No Longer Posting...

Hi everyone,

Just a quick note to let you know that for now I will no longer be posting updates on my Science for Sale blog, but I plan on keeping it online as a resource. The material found here remains up to date, and you can find information on anything from phthalates and parabens to BPA and lead. Never hesitate to ask a question. But for now, I'll be focusing my blogging energy on contributing to the Moms Who Vax blog.

*Note: sorry about the design issues. Trying to work them out...*

It would be irresponsible of me to let this go by without mention. The Associated Press, New York Times, CNN, and a host of other media outlets tonight are reporting on the discovery that disgraced researcher Andrew Wakefield's flawed and already redacted study suggesting a link between MMR vaccine and autism was actually more than bad science. It was fraud. And since this blog is about the manipulation of science, I must report on this, especially as that single study has done incalculable damage to public health, both in the United States and in England.

CNN reports that an investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible. I just need to highlight this. He misrepresented or altered the histories of ALL 12 of the patients he studied. The way he altered these histories only underscores the complete lack of merit of the paper to begin with: he didn't mention that a large percentage of the children he claimed "changed" right after they received the MMR shot had actually been suffering from documented developmental problems prior to the shot. This reminds me of the poor parents who tried to sue vaccine makers in Vaccine Court for their child's autism. A developmental psychologist for the defense viewed home movies of the child before the MMR vaccine had been administered, when the child was "perfectly normal," and quietly pointed out what, to him, were obvious signs of a burgeoning developmental disability.

Again, CNN: "It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data." Britain stripped Wakefield of his medical license in May. "Meanwhile, the damage to public health continues, fueled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals and the medical profession," BMJ states in an editorial accompanying the work.

This issue about vaccines and autism isn't a battle of pride, like politics. All parents want what is best for their children. No one goes to bat for a theory about their child's health knowing consciously, or letting themselves understand, that following that theory might result in serious injury, disease, or even death--for their child or others. Like Ms. Godlee, I blame the media for doing an absolutely atrocious job of reporting on this issue. I cannot think of a single scientific topic in which a single paper, based on a sample size of 12 people, has received more press than Wakefield's study. Then, add to this the fact that the study was disavowed by 10 of its 13 authors, that the study itself was redacted from the journal in which it appeared, that the lead researcher lost his license to practice medicine because of fraud, and now this revelation of intentional altering of patients' medical histories, and you have irresponsible, dangerous journalism. There is no reason on earth this study should have been treated as anything more than a fringe piece of meaningless research. But it wasn't. And that's why we have measles outbreaks in this country. People have actually said to me: "Polio doesn't exist anymore." Or: "I've never seen measles in my lifetime." This is a testament to how wonderful public health measures have been, that some of us actually believe this. But in India, for example, and Africa, there are polio outbreaks fairly regularly. Measles outbreaks in our country have become much more common. Many of these outbreaks start from a traveler from one of these countries where these diseases are alive and well. Once passed on to an unvaccinated child, we're in trouble.

Across the country, doctors are finally speaking out about this (one of my pet peeves is the tolerance of pediatricians, and so tacit approval, of parents who choose not to vaccinate their children based on Wakefield's study). MinnPost reports:


In an e-mail, Greg Poland, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, who is also editor-in chief at the journal Vaccine, wrote that the so-called vaccine hypothesis put forth by Wakefield "has hurt individuals, families, communities, and the broader public health. Children whose parents made fear-based decisions based on these claims have died, and these families are forever damaged and broken."


And Robert Jacobson, MD, chair of pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., blamed Wakefield for "worldwide drops in vaccination rates as well as a number of outbreaks of mumps and measles that centered in the British Isles but were felt the world over. In fact, the 2006 Iowan mumps epidemic and the 2009 New York mumps epidemic can both be traced to the British mumps virus that circulated as a result of loss of confidence in vaccination with MMR due to Wakefield."
Steve Lauer, MD, of the University of Kansas in Kansas City, had more blame to lay at Wakefield's feet: the ongoing pertussis epidemic in California. Lauer told ABC News/MedPage Today that the increase in pertussis deaths in California is "another example of completely preventable deaths linked to the decline in vaccination rates. Study after study in numerous countries involving hundreds of thousands of children have never shown any link between autism and any vaccination. That Dr. Wakefield's lies have led to increased illness and deaths among innocent infants and children is a social and medical disaster."
The damage inflicted by the Wakefield papers can be measured not only in disease and death, but also in time and anxiety, said Leonard Rappaport, MD, of Children's Hospital in Boston, who wrote in an e-mail that it was "impossible to quantify the amount of time wasted in pediatric practice discussing why we believe that the MMR does not cause autism and that children should be immunized. Second, the heartbreak and worry for parents of children with autism who have secretly believed in the quiet of the night that they were responsible for their child having an autism spectrum disorder and the anxiety of parents approaching immunization time with so much false information and fear flying around them is impossible to comprehend.

