(NaturalNews) The antiviral drug Tamiflu, widely prescribed as a treatment for H1N1 swine flu, produces neuropsychiatric side effects such as nightmares in nearly 20 percent of all children treated with it, according to a pair of studies conducted by researchers from the United Kingdom's Heath Protection Agency.
The Japanese government recommends against treating teenagers with Tamiflu due to the neuropsychiatric risk.
Currently, Tamiflu is offered to everyone in the United Kingdom who shows sings of infection with swine flu. More than 150,000 people were treated with the drug during the last week of July alone. Combined with these figures, the current study reinforces fears that the drug is being drastically over-prescribed.
"The National Pandemic Flu Service has been a great success, and was needed to take the pressure off general practitioners (GPs)," said Peter Holden, the British Medical Association's primary swine flu expert. "But the threshold for getting Tamiflu should be quite high. For patients who are not in the high-risk groups -- such as pregnant women, people with bad asthma or with suppressed immune systems -- this virus typically causes mild symptoms and does not require a course of Tamiflu. Patients in the at-risk groups should be referred to their GP, who will use their clinical judgment."
The first study, published in the journal Eurosurveillance, examined side effects in 85 London schoolchildren who had been preventively treated with Tamiflu in April and May after one of their classmates was diagnosed with swine flu. Forty-five of these children, or 53 percent, experienced at least one side effect. Twenty-nine percent of children experienced nausea, 20 percent experienced stomach cramps or pain, and 12 percent had trouble sleeping. Almost 20 percent experienced at least one neuropsychiatric side effect, such as nightmares, strange behavior or an inability to think clearly.
Similar results were found in a second study, conducted on schoolchildren in the South West.
The researchers noted that 20 percent of adults treated with Tamiflu also experience nausea or vomiting.
Sources for this story include: www.timesonline.co.uk.
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Dirty, contaminated beef fed to children through school lunch programs
(NaturalNews) The USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recently issued a shocking report (http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/246...) about the condition of the nation's industrial meat supply. It turns out that a lot of the U.S. meat supply is tainted with veterinary drugs, pesticides and heavy metals.
According to the report, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, or FSIS, continues to fail at properly monitoring the safety of the nation's meat supply. So tainted meat is regularly being approved for sale, much of which ends up in school lunch rooms where it is fed to -- guess who? -- our children!
What's truly disturbing about this is that the USDA knows why meat it getting tainted but it's doing nothing about it. In fact, the agency regularly allows toxic meat to make its way to store shelves without even trying to stop it.
We're not talking about microbial pathogens here; we're talking about chemical contaminants that cattle are eating and then passing on to consumers. These contaminants are not cooked off like pathogens are, and they can actually intensify when cooked and become more harmful.
The types of contaminants that are ending up in meat are things like veterinary drugs and antibiotics that industrial agriculture uses to keep animals from dying before slaughter. You see, industrial farming is so filthy and unnatural that animals raised there wouldn't stand a chance without a steady stream of drugs to keep them alive.
The irony about the excess use of drugs and antibiotics is that these things actually end up causing the diseases they are meant to treat and prevent. But the conditions in which these animals live are typically so horrendous that they probably wouldn't make it to the slaughter without these toxic chemical interventions.
These agencies are supposed to work together to establish tolerance levels for various pesticides, drugs and toxins in an effort to minimize their presence in the food. But according to the report, the agencies have not even established thresholds for many of the dangerous substances being found in meat, let alone test for them.
The agencies did jointly establish a Surveillance Advisory Team (SAT) and an Interagency Residue Control Group (IRCG) to help them accomplish program goals, but since none of them have actually committed to realistically achieving these goals, the whole program has basically gone nowhere.
Every year, the SAT is supposed to bring together the FDA, EPA and FSIS to establish which residues they will test for that year. But each year, no matter what has been agreed upon, the FSIS continues to test for only one type of pesticide.
According to the EPA, the FSIS is refusing its requests to test for more pesticides. The FSIS, however, claims that the EPA has not established tolerances for many of those pesticides, so it can't test for them (while also insisting that it just doesn't have enough resources to do the testing).
For items that do get tested, the FSIS relies on the FDA to approve proper testing methods. However the FDA only wants to use testing methods that are old and outdated. When newer, better methods are recommended, the FDA is often unwilling or unable to use them.
The methods of these various agencies often conflict with one another, which is why the SAT was established in the first place. It was meant to be the coordinator of the three agencies to help them communicate and get the job done. But instead of coordinating, it seems to exist more as a formality while the three blame each other for not getting anything done.
The agencies are generally run so poorly and corruptly that it is surprising they get anything done at all. The only things they seem to have time to do is harass supplement makers and shut down raw milk producers, all while turning a blind eye to the industry players that are really causing most of the problems.
In 2008, one meat plant had over 200 violations, but the FSIS still classified the violations as "not reasonably likely to occur" and allowed the plant to continue operating as usual -- business as usual in the meat industry, eh?
The meat industry gets away with a lot, and the things it gets away with are no small matter. Take, for instance, the practice of cow "recycling". When a cow gets too old or sick to produce milk, she is handed over to a slaughter facility to be turned into meat. (The industry term for these animals is "spent" dairy cows).
Why is this a problem? According to the report, the plants that process spent dairy cows represent over 90 percent of the residue violations discovered in a 2008 investigation.
These same plants also process "bob" veal, or male calves that are born to dairy cows. Dairy cows are given large amounts of antibiotics after they birth calves in order to treat birth-related infections. Since dairy producers are required to wait a certain amount of time after administering the drugs before using their milk for human consumption, they just go ahead and feed the tainted milk to the bob veal calves in order not to "waste" it.
Since the drugs never got a chance to clear out of the system, it eventually ends up in the veal meat at the store. So when you eat veal meat, you're essentially eating bovine antibiotics.
And if the calves' mothers don't recovery quickly enough with the antibiotics, the producer may sell them off to be slaughtered before they die. That way they will at least make some money off those cows. Unfortunately, this results in even more antibiotics going into the beef food chain.
Of course they've given the sludge a politically-correct name, "distillers' grains", but it doesn't change the fact that it is a waste byproduct that is harmful to animals forced to eat it.
The USDA has known since 2008 that animals who eat distillers' grains are more likely to harbor dangerous pathogens like E. coli, but has stated that it would not regulate the use of distillers' grains as cattle feed.
Since the ethanol fermentation process requires a lot of antibiotics to control it, antibiotic residues are plentiful in distillers' grains. And not only that, distillers' grains are loaded with mycotoxins linked to an oxidative imbalance in pigs called Mulberry Heart Disease (MHD) that can cause them to die suddenly.
No wonder pigs are sicker than ever; they're being fed toxic waste as food! But large hog producers don't really care because it saves them money, and the USDA doesn't care because, well, they basically represent the interests of the animal slaughter industry (the pork, beef and chicken industries).
As long as the ethanol producers are happy, the hog producers are happy, and enough organizations continue to sing the praises of distillers' grains, then there's no need to protect the public from the dangers of the tainted end result, it seems. Nobody will notice, right?
These are just a few of the many violations that the FSIS, FDA and EPA seem unconcerned about. And this isn't merely my personal opinion: These things are stated in the report itself as fact.
The tainted meat usually comes from low-grade providers, so schools are quick to snatch it up and feed it to children because it's dirt cheap. And fortunately, it's labeled, "Suitable for human consumption."
Millions of American children, who are still in their developmental stages, are eating cheeseburgers filled with antibiotics, pharmaceutical drugs and toxic chemicals -- all thanks to the greed of powerful industries and the inexcusable depth of corruption within agricultural regulatory agencies.
This tainted meat also makes its way to grocery stores, big-box warehouses and even restaurants. Anywhere you're buying hamburger meat (or just hamburgers), you're likely to be chowing down on meat laced with toxic chemicals, antibiotics and other pharmaceutical drugs.
Yet, amazingly, these issues are never addressed publicly. The general public has no idea that industrial meat contains a cocktail of dangerous toxins. They have no clue that the regulatory agencies that are supposed to be protecting them can't even properly communicate with each other, let alone protect the public. Most people have no idea just how bad things really are.
