Big Pharma’s War On Our Children: 1 Million Kids Under Age 6 On PSYCHIATRIC Drugs

In the United States, there are one million children under the age of six on psychiatric drugs. This number is particularly disturbing, considering the horrifying side effects and ineffectiveness of a good number of these types of harmful drugs.

One in six Americans overall regularly take some type of medication in this category. However, children are now being swept up in Big Pharma’s desire to make money, not improve health. Mental health watchdog group Citizens Commission on Human Rights is drawing attention to the concerning fact that more than a million kids younger than six in our nation are currently taking these psychiatric drugs.

According to Natural News, around half of these children are four to five years old and an incredible 274,804 of them are younger than a year old. That’s right: babies are being given psychiatric drugs. The number rises for toddlers aged two to three, with 370,778 kids in this category taking psychiatric drugs overall. If this isn’t horrifying to you, congratulations on your brainwashing.

Data from IMS Health shows that the drug situation only gets worse as kids get older, with 4,130,340 kids aged 6 to 12 taking some type of psychiatric drug.

You might be forgiven for assuming that most of these statistics are made up by kids taking ADHD drugs given how common that approach seems to be nowadays, but it really only accounts for a small portion of it, with 1,422 of those younger than a year old and just over 181,000 of those aged four to five taking ADHD drugs. –Natural News

The biggest category of psychotic drugs given to children appears to be anti-anxiety drugs. Just over 227,132 babies under one-year-old and nearly 248,000 of those aged four to five take these medications. Again, babies are being given mind-altering drugs before their first birthday. But the news just gets worse from there. Experts believe these estimates are far too low and the real numbers are actually much higher, due in part to the tendency for some doctors to hand out psychiatric medications for “off-label” uses. This risky practice entails giving out a drug to treat something that it is not indicated for, and the long-term effects of such an approach are completely unknown.

When adults choose to take psychiatric medication, it may be ill-advised in many cases, but it is still their choice to make. Children, on the other hand, lack the cognition to fully understand the lifelong impact of such a choice, and this essentially amounts to forced medication. We already know that many doctors have a financial incentive to get young people to start taking these drugs, but why are their parents so willing to get on board? Many of them are also taking psychiatric medications, of course. In fact, it has practically become a way of life in our nation and many people think of these meds as harmless.

The side effects of these drugs are nothing to scoff at, however, with antianxiety, antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs linked to heart attacks, psychosis, suicidal ideation, diabetes, stroke, mania and sudden death. As if that weren’t bad enough, there’s also the fact that many of the high-profile public shootings in recent years were perpetrated by young people on such drugs, so not only do kids have the risk of dying when they take these meds, but they could also take out a whole classroom or movie theater with them. –Natural News

Is this a war on our children perpetrated by Big Pharma and condoned by the government? Maybe. Nothing seems impossible anymore.

H/T [Natural News, Mike Adams The Health Ranger]

Outbreak Alert: 36 DEAD In South Africa Of Food-Borne Disease Listeriosis

Just as it appears that Madagascar is slowly containing their outbreak of the air-borne plague, South Africa is hit with Listeriosis. The food-borne illness has killed 36 people so far.

Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi said a total of 557 cases had been detected this year alone and at least 36 people have died in the last 11 months. According to Times Live, the country usually records 60-80 cases a year. “Most cases have been reported from Gauteng province,” Motsoaledi said‚ adding that the province had accounted for 345 or 62% of the cases reported. The Western Cape had the second-most reported cases, at 71, followed by KwaZulu-Natal with 37 cases. “As you can see the three provinces alone are responsible for 82% of the total cases. The remaining 18% is distributed in the remaining six provinces‚” Motsoaledi said.

While anyone can contract the bacteria which causes the disease, those with weakened immunity are the most susceptible. Babies and the elderly, and those with kidney or liver disease, pregnant women, those with HIV, cancer, or diabetes are especially at risk. Those susceptible to the disease should take extra special care when handling and preparing food. Click here for specific guidelines to ensure the bacterium won’t survive the food preparation process. 

Motsoaledi explained that the disease was “a serious‚ but treatable and preventable disease caused by the bacterium‚ Listeria monocytogenes.” Animal products and produce can both be infected. Outbreaks of Listeria infections in the 1990s were primarily linked to deli meats and hot dogs. Now, Listeria outbreaks are often linked to dairy products and produce. Investigators have traced most recent outbreaks to soft cheeses, celery, sprouts, cantaloupe, and ice cream.

People with the disease usually suffer from a flu-like illness‚ diarrhea accompanied by a fever‚ general body pains‚ vomiting and weakness. This leads to the infection of the bloodstream‚ which is called septicemia and meningoencephalitis‚ which is an infection of the brain. “The bacteria is widely distributed in nature and can be found in soil‚ water and vegetation. Animal products and fresh produce such as fruits and vegetables can be contaminated from these sources‚” Motsoaledi said.

Toxic Lead Lurking in Baby Food? What You Need to Know

The Environmental Defense Fund released a study in June, 2017, showing the presence of detectable levels of lead in a surprising number of baby food samples tested over a decade-long period.

For the study, the EDF evaluated data collected by the FDA between 2003 and 2013. They collected 2,164 baby food samples and found that:

• 89% of grape juice samples contained detectable levels of lead

• 86% of sweet potato samples contained detectable levels of lead

• 47% of teething biscuit samples contained detectable levels of lead

• In total, about 20% of baby food samples were found to contain detectable levels of lead

The group said in the report:

“Eight types of baby foods had detectable lead in more than 40 percent of samples. Baby food versions of apple and grape juices and carrots had more samples with detectable lead than the regular versions.”

