Fw: Studies on Chemical In Plastics Questioned: Congress Examines Role Of Industry in Regulation ... Washington Post April 27, 2008

[Guest guest]

Same song . . . This has been danced many times before. - Rogene

Studies on Chemical In Plastics

Questioned

Congress Examines Role Of Industry in Regulation By

Lyndsey Layton

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, April 27, 2008; A01 Despite

more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university

laboratories that have raised health concerns about a chemical compound that is

central to the multibillion-dollar plastics industry, the Food

and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two studies,

both funded by an industry trade group. The

agency says it has relied on research backed by the American Plastics Council

because it had input on its design, monitored its progress and reviewed the raw

data. The

compound, bisphenol A (BPA), has been linked to breast and prostate cancer,

behavioral disorders and reproductive health problems in laboratory animals. As

evidence mounts about the risks of using BPA in baby bottles and other

products, some experts and industry critics contend that chemical manufacturers

have exerted influence over federal regulators to keep a possibly unsafe

product on the market. Congressional

Democrats have begun investigating any industry influence in regulating BPA. "Tobacco

figured this out, and essentially it's the same model," said

s, who was a federal regulator in the

Clinton administration. "If you fight

the science, you're able to postpone regulation and victim compensation, as

well. As in this case, eventually the science becomes overwhelming. But if you

can get five or 10 years of avoiding pollution control or production of

chemicals, you've greatly increased your product."

Cheeseman, deputy director of the FDA's office of food additive safety, said

the agency is not biased toward industry. "The

fact is, it's industry's responsibility to demonstrate the safety of their

products," he said. "The fact that industry generated data to support

the safety I don't think is an unusual thing." The FDA's

position on the compound was called into question earlier this month when a National

Institutes of Health panel issued a draft report linking BPA to health

concerns. Since then, Canadian regulators have banned BPA in baby products, and

Sen.

E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has introduced a bill to prohibit some uses of

the compound. Ten states, including California and land ,

are weighing their own restrictions. U.S. manufacturers

produce 7 billion pounds of BPA annually, and business worldwide has been

growing about 4 percent a year, driven by rising demand in Asia .

A U.S. government ban on BPA would affect thousands of businesses and perhaps billions

of dollars in profit for its largest manufacturers. As part

of his investigation, Rep.

D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House

Energy and Commerce Committee, wants to examine the role played by the

Weinberg Group, a Washington firm that employs scientists, lawyers and public

relations specialists to defend products from legal and regulatory action. The

firm has worked on Agent Orange, tobacco and Teflon,

among other products linked to health hazards, and congressional investigators

say it was hired by Sunoco, a BPA manufacturer. Dingell

has asked the Weinberg Group for all records related to its work in connection

with BPA, including studies it has funded and payments made to experts. He

cited a letter written by a company vice president in 2003 as Weinberg managed

opposition in a long-running regulatory battle over a compound in Teflon. The

strategy would be to discourage "governmental agencies, the plaintiffs'

bar and misguided environmental groups from pursuing this matter any

further," the letter said. In a

statement, Dingell said, "The tactics apparently employed by the Weinberg

Group raise serious questions about whether science is for sale at these

consulting groups, and the effect this faulty science might have on the public

health."

Weinberg, the firm's chief executive, declined to be interviewed. But in a

brief written statement, he said the company will cooperate with Dingell's

investigation. "The

analyses we conduct are rigorous and adhere to established principles of

scientific integrity," the statement said. "We believe it is in the

public interest for all scientific research to be subject to scrutiny and the

views of all affected parties to be heard." Scientists

first flagged possible health risks of BPA more than a decade ago. From 1997 to

2005, 116 studies of the compound were published, many of them focused on its

effects in low doses. Of those funded by government, 90 percent showed a health

effect linked to BPA. None of the industry-funded studies found an effect; all

of them said BPA is safe. There is

a clear bias in studies funded by industry, said s, who now runs the

Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at

Washington University and wrote the book "Doubt is Their

Product," which details how various industries have used science to stave

off regulation. "This

is a great example of the funding effect," he said. "It's not so much

because scientists are shaving the truth, but they ask questions in a way to

give them the answers they want." Sharon

Kneiss, vice president of products divisions for the American

Chemistry Council, said in a conference call with reporters two weeks ago

that industry research is unassailable. "We make it a policy to supply

government agencies with data, and we have done it in the case of BPA,"

she said. "We supplied studies following the highest levels of quality in

terms of their study. We stand behind the quality of the studies." The FDA

and the Environmental

Protection Agency both regulate BPA. Because the compound is most readily

absorbed through food and drink, the FDA plays a critical regulatory role

because it approves the compound's use in plastic food containers, bottles,

tableware and the plastic linings of canned foods. For much

of the regulatory history of BPA, traditional toxicology was used to assess

risk to people -- researchers tried to find the threshold amount above which

BPA would cause cancer, malformation or death.

