How infants adjust in their first months of life depends on many factors, including what their mothers experienced while they are in utero. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1 in 4 women in the U.S. will experience intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime and that risk increases during pregnancy, but surprisingly few longitudinal studies have been conducted on the effects of IPV during pregnancy.
William J. Shaw Center for Children and Families Assistant Professor of Psychology Laura Miller-Graff led a novel study examining the role of breastfeeding as a potential protective factor against detrimental outcomes for infants associated with IPV during pregnancy. Miller-Graff and her co-author, graduate student Caroline Scheid, found that breastfeeding through the first six weeks of life acts as a protective factor, effectively negating the risk of IPV the mother experienced during pregnancy on early infant difficult temperament. Poor temperament — from fussiness to being unable to soothe themselves — can be an indicator of adjustment issues in early childhood.
“The current findings suggest continued breastfeeding actually stand to substantially reduce IPV’s intergenerational conferral of risk on infant adjustment,” the authors write in the study that was published in the journal Development and Psychopathology. “The protective role of breastfeeding is a particularly promising area of intervention given that breastfeeding education and support is already embedded in numerous health systems women might engage with during their pregnancy.”
Earlier research conducted by Miller-Graff and other colleagues showed that, while victims of IPV are not less likely to initiate breastfeeding, they are far more likely to cease the practice in the first few weeks after birth (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0890334418776217?journalCode=jhla). “Together these studies suggest that providing IPV-exposed women with more targeted breastfeeding support may have important public health implications,” Miller-Graff notes….
Whenever a horrific terror attack or mass shooting occurs, it is of course proper to mourn or at least acknowledge the victims and their loved ones. The 50 innocent people killed at two mosques in Christchurch under a hail of bullets last Friday deserve the respectful treatment they have been afforded in supportive media coverage since then, both in New Zealand and internationally.
What is entirely missing, however, from all media accounts, is a proper accounting of what took place in the city of Christchurch that afternoon. Eyewitness statements and police reports of multiple armed men, arrested suspects, and defused bombs at diverse locations in the city have simply been ‘dropped’ from media coverage, replaced with a narrative focusing on one sole actor, Australian Brenton Tarrant.
The sadistic psychopath who filmed his part in the events is undoubtedly a perpetrator, but was he the sole perpetrator?
In this NewsReal, Joe and Niall discuss the bloody events in Christchurch and point to some of the evidence that indicates Tarrant was not acting alone. They also discuss why it’s important to consider this and similar events in the context of organized criminal conspiracies: the fractious fallout inflames and reinforces divisions in society globally.
If this is the intention not just of the ‘lone gunman’, but of his powerful backers, then it behooves us to know when we are being manipulated…
Adult stem cell therapy is enjoying widespread success around the world, but if the FDA gets its way, it may soon be banned here in the U.S.
There have been nearly 12,000 adult stem cell therapies performed in the United States with an over 90 percent success healing rate for mostly joint and spinal conditions. It involves using the patient’s own stem cells, so no patent-able drugs are involved.
They are targeting the most influential stem cell scientist in the U.S., Dr. Kristin Comella in Florida.
Differentiating the Types of Stem Cell Therapy
Many consider stem cell therapy the future of medicine. A stem cell can rebuild or create new cells in tissues, even in organ tissues other than those from which they had originally existed.
They could be considered seeds for growing body tissues. They are mostly able to function for cellular repair and growth no matter what organ is in need of repair or healing from chronic inflammation.
There is a considerable controversy surrounding stem cell therapy research, a branch of regenerative medicine.Much of the controversy has to do with not differentiating between adult stem cell therapy and embryonic stem cell therapy.
Embryonic stem cell therapy is the controversial one. It cultures or creates stem cells from terminated or aborted fetuses.
Currently, the FDA is harassing stem cell clinics that do not derive their stem cell solutions from aborted fetus tissue. They extract the stem cells from the patient’s own adipose tissue and inject them into areas where that same patient needs repair. It’s an autologous process called adult stem cell therapy.
U.S. Stem Cell based out of South Florida is one of the clinics being targeted by the FDA, and the clinic’s Chief Scientist is Dr. Kristin Comella, PhD.