Study author Tom Neltner, of the EDF, said:

“The levels we found were relatively low, but when you add them up — with all the foods children eat … it’s significant.”

None of the samples exceeded the FDA’s allowable level of lead, which is good, but does it really matter? Many argue that there is no “safe” level of lead exposure, and the agency is in the process of reviewing its standards over concern that they don’t reflect the latest science about the potential health risks.

Exposure to Lead can be Quite Serious

Lead poisoning in children is extremely serious. It most often occurs when the heavy metal builds up in the body over time, often months or years. Even small amounts can cause severe and irreversible effects on a child’s mental and physical development. So it’s important to consider lead exposure, especially since it is present in small amounts everywhere – not just in baby food.

Source: The Sacramento Bee

Pediatrician Jennifer Lowry, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Council on Environmental Health, said:

“The levels we found were relatively low, but when you add them up — with all the foods children eat … it’s significant.”

She added that the FDA has “old standards… and they haven’t been updated in decades.”

Lead Standards Need Some Updating

In 2012, the CDC updated its guidance on lead in children. Currently, it considers 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood to be high in children. But, again, there is no safe level of lead. In fact, the CDC concluded that:

“Protecting children from exposure to lead is important to lifelong good health. No safe blood lead level in children has been identified. Even low levels of lead in blood have been shown to affect IQ, ability to pay attention, and academic achievement. And effects of lead exposure cannot be corrected.”

Pediatricians say children should eat a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, as this helps minimize the risk from a single food. Additionally, a diet high in iron, calcium, and vitamin C can limit the absorption of lead.

The problem of lead in grape juice is easy solvable: the American Academy of Pediatrics recently recommended that children under 1 should not drink any juice, and fruit juice for children of any age is unnecessary. Whole fruit is better, nutritionally.

What is unclear is how lead got into the products tested. If it comes from the soil, it can be absorbed by crops. If that’s the case, the lead “cannot simply be removed,” the FDA says in one of its fact sheets. But that’s worrisome, because the veggies contained the highest levels of lead.

The Environmental Defense Fund writes:

“Eight types of baby foods had detectable lead in more than 40 percent of samples. Baby food versions of apple and grape juices and carrots had more samples with detectable lead than the regular versions.”

Just 4% of the baby cereals contained lead.

Sarah Vogel, vice president of EDF’s health program, said:

“The only thing parents can do right now is to reach out to their favorite brands and ask them what they are doing (to ensure products are lead-free).”

Lead paint is the #1 source of lead exposure in children, followed by water, then food.

The city of Flint, Michigan, has been wrestling with extremely high lead levels in its drinking water for nearly 2 years now, and in 2015 a state of emergency was declared over high levels of lead in children’s blood. However, in the case of Flint, the high lead levels occurred after the city switched its water source, which corroded pipes.

It’s clear that we need to tackle this issue on a larger scale to reduce exposure to this toxic heavy metal – especially for children.

Sources:

[1] NPR

[2] NBC News

The Sacramento Bee

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Letting Your Baby Cry Himself To Sleep Is Safe, Study Finds

You just put your baby in his crib for the night, and he’s wailing up a storm. You just want to watch a little Netflix before getting some sleep, but you’re wracked with guilt. If this sounds familiar, you’re not alone. Not by a long-shot. But a recent study finds that letting your baby cry himself to sleep won’t harm him, so grab the remote control.

Researchers in Australia worked with 43 sets of parents who had babies between 6 and 16 months of age, all of whom had the same problem: their little ones had trouble sleeping. The researchers taught about 1/3 of the parents about graduated extinction, or simply “crying it out.” Parents were asked to leave the room within 1 minute of putting their baby back to bed and, if their baby cried, to wait increasingly longer periods of time before going back into the room and comforting them.

Another third of the parents were asked to try an approach called bedtime fading, in which parents put their baby to bed closer to the time he or she usually fell asleep and were allowed to stay in the room until their child dozed off.

The rest of the parents, the control group, did not attempt any sleep training and instead received information about infant sleep.

Three months after the experiments began, the babies in the cry-it-out group were falling asleep 15 minutes faster than babies in the control group. The babies in the bedtime fading group fell asleep about 12 minutes faster compared with the control group.

Michael Gradisar, associate professor of psychology at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, said:

“What our data probably does not capture is the peace of mind surrounding bedtime that we see when we work with families.”

Additionally, the graduated extinction group bested the fading group in other measures, including the number of times the babies awoke during the night and their total sleep time. [1]

One of the concerns that parents and medical professionals share is that letting a baby cry itself to sleep could cause the child stress, which could lead to bigger problems. The study measured levels of the stress hormone cortisol in the infants’ saliva both in the morning and in the afternoon, looking for elevated levels that could indicate long-term stress.

The study did not find elevated levels of cortisol in the infants in the graduated extinction group, and no significant differences were observed in parental attachment or behavioral problems in those infants 12 months later.

Gradisar said of the findings:

“It looks like you’ve got two effective treatments that don’t necessarily lead to negative outcomes.”

He acknowledged, however, that listening to your child cry himself to sleep could make you want to rip your hair out. He said:

“It is a stressful thing for parents to go through.”

A 2012 study of 326 children with sleep problems at age 7 months had similar results. There was no evidence that letting babies cry themselves to sleep had any long-term negative impact on their sleep or behavior 5 years later. [2]

Letting your baby cry it out might be tough to handle, but it might be worth it for those extra 15 minutes of “grown-up time.”

The new study is published in the journal Pediatrics.

