A tradition of separation of the mother and baby after birth still persists in many parts of the world, including some parts of Russia, and often is combined with swaddling of the baby. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare possible long-term effects on mother-infant interaction of practices used in the delivery and maternity wards, including practices relating to mother-infant closeness versus separation.
A total of 176 mother-infant pairs were randomized into four experimental groups: Group I infants were placed skin-to-skin with their mothers after birth, and had rooming-in while in the maternity ward. Group II infants were dressed and placed in their mothers’ arms after birth, and roomed-in with their mothers in the maternity ward. Group III infants were kept in the nursery both after birth and while their mothers were in the maternity ward. Group IV infants were kept in the nursery after birth, but roomed-in with their mothers in the maternity ward. Equal numbers of infants were either swaddled or dressed in baby clothes. Episodes of early suckling in the delivery ward were noted. The mother-infant interaction was videotaped according to the Parent-Child Early Relational Assessment (PCERA) 1 year after birth.
The practice of skin-to-skin contact, early suckling, or both during the first 2 hours after birth when compared with separation between the mothers and their infants positively affected the PCERA variables maternal sensitivity, infant’s self-regulation, and dyadic mutuality and reciprocity at 1 year after birth. The negative effect of a 2-hour separation after birth was not compensated for by the practice of rooming-in. These findings support the presence of a period after birth (the early “sensitive period”) during which close contact between mother and infant may induce long-term positive effect on mother-infant interaction. In addition, swaddling of the infant was found to decrease the mother’s responsiveness to the infant, her ability for positive affective involvement with the infant, and the mutuality and reciprocity in the dyad.
Skin-to-skin contact, for 25 to 120 minutes after birth, early suckling, or both positively influenced mother-infant interaction 1 year later when compared with routines involving separation of mother and infant.
The US government’s Centers for Disease Control have been taking millions of dollars in drug company money in recent years, according to a news report in The British Medical Journal. Researchers in America and around the world expressed shock, and asked how the funding has been influencing CDC actions and decisions.
“The CDC Foundation raised $52m in fiscal year 2014, of which $12m was from corporations,” reported The BMJ. “The CDC itself in fiscal year 2014 received $16m in conditional funding from sources such as corporations, individuals, and philanthropy, including the CDC Foundation. Conditional donations are earmarked for specific projects. For example, in 2012, Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDC’s efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C.”
The article reviewed a number of other possible influences of private money on CDC activities.
Jerome R Hoffman, a methodologist and emeritus professor of medicine at UCLA, told The BMJ, “Most of us were shocked to learn the CDC takes funding from industry. Of course it is outrageous that industry apparently is allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has the potential to cut into profits. But it was our government that made this very bad arrangement, so the way to fix it is not to ask the CDC to ‘pretty please be more ethical, and avoid conflicts of interest’; rather, as a society, we have to get the government to reject this devil’s bargain, by changing the rules so this can no longer happen.” …
I suppose we should be surprised when such corruption is exposed for all to see. Most of the time we can only infer it by the behavior of politicians, bureaucrats and “scientists”:
Thimerosal Content in Some US Licensed Vaccines
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont might be the most progressive of all U.S. Senators — only two Senators are even contenders for that spot, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Elizabeth Warren of Massachussetts, and neither of them has campaigned at all for the Presidency.
Only Sanders even tested the waters. On 17 September 2014, Paul Heintz of Vermont’s weekly newspaper Seven Days, headlined, “‘Run, Bernie, Run': In Iowa, Sanders Tests the Presidential Waters,” and opened: “The crowd went wild Saturday afternoon [13 Sep.] as Bernie Sanders ascended a makeshift plywood stage at the Sauk County Fairgrounds in Baraboo, Wisconsin. … ‘Run, Bernie, run! Run, Bernie, run!’” Heintz noted that, later on the same day, in Iowa, Sanders addressed students at Dubuque’s Clarke University. Then, the next day, on Sunday morning, he was at Waterloo Iowa’s Center for the Arts.
Already, he had tested the campaign waters in Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and other states, and received enthusiastic receptions everywhere, even in the deep South where Democrats rarely win. Heintz spoke to David Yepsen, a veteran political reporter in Iowa, who said, “I think he’ll run.” That was as of 17 September 2014.
