On Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published its updated policy statement on circumcision in the most recent edition of the journal Pediatrics. In a move that shocked and angered intactivits — activists who oppose infant circumcision and support genital integrity for both males and females — throughout the country and around the world, the AAP made the claim that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

To learn more about the updated AAP circumcision policy statement and the reactions of intactivists, I recently spoke with members of The WHOLE Network and End Routine Infant Circumcision (ERIC).

1. What changes has the AAP made to its circumcision policy statement?

The WHOLE Network: On Monday, the twenty-seventh of August, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a new circumcision policy statement. In this new statement, even though they still don’t recommend routine infant circumcision, the AAP proclaimed the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

2. Why are intactivists so upset about the changes to the AAP policy on circumcision?

The WHOLE NETWORK: Not only does this new statement ignore all data that refutes this claim, it also flies in the face of common sense and the Hippocratic Oath. Routine infant male circumcision is medically unnecessary and risky. Unless medically indicated, this surgery should only be performed on a consenting person.

Human rights advocates across the nation were angry. We at The WHOLE Network wanted to give them an outlet for their anger. A way for their voice to be heard.

Prior to the statement’s release we discovered the current AAP president, Dr. Bob Block, on Twitter. He is shown, palms facing outward, with “AAP ROCKS” scrawled on his hands in permanent marker. This is how the concept for “Wash Your Hands Clean of the AAP” was born. An online event was created using The WHOLE Network’s Facebook page. We encouraged people to attend by switching their profile pictures to one showing hands with the words “AAP” and “NO ETHICS” written on them. Attendance to this online event exploded. Soon we had nearly 1,500 people in attendance, with over 500 photos submitted. Using these photos, we created a YouTube video to music.

It’s been truly inspiring to see members of the intactivist movement coming together to unite against the AAP. We are glad to have been able to play a part in that. Our hope is that the world will see just how strong our movement is. We are here, we are ready to be the voice for these baby boys, and we are not going away. (Check out the video on YouTube or at the bottom of this article.)

Jeremy (ERIC): The new statement is extremely disappointing and, as expected, neglects the medical ethics of cutting a healthy body part off a non-consenting individual and the human rights aspects of bodily integrity. The AAP Task force on circumcision started with a pro-circumcision bias and cherry picked which studies to use in forming their policy, and their claims fly in the face of many other studies, real world statistics, and medical positions around the world. I hope new parents can see through the smoke screen and realize that there are ulterior motives at work here.

The changes the AAP have made to the circumcision policy, while they do not recommend circumcision, they push benefits over and over again and mention the money incentive.

I believe the AAP made these changes because circumcision rates in the US have plummeted between 2006 and 2012 and the revenue earned by its members are dropping too. Note that the ACOG endorses this policy; this is no surprise as OB-GYNs are the ones performing most circumcisions in the United States, so a drop in rates hits their revenue too.

Doctors and nurses may tell patients a one sided view of all these “benefits” but miss out that it is still not recommended.

As for around the world, doctors and human rights groups are condemning the policy. The policies conclusions contradict the findings of other major health organizations, and they have read the same studies. Remember that the AAP task force on circumcision started with a bias for circumcision then cherry picked which studies to use to back them up.

3. How will these changes affect male babies born in US hospitals?

The WHOLE NETWORK:  Probably not much. The rates of circumcision in America have been dropping dramatically over the last decade, especially in the last couple years. All the while, the AAP has held a neutral stance. People are not influenced that much by the AAP anymore, especially after the 2010 incident where they endorsed a “ritual nick” circumcision for infant girls, and quickly withdrew that statement due to the backlash. They simply aren’t credible in the eyes of many people anymore.

4. Will the updated AAP circumcision policy statement, do you think, have a negative impact on circumcision policies around the world such as the current ban on circumcision in countries like Germany and Switzerland?

The WHOLE NETWORK:  Not at all. We are the only country who circumcises our baby boys routinely for non-religious purposes. 80% of the men in this world are not circumcised, so they view our practices of routine infant circumcision as barbaric. This is why all other medical organizations have spoken out against infant circumcision, and countries have even taken steps to outlaw it. They realize the harm that it causes and the ethics it violates.

5. Is there anything else that you would like to state about the revisions to the AAP circumcision policy?

The WHOLE NETWORK:  Citing evidence from three studies in Africa that found a reduced rate of HIV transmission to circumcised males, the AAP has irresponsibly dismissed conflicting evidence that distinctly calls the effectiveness of circumcision on HIV rates into question.[1-4] The AAP also cites a reduction in urinary tract infections, even though the circumcision procedure itself can cause life-threatening infection.[5-7] Reduced risk of penile cancer is touted, but this cancer is so rare a man is more likely to experience breast cancer[8] than cancer of the penis in his lifetime.[9] The AAP fails to acknowledge that easier, less-costly, non-invasive measures exist for all of the supposed benefits of circumcision, such as condoms, antibiotics, and proper hygiene.

Further, the AAP has turned a blind eye to mounting evidence that circumcision is a harmful practice with serious risks such as hemorrhage [10-19], accidental dismemberment,[20-36] and death,[37-45] and potential life-long physical, psychological,[46-55] and sexual consequences ranging from a personality disorder to erectile dysfunction to orgasm difficulties, with sexual side-effects also extending to his partner.[56]

It is important to remember that the task force charged with reviewing and updating the academy’s position on circumcision is not without conflict of interest. The AAP is a professional organization, which exists  to represent and support the professional interests of its members. In its last position statement they acknowledged that those members stand to lose an estimated $150-270 million dollars if circumcisions were no longer performed, without including follow-up care and corrective procedures, which are quite common.[57] The new statement proclaims, “Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it, and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns,” revealing whose interests they truly have in mind.