Sources:

[1] CNN

[2] CBC News

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

New Undercover Video Shows An Abortionist Joking About An Eyeball Rolling Down Into Her Lap

An incredibly shocking new undercover video that was recently released by the Center For Medical Progress shows various abortionists joking about the gruesome realities of performing abortions. This undercover footage was taken during the annual conventions of the National Abortion Federation in 2014 and 2015, and perhaps the most disturbing moment is when one abortionist jokes about an eyeball rolling into her lap. All of the undercover videos that have been released by the Center For Medical Progress are very startling and very graphic, but it is absolutely imperative that the American people be told the truth about what is actually happening in these abortion clinics. If these crimes against humanity do not stop, there is no hope and no future for our nation.

Defunding Planned Parenthood is “not just another political issue”, and we can no longer afford to elect politicians that use the “Pro-Life” label to get votes but then continue to vote to fund Planned Parenthood once they take office.

Every single day precious little babies are being ripped limb from limb and their body parts are being sold off for profit.

And the new undercover video that was recently released shows some of these abortionists actually making jokes about what they are doing…

The Center For Medical Progress released a new undercover video showing Planned Parenthood executives discussing gruesome abortion procedures and the sale of fetal body parts for profit. The video was filmed at the 2014 and 2015 annual meetings of the National Abortion Federation.

The new undercover video appears to be a preview of a longer project, and is a compilation of comments made by Planned Parenthood executives and other abortion supporters at the NAF conventions. During conversations and panel discussions, the PP executives make stunning comments about abortion procedures.

Several attendees made jokes about eyeballs and other fetal body parts “rolling down into their laps.” Others laughed as they discussed how hard it is to remove the unborn baby’s head from the womb.

You can view the entire video from the Center For Medical Progress on YouTube right here.

It is time for the Pro-Life community to stand up and tell our politicians that defunding Planned Parenthood is no longer optional.

If they will not pledge to vote against every single bill that includes even a single penny of funding for Planned Parenthood, they will not get our votes.

How much more do we have to see before we are willing to take a stand? The following summary of the undercover videos that the Center For Medical Progress has released so far comes from LifeNews.com…

• In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”


• In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.


• In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.


• In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”


• In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”


• In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”


• In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”


• In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.


• The ninth video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.


• The 10th video: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies. The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.


• Unreleased Videos: Unreleased videos from CMP show Deb Vanderhei of Planned Parenthood caught on tape talking about how Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliates may “want to increase revenue [from selling baby parts] but we can’t stop them…” Another video has a woman talking about the “financial incentives” of selling aborted baby body parts.


• The 11th video: catches a Texas Planned Parenthood abortionist planning to sell the intact heads of aborted babies for research. Amna Dermish is caught on tape describing an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term unborn babies which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.


• The 12th video in the series shows new footage of Jennefer Russo, medical director at Planned Parenthood in Orange County, California, describing to undercover investigators how her abortion business tries to harvest intact aborted babies’ bodies for a local for-profit biotech company and changes the abortion procedure to do so.


• The 13th video: exposes a Planned Parenthood medical director admitting that babies born alive after abortion are sometimes killed.

As I stated yesterday, I greatly applaud President Trump for proposing a budget that would completely defund Planned Parenthood.

Unfortunately, his budget is not going to get through Congress.

There are several Republican senators that are against defunding Planned Parenthood, and we need to make it clear to them that such a stance is no longer acceptable.

In particular, senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are threatening to hold up the effort to repeal Obamacare over this issue. The following comes from the Hill…

And with majorities in the House and Senate and control of the White House, the goal seems within reach after years of the party being thwarted by Senate Democrats and former President Barack Obama.

The problem is that Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) both may oppose a healthcare bill that cuts off funding to Planned Parenthood.

Collins is not up for re-election until 2020, and Murkowski is not up for re-election until 2022. But one pro-Planned Parenthood senator that we can remove from Congress in 2018 is Dean Heller of Nevada…

Forcing a fight over Planned Parenthood would also put a focus on Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), who is up for reelection in 2018 in a state won by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Heller sparked criticism from both conservatives and liberals after he said at a recent town hall that he has “no problem” with federal funding for Planned Parenthood and would “protect” it.

Because he is in favor of funding Planned Parenthood, Heller has forfeited any future support from Pro-Life conservatives.

So we need a Senate candidate in Nevada for 2018. I know that there are a lot of good Pro-Life people that live in the state, and if you are thinking of running for that seat please feel free to reach out to me.

For decades Pro-Life activists have been writing letters, holding marches and trying to make our voices heard, but the politicians have been ignoring us.

Now it is time for us to rise up and demand that they listen to us by denying our votes to any politician that will not vote to defund Planned Parenthood every single time.

Nearly 60 million children have already died, and many more will die this year.

If we are not willing to take action now, when will we ever be?

Brain Scans Catch Autism Months Before Symptoms Appear

The symptoms of autism generally begin to emerge in a person between 12 and 18 months of age. Oftentimes, babies develop normally until this age, but then they start regressing and lose skills. Now, a recent study suggests it may be possible to spot autism on an MRI scan months before symptoms start. [1]

Geraldine Dawson, a clinical psychologist and autism researcher at Duke University who was not involved in the new work, says:

“We’re learning that there are biological changes that occur at [the time] or before the symptoms start to emerge. It’s the ability to detect autism at its very earliest stages that’s going to allow us to intervene before the full syndrome is manifest.”

Read: New Scientific Discovery Could Make it Easier to Diagnose, Treat Autism

For the study, researchers conducted MRI scans on 150 children, 3 times: at 6 months old, 1 year, and 2 years. More than 100 of those children were at high risk for autism because they had an older sibling diagnosed with the disorder. Infants with older siblings who have autism have about a 1 in 5 chance of developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

The team found that 8 times out of 10, they could correctly predict which children would go on to develop autism based on the faster growth rate of the surface areas of their brains. They detail their findings in the journal Nature. [1] [2]

Source: ABC News – A 2011 study found that people with certain types of autism have bigger brains.