Whenever there is a recall, nobody talks about why the meat got tainted or how it managed to pass by regulators without being stopped. There is never a discussion about the underlying flaws in the meat system itself that encourage contamination. Instead, regulators unleash a chorus of whining over how underfunded they are and how everything would be fixed if the entire food supply was simply irradiated before hitting store shelves.
Except irradiation doesn't destroy heavy metals and pharmaceuticals. It only makes the meat appear to be safe in the short term because it doesn't make anybody sick the very next day.
Just last summer, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2749, the "Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009" and a Senate version of the bill is likely to be voted on this summer.
But these food safety bills don't actually make food any safer.
Basically these bills will give more power to agencies like the FDA (who are already failing at their current tasks) while greatly increasing the regulatory burdens on small growers and ranchers who produce high-quality, safe food. Such bills completely avoid addressing the root causes of food contamination and instead create larger bureaucracies with more unchecked power that will only be unleashed against small operators rather than agro-industry giants.
The idea is utterly insane, but as long as it claims to deal with "food safety", most people will blindly accept it as something good. After all, the politicians and the corporations that sponsor them wouldn't lie to us, would they? (Chuckle...)
It's important for us all to oppose any and all food "safety" bills that threaten to eliminate the very operations that produce safe food. Protections for local and family farms must be present in any legislation, otherwise they will be forced out of business. The Cornucopia Institute is doing a lot of great work in this area, so be sure to check their website for regular updates: www.Cornucopia.org
Conscious consumers must also start seeking alternative sources of food that are not produced out of the current corrupt system. Local farms, food cooperatives and community supported agriculture (CSA) are great sources of safe food, and they offer the opportunity to develop a relationship with the people who raise the food.
You can also choose to grow your own food at home. Whether urban or rural, there are workable solutions to raising your own food at home, regardless of your situation. Even those who don't have any yard space can grow sprouts on a kitchen counter. (That's food, too!)
Knowing the source of your food and how it has been raised is crucial to ensuring food safety for yourself and your family. And remember: You vote with your dollars. It's up to you to choose food products from small, local growers rather than the corporate agro-giants that would much prefer to just shove their dirty, contaminated beef down your throat at every meal.
Cheeseburger, anyone?
According to the report, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, or FSIS, continues to fail at properly monitoring the safety of the nation's meat supply. So tainted meat is regularly being approved for sale, much of which ends up in school lunch rooms where it is fed to -- guess who? -- our children!
What's truly disturbing about this is that the USDA knows why meat it getting tainted but it's doing nothing about it. In fact, the agency regularly allows toxic meat to make its way to store shelves without even trying to stop it.
We're not talking about microbial pathogens here; we're talking about chemical contaminants that cattle are eating and then passing on to consumers. These contaminants are not cooked off like pathogens are, and they can actually intensify when cooked and become more harmful.
Pathogens vs. Chemical Contaminants
It is important to make this distinction between pathogens like E. coli versus chemical residues like pharmaceutical drugs and heavy metals. The public usually thinks about food contamination in terms of pathogens but often doesn't consider the chemical contamination.The types of contaminants that are ending up in meat are things like veterinary drugs and antibiotics that industrial agriculture uses to keep animals from dying before slaughter. You see, industrial farming is so filthy and unnatural that animals raised there wouldn't stand a chance without a steady stream of drugs to keep them alive.
The irony about the excess use of drugs and antibiotics is that these things actually end up causing the diseases they are meant to treat and prevent. But the conditions in which these animals live are typically so horrendous that they probably wouldn't make it to the slaughter without these toxic chemical interventions.
Why aren't the regulatory agencies doing their job?
This is the same question being asked by OIG in its audit report. The FSIS is tasked with heading up the national residue program with the help of the FDA and EPA, but none of these agencies are actually doing their jobs.These agencies are supposed to work together to establish tolerance levels for various pesticides, drugs and toxins in an effort to minimize their presence in the food. But according to the report, the agencies have not even established thresholds for many of the dangerous substances being found in meat, let alone test for them.
The agencies did jointly establish a Surveillance Advisory Team (SAT) and an Interagency Residue Control Group (IRCG) to help them accomplish program goals, but since none of them have actually committed to realistically achieving these goals, the whole program has basically gone nowhere.
If it's broken, blame someone else
So which agency is actually at fault for the meat safety failures? Well, it depends on which agency you ask. They all blame each other.Every year, the SAT is supposed to bring together the FDA, EPA and FSIS to establish which residues they will test for that year. But each year, no matter what has been agreed upon, the FSIS continues to test for only one type of pesticide.
According to the EPA, the FSIS is refusing its requests to test for more pesticides. The FSIS, however, claims that the EPA has not established tolerances for many of those pesticides, so it can't test for them (while also insisting that it just doesn't have enough resources to do the testing).
For items that do get tested, the FSIS relies on the FDA to approve proper testing methods. However the FDA only wants to use testing methods that are old and outdated. When newer, better methods are recommended, the FDA is often unwilling or unable to use them.
The methods of these various agencies often conflict with one another, which is why the SAT was established in the first place. It was meant to be the coordinator of the three agencies to help them communicate and get the job done. But instead of coordinating, it seems to exist more as a formality while the three blame each other for not getting anything done.
The agencies are generally run so poorly and corruptly that it is surprising they get anything done at all. The only things they seem to have time to do is harass supplement makers and shut down raw milk producers, all while turning a blind eye to the industry players that are really causing most of the problems.
Dirty secrets of the meat industry
According to the report, meat plant violations are not a big deal to the FSIS. The agency routinely allows plants that are in violation to continue operating.In 2008, one meat plant had over 200 violations, but the FSIS still classified the violations as "not reasonably likely to occur" and allowed the plant to continue operating as usual -- business as usual in the meat industry, eh?
The meat industry gets away with a lot, and the things it gets away with are no small matter. Take, for instance, the practice of cow "recycling". When a cow gets too old or sick to produce milk, she is handed over to a slaughter facility to be turned into meat. (The industry term for these animals is "spent" dairy cows).
Why is this a problem? According to the report, the plants that process spent dairy cows represent over 90 percent of the residue violations discovered in a 2008 investigation.
These same plants also process "bob" veal, or male calves that are born to dairy cows. Dairy cows are given large amounts of antibiotics after they birth calves in order to treat birth-related infections. Since dairy producers are required to wait a certain amount of time after administering the drugs before using their milk for human consumption, they just go ahead and feed the tainted milk to the bob veal calves in order not to "waste" it.
Since the drugs never got a chance to clear out of the system, it eventually ends up in the veal meat at the store. So when you eat veal meat, you're essentially eating bovine antibiotics.
And if the calves' mothers don't recovery quickly enough with the antibiotics, the producer may sell them off to be slaughtered before they die. That way they will at least make some money off those cows. Unfortunately, this results in even more antibiotics going into the beef food chain.
Ethanol waste being used as food
Hold on to your (cowboy) hats... it doesn't stop there. Farmers are now actually feeding livestock the industrial waste that is left over after corn is turned into ethanol fuel. It's not enough that industrial producers are recycling old, sick animals for human consumption, but now they are feeding them toxic bio-sludge as well.Of course they've given the sludge a politically-correct name, "distillers' grains", but it doesn't change the fact that it is a waste byproduct that is harmful to animals forced to eat it.
The USDA has known since 2008 that animals who eat distillers' grains are more likely to harbor dangerous pathogens like E. coli, but has stated that it would not regulate the use of distillers' grains as cattle feed.
Since the ethanol fermentation process requires a lot of antibiotics to control it, antibiotic residues are plentiful in distillers' grains. And not only that, distillers' grains are loaded with mycotoxins linked to an oxidative imbalance in pigs called Mulberry Heart Disease (MHD) that can cause them to die suddenly.
No wonder pigs are sicker than ever; they're being fed toxic waste as food! But large hog producers don't really care because it saves them money, and the USDA doesn't care because, well, they basically represent the interests of the animal slaughter industry (the pork, beef and chicken industries).
As long as the ethanol producers are happy, the hog producers are happy, and enough organizations continue to sing the praises of distillers' grains, then there's no need to protect the public from the dangers of the tainted end result, it seems. Nobody will notice, right?