Last year when the AAP issued a call to allow physicians to offer a ‘ritual nick’ on the genitals of girls,[58] the immediate and intense public response led to a prompt retraction. The WHOLE Network calls upon the AAP to act quickly to retract the 2012 circumcision statement, and instead put the rights and well-being of the patient before all other interests by condemning routine infant circumcision.

Dennis Gouws (ERIC): Cutting off a child’s foreskin is a morally reprehensible act. A boy has a right to all of his healthy body, and how he experiences it should be his choice — not the choice of a parent, a religious leader, a government, a philanthropist, or a doctor.

Kim Davis (ERIC): I am deeply saddened by the new statement; however, there are contradictions within the policy. I believe they are grasping at straws to try to and bring up the circumcision rates. People have access to information now more than ever and it shows with the decline in cut rates. Doctors are about business and an elective surgery than takes them 15 minutes from start to finish is quite a profit in their pocket plus any revenue they earn from the sale of the foreskin. I honestly believe that doctors know that most men if left intact will never have a problem nor elect this surgery so they take advantage of parents lack of knowledge and cut before the boy has a choice which ensures they get paid. What really burns me about the new policy is the amount of press. Most people have no idea what the AAP said about RIC before this release (and if they did they did not listen to them then) and now the ONLY thing they will see is the headlines — “THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE RISK” — which will validate their choice for cutting their son without ever considering the risk or the ethical implications.

The researchers say if the trend continues to where only 10 percent of US males are circumcised — rates similar to Europe — the country could face about $4.4 billion in health care costs, an added $407 per man. So, if each circumcision costs about $400, how is the cost any more or less? And what about those that never “have” to have a circ and never get UTIs, STDs, etc.? And what about the European countries: What exactly is their rate of UTIs and STDs?

Micheal (ERIC): This is a basic human rights issue, and no one has the right to take away a piece of a person’s functioning body. It is his body, his choice. There is nothing wrong with foreskin; it is not a birth defect. The foreskin serves a very unique purpose and removing it alters the way the male anatomy functions. This is not only morally and ethically wrong, it is illegal according to the 14th Amendment. It was a pleasure to work with Lauren Jenks and The WHOLE Network in this campaign and I hope that the video goes viral. The AAP should never had renewed its stance on circumcision, stating it is still up to the parents. This is not about a parent’s choice. when does the child get to choose his own fate, we are talking about the very core of a man’s identity here.

Speaking more about the “Wash Your Hands Clean of the AAP” event, Stacey M. Butler, LPN, CBE, Doula, of ERIC explains more about the campaign.

“As the countdown began, The WHOLE Network and Lauren Jenks came up with an idea to launch the “Wash Your Hands Clean of the AAP.” The Idea was to have as many intactivists that were upset with the upcoming new release of the circumcision policy release date (08/27/2012); all the intactivists were to write on their hands “AAP” on one hand and on the other “NO Ethics.” Well, the response was overwhelming; over 540 pics were submitted and it became an overnight sensation to the YouTube world!”