Washington University child psychiatrist Dr. Kelly Botteron, explains:

“It was basically 80, 85% predictive of being able to basically make a diagnosis based on just their MRI scan changes from 6 to 12 to 24 months.” [3]

The study’s lead author, Heather Hazlett, a psychologist at the University of North Carolina’s Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities (CIDD), says that enlargement of the brain seemed to correlate with the onset of symptoms, but more research is needed. The study was small, and doctors shouldn’t start conducting MRIs on children in an effort to diagnose them. [1]

Read: 1st Trimester Ultrasounds may be Linked to Autism Symptoms in Children

Still, if the findings can be recreated in a larger study, MRI could become a new diagnostic tool for high-risk children before their symptoms begin, giving parents the opportunity to start treating their child at a time when treatment will be possibly most effective. We just have to be careful with recommending such measures, or we could see issues similar to those arising from mammograms (causing issues due to being unnecessarily overused). Currently, the average age of diagnosis is about 4 years. [2]

Botteron says:

“There’s pretty good evidence that the earlier we can make a diagnosis and begin interventions, even things like speech therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, kinds of behavioral interventions that we can have a much better long-term outcome.” [3]

Some of those interventions and treatments could include “hyper-parenting,” McPartland explains, meaning that a child headed for autism might benefit from more parental interaction such as cooing, singing, and laughing. He says:

“Supersaturate a child’s environment with social information as much as you can. And hope that it takes.” [1]

Sources:

[1] Scientific American

[2] USA Today

[3] CBS News St. Louis

ABC News

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Pediatricians Advise Parents: No Fruit Juice for Kids Under 1

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is recommending that fruit juice should not be given to children under 1 year old. [1]

The new guidance replaces the group’s previous recommendation of no fruit juice for children under 6 months. The AAP has also recommended limits in the past for older infants and children.

One of the reasons for the change is that fruit juice offers no nutritional benefit for very young children, the organization said in a statement published online on May 26, 2017 in the journal Pediatrics.

The AAP says it’s still acceptable to give small amounts of fruit juice to older children. Still, if given the option, parents should give their kids whole fruit, which has less sugar and more fiber, instead. Dr. Steven Abrams, co-author of the new report and chair of pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin, said likewise, consuming too much fruit juice can cause weight gain and tooth decay.

Read: Fruit & Veggie Consumption While Young Reduces Cancer Risk Later

“The problem is, parents will stick a bottle or sippy cup in the kid’s mouth and kind of leave it there all day. That’s not good from the calorie-intake perspective, and it’s sure not good for the teeth. What happens is, the kid then gets used to all the sugar, and then they won’t drink water.” [2]

Read: “Healthful” Fruit Juice may Have More Sugar than Soda

Dr. Melvin B. Heyman, co-author of the new guidelines and director of the Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease Program at the University of California, San Francisco, said:

“Parents may perceive fruit juice as healthy, but it is not a good substitute for fresh fruit and just packs in more sugar and calories. Small amounts in moderation are fine for older kids, but are absolutely unnecessary for children under 1.” [1]

Actually, fruit juice isn’t necessary for any children, the academy pointed out.

Additional Recommendations

• Toddlers between 1 and 3 years old should consume no more than 4 ounces of fruit juice per day. Juice should be served in a cup, not a bottle or box, as they make it easier to drink juice all day, AAP’s recommendations state. [2]

• Parents should restrict fruit juice to 4-6 oz. for children between 4 and 6.

• Children between 7 and 18 should have no more than 1 cup of juice a day, which accounts for 1 of the recommended daily 2-2.5 cups of fruit.

• The academy discourages unpasteurized juice products, and says grapefruit juice should not be given to children taking ibuprofen, flurbiprofen, warfarin, phenytoin, fluvastatin and amitriptyline, because they it interferes with the medications’ effects. [2]

• The organization says fruit juice is not an appropriate treatment for dehydration or diarrhea.

Sharon Zarabi, a nutritionist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City who did not participate in the recommendations, noted that many people incorrectly think that fruit juice is rich in vitamins.

“When you isolate fruit into a liquid form, you’re mostly getting sugar water, and it’s easy to consume excess calories in liquid form, and those calories can add up, and they’re void of any protein or fiber, which is usually what helps keep people satiated.”

Another common mistake that people make is believing that fruit drinks and fruit juice percentage are one in the same. The truth is, fruit drinks don’t contain 100% juice, and are flavored with added sugars. They fall into the category of sugar-sweetened beverages, right beside soda, energy drinks and sports drinks, some smoothies, and coffee drinks. [3]

Regular consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other poor health outcomes.

Sources:

[1] Live Science

[2] CNN

[3] NPR

---

---

The Pledge For Republican Candidates In 2018: ‘No Money For Planned Parenthood Under Any Circumstances’

It is time for conservative voters to draw a line in the sand when it comes to Planned Parenthood. For decades, Republican politicians have been winning conservative votes by labeling themselves Pro-Life, but once they take office many of them don’t do anything to advance the cause. In fact, many “Pro-Life” members of Congress have been voting to fund Planned Parenthood year after year after year without any consequences. In 2018, we aren’t going to put up with this any longer. The following is an extended free preview of a book that I am working on about how to turn America in a positive direction…

*****

It is no longer okay for Republican politicians to claim that they are Pro-Life during their campaigns but then vote to fund Planned Parenthood while they are in office. As a conservative voter, I have been extremely frustrated by supposedly “conservative” politicians that think that it is okay to betray the Pro-Life movement over and over again. More specifically, I cannot understand how any “Pro-Life” politician could possibly vote to give Planned Parenthood approximately 500 million dollars in federal funding year after year.

