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
June 14, 2011
By Daniel Nasaw
More than 60,000 Americans were sterilised, many against their will, as part of a eugenics movement that finished in 1979, aimed at keeping the poor and mentally ill from having children. Now, decades on, one state is considering compensation.
In 1968, Elaine Riddick was raped by a neighbour who threatened to kill her if she told what happened.
She was 13, the daughter of violent and abusive parents in the desperately poor country town of Winfall, in the US state of North Carolina.
While she was in hospital giving birth, the state violated her a second time, she says.
A social worker who had deemed her “feeble-minded” petitioned the state Eugenics Board to have her sterilised.
Officials coerced her illiterate grandmother into signing an “x” on an authorisation form. After performing a Caesarean section, doctors sterilised her “just like cutting a hog”, she says.
“They killed my kids,” Ms Riddick says. “They killed mine before they got to me. They stopped it.”
Sterilisation in the UK and Europe
While eugenics is now recognised as a pseudoscience – and after the Nazis, one with murderous consequences – it was once a respectable branch of the social sciences.
The term ‘eugenics’, meaning “good birth”, was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, an English scientist who pushed the University College London to found a department to study the field.
Sir Winston Churchill once called for forced sterilisation of “the feeble-minded and insane classes”.
While eugenic sterilisation never became official policy in the UK – in part due to opposition from the Catholic church – Finland, Norway, and Sweden adopted the sterilisation laws in the 1930s.
Between 1933 and 1945, more than 400,000 Germans were sterilised under Nazi “racial hygiene” laws, according to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Nearly four decades after the last person was sterilised under North Carolina’s eugenics programme, a state task force is seeking the 2,900 victims of sterilisation officials estimate are still alive.
The group hopes to gather their stories and ultimately to recommend the state award them restitution. But with public coffers under severe pressure amid a flagging recovery, it is not clear the legislature will agree.
“I know I can’t make it right but at least I can address it,” said North Carolina state legislator Larry Womble. He hopes “to let the world know what a horrendous thing the government has perpetrated on these young boys and girls”.
America’s sterilisation movement was part of a broad effort to cleanse the country’s population of characteristics and social groups deemed unwanted, an effort that included anti-race mixing and strict immigration quotas aimed at Eastern Europeans, Jews and Italians.
Beginning with Indiana in 1907, 32 states eventually passed laws allowing authorities to order the sterilisation of people deemed unfit to breed. The last programme ended in 1979.
The victims were criminals and juvenile delinquents, women deemed sexual deviants, homosexual men, poor people on welfare, people who were mentally ill or suffered from epilepsy. African Americans and Hispanic Americans were disproportionately targeted in some states.
April 27th, 2011
By: Susan Page and Jackie Kucinich
President Obama, trying to squelch a persistent and distracting controversy over whether he was born in the United States, on Wednesday released the official long-form birth certificate that skeptics had demanded.
The signed-and-sealed Certificate of Live Birth shows he was born exactly where he had said: Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu. During the 2008 campaign, he had released a copy of his Certification of Live Birth, a shorter official form with fewer details.
At a morning White House news conference, Obama said he decided to seek the official waiver needed to obtain the longer document after the debate over competing deficit reduction plans by him and House Republicans were overshadowed by the conspiracy theories fanned by possible GOP presidential contender Donald Trump and others.
“We’ve got some enormous challenges out there,” the president told reporters in the briefing room. “I am confident that the American people and America’s political leaders can come together in a bipartisan way and solve these problems. … (But) we aren’t going to be able to solve these problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”
Trump, at a news conference of his own in New Hampshire, bragged that he had forced the president to release the document. “I’m very proud of myself because I accomplished something that nobody else was able to accomplish,” he said.
Then he immediately pivoted to another issue involving Obama’s personal qualifications, saying he had read that Obama was a poor student and asking how he had won admission to Columbia University and Harvard Law School, both elite institutions. “I don’t know why he doesn’t release his records” from his school days, Trump said.
Democratic consultant Phil Singer said it was smart of the White House to release the longer birth document.
“This is a non-issue that for whatever reason takes up space that would otherwise be dedicated to the good things that the president is doing, so it makes every piece of sense in the world to try to take the issue off the table,” said Singer, an aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 primaries against Obama.
“It probably would have been a good thing if they’d done it when the issue first surfaced, but better late than never,” he said.
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll released Monday showed the issue gaining surprising traction, given that investigations by news outlets and non-partisan organizations consistently concluded there was no question about Obama’s place of birth. In the poll, taken last week, only 38% of Americans said they thought the president was “definitely” born in the United States; 18% said he “probably” was.
