April 12, 2012
By Ethan A. Huff
“When are these doctors going to learn? Adults shouldn’t even be taking acetaminophen – now they want you to give it to your babies. Let’s kill their livers right away. What a crock.” –KTRN
A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics suggests that giving eight-week-old babies several doses of acetaminophen (Tylenol) before and after the barrage of recommended childhood vaccines they typically receive will help them to sleep better, and improve vaccine efficacy. And because many doctors believe that sleeping after vaccinations is a positive sign that vaccines are supposedly “working,” this dangerous protocol could become common practice among pediatric doctors when administering childhood vaccines.
Linda Franck and her colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco’s (UCSF) Department of Family Health Care Nursing conducted a randomized, controlled trial on 70 infants that technically constitutes child abuse. For their study, the team told one group of mothers to administer standard care to their babies, while the other was told to give their babies a heavy load of pre-dosed acetaminophen 30 minutes before receiving their vaccines, and every four hours after that for a total of five doses.
At the conclusion of the study, the team observed that acetaminophen helped the babies to sleep more, and also allegedly helped to increase their antibody production rates. Franck and her colleagues also made the suggestion based on their findings that young babies receive their vaccinations in the afternoon rather than in the morning, so that sleep would come more naturally in the 24 hours that followed.
It is bad enough that babies are injected with upwards of 20 vaccines within the first few months of their lives (http://www.cdc.gov). But now researchers want to give these delicate, developing human beings large doses of acetaminophen, which has been shown in numerous studies to cause liver and kidney damage, and even death (http://www.lef.org).
April 6, 2012
By Mike Adams
“Here is some more medical quackery for you. This almost reads like a comedy/horror novel. This can’t be true. But it is.” –KTRN
In Britain, drug companies are now pushing for children to be dosed with potentially dangerous diabetes drugs before they’re even born! It’s just the latest example of medical insanity in a world experiencing a runaway diabetes epidemic.
But instead of teaching expectant mothers how to halt the disease through exercise, mineral-rich nutrition, and avoiding processed foods, the government is pushing dangerous chemical medications that inevitably have health-compromising side effects.
The drug being used in UK trials right now is Metformin (glucophage), a drug with a long history of toxicity and known to cause side effects like:
• muscle pain and weakness
• slow or uneven heart rate
• nausea and vomiting
• difficulty breathing
• reduction in levels of sex hormones
• numbness in arms and legs
• stomach pain
• lactic acidosis, a potentially fatal build-up of lactic acid in the body
… and this is what they’re now giving pregnant women? Seriously?
March 8, 2012
By My Health News Daily Staff
“Isn’t it amazing that people are still smoking cigarettes? Not only is it one of the worst things you could to for your health (because of the chemicals, not necessarily the tobacco) but have you noticed the type of people who still smoke? They are usually poor, uneducated, brainwashed, and depressed. It’s tough to quit – but you CAN do it.” –KTRN
The health of pregnant women and babies improved after smoking in public places was banned in Scotland, a new study says.
Preterm deliveries dropped by more than 10 percent, and the percentage of infants born small for their gestational age dropped by 5 percent after the legislation went into effect in 2006, according to the findings from researchers at the University of Glasgow.
“There is growing evidence of the potential for tobacco control legislation to have a positive impact on health,” according to the researchers.
In their study, the researchers collected data on all babies born in Scottish maternity hospitals between January 1996 and December 2009.
February 24th, 2012
By: Jonathan Benson
No matter how you look at it, autism research is big business. Just like the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s “Race for the Cure” for breast cancer, the autism industry pretends to be looking for the causes of autism and how to cure it, when in reality it is on a never-ending hunt for money to fund so-called research into the bodily changes associated with autism in order to push more profit-generating screenings and drug therapies on the public.
The worldwide propaganda campaign that continues to repeat the lie that vaccines are in no way related to autism is one great example of the medical establishment covering up one of the most obvious causes of autism. Rather than actually investigate how the body responds to vaccines, and how these responses are clearly associated with the neurological damage that is part and parcel of autism symptoms, researchers continue to churn out studies that completely avoid any investigation of this or any other likely cause of autism.
Instead, the vast majority of autism studies, which happen to be funded mostly by the pharmaceutical industry, focus solely on the physical, genetic, and chemical changes that accompany the disease, and ignore trying to identify the causes that lead to these changes in the first place. This approach is deliberate, of course, because it facilitates the development of an endless cycle of drug and behavioral therapies for autism that never get to the root of the problem, which means they will forever generate a continuous stream of new profits.