It is time for conservative voters to take matters into their own hands. In 2018, conservatives will be the deciding factor in Republican primaries all over the nation. If we worked together and stood strong, we could ensure that the vast majority of Republican candidates for office in 2018 are truly Pro-Life.

So what I am suggesting is that we require all Republican candidates for office to take a pledge to vote against any bill that gives even one penny of funding to Planned Parenthood. This would apply on the federal, state and local levels. We would let them know that if they are not willing to pledge that there will be no money for Planned Parenthood under any circumstances that we will not vote for them under any circumstances.

And just because someone is running as an incumbent does not mean that they would get a pass. If a Republican incumbent will not take the pledge, we will find someone to run against that incumbent who will.

If we actually did this, we could virtually assure that Planned Parenthood would be defunded. The Republicans are very likely to remain in control of the House of Representatives again in 2018, and any bill to fund Planned Parenthood has to get the approval of the House. If we were to pack the House with conservatives that would never vote for any bill that funds Planned Parenthood, there is nothing that the Senate or the White House could do to override that.

This can actually happen, but we have to be united. And all that we would require would be one simple pledge:

“I will not vote in favor of funding for Planned Parenthood under any circumstances.”

This is my stand, and I am not moving from it. Any candidate that does not make this pledge will not get my support of my vote.

Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, close to 60 million babies have been slaughtered in America’s abortion mills. We are killing children on an industrial scale, and yet most Americans have accepted this as “normal”.

And Planned Parenthood is the biggest offender by far. Planned Parenthood performs more than 300,000 abortions every year, and they get more funding from the federal government than any other source by a very wide margin.

By giving Planned Parenthood about half a billion dollars a year, the United States government is putting a giant stamp of approval on what Planned Parenthood is doing. Of course none of that money is actually supposed to go for providing abortions, but everyone knows what the real deal is.

Planned Parenthood is in business to provide abortions. In fact, former Planned Parenthood workers have revealed that they actually had to try to meet “abortion sales quota goals” each month. If the quotas were met, workers were rewarded with pizza parties and other incentives. The following testimony comes from former Planned Parenthood center manager Sue Thayer…

“It was on this big grid, and if we hit our goal, our line was green. If we were 5 percent under it was yellow, if we were 10 percent under it was red. That’s when we needed to have a corrective action plan – why we didn’t hit the goal, what we’re going to do differently next time,” she said.

“So we were really very goal-oriented. I trained my staff the way that I was trained, which was to really encourage women to choose abortion, to have it at Planned Parenthood, because that counts toward our goal.”

(http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/video-planned-parenthood-insiders-confirm-abortion-quotas/)

Yes, this is really taking place. Workers are actually being given incentives to convince women to kill their own babies.

Even more alarming is the harvesting of body parts that is going on at Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide.

Even though it is against the law, aborted babies are being chopped up and their organs are being sold off to the highest bidder. This is the kind of thing that you would have expected to happen in Nazi Germany, but instead it is actually happening in the United States of America in our day and time.

The Center for Medical Progress has released undercover video after undercover video documenting that this is being done, and yet only a small segment of the population has expressed outrage.

In one of the most recent videos, a Planned Parenthood executive is shown “haggling over per-specimen pricing for livers, lungs, and brains”…

New undercover video shows Dr. Mary Gatter, the Planned Parenthood senior executive who infamously laughed “I want a Lamborghini” about payments for aborted fetal parts, again haggling over per-specimen pricing for livers, lungs, and brains, even while insisting the purchaser must do all the work to harvest.

(http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2017/04/2027/)

In another undercover video, a Planned Parenthood doctor in Texas discussed what she would do to babies in their second trimester so that their heads would come out “pretty intact” for harvesting…

The eleventh video release from The Center for Medical Progress in the ongoing Planned Parenthood baby parts scandal shows the abortion doctor for Planned Parenthood in Austin, TX, Dr. Amna Dermish, describing a partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term fetuses which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.

Dr. Dermish admits she was trained by the Senior Director of Medical Services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Dr. Deborah Nucatola. Nucatola described a partial-birth abortion technique to harvest fetal organs in the first Planned Parenthood video released July 14 by CMP.

“My aim is usually to get the specimens out pretty intact,” says Dermish, speaking to actors posing as a fetal tissue procurement company. Dermish admits that she will sometimes use ultrasound guidance to convert a 2nd-trimester fetus to a feet-first breech presentation: “Especially the 20-weekers are a lot harder versus the 18-weekers, so at that point I’ll switch to breech.”

(http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2015/10/planned-parenthood-tx-doc-harvesting-intact-fetal-heads-will-give-me-something-to-strive-for/)

How can the federal government possibly fund this kind of evil?

When is enough going to be enough? How far do things have to go before we say “NO MORE”?

This isn’t just another political issue. This is a battle for the soul of our nation. If we continue to allow this to go on, and the federal government continues to give hundreds of millions of dollars to the organization that is doing this, there is no future for our country.

I am not exaggerating one bit when I say that.

When you include all forms of abortion, including abortion drugs such as RU 486, more than a million abortions are performed in the U.S. every single year.

To put that in perspective, the number of American children killed by abortion each year is roughly equal to the number of U.S. military deaths that have occurred in the entire history of our nation.

Or let’s look at this another way. The number of Americans being aborted each day is roughly equal to the number of victims that died during the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.

In other words, it is like a new 9/11 each and every single day of the year.