Vogel, who holds a master's degree in public health and is writing a doctoral

dissertation at Columbia

University on the politics and scientific history of BPA, said that because

practical use of the compound was at levels much lower than the amount deemed

toxic, scientists assumed it was safe. "The idea was: Look, this stuff is

at such low levels, it really couldn't effect any harm," she said. A decade

ago, Frederick vom Saal, a reproductive

scientist at University of

Missouri at Columbia ,

came up with a different research strategy. He theorized that because BPA can

mimic estrogen, a female sex hormone, minuscule amounts introduced to fetuses

or infants could change cell structure and cause significant health problems

later in life. He found that doses 25,000 times below what the government has

labeled as safe harmed developing cells in mice. In 1997,

after he submitted his first study for publication in a peer-reviewed

scientific journal, vom Saal said he was visited by a group of scientists

including M. Waechter of Dow

Chemical, a manufacturer of BPA. According to vom Saal, Waechter began the

meeting by expressing a hope for "some mutually beneficial outcome"

if vom Saal held off on publication until a replicate study could be performed.

Vom Saal refused, and, six weeks later, sent a pointed letter documenting the

exchange to plastics industry representatives, including Waechter, and an FDA

official. Dow

declined to make Waechter available for an interview. Spokesman Mark Walton

said vom Saal misunderstood Waechter. "We categorically reject any

suggestion that what we did was in any way unethical," he said. A.

Clare, a lawyer with Kirkland & Ellis, representing Dow and Waechter, said

in a letter to The

Washington Post that the "mutually beneficial outcome" to which

Waechter referred was a "meaningful exchange of scientific ideas"

with vom Saal, and that Waechter had never asked vom Saal to delay or withdraw

his research. Clare also said that Waechter met with vom Saal as a representative

of a Society of Plastics Industries task force studying BPA and not on Dow's

behalf. Clare said that the SPI task force had already submitted vom Saal's

research to the EPA before the two men met to discuss the study. As the

country's preeminent BPA researcher, vom Saal finds that his work is regularly

attacked by the chemical industry. "We were not prepared at all for

walking into a political minefield," said vom Saal, whose research is

funded by foundations and the National Institutes of Health. The

chemical industry, meanwhile, has funded scientists who have served on expert

review panels that advise the government about the safety of chemical

compounds. Last

year, NIH convened two panels to help it analyze BPA risks. One panel, led by

vom Saal, consisted of 38 international experts on BPA who work for

universities or governments. Last August, it found a strong cause for health

concerns, including cancer and early puberty. The

second panel included 12 scientists, none of whom had worked on BPA. In

November, it found "some concern" about neurological effects of the

compound in children but minimal concern that it would cause cancer or early

puberty. The second group relied on Sciences International, an andria-based

consulting firm, to choose and summarize research for panel members. The

government later learned that Sciences International had done work for Dow and

BASF, two BPA manufacturers. After inquiries by Rep. Henry

A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen.

Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the government canceled its contract with the

firm and audited its work. The panel reported "minimal" concern about

the compound's impact on reproduction and development while saying it had

"some concern" about effects on neurological development. On April

15, the National Toxicology Program, part of NIH, issued a draft report

acknowledging "some concern" about the risk of cancer, diabetes and

other serious health problems in adults. The new report considered dozens of

studies that the earlier panel had rejected and reviewed more than 400 studies

published between April 2007 and February. "That

was the big change -- a decision was made to consider different sorts of

studies in the evaluation," said s, the former federal regulator. In

response to recent findings and media reports, Cheeseman said that FDA

Commissioner C. von Eschenbach has created an agency task force to

examine BPA but that the agency maintains it is "absolutely safe" for

use in food and medical products. Vom Saal

said a flood of recent BPA studies have validated his work. "The

scientific community basically said, 'This argument is over,' " he said.