“To find a disease cause and solution to prevent disease isn’t profitable,” says a recent article in Gaia Health that addresses this important issue. “However, to find even the most miniscule physical, genetic, or chemical change in someone with an existing disease means that even more money can be squeezed out of the research funders like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), agencies funded by taxpayers. Anything that leads away from causes and focuses on the physiochemical effects of autism always leads to more questions and more research funds.”
The medical establishment seeks to destroy the lives, careers of researchers who actually try to identify causes of, and cures for disease. On the rare occasion that an honest researcher comes along and tries to actually conduct legitimate research into the causes of autism, he or she is eventually cut off from the funding chain, and sometimes even maligned and slandered in the public eye by the medical and media establishment. This is precisely what has happened to Dr. Andrew Wakefield, whose honest research into one cause of autism led to an ongoing barrage of character and career assassination that continues to this very day (http://www.naturalnews.com/Andrew_Wakefield.html).
Be sure to take a look at the sample studies on autism analyzed by Gaia Health that show a clear disinterest by the medical establishment in actually finding causes of, or cures for, autism. These studies are clearly aimed at discovering and promoting new drug and vaccine protocols for treating autism symptoms, rather than actually trying to prevent it from developing in the first place: http://gaia-health.com
For The Full Story Go To Natural News
FDA launches soft investigation, but no recall, after infant formula linked to causing death in babies
January 3, 2012
By Ethan A. Huff
Walmart has voluntarily recalled a batch of Enfamil Newborn powdered formula cans from 3,000 US stores after the substance inside them was linked to causing death in some babies. Though the product in question, which includes 12.5-ounce cans from lot number ZP1K7G, are suspected to be the culprit, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not ordered a recall, and the product’s manufacturer, Mead Johnson Nutrition, has refused to disclose whether or not formula cans from the suspected lot were distributed to any other stores besides Walmart.
The Associated Press (AP) reports that Walmart decided to pull the formula after recent newborn Avery Cornett of Lebanon, Missouri, died of a rare bacterial infection caused by Cronobacter sakazakii, which is particularly fatal in children less than one month of age. Back in November, another small child fell deathly ill after being fed a couple different types of powdered baby formula, but that child reportedly recovered.
“We decided it was best to remove the product until we learn more,” said Dianna Gee, a spokeswoman from Walmart. The FDA, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Missouri Department of Health (MDH) are all reportedly still investigating the situation to identify the culprit. In the meantime, customers who purchased the suspected formula are merely being urged to return it to stores for a refund if they feel like it, and authorities are acting as if there is no real threat at this point.
December 12, 2011
By Sayer Ji
“Here’s a solution to this problem – breast feed your child if you can. If not, there has to be organic and all natural infant formulas, right?” –KTRN
Why is cupric sulfate — a known herbicide, fungicide and pesticide — being used in infant formula? And why is it displayed proudly on product labels as a presumably nutritious ingredient?
Used to kill fungus, aquatic plants and roots of plants, parasitic infections in aquarium fish and snails, as well as algae and bacteria such as Escherichia coli, cupric sulfate hardly sounds fit for human consumption, much less for infants.
Indeed, infants are all too often looked at as “miniature adults” from the perspective of toxicological risk assessments, rather than what they are: disproportionately (if not exponentially) more susceptible to the adverse effects of environmental exposures. Instead of reducing or altogether eliminating avoidable infant chemical exposures (the precautionary principle), the chemical industry-friendly focus is always on determining “an acceptable level of harm” – as if there were such at thing!
It boggles the imagination how cupric sulfate ended up in infant formula, as well as scores of other consumer health products, such as Centrum and One-A-Day vitamins.
After all, it is classified, according to the Dangerous Substance Directive (one of the main European Union laws concerning chemical safety), as “Harmful (Xn), Irritant (Xi) and Dangerous for the environment (N).”
December 9, 2011
By Selena Keegan
“Breast feed your infants. It’s the normal/natural thing to do. Duh!” –KTRN
One of the most vulnerable segments of the population — infants — are being affected as chemical giant Martek Biosciences uses cronyism to have its patented GMO products classified as organic. The National Organic Program is trying to correct this, but in the meantime the “organic” infant formula or baby food parents feed their children could contain industrial Frankenfood.
History of Irresponsibility
The story of how this state of affairs came about reveals much on how politics and profit can undermine food safety. Here’s a timeline on how the word “organic” is being undermined, creating a health threat for babies who are fed with formula.