If we are truly Pro-Life, we have got to do something to stop this. Many have pinned their hopes on overturning Roe v. Wade, but even if that happened tomorrow that would not outlaw abortion. Instead, each state would be able to make their own laws about abortion, and most of the larger states such as California and New York would continue to keep it legal.

Yes, let us try very hard to continue to get more Pro-Life justices on to the Supreme Court, but we can make much more of an immediate impact by going after Planned Parenthood. If we can get Planned Parenthood defunded on the federal level, it would be absolutely devastating for them, and it is likely that many clinics around the country would have to start closing down.

By the age of 45, approximately one out of every three women in the United States will have had an abortion, and close to half of all women that get an abortion each year have had one before.

We have created a culture of death, and in some areas of the country abortion rates are so high that it is hard to believe that the numbers are actually true.

For example, it has been reported that 41 percent of all New York City pregnancies end in abortion, and according to Pastor Clenard Childress approximately 52 percent of all African-American pregnancies in the entire nation now end in abortion.

And most of the women that are getting abortions in the United States claim to be Christian.

Yes, this is actually true. According to Operation Rescue, Protestant women get 42 percent of all abortions and Catholic women get 27 percent of all abortions.

We are a “Christian nation” that has murdered nearly 60 million of our own children, and close to 90 percent of those murders were performed “for the sake of convenience”.

Either abortion is murder or it isn’t.

If it is murder, how can any self-respecting “Pro-Life” politician ever vote to give federal funding to an organization that is murdering more than 300,000 babies a year?

And there is really good money in murdering children these days. In fact, 30 Planned Parenthood executives make more than $200,000 a year, and a few of them actually make more than $300,0000 a year.

The blood of tens of millions of precious little children is crying out from the ground against us, and yet most politicians just continue with business as usual as if nothing is happening.

And of course the United States is far from alone. Since 1980, more than a billion children around the world have been aborted.

Just think about that for a moment.

What do you think God thinks about a billion dead babies?

There are some people out there that are suggesting that the United States is heading for a period of great blessing despite the fact that we have killed close to 60 million children and we continue to kill them on an industrial scale every single day.

It doesn’t work that way.

If we want to have any hope of turning this nation around, we have got to quit slaughtering children.

So I don’t have any more patience for politicians that want to use the Pro-Life label to get votes but then are willing to hand Planned Parenthood hundreds of millions of dollars every year once they get into office.

If you vote to fund Planned Parenthood, you are not Pro-Life.

It really is that simple.

In 2018, let us choose not to compromise any longer. If a candidate will not promise to deny funding to Planned Parenthood, we will deny them our votes.

Personally, this is my line in the sand, and I am not moving.

Fracking Kills Baby

Parents-to-be beware: If you live in 10 of Pennsylvania’s most heavily fracked counties, your baby has a 29-percent greater risk of dying within the first 0 – 28 days of birth, than if you live elsewhere.

An epidemiological study published recently in the Journal of Environmental Protection revealed for the first time that fracking kills babies. The study examined early infant deaths 0-28 days before and after the drilling of fracking wells, using official data from the U.S. Centre for Disease Control to compare the immediate post-fracking four-year period (2007-2010) with the pre-fracking four-year period (2003-2006). According to the study:

There were about 50 more babies died in these 10 counties than would have been predicted if the rate had been the same over the period as all of Pennsylvania, where the incidence rate fell over the same period.

Think it’s about time to ban fracking? Or at the very least, regulate the chemicals that fracking dumps into local waterways? Sadly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is still protecting the frackers—not the babies.

Read the study

Learn more

Could Staring at a Screen Ignite Speech Delays in Toddlers?

Smartphones and tablets are a good way to keep young children quiet and entertained, but a recent study suggests that babies and toddlers allowed too much screen time may go on to develop speech delays.

Study principal investigator Dr. Catherine Birken, a staff pediatrician and scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, says:

“Handheld devices are everywhere these days. While new pediatric guidelines suggest limiting screen time for babies and toddlers, we believe that the use of smartphones and tablets with young children has become quite common. This is the first study to report an association between handheld screen time and increased risk of expressive language delay.” [1]

The American Academy of Family Physicians explains expressive language as the ability to convey feelings and information. The AAP discourages any type of screen media in children younger than 18 months.

However, the American Academy of Pediatrics moved away last year from recommending a total ban on screen time in children 18-24 months. Instead, the group says that parents of children in this age group should choose high-quality programming and view it with their children to make sure they understand what they are seeing. [2]

One thing is clear: Unsupervised, unlimited screen time is not good for developing brains.

More Screen Time = More Risk

The study involved nearly 900 children from Toronto between the ages of 6 months and 2 years. At their 18-month checkup, 20% of the children of the youngsters were already spending an average of 28 minutes per day using handheld electronic gadgets, such as tablets, smartphones, and electronic games. [1]

The team used an infant toddler checklist, a validated screening tool, to assess the children’s language development at 18 months. They wanted to find out whether the child used sounds or words get attention or help, if they were able to put words together, and how many words each child used. [2]

The researchers found that the more time a child spent using handheld devices, the more likely that child was to have delays in expressive speech. To be specific, every 30 minutes of screen time was associated with a 49% increased risk of expressive speech delay.

The study did not find any link between the use of a handheld device and other areas of communication, such as gestures, body language, and social interaction. [2]

The study also did not prove a direct cause-and-effect link between handheld devices and speech delays. The team concluded that more research is needed to better understand the connection. [1]

Michael Robb, research director for Common Sense Media, says:

“This is an important study in highlighting some of the potential risks associated with media use, and specifically handheld mobile devices. What’s driving the effect is very important. The negative effects may be due to screen time replacing parent-child interaction (playing, reading, talking, singing, etc.) which are critical for healthy development.” [2]

The study was presented at the 2017 Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting in San Francisco.