These are just a few of the many violations that the FSIS, FDA and EPA seem unconcerned about. And this isn't merely my personal opinion: These things are stated in the report itself as fact.
Nothing to see here, folks, just move along
The casual way in which the USDA report highlights the failures and gives lip service to fixing them would be humorous if it didn't have such disastrous consequences. For example, much of this meat ends up in the public schools.The tainted meat usually comes from low-grade providers, so schools are quick to snatch it up and feed it to children because it's dirt cheap. And fortunately, it's labeled, "Suitable for human consumption."
Millions of American children, who are still in their developmental stages, are eating cheeseburgers filled with antibiotics, pharmaceutical drugs and toxic chemicals -- all thanks to the greed of powerful industries and the inexcusable depth of corruption within agricultural regulatory agencies.
This tainted meat also makes its way to grocery stores, big-box warehouses and even restaurants. Anywhere you're buying hamburger meat (or just hamburgers), you're likely to be chowing down on meat laced with toxic chemicals, antibiotics and other pharmaceutical drugs.
Yet, amazingly, these issues are never addressed publicly. The general public has no idea that industrial meat contains a cocktail of dangerous toxins. They have no clue that the regulatory agencies that are supposed to be protecting them can't even properly communicate with each other, let alone protect the public. Most people have no idea just how bad things really are.
Whenever there is a recall, nobody talks about why the meat got tainted or how it managed to pass by regulators without being stopped. There is never a discussion about the underlying flaws in the meat system itself that encourage contamination. Instead, regulators unleash a chorus of whining over how underfunded they are and how everything would be fixed if the entire food supply was simply irradiated before hitting store shelves.
Except irradiation doesn't destroy heavy metals and pharmaceuticals. It only makes the meat appear to be safe in the short term because it doesn't make anybody sick the very next day.
Food "safety" laws will only make things worse
The response to food contamination has been to devise food "safety" bills that experts claim will solve the problems of the food system. But a closer look reveals that the bills actually do more to eliminate the good guys than to punish the bad guys.Just last summer, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2749, the "Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009" and a Senate version of the bill is likely to be voted on this summer.
But these food safety bills don't actually make food any safer.
Basically these bills will give more power to agencies like the FDA (who are already failing at their current tasks) while greatly increasing the regulatory burdens on small growers and ranchers who produce high-quality, safe food. Such bills completely avoid addressing the root causes of food contamination and instead create larger bureaucracies with more unchecked power that will only be unleashed against small operators rather than agro-industry giants.
The idea is utterly insane, but as long as it claims to deal with "food safety", most people will blindly accept it as something good. After all, the politicians and the corporations that sponsor them wouldn't lie to us, would they? (Chuckle...)
So how can food really be made safer?
The entire food system itself will have to be radically reformed in order to truly make food safe. Mass-produced food that's factory-made by corporate conglomerates will never be the kind of thing we truly wish to feed our children. Government subsidies for cash crops must end. Policies that favor Big Agribusiness while destroying smaller growers and ranchers must be reversed.It's important for us all to oppose any and all food "safety" bills that threaten to eliminate the very operations that produce safe food. Protections for local and family farms must be present in any legislation, otherwise they will be forced out of business. The Cornucopia Institute is doing a lot of great work in this area, so be sure to check their website for regular updates: www.Cornucopia.org
Conscious consumers must also start seeking alternative sources of food that are not produced out of the current corrupt system. Local farms, food cooperatives and community supported agriculture (CSA) are great sources of safe food, and they offer the opportunity to develop a relationship with the people who raise the food.
You can also choose to grow your own food at home. Whether urban or rural, there are workable solutions to raising your own food at home, regardless of your situation. Even those who don't have any yard space can grow sprouts on a kitchen counter. (That's food, too!)
Knowing the source of your food and how it has been raised is crucial to ensuring food safety for yourself and your family. And remember: You vote with your dollars. It's up to you to choose food products from small, local growers rather than the corporate agro-giants that would much prefer to just shove their dirty, contaminated beef down your throat at every meal.
Cheeseburger, anyone?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Pediatrician molested more than 100 children while state medical board did nothing
(NaturalNews) A Delaware pediatrician recently arrested and charged with molesting more than 100 children was the subject of complaints and investigations almost 10 years ago, but the state medical board never took action against him.
"The system failed. What I don't know, and what we must find out, is where and how," said Gov. Jack Markell.
Earl Bradley was recently arrested after a two-year-old girl told her mother that the doctor had taken her into a basement room after her medical exam and hurt her. Police have since charged him with more than 30 felonies. Prosecutors say that for almost a decade, he raped and otherwise assaulted children in the basement and exam rooms, some of them decorated with Disney themes. In some cases, they say, he videotaped the attacks.
According to pediatrician Lowell Scott, area doctors jokingly referred to Bradley as a "pedophile" due to the way he filled his office with toys and even a merry-go-round. Many of them had also received complaints from clients whose children had previously been patients of Bradley's.
Yet Scott said that no one complained because they had heard accusations but no proof.
"We all felt that he practiced differently than we did. ... None of us had any actual knowledge of him doing any potential harm," Scott said.
As early as 2005, Bradley was already the subject of a police investigation, which led him to close his office and move from Milford to Lewes. Police say they tried to file a complaint with the Board of Medical Practice at the time, but were told that only victims or parents could do so.
State law requires any law enforcement or state agency or medical professional to notify the board in writing within 30 days of coming to believe that a doctor "may be" guilty of unprofessional behavior.
Bradley's own sister and receptionist, Linda Barnes, says she complained twice to the medical board after receiving complaints from parents. The board denies ever receiving any complaints.
Sources for this story include: www.washingtonpost.com.
"The system failed. What I don't know, and what we must find out, is where and how," said Gov. Jack Markell.
Earl Bradley was recently arrested after a two-year-old girl told her mother that the doctor had taken her into a basement room after her medical exam and hurt her. Police have since charged him with more than 30 felonies. Prosecutors say that for almost a decade, he raped and otherwise assaulted children in the basement and exam rooms, some of them decorated with Disney themes. In some cases, they say, he videotaped the attacks.
According to pediatrician Lowell Scott, area doctors jokingly referred to Bradley as a "pedophile" due to the way he filled his office with toys and even a merry-go-round. Many of them had also received complaints from clients whose children had previously been patients of Bradley's.
Yet Scott said that no one complained because they had heard accusations but no proof.
"We all felt that he practiced differently than we did. ... None of us had any actual knowledge of him doing any potential harm," Scott said.
As early as 2005, Bradley was already the subject of a police investigation, which led him to close his office and move from Milford to Lewes. Police say they tried to file a complaint with the Board of Medical Practice at the time, but were told that only victims or parents could do so.
State law requires any law enforcement or state agency or medical professional to notify the board in writing within 30 days of coming to believe that a doctor "may be" guilty of unprofessional behavior.
Bradley's own sister and receptionist, Linda Barnes, says she complained twice to the medical board after receiving complaints from parents. The board denies ever receiving any complaints.
Sources for this story include: www.washingtonpost.com.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Psychiatric Drugs Cause Rapid Weight Gain in Kids
(NaturalNews) A new study has confirmed that atypical antipsychotic drugs can cause rapid weight gain in younger patients, as well as increasing levels of triglycerides and LDL ("bad") cholesterol in their blood.
"We are very much afraid that this will lead to diabetes and metabolic syndrome," researcher Christoph Correll said.
Antipsychotic drugs are intended primarily for people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, but may also be prescribed to children with autism, aggression or tics. The so-called "second generation" or "atypical" antipsychotics have become more popular than older drugs in part because doctors believed them safer. Emerging research suggests this may not be the case, however, as in a 2008 study published in The Lancet.
In 2003, the FDA warned that use of the drugs could lead to elevated blood sugar and diabetes. Numerous studies have also linked the drugs to weight gain.
"We found that obesity/weight gain, Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular conditions were more prevalent in the treated cohort," said Jeanette M. Jerrell, a professor of neuropsychiatry at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, of a study she published in 2008. Jerell found that the risk was even higher among children taking more than one of the drugs.
