All Infant Tylenol Recalled by J&J
February 21, 2012 by admin
Filed under News Stories
February 21st, 2012
CBS NEWS
(AP) All infant Tylenol is being pulled from U.S. shelves because some parents have had problems with Johnson & Johnson’s redesigned bottles. The company introduced the new bottles three months ago, claiming they were a big safety improvement and made to measure doses easier.
But parents and caregivers have instead complained that the protective cover on top of the bottles doesn’t work correctly. While it is meant to limit the amount of medicine that is drawn into a plastic syringe, the cover instead pushes into the bottle when the syringe is inserted, consumers say. The plastic syringe has an opening in the tip but no needle – it’s meant to squirt medicine into the baby’s mouth.
Recall-prone J&J’s McNeil Consumer Healthcare unit has had about 25 product recalls since September 2009, and said Friday it is recalling all 574,000 bottles of grape-flavored, liquid Infants’ Tylenol from stores nationwide.
“Today’s news about the Infants’ Tylenol recall is clearly disappointing after all the progress that McNeil has been making to ensure its products meet the highest level of quality and consumer satisfaction,” CEO William Weldon said in a statement. McNeil changed the design to make it easier to get the dose right and to limit spillage if the bottle is knocked over, McNeil spokeswoman Barbara Montresor said. The prior version had an open-topped bottle and a dropper with a flexible bulb at the top, similar to a turkey baster.
Click here for the full report
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 6-3-11
Today, special guest hosts, Wendy Snyder and Bill Leff, explain why toy companies are marketing breastfeeding to young girls. Plus, find out how your pizza toppings can say a lot more about you than you think!
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 11-2-10
Today, Kevin explains the importance of voting for a third party candidate and why the media is suddenly reporting on the dangers of vitamin D! Plus, Glenn Walp, Ph.D, author of Implosion At Los Alamos, blows the whistle on the government’s failure to keep America’s nuclear weapons secrets safe.
Self Help:
Turn Back The Hands of Time
Natural Cures Health Institute
Your Dream Job
Health:
Hazardous Chemicals Found In Perfume
Government:
Anti-Vitamin Amendment Snuck Into Wall Street Reform Bill
NWO:
Doctors Sterilizing Women Without Consent
The Government Has Your Baby’s DNA!
Americans Are Warming Up To Socialism
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become Kevin’s Friend on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!
All Pregnant Women Need Vitamin D Daily
September 13, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
September 13, 2010
Natural News
by David Gutierrez
Mothers who took 4,000 IU of vitamin D daily cut their risk of premature delivery by half, in a study conducted by researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina and presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies in Vancouver.
“We never imagined it would have as far-reaching effects as what we have seen,” lead author Carol Wagner said. “The message is that all pregnant women should be supplementing with 4,000 IU per day of vitamin D.”
Researchers assigned 494 women between their 12th and 16th weeks of pregnancy to take either 400 IU, 2,000 IU or 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day. They found that the more vitamin D a pregnant woman took, the higher the levels of the vitamin in her blood and in that of the child at birth.
Higher levels of vitamin D were significantly associated with a lower risk of infection, preterm labor and preterm birth.
Premature birth is the foremost cause of newborn death in Canada.
Vitamin D has long been known to play an important role in the development and maintenance of healthy teeth and bones, and newer research has implicated it in maintaining a healthy immune system and preventing infection, cancer, heart disease and autoimmune disorders. Yet for a long time, researchers falsely believed that the vitamin could cause birth defects.
Later, researchers discovered that the defects initially attributed to vitamin D were caused by a genetic defect that affected the vitamin’s metabolism in the body.
“For 30-plus years it was dogma that [vitamin D in pregnancy] was dangerous, that you didn’t need very much and what you did need you could get from just casual sunlight exposure,” Wagner said. “What we know now, from a decade of very intensive research, is that that’s not the case.”
Wagner cautioned that even though the study took place in South Carolina, 85 percent of participants had insufficient vitamin D levels when the study began.
“This is even more important for Canadians,” Wagner said. “You’re at a much higher latitude. The best that you can have is probably six months of sunlight exposure, at your lowest latitude, where you can actually make vitamin D.”