If you want to read an absolutely fascinating exchange between pediatricians on the topic of vaccinations, I highly recommend you visit Seattle Mama Doc's blog (I am having problems posting links right now). The following comment from a working pediatrician was so profoundly compelling to me, that I wanted to share it in its entirety. I had to take to my bed after reading about the two-year-old whose parents wanted a delayed vaccination schedule who then contracted pneumococcal meningitis, survived, but is now deaf for life. He would have been fine if he had been vaccinated on schedule...Read on.


I finished residency 11 years ago and have seen many. Like others have said, I also took care of a 6 week old infant that was on ECMO and went on to die from a pertussis infection she got from her father. Last year we had a 2 year old in our practice, whose parents wanted to take the “slow and careful” approach, who got pneumococcal meningitis. He survived, but is deaf for life. I would expect any pediatrician to have enough of a science background to understand the data, and avoid using personal anecdotes to dictate policy. I would not suggest that because I have not seen a case of HiB that it isn’t important to prevent, any more than I would suggest the diseases I have seen are the ones needing more treatment. We need to look at global incidence to protect our children.
I never turn a family away from my practice for refusing or delaying vaccines.
I have a 2 minute talk for parents. It comes up often. I totally understand parents questioning vaccines. They have been told by Dr. Gordon and others that vaccines cause all kinds of disease. If you search on the internet you will find people (like the ever FOS Dr. Tenpenny) who say vaccines cause diabetes, epilepsy, SIDS, ADHD, MS, cancer, autism, Parkinson’s disease, shaken baby syndrome, learning disabilities, IBD, lupus, allergies, arthritis, eczema, death and more. I think Frank Swain said it more clearly than I could, in his recent blog at scienceblogs.com.
“When mothers decide to not vaccinate their children, they are choosing to do so with only the very, very, very best intentions in the world. That they’ve been lead to believe not vaccinating is the best thing for them does not mean that they are stupid, evil, ill-intentioned, moronic. They’ve just been told a better story by ‘the other side’.”
We need to develop a relationship with parents that is based on trust. We do not recommend vaccines to make money. We do not recommend vaccines because “Big Pharma” tells us to. We recommend vaccines because we care about our patients and want to protect them.

So this news today makes me both happy and said. Happy that my children are both fully vaccinated and on schedule. But so sad for the parents who chose not to vaccinate their children or even altered the schedule because of fear of a link to autism that has, time and time again, been shown--in reputable scientific studies devoid of fraud--to be nonexistent. And I speak as someone who, with her first child, delayed an MMR vaccination by three months out of fear. My second child received her MMR at twelve months on the dot. And I am grateful every day that I have access to these vaccinations.

At the end of the day, though, despite my personal comments here, this story is about fraud and manipulation of science. In my opinion, this kind of deception is unforgivable, because those of us who are not scientists look to those who are to tell us what's safe and what's not. It's great to know that more than 90% of studies about BPA have found that there is some harmful effect to ingesting the chemical, even at low levels, because we can take steps to avoid it. What's so devious about this Wakefield study is that false information lead many people down a very dangerous road. What's worse is that so many people put their children on that road, literally out of the goodness of their hearts. And it's going to be hard for them to let go of this. I doubt we'll see Jenny McCarthy stepping forward in the next few days to apologize for encouraging people to listen to Wakefield, to take his science to the bank. That would be the human thing to do. For people who took this study to the bank to begin with, a designation of fraud will only solidify their views on this nonexistent link, will only strengthen their belief that Wakefield is somehow being persecuted. And, in fact, I see that this is exactly what is happening today. To me it is incomprehensible. What Wakefield should do, and maybe one day he will do this if his conscience bothers him enough, is to come forward and tell the truth about all this. The old Penguin editor in me wishes I was still working in publishing. I'd be on the phone so fast with a large offer for a book deal for Wakefield, if he writes about the fraud and the lies, and finally comes out and says "it was all smoke and mirrors."

Here is the link to the CNN article and

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Nova Naturals Toys and Crafts--Christmas, anyone?