But studies linking atypical antipsychotics and weight gain have been complicated by the fact that people regularly go on and off the drugs, making it hard to pinpoint a specific drug's contribution. The new study, conducted by researchers from the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, circumvented this problem by including only participants who were receiving treatment with psychotropics for the first time.
The study included 257 people between the ages of four and 19 who were being treated for severe problems with aripiprazole (marketed as Abilify), olanzapine (marketed as Zyprexa), quetiapine (marketed as Seroquel), or risperidone (marketed as Risperdal). They were compared with 15 people in the same age group who were suffering from similar problems but had declined drug-based treatment.
Although only Abilify and Risperdal are currently approved for use in children, all four drugs are used on juveniles in practice. An FDA panel recently recommended that Seroquel and Zyprexa also be approved for some uses in children.
The researchers found that in 11 weeks of treatment, patients taking Abilify gained an average of 9.7 pounds, patients on Risperdal gained 11.7 pounds, patients on Seroquel gained 13.4 pounds and patients on Zyprexa gained 18.7 pounds.
Depending on the drug, between 10 and 36 percent of participants became overweight or obese over the course of the study. Much of the weight gained was in the belly, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
"In these kids that we studied, there was rapid and dramatic weight gain, more than has been described before," Correll said.
Patients taking Seroquel, Risperdal and Zyprexa all showed increases in blood triglyceride levels as well, and Zyprexa also increased LDL cholesterol levels. These are also characteristics of metabolic syndrome, along with central obesity and elevated fasting blood sugar. Metabolic syndrome is a serious risk factor for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Scientists greeted the findings by saying that more data are needed to understand why the drugs cause weight gain and for how long, and why some people lose weight after going off the drugs and others do not.
"Some of these kids are maintained on these medications for many years if not indefinitely, so it's definitely a concern," said Ronald T. Brown of the Temple University Health Sciences Center in Philadelphia. "For children who really don't absolutely need these drugs, they need to be doing more behavioral approaches in psychotherapy."
Sources for this story include: www.usnews.com; www.nlm.nih.gov.
"We are very much afraid that this will lead to diabetes and metabolic syndrome," researcher Christoph Correll said.
Antipsychotic drugs are intended primarily for people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, but may also be prescribed to children with autism, aggression or tics. The so-called "second generation" or "atypical" antipsychotics have become more popular than older drugs in part because doctors believed them safer. Emerging research suggests this may not be the case, however, as in a 2008 study published in The Lancet.
In 2003, the FDA warned that use of the drugs could lead to elevated blood sugar and diabetes. Numerous studies have also linked the drugs to weight gain.
"We found that obesity/weight gain, Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular conditions were more prevalent in the treated cohort," said Jeanette M. Jerrell, a professor of neuropsychiatry at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, of a study she published in 2008. Jerell found that the risk was even higher among children taking more than one of the drugs.
But studies linking atypical antipsychotics and weight gain have been complicated by the fact that people regularly go on and off the drugs, making it hard to pinpoint a specific drug's contribution. The new study, conducted by researchers from the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, circumvented this problem by including only participants who were receiving treatment with psychotropics for the first time.
The study included 257 people between the ages of four and 19 who were being treated for severe problems with aripiprazole (marketed as Abilify), olanzapine (marketed as Zyprexa), quetiapine (marketed as Seroquel), or risperidone (marketed as Risperdal). They were compared with 15 people in the same age group who were suffering from similar problems but had declined drug-based treatment.
Although only Abilify and Risperdal are currently approved for use in children, all four drugs are used on juveniles in practice. An FDA panel recently recommended that Seroquel and Zyprexa also be approved for some uses in children.
The researchers found that in 11 weeks of treatment, patients taking Abilify gained an average of 9.7 pounds, patients on Risperdal gained 11.7 pounds, patients on Seroquel gained 13.4 pounds and patients on Zyprexa gained 18.7 pounds.
Depending on the drug, between 10 and 36 percent of participants became overweight or obese over the course of the study. Much of the weight gained was in the belly, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
"In these kids that we studied, there was rapid and dramatic weight gain, more than has been described before," Correll said.
Patients taking Seroquel, Risperdal and Zyprexa all showed increases in blood triglyceride levels as well, and Zyprexa also increased LDL cholesterol levels. These are also characteristics of metabolic syndrome, along with central obesity and elevated fasting blood sugar. Metabolic syndrome is a serious risk factor for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Scientists greeted the findings by saying that more data are needed to understand why the drugs cause weight gain and for how long, and why some people lose weight after going off the drugs and others do not.
"Some of these kids are maintained on these medications for many years if not indefinitely, so it's definitely a concern," said Ronald T. Brown of the Temple University Health Sciences Center in Philadelphia. "For children who really don't absolutely need these drugs, they need to be doing more behavioral approaches in psychotherapy."
Sources for this story include: www.usnews.com; www.nlm.nih.gov.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Influenza vaccine sends children into convulsions
(NaturalNews) Influenza vaccines have sent 57 children into life-threatening convulsions, reports The Age out of Australia. These influenza vaccines were being give to children under five to "protect" them from seasonal flu, but after receiving the shots, these children started going into convulsions.
An investigation has revealed that there is no quality control problem with any particular batch of influenza vaccines. They all pass quality control, in other words, so the convulsions are being caused by what is intentionally put into the vaccines, not by some mistaken chemical contaminant.
This, of course, baffles conventional doctors who have all been told that vaccines are perfectly safe and could never harm anyone. So rather than pausing to consider what might be contained in the vaccines that's causing children to go into convulsions, they charge ahead with the recommendation that even more people should get vaccines.
Alan Hampson, chairman of Australia's Influenza Specialist Group, "...advised young, healthy people anxious to get the flu vaccine to consider having the swine flu vaccine" reports The Age. There is no amount of real-world evidence, you see, that can break the mythological stranglehold that vaccines have over the minds of mainstream physicians. Even if children start dropping to the floor and convulsing right in front of them, they will continue to push vaccines on even more children.
This mythology is based on the belief that injecting foreign matter into the human body will cause the immune system to adapt to the weakened foreign matter by creating antibodies that fight off future infections. This explanation, however, is pure mythology. In reality, an immune system can only invoke an adaptive response when it is properly nourished with vitamin D. And if the patient has enough vitamin D, they need no vaccine because vitamin D protects them from seasonal influenza in the first place.
Thus, vaccines only "work" in those people who don't need them. People who have the least protection against influenza due to their vitamin D deficiency also have the weakest immune response to vaccines. The vaccines, in other words, just don't work on them.
Children with particularly weak neurology are highly susceptible to neurological damage from vaccines. This damage may take the form of a coma, convulsions, autism or being partially paralyzed. Some children given vaccines soon find themselves in wheelchairs, unable to walk even though previous to the vaccine they were star athletes.
If you're a parent, don't expose your children to vaccine shots! Learn more about the dangers of vaccines with these articles:
Virginia teen athlete in wheel chair after vaccine shot:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027473_G...
Swine flu vaccine linked to paralysis:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026866_s...
Vaccine puts girl in the hospital:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027395_s...
Vaccines linked to neurological disorders:
http://www.naturalnews.com/022642_v...
Ten questions doctors refuse to answer about vaccines:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027258_v...
An investigation has revealed that there is no quality control problem with any particular batch of influenza vaccines. They all pass quality control, in other words, so the convulsions are being caused by what is intentionally put into the vaccines, not by some mistaken chemical contaminant.
This, of course, baffles conventional doctors who have all been told that vaccines are perfectly safe and could never harm anyone. So rather than pausing to consider what might be contained in the vaccines that's causing children to go into convulsions, they charge ahead with the recommendation that even more people should get vaccines.
Alan Hampson, chairman of Australia's Influenza Specialist Group, "...advised young, healthy people anxious to get the flu vaccine to consider having the swine flu vaccine" reports The Age. There is no amount of real-world evidence, you see, that can break the mythological stranglehold that vaccines have over the minds of mainstream physicians. Even if children start dropping to the floor and convulsing right in front of them, they will continue to push vaccines on even more children.