2002: Food manufacturers begin supplementing infant formula and baby food with synthetic forms of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA). These polyunsaturated omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, naturally present in breast milk, are important components of the human brain and eyes. Although the form of DHA/ARA used in infant formulas is structurally incompatible with the form found in human milk, food manufacturers market their products with the claim that their formulas will make babies more intelligent.
2006: In spite of the fact that its synthetic DHA/ARA is from laboratory-grown fermented algae and fungus through the use of hexane, a petroleum by-product and EPA-identified neurotoxin, Martek applies for organic status for its products. The USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) tells Martek its synthetic DHA and ARA does not quality as organic. Martek attorney J. Friedman ignores the decision of NOP staff and contacts NOP director Barbara Robinson to have the decision reversed.
2009: A front page Washington Post article, “Integrity of Federal ‘Organic’ Label Questioned” uncovers the Martek story. The article quotes Martek’s lawyer saying “I called Robinson up, I wrote an e-mail. It was a simple matter.”
2002-2010: Parents and medical professionals observe reactions in babies fed with products containing Life’s DHA, the product name Martek gives its patented GMO version of naturally occurring fatty acids. The range of infant health problems includes difficulties breathing and gastrointestinal disorders. When affected babies are no longer fed the formula, the ailments disappear. Although Freedom of Information Act requests reveal hundreds of FDA adverse event reports, the FDA is slow to react.
2011: FDA announces it will investigate claims that DHA/ARA infant formulas support brain and eye development. The National Organic Program is now trying to remedy its 2006 decision by asking Martek to formally ask permission of the NOP’s National Organic Standards Board to use its DHA and AHA in organic products.
November 30, 2011
Off The Grid News
“Most women probably don’t want to hear this, but long ago, everyone had natural childbirth. If they could do it back then, why can’t we do it now? Let’s not blame anyone though for not wanting to go through the pain. But if you can go the natural route, it’s the way to do it.” –KTRN
Childbirth is a natural process; it goes on every day without the intervention of modern medicine. Before there were trained doctors to deliver babies, and even after, midwifes and other mothers would meet together when one of their community went into labor. Woman down through the ages would gather together in the birthing room and care for the laboring mother. They surrounded the bed, taking turns wiping her brow and speaking soothing and comforting words. And there they stayed until the babe was delivered, cleaned, and suckling his mother’s breast for the very first time. When doctors came along, these supporting women would still be on the scene to comfort and encourage the laboring mothers. It makes sense that the the word for these women, “doula,” means “women’s servant.”
Since times have become more modern, “trained” medical staff – nurses and technicians—have replaced our first labor and birthing comforters for the most part. But times are starting to revert, in part, to our roots. Midwifes and doulas are becoming more popular in home births, and even in the hospitals and freestanding birthing centers. They have brought the laboring mothers a higher level of comfort and confidence, which in turn reduces the need for interventions in labor and delivery.
Studies have shown that in low-risk births where a doula is present, the need for caesarian delivery is greatly reduced. The use of epidural anesthesia was also reduced. The statistics noted here are from just one research group. Other studies have noted a lower need for Pitocin to induce or speed up labor progress, plus a lower need for episiotomies, forceps deliveries, and other medical interventions during labor and delivery.
October 20, 2011
By Selena Keegan
Top baby formula brands sold in stores contain alarmingly high levels of corn syrup and sugar. In light of rising rates of childhood obesity and diabetes, parents need to read labels carefully to protect their children’s health.
Consumption of large quantities of sugar and high fructose corn syrup have been linked to behavioral disorders such as ADD as well as other issues such as anxiety, daytime drowsiness and nighttime insomnia.
Feeding your baby sugar and corn syrup also increases your child’s risk for a wide spectrum of other health problems ranging from dental cavities to high triglyceride levels to nutritional deficiencies. Even the mainstream medical establishment warns of the dangers of added sugars.
Warnings issued about sugar consumption for children
The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued warnings about the health dangers of children drinking sugar-sweetened beverages such as sodas, sweetened fruit drinks and sports drinks (http://www.aap.org/obesity/SSB.html).
Unfortunately, many parents do not realize that the most store-bought formulas they feed their infants and toddlers may pose the same health risks as a can of soda.
Most baby formula product lines offer options for cow’s milk-based formula as well as soy milk for infants with lactose intolerance. Many formulas come in ready-to-feed, liquid concentrate and powdered forms. All the major baby formula brands offer options for all age groups from premature infants through toddlers, choices for children with special medical conditions, and organic product lines.