Click here to read the full report
Pregnant Women Should Avoid Diet Soda
August 23, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
August 23rd, 2010
Telegraph
By: Rebecca Smith
Research carried out on almost 60,000 pregnant women in Denmark found that those who drank artificially sweetened soft drinks, whether fizzy or still, were more likely to give birth early.
It was found that those who drank one serving per day of artificially sweetened fizzy drink were 38 per cent more likely to give birth before 37 weeks gestation and those who consumed four servings a day were 78 per cent more likely to have their baby prematurely.
The effect was weaker for still artificially soft drinks and there was no link between premature birth and sugar-sweetened drinks, they said.
It is thought the artificial sweeteners are broken down in the body into chemicals which may change the womb, the researchers said.
The study was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Dr Shelley McGuire, spokesman for the American Society of Nutrition, said: “These findings may be really important in terms of preventing premature births, especially those that are medically induced by a woman’s health care provider.
“Certainly, until more experimental work is done, this study suggests that pregnant women should steer clear of artificially sweetened drinks. Quite frankly, pregnant women should be focusing more on nutrient-rich drinks anyway, like milk and fruit juices. And don’t forget the water.”
The study conducted by Thorahallur Halldorsson, of the Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen, did not examine which artificial sweeteners were contained in the drinks.
The effect was limited to women whose birth was deliberately induced early suggesting the drinks do not trigger premature labour but rather cause changes in the body that mean an early birth is necessary.
It was suggested that this could due to a rise in blood pressure or development of diabetes but the researchers ruled this out.
Dr Halldorsson wrote in the research paper: “In conclusion, our findings suggest that the daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may be associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery.
“The relative consistency of our findings for carbonated and noncarbonated soft drinks and the absence of an association for sugar-sweetened soft drinks suggest that the content of artificial sweeteners might be the causal factor.
“However, the replication of our findings in another experimental setting is warranted.”
A spokesman for the British Soft Drinks Association, said: “We should be cautious in our reaction to this study. Its findings should not be over-dramatised.
“Any woman who is concerned about her diet in pregnancy should consult her doctor.”
BPA Plastics Chemical Linked To Asthma
July 1, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
July 1, 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
(NaturalNews) The controversial chemical bisphenol-A (BPA), already linked to a wide array of health problems, may also increase the risk of asthma in children, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
BPA is an industrial chemical widely used in the manufacture of hard, clear plastics like those used in water and baby bottles, as well as in resins used to line cans of food, beverages and infant formula. Exposure has been linked to an increased risk of cancer, heart disease, birth defects, and hormonal and reproductive problems. Its use in products for young children has been banned in a number of countries and in three U.S. states.
After years of insisting that the chemical was safe, the FDA recently changed its position and called for more research.
Click here for the full report.
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 5-12-10
Today, Kevin explains the importance of voting for a third party candidate and why the media is suddenly reporting on the dangers of vitamin D! Plus, Glenn Walp, Ph.D, author of Implosion At Los Alamos, blows the whistle on the government’s failure to keep America’s nuclear weapons secrets safe.
Self Help:
Turn Back The Hands of Time
Natural Cures Health Institute
Your Dream Job
Health:
Hazardous Chemicals Found In Perfume
Government:
Anti-Vitamin Amendment Snuck Into Wall Street Reform Bill
NWO:
Doctors Sterilizing Women Without Consent
The Government Has Your Baby’s DNA!
Americans Are Warming Up To Socialism
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become Kevin’s Friend on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!
Doctors Sterilize Women By Stealth
May 12, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
May 12, 2010
TimesOnline.co.uk
by Mark Franchetti
When her baby died soon after delivery, Gulbahor Zavidova, 28, a poor farmer’s wife, longed to be pregnant again. After months of trying she and her husband visited a doctor who told her she could never have another child because she had been sterilised.
The procedure had been performed immediately after she gave birth, by doctors who did not ask her consent. On learning she could not bear children, her husband left her.
“Not a day passes without me crying,” she said. “I was outraged when I found out what they had done. How could they do such a horrible thing without asking me?”