The illusion of vaccine efficacy
Vaccines are based on a scientific-sounding mythology that is widely believed by gullible physicians and scientists who simply believe what they are told rather than what's real.This mythology is based on the belief that injecting foreign matter into the human body will cause the immune system to adapt to the weakened foreign matter by creating antibodies that fight off future infections. This explanation, however, is pure mythology. In reality, an immune system can only invoke an adaptive response when it is properly nourished with vitamin D. And if the patient has enough vitamin D, they need no vaccine because vitamin D protects them from seasonal influenza in the first place.
Thus, vaccines only "work" in those people who don't need them. People who have the least protection against influenza due to their vitamin D deficiency also have the weakest immune response to vaccines. The vaccines, in other words, just don't work on them.
Children with particularly weak neurology are highly susceptible to neurological damage from vaccines. This damage may take the form of a coma, convulsions, autism or being partially paralyzed. Some children given vaccines soon find themselves in wheelchairs, unable to walk even though previous to the vaccine they were star athletes.
If you're a parent, don't expose your children to vaccine shots! Learn more about the dangers of vaccines with these articles:
Virginia teen athlete in wheel chair after vaccine shot:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027473_G...
Swine flu vaccine linked to paralysis:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026866_s...
Vaccine puts girl in the hospital:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027395_s...
Vaccines linked to neurological disorders:
http://www.naturalnews.com/022642_v...
Ten questions doctors refuse to answer about vaccines:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027258_v...
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
New psychiatric disorders flag normal human behaviors as "diseases"
(NaturalNews) The Disease Mongering Engine, which I invented a couple of years ago and posted on NaturalNews, was initially created as a joke to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the fictitious diseases that are constantly created by the psychiatric industry. This hilarious online disease generator (http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...) allows you to instantly create your own fictitious diseases and disorders such as:
• Repetitive Dysmorphic Nose Picking Disorder With Itching (RDNPDWI)
• Oppositional Disorganized Speaking Disorder With Indigestion (ODSDWI)
• Chronic Bipolar Anticipation Dysfunction With Smelly Feet (CBADWSF)
... and so on.
Here's the bizarre part: All of a sudden, the new psychiatric diagnostic manual (DSM-V) appears to have adopted as medical fact many of the disorders that were created by the Disease Mongering Engine!
This new manual, for example, now says that spending a lot of time thinking about sex is a disorder. (That immediately paints every teenage boy as "diseased.")
Another new disease is "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" (ODD), which includes anyone who disagrees with authority. All those who are skeptical about the safety of vaccines, for example, are about to be diagnosed with ODD.
Now, people who are antisocial aren't merely antisocial. They're suffering from "Antisocial Personality Disorder" and require pharmacological treatment. So the prick neighbor isn't merely a prick anymore; he's a "sufferer" of a "disorder" who needs "treatment."
Children are no longer unhappy or throwing a temper tantrum, they are suffering from "Temper Dysregulation Disorder with Dysphoria." (I'm not making this up...)
Are you cracking up yet? If George Carlin were still alive today, he'd go berserk over this... Carlin, of course, would have been diagnosed with countless psychiatric disorders just for being different in his own genius way.
As columnist George Will described it in a Washington Post article, "If every character blemish or emotional turbulence is a "disorder" akin to a physical disability, legal accommodations are mandatory. Under federal law, "disabilities" include any "mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities"; "mental impairments" include "emotional or mental illness." So there might be a legal entitlement to be a jerk."
There might even be legal protections for people who are sexual predators. So the creepy pervert at the office who feels you up in the snack room can't be fired either -- he's only suffering from "Hypersexual Disorder", a new disorder now defined as a "mental illness" by the psychiatric manual which describes it, in part, as: "A great deal of time is consumed by sexual fantasies and urges and by planning for and engaging in sexual behavior." (Well gee, there goes half the population...)
"Childhood eccentricities, sometimes inextricable from creativity, might be labeled "disorders" to be "cured." If 7-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality."
Based on the new DSM-V, children who don't fit in as dumbed-down, average kids will be flagged as diseased and could be cognitively castrated by whatever psychiatric drugs are necessary to bring them down to the level of all the other kids. Why have exceptional children when they can fit in better as "average!"
As the Wall Street Journal reported just yesterday, "Patients who seek psychiatric help today for mood disorders stand a good chance of being diagnosed with a disease that doesn't exist and treated with a medication little more effective than a placebo." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...)
Three years ago, such a sentence only would have appeared on websites like NaturalNews.com, but now these words are appearing in the mainstream media. Amazing.
It just goes to show you that psychiatry has now lost credibility with even the mainstream media that has long support the industry's disease mongering schemes. Psychiatry's greatest achievement over the last decade appears to have been destroying its own integrity, much to the benefit of the world population which would be far better off without psychiatry.
That's my opinion, at least. Or maybe I'm just suffering from Oppositional Defiance Disorder like everyone else who thinks for themselves.
Don't forget to generate your own fictitious psychiatric disorders by playing with the Disease Mongering Engine:
http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...
And while you're at it, check out www.CCHR.org where you can watch full-length documentary exposing the fraud of the psychiatric industry.
• Repetitive Dysmorphic Nose Picking Disorder With Itching (RDNPDWI)
• Oppositional Disorganized Speaking Disorder With Indigestion (ODSDWI)
• Chronic Bipolar Anticipation Dysfunction With Smelly Feet (CBADWSF)
... and so on.
Here's the bizarre part: All of a sudden, the new psychiatric diagnostic manual (DSM-V) appears to have adopted as medical fact many of the disorders that were created by the Disease Mongering Engine!
This new manual, for example, now says that spending a lot of time thinking about sex is a disorder. (That immediately paints every teenage boy as "diseased.")
Another new disease is "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" (ODD), which includes anyone who disagrees with authority. All those who are skeptical about the safety of vaccines, for example, are about to be diagnosed with ODD.
Now, people who are antisocial aren't merely antisocial. They're suffering from "Antisocial Personality Disorder" and require pharmacological treatment. So the prick neighbor isn't merely a prick anymore; he's a "sufferer" of a "disorder" who needs "treatment."
Children are no longer unhappy or throwing a temper tantrum, they are suffering from "Temper Dysregulation Disorder with Dysphoria." (I'm not making this up...)
Are you cracking up yet? If George Carlin were still alive today, he'd go berserk over this... Carlin, of course, would have been diagnosed with countless psychiatric disorders just for being different in his own genius way.
Federal law protects jackasses
The examples of ridiculous disorders seems endless. But here's the real kicker in all this: Thanks to federal laws that were designed to protect people who are physically disabled, people who now "suffer" from these fictitious disorders are now protected under federal law. So the antisocial prick jackass working at your office can't be fired now because he's actually suffering from a diagnosed "mental disorder" and he's being "treated" by psychiatrists.As columnist George Will described it in a Washington Post article, "If every character blemish or emotional turbulence is a "disorder" akin to a physical disability, legal accommodations are mandatory. Under federal law, "disabilities" include any "mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities"; "mental impairments" include "emotional or mental illness." So there might be a legal entitlement to be a jerk."
There might even be legal protections for people who are sexual predators. So the creepy pervert at the office who feels you up in the snack room can't be fired either -- he's only suffering from "Hypersexual Disorder", a new disorder now defined as a "mental illness" by the psychiatric manual which describes it, in part, as: "A great deal of time is consumed by sexual fantasies and urges and by planning for and engaging in sexual behavior." (Well gee, there goes half the population...)
Let's make all the children "normal"
There's another danger in all this psych-tagging of human behavior: What about all the creative, genius children who operate far beyond the intellectual norms of regular, average kids? As George Will explains:"Childhood eccentricities, sometimes inextricable from creativity, might be labeled "disorders" to be "cured." If 7-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality."
Based on the new DSM-V, children who don't fit in as dumbed-down, average kids will be flagged as diseased and could be cognitively castrated by whatever psychiatric drugs are necessary to bring them down to the level of all the other kids. Why have exceptional children when they can fit in better as "average!"
It's all just pure disease mongering
The point in all this is that psychiatry has gone completely loony. Now even the mainstream media is seeing the stupidity in naming every human emotion or eccentricity a "disorder." When the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post (among other mainstream papers) start questioning the validity of modern psychiatry, you know a line has been crossed.As the Wall Street Journal reported just yesterday, "Patients who seek psychiatric help today for mood disorders stand a good chance of being diagnosed with a disease that doesn't exist and treated with a medication little more effective than a placebo." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...)