"It ended a long time ago. There's only been an illusion of a controversy

created by a well-financed public relations outfit. The idea that the FDA tells

people this is safe is offensive."

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.5/1400 - Release Date: 4/27/2008 9:39 AM

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Regarding bisphenol in plastics, does anyone know if bismuth and

bisphenol are the same? My son tested very high in bismuth but the

doctor said it's no big deal and that he's seen tons of kids test

high in it and didn't know where it was coming from. He said the

only source he knew of was Peptobismal.

When I searched it, I found out it's in diaper rash cream! I can't

believe that it'd be in his hair 7 years later and I used it on him

no more than a dozen diaper changes! I wonder if it is from the

baby bottles and if it is one and the same. When I've looked up

both bismuth and bisphenol they appear together but I need a

chemistry degree or a clear brain to figure it out! If anyone sees

anything on it that you can interpret, let me know. Thanks. Love,

PH

>

> Same song . . . This has been danced many times before. - Rogene

>

>

>

>

> <!--

>

> /* Style Definitions */

> p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal

> {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-

family: " Times New Roman " ;}

> a:link, span.MsoHyperlink

> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}

> a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed

> {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}

> p

> {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-

family: " Times New Roman " ;}

> span.EmailStyle17

> {font-family:Arial;color:windowtext;}

> _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}

> div.Section1

> {}

> -->

> Studies on Chemical In Plastics

> Questioned

> Congress Examines Role Of Industry in Regulation

> ByLyndsey Layton

> Washington Post Staff Writer

> Sunday, April 27, 2008; A01

> Despitemore than 100 published studies by government scientists

and universitylaboratories that have raised health concerns about a

chemical compound that iscentral to the multibillion-dollar plastics

industry, the Food

> and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two

studies,both funded by an industry trade group.

> The

> agency says it has relied on research backed by the American

Plastics Council

> because it had input on its design, monitored its progress and

reviewed the raw

> data.

> The

> compound, bisphenol A (BPA), has been linked to breast and

prostate cancer,

> behavioral disorders and reproductive health problems in

laboratory animals.

> As

> evidence mounts about the risks of using BPA in baby bottles and

other

> products, some experts and industry critics contend that chemical

manufacturers

> have exerted influence over federal regulators to keep a possibly

unsafe

> product on the market.

> Congressional

> Democrats have begun investigating any industry influence in

regulating BPA.

> " Tobaccofigured this out, and essentially it's the same model, "

said

> s, who was a federal regulator in the Clinton

administration. " If you fightthe science, you're able to postpone

regulation and victim compensation, aswell. As in this case,

eventually the science becomes overwhelming. But if youcan get five

or 10 years of avoiding pollution control or production ofchemicals,

you've greatly increased your product. "

>

> Cheeseman, deputy director of the FDA's office of food additive

safety, said

> the agency is not biased toward industry.

> " The

> fact is, it's industry's responsibility to demonstrate the safety

of their

> products, " he said. " The fact that industry generated data to

support

> the safety I don't think is an unusual thing. "

> The FDA'sposition on the compound was called into question

earlier this month when a National

> Institutes of Health panel issued a draft report linking BPA to

healthconcerns. Since then, Canadian regulators have banned BPA in

baby products, andSen.

> E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has introduced a bill to prohibit some

uses ofthe compound. Ten states, including California and

land ,are weighing their own restrictions.

> U.S. manufacturersproduce 7 billion pounds of BPA annually, and

business worldwide has beengrowing about 4 percent a year, driven by

rising demand in Asia .A U.S. government ban on BPA would affect

thousands of businesses and perhaps billionsof dollars in profit for

its largest manufacturers.

> As partof his investigation, Rep.

> D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House

> Energy and Commerce Committee, wants to examine the role played by

theWeinberg Group, a Washington firm that employs scientists,

lawyers and publicrelations specialists to defend products from

legal and regulatory action. Thefirm has worked on Agent Orange,

tobacco and Teflon,among other products linked to health hazards,

and congressional investigatorssay it was hired by Sunoco, a BPA

manufacturer.

> Dingell

> has asked the Weinberg Group for all records related to its work

in connection

> with BPA, including studies it has funded and payments made to

experts. He

> cited a letter written by a company vice president in 2003 as

Weinberg managed

> opposition in a long-running regulatory battle over a compound in

Teflon. The

> strategy would be to discourage " governmental agencies, the

plaintiffs'

> bar and misguided environmental groups from pursuing this matter

any

> further, " the letter said.

