SSRI Stories

I would like to direct you to a website I feel is WELL worth your time to look into.

http://www.ssristories.com/

Please take the time, just even a few minutes to only look at the home page. This is IMPORTANT. We like to fancy ourselves as educated and intelligent people full of choices. If this is to be true, we must seek out information in complete forms from every possible aspect in order to make an informed decision, in order to make a real "choice".

This is a "tool" that CAN have benefit in improving lives but is often overused, under regulated, and CAN induce traumatic events.

So I had an interaction with someone proporting Borax and nontoxic and ideal for personal cleanser production. I responded with suspect toward borax being nontoxic and offered Shaklee's GET CLEAN line as a safe, more convenient, time saving, less expensive alternative. Her reply was a bunch of questions about the product ingredients and

Here's the response from Shaklee:

Thanks for passing along the comments made by...[withheld] ...regarding Shaklee products and hope the following information is helpful to her.

Borax (or borate)
Borax, or sodium tetra borate, has been used for many years in laundry products as a booster. It functions in a manner similar to phosphates by increasing the alkalinity of the washwater, as well as the effectiveness of anionic and non-ionic surfactants. While borax is a natural ingredient,it can have a perceptible effect on the environment through use in laundry products, such as contributing to nutrient imbalance in soils as well as algae bloom in waterways.

A study conducted by the Washington Toxics Coalition (WTC), published in October 1990, observed that the presence of arsenic in detergents appeared to be related the amount of phosphates present. Their study included a number of borax-containing products in which the presence of arsenic was also noted. In non-phosphate and non-borate products no arsenic was found.

Get Clean - ingredients
While the ingredient base for most of the Get Clean products are from sustainable sources such as corn and coconut, we do not list the specific ingredients for all of the cleaners as some of the formulae are proprietary. In the case of Basic H2 Organic Super Concentrate Cleaner: the product is 99.95% natural and made from Water, Alkyl Polyglucoside (from Corn & Coconut), Ethyoxylated Fatty Alcohol (from Coconut), Xanthan Gum (from vegetables) and Methyl Chloro Isothiazolinone (biodegradable preservative)

The ingredient information we currently provide for our products actually exceeds the legal requirements for manufacturers of household cleaners - who are required to list ingredients on labels only if they are hazardous, have legal limits, or are required by the EPA. Indeed, if you peruse the labels of many competitor products who claim they do list ingredients, you will note that they often list anionic surfactant, non-ionic surfactant, stabilizer, etc., which is simply a detergent builder list and not the actual ingredients in the product.

Ingredient information we do make available can be found in the attached Ingredient Glossary document.

Get Clean - non-toxic

All ingredients used in Shaklee Get Clean products and FDA-approved, not harmful, and readily biodegradable. However, we do not use a non-toxic claim for all of the Get Clean products. This is because n order to make a non-toxic claim, manufacturers are required to conduct in-vivo (animal) testing to validate the non-toxic claim. As there are ingredients that have enough data that do not require in-vivo test results, a number of our Get Clean products that include these compounds do have a non-toxic claim on their respective labels. Those Get Clean products that do not include non-toxic on the labels is due to the fact that we would have do animal testing to validate -and as we are not doing animal testing, we cannot make this claim. Shaklee Corporation is opposed to animal testing and does not conduct any animal testing of any kind on any Shaklee product marketed anywhere in the world.

Basic H2 Wipes includes the "Not to use as a skin wipe" statement because the product is designed for cleaning surfaces in and around the home. It the wipes were designed for the skin, BAsic H2 would be a personal care product.


Ammonium laureth sulfate
Ammonium laureth sulfate is derived from a fatty acid found in coconut oil, and is a surfactant approved by the FDA monograph for personal care product ingredients that are proven effective and safe based on long-term use by millions of people and tens of millions of applications. Additionally, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) panel, an expert and independent group of eminent scientists and medical practitioners who assess the safety of personal care product ngredients, and whose findings are published in the Journal of the American College of Toxicology, has approved ammonium laureth sulfate as safe for use in personal care products.

We have found that many customers and potential customers have decided to avoid products based on ingredient misinformation widely available and disseminated on the Internet and in fringe publications. While many outrageous claims about personal care ingredients from causing cancer to myriad other diseases for which there is not a scintilla of evidence scare stories are fond of substantiating their assertions through the crafty use of Material Safety Data Sheets, which are required to be made available to the public, and posted wherever a product containing the ingredient is used in a commercial setting. Under the hazardous data section of these documents, one will find information that states that the ingredient is irritating to eyes and skin, and can even be fatal. What these less-than-honest publications and websites don't say is that such effects may result from misuse of the product.

What consumers should know about hazard data is that it is drawn from tests using concentrations hundreds and even thousands of times more potent than the levels that would ever be found in a personal care product. In fact, ammonium lauryl sulfate is never present in personal care products at more than 1% of the total volume of ingredients.

