Advertisements

Pregnant Women Being Dosed with Chemotherapy

by Christina Luisa
NaturalNews.com
August 24, 2011

In the world of medicine, the toxicity of chemotherapy drugs is widely known. They make your hair fall out, after all, and that’s on top of the muscle wasting, vomiting and overall health deterioration that chemo drugs admittedly produce. But now the insanity has reached a new low with doctors routinely prescribing chemotherapy drugs to pregnant women!

When a woman becomes pregnant, she is told to avoid alcohol, caffeine, cigarettes, sushi and other conceivable risks to the fetus. Almost every single medication and supplement has warnings that pregnant women should consult a doctor before use.

The utmost of concern is taken to ensure the protection of the unborn child. So does it seem reasonable that researchers claim that exposing pregnant women to chemotherapy (a deadly treatment that kills living cells) does not APPEAR to affect the fetus?

Though still fairly rare (the rate of pregnancy associated cancer is about 1 in 1,000 pregnancies), the incidence of pregnancy associated breast cancer is quickly on the rise.

It is becoming more common that pregnant women with breast cancer or other forms of cancer are being treated with chemotherapy despite the potential danger this is to the life growing inside of them. Doctors have even told pregnant patients they will die within a short period of time if they don’t get chemotherapy, without informing them of more natural and safe options for treating their disease.

New data from researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center says that pregnant women treated for breast cancer supposedly do at least as well as non-pregnant women.

These results contradict earlier studies showing that outcomes were worse for pregnant women treated for breast cancer. Many doctors in the past have also recommended abortion, advising that chemotherapy could cause birth defects.

In a German study examining outcomes among 122 pregnant breast cancer patients, researchers concluded that pregnant patients can often be treated as aggressively as non-pregnant patients, with little evidence of ill effects to their babies.

These findings are said to prove that pregnant women who have breast cancer can be treated successfully without harming their babies. Abortion, the only other option that seems to be prevalently considered in cases of cancer during pregnancy is unnecessary.

Experts admit to being unsure about what is behind the new statistics but are apparently assuming the only important fact from the new research findings is the revelation that women treated while pregnant “do well.”

One more reason not to trust oncologists

Even if cancer is detected in early pregnancy, women are being advised that chemo is completely okay if it is put off until the second trimester, in order to minimize the risk of birth defects.

Studies have shown that the birth defect rate is as high as 20% when chemotherapy is given in the first trimester, but that this rate drops to around 1.3% when chemotherapy is given later in the pregnancy. This percentage is said to be on par with the national average.

Chemotherapy given after the first trimester “does not usually harm the fetus but may cause early labor and low birth weight.” Putting off chemo until the later trimesters is supposedly good reasoning because the first trimester is the most vulnerable period of a pregnancy, when vital organs are still forming.

However, what makes doctors and researchers think that this fact means the rest of the pregnancy does not also require extreme caution, especially when it comes to lethal drugs in large doses?

Pregnant patients are also recommended to receive the same drugs as non-pregnant patients in the same proportional doses according to weight. Chemotherapy treated patients usually get a combination of three drugs — fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide. However, it is clearly stated on Drugs.com that Doxorubicin can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.

This type of barbaric cancer treatment and the potent drug regimen during pregnancy carries the possibility of having disastrous effects in many cases. How could this amount and form of toxicity possibly not have some sort of significant harm on the vulnerable cells developing into a tiny human within a mother’s womb?

Instead of referring pregnant women to natural cancer treatments that are entirely safe for their unborn children, oncologists are pushing them toward the “cure-all” of the corrupt cancer industry chemo. This means more money for them, but what about the children that will likely suffer due to the powerfully toxic treatments they were exposed to while in their mothers womb?

Questionable (uncertain) claims

It is being claimed by researchers, scientists, and doctors that chemotherapy has supposedly no detrimental effect on the fetus and that there is no increased risk of congenital defects in children who are exposed to chemotherapy during pregnancy.

The reasoning used for this is that the placenta acts “as a filter” for most of the products researched and “protects the fetus against the damaging effects of chemotherapy.”

New research is stating that some medications barely penetrate the placenta, while in cases of other drugs the same concentration is found in both the mother and fetus. Does this sound like convincing enough evidence that the fetus is protected from the harmful effects of chemo?