> In a

> statement, Dingell said, " The tactics apparently employed by the

Weinberg

> Group raise serious questions about whether science is for sale at

these

> consulting groups, and the effect this faulty science might have

on the public

> health. "

>

> Weinberg, the firm's chief executive, declined to be interviewed.

But in a

> brief written statement, he said the company will cooperate with

Dingell's

> investigation.

> " The

> analyses we conduct are rigorous and adhere to established

principles of

> scientific integrity, " the statement said. " We believe it is in the

> public interest for all scientific research to be subject to

scrutiny and the

> views of all affected parties to be heard. "

> Scientists

> first flagged possible health risks of BPA more than a decade ago.

From 1997 to

> 2005, 116 studies of the compound were published, many of them

focused on its

> effects in low doses. Of those funded by government, 90 percent

showed a health

> effect linked to BPA. None of the industry-funded studies found an

effect; all

> of them said BPA is safe.

> There isa clear bias in studies funded by industry, said

s, who now runs theProject on Scientific Knowledge and Public

Policy at

> Washington University and wrote the book " Doubt is TheirProduct, "

which details how various industries have used science to staveoff

regulation.

> " This

> is a great example of the funding effect, " he said. " It's not so

much

> because scientists are shaving the truth, but they ask questions

in a way to

> give them the answers they want. "

> SharonKneiss, vice president of products divisions for the

American

> Chemistry Council, said in a conference call with reporters two

weeks agothat industry research is unassailable. " We make it a

policy to supplygovernment agencies with data, and we have done it

in the case of BPA, " she said. " We supplied studies following the

highest levels of quality interms of their study. We stand behind

the quality of the studies. "

> The FDAand the Environmental

> Protection Agency both regulate BPA. Because the compound is most

readilyabsorbed through food and drink, the FDA plays a critical

regulatory rolebecause it approves the compound's use in plastic

food containers, bottles,tableware and the plastic linings of canned

foods.

> For much

> of the regulatory history of BPA, traditional toxicology was used

to assess

> risk to people -- researchers tried to find the threshold amount

above which

> BPA would cause cancer, malformation or death.

> Vogel, who holds a master's degree in public health and is

writing a doctoraldissertation at Columbia

> University on the politics and scientific history of BPA, said

that becausepractical use of the compound was at levels much lower

than the amount deemedtoxic, scientists assumed it was safe. " The

idea was: Look, this stuff isat such low levels, it really couldn't

effect any harm, " she said.

> A decade

> ago, Frederick vom Saal, a reproductive

> scientist at University of

> Missouri at Columbia ,

> came up with a different research strategy. He theorized that

because BPA can

> mimic estrogen, a female sex hormone, minuscule amounts introduced

to fetuses

> or infants could change cell structure and cause significant

health problems

> later in life. He found that doses 25,000 times below what the

government has

> labeled as safe harmed developing cells in mice.

> In 1997,after he submitted his first study for publication in a

peer-reviewedscientific journal, vom Saal said he was visited by a

group of scientistsincluding M. Waechter of Dow

> Chemical, a manufacturer of BPA. According to vom Saal, Waechter

began themeeting by expressing a hope for " some mutually beneficial

outcome " if vom Saal held off on publication until a replicate study

could be performed.Vom Saal refused, and, six weeks later, sent a

pointed letter documenting theexchange to plastics industry

representatives, including Waechter, and an FDAofficial.

> Dow

> declined to make Waechter available for an interview. Spokesman

Mark Walton

> said vom Saal misunderstood Waechter. " We categorically reject any

> suggestion that what we did was in any way unethical, " he said.

> A.Clare, a lawyer with Kirkland & Ellis, representing Dow

and Waechter, saidin a letter to The

> Washington Post that the " mutually beneficial outcome " to

whichWaechter referred was a " meaningful exchange of scientific

ideas " with vom Saal, and that Waechter had never asked vom Saal to

delay or withdrawhis research. Clare also said that Waechter met

with vom Saal as a representativeof a Society of Plastics Industries

task force studying BPA and not on Dow'sbehalf. Clare said that the

SPI task force had already submitted vom Saal'sresearch to the EPA

before the two men met to discuss the study.