Many other nations have been using adult stem cell therapy successfully over the past 15 years, leaving the USA dead last in this field. The FDA is trying to make sure it stays that way and allows costly pharmaceutical versions to prevail.
Dr. Kristin Comella and her clinic have been under attack from the FDA….
It should be noted that forcing a reliance on fetal tissue rather than “recycled” tissue introduces the autoimmune hazard of homologous recombination with foreign DNA.
It should also be noted that the FDA and CDC are obviously not acting in the public interest on this and a great many other issues.
It affects men more often than women, the first diagnosis at the mayo clinic was in 1919, with a sharp rise in the early 1930’s. Median age of onset is mid-teens. https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/30/1/13/2708142 It was associated with a specific flu vaccine used in europe in 2009 and it was discovered that this vaccine contained a protein which “mimics” a protein involved in sleep mediation https://www.livescience.com/51411-flu-vaccine-narcolepsy-immune-response.html
Now it seems the case for an immune connection is strengthening.
Researchers from the University of Copenhagen have discovered autoreactive cells in persons suffering from narcolepsy. This is a new, important proof that the sleep disorder is an autoimmune disease. This knowledge may lead to better treatment of the chronic condition, the researchers behind the new discovery believe.
For many years, scientists have expected the sleep disorder narcolepsy of being an autoimmune disease, though without being able to prove it conclusively. Now researchers from the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen together with the Technical University of Denmark and Rigshospitalet have found a new, important proof that their presumptions were correct. The new research results have been published in the scientific journal Nature Communications….
I can only speak for myself of course, but it seems to me that given known luciferian history and emerging research, any parent who continues to follow the CDC’s vaccination regimen is either ignorant or in total denial.
It is inappropriate to apply the “innocent until proven guilty” standard in cases where the cost of false negatives is so extreme as to affect the quality of future human DNA. Would you let your child wander across the street in rush hour given that he’s unlikely to be killed on any specific day? It’s so inconvenient to have to get up and walk them all the time, just as it’s inconvenient to get the flu. Sometimes people actually die of flu complications, but such risks are already well studied and characterized, and effective prevention strategies such as normal doses of vitamin D (http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2019/01/research-coverup-of-vitamin-d-scandal-continues/) are readily available. Those few studies which have been attempted on vaccine-related injury are questionable, conflicted and increasingly difficult given the increasing scarcity of control (non-intervention) groups such as the amish.
Vaccines have no rights. Corporations have no rights. Governments have no rights when they cease to act in the public interest. Children have rights, and adults have the right to protect their children, starting with the baby-step of asking the question of whether they can really trust the government and the corporate media, given known history. Of course those who are paying attention know that this question has already been answered in spades.
Last week, the city of Miami passed a resolution banning the use of glyphosate herbicide on city property. Beginning immediately, the city will no longer allow the use of glyphosate, an herbicide brought to the market by Monsanto under the name Roundup. Glyphosate is a probable carcinogen and potential pollutant.
It has been a year since China jammed the works of recycling programs around the world by essentially shutting down what had been the industry’s biggest market. China’s “National Sword” policy, enacted in January 2018, banned the import of most plastics and other materials headed for that nation’s recycling processors, which had handled nearly half of the world’s recyclable waste for the past quarter century. The move was an effort to halt a deluge of soiled and contaminated materials that was overwhelming Chinese processing facilities and leaving the country with yet another environmental problem — and this one not of its own making.
In the year since, China’s plastics imports have plummeted by 99 percent, leading to a major global shift in where and how materials tossed in the recycling bin are being processed. While the glut of plastics is the main concern, China’s imports of mixed paper have also dropped by a third. Recycled aluminum and glass are less affected by the ban.
Globally more plastics are now ending up in landfills, incinerators, or likely littering the environment as rising costs to haul away recyclable materials increasingly render the practice unprofitable. In England, more than half-a-million more tons of plastics and other household garbage were burned last year. Australia’s recycling industry is facing a crisis as the country struggles to handle the 1.3 million-ton stockpile of recyclable waste it had previously shipped to China.
Communities across the U.S. have curtailed collections or halted their recycling programs entirely.