An article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology also claims chemotherapy administered to pregnant women during second or third trimesters for the treatment of breast cancer APPEARS safe for both the fetus and mother.

In fact, many of the articles published on similar research studies on chemotherapy during pregnancy claim that the dangerous treatment APPEARS safe for unborn children. This wording certainly sounds confident and sound.

Although it has been clinically proven chemotherapy and radiation therapy can cause changes in germ cell DNA, most such changes are claimed to “not be viable, yielding only a slightly increased risk of birth defects.” Only a slightly increased risk? Really? Even a New York Times article clearly stated that “Contradictions abound about just how chemotherapy affects babies in utero.”

The same article mentions how the FDA has established 5 categories for the use of drugs during pregnancy, with category A the only unequivocally safe one. Most chemotherapeutic agents fall into category D, meaning there is clear evidence of risk to the fetus.

The study that started it all

In 1973, a senior researcher at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social in Mexico City named Dr. Agustin Aviles saw his first pregnant patient with leukemia. This woman became the catalyst for his revolutionary study on the effects of chemo while pregnant and the first of 84 patients who received chemotherapy during pregnancy between 1973 and 2003 (58 of them during the first trimester).

All 84 had acute leukemia, advanced Hodgkin’s or malignant lymphoma and were told by doctors that putting off chemotherapy for even a few days could kill both them and the unborn children in their wombs.

Among all 84 cases in his study, every fetus survived and 5.8% of them had birth defects — most of which were reported to be supposedly minor. In a follow-up study, Aviles examined 43 children born to mothers who received chemo from 1970 to 1986.

The children’s ages ranged from 3 to 19 at the time of his assessment and all were recorded to have normal physical, neurological and psychological development. Because of this study and other more recent ones, doctors have been telling patients they don’t have to make a choice between their lives and the life of their baby.

Although Aviles found that only 5.8 % of the babies of mothers who had undergone chemo in the first trimester were born with defects, other studies have found defects in the 14 to 19 % range when chemo is given in the first trimester. Even during the second and third trimesters, chemo is not risk free. Some studies clearly indicate that chemotherapy increases the risk of stillbirth, low birth weight and retardation.

Pregnant chemo patients are taking a potentially dangerous gamble

Most of the problems described in the babies exposed to chemotherapy in this minor study were said by a doctor to not be related to the treatment, but were “most probably due to other circumstances.” These circumstances were not specified, however.

Some of the problems recorded in the study included: alopecia, trisomia 18 (a chromosomal disorder which caused a baby to die one week after birth), necrotic enterocolitis (a severe bacterial infection of the intestine which caused a baby to die three weeks after birth), sepsis (blood infection), neutropenia (low white blood cell count) and anaemia. Few studies have followed the long-term development of children born to women who received chemotherapy during pregnancy.

Although growing numbers of doctors are recommending chemo as an option for pregnant women, many of these women are still refusing treatment unless they abort their fetus first. However, some women have stated that being pregnant increases their will to survive after being diagnosed.

This is a decision that clearly carries a lot of weight in many different ways, and the only person who should be responsible for deciding what is best for the baby is the mother carrying its life in her body.

Article that talks about risks of chemo during pregnancy: http://www.otispregnancy.org/files/…

Advertisements

This is what some scientists know about Europe’s E. Coli

Reuters
June 3, 2011

The deadly strain of E. coli that has killed at least 17 people in Europe and sickened 1,500 has never been seen in a human population and it may be the most toxic yet, health experts said on Thursday.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about the outbreak.

1. What is E. coli? Escherichia coli (E. coli) are a group of bacteria that live in the intestines of many animals, including humans. Most strains are harmless, but others can cause illness ranging from diarrhea to pneumonia. E. coli infections can be mild to life-threatening.

2. How is E. coli spread? E. coli infections are caused by ingesting the feces of infected animals or humans, often via contaminated food or water. People can contaminate food by failing to wash their hands after using the toilet or changing a baby’s diaper, although person-to-person infection is rare. Feces from animals, ranging from cows to birds, can contaminate water or crops.