My babies are growing so fast--at three and one-years-old, they are no longer infants. And since my husband and I are done having children, that means I don't get to buy any more baby stuff for my own babies. Luckily, I'm going to be an aunt in February, so I can buy vicariously for my sister. I bring this up because in the last three years, I've looked for truly nontoxic toys, and have found few good outlets for them. An "all-wood" walker might contain a piece of particleboard or plywood. A bath toy is likely made of vinyl. The word "green" means nothing. If there's anything you walk away from this blog with, it should be the utter meaningless of this word. It is unregulated, it can be used to describe just about anything, and it can fool even the savviest shopper (see my Dura Supreme saga).

As a proud member of Catalog Choice, I opt-out of just about every unsolicited catalog I receive. But yesterday I received a catalog from Nova Natural Toys and Crafts. I read it the way I read good books. Add to that the drool factor. This company out of Vermont sells products for babies, parents, and kids that are truly nontoxic. They don't crow about it; they let the pictures do the talking. An all-wood rattle that looks like a fish (no eyes, no shiny scales, no useless lights) has a handful of rice built into it. A maple teething ring is made of hard maple and finished with beeswax and jojoba oil. Their cloth dolls, made by a women's collective in Peru, come in all different skin shades. Their quiet craftsmanship speaks for itself. Check out Nova Natural for yourself.

And please note, as always, I do not accept "free samples" or "giveaway" samples from any company, at any time. This allows me to remain 100% objective in my reviews of companies and their products. I only review if I feel moved to do so. I have absolutely no connection to Nova Natural, besides the fact that their catalog landed in my mailbox yesterday!

"Pottery Barn Smell"

I recently received a spate of e-mails from new parents asking me what I knew about the smell emanating from their newly purchased Pottery Barn crib or changing table or dresser or whatever. In some cases, the smell was so overpowering, they couldn't stay in the room very long. My heart sank when I received these e-mails. Despite having beautifully designed furniture and giving me five minutes every few months to fantasize about the perfect interior design scheme in my hectic and often messy household, Pottery Barn continues to use components in its furniture that are not human-friendly. They have gone to great length, you may notice if you get their catalog, to talk about their commitment to "eco-friendly" practices and materials, but I have seen nothing that qualifies as "eco-friendly" (an undefined, completely unregulated term, by the way) in their products besides organic cotton and "sustainably harvested" wood. They still utilize particleboard in their products, which contains urea-formaldehyde--luckily California passed a law a couple years ago regulating the amount of formaldehyde off-gassing in particleboard, and my understanding is that Pottery Barn has complied. But I fear the smell that is causing all the headaches may be coming from the stain used on this furniture. The VOC levels in stain has not, to my knowledge, yet been regulated. A low-VOC stain would be a truly "eco-friendly" approach to take by Pottery Barn, but I fear we aren't there yet.

I post this in case you've stumbled upon this blog by searching Pottery Barn smell (many of my visitors do). We can't pinpoint with absolutely certainty what this smell is, though I suspect it is a high-VOC stain, paint, or even the particleboard itself if there is enough of it in the furniture you purchased. I recommend leaving these pieces in a well-ventilated space (basement with open windows, garage, your back yard) for two weeks, minimum, to get the worst of the smell out of the furniture. Another route for particleboard is to use SafeSeal (search this blog under SafeSeal and find some posts about the product). This isn't feasible with stain-related issues. Finally, this is so crucial: write a letter of complaint to Pottery Barn! The more people who do this, the more of a shot we have of getting them to begin using safer products. And don't be pacified. They may shoot back some form letter that talks about their eco-friendly this or eco-friendly that, or that they follow the California requirements for off-gassing in particleboard. The point is that you have a smelly piece of furniture in your house that is making things unpleasant, that perhaps this is going in a nursery, where your child will sleep, and that this is unacceptable. I guarantee that if enough people write, you will see some change.

In the meantime, those of us who want to stay away from high-VOC stains, particleboard, etc., but are on a budget, have to look elsewhere, and for the time being, it seems our choices are aesthetically limited. Ikea has a number of total hardwood furniture products, including beds. One thing I've done is purchased a night table for my son that was completely unfinished beech, and stained it myself with ultra low-VOC stain, purchased at a natural home store. I've done this with a number of items in my house, because I don't love the look of unfinished wood but I am not bringing a high-VOC stained item into my son's room. Good luck!!