Across the United States, local governments and recycling processors are scrambling to find new markets. Communities from Douglas County, Oregon to Hancock, Maine, have curtailed collections or halted their recycling programs entirely, which means that many residents are simply tossing plastic and paper into the trash. Some communities, like Minneapolis, stopped accepting black plastics and rigid #6 plastics like disposable cups. Others, like Philadelphia, are now burning the bulk of their recyclables at a waste-to-energy plant, raising concerns about air pollution.
Even before China’s ban, only 9 percent of discarded plastics were being recycled, while 12 percent were burned. The rest were buried in landfills or simply dumped and left to wash into rivers and oceans. Without China to process plastic bottles, packaging, and food containers — not to mention industrial and other plastic waste — experts warn it will exacerbate the already massive waste problem posed by our throwaway culture. The planet’s load of nearly indestructible plastics — more than 8 billion tons have been produced worldwide over the past six decades — continues to grow.
“Already, we’ve been seeing evidence in the past year of the accumulation of plastic waste in countries that are dependent on exporting,” says the University of Georgia’s Amy Brooks, a Ph.D. student in engineering and lead author of a recent study on the impacts of China’s import ban. “We’ve seen increased cost to consumers, closure of recycling facilities, and ultimately decreased plastic waste diversion.”
The recycling crisis triggered by China’s ban could have an upside, experts say, if it leads to better solutions for managing the world’s waste, such as expanding processing capacities in North America and Europe, and spurring manufacturers to make their products more easily recyclable. Above all, experts say it should be a wake-up call to the world on the need to sharply cut down on single-use plastics….
The failure of the February 23 “humanitarian aid” provocation on the Venezuelan border was a serious blow for Trump’s ongoing coup attempt. There were mutual recriminations between self-appointed Guaidó, Colombian President Duque and US Vice-President Pence. The US could not get a consensus from its own Lima Cartel allies in favour of military intervention.
The coup was losing momentum. Then, on March 7, just days after Guaidó’s anti-climactic return to Caracas, the country was plunged into a nationwide blackout from which it has not yet fully recovered. What caused it? How is it related to the “regime change” attempt? And, most importantly, what are imperialism’s plans and how can they be fought?
February 23 was supposed to be the coup’s D-Day. The idea was never to actually deliver “humanitarian aid” into the country, but rather to create a “people’s power” moment, where large crowds of opposition supporters on both sides of the border defied the Venezuelan armed forces, which, when faced with a large crowd of peaceful demonstrators, would then switch sides and join Trump’s puppet, Juan Guaidó. On the day, however, things did not go according to Washington’s plan. The crowds of opposition supporters did not materialise in the expected numbers. “Aid” trucks did not cross the border and by the end of the day, Rubio, Abrams and Guaidó were left with egg all over their faces.
They made a big story about “Maduro burning the aid trucks” at the Santander bridge on the Colombian border. US officials even insisted this justified military intervention under the Geneva Convention. Never mind the fact that the Convention only applies in cases of war, the fact is that the aid truck that was burned was set on fire by a “peaceful” opposition supporter throwing a molotov cocktail at the Venezuelan border guards. Several media outlets (teleSUR, RT) explained that this was the case right from the beginning and even produced video footage to prove it. That did not stop US officials like Marco Rubio and John Bolton from blaming Maduro and the chorus of the world’s bourgeois mass media from parroting the lie…
Now, two weeks too late, even the New York Times has been forced to admit that “one [Venezuelan government] claim that appears to be backed up by video footage is that the protesters started the fire.” The same NY Times investigation also concludes that the Venezuelan government was right in saying the US and the opposition were lying about the trucks containing medicine: “the claim about a shipment of medicine, too, appears to be unsubstantiated, according to videos and interviews.”
The admission by the NY Times, though it is unlikely to be covered as widely as the initial false reports, is very significant. We knew the US was lying, right from the beginning, as there was proof. Now it has been forced to admit it. This should provide a salutary lesson for the next time the US or its Venezuelan opposition make any outrageous claims about the “Maduro regime.” The lesson is: “question everything Washington and the mass media tell you about a government they want to overthrow.”…