Then, on 30 April 2015, in a terrific MSNBC interview with Ed Schultz, Sanders said that he would run, and he explained why; and on May 26th, he officially kicked off his campaign, with a wildly enthusiastic event in Burlington Vermont, where his political career had started in 1981 as Mayor.
All this while, Sanders was one of the leaders in the Senate in opposing Obama’s ‘trade’ deals, and, earlier, pressing Obama to support more strongly a public option in the healthcare exchanges, and on many other matters. He has hardly been an inactive Senator, such as Hillary Clinton was. Instead, he was always one of the leaders of the Senate’s progressives.
How much coverage were America’s supposedly ‘progressive’ magazines providing of this? Nothing before he started making noises about a possible Presidential run, and little even after that.
Here are the “Sanders” search-results as of 11 May 2015, at the magazines that claim to be ‘progressive’ — and this is everything, going back not only before 2015, but before 2014: it’s everything at every period. They ignored him up through 2013, and covered him little during 2014 and 2015, while he has been campaigning nationally. …
Does anyone see Sanders’ blind spot here? He’s asking the dragon whether too much of society is on fire. Where is his push to nationalize the fed? Is this what passes for progressive politics?
Of course, truth be told, anyone with half a chance of implementing these eminently sensible policies will have a sudden compulsion to commit suicide or will be killed by a lone madman. Perhaps this is why Sanders is silent on the core issue of our time. This is the kind of country we live in. And when the real government no longer feels a need to maintain the facade of legitimacy, they will implement the security model they’ve imposed on latin america for years: death squad democracy (see the reference section starting at “Salvadoran Says US Advisors Watched Torture Class”). Most likely this will happen when their next false flag is blamed on american dissidents, as the boston bombing was apparently initially intended for. No kidding. The evidence is on this site if you search for it.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire
Which came first, the “problem” or the “solution”? Yet another nail in the coffin of the 9/11 hoax. When enough government bureaucrats and media bots are engaged in high treason, is it still high treason? I guess it depends on whether the words “treason” or “loyalty” have any meaning to you. If you still wonder whether 9/11 was a false flag, look at the first set of links in the reference section.
It has been well-documented that the government conducted mass surveillance on Americans before 9/11.
Now Diane Roark – the congressional staffer in charge of overseeing the NSA for the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee – says that NSA’s mass surveillance started by 1999 or earlier … but NSA hid it from Congress:
Roark: Program started no later than 1999 and was hidden from Congress. Was a program looking for an excuse.
The world’s first privacy-protecting search engine that bans corporate propaganda and government disinformation is now ready for webmasters to submit their sites for indexing. The name of the new search engine? Good Gopher! (www.GoodGopher.com)
GoodGopher is the first and only search engine in the world that intentionally favors New Media / Independent Media / Alternative Media websites like Breitbart.com, The Intercept (Glenn Greenwald), Tom Woods (www.TomWoods.com) and TruthStreamMedia (www.TruthStreamMedia.com). GoodGopher will also selectively spider selected international news sites that have a reputation for fearless reporting on world events, such as RT (Russia Today), Der Spiegel and Al Jazeera.
Fake news sources like MSNBC are banned from the engine, as are all other websites pushing corporate propaganda or government disinfo. Sorry, National Geographic. Peddle your Monsanto mockingbird propaganda somewhere else…
In essence, all the websites which have been blackballed by Google News for reporting the truth are favored and highlighted on GoodGopher.com.
New Media webmasters are invited to submit their sites now to GoodGopher.com. Site crawling and indexing begins immediately.
GoodGopher will be available as a public search engine after a few weeks of crawling. Watch GoodGopher.com or NaturalNews.com for an announcement of search availability. …
Records from the Federal Election Commission show corporations have been donating tens of thousands of dollars to Senate campaign coffers, particularly to lawmakers who were undecided over a controversial trade deal involving Pacific Rim countries.
Using data from the Federal Election Commission, the Guardian studied donations from the corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP – the Trans-Pacific Partnership – to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when debate over the trade deal was ramping up.
