Force?
Informed consent?
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Finally. This abstract is from an article published in 2005. The FDA is right on top of protecting the public and the environment, aren't they? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16257298

The occurrence, fate, and effects of phenols with endocrine-disrupting properties as well as some pharmaceuticals and personal-care products in the environment have frequently been discussed in recent literature. In many cases, these compounds were determined by using individual methods which can be time-consuming if results for multiple parameters are required. Using a solid-phase extraction procedure with an anion exchanger in this work, we have developed and optimized a multi-residue method for the extraction of 21 phenols and acids in sewage influent and effluent. The phenols and acids were then selectively eluted in separate fractions and were converted into pentafluoropropionyl (PFP) and tert-butyldimethylsilyl (TBDMS) derivatives, respectively, for gas chromatography-mass spectrometric (GC/MS) determination. When applied to the sewage samples under study, the results for nonylphenol, bisphenol A (BPA), triclosan (TCS), 17ss-estradiol (E2), estrone (E1), salicylic acid, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and a few other acidic drugs were consistent with those determined previously by individual methods. Using the same procedure, we also report, for the first time, the occurrence of 2-phenylphenol and parabens in those sewage samples.
This one is from 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19299018

The high potency of Triclosan as an inhibitor of estrogen sulfotransferase activity raises concern about its possible effects on the ability of the placenta to supply estrogen to the fetus, and in turn on fetal growth and development.
In order to remove a substance from the market the evidence has to be overwhelming. But the standard to get it into the market? Obviously, not nearly as tough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
Finally. This abstract is from an article published in 2005. The FDA is right on top of protecting the public and the environment, aren't they? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16257298



This one is from 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19299018



In order to remove a substance from the market the evidence has to be overwhelming. But the standard to get it into the market? Obviously, not nearly as tough.
I wonder if this chemical is a contributing factor to reported instances of young people unhappy with their assigned gender.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I wonder if this chemical is a contributing factor to reported instances of young people unhappy with their assigned gender.
As always, we have the problem of trying to spot if there is an increase in something or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Bumping up this thread.

Looks like there is nothing that will undermine faith in "science" for some folks.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top