Three years ago, such a sentence only would have appeared on websites like NaturalNews.com, but now these words are appearing in the mainstream media. Amazing.
It just goes to show you that psychiatry has now lost credibility with even the mainstream media that has long support the industry's disease mongering schemes. Psychiatry's greatest achievement over the last decade appears to have been destroying its own integrity, much to the benefit of the world population which would be far better off without psychiatry.
That's my opinion, at least. Or maybe I'm just suffering from Oppositional Defiance Disorder like everyone else who thinks for themselves.
Don't forget to generate your own fictitious psychiatric disorders by playing with the Disease Mongering Engine:
http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...
And while you're at it, check out www.CCHR.org where you can watch full-length documentary exposing the fraud of the psychiatric industry.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Rates of chronic health problems in children soar
(NaturalNews) Researchers from Mass General Hospital for Children in Boston gathered data about US children with health problems. They looked at conditions that limited activities and/or schooling, required medication and/or specialized equipment and health services, and that lasted for at least a year. The results of this study, just published in the February issue of JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association), show an alarming trend. Chronic health conditions in American kids have increased dramatically in recent years -- rising from 12.8 percent in 1994 to 26.6 percent in 2006.
Over the six year study period, Jeanne Van Cleave, M.D., and her research team estimated changes in prevalence, incidence, and rates of remission in four categories: obesity (defined as a body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for age), asthma, learning or behavior problems, and other physical conditions such as diabetes and heart conditions. They compiled data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-Child Cohort, specifically looking at three groups of children who were between the ages of two through eight at the beginning of each study period. These groups were followed for three periods of six years each -- from 1988 to 1994, 1994 to 2000 and 2000 to 2006.
The results showed that the prevalence of chronic conditions, including obesity, increased with each subsequent group. Male, Hispanic, and black youth were found to be at the highest risk. Bottom line: as the years pass, more and more American kids appear to have chronic health problems when compared to similar youngsters in previous years.
There seems little doubt that the increasing rate of obesity among children and teens, most likely fueled by junk food and lack of exercise, is one important explanation for the increase in children's health problems. But in an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Neal Halfon, M.D., M.P.H., of the University of California at Los Angeles, and Paul W. Newacheck, Dr.P.H., of the University of California at San Francisco, pointed out that other factors must be at work, too.
"The obesity epidemic seemed to develop at a time when many indicators suggested that children's health was generally improving. The data presented by Van Cleave et al suggest that the prevalence of other chronic health conditions is also increasing among U.S. children and that obesity is not the only clinical time bomb ticking away in children. There is an urgent need to better understand why this is the case and what can be done about it," they stated. "Addressing the increasing incidence and prevalence of chronic conditions in children will ultimately require major reforms in the child health system. The child health system needs to do a better job preventing childhood chronic illness. The possibilities for such changes are substantial, as are the implications of not acting."
NaturalNews has previously covered a host of environmental contaminants and toxins that could well be contributing to an increase in children's health problems. For example the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) is used in many hard plastics and can leach from toys and baby bottles. Widely found in the environment, BPA has been linked to health problems in fetuses, babies and children, including attention deficit disorder and neurological symptoms. (http://www.naturalnews.com/024000_b...)
For more information:
http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/about/pr...
Over the six year study period, Jeanne Van Cleave, M.D., and her research team estimated changes in prevalence, incidence, and rates of remission in four categories: obesity (defined as a body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for age), asthma, learning or behavior problems, and other physical conditions such as diabetes and heart conditions. They compiled data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-Child Cohort, specifically looking at three groups of children who were between the ages of two through eight at the beginning of each study period. These groups were followed for three periods of six years each -- from 1988 to 1994, 1994 to 2000 and 2000 to 2006.
The results showed that the prevalence of chronic conditions, including obesity, increased with each subsequent group. Male, Hispanic, and black youth were found to be at the highest risk. Bottom line: as the years pass, more and more American kids appear to have chronic health problems when compared to similar youngsters in previous years.
There seems little doubt that the increasing rate of obesity among children and teens, most likely fueled by junk food and lack of exercise, is one important explanation for the increase in children's health problems. But in an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Neal Halfon, M.D., M.P.H., of the University of California at Los Angeles, and Paul W. Newacheck, Dr.P.H., of the University of California at San Francisco, pointed out that other factors must be at work, too.
"The obesity epidemic seemed to develop at a time when many indicators suggested that children's health was generally improving. The data presented by Van Cleave et al suggest that the prevalence of other chronic health conditions is also increasing among U.S. children and that obesity is not the only clinical time bomb ticking away in children. There is an urgent need to better understand why this is the case and what can be done about it," they stated. "Addressing the increasing incidence and prevalence of chronic conditions in children will ultimately require major reforms in the child health system. The child health system needs to do a better job preventing childhood chronic illness. The possibilities for such changes are substantial, as are the implications of not acting."
NaturalNews has previously covered a host of environmental contaminants and toxins that could well be contributing to an increase in children's health problems. For example the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) is used in many hard plastics and can leach from toys and baby bottles. Widely found in the environment, BPA has been linked to health problems in fetuses, babies and children, including attention deficit disorder and neurological symptoms. (http://www.naturalnews.com/024000_b...)
For more information:
http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/about/pr...
Breastfeeding Could Save The Lives Of 1.3 Million Children a Year
(NaturalNews) Providing breastfeeding education and support to new mothers could prevent more than one million child deaths every year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Although the WHO recommends that infants start breastfeeding within one hour of birth and consume nothing but breast milk -- not even water -- for the first six months of life, less than 40 percent of mothers worldwide meet this goal. Insufficient breastfeeding is a problem in both rich and poor countries, the agency says.
Because breast milk provides the exact combination of nutrients that a developing infant needs, no artificial formula or adult food can match its nutritive value. In addition, breast milk provides important antibodies to the underdeveloped infant immune system, and helps children's immune systems develop in a healthy way. Even a formula that provides nutrition similar to that of breast milk does not provide this critical, immune-boosting function.
If 90 percent of women met the WHO breastfeeding guidelines, the agency says, 13 percent of global deaths under the age of five could be prevented, translating into 1.3 million lives saved per year.
Although many women start out breastfeeding, large numbers abandon the practice because they are unable to get the baby to latch on properly or do not know how to breastfeed without suffering unbearable pain or discomfort.
"When it comes to doing it practically, they don't have the practical support," said the WHO's Constanza Vallenas.
WHO Director-General Margaret Chan noted that during disasters, well-meaning donations of formula may encourage women to stop breastfeeding just at the time when the practice is most critical.
"During emergencies, unsolicited or uncontrolled donations of breast milk substitutes may undermine breastfeeding and should be avoided," she said. "The focus should be on active protection and support of breastfeeding."
Chan said that mothers in disaster zones need more support to be able to continue or resume breastfeeding.
Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com.
Although the WHO recommends that infants start breastfeeding within one hour of birth and consume nothing but breast milk -- not even water -- for the first six months of life, less than 40 percent of mothers worldwide meet this goal. Insufficient breastfeeding is a problem in both rich and poor countries, the agency says.
Because breast milk provides the exact combination of nutrients that a developing infant needs, no artificial formula or adult food can match its nutritive value. In addition, breast milk provides important antibodies to the underdeveloped infant immune system, and helps children's immune systems develop in a healthy way. Even a formula that provides nutrition similar to that of breast milk does not provide this critical, immune-boosting function.
If 90 percent of women met the WHO breastfeeding guidelines, the agency says, 13 percent of global deaths under the age of five could be prevented, translating into 1.3 million lives saved per year.
Although many women start out breastfeeding, large numbers abandon the practice because they are unable to get the baby to latch on properly or do not know how to breastfeed without suffering unbearable pain or discomfort.
"When it comes to doing it practically, they don't have the practical support," said the WHO's Constanza Vallenas.
WHO Director-General Margaret Chan noted that during disasters, well-meaning donations of formula may encourage women to stop breastfeeding just at the time when the practice is most critical.
