Page 12 - Summer2008

Letters

Receptor blockage leads to poor innate brain lesion study used data from patient added vitamin D and A,  sh and  sh
immune system function and overgrowth questionnaires on intake of vitamin D oil and thus would have been getting
of bacteria and other pathogens. High from all sources, both supplemental and some vitamin A from those sources. We
vitamin D levels can also act like a dietary and did not administer pharma- have not found any difference between
steroidal immunosuppressant and cause ceutical vitamin D (which is usually in patients consuming vitamin D versus
3
short-term symptom reduction at the cost the D form). Since this was a recent those consuming vitamin D prior to be-
2 2
of long-term bacterial increase. study and the vitamin D used in most ginning the ARF’s approach (also called
I would also like to respond to points commonly used OTC supplements, and the Marshall Protocol). In any case, the
made in the commentary related to the the vitamin D added to milk is D , it brain lesion study is only a small part
3
interpretation of a study by Payne and seems unlikely that any negative effect of the case to be made supporting the
others, showing a correlation between was due to the supplemental component validity of the Marshall Protocol (www.
higher vitamin D intake in older adults of the vitamin D intake being from the D AutoimmunityResearch.org http://mem-
2
and higher brain lesion volume (www. form. Also, I should note that the highest bers.aol.com/SynergyHN/shpt and
fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_ab- vitamin D intake in the study was below http://bacteriality.com/category/brain-
stract/21/6/A1072). It was assumed in 1100 IU and many of the people getting lesions/, http://members.aol.com/Syn-
the commentary that any correlation the higher levels of vitamin D would ergyHN/MPIntro).
with brain lesions must be due to the use have been getting them from multi-vi- I am not by any means a supporter
of vitamin D instead of vitamin D . The tamin supplements, dairy products with of pharmaceutical use unless truly neces-
2 3

ORGANIC MATTRESSES
I applaud Wise Traditions for its efforts in getting people to question the status quo, and leading its readers back to
the traditions of nature. I have been an environmental consultant for 18 years, often working with chemically sensitive
people. I have tried hard to get my clients to turn from the synthetic materials that have sometimes harmed them and
trust in the natural materials that can sustain both the earth and their own lifestyles. I currently produce a line of organic
and natural mattresses. It is with some dismay then that I read Dr. Masood Kureshi’s letter about a mattress company’s
web site, www.peopleforcleanerbeds.org, which asserts, boldly and incorrectly, that the only way for buyers to get a truly
chemical-free bed is to skirt existing fire safety laws through a doctor’s prescription. The company further asserts that
wool is not and cannot be effectively used in mattresses without chemical fire retardant treatment. Dr. Kureshi’s letter
even implies that you may risk your own health by sleeping on an organic mattress because it has to have chemical fire
retardants in it. This is simply wrong. Fear may sell but it makes a poor foundation for the truth.
The self-serving nature of his letter would have been apparent had Dr. Kureshi been properly identified. He
distributes a line of synthetic visco-elastic mattresses, manufactured by the company that sponsors the very web site to
which he steers people. I would hate to see your readers, already struggling like the rest of us with rampant corporate
green-washing, fall prey to further misleading or inaccurate information. While it is true that it is not possible for a syn-
thetic mattress to pass fire safety regulations without fire retardant chemicals, it is indeed possible (though admittedly
challenging) to build a quality organic mattress that will do so. My company’s mattresses have passed, and continue to
pass, all federal and state fire safety regulations without the use of any chemical fire retardants or synthetic fire barriers.
It’s not surprising to find some mattress companies giving up on the idea of building a chemical-free organic or natural
mattress altogether or opting for other, synthetic methods, but the site’s statements:“There are no natural, chemical-free,
or nontoxic systems that pass the severe open flame test,” and, “As of July 1, 2007 all mattresses nationwide, including
crib, must…contain toxic chemicals,’’ are patently provocative, inflammatory and incorrect.

10 Wise Traditions SUMMER 2008