"Natural Parabens"

As you can see from the amount of time between posts, this has become more of an occasional blog than a daily one. I wanted to share a story from a shopping trip to Sephora that underscored the importance of consuming intelligently. I was looking for an eye cream, among other things, and a very nice young woman with whom I'd been working led me back to the L'Occitaine section. Another associate happened to be there, and when I said that I loved L'Occitaine products but had stopped using them because of the parabens in their lotions, the other associate waved away my concerns and said: "They now use only natural parabens." I was slackjawed. There is, of course, no such thing as a natural paraben. In fact, parabens have always been synthetic creations. Originally meant to mimic estrogen and now used mainly as a preservative, parabens cannot be natural. I wonder how many women have heard this "all natural parabens" line. Stay educated. Cosmetics are not under strict guidelines when it comes to labeling. The term "natural" isn't regulated at all. Look closely at the fine print. Even L'Occitaine's "natural line" is filled with nasty chemicals, including disodium EDTA.

I do want to mention this, though, to offer some perspective. Despite everything I've written about chemicals in cosmetics, I will occasionally use a product that contains EDTA, for example, if I am using it in small doses and since I am done bearing children and breastfeeding. I bought the L'Occitaine eye cream. ;-)

The Power of Half Measures

Eight months after my second child was born, I ventured into the world of cloth diapers. Yes, I'd given gDiapers a try, and they hadn't worked for me. Cloth seemed overwhelming, a vortex that inhaled time that I simply didn't have. With the insouciance of a second-time mom, I thought I'd give bonafide cloth diapering a try, so long as I had the "training wheels" of disposables in case of emergency. I was compelled to do this because of Maria Montessori. I think it's safe to say we have joined the cult of true-blue Montessori (read: The Absorbent Mind). We were fumbling idiots during my son's first few years, until we got him in an AMI-certified Montessori environment. Armed with more knowledge of the method now, we are doing our best to create the best environment possible for our daughter. She doesn't have a crib, she has a floor bed. We got rid of our changing table. She doesn't have flashing toys that make noise. And she loves it. Our son was potty-trained in approximately three weeks after being put in cloth underwear all day instead of a diaper. The theory is that human beings are naturally averse to having their urine and feces close to their bodies. Cloth makes walking around with soiled underpants uncomfortable, noticeable, and, therefore, provides a child motivation to anticipate when he or she needs to evacuate. Disposables, with their otherworldly absorbency, makes wetness less noticeable and even creates a kind of "sauna-effect" that can feel nice.

Anyway, I got my diapers at Green Mountain Diapers, and I couldn't recommend them more highly. They simplify the truly overwhelming process of choosing from among the insane amounts and types of cloth diapers and even include a handy how-to packet with their orders. They're honest about what seems to work and what doesn't, and they are completely nonjudgmental, which I love. For me, the word was simplicity. I didn't want the expensive cloth diapers-but-really-look-like-disposables, with their removable inserts and super cool diaper covers. I wanted those old fashioned prefolds and a basic diaper cover. I chose the organic unbleached cotton prefolds and the Bummis snap and velcro diaper covers (two, to start).

After two weeks of doing this, I'm not sure what's worse for the environment--disposables or cloth. Either way, it's clear that pooping babies take a hell of a toll on the environment, at least in this day and age. I had to wash my prefolds approximately seven times before they were absorbent enough to be used. Once they were ready, I began using them by folding them into rectangles and placing them in the diaper cover. My daughter's diaper was huge, but didn't seem to interfere with her crawling. One of the first things I noticed was how much more often my daughter was wet--or rather, how much easier it was for me to notice. Disposable diapers are meant to be uber-absorbent. It's the guiding principle of the diaper companies to wick away as much moisture as possible so, let's be frank here, parents don't have to change diapers so often. I kept a lined trashcan in the bathroom, in addition to our regular bin, where I tossed dirty cloth diapers. I kept a trash can in her nursery where I threw my chlorine-free diaper wipes (I didn't go whole hog and buy cloth wipes). When she pooped, I shook it out in the toilet and, most of the time, put it right in the diaper pail. There was one time that I had to soak it in the toilet. It's quite difficult to use the toilet to rinse off a poopy diaper when the toilet is low-flush. Some mothers get a hose, but I didn't want to do that. The potential of spray-back was too much for me.

I feel as if I were twenty pounds lighter, knowing that I have cut down on my use of disposables by about 80%. That's 80% fewer diapers in the landfill from my household, where the diapers will outlive my great-great-great grandchildren, and likely beyond. I also feel better about the material that is so close to my daughter's private area. It can't be wonderful for chlorine-soaked plastic to be so close to her body. I am thrilled that she is feeling what it's like to be wet, setting the stage for potty training. In their book, Montessori from the Start, the Lillard mother and daughter team mention that in the fifties, before the advent of disposable diapers, babies were potty trained, on average, at eighteen months. Today, kids are often in diapers well into their fifth year. My own son potty-trained at two-and-a-half. We think his sister will be trained sometime during what Montessori called the sensitive period, between 12-18 months.