References

1. Brewer D. Scarification and male circumcision associated with HIV infection in Mozambican children and youth. Webmedcentral 2011;2(9):WMC002206.
2. Darby, R. L., & Van Howe, R. S. (2011). Not a surgical vaccine: there is no case for boosting infant male circumcision to combat heterosexual transmission of HIV in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 35, 459-465.
3. Green, L. et al., “Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Insufficient Evidence and Neglected External Validity,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 39 (2010): 479-82.
4. Thomas AG, Bakhireva LN, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA Prevalence of male circumcision and its association with HIV and sexually transmitted  infections in a U.S. navy population. Abstract no. TuPeC4861. Presented at the XV International AIDS Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, July 11-16, 2004.
5. Bliss Jr DP. Healey PJ, Waldhausen JHT. Necrotizing fasciitis after Plastibell circumcision. J Pediatrics 1997;31:459-62.
6. Cook J, Parish JA, Shooter RA: Acquisition of Staphylococcus aureus by newborn babies in a hospital maternity department. Br Med J 1938;1:74-8.
7. Hurst V. Transmission of hospital staphylococci among newborn infants. Pediatrics 1960;25:204-14.
8. “What Are the Key Statistics about Breast Cancer in Men?” What Are the Key Statistics about Breast Cancer in Men? N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Aug. 2012. <http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancerinMen/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-in-men-key-statistics>.
9. “What Are the Key Statistics about Penile Cancer?” What Are the Key Statistics about Penile Cancer? N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Aug. 2012. <http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-key-statistics>.
10. Shulman J, Ben-hur N, Neuman Z. Surgical complications of circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1964; 107:149-54.
11. Patel H. The problem of routine infant circumcision. Can. Med. Assoc. J 95 (Sept 10, 1966): 576-581.
12. Gee WF, Ansell, NF. Neonatal circumcision: a ten year overview; with comparison of the Gomco clamp and the Plastibell device. Pediatrics 1976; 58: 824-7.
13. Kaplan GW. Complications of circumcision. Urol Clin N Amer 1983;10:543-549.
14. Griffiths DM. Atwell JD. Freeman NV. A prospective survey of the indications and morbidity of circumcision in children. European Urology 1985 11(3):184-7.
15. Williams N, Kapila L. Complications of circumcision. Br J Surg 1993; 80:1231-36.
16. Killick CJ, Barton CJ, Aslam S, Standen GR. Prenatal diagnosis in factor XIII-A deficiency. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1999;80:F238-F239.
17. Hiss J, Horowitz A, Kahana T. Fatal haemorrhage following male ritual circumcision. J Clin Forensic Med 2000;7:32-4.
18. Corbett HJ, Humphrey GME. Early complications of circumcisions performed in the community. Br J Gen Pract 2003;53(496):887-8.
19. Newell TEC. Judgement of inquiry into the death of McWillis, Ryleigh Roman Bryan. Burnaby, B.C.: British Columbia Coroner’s Service, Monday, 19 January 2004.
20. Brimhall JB. Amputation of the penis following a unique method of preventing hemorrhage after circumcision. St Paul Med J 1902; 4: 490
21. Lerner BL. Amputation of the penis as a complication of circumcision. Med Rec Ann 1952;46:229-31.
22. Levitt SB, Smith RB, Ship AG. Iatrogenic microphallus secondary to circumcision. Urology 1976; 8: 472-4.
23. Izzidien AY. Successful replantation of a traumatically amputated  penis in a neonate. Journal of Pediatric Surgery April 1981,16(2):202-203.
24. Hanash KA. Plastic reconstruction of partially amputated penis at circumcision. Urology 1981; 18(3): 291-3.
25. Azmy A, Boddy SA, Ransley PG. Successful reconstruction following circumcision with diathermy. Br J Urol 1985; 57: 587-8.
26. Yilmaz AF, Sarikaya S, Yildiz S, et al. Rare complication of circumcision: penile amputation and reattachment. European Urology (Basel) 1993; 23(3): 423-424.
27. Audry G, Buis J, Vazquez MP, Gruner M. Amputation of penis after circumcision–penoplasty using expandable prosthesis. Eur J Pediatr Surg 1994; 4: 44-5.
28. Hanukoglu A, Danielli L, Katzir Z, Gorenstein A, Fried D. Serious complications of routine ritual circumcision in a neonate: hydro ureteronephrosis, amputation of glans penis, and hyponatraemia. Eur J Pediatr 1995; 154: 314-5.
29. Gluckman GR et al. Newborn Penile Glans Amputation During Circumcision and Successful Reattachment. Journal of Urology (Baltimore), vol. 153 no. 3 Part 1 March 1995 pp. 778-779.
30. Strimling BS. Partial amputation of glans penis during Mogen clamp circumcision. Pediatrics 1996; 97: 906-7.
31. Neulander E, Walfisch S. Kaneti J. Amputation of distal penile glans during neonatal ritual circumcision — a rare complication. Br J Urol 1996; 77: 924-5.
32. Sherman J, Borer JG, Horowitz M, Glassberg KI. Circumcision:  successful glanular reconstruction and survival following amputation. J Urol 1996; 156: 842.
33. Van Howe RS. Re: circumcision: successful glanular reconstruction and survival following traumatic amputation (Letter). J Urol. 1997;158:550.
34. Coskunfirat OK, Sayiklkan S, Velidedeoglu H.. Glans and penile skin amputation as a complication of circumcision (letter). Ann Plast Surg 1999;43(4):457.
35. Siegel-Itzkovich J. Baby’s penis reattached after botched circumcision. BMJ 2000;321:529.
36. Park JK, Min JK, Kim HJ. Reimplantation of an amputated penis in prepubertal boys. J Urol 2001;165:586-7.
37. Holt LE. Tuberculosis acquired through ritual circumcision. JAMA 1913;LXI(2):99-102.
38. Reuben MS. Tuberculosis from ritual circumcision. Proceedings of the New York Academy of Medicine 1916; (December 15): 333-334.
39. Rosenstein JL. Wound diphtheria in the newborn infant following circumcision. J Pediatr 1941;18:657-8.
40. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin. A study of circumcision. BMJ 1949; 2: 1433-37.
41. Scurlock JM, Pemberton PJ. Neonatal meningitis and circumcision. Med J Aust 1977;1:332-334.
42. Cleary TG, Kohl S. Overwhelming infection with group B beta-hemolytic streptococcus associated with circumcision. Pediatrics, Vol 64,  no 3, (September 1979), pp. 301-303.
43. Hiss J., Horowitz A., Kahana T. Fatal haemorrhage following male ritual circumcision. J Clin Forensic Med 2000;7:32-4.
44. Newell TEC. Judgement of inquiry into the death of McWillis, Ryleigh Roman Bryan. Burnaby, B.C.: British Columbia Coroner’s Service, Monday, 19 January 2004.
45. Paediatric Death Review Committee: Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario. Circumcision: a minor procedure? Paediatr Child Health 2007;12(4):311-2
46. Bollinger, D. and Van Howe, R. , “Alexithymia and Circumcision Trauma: A Preliminary Investigation,” International Journal of Men’s Health (2011); 184-195.
47.Glover E. The ‘screening’ function of traumatic memories. Int J Psychoanal 1929; 10:90-93.
48. Cansever G. Psychological effects of circumcision. Br J Med Psychol 1965; 38: 321-31.
49. Flaherty, JA. Circumcision and Schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry 1980; 41: 96-98.
50. Kennedy H. Trauma in childhood: signs and sequelae as seen in the analysis of an adolescent. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 1986; 41:209-219.
51. Gunnar MR, Porter FL, Wolf CM, Rigatuso J, Larson MC. Neonatal stress reactivity: predictions to later emotional temperment. Child Dev 1995; 66: 1-13.
52. Davis M, Emory E. Sex differences in neonatal stress reactivity. Child  54. Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU International 1999; 83, Suppl. 1:93-102.
53. Rhinehart J. Neonatal circumcision reconsidered. Transactional Analysis Journal 1999; 29(3):215-221.
54. Boyle GJ, Goldman R, Svoboda JS, Fernandez E. Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. .J Health Psychol 2002;7(3):329-43.
55. Gerharz EW, Ransley PG, Woodhouse CRJ. Urinary retention, erectile dysfunction and penile anaesthesia after circumcision: a mixed dissociative (conversion) disorder. Int Urol Nephrol 2005;37(3):525-
56.Frisch, M., Lindholm, M., and Grønbæk, M., “Male Circumcision and Sexual Function in Men and Women: A Survey-based, Cross-sectional Study in Denmark,” International Journal of Epidemiology (2011); 1-15.
57. “Circumcision Policy Statement.” Circumcision Policy Statement. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Aug. 2012. <http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full>.
58. Belluck, Pam. “Group Backs Ritual ‘Nick’ as Female Circumcision Option.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 07 May 2010. Web. 23 Aug. 2012.