We recommend you take a look at the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) on the safety of this ingredient when incorporated into personal care products. You can review this information yourself by using the attached link to go to the CIR website: http://www.cir-safety.org/.

PEG
PEG is polyethylene glycol, an ingredient so safe that several children's liquid medications contain polyethylene glycol in place of alcohol since most mothers do not want to give alcohol to their children. Solution of polyethylene glycol is commonly used to cleanse the bowel before gastrointestinal examination or surgery. Polyethylene glycol is considered by the FDA as a GRAS ingredient (Generally Recognized as Safe). There is no scientific or medical substantiation to suggest that PEG is harmful.

Fragrances
The various fragrances used in selected products are compounded fragrances composed of blended natural and man-made fragrance ils and synthesized into the specific aroma based upon our requirements. The fragrances used are already blended, and are compounded with RIFM (Research Institute for Fragrance Materials) approved ingredients that are free of phthalates.

Phenoxyethanol
Phenoxyethanol is used included in Hand Wash Concentrate to keep it safe and fresh. As it is the last named ingredient in the product, this means that it is present in an extremely small amount - and very safe to use. You will find the safety of this ingredient verified at the CIR website also.

For the record, Shaklee never has, does not now, and never will use ingredients that are not substantiated by factual data to be safe and efficacious. Our formulations are scientifically tested for safety and efficacy, and comply with the applicable European Union (EU) Cosmetics Directive, the Association of Southeast Asian National List (ASEAN), the California Safe Cosmetic Act, and California Proposition 65 guidelines.

Your Friends at Shaklee

I just LOVE Shaklee!!!

Cesarean; America's Favorite Surgery

C-Section Too Early Risks Baby's Health
Babies Born by Surgical Delivery Before 39 Weeks May Suffer Health Problems
By AUDREY GRAYSON
ABC News Medical Unit

Jan. 7, 2009—

When 37-year-old Alicia Cooney of Cleveland was pregnant with her first child in October 2007, her doctor expressed no concern about scheduling her Caesarian delivery, or C-section, just 38 weeks into the pregnancy.

But when Cooney became pregnant with her second child last April, her doctor was singing a different tune about when to schedule a C-section.

"I did notice a change within the hospital that they really wanted to make sure my C-section wasn't before 39 weeks," Cooney explained.

Cooney said that her doctor expressed concern about the increased risk of wet lung -- or an accumulation of fluid in the newborn's lungs -- in babies delivered by C-section before 39 weeks of gestation.

Cooney's doctor may not be alone in changing his practice in the face of these risks. On Wednesday, a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that C-section delivery before 39 weeks of gestation is, indeed, linked to increased health problems for babies.

According to the National Institutes of Health, a pregnancy of normal gestation lasts about 40 weeks, with "normal" pregnancies ranging from 38 to 42 weeks.

A team of researchers lead by Dr. Alan Tita from the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham examined the results of 13,258 women who had a scheduled, repeat C-section that was planned for no other medical reason than the fact that the woman had previously had a C-section.

The researchers found that, compared to babies delivered by C-section at 39 weeks of gestation, those born at 37 or 38 weeks had a higher rate of breathing problems, blood sugar problems and serious infections. Moreover, those babies were more likely to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit.

"Early elected delivery is associated with adverse outcomes for the baby," Tita explained. "And the earlier you deliver, the higher it increases the risk."

These findings are in line with current recommendations by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Yet despite the long list of potential complications associated with C-section delivery before 39 weeks, the study also found that a large number of the women studied -- 36 percent -- chose to schedule a C-section delivery before 39 weeks anyway.

"I have seen women induced or have a scheduled C-section because they have family scheduled to be in town, because they want the baby to be born on an anniversary or someone else's birthday, because they want the baby born prior to Jan. 1 for tax purposes, or because they are simply sick and tired of being pregnant," said Dr. Elaine St. John, associate professor of pediatrics in the Division of Neonatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Other experts say that the increase in C-sections before 39 weeks is due to a lack of understanding of the dangers associated with elective late pre-term birth.

"Most women think the risks to their babies are the same whether the babies are delivered four, three, two or one week before the baby is due," explained Dr. Sessions Cole, director of the Division of Newborn Medicine at the St. Louis Children's Hospital. "This study should help mothers understand that there are significant risks to their babies associated with elective late preterm birth."

Patient Pressure Figures Big

Approximately 30 percent of all babies born in the United States are delivered by C-section. A study published in April 2005 in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology found that elective C-sections accounted for about 28 percent of all C-sections performed in the U.S. in 2001.

However, many experts report a growing trend toward encouraging women not to schedule an elective C-section before 39 weeks at hospitals all over the country.