3. What is the strain? The strain that is sickening people in Germany and other parts of Europe, known as 0104:H4, is part of a class of bacteria known as Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, or STEC. It is the first time the strain has caused an outbreak in humans. Symptoms of STEC infections vary for each person but often include severe stomach cramps, diarrhea (often bloody) and vomiting. Low fever (less than 101 degrees F/38.5 degrees C) also may be present. Most people recover within five to seven days.

4. What are the major complications of this strain? Hundreds of people sickened in the outbreak have developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, or HUS, a life-threatening complication of E. coli infections. The syndrome, which results in the destruction of red blood cells and severe kidney problems, usually arises about a week after diarrhea starts.

Symptoms of HUS include decreased frequency of urination, extreme fatigue and the loss of the skin’s pink color. Children, the elderly and people with compromised immune systems usually are at highest risk for HUS. In the case of this outbreak, healthy adult women have been hard hit.

5. What is the medical treatment? Experts said supportive therapy, including hydration, is important. Treatment for HUS includes dialysis for kidney failure and blood transfusions for anemia. Antibiotics should not be used, as there is no evidence that treatment with antibiotics is helpful. Antibiotics and antidiarrheal agents like Imodium also may increase risk of HUS.

Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Gastrointestinal Pathology in Autism Spectrum Disorders…

…The Venezuelan Experience

By Lenny G. González, MD
AutismFile.com

Recent studies in the medical literature have confirmed that gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are common in patients with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). In two prospective studies, GI symptoms were present in 80% and 70% of autistic children, respectively.1 In contrast with the ASD group in the latter study, Valicenti-McDermott et al. reported GI symptoms in only 28% of neurotypical controls.1,2,10. Retrospective studies that rely only upon review of the children’s existing clinical records are likely to underestimate the true size of the problem since these records rarely document GI symptoms. The inadequacy of this approach means that it is impossible to determine whether symptoms were not present or, more likely, that the clinician just failed to document them. On the other hand, prospective studies that systematically ask about the presence or absence of specific symptoms provide a much more accurate picture of the size of the problem.

Clinical manifestations of GI disease in ASD children Physical symptoms in ASD children are often misinterpreted as just autistic behaviors. In our experience, symptoms of what turns out to be GI distress often present as inexplicable irritability, aggressive or auto-aggressive (self-injurious) behaviors, discomfort, sleep disorder s, and other behavioral disturbances. The problem of physical symptoms such as abdominal pain being interpreted simply as aberrant behaviors is particularly problematic in children who are nonverbal and who have serious difficulties expressing themselves.10.

Detailed case histories often provide evidence of abdominal colic and sleep disorders during the nursing stage and frequent infections of the upper respiratory tract (such as otitis and tonsillitis) and GI tract caused by bacterial, viral, parasitic, or yeast infections. Affected children are often hypersensitive to sounds, light, flavors, smells, and clothing labels. In addition, there is often a history of intolerance to certain foods containing gluten and casein as well as indicators of food allergies.5-7. Children with autism often present with GI and extra-intestinal symptoms.

The digestive symptoms include abdominal pain, pyrosis (heartburn), chronic diarrhea, flatulence, drooling or excessive salivation, vomiting, regurgitations, weight loss, rumination, bruxism (teeth grinding), irritability, dysentery, constipation, and fecal impaction. During symptomatic episodes, periods of irritability, insomnia, and auto-aggressive behaviors are observed. In ASD children, it is common to observe abnormal toileting patterns. Diarrhea and constipation are common, and constipation can coexist with episodes of diarrhea. In the case of diarrhea, the stools are semi-liquid, very fetid with mucus and undigested food; sometimes they can have a sandy/grainy consistency and other times show blood. Diarrhea is one of the most common symptoms as reported in the studies of D’Eufemia, Torrente, Horvath, Wakefield, Furlano, and Sabrá. This has been our experience in Venezuela, also.14 The extra-intestinal problems experienced by our ASD children with GI symptoms include respiratory, neurological, and dermatological disorders.

These include frequent coughing (often dry), upper respiratory tract infections, skin rashes, eczema, atopic dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, and itching. The most common clinical signs are Dennie Morgan infraorbital skin folds (caused by edema or fluid collecting in areas of inflammation), dark circles under the eyes, long eyelashes, abdominal distension, halitosis, perianal erythema (diaper rash), anal fissures, dry skin, angular cheilosis (sore cracks at the corners of the lips), and greenish anterior rinorrhea (runny nose).