"During emergencies, unsolicited or uncontrolled donations of breast milk substitutes may undermine breastfeeding and should be avoided," she said. "The focus should be on active protection and support of breastfeeding."
Chan said that mothers in disaster zones need more support to be able to continue or resume breastfeeding.
Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Air Pollution Can Reduce a Child's IQ
(NaturalNews) Exposure to air pollution in the womb can significantly reduce a child's IQ, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Mailman School of Public Health in New York and published in the journal Pediatrics.
The researchers conducted the experiment on pregnant, non-smoking black and Dominican American women between the ages of 18 and 35 who were living in the New York City neighborhoods of Harlem, South Bronx or Washington Heights. The participants wore personal air monitors during pregnancy, providing the researchers accurate data on the women's exposure to a class of air pollutants known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The participant's children were then subjected to standardized IQ tests at age five.
"These results provide evidence that environmental PAHs at levels encountered in New York City air can affect children's IQ adversely," the researchers concluded.
PAHs are produced by the burning of fossil fuels and other organic materials, including tobacco. The major source of PAH pollution in urban areas is automobile exhaust.
The researchers found that after adjusting for other factors that might affect IQ, children of mothers who had high PAH exposure during pregnancy had IQ scores an average of 4.31 points lower than children of mothers with lower exposure. The difference in verbal IQ scores was even higher, with children of high-exposure mothers scoring an average of 4.61 points lower. This IQ difference is equivalent to that seen in children with low-level lead exposure.
"These findings are of concern because these decreases in IQ could be educationally meaningful in terms of school performance," lead author Frederica Perera said.
High PAH exposure was defined as higher than the participants' median exposure level, 2.26 nanograms per cubic meter. It was a comparative measure used for the purposes of the study only, and not linked to any health recommendations.
Previous research has already suggested that PAH exposure can cause cancer and damage the neurological and reproductive systems.
Sources for this story include: www.upi.com; latimesblogs.latimes.com.
The researchers conducted the experiment on pregnant, non-smoking black and Dominican American women between the ages of 18 and 35 who were living in the New York City neighborhoods of Harlem, South Bronx or Washington Heights. The participants wore personal air monitors during pregnancy, providing the researchers accurate data on the women's exposure to a class of air pollutants known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The participant's children were then subjected to standardized IQ tests at age five.
"These results provide evidence that environmental PAHs at levels encountered in New York City air can affect children's IQ adversely," the researchers concluded.
PAHs are produced by the burning of fossil fuels and other organic materials, including tobacco. The major source of PAH pollution in urban areas is automobile exhaust.
The researchers found that after adjusting for other factors that might affect IQ, children of mothers who had high PAH exposure during pregnancy had IQ scores an average of 4.31 points lower than children of mothers with lower exposure. The difference in verbal IQ scores was even higher, with children of high-exposure mothers scoring an average of 4.61 points lower. This IQ difference is equivalent to that seen in children with low-level lead exposure.
"These findings are of concern because these decreases in IQ could be educationally meaningful in terms of school performance," lead author Frederica Perera said.
High PAH exposure was defined as higher than the participants' median exposure level, 2.26 nanograms per cubic meter. It was a comparative measure used for the purposes of the study only, and not linked to any health recommendations.
Previous research has already suggested that PAH exposure can cause cancer and damage the neurological and reproductive systems.
Sources for this story include: www.upi.com; latimesblogs.latimes.com.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Food industry continues to market junk food to children
(NaturalNews) A study conducted by Children Now, a California-based child advocacy group, has been released that indicts the food industry for continuing to market unhealthy food to children. Despite many food companies' expressed willingness in years prior to self-regulate themselves and shift their advertising efforts towards more healthy fare, little change has been seen.
In 2006, the Institute of Medicine (IM) made recommendations to the food industry to reform their marketing strategies towards promoting more healthy, nutritious food rather than junk food. In 2007, the U.S. Council of Better Business Bureaus launched the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, an effort aimed at meeting the IM recommendations. Over 12 of the nation's largest food producers agreed to cooperate in changing their advertising strategies.
The current study found that despite their promises, the food industry has generally failed to adopt any of the primary recommendations. Advertisements continue to entice children with nutritionally-deficient foods that are attractive to them, often trying to pass their products off as healthy when they are not.
Dr. Dale Kunkel, the author of the study, has concluded based on years of research that the marketing of junk food is a substantial contributor to childhood obesity. More than 72 percent of television food advertisements aimed at children today are for food products in the worst nutritional category. Only one percent of all advertising is for truly healthy foods.
Prior to 2005 when the initiative began, 84 percent of television ads were for food products in the worst nutritional category, representing a 14-percent drop since that time. Dr. Kunkel sees this as too little and is hoping that Congressional intervention will be the next step.
The junk food corporations, of course, now claim "free speech" rights thanks to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively grants corporations the same free speech rights as individuals. So now we're going to be overrun by "free speech" advertisements for junk food, targeted to children and infants in order to hook them on processed junk foods.
Corporations should be stripped of such rights. The corporatocracy cannot be allowed to poison our children with more toxic junk foods and sodas laced with chemical sweeteners.
The United States of America is supposed to be a nation of the People, by the People and for the People... not for the corporations!
Any nation that raises its children on junk foods has no real future. Sadly, that now seems to include the United States of America.
Sources for this story include:
http://uanews.org/node/29055
In 2006, the Institute of Medicine (IM) made recommendations to the food industry to reform their marketing strategies towards promoting more healthy, nutritious food rather than junk food. In 2007, the U.S. Council of Better Business Bureaus launched the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, an effort aimed at meeting the IM recommendations. Over 12 of the nation's largest food producers agreed to cooperate in changing their advertising strategies.
The current study found that despite their promises, the food industry has generally failed to adopt any of the primary recommendations. Advertisements continue to entice children with nutritionally-deficient foods that are attractive to them, often trying to pass their products off as healthy when they are not.
Dr. Dale Kunkel, the author of the study, has concluded based on years of research that the marketing of junk food is a substantial contributor to childhood obesity. More than 72 percent of television food advertisements aimed at children today are for food products in the worst nutritional category. Only one percent of all advertising is for truly healthy foods.
Prior to 2005 when the initiative began, 84 percent of television ads were for food products in the worst nutritional category, representing a 14-percent drop since that time. Dr. Kunkel sees this as too little and is hoping that Congressional intervention will be the next step.
Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Let's be straight about this: Any nation that wanted to protect the health of its children would flat-out ban the marketing of junk food to children.The junk food corporations, of course, now claim "free speech" rights thanks to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively grants corporations the same free speech rights as individuals. So now we're going to be overrun by "free speech" advertisements for junk food, targeted to children and infants in order to hook them on processed junk foods.
Corporations should be stripped of such rights. The corporatocracy cannot be allowed to poison our children with more toxic junk foods and sodas laced with chemical sweeteners.
The United States of America is supposed to be a nation of the People, by the People and for the People... not for the corporations!
Any nation that raises its children on junk foods has no real future. Sadly, that now seems to include the United States of America.
Sources for this story include:
http://uanews.org/node/29055
Radiation Treatment for Cancer Causes Diabetes in Children
(NaturalNews) People who are undergo radiation therapy for childhood cancers are significantly more likely to develop diabetes as adults, according to a new study conducted by researchers from Emory University and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
A number of studies have found that radiation, chemotherapy, and other such treatments significantly shorten the lives of childhood cancer survivors.
"As a result of their curative therapies, childhood cancer survivors face an increased risk of morbidity and mortality," the researchers wrote. Nearly 75 percent of such children develop a chronic health condition within 30 years of diagnosis, while 42.4 percent develop severe, disabling or life-threatening health conditions. Because cardiovascular disease is a major killer of childhood cancer survivors, the researchers examined the effect of radiation treatment on the risk of diabetes, a major correlate of cardiovascular mortality.
The researchers examined diabetes rates in 8,599 people who had been diagnosed with cancer before the age of 21, between 1970 and 1986. These rates were compared with 2,936 of their cancer-free siblings, who were randomly selected. All participants were screened for diabetes in 2003.
After adjusting for other diabetes risk factors including age, body mass index, ethnicity, exercise, income, insurance and race, the researchers found that those who had undergone cancer treatment as children were 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes as adults than their siblings were. Those who had been treated with abdominal radiation were 2.7 times more likely to have diabetes, while those who had been treated with whole-body radiation were a shocking 7.2 times more likely to be diabetic.
Risk increased with radiation dose used, and decreased with age at diagnosis. People diagnosed with cancer before the age of five had 2.4 times the diabetes risk as those diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 20.
A previous study found that childhood cancer survivors were five to 10 times more likely to suffer from heart disease than their cancer-free siblings, and significantly more likely to suffer from kidney disease.
Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.sciencedaily.com
A number of studies have found that radiation, chemotherapy, and other such treatments significantly shorten the lives of childhood cancer survivors.
"As a result of their curative therapies, childhood cancer survivors face an increased risk of morbidity and mortality," the researchers wrote. Nearly 75 percent of such children develop a chronic health condition within 30 years of diagnosis, while 42.4 percent develop severe, disabling or life-threatening health conditions. Because cardiovascular disease is a major killer of childhood cancer survivors, the researchers examined the effect of radiation treatment on the risk of diabetes, a major correlate of cardiovascular mortality.
The researchers examined diabetes rates in 8,599 people who had been diagnosed with cancer before the age of 21, between 1970 and 1986. These rates were compared with 2,936 of their cancer-free siblings, who were randomly selected. All participants were screened for diabetes in 2003.
After adjusting for other diabetes risk factors including age, body mass index, ethnicity, exercise, income, insurance and race, the researchers found that those who had undergone cancer treatment as children were 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes as adults than their siblings were. Those who had been treated with abdominal radiation were 2.7 times more likely to have diabetes, while those who had been treated with whole-body radiation were a shocking 7.2 times more likely to be diabetic.
Risk increased with radiation dose used, and decreased with age at diagnosis. People diagnosed with cancer before the age of five had 2.4 times the diabetes risk as those diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 20.
A previous study found that childhood cancer survivors were five to 10 times more likely to suffer from heart disease than their cancer-free siblings, and significantly more likely to suffer from kidney disease.
Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.sciencedaily.com
Friday, December 11, 2009
Dr. Jane Goodall speaks with NaturalNews about sustainable living and teaching children about the future of life on Earth
(NaturalNews) It's been almost 50 years since Dr. Jane Goodall first arrived at Gombe Stream National Park to study primates, and since then, much has changed in the world. "We have made rather a mess," Dr. Goodall told NaturalNews in an exclusive interview, speaking about the impact of humans on our planet. "We humans have left a very, very unpleasant ecological footprint on this beautiful planet."
Listen to the complete audio interview with Dr. Goodall here on NaturalNews at: http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Po...
Dr. Jane Goodall, however, is no pessimist, and her message is instilled with a sense of hope and genuine inspiration. "What's tremendously important is that people do have a sense of hope amidst the doom and gloom," she says. "What I realize today is that we have made major mistakes and it's about time we start putting it back together."
Goodall's institute, named the Jane Goodall Institute (www.JaneGoodall.org) pursues worldwide programs to educate children, protect natural habitats and uplift the lives of those human populations that live among or near important protected habitats. Her institute's program for children, Roots and Shoots (www.RootsAndShoots.org) engages children in the knowledge and skills of sustainable living, teaching them practical know-how they'll need to be a proactive part of a sustainable future on our planet.
"We've been stealing, stealing, stealing from our children, and it's high time we started paying back," she told NaturalNews in her interview. "Think of how we could have changed the entire structure of the world and alleviated poverty if the money spent on the last couple of wars could have been used for good purposes."
Listen to the full conversation between Jane Goodall and the Health Ranger here: http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Po...
(You may also download the interview as an MP3 file and play it on your iPod or other MP3 device.)
As part of that effort to help people make better choices, Jane Goodall has partnered with Pangea Organics (www.PangeaOrganics.com), an eco-conscious maker of hand-crafted body care products, to deliver a special offer to NaturalNews readers that helps raise funds for the Jane Goodall Institute.
You can read about this offer (and get the coupon code) here on NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/027715_J...
As part of our effort to support Dr. Jane Goodall's work, our non-profit Consumer Wellness Center is also donating $1,000 to the Jane Goodall Institute. Read more details at the story link mentioned above.
Your support will delight the animal lover in your life, and, most importantly, help the Jane Goodall Institute shelter chimpanzees like Kauka and Vichika -- orphans whose families were killed before their eyes by poachers.
www.janegoodall.org/chimp-guardian
The chimpanzees at JGI’s Tchimpounga Chimpanzee Rehabilitation Center in the Republic of Congo had a traumatic start to life, but with the support of people like you, they are nurtured back to health and happiness. And they get a new chimpanzee "family."
Please help the Jane Goodall institute give orphaned chimpanzees at Tchimpounga nutritious diets, TLC, and the chance to roam the forest, feel the sun on their backs and play with other chimps.
Your gift of a Chimp Guardianship will not only thrill someone you care about -- it will mean the world to everyone at the Jane Goodall Institute and Tchimpounga.
www.janegoodall.org/chimp-guardian
Listen to the complete audio interview with Dr. Goodall here on NaturalNews at: http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Po...
Dr. Jane Goodall, however, is no pessimist, and her message is instilled with a sense of hope and genuine inspiration. "What's tremendously important is that people do have a sense of hope amidst the doom and gloom," she says. "What I realize today is that we have made major mistakes and it's about time we start putting it back together."
Goodall's institute, named the Jane Goodall Institute (www.JaneGoodall.org) pursues worldwide programs to educate children, protect natural habitats and uplift the lives of those human populations that live among or near important protected habitats. Her institute's program for children, Roots and Shoots (www.RootsAndShoots.org) engages children in the knowledge and skills of sustainable living, teaching them practical know-how they'll need to be a proactive part of a sustainable future on our planet.
"We've been stealing, stealing, stealing from our children, and it's high time we started paying back," she told NaturalNews in her interview. "Think of how we could have changed the entire structure of the world and alleviated poverty if the money spent on the last couple of wars could have been used for good purposes."
Listen to the full conversation between Jane Goodall and the Health Ranger here: http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Po...
(You may also download the interview as an MP3 file and play it on your iPod or other MP3 device.)
Tiny choices, multiplied by millions
Jane Goodall's efforts today are focused on teaching people how to make informed, small choices that cumulatively add up to grassroots global change. "If you just spend a few minutes each day thinking about the choices you make: What you buy, what you eat, what you wear, how it was made, if it harmed the environment, if it hurt animals, if it was socially unjust, that would cause you to make small changes," she explained. "And if millions of people make small changes, we start to influence the companies who are making unethical products."As part of that effort to help people make better choices, Jane Goodall has partnered with Pangea Organics (www.PangeaOrganics.com), an eco-conscious maker of hand-crafted body care products, to deliver a special offer to NaturalNews readers that helps raise funds for the Jane Goodall Institute.
You can read about this offer (and get the coupon code) here on NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/027715_J...
As part of our effort to support Dr. Jane Goodall's work, our non-profit Consumer Wellness Center is also donating $1,000 to the Jane Goodall Institute. Read more details at the story link mentioned above.
Please consider giving the gift of a Chimpanzee Guardianship this holiday season
(A special message from the Jane Goodall Institute)Your support will delight the animal lover in your life, and, most importantly, help the Jane Goodall Institute shelter chimpanzees like Kauka and Vichika -- orphans whose families were killed before their eyes by poachers.
www.janegoodall.org/chimp-guardian
The chimpanzees at JGI’s Tchimpounga Chimpanzee Rehabilitation Center in the Republic of Congo had a traumatic start to life, but with the support of people like you, they are nurtured back to health and happiness. And they get a new chimpanzee "family."
Please help the Jane Goodall institute give orphaned chimpanzees at Tchimpounga nutritious diets, TLC, and the chance to roam the forest, feel the sun on their backs and play with other chimps.
Your gift of a Chimp Guardianship will not only thrill someone you care about -- it will mean the world to everyone at the Jane Goodall Institute and Tchimpounga.
www.janegoodall.org/chimp-guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