Intactivists Respond To The 2012 AAP Circumcision Policy Statement [Op Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

A circumcision ban in Germany passed when a court in Cologne ruled that “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighs the fundamental rights of the parents.” The court also added that “[t]he religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised.”

Heralded by Intactivists, activists who oppose infant circumcision and support genital integrity for both males and females, the circumcision ban in Germany is not without criticism. After the court ruling in Cologne, Jewish groups condemned the decision as trampling on the rights of parents. Dieter Graumann, the head of the Central Committee of Jews in Germany, stated in The Telegraph that the ruling was “an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination.”

Muslim groups also fear that the circumcision ban in Germany amounts to religious discrimination. Circumcision is a prominent ceremony in both Islam and Judaism.

Holm Putzke, a criminal law expert at the University of Passau, believes that the court ruling on the circumcision ban in Germany was not influenced by religion but rather for the protection of the bodily integrity of all children. Putzke stated: “Unlike many politicians, the court has not allowed itself to be scared off by charges of anti-Semitism or religious intolerance.”

After the ruling on the circumcision ban in Germany, both Switzerland and Austria followed suit. Two Swiss hospitals have suspended all circumcisions, pending a reassessment of policies. The Vorarlberg province in Austria also ordered all state-run hospitals to stop performing circumcisions on boys.

Although much criticized, the circumcision ban in Germany is an important step forward in the fight for genital integrity for all children, argues Intactivist groups. I recently spoke to members of End Routine Infant Circumcision (ERIC) — Stacey M. Butler, LPN, CBE, Doula; Robert A. Jap-Tsvetkov, RN, CCRN; and Stephanie Lee Butler, RN, BSN, CLC — about the circumcision ban in Germany and the implications of the ruling.

1. Germany recently banned non-therapeutic circumcision. What does this mean for parents?

Stacy Butler: The recent ban on non-therapeutic circumcision in Germany means to the parents that they can no longer legally have the mind set that “MY Child = My Property.” A child now is literally being raised by the village once again! Parents now need to put the child’s rights before their own, and it may be a struggle, but it is necessary. It means parents seriously have to take inventory of their morals and think about what’s truly best for their child and not just be followers of the previous generations. The ruling to end FGM [female genital mutilation] passed in 1997; this prevented so much as a pin prick, for a single drop of blood, for ceremonial religious reasons. It is impossible to measure the amount of damage on the newborn penis due to the size and lack of development at the time of the non-therapeutic, cosmetic surgery. Organizations like National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), MGM Bill, Saving Our Sons, The Whole Network, and ERIC all educate the US public about the complications associated with this non-therapeutic, cosmetic procedure and the damage it does to the infant male.  Finally our sons are protected from loosing what is estimated to be approximately 15 square inches of skin from the adult penis. This can be measured by using American quarters, simply placing them side by side in rows of five and columns of three. It is estimated that the adult circumcised male has a loss of up to one inch in girth and up to three inches in length as well as 20,000 specialized sexual erogenous nerve endings that are severed within a few days of birth. Now these children are safe, and the parents have time to educate themselves about the heinous crime they may have had intended for their sons.

Robert Jap: What [the circumcision ban in Germany] means to most parents, that they must take into consideration, that the child HAS rights. The cutting or amputating of a healthy erogenous tissue is medically and morally unethical. The foreskin is a functioning healthy part of the male anatomy and serves a purpose. Parents deciding to subject their child to cosmetic surgery varies on the parents’ education of what they know and do not know what the procedure entails or complications. What this also means is that the court ruling in Cologne sees that circumcision is considered bodily harm on an non-consenting minor. They feel it is in their best interest of protecting the child.

Stephanie Butler: It means that parents cannot make an arbitrary decision to cut off a healthy functioning part of their child’s sex organ without immediate medical need. It means that the rights are being given to the person to whom the body belongs, much like we feel about female genital cutting. It was recently attempted in the USA to make a tiny pin prick to the genitals of females legal for “religious reasons,” and people were OUTRAGED. But amputating the entire foreskin of a male infant for “religious” reasons is somehow OK with Americans because there are (supposed) health reasons. Well, there are also the same supposed health reasons to female genital cutting. Should parents have the right to cut their daughters genitals because they are the parents? If not, why should it be different for male infants? Why are they not protected as female infants are?

2. Many proponents of routine infant circumcision argue that the circumcision ban in Germany amounts to religious discrimination, especially towards Jewish and Muslim Germans. Why is genital integrity for all children not religiously motivated?

Stacy Butler: Why is genital integrity for all children not religiously motivated? Religious motivation would be only protecting certain children from this non-therapeutic cosmetic procedure. We as Intactivists are attempting to protect all children from this horrific crime on children. If I saw someone holding an infant over a volcano by one foot, I would attempt to rescue that child, no matter the race, creed, color, or sex of that child. I hope that clears it up for you. A child has a basic human right to choose his own religion. Until this court ruling in Cologne, Germany was enforced, these boys were not protected from their mothers or her religion. They were forced into a religion they may or may not wish to follow in their adult lives, but these babies are ultimately forever scarred and altered irreversibly. They would no longer have that choice in a religious movement; we would be forcing all children be circumcised no matter what the faith. We are protecting children to their genital integrity and human rights so that makes this is a human rights movement. In a religious movement, the child has no voice, no ability to say, “No, I want to be of another faith as an adult, or remain intact for the sake of being intact.” But, in the human rights movement, the Muslim and Jewish faiths are starting to speak out against this practice and becoming Intactivists themselves. They have started such groups such as Jews Against Circumcision, Circumcision – Does the Qur’an Approve it?, and Muslims Against the Circumcision of Children on Facebook.