Now. The cleaning. This is where things get confusing for me. And I haven't seen my first month's water bill, so I can't tell you yet how much more my bill might be. When I have a load of diapers, for me, one a day, I have to put them through a cold rinse in the washer (I add a tiny bit of detergent). Then I put them through a hot wash with a few drops of bleach for disinfecting. Then I put them through another cold rinse to be sure the detergent has been sufficiently rinsed out, to avoid irritating my daughter's skin. Then I have to dry them at least two cycles, since the heavy organic cloth takes a long time to try. I could dry them outside, but I'm often crunched and need to have the diapers (I bought twelve). I do this once a day. How much energy does this take? How much fossil fuel consumption? How much water? I don't know yet. I am in the process of finding out.

Let me say this. I am a convert to cloth. They're good for my daughter. They're good for the earth in terms of landfill pollution. The idea of putting something into the landfill that will not decompose for 250-500 years, not once, but over and over and over and over and over again, is repellent to me. Yet I did just that for my first child, and for the first eight months of my second child's life. In addition, diapers contain noxious chemicals, like traces of Dioxin, a carcinogen that is a byproduct of paper-bleaching. I am a cloth diaper mama, but I use the occasional disposable. Often at night. Sometimes when I travel. When she spends the day at Grandma's. So, in truth, I am engaging in a half-measure (well, maybe a three-quarter measure). I am cloth diapering the majority of the day while still utilizing a disposable every once in a while.

But here's the thing. I don't see this as a failure. I believe there is power in half-measures when it comes to an either/or situation like this, which isn't, in fact, either/or. If more people tried to do some cloth diapering, instead of feeling like they had to go whole hog and, as a result, rejected it out of hand, we could more realistically tackle the landfill/diaper situation. The problem is that much of the cloth diaper contingent makes a mom who might be on the fence feel as if she'd be a failure if she used the occasional diaper from time to time. I think we have a better chance of converting people if we say: "Hey, go half-sies to start! We'll take it!"

Oil Spill Playbook

There's a playbook for these things. Engage in what seems like respectable efforts at cleaning up. Talk about the contingency plans you had in place, even if you didn't have one. Welcome help from the government. Hire local fishermen and women to help clean up the oil. The oil spill off the coast of Louisiana is shaping up to an environmental disaster the likes of which we've never seen before.

Natural disasters are remarkably consistent in their pathology--the social fall-out looks the same regardless of where in the world they occur or whom they affect. A flood will require rebuilding, sometimes on a municipal level. Floodplains might be cleared, homes bought out by government entities, tough decisions made. Homeowners will cling to their houses, no matter how damaged, will fight City Hall, will want to punish whoever happens to be in office. The aftermath of a natural disaster is a study i human nature.

But the fallout from manmade disasters is perhaps even more consistent across the board--oil disasters, in particular. Today, BP--one of the "good guys" in the oil industry (unlike ExxonMobil until a year ago, they don't fund research to debunk global warming)--is opening the oil spill playbook, written by ExxonMobil during the Valdez disaster. A few days ago, BP met with local fishermen and women to talk about hiring them to clean up the oil as it washes through the coastal marshes and wetlands, just as Exxon met with fishers from Cordova and the rest of Prince William Sound, promising big bucks and offering a commitment to "make things right." Fifteen years later, fishers were still waiting for ExxonMobil to "make things right," as the oil giant used every tool at its disposal to avoid paying damages to fishers who, to this day, can't make ends meet by fishing alone, as they used to do.

I sincerely hope BP does not go down this road. I hope they understand that the damage they've done to the environment has not only hurt wildlife, sea life, precious ecosystems, and more; they will have taken away the livelihoods of countless individuals. This won't result in a single bad season for fishers, for oystermen and women. This will be something that goes on for years, perhaps even decades. The Valdez spill, which took place more than twenty years ago, is still affecting the people of the Sound--you can dig up pockets of oil easily on the beaches of islands in the Sound using a simple spade.

Chances are, folks from Louisiana to Florida will be able to do the same thing, twenty years from now. I can only hope they won't, like the people of Cordova, still be in a court room, waiting for BP to "make things right."