> As the

> country's preeminent BPA researcher, vom Saal finds that his work

is regularly

> attacked by the chemical industry. " We were not prepared at all for

> walking into a political minefield, " said vom Saal, whose research

is

> funded by foundations and the National Institutes of Health.

> The

> chemical industry, meanwhile, has funded scientists who have

served on expert

> review panels that advise the government about the safety of

chemical

> compounds.

> Last

> year, NIH convened two panels to help it analyze BPA risks. One

panel, led by

> vom Saal, consisted of 38 international experts on BPA who work for

> universities or governments. Last August, it found a strong cause

for health

> concerns, including cancer and early puberty.

> The

> second panel included 12 scientists, none of whom had worked on

BPA. In

> November, it found " some concern " about neurological effects of the

> compound in children but minimal concern that it would cause

cancer or early

> puberty. The second group relied on Sciences International, an

andria-based

> consulting firm, to choose and summarize research for panel

members.

> Thegovernment later learned that Sciences International had done

work for Dow andBASF, two BPA manufacturers. After inquiries by Rep.

Henry

> A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen.

> Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the government canceled its contract

with thefirm and audited its work. The panel reported " minimal "

concern aboutthe compound's impact on reproduction and development

while saying it had " some concern " about effects on neurological

development.

> On April

> 15, the National Toxicology Program, part of NIH, issued a draft

report

> acknowledging " some concern " about the risk of cancer, diabetes and

> other serious health problems in adults. The new report considered

dozens of

> studies that the earlier panel had rejected and reviewed more than

400 studies

> published between April 2007 and February.

> " That

> was the big change -- a decision was made to consider different

sorts of

> studies in the evaluation, " said s, the former federal

regulator.

> In

> response to recent findings and media reports, Cheeseman said that

FDA

> Commissioner C. von Eschenbach has created an agency task

force to

> examine BPA but that the agency maintains it is " absolutely safe "

for

> use in food and medical products.

> Vom Saal

> said a flood of recent BPA studies have validated his work. " The

> scientific community basically said, 'This argument is over,' " he

said.

> " It ended a long time ago. There's only been an illusion of a

controversy

> created by a well-financed public relations outfit. The idea that

the FDA tells

> people this is safe is offensive. "

>

>

>

> No virus found in this outgoing message.

> Checked by AVG.

> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.5/1400 - Release Date:

4/27/2008 9:39 AM

>

[Guest guest]

PH,This is what I found with a search for "bismuth side effects" . . . http://www.drugs.com/sfx/bismuth-subsalicylate-side-effects.htmlCan you relate to any of these side effects?There was an article in National Geographic a couple years ago where the author volunteered to be tested for about 300 toxins . . . He tested positive to at least 2/3's . .. Some of which he remembered being exposed to as a child.A family member was exposed to manganese in welding rods over fifty years ago. He

recently learned that it may have caused a Parkinson-like condition that has been getting worse in recent years. . . . He's been laughing at ionic foot baths . . . I hope he'll change his mind soon! A cousin is in the same shape! . . . They thought it was an inherited problem . .. but only those who did any welding have had the problem. Rogene

[Guest guest]

Hi Rogene,

Thanks for looking this stuff up. Fortunately my son doesn't

exhibit any noticeable signs. I'm worried though because his urine

was sky high in arabinose (a marker for yeast/fungi). My diet

changes are helping him but he's a very picky eater and so I worry

about him.

It doesn't surprise me what you wrote below regarding toxins in

childhood and the situations with your family members. My chiro

just told me a similar story. A woman came to him w/ debilitating

endometriosis...so bad she was disabled. He used Field Control

Therapy on her and was able to diagnose paint chips in her ovaries.

It turns out that ten years before when she was in college she spent

a couple summers stripping paint off houses and repainting them!

Through FCT he was able to cure her within 3 months and she became

pregnant!

Yes, I hope your family members change their minds about ionic foot

baths and detox in general. I'm trying to get my dad to detox the

mercury out but he's not a believer either! Happy Monday. Love, PH

>

> PH,

>

> This is what I found with a search for " bismuth side

effects " . . . http://www.drugs.com/sfx/bismuth-subsalicylate-side-

effects.html

>

> Can you relate to any of these side effects?

>

> There was an article in National Geographic a couple years ago

where the author volunteered to be tested for about 300 toxins . . .

He tested positive to at least 2/3's . .. Some of which he

remembered being exposed to as a child.