Nearly one in four, 24%, said he was probably or definitely born in another country. Nineteen percent said they didn’t know enough to say.
Among Republicans, 43% said Obama was definitely or probably born abroad — more than the 35% who said he was definitely or probably born in the USA.
“This has long been a settled issue,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. “The speaker’s focus is on cutting spending, lowering gas prices and creating American jobs.”
Obama also said he was focused on jobs, the economy and other big challenges. But he pointedly noted that the release of his birth certificate was consuming more news attention that the pending White House announcement of appointments of a new Defense secretary and CIA chief.
And Trump sounded like a candidate undeterred by the loss of the issue that had drawn him attention, saying he would announce his decision on the finale of his TV reality show, Celebrity Apprentice.
“I think if I do run, I’ll do very well,” Trump said. “I think I’d beat Obama.”
February 8th, 2011
By: Vanessa Bostwick
A new study released by researchers at American University, the University of Chicago, and Cornell University found that how long a mom works has a direct impact on the weight of her children.
The study, which charted the growth of 990 kids starting in 1991 from their birth through childhood, found that number of years that a mother spent away from home due to work-related reasons was related to an increase in their children’s body mass index, or BMI. A BMI that is higher than average can lead into obesity in adulthood.
The researchers believe that these higher obesity rates can be attributed to the fact that when mothers work long hours and get home late, they are not as likely to cook healthy meals for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and these mothers are not able to grocery-shop for healthier food options.
Instead, tired moms may opt for fast food or other take-out options that are high in fat and provide a quick meal.
Study author Taryn Morrissey said, “About a fifth of American children are considered obese, and childhood obesity has been associated with health, behavior, and academic problems in adolescence and adulthood… community- and school- based programs offer promise for promoting healthy weight by providing information to children and their families about nutrition and exercise, as well as how to make quick, healthy meals.”
According to SmartAboutHealth.com, researchers do not necessarily blame the work specifically, but instead blame the environment it creates at home in terms of sleep habits and meal patterns.
The study will be published in the February issue of Child Development.
January 14th, 2011
The Autism News
While no cure is known for autism, researchers believe environmental factors and genetics to play a role. In fact, new findings show the duration between pregnancies may directly impact the risks of having a child with autism.
A study from Columbia University found that women who, after giving birth to their first child, quickly become pregnant again, notice drastically higher chances of having a baby with autism.
Researchers analyzed time between births and the health records of more than 500,000 children who were born second.
Dr. Thomas Frazier, an autism authority, explained that second-child autism rates are increased if the child is born between 12 months or less of the first child. The numbers from the study backed him up.
Children born between 12-24 months after the birth of a first child noticed 125 percent increase of autism cases.
One suggestion for this is that a woman may lack vital nutrients after the birth of their first child, including folate and iron. Additionally, higher levels of stress may negatively affect the health of the second-born child.
Researchers explain that a number of factors may be at fault, and additional research is being done to narrow down the largest risk factors.
December 8th, 2010
By: Jenny Hope
Pregnant women who regularly use mobile phones could increase the risk of their children behaving badly, claims a startling survey.
If their offspring then start using the devices at an early age, the chance of problems climbs to 50 per cent, according to researchers.
They found those exposed to mobile phones in the womb had a 30 per cent rise in behavioural difficulties at the age of seven.
But those exposed before birth and in their childhood, were 50 per cent more likely to have behavioural problems than those exposed to neither.
Children who used mobiles, but were not exposed in the womb, were 20 per cent more likely to display abnormal behaviour.
The findings by researchers in California are likely to reinforce warnings that children should not use mobile phones.
However, some British scientists were sceptical, saying the findings may be due to lifestyle factors rather than mobiles.
In the study of 29,000 youngsters, mothers provided details of their lifestyle, diet and environment during and after pregnancy.
Information on their children’s health and mobile phone use was also recorded. Around three per cent of children scored abnormal on behavioural issues, with another three per cent ‘borderline’.
The study found that more than ten per cent of children exposed to mobile phones in the womb had mothers who spoke on them at least four times a day.
Nearly half of the mothers had their phones turned on at all times while around a third of children were using a mobile phone by the age of seven.
The findings published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health mirrored an earlier study by the survey team.
Researcher Dr Leeka Kheifets said both sets of results ‘demonstrated that cell phone use was associated with behavioural problems at age seven years’.