Gadgets like smartphones and tablets are fun, and can be very educational, but they are also associated with stress and anxiety in families that fail to set appropriate boundaries for their use, particularly when it comes to when children can use the devices, and for how long.

As a result, many young children are growing up to be completely dependent on technology. According to the discouraging findings of a study published last spring, about 59% of children ages 12-18 are addicted to their smartphones.

Yet another study published last fall showed that kids as young as 6 are so glued to technology, that even having a phone, tablet, or computer in the room is enough to prevent them from sleeping.

Some adults aren’t much better, let’s be honest. But setting guidelines now may help the littlest ones among us to become more balanced and independent when it comes to technology.

Sources:

[1] Health Day

[2] CNN

---

---

20 Amazing Facts About What Happens Every Single Minute Of Every Single Day In Our Rapidly Changing World

Our world is changing at a blinding pace that is accelerating with each passing day.  Thanks to the Internet, information travels at a speed that would have been unimaginable at other times in human history, and our technological capabilities are advancing at a rate that is exponentially increasing.  What all of this means is that seismic cultural shifts that used to take decades can now be accomplished in a matter of months or even weeks.  So will all of this change lead to a wonderfully positive future for humanity, or will it result in a dystopian nightmare?  Only time will tell, but what everyone can agree on is that our world is rapidly becoming a much different place than the world that our parents and grandparents grew up in.  The following are 20 amazing facts about what happens every single minute of every single day in our rapidly changing world…

#1 250 babies will be born, and 113 of them will be born into poverty.

#2 500 hours of video will be uploaded to YouTube.

#3 The Earth will travel 1,118 miles around the sun.

#4 McDonald’s will sell 4,500 hamburgers.

#5 Lightning will strike our planet about 6,000 times .

#6 28,500 trees will be cut down.

#7 51,000 applications will be downloaded from Apple’s App Store.

#8 65,000 barrels of oil will be used used.

#9 People will watch 64,444 hours of content on Netflix.

#10 120,673 pounds of edible food will be thrown away in the United States.

#11 $203,596 worth of products will be sold on Amazon.com.

#12 448,800 tweets will be posted on Twitter.

#13 527,760 photos will be shared on Snapchat.

#14 3.3 million posts will be made to Facebook.

#15 3.8 million Google searches will be conducted.

#16 5 million pounds of garbage will be generated.

#17 6 million chemical reactions will happen in each one of our cells.

#18 20.8 million messages will be sent using WhatsApp.

#19 25 million Coca-Cola products will be consumed.

#20 204 million emails will be sent.

Concerning Study Shows Glyphosate Herbicide Harms Unborn Children

At a children’s health conference earlier this month, the results of a study were presented which show that glyphosate, the main component in the Monsanto herbicide, RoundUp, is detected in pregnant women and could lead to adverse outcomes, including shorter gestation times and lower birth weights.

The news comes just weeks after the USDA scrapped plans to start testing food for glyphosate.

For the study, researchers tested and tracked 69 pregnant women and found that the presence of glyphosate levels in the women’s bodily fluids correlated with unfavorable birth outcomes.

The study, which is still in the preliminary stages, is a project of the Children’s Environmental Health Network (CEHN), which is studying the effects of the chemical on reproductive and children’s health amid rising herbicide use in the Midwest.

Paul Winchester, M.D., member of the research team involved with this study, medical director of the neonatal intensive care unit at the Franciscan St. Francis Health system and professor of clinical pediatrics at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis, Indiana, said glyphosate exposure in pregnant women is a “huge issue,” adding:

“Everyone should be concerned about this.”

Concerning Findings of the Study

Preliminary work found glyphosate in the urine of 91% – 63 out of 69 – women receiving prenatal care through an Indiana obstetric practice. The data, collected over 2 years, from 2015-2016, revealed that women with high levels of glyphosate in their bodies had significantly shorter pregnancies, and gave birth to babies with lower adjusted birth weights.

Source: The Huffington Post

Source: The Huffington Post

Both premature delivery and low birth weight are considered risk factors for numerous health and/or neurodevelopmental problems throughout a person’s life.

Read: Study Finds Glyphosate, Other Toxins in 100% of Pregnant Women and Fetuses

The researchers found that women living in rural areas had higher mean glyphosate levels than women living in urban and suburban regions. This suggests that proximity to corn and soybean fields that are heavily treated with glyphosate is a route of exposure for these women.

Corn and soybeans have been genetically modified to withstand glyphosate spraying. The weed killer is also used on wheat, oats, and other non-genetically modified crops shortly before harvest, leaving behind residues in grain-based foods.

Glyphosate use has risen sharply over the past 20 years. In 2016, a landmark reported listed the chemical as the most widely used herbicide in history.

Winchester says he was surprised to see such a high percentage of pregnant women with detectable glyphosate in their urine. He also says much more research on the weed killer is needed, and more data is needed on levels of exposure through food.

He and other researchers are calling on the CDC to start biomonitoring glyphosate and its main metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA). The agency currently tracks levels of other pesticides and chemicals in urine and blood.

Winchester says:

“Is this level of exposure safe or not? We’ve been told it is, but exposures haven’t been measured. It’s mind-boggling.”

Sources:

[1] Beyond Pesticides

[2] The Huffington Post

Graphs Source:

The Huffington Post

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Study Shows Babies Are Born Polluted

Back in 2010, a report by the President’s Cancer Panel called for a change in the regulation of chemicals produced by industry. Why? Because a study had found that babies were polluted at birth ^[1]. Before they even had the privilege of joining the physical world, the unborn were found to be affected by the sins of it. Research showed that, almost universally, the bodies of newborn infants were already infested with upwards of 200 different chemicals – and those are only the ones that can be tested for ^[2]. The placenta, the safeguard nature has put in place for a developing baby in the womb can’t defend against the ugly side of industrialization. And now, nearly three years later, nothing has changed. That should make you both sick and angry.