According to human rights groups, tens of thousands of young women like Zavidova have been sterilised without their consent in the authoritarian former Soviet state of Uzbekistan.
Uzbek sources say the measure was ordered by Islam Karimov, the president, who has ruled with an iron fist for 20 years. The policy is aimed at keeping down the country’s poor population — with 28m people, it is Central Asia’s most densely populated state.
Activists say mass sterilisation began in 2003, but was eased after two years following an outcry. It is said to have restarted in February this year, when the health ministry ordered doctors to recommend sterilisation as an “effective contraceptive”. Critics claim every doctor was told to persuade “at least two women” a month to have the procedure. Doctors who failed faced reprisals and fines.
“We estimate that since February, about 5,000 women have been sterilised without consent,” said a local human rights campaigner who fears detention if she is named.
In many cases, doctors opt for delivery by caesarean section and then perform a sterilisation without telling the woman. Widespread rumours of the practice have resulted in women opting for home births to avoid the risk.
Doctors visited Hidojat Muminova, a 26-year-old cotton picker, at home several months ago. They told the mother of two she should visit a local hospital for a check-up, at which she was diagnosed with a potentially fatal cyst in her fallopian tubes.
“They scared me into believing I needed an urgent operation,” she said. “I was surprised as I’d never had any pain but I was worried and agreed to the surgery. When it was over they told me they’d performed a sterilisation. I could not stop crying. They tricked me and treated me like an animal.”
Another victim, Mahmuda Usupova, 30, said doctors had sterilised her after she gave birth to her third child by caesarean several months ago. She learnt she could no longer have children during a visit to her gynaecologist.
Uzbek authorities deny that sterilisations are carried out without consent, but a report by the United Nations Committee Against Torture reported a “large number” of cases three years ago. According to the UN, Uzbekistan’s fertility rate has fallen from 4.4 babies per woman to 2.5 since Karimov came to power.
Under the 72-year-old Karimov, Uzbekistan has become highly repressive. Opponents have been jailed, tortured and killed. Two critics of the regime, who were accused of being Islamic militants, were scalded to death after boiling water was poured over them.
Hundreds of civilians died when the police and army fired indiscriminately into a large crowd of protesters in Andijan in 2005. The Sunday Times has been denied entry to Uzbekistan ever since because its coverage is considered “unfriendly”.
The sterilisation programme has been relaunched despite efforts by Karimov’s two daughters to improve the lives of Uzbek women and children. Lola, 31, the president’s younger daughter, is a Unesco ambassador and head of a children’s charity.
Her sister Gulnara, 38, who was recently appointed ambassador to Spain, supports a number of charities. Known as “the princess of Uzbeks”, she is a Harvard graduate, martial arts expert and jewellery designer.
Under the name GooGoosha — apparently her father’s pet name for her — she has released pop videos. Her parties in Moscow, where she lived until recently, attracted members of the elite.
The women’s health days advertised on her website provide free access to medical specialists from Israel for women suffering “diseases related to reproductive functions”.
The Uzbek embassy in Moscow insisted that all sterilisations were carried out at the patient’s request and after the woman’s husband had been told of the consequences.
Click here to read the full report
How Soon is Too Soon for Infants to Start Drinking Soda?
March 24, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
March 24, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
If you really want to give your baby a head start in life by improving their social standing and guaranteeing their happiness, start feeding them Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other sugary carbonated beverages at the earliest age possible. Even babies as young as a few months old will enjoy the many benefits of soda pop.
Sound bizarre? That’s the message the Soda Pop Board of America promoted back in the 1950′s. Here’s the actual text from a full-page ad:
(View the ad yourself at http://naturalnews.com/Images/Cola-… )
For a better start in life, Start COLA earlier!
How soon is too soon?
Not soon enough. Laboratory tests over the last few years have proven that babies who start drinking soda during that early formative period have a much higher chance of gaining acceptance and “fitting in” during those awkward pre-teen and teen years.
So, do yourself a favor. Do your child a favor. Start them on a strict regimen of sodas and other sugary carbonated beverages right now, for a lifetime of guaranteed happiness.