There are also alterations in the stool consistency, color, and smell (excessively offensive) as well as the presence of mucus or blood, food remains, and visible fat (often semi-liquid, acidic, excessively fetid, greasy feces, with mucus and/or blood).

Etiopathogenesis

Recent studies of ASD children report chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract that may be present anywhere from the esophagus down to the rectum: this inflammation may well explain the GI symptoms and at least some of the behaviors.18-15, 35-40 Several theories have been proposed for how deterioration in gastrointestinal function might influence neurological functioning. The epithelial cell layer that lines the GI mucosa forms a barrier that restricts the contents of the gut from getting into the blood stream. It it is composed of cells with absorptive surfaces (the brush border) that interact with the contents of the lumen. Between these cells are gates called tight junctions, the integrity of which is important in preventing noxious substances from entering the bloodstream without passing directly
through the cells.10.  One explanation might be that part of the neurological disability in children with autism results from absorption across an inflamed intestinal lining of molecules that are toxic to the developing brain.10-14 Inflammation of the intestinal wall can be induced by diverse causes such as food allergy, use of antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, infection, or by enzymatic insufficiency, mycotoxins from yeast/fungi, gluten, casein, chemical additives, colorings, preservatives, malabsorption of proteins, heavy metal intoxications, and pesticides.3-6.

The integrity of the intestinal wall also plays an important role in the adequate absorption of nutrients and the exclusion of potentially harmful toxins, bacteria, allergens, and peptides coming from certain foods. In our experience, food components such as gluten and casein can provoke the behavioral abnormalities characteristic of autism4, possibly when they enter the systemic circulation. Increased intestinal permeability (leaky gut) may be the link that explains the association of autism with an abnormal intestinal immune response, multiple food allergies, dysbiosis, fungal overgrowth (Candida albicans), as well as with micronutrient deficiencies.4,5. Probably due to GI inflammation and abnormal immune function, children with autism may have increased levels of harmful bowel organisms. Frequent antibiotic use in the first years of life can also contribute to the chronic imbalance, referred to as intestinal dysbiosis.

Several investigators have found evidence of this imbalance in autistic children. A good example of a pathogenic (diseasecausing) bacterium is Clostridium difficile. This organism is a common cause of severe colitis that occurs when broadspectrum oral antibiotics have killed off the beneficial gut bacteria and have allowed this antibiotic-resistant opportunistic organism to overgrow and cause inflammation.10. The gut-brain connection is recognized as playing a role in the neurological complications of a number of gastrointestinal diseases. Symptoms like constipation, pain, or abdominal distension are reported by adults with degenerative disorders of the central nervous system like Parkinson’s disease, 4 while parents of autistic children report similar symptoms, although the precise nature of any link between the gut and the brain is unknown.

Ileo-colonoscopy and autistic enterocolitis

In 1998, a team of doctors at the Royal Free Hospital in London reported the results of ileocolonoscopies on 12 children who presented with autism and GI symptoms. In a series of papers, Wakefield and colleagues described a new variant of intestinal inflammatory disease, which was named autistic enterocolitis. The disease is characterized by mild-to-moderate chronic patchy inflammation of the mucosa and lymphoid nodular hyperplasia (LNH) (swelling of the lymph glands) in the bowel lining. Visible features suggestive of inflammatory bowel disease included the red halo sign – an expression of pre-ulcerative reddening around the swollen lymphoid tissues – typically located at the terminal ileum, potentially extending to involve the whole colon, loss of vascular pattern, and mucosal granularity, erythema (redness), and ulceration.

When compared with neurotypical children, including those with ulcerative colitis (a well described inflammatory bowel disease), the findings suggested a novel disease process.14. In the UK study and in our own experience, these abnormal findings are more frequent in autistic children than in developmentally normal children with GI symptoms. The only exception was ulceration, which was uncommon in both groups. The biopsies from the children with autism showed reactive LNH in 88.5% of the children compared with only 29% of children with ulcerative colitis, and 0.0% in the control group without IBD. In many cases, the researchers also saw infiltration of inflammatory cells like neutrophils (pus cells) and lymphocytes (chronic inflammatory cells) in the epithelium of the bowel mucosa. Active neutrophilic inflammation in the ileum was present in 8% of the children with autism and in none of the non-inflammatory bowel disease controls.