Robert Jap: The religious discrimination outrage: [The opponents' anger toward the circumcision ban in Germany] is that they feel that a lot of Jews and Muslims living in Germany or elsewhere feel their religion will die or be abandoned. It’s not [the reason that opponents of the ban are outraged]. Jews and Muslims do not want to face the fact or truth that their religion practices a “blood” sacrifice or bodily harm to their child as a requirement. Human rights have NO religion. Children have a right to choose what religion they choose to follow. For example, a child is Jewish because the mother is. Not because a 4,000 year old tradition says so. This is a human rights movement, not a religious movement. ALL boys and males have a right to his own whole body and a right to choose for himself.  Freedom of religion ends where someone’s non-consenting body begins. There are now a growing number of Jews and Muslims that are starting to question and abandon the practice: Jews Against Circumcision and Circumcision – Does the Qur’an Approve it?

Stephanie Butler: Again, the “Religious” rights of parents with female children are stopped because female genital cutting is “deplorable” and “hurtful,” but it is still somehow OK to cut the genitals of male infants in the name of their PARENTS’ religion. Excuse me, but what about the rights of the child? What about HIS religious right? Is he not allowed to choose his own religion? What if he doesn’t want a part of his genitals ripped off in the name of (someone else’s) religion?

A personal sacrifice (or choice, for that matter) applies to one’s PERSON. I think this should be pretty obvious. It is not a personal sacrifice for YOU to hand your newborn over to someone to have part of his penis cut off. You are literally making a blood sacrifice of your child. Is this his choice? No. Is *he* making a covenant with God when YOU draw his blood and remove erogenous tissue? NO! Every time you circumcise a baby, you violate his rights to religious freedom because you force him into a blood-letting scarification ritual. And if he doesn’t want to practice Judaism or Islam as an adult? The scars of YOUR religion remain on his body.

3. Will doctors in Germany simply begin diagnosing more problems with the foreskin as a way to get around the circumcision ban in Germany?

Stacy Butler: If parents want to get their child circumcised bad enough, they will find a doctor, a “mohel,” or a way to get it done, but I doubt that doctors will look for new reasons to get a circumcision done because ultimately the doctors will be held to the law, causing malpractice and lawsuits. You cannot just say it needs to be done; there needs to be proper documentation for the surgery, and it needs to require assessment, intervention, evaluation, and reassessment, so they can not just do a circumcision because they make up a diagnosis. As a matter of fact, the Swiss have followed suit and stopped any non-medical circumcisions at this point.

Robert Jap: This is very, very slim that doctors will be diagnosing any problems with the circumcision ban at all. Eighty-five percent of the world’s men are left intact according to different regions of the world. Germany doesn’t practice routine infant circumcision, except the religious. The physicians in the Jewish Hospital in Cologne reported the harm done to the 4-year-old Muslim boy. Physicians in Germany are properly educated on the anatomy and functions of the foreskin whereas in the USA the physicians are not.  Circumcision is an out-of-pocket expense for parents, religious or not. Physicians need to have a real proper diagnosis from proper assessment, evaluation, and intervention as this type of surgery is a last resort if all other treatments fail. Most of any or all foreskin problems can be treated with out surgery. (See Doctors Opposing Circumcision for more information.)

Stephanie Butler: This is highly doubtful, as the majority of people in Germany (actually the majority of people worldwide) don’t cut their child’s genitals. Outside of the USA, the only people who cut the genitals of infants routinely are people of Jewish and Muslim faiths…and actually most Muslims do it when the child is older. So, no, doctors will most likely not be “diagnosing” babies with problems just to get their genitals cut, Because the only people who cut children’s genitals in Germany (generally speaking) are Jewish and Muslim people.

4. Proponents of routine infant circumcision often argue that the government should not have any say in whether parents’ circumcise their baby boys, arguing that parents have the right to decide whether to circumcise their sons. From a human rights point of view, why is this argument invalid?

Stacy Butler: It is even argued in a custody court how children are not anyone’s personal property and that all medical decisions must be made jointly unless they are a life or death emergency. That being said, if both parents cannot agree, than it can not be done. If both parents cannot agree, why does the owner of the penis not have a say? It’s his body. Why shouldn’t he have the ultimate decision in this non-therapeutic, cosmetic procedure?  The AAP states it is a parent’s personal choice; that makes [routine infant circumcision] a non-therapeutic, cosmetic procedure. That makes it a human rights issue…Period! There is no medical reason, no religious reason, because the religious reasons have medical fallacies to back it up. When the day is done and these infants grow up, this is where you can find out what they have been through, meet the men that have already grown and realized the pain and disability they have to live with now that they have an altered penis. Foreplay is called foreplay for a reason because it involves the foreskin, yet the men who have been altered by circumcision need to apply sexual enhancing jelly to increase the glide that was naturally there to begin with. From a human rights standpoint, how many marriages end in divorce because a man is unable to perform to the standards of his wife? How many men cheat trying to prove that he is not inadequate? How many times do we have to prove that an injury develops a scar? A scar becomes calloused if exposed to a harsh environment, and how pleasant is that when you’re talking about a penis and making love. Can you provide any man with his basic human rights when he feels like his penis is his worst enemy? (See Circumcision Harm for more information.)

Robert Jap: As speaking from a human rights point of view, the argument that the government has a say that parents do not have a right to circumcise their children and that infringes on a parents right: What about the child or the owner of the penis? It is HIS body and HIS right to say no. Governments have a right to intervene when any harm to any child is done; it is their duty to protect the child and their individuals rights. People do not OWN their children. Children own themselves as an individual person.

Stephanie Butler: From a human rights point of view, this argument is invalid because the person making the decision to cut off a healthy, functional, erogenous part of a sex organ should be the person who owns the body. Parents do NOT OWN their children. Again, female infants have rights to their own bodies’ why do males not?