The Soda Pop Board of America
1515 W. Hart Ave – Chicago, IL
- Promotes Active Lifestyle!
- Boosts Personality!
- Gives body essential sugars!
Sound familiar?
This marketing of harmful products to infants and toddlers sounds eerily familiar to the marketing tactics exploited by Big Pharma and its psychiatric drugs today. The words are almost exactly the same: “A lifetime of guaranteed happiness” echoes the marketing of any number of drugs such as Ritalin, Concerta or other psychotropic drugs.
Soda companies, much like drug companies, have relentlessly tried to convince parents that forcing their products onto their children is a smart thing to do. Do you see how drinking soda was linked to “fitting in” during the teen years? It’s clever, covert persuasion: Your child will be “cool” if you feed him soda pop as an infant. But if you don’t, your child may be an outcast!
It’s the same with psychiatric drugs today: If you don’t put your child on Concerta or other mind-altering drugs, they won’t succeed in school! Or they’ll be hated by their teachers…
It’s all the same mind-game marketing, just dressed up with new chemicals.
What about obesity?
Did you notice that the Soda Pop Board of America somehow neglected to tell parents that feeding their babies sugary carbonated beverages may result in:
• Obesity
• Diabetes
• Loss of bone density
• Dental cavities
• Nutritional deficiencies
These “side effects” of consuming soda pop are mysteriously never mentioned. (Gee, I wonder why?)
Similarly, modern-day drug companies never tell parents the truth about how psychiatric drugs may cause:
• Diabetes
• Suicidal thoughts
• Violent behavior
• Stunted brain development
In both cases — soda pop companies and pharmaceutical companies — their job is to mislead parents into feeding their children poisons that just happen to generate huge profits for the companies doing the advertising.
The whole point of much of the advertising that goes on today is to mislead and mis-inform parents so that they make purchasing and consumption decisions that stand in contradiction to their own interests.
To continue reading this report, click here.
Birth Weights Fell From 1990 to 2005
January 22, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
January 22, 2010
The Washington Post
By Lauran Neergaard
U.S. newborns are arriving a little smaller, says puzzling new Harvard research that can’t explain why. Fatter mothers tend to produce heavier babies, and obesity is soaring. Yet the study of nearly 37 million births shows newborns were a bit lighter in 2005 than in 1990, ending a half-century of rising birth weights.
The change isn’t big: The average birth weight of full-term babies is just under 7 1/2 pounds, a drop of about 1.8 ounces, researchers reported Thursday in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
That’s surprising considering doctor warnings about 9-pound, or bigger, babies. So the researchers double-checked.
The proportion born large for their gestational age dropped about 2 percent, which is good.
“What physicians are responding to is that the bigger babies are getting bigger,” said lead researcher Dr. Emily Oken of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. Plus, “babies are still bigger than they were 30, 40, 50 years ago. It’s just the trend seems to have flattened or reversed itself.”
That’s particularly true for women at lowest risk for too-small babies: White, well-educated, married non-smokers who got early prenatal care. Still, their babies, on average, weighed 2.8 ounces less over the study period.
Babies born too big are at increased risk of obesity and diabetes later in life. On the other hand, babies born too small may require intensive care right away and also be at risk for later chronic diseases. The proportion of babies small for their gestational age did increase slightly, by 1 percent, Oken said.
Moreover, babies’ length at birth suggests even full-term pregnancies are 2.5 days shorter than they used to be. That can’t account for all the weight change, and Oken couldn’t find a full explanation from the birth certificates she studied.
Oken excluded premature babies, as well as twins or other multiples, from her study. (Obese mothers also are at higher risk of having a preemie.) Yes, there are more scheduled cesarean sections or induced labors now, but her analysis concluded that wasn’t to blame.
But that’s not clear as induction often isn’t listed on birth certificates, and the study found a drop in babies born at 40 or 41 weeks gestation, noted Dr. Joann Petrini, an adviser to the March of Dimes.
Regardless, it’s too soon know what this drop means for babies but “we should keep vigilant” about any decline among the smallest newborns, Petrini said.
The study uses the most recent data available from official U.S. birth certificates.