Chronic lymphocytic inflammation in the colon was present in 88% of the autistic cases, 4% of the controls, and 100% of ulcerative colitis cases. In our published study of 45 ASD children and 57 developmentally normal controls presenting for GI assessment, chronic inflammation and LNH in the colon and ileum was present in 100% of the autistic cases compared with 66.66% of the controls, reflecting a high background rate of infectious enterocolitis in Venezuelan children (see below.)13 Since then, other studies carried out in the United States, Brazil, Italy, and Venezuela have confirmed the finding of inflammation and LNH in ASD.10-14, 29.    

BP’s Top Kill Procedure fails as Coast Guard Blocks Media Access

Natural News

BP officials have announced today that the “top kill” effort to stop the Gulf oil leak has failed. Unanticipated problems doomed the project, which involved trying to pump tens of thousands of gallons of mud, shredded rubber tires and other “junk” into the hole to try to halt the outflow of oil.

At 6pm Saturday evening, BP officials announced the “top kill” effort had failed and now they were moving on to another plan (more below).

I am on site at the Gulf Coast right now, and while I haven’t reached the areas where oil is washing up on the beaches, I’m learning some interesting information nonetheless. In particular, finding a hotel room anywhere near New Orleans has become virtually impossible, as BP has rented out virtually every available hotel room from St. Charles, Louisiana all the way to Pensacola, Florida. (I am currently staying in a fleabag hotel that miraculously has internet access…)

But it raises the question: Where are all these people? I haven’t seen a single BP person anywhere, and I was out on some beaches today filming editorial segments for NaturalNews. I did see some small watercraft laying out protective barriers, but I didn’t see any BP people anywhere.

I’ll keep you posted on what we find tomorrow as we approach the beaches to the East of New Orleans.

Expect more oil for the next 10 weeks

Now that the top kill effort has failed, it means oil will keep spewing into the Gulf of Mexico until at least August. That’s when two “pressure release” wells are expected to be completed. The purpose of these two wells is to siphon off the oil from underneath the ocean bed, thereby releasing the pressure that’s currently pushing crude oil out of the existing hole under the doomed Deepwater Horizon rig.

This “plan C” effort remains extremely risky, of course. There’s no guarantee it will work at all. And if it fails, this “volcano of oil” could continue to pollute the Earth’s oceans for years. This could, in fact, be the global killer event I warned about in an earlier story about this BP oil spill. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028805_G…)

We could be looking at a global-scale environmental catastrophe that destroys virtually all marine life in the Gulf of Mexico and takes a century to fully recover. It’s really that bad. If they can’t stop this volcano of oil in the next week, we could be looking at the single most destructive environmental catastrophe ever to strike our planet since the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Get ready for more chemicals

In the mean time, now that the top kill effort has failed, BP has announced it is resuming the spraying of chemical dispersants into the massive oil plumes that remain deep under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico water. This means more chemicals that will kill more forms of marine life throughout the Gulf.

But it’s not just aquatic life that’s being threatened by these chemicals: BP workers are increasingly being sent to the hospital complaining of symptoms like vomiting, dizziness, difficult breathing and others. The obvious cause of such symptoms is the huge amount of crude oil bubbling up to the surface (some of which evaporates into the air) along with the massive injection of chemical dispersants into the waters (some of which also evaporates). CNN is reporting that BP claims it is monitoring air quality, but so far BP has not gone public with any air quality test results.

None of the cleanup workers have been outfitted with chemical masks that might protect them from the volatile chemicals now present in the Gulf waters. Yet CNN is reporting that the warning label on the chemical product made by NALCO states: “Avoid breathing vapor.”

The EPA, meanwhile, remains silent on this whole issue. Remember: It is the EPA that ordered BP to stop using its selected brand of chemical dispersant, but BP utterly ignored the EPA and continues to dump that very same chemical into the Gulf of Mexico right now.