>

> A family member was exposed to manganese in welding rods over

fifty years ago. He recently learned that it may have caused a

Parkinson-like condition that has been getting worse in recent

years. . . . He's been laughing at ionic foot baths . . . I hope

he'll change his mind soon! A cousin is in the same shape! . . .

They thought it was an inherited problem . .. but only those who did

any welding have had the problem.

>

> Rogene

>

[Guest guest]

PH . . . and ladies,One of our silent sisters has been sending me these files! . . . She has been poisoned in a number of ways . . . not just implants.Thank you Silent Sister!Rogene Re: Fw: Studies on Chemical In Plastics Questioned: Congress Examines Role Of Industry in Regulation ... Washington Post April 27,

2008

Hi Rogene,

Thanks for looking this stuff up. Fortunately my son doesn't

exhibit any noticeable signs. I'm worried though because his urine

was sky high in arabinose (a marker for yeast/fungi) . My diet

changes are helping him but he's a very picky eater and so I worry

about him.

It doesn't surprise me what you wrote below regarding toxins in

childhood and the situations with your family members. My chiro

just told me a similar story. A woman came to him w/ debilitating

endometriosis. ..so bad she was disabled. He used Field Control

Therapy on her and was able to diagnose paint chips in her ovaries.

It turns out that ten years before when she was in college she spent

a couple summers stripping paint off houses and repainting them!

Through FCT he was able to cure her within 3 months and she became

pregnant!

Yes, I hope your family members change their minds about ionic foot

baths and detox in general. I'm trying to get my dad to detox the

mercury out but he's not a believer either! Happy Monday. Love, PH

>

> PH,

>

> This is what I found with a search for "bismuth side

effects" . . . http://www.drugs. com/sfx/bismuth- subsalicylate- side-

effects.html

>

> Can you relate to any of these side effects?

>

> There was an article in National Geographic a couple years ago

where the author volunteered to be tested for about 300 toxins . . .

He tested positive to at least 2/3's . .. Some of which he

remembered being exposed to as a child.

>

> A family member was exposed to manganese in welding rods over

fifty years ago. He recently learned that it may have caused a

Parkinson-like condition that has been getting worse in recent

years. . . . He's been laughing at ionic foot baths . . . I hope

he'll change his mind soon! A cousin is in the same shape! . . .

They thought it was an inherited problem . .. but only those who did

any welding have had the problem.

>

> Rogene

>

[Guest guest]

PH,

isn't it amazing how long toxins hang around in the body. I know a lady who did saunas and she used to smoke and they said they could smell smoke on her. after taking one.

what exactly if field control therapy? never heard of it.

thanks.

gg

Re: Fw: Studies on Chemical In Plastics Questioned: Congress Examines Role Of Industry in Regulation ... Washington Post April 27, 2008

Hi Rogene,Thanks for looking this stuff up. Fortunately my son doesn't exhibit any noticeable signs. I'm worried though because his urine was sky high in arabinose (a marker for yeast/fungi). My diet changes are helping him but he's a very picky eater and so I worry about him.It doesn't surprise me what you wrote below regarding toxins in childhood and the situations with your family members. My chiro just told me a similar story. A woman came to him w/ debilitating endometriosis...so bad she was disabled. He used Field Control Therapy on her and was able to diagnose paint chips in her ovaries. It turns out that ten years before when she was in college she spent a couple summers stripping paint off houses and repainting them! Through FCT he was able to cure her within 3 months and she became pregnant!Yes, I hope your family members change their minds about ionic foot baths and detox in general. I'm trying to get my dad to detox the mercury out but he's not a believer either! Happy Monday. Love, PH>> PH,> > This is what I found with a search for "bismuth side effects" . . . http://www.drugs.com/sfx/bismuth-subsalicylate-side-effects.html> > Can you relate to any of these side effects?> > There was an article in National Geographic a couple years ago where the author volunteered to be tested for about 300 toxins . . . He tested positive to at least 2/3's . .. Some of which he remembered being exposed to as a child.> > A family member was exposed to manganese in welding rods over fifty years ago. He recently learned that it may have caused a Parkinson-like condition that has been getting worse in recent years. . . . He's been laughing at ionic foot baths . . . I hope he'll change his mind soon! A cousin is in the same shape! . . . They thought it was an inherited problem . .. but only those who did any welding have had the problem. > > Rogene>