The top five ingredients listed for Similac Sensitive Formula for Fussiness and Gas are: Corn Syrup Solids, Sugar (Sucrose), Milk Protein Isolate, High Oleic Safflower Oil, Soy Oil.
Enfamil is a product of Abbott Nutrition, a division of Abbott Laboratories. Enfamil’s Soy Toddler formula also lists Corn Syrup Solids as the initial ingredient, followed by Vegetable Oil (Palm Olein, Coconut, Soy and High Oleic Sunflower Oils), Soy Protein Isolate and Calcium Phosphate. Enfamil is produced by Mead Johnson Nutrition, a subsidiary of Mead Johnson & Company, LLC which was spun off from Bristol-Myers Squibb in 2009.
Gerber is owned by Nestle, the candy company which makes Kit Kat bars, and which also owns Jenny Craig. The list of ingredients for Gerber’s Good Start Protect Formula: Whey Protein Concentrate (From Cow’s Milk, Enzymatically Hydrolyzed, Reduced In Minerals), Vegetable Oils (Palm Olein, Soy, Coconut, And High-Oleic Safflower Or High-Oleic Sunflower), Lactose, Corn Maltodextrin.
Parent’s Choice is the Wal-Mart store-brand of baby products. Their Organic Infant Formula contains Organic Reduced Minerals Whey, Organic Non-Fat Milk, Organic Lactose, Organic Corn Syrup Solids, Organic Palm Oil or Palm Olein.
Earth’s Best Organic Infant Formula with DHA and ARA has a similar ingredient list (Organic Reduced Minerals Whey, Organic Non-Fat Milk, Organic Lactose, Organic Glucose Syrup Solids, Organic Palm Oil Or Organic Palm Olein).
Nature’s One lists the following ingredients in its Dairy Formula: Organic Brown Rice Syrup, Organic Non-Fat Dry Milk, Organic High Oleic Sunflower Oil, Organic Soybean Oil. Nature’s One is a privately held company based in Columbus, Ohio.
October 4th, 2011
By: S. L. Baker
Millions of infants and toddlers age two and under are subjected to surgery every year. Sure, some have been in serious accidents and are suffering other types of emergency situations that require life saving operations. But the vast majority are basically healthy kids put under general anesthesia for procedures like repairing hernias or placing tubes in ears because of repeated infections. And sometimes these surgeries are repeated or a youngster has multiple operations.
No matter how often parents are told “these things are done all the time” and how “safe” anesthesia is, it is crucial that parents think twice about allowing surgery on their young children unless it is absolutely necessary. The reason? Scientists at Mayo Clinic in Rochester have found a strong association between children undergoing surgery requiring general anesthesia before they are 2 years old and learning disabilities later in childhood.
The research, set for publication in the print version of the journal Pediatrics and just published online, investigated medical data on 5,357 children from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Of these youngsters, 350 underwent surgeries with general anesthesia before they were 2 years old. They were matched with 700 children, who served as a control group for the study because they did not undergo a procedure with anesthesia.
In all, of the toddlers and babies exposed to anesthesia, 286 had only been subjected to one surgery but 64 had more than one operation. Over a third (36.6 percent) of the children who had more than one surgery developed a learning disability later in life.
The children, who only had one surgery, had a lower but still elevated risk of a learning disability — 23.6 percent of those little ones developed a learning disability compared to 21.2 percent of the kids, who developed learning disabilities but never had surgery or anesthesia before age 2.
“After removing factors related to existing health issues, we found that children exposed more than once to anesthesia and surgery prior to age 2 were approximately three times as likely to develop problems related to speech and language when compared to children who never underwent surgeries at that young age,” David Warner, M.D., Mayo Clinic anesthesiologist and co-author of the study, said in a statement to the media.
Anesthesia may damage the brain
This study isn’t the first time Mayo Clinic researchers have found evidence anesthesia may damage the brains of children. The results of a 2009 Mayo study, published in the medical journal Anesthesiology, showed that exposure of children to anesthesia appeared to affect development of the brain.
Other previous studies have indicated anesthetic drugs causes abnormalities in the brains of young animals. For example, according to a study published by FDA scientists in the journal Anesthesia and Analgesia, experiments on laboratory rats and other animals showed that anesthesia caused subtle but lasting changes in behavior and memory; anesthesia also impaired learning.
The new study is especially significant because it looked only at children experiencing anesthesia and surgeries under age 2 and controlled for existing health issues. “Our advice to parents considering surgery for a child under age 2 is to speak with your child’s physician,” says Randall Flick, M.D., Mayo Clinic pediatric anesthesiologist and lead author of the study.