The members of ERIC also provided me with a statement in response to my fourth question from Glen, a man who was circumcised but worked to restore his foreskin as an adult:

As a man who restored my foreskin, I can tell you, from my experience, circumcision is genital mutilation and greatly decreases sexual pleasure. After restoring, my sexual pleasure increased dramatically. No parent should have the right to mutilate the genitals of a baby, whether it is a boy or a girl. There should be no religious or cultural exemptions. A baby does not know what the bris is all about; all he knows is pain. If he decided to do this as an adult, he will have the understanding of it. It would still be genital mutilation, but he would have made that decision for his own body.

5. The United States is one of only a few countries with high rates of routine infant circumcision. Will the circumcision ban in Germany have any effect on policy in the US?

Stacy Butler: It is our hope that the Germany decision sets a worldwide precedent. Intactivists fight hard with the intention that it starts the banning of non-therapeutic, cosmetic circumcision. We see that Swiss has already banned this barbaric practice voluntarily. With our newest generation of intact sons, we hope that in the next 20 to 30 years, this heinous act will be almost extinct. The statistics of Americans that are intact are approximately 66 percent intact at this time, proven by this link to the MGM Bill on circumcision statistics. The highest rates are in Africa and other third world countries. (Also see the article “Extraordinarily High Rates of Male Circumcision in South Korea: History and Underlying Causes” for more information.) Due to the false information given to adult males getting circumcised in Africa and the Sub-Sahara area, Americans  believe that circumcision will decrease the chances of contracting HIV and AIDS when it is well-known here in the United States all that you need to do is abstain or use a condom. Of course, wearing a condom will not prevent you coming in contact with HIV/AIDS altogether, but there is no medical evidence that a circumcision decreases your chances. There is also a lack of medical funding by Medicaid at this time, which is decreasing the amount of circumcisions that are being covered here in the USA.

Robert Jap: I’m really hoping so! That the people in the USA will start to open their eyes and minds to educate themselves properly. Most Americans are unaware that this is not practiced in many countries. In the past two years, the intact male rate has risen in the USA due to education. It’s a slow process, but we will get there where this will be a procedure in the past. Germany is setting a very positive example, that genital mutilation IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Females are fully protected in the USA and western world; boys need and deserve the same protection.

Stephanie Butler: I sure hope so! We can only hope that people in the USA will wake up to the truth and not be veiled by myths and lies told to them by their culture. Most people in the USA don’t have a clue that worldwide this is not practiced; they think that “everybody circumcises.” This is unequivocally false. In fact, probably close to 85 to 90 percent of all the males worldwide are intact (NOT circumcised).

6. Is there anything else that you would like to add about the recent circumcision ban in Germany?

Stacy Butler: This ban is very important for the protection of males worldwide. Some people actually believe that circumcision protects against disease; the fact is the only thing that will protect against disease is a condom, used correctly. Some people think intact males are dirty and smell; the fact is intact males are not dirty if taught to clean properly from a young age, to use water on their genitals just like a girl. It is the third world countries that had no running water that believed it was cleaner to cut due to the hygienic conditions in their countries, and early day America that didn’t have access to running water. In this day in age, this frame of thought needs to be conditioned with logic, knowledge, and the fact that we all or most have running water and the ability to learn to clean ourselves. If every human male is born with a foreskin, why would it need to be cut off? It is meant to be there! It is HIS Basic Human Right and HIS choice. Why hurt a child when there is no reason to do so? One child at a time, WE will make a difference! We must ALL unite together to keep this law from being overturned; it is our one chance to keep our sons safe from this barbaric, cosmetic, non-therapeutic procedure!

Robert Jap: The anti-Semitic labeling is now just an excuse. No one is attacking ANY religion, just the practice. It would be anti-Semitic or Islamaphobic if Jewish or Muslim babies were excluded or NOT protected because their religion requires it. But, again, there are a growing number of Jews and Muslims that are keeping and protecting their boys from this barbaric practice, and those numbers are growing quite rapidly. All babies deserve the same rights as everyone else. With that being said, we can only change one mind at a time and save one baby at a time. It takes open-minded people to change traditions for the better.

Stephanie Butler: Yes, lots of people are calling this ruling “anti-Semitic.” This is anything but anti-Semitic. It is about human rights, not about religion. It is about giving the CHILD a right to choose what religion he wishes to belong to and what he wants to happen to HIS BODY. If anything, it is “Semitic” because giving human rights to everyone “except males who are born to Jewish parents” is anti-Semitic. Why should males who are born to Jewish parents not have the same basic human rights as everyone else?

Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis. Although a small percentage of the surgery are performed to correct a legitimate medical problem, most circumcisions are performed for cosmetic or religious reason. Only time will tell if the circumcision ban in Germany will affect the policy on non-therapeutic circumcision throughout the world.

Circumcision Ban In Germany Heralded By Intactivists: An Interview With ERIC [Op Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has resolved to advise pediatricians to stop giving formula freebies including formula company gift bags, coupons, and industry-authored handouts to new parents of newborns and infants.

Based on the stance that breastfeeding is the normal, physiologic way to feed human babies as well as on the research that concludes that not breastfeeding increases the risk of adverse health outcomes in both  mothers and babies, the AAP passed a resolution to advise pediatricians not to provide formula freebies to the parents of newborns and infants in office and clinic settings.

The AAP supports exclusive breastfeeding for about six months followed by continued breastfeeding with the addition of complementary foods. The marketing of artificial baby milk including through formula freebies undermines the ability of women to breastfeed. As the AAP states in the resolution on formula freebies:

“The distribution of formula company products by a health care provider – hospital, nurse, or doctor, is nothing more than advertising. It is not generosity on the part of manufacturers. There is no “gift” in a “gift bag” except that from the healthcare system applying a seal of approval to the formula manufacturer without compensation.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) also recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life followed by continued breastfeeding with nutritious foods for up to two years or beyond as mutually desired by the mother and the baby.