The scientists said social factors, such as mothers paying more attention to mobiles than their children, were only partly to blame. Dr Kheifets added: ‘We are concerned that early exposure to cell phones could carry a risk.’
In Britain, Professor Lawrie Challis, a leading government adviser on the radiation effects of mobile phones, has gone on record saying children should not use them until aged at least 12. But more than half of under-tens own a mobile.
Patricia McKinney, emeritus professor of paediatric epidemiology at the University of Leeds, said it was difficult to see how mobile use could affect an unborn baby.
She said: ‘Exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones is highly localised to the part of the head closest. There is no evidence to suggest that other parts of the body are affected.
‘We also have no evidence that a pregnant mother’s behaviour is related to her mobile phone use and thereby affecting her baby.’
Professor David Spiegelhalter, from the University of Cambridge, was also ‘sceptical’ of the results.
He said: ‘One finding is that very young children who use mobile phones show more behavioural disorders. But is it plausible that the first causes the second?’
Professor David Coggon, from the University of Southampton, said: ‘The pattern of results suggests the increase in behavioural problems may have been caused by factors other than mobile phone use.’
In May, the largest study of its kind said that using a mobile does not appear to increase the risk of certain types of brain cancer.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer analysed data for more than 10,000 people and found no link between years of use and risk.
November 2nd, 2010
By: David Gutierrez
Regular consumption of artificial sweeteners by pregnant women may increase their risk of premature birth, according to a study funded by the European Union and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Researchers interviewed almost 60,000 pregnant Danish women about their soft-drink consumption, then compared these data with the results of the women’s births. They found that drinking one can of diet soda per day increased her risk of giving birth prematurely by 38 percent compared with women who never drank diet soda. Drinking four or more of the beverages per day increased the risk of preterm birth by 78 percent.
A preterm birth is defined as taking place before the 38th week of pregnancy.
No connection was found between sugared soda consumption and premature birth, suggesting that artificial sweeteners may be playing a role in the effect. The researchers suggested that premature births may be triggered in part by the neurotoxin methanol, which is generated by some artificial sweeteners. Sweeteners may also generate formaldehyde, another known toxin.
Prior studies have also shown that the artificial sweetener saccharin builds up in the placenta.
“I would think it is prudent for pregnant women to diminish consumption of these drinks and possibly those foods containing artificial sweeteners,” said Erik Millstone of the University of Sussex.
Mary Ellen Sherry of the University of Tennessee Medical Center was cautious about the results, noting, “There are a lot of risk factors for prematurity. Poor nutritional health is one. Underweight is one.”
She urged women to start taking care of their bodies and eating a balanced diet even before becoming pregnant, if possible, making sure to get plenty of protein, calcium and folic acid.
As for diet soft drinks, she pointed out that they provide no nutritional benefit to your diet, so you lose nothing by giving them up.
“If you are afraid of it, don’t do it,” she said. “That’s one thing that’s easy to give up, diet drinks.”
September 13, 2010
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.”
August 23rd, 2010
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.”
March 15, 2010
By David Gutierrez
The government of Denmark has released a 326-page report affirming that endocrine disrupting chemicals are probably continuing to the birth of fewer males and the “feminization” of existing ones.
The report centers on chemicals like PVC, flame retardants, phthalates, dioxins, PCBs and bisphenol-A, all of which mimic the action of estrogen in the body. The researchers concluded that due to the prevalence of these chemicals, children could easily be exposed to high enough levels to place them at “critical risk” of harm.
The chemicals have been blamed for falling sperm counts among men worldwide, and their full effects remain unknown. A study by researchers at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, found that male children who had been exposed to PCBs and dioxins while in the womb were more likely to dress up in female clothes and play with dolls than boys who had not been. Other research has documented a connection between prenatal phthalate exposure and “feminization” of male genitals, including smaller penises.
Evidence is increasingly emerging that estrogen mimics might also be responsible for a puzzling phenomenon: fewer boys are being born than ever before. Typically, 106 male children are born for every 100 females in most populations. In recent years, however, this distribution has been shifting in favor of females, with endocrine disruptors a likely culprit.
For example, a Canadian Inuit community living on Lake Huron and surrounded by chemical factories produces two girls for every boy born. Similar phenomena have been observed in contaminated communities in Brazil, Israel, Italy, Taiwan and the Arctic Circle, as well as among workers in Russian pesticide factories.
Many hormone-mimicking chemicals build up in the body and resist environmental degradation, meaning that they are now widely distributed across the planet.
“There is very little, if anything, individuals can do to prevent contamination of themselves and their families,” the environmental group WWF said.