No Surprise

Critics have long viewed “toxins” as a make-believe concept conjured up by natural medical practitioners, and “weirdos” who are rightfully skeptical of the safety of the wares produced by the food, drug, and chemical industries. Frankly, I don’t know how educated persons could be so blind. You don’t need a chemical engineering degree to figure this one out. Heck, go to the home goods section of any big box retailer and examine the warning labels on the various home cleaning (oxymoron?) products. This stuff is used en masse, every single day by, literally, hundreds of millions of people… and that’s not including the horribly caustic chemicals used, and dumped into the environment by large industry. No effect? The incidence of all degenerative diseases, cancer, autism, etc, is on the rise. A person would have to be purposely obtuse to believe this trash isn’t negatively affecting the environment and the human race.

Who is to Blame?

In 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act was introduced. Like many pieces of legislation, the name of the act is far more misleading and feel-good than its substance is effective. Contrary to what you might think and hope, the TSCA doesn’t implement logical safeguards, restrictions, or safety testing. In fact, when the TSCA was passed, it included the rubber-stamp approval of 60,000 chemicals already being used by industry. Today, that list has grown to 80,000 chemicals, which includes known and suspected carcinogens, and only 200 (0.0025%) of them have been tested for safety by the EPA. Is it just me or does that sound horrendously unacceptable? These are the chemicals used to produce food containers, toys, and just about everything else most people use on a daily basis. In addition, the TCSA allows industry to keep some ingredients a secret, and upwards of 20% of the chemicals on that list ARE a secret.

The TSCA is flawed from top to bottom and one of the largest problems is that chemical manufacturers are not required to demonstrate a product is safe, the government must prove it’s harmful. Well, clearly, that can only happen AFTER harm has already been inflicted; if it’s to happen at all. Abysmally, since inception of the TSCA in 1976, only 5 chemicals have been banned- PCBs, chlorofluorocarbons, dioxin, asbestos, and hexavalent chromium… and the asbestos ban was overturned, despite the fact that upwards of 10,000 people a year die of asbestos related causes.

What Needs to Happen?

Despite recommendations at the highest level, the TSCA remains unchanged. It’s a tall order, but congress needs to shape up and amend the TSCA, drastically, to require far more stringent safety testing and transparency for chemicals used in industry. The burden of safety needs to be on industry, period. Although we live in a polluted world, we also all need to be personally active and accountable for ourselves. This includes speaking up to our elected officials and demanding that issues like this not be ignored. It also includes making personal decisions that help offset the odds as much as possible. Your diet needs to be as organic as possible. Your water needs to be purified. Your home needs to be detoxified. The health of our children and nation, literally, depends on this.

References:

1. Laura LeBlanc. Babies are polluted at birth, new report says. PBS. 2010 May 13.


2. Environmental Working Group. First BPA detection in U.S. infant cord blood. EWG Public Affairs. 2009 December 2.

Don’t Forget About the 2017 Dirty Dozen List: Most Pesticide-Tainted Produce

Every year the Environmental Working Group (EWG) puts out a list of the 12 types of produce that contain the most pesticides. The group analyzes tests by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the list. The list was released in the beginning of the year, but it’s important to browse the list multiple times so the information is at your fingertips. [1]

This year, the EWG found that close to 70% of samples of 48 types of conventional produce contained residues of 1 or more pesticides. In all, USDA researchers found 178 different pesticides and pesticide breakdown products in the samples of produce, which numbered in the thousands. These chemicals remained on the produce even after they were washed and, in some cases, peeled.

In a news release, Sonya Lunder, an EWG senior analyst, says:

“If you don’t want to feed your family food contaminated with pesticides, the EWG Shopper’s Guide helps you make smart choices, whether you’re buying conventional or organic produce.

Eating of fruits and vegetables is essential no matter how they’re grown, but for the items with the heaviest pesticide loads, we urge shoppers to buy organic. If you can’t buy organic, the Shopper’s Guide will steer you to conventionally grown produce that is the lowest in pesticides.” [1]

Choosing produce with the least amount of pesticides is vital to the health of children, Lunder says.

“Even low levels of pesticide exposure can be harmful to infants, babies and young children, so when possible, parents and caregivers should take steps to lower children’s exposures to pesticides while still feeding them diets rich in healthy fruits and vegetables.” [1]

The “Dirty Dozen” List

Strawberries are at the top of the list because the USDA found that the most contaminated sample of the fruit had 20 different pesticides. [1]

New to the list this year is pears and potatoes, displacing cherry tomatoes and cucumbers from last year’s list.

At least one pesticide residue was found on nearly all of the strawberries, spinach, peaches, nectarines, cherries, and apples.

On average, the spinach samples contained twice as much pesticide residue by weight than any other crop. In fact, EWG says 3/4 of spinach samples were contaminated with residues of a neurotoxic pesticide banned in Europe for use on food crops. It is part of a group of pesticides that have been linked to behavioral disorders in young children in recent studies.

Read: Pesticides as Dangerous as Secondhand Smoke to Kids

You can find the full list of 51 types of produce on EWG’s website.

The “Clean 15”

Not every fruit and vegetable is coated in chemicals, fortunately, and the EWG also made a list of the types of produce that are least likely to contain pesticide residues.

Sources:

[1] Environmental Working Group

[2] Environmental Working Group

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.