Breastfeeding advocates are heralding the recent AAP resolution on formula freebies. For example, an infographic from Daily Momtra is currently making the rounds on Facebook:

To read the entire AAP resolution, check out 2012 AAP Resolution – Divesting from Formula Marketing in Pediatric Care.

Do you agree with the AAP resolution to eliminate formula freebies to the parents of newborns and infants?

AAP Resolves To Eliminate Formula Freebies To New Babies And Parents is a post from: The Inquisitr

Breastfeeding mothers around the world are preparing to participate in The Big Latch On 2012 next week. The Big Latch On, an event that coincides with World Breastfeeding Week, involves mothers and their babies all breastfeeding at a set time. This year, The Big Latch On is scheduled for August 3 and 4.

The aims of The Big Latch On include garnering support for communities to identify and grow opportunities to provide ongoing breastfeeding support and promotion, increasing support for women who breastfeeding, and helping communities positively support breastfeeding in public places. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and then continued breastfeeding for up to two years or beyond.

Last year, 5,687 breastfeeding mothers participating in The Big Latch On, a number that included 412 locations in five countries. This year, 477 locations in 20 countries have signed up to take part in the event.

Each year between August 1 and 7, the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action organizes World Breastfeeding Week. According to (WHO), events including The Big Latch On are planned in more than 170 countries to encourage breastfeeding and improve the health of babies around the world for World Breastfeeding Week 2012.

The Big Latch On originated in New Zealand  by Women’s Health Action in 2005 as part of World Breastfeeding Week. 2012 marks the eighth year for the event. Organizers are hoping to beat previous Big Latch On records and maybe even set the world record.

For more information about The Big Latch On 2012 event or to find a location to participate in, check out The Big Latch On website.

Will you be participating in The Big Latch On?

The Big Latch On 2012 Breastfeeding Event Scheduled For August 3, 4 is a post from: The Inquisitr

As someone who has worked in a number of libraries, I know that library porn can be a huge problem. Libraries do not want to block access to information, even if that information is pornography. At the same time, however, other patrons do not want to know that the creepy guy sitting at the corner computer is surfacing library porn on a public computer. Still, too, in an academic library, the viewing of pornographic materials might be part of legitimate research. So, what is a library supposed to do about library porn?

To address the issue of library porn, the main library in San Francisco is installing new plastic privacy screens on public computers in the hopes that the screens will block out any offending images from everyone else other than the intended viewer.

Adrian Dumont, a regular at the library, considers library porn one of the hazards of using the publicly available computers. As he tells  KTVU, “You see a lot of people looking at porn and such.”

He also adds, “It seems kinda messed up, people doing that kinda stuff in a public environment. I mean, people don’t get on the bus and read hustler in front of everybody.”

To block library porn as well as other sensitive materials from anyone walking past the public computers, the library has installed 18 of the privacy screens over the last several weeks.

Libraries strive to provide open and equal access to all patrons. Privacy screens are an alternative to internet filters that block library porn as well as some less scrupulous websites.

As city librarian Luis Herrera comments:

“We’re always looking for any kind of elegant solution that strikes a balance between the right to privacy and folks that want to use the library for any other intended purpose.”

Others, however, disagree with using privacy screens to deal with library porn. As Dawn Hawkins, the executive director of the anti-pornography group Morality in Media, argues:

“I think it’s definitely not enough. Even with those protector screens, people walking directly behind somebody can see porn. I mean porn in the library? There’s no place for that.”

The San Francisco library is happy with the results of the privacy screens and plans to install more.

In the meanwhile, the question still remains about the place of library porn on public computers in libraries. I personally have had to ask a few patrons to quit looking at pornography on a library computer when other patrons complained. Was I disgusted that someone would look at porn in public? Yes. Do I think that looking at porn on a public computer at a library should be banned? To my second question, I can answer with only the following: Who gets to define “pornography,” and, more important, who gets the draw the line defining offensive?

What do you think about the new privacy screens aimed at blocking library porn from general viewing?

Library Porn Leads To Privacy Screens On San Francisco Library Computers is a post from: The Inquisitr

Discount drug cards promise to help patients obtain prescription medications at a more affordable price, especially for individuals who lack medical prescription insurance. However, a Google search for “discount drug cards” yields dozens of results. How is the average person supposed to know which discount drug cards will provide the best savings?

Edgar Dworsky, the founder of Consumer World, recently conducted an informal price comparison of four prescription drugs using five different discount drug cards. After checking the prices of two brand name medications and two generic medications at CVS, Costco, and one independent pharmacy, Dworsky discovered an average savings of 16 percent by using the discount drug cards. However, the range of savings for the five different discount drug cards ranged between zero to 71 percent off the cash price of the medication.

In other words, although the use of discount drug cards can help save a patient money on medications, the savings is neither consistent nor guaranteed.

For example, the cash price of a 30-day supply of the generic version of the cholesterol-lowering drug Zocor was $39.99 at CVS. The price for the medication was reduced to $19.02 with a Simple Savings card, $33.30 with a National League of Cities card, $35.99 with an AAA card, and $38.99 with an AARP card. The price of the drug remained the same with an Una Rx card. However, at Costco, the cash price of the same medication was only $5.90. Presenting the AARP and Costco’s discount drug card resulted in a discount of about $1.

As Dworsky concludes:

“If you don’t have prescription coverage, you would be foolish not to get one of these cards,  particularly the free ones, because it is such an easy way to save money.”

Unfortunately, Dworsky also determined that figuring out which of the many available discount drug cards will offer the best savings is “nearly impossible.” Many pharmacies are reluctant to provide customers with prices without a prescription. Pharmacies sometimes must pay a fee to a third-party to process the request and thus do not want to check the price to avoid paying the fee.