What the documents showed was that out of a total of nearly $1.2 million given, an average of $17,000 was donated to each of the 65 “yes” votes. Republicans received an average of $19,000 and Democrats received $9,700.
“It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us, told the Guardian. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their re-election campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.” …
Traumatic stress experienced by mice early in life has epigenetic repercussions that reverberate across multiple generations.
The unhealthy behavior exhibited by mice who were subjected to emotional stress during the early post-natal stage was passed down to their offspring, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Zurich (UZH). Because previous studies have identified a similar inheritance process in humans, researchers are searching for ways to counteract these epigenetic effects.
Previous researchers have theorized that behaviors induced by traumatic experiences could pass between humans and their offspring through epigenetic modifications—that is, changes that regulate gene expression without changing the DNA sequence of an organism. These theories were based on only on observations of families with a history of behavioral disorders and groups who were disposed to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), so the link between behavior and biology had not been extensively explored.
UZH researchers attempted to understand this link by testing whether unhealthy behavior that resulted from traumatic experiences could be passed from one generation of mice to the next. The researchers choose to work with mice instead of humans; because social interaction and learned behavior is so robust, the causes for unhealthy human behavior are difficult to separate between biological and social factors.Researchers subjected a cohort of male mice to unpredictable maternal separation and unpredictable maternal stress (MSUS) during the first two weeks of post-natal life. As adults, these mice were subjected to a series of well-established tasks and behavioral markers that detected social incompetency, impulsivity, and depression. These stressed males were then bred with normal females, who were left raise their pups under normal, non-stressful, conditions. When these second-generation pups became adults, they showed the similar unhealthy behavioral patterns to their fathers. Since the males had no contact with the pups, the results suggest that the behavior was passed down through epigenetic factors. …
But now that they KNOW it’s not nice to traumatize newborn babies they’ll surely put a stop to it right? Riiiiiight. This is where normal people’s capacity for understanding hits a brick wall. Medicine, like the rest of the establishment, is controlled at the top by control freak psychopaths. Get used to it.
Apparently russia’s finally reacting to NATO’s ever tightening noose around its neck is causing the corporate owners of the world to throw a tantrum. It has all kinds of shiny resources and cool machines and masses of people to enslave. They WANT it. Why can’t they have it? Institutionalized mental illness. Will psychological help come in time?
Vast quantities of non-organic crops are deliberately doused with the carcinogenic herbicide glyphosate (trade name Roundup) in order to provide farmers with a more profitable harvest.
Roundup is one of the world’s most popular herbicides, and the most widely used agricultural and residential weedkiller in the United States. The adoption of crops genetically engineered to resist Roundup has led to an explosion in its use in the past 20 years.
In March, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IACR) announced in an article published in the journal Lancet Oncology that it had updated glyphosate’s status to “probably carcinogenic,” based on strong evidence from animal studies and “limited evidence” from human studies.
The practice of killing good crops with Roundup right before harvest is described in a 2010 paper by Roundup manufacturer Monsanto. The purpose, the company says, is to cause the crops to all die at the same time, thus drying uniformly and providing an earlier and more profitable harvest.
“Uneven maturity and green tissue delays harvest,” the paper reads, directing the reader’s attention to photographs showing the “uniform” and “complete” desiccation of fields of corn and sunflowers killed by Roundup.
Killing crops in this way leads to lower drying times and costs, the company says. It also spares farmers the trouble of having to wait for crops to fully mature before harvesting them.
“By bringing harvest date forward 2-3 weeks growers can more often meet the optimum planting date for winter wheat establishment so maximising yield,” the paper reads. …
Evidence continues to mount of the dangers posed by Roundup exposure. In addition to cancer, studies have linked both Roundup and specifically glyphosate to organ failure and birth defects. A recent study conducted by scientists from Flinders University in Australia found that Roundup disrupts the endocrine (hormonal) system at levels allowed in drinking water. That study also found that Roundup was more toxic to the endocrine system than pure glyphosate, suggesting that some of the “inactive” ingredients in the herbicide are also toxic either alone or in combination with glyphosate and other Roundup ingredients….