A chemical attack on America

What we are watching here, folks, is very nearly a chemical attack on America by BP and the oil industry. It’s hard to say what’s worse: The oil or the chemical dispersants. In fact, no one knows the answer to that question, and it can’t even be studied by scientists because the disaster keeps growing by the day.

This is one environmental catastrophe that just keeps getting worse, and the cost to the marine ecosystem is incalculable. And that’s not to even mention the economic cost to the region and all the people who depend on life in the Gulf of Mexico for their own livelihoods. Their lives are now being destroyed by this oil drilling catastrophe.

If there’s one lesson that comes from all this, it is a reminder of the immense value Mother Nature provides us each and every day at no charge. The VALUE of a healthy ocean is incalculable. And the COST of killing it may be more than what human civilization can bear.

I suppose this resolves the whole question of what’s more important: The environment or the economy? As we’re rudely discovering today, the economy cannot exist without protecting the environment first.

The Perfume Industry’s stinky reality

GreenBiz

Britney Spears lends her name to a perfume called Britney Spears Curious Eau de Parfum. But if you are curious about what goes intonot so sexy Britney’s eau, don’t ask Elizabeth Arden, the cosmetics giant that makes the fragrance.

Sure, some ingredients are identified on the label. They include Alpha Iso Methyl Ionone, Benzyl Benzoate, Benzyl Salicylate, Cital, Citronellol, Diethyl Phthalate, Eugenol, Farnesol, Galazolide, Hydroxycitonelle, Limonene and Linalool.

But another 17 chemicals are not listed, and they could be bad for your health, according to two advocacy groups, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Environmental Working Group.

It’s no wonder the marketing for the perfume asks: Do you dare?

This week, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics published a report called “Not So Sexy: The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrances.” The report included the results of laboratory tests performed on 17 name-brand fragrance products revealing that, as a group, they contained 38 so-called secret chemicals. The average product contained 14 chemicals not listed on the label.

Products tested include Hannah Montana Secret Celebrity Cologne Spray (yes, it’s really called that), Jennifer Lopez J. Lo Glow Eau de Toilette Natural Spray, Halle by Halle Berry Eau de Parfum Spray, Coco Mademoiselle Chanel, Calvin Klein Eternity, Abercrombie & Fitch Fierce, American Eagle Seventy Seven, Clinique Happy Perfume Spray, Dolce & Gabbana Light Blue and Old Spice After Hours Body Spray.

The report says of the chemicals:

Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products.  Also in the ranks of undisclosed ingredients are chemicals with troubling hazardous properties or with a propensity to accumulate in human tissues.

Consumers can’t count on the government to protect them from potential hazards, according to the report:

A review of government records shows that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not assessed the vast majority of these secret fragrance chemicals for safety when used in spray-on personal care products such as fragrances. Nor have most been evaluated by the safety review panel of the International Fragrance Association or any other publicly accountable institution.

Now, as the headline on this blog post not-so-subtly indicates, the fact that perfume companies won’t disclose their ingredients is an unfortunate thing. But is it a reason for alarm? I’m not qualified to judge. Keep in mind that advocacy groups, like the industries they target, have an agenda, which is about getting attention and raising money.

And while the 44-page report is laced with references to scientific studies, the science of measuring the effect of tiny amounts of chemicals on human health is both uncertain and controversial. See, as an example, the recent report by the President’s Cancer Panel which warned of the threats from chemicals in the air, water and food, and the reaction it provoked from, among others, the American Cancer Society. Teasing out cause and effect is just incredibly hard to do.

Having said that, why anyone would choose to smear these chemicals on their face or body is a mystery to me.

Why, as a consumer, would you take any risk, when the allergic effects associated with fragrance products, according to the report, include “headaches, chest tightness and wheezing, infant diarrhea and vomiting, mucosal irritation, reduced pulmonary function, asthma and asthmatic exacerbation, rhinitis and airway irritation, sense organ irritation and contact dermatitis?”

And why as a company would you subject your customers to risk? Here’s how crazy the confusion over chemicals has become: Several perfumes tested including a chemical called diethyl phthalate (DEP), which S.C. Johnson, the forward-thinking maker of Windex, Shout and Glade, agreed last year to phase out because of consumer concerns, while saying the chemical is safe.

More…