Michael DeAngelis, a CVS spokesperson, also added in an email to Consumer World:

“Prices under these discount programs will vary and it is not possible to provide a specific price without running a patient’s actual discount card as part of a transaction for a real prescription in order to quote a price.”

DeAngelis also added that ”plan designs may differ within a particular prescription discount program,” so “two members using the same discount cards may see different discounts for the same prescriptions dispensed at the same pharmacy.”

So, what should someone who wants to save money with discount drug cards do?

Dworsky recommends getting a couple of different discount drug cards and then checking the accompanying websites. Some discount drug card issuers offer some pricing information that can give a general idea of the discounts offered for various medications. Dworsky also reminds consumers that the best deal is the medication with the lowest price, not the percentage of the discount.

Do you use discount drug cards to save money?

Saving Money With Discount Drug Cards Is Sometimes Tricky is a post from: The Inquisitr

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is applauding the decision of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) to remove the magnetic toys known as Buckyballs from store shelves. Buckyballs, and the similar Buckycubes, are touted as stress relief magnetic desk toys for adults. However, the “toy” has come under fire recently after young children have swallowed or choked on the small magnetic balls.

Today the CPSC announced a ban on Buckyballs and Buckycubes, citing increasing choking and swallowing cases as the reason for the sudden decision.

AAP President Robert W. Block, MD, FAAP, believes that the decision to remove Buckyballs from the market is prudent:

“As pediatricians, our number one goal is to keep children safe. The powerful, tiny magnets contained in these toys and other similar products have caused unnecessary surgeries, debilitating injuries, irreversible gastrointestinal damage and other lifelong health impacts in infants, children and adolescents.”

One recent incident involved 3-year-old Payton Bushnell who swallowed 37 Buckyballs and ended up needing surgery to remove the magnets that had joined together in a mass in her stomach. Other injuries associated with Buckyballs have included bowel perforations or fistulas, twisted bowels, severe infections, and other serious gastrointestinal injuries.

Dr. Block adds that pediatricians have been concerned for years about the hazards that Buckyballs pose:

“Pediatricians have been ringing an alarm bell about these dangerous products since we first recognized the damage they cause in children and adolescents who accidentally swallow them. Once separated, these tiny high-powered magnets will attempt to find each other, even when a stomach wall or intestinal tract stands between them.”

The APP fully supports the decision of the CPSC to ban Buckyballs, stating:

“The AAP commends CPSC’s bold step today to help keep harmful magnetic products out of the hands and mouths of children.”

Do you agree with the ban on Buckyballs?

AAP Commends CPSC Decision To Ban Buckyballs is a post from: The Inquisitr

A teenager has been charged with murder for the shooting death of a 4-year-old boy at a Bronx playground after a stray bullet killed the preschooler at the First Annual Ghetto Angels Basketball Tournament.

Rondell Pinkerton, 17, was taken into custody on Tuesday in connection with the death of 4-year-old Lloyd Morgan.

As NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly stated at a press conference on Tuesday:

“We are speaking to a 17-year-old young man who admits to being at the scene of the shooting. [He] admits to shooting rounds at that location. He states it was self-defense because he was being shot at.”

Pinkerton has since been charged with murder and criminal possession of a weapon in connection with the shooting death of the child.

On Sunday evening, Pinkerton and other person, Courtney Kelly, 26, opened fired during an argument at the Forest Houses Park in Morrisania. One of the stray bullets hit the preschooler who was playing near the basketball court in the head. The 4-year-old died after being transported to Lincoln Hospital by paramedics.

Says Shianne Norman, the mother of the little boy, “My baby is gone.”

Two other men were also injured by the gunfire. A 27-year-old was shot in the stomach and a 21-year-old in the arm, but both men are expected to recover.

Choking back tears, Norman, the distraught mother, told PIX11, “You don’t even understand how this affects someone with a boy, let alone a small boy. No one expects their child to be shot at four.”

The other man, Kelly, was charged with criminal possession of a weapon, although his role in the shooting is still unclear, reports The Grio. Only Pinkerton has thus far been charged with murder.

For more information about the case, check out the following video from WPIX:

Teenager Charged With Murder In Shooting Death Of Preschooler At Bronx Playground is a post from: The Inquisitr

Bittylab, the maker of a line of baby bottles touted as mimicking a mother’s breast and breastfeeding, is currently dealing with the backlash from a failed Twitter advertising campaign.

Bittylab produces bottles geared especially towards breastfeeding babies. According to the company website, the “Perfe-latch™ nipple extends upon suction to emulate the mechanics of breastfeeding and reduce nipple confusion.” Not surprisingly, Bittylab markets its line of baby bottle at breastfeeding mothers.

However, in a recent ad campaign that sounds like something Don Draper would write, Bittylab failed miserably to attract positive attention from the fathers of breastfed babies.

On July 22, Bittylab tweeted the a message urging fathers to reclaim their wives twelve times. The tweet stated:

“New baby? Reclaim your wife. Meet BARE™ #air-free #babybottles bittylab.com #bfing”

In case consumers were unclear, Bittylab also tweeted a second message implying that fathers are competing with their newborns for the mother’s attention. The tweet read:

“Feeling like you’re competing with your newborn for mommy’s attention? Meet BARE™ #air-free #babybottles bittylab.com #breastfeeding”

After some serious backlash from a number of prominent bloggers within the parenting community, Bittylab removed the offending tweets from Twitter and posted the following apology on Facebook:

“Ladies, We’re really sorry about the twitter campaign run last week. It was a huge miss understood and resulted in offensive messages. It was taken down yesterday. The messages had nothing to do with putting a husband needs before the baby’s needs, it was more about having a little extra time for the rest of the family. Obviously the whole campaign was poorly executed. We apologize deeply for this miss understanding and assure you, from now on the campaigns will be closely monitored before they