"The recommendations for years have been to avoid elective delivery of any kind until after 39 weeks," said Dr. Lisa Jones, a gynecologist at the New Bedford Community Health Center in New Bedford, Mass. "So all this study really does is reinforce what we already knew."

Still, some experts say that the power of maternal insistence in scheduling an early C-section is enough to convince many doctors to go along with their patient's wishes.

"I think the practice of early [C-section delivery] will only end if hospitals ban the practice," Holzman said. "There is little reason for [obstetricians] to stop since they are often pressured by patients."

The study also outlines some of the risks women must consider when opting to deliver by C-section after 39 weeks.

According to Tita, one such risk is having an unexplained stillbirth while waiting for the 39-week-mark to deliver. This risk is very small, but Tita said that it is still best for women to follow ACOG recommendations by waiting the full 39 weeks before delivering by C-section.

Early Surgical Delivery Sometimes Appropriate

There are, however, certain instances in which an early delivery is appropriate.

"If there [are] firm medical indications of risk to the mother's or fetus's ... health [such as] worsening maternal high blood pressure [or] lack of fetal responsiveness ... then delivery is indicated," Cole explained. "However, the risks of these conditions should be weighed against the risks described by this study."

Moreover, Holzman said, "For most of these [conditions], the risks to the fetus in delaying [delivery] are well known and predictable."

Many experts ultimately hope that this study will prove to the public that the risks of early C-section delivery greatly outweigh the benefits in most cases.

"Hopefully articles like this will help educate the general public and fewer babies will be placed at risk in the future," said Dr. Patricia Chess, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Rochester Medical Center.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

Inducing Labor is Risky

Well, it's about time a study comes out inspite of the very popular money making scheme of convenient induction. What interesting is that even though some of the methods "only" raise the risks %15 and others are a full %100, women around the world and care providers are going to look this in the face and shrug their shoulders becuase "knowing WHEN" is much more important than qualilty care and what's actually BEST Long Term. Convenience and money win out in most cases.

~~~~~~~~~~

Sydney, Dec 10 : Inducing labour in uncomplicated pregnancies can be risky, according to a study.

A quantitative study based on 50,000 first births between 2000 and 2005 showed that induced labours were more likely than spontaneous births to lead to forceps delivery, caesarean section and haemorrhage.

Babies were also more likely to be admitted to nursery care and to require active resuscitation after induced labour.

Mary-Ann Davey of Mother and Child Health Research at La Trobe University, who conducted the study, stressed that the sample included only those women whose pregnancies were progressing in a healthy and normal manner.

"I used data that are routinely collected on all births in Victoria by the midwife attending the birth," Davey said. "I selected those first births that appeared to have no clinical indication for induction of labour.

These were all single pregnancies of normal presentation born between 37 and 40 weeks.

Mothers had no complications, such as pre-existing diabetes, hypertension, cardiac disease or mental illness and those younger than 20 years or older than 45 were excluded from the analysis.

Davey believes that many of the labours were induced for reasons of convenience rather than for any medical indications. Sometimes the pregnancies might be induced because they are past the due date but only by six days or less.

The risk of haemorrhage following induced labour was increased by 17 percent, of an instrumental delivery by 20-70 percent, of nursery care for the infant by 24 percent and active resuscitation by 15-100 percent, depending on the method of induction, said a La Trobe release.

The risk of a caesarean was between two and four times more likely after induction.

--- IANS

Mark and Regina: Seminary Class

My freshman year I was not only new to secondary education, I was new to the school district--having moved across town--and new to seminary, too. Seminary started before school because it was a religious class from our church and had to be held when the other students wouldn't be affected by it. It was my favorite "class" because I knew most of the group and I love our religion. I enjoy thinking back to seminary because it's where Mark and I had the most exposure to each other--something I'm now eternally grateful for.

Our clas had about 15 students altogether. We would come somewhere around 7:00 am and spent an hour or so learning gospel principles. Our instructor was excited about teaching using creative off-the-wall examples to teach us and illustrate certain concepts. He also required a morning devotional that we all took turns doing; some of us not so eagerly.

I particularly enjoyed doing the devotionals at that time in my life. I would use music, make little handouts with quotes on them, find verses from scripture I felt especially drawn to, and I'd get up in front of the class leading them in my little devotional. Mark, liked my devotionals, too, but for different reasons than the substance of the devotionals.For whatever reason, he liked that scrawny, huge
frame-wearing, blonde girl in front of the class. He has always been able to see far more than whatever I've made out of the relfection in my mirror each day. Sometimes I really wish I could get a glimpse of who he sees when he looks at me.

Throughout that year we had experiences that brought us closer together as friends, and a one or two that were less wonderful.

It's funny, when we first moved to that side of town I wasn't all that impressed or excited about having to go to school with a whole new group of kids, I now see it as divine intervention bring Mark and I one step closer to our life together.

Mark and Regina

So often I'm asked how Mark and I met, how we found each other after time, everyone just loves the story. So, I thought I'd share, bit by bit, our story in small chapters.

Mark and I met when I was 13 (or there about) and he was 15 outside our church in the parking lot. To tell you the truth, I can't remember the exact time of year but I do know that it was warm enough not to wear a jacket and it was just getting dark around 7:30-8:00 in the evening. We'd been to a youth activity where we had our first encounter.

He was outside talking to someone, my friend, Shawna, I think, and came outside to see what she was up to. Of course, she was talking to a "guy"--Mark, as it turns out--she was dark and beautiful with the curvy figure I'd wanted to possess, thick dark brown hair, and she had a fun personality, it was often I'd find some boy pining away for her. I, on the other hand, was skinny with as many curves as a pencil, glasses, and permed blonde hair, so I was often jealous of her, even if she was being "worshipped" (yeah, that's how I imagined it) by a nerdy guy.

Mark was wearing a light colored shirt and blue jeans. His his short black hair was slick and combed ala 1950--almost, and he was having a conversation with Shawna about pain tolerance. You know how teens are; awkward.

I'm not sure when I got into the conversation and interaction, but there was some lifting and caring involved. Why was this 15 year old boy carrying a 13 year old girl around the parking lot when she had perfectly good legs? I don't know. You'll have to ask a 15 year old boy why that would happen. Why would a 13 year old girl allow herself to be carted off by a vurtual stranger? Again, I don't know, I'm sure my current brain must be newly hatched because I can't imagine allowing anyone to carry me around now! Well, ok, Mark can, and does. Maybe it was some mystical spell he cast on me, I just knew I could trust him,and into his arms I went--my first view of my home.

I would have never guessed that 20 years later we'd be married with ten children to love and care for. He was gangly and awkward, I was scrawny and dopey. Things have changed since then. Today he's extremely handsome, sexy, strong as an ox, tall (well, he's always been taller than me), confident, balanced, and the exact man I would design for all of our girls to marry if I could. I have filled out a bit, figured out how to eat a sandwich, found a curve or two, acquired some contacts and better looking glasses, and mellowed out my obnoxious giddy school-girl angsts.

You never know what a chance meeting will do. I'd say we spent maybe and hour together that night, an hour that I sadly have to say didn't leave that much of an impression because I have to strain for the memories--I really just have one small moment captured in my head, a snapshot of him and a recording of one phrase than ring in my ears whenever calling up that time.

We now have a 13 year old girl and it tickles me yet frightens (maybe "frighten" is a little strong) me to think that she could know today the man she'll be married to when she's 32. If she does, I hope he's even half as wonderful, sweet, devoted, disciplined, and doting as her dad, my sweethear, Mark.

After that night, we didn't really see each other until a year later when I started my freshman year in high school, he was a junior, and we shared a seminary class together before our regular classes. It was during that year that our metamorphasis began.

Soldiers Angels

Visit this link to find out more ~~~ http://www.soldiersangels.org/


Soldiers' Angels was started by a self-described ordinary mother of an ordinary young man turned hero, Sgt. Brandon Varn. Brandon was deployed in Iraq and has since honorably completed his mission and has returned back to his proud and loving family.

In the summer of 2003, he wrote home expressing his concern that some soldiers did not receive any mail or support from home. Being a caring and loving mother, she decided not to allow a situation like that to continue. She contacted a few friends and extended family to ask if they would write to a soldier or two. Within a few short months, Soldiers' Angels went from a mother writing a few extra letters to an Internet Community with thousands of angels worldwide.

With more and more merchants donating services, money and items for packages, the Angels reorganized as a 501 c 3 non-profit so all donations would be tax deductible. Soldiers' Angels currently supports tens of thousands of American Service Members stationed wherever we raise our nation's flag, and that number continues to grow daily. Soldiers' Angels are dedicated in supporting our military during and after their deployment.

In December of 2004 a worldwide support forum was created in the hopes of providing a place where the needs of our heroes could be fulfilled.


Now this ordinary mother's youngest son, Bretton Varn, is serving his country in Iraq as he continues his family's legacy of bravery, honor and commitment. As with all of our brave men and women in the United States Armed Forces, our thoughts and prayers are with Brett and his family as he begins his tour in service to his nation.

May God Bless Our Troops!






"I was with that which others did not want to be,
I went to where others feared to go, and did what others failed to do.
I asked nothing of those who gave nothing,
and reluctantly accepted the thought of eternal loneliness that I feel.
I have seen the face of terror, felt the stinging cold of fear,
And enjoyed the sweet taste of a moments love.
I have cried pain and hope,
But most of all I have lived times others would say were best forgotten.
At least some day I'll be able to say,
That I was proud what I was, A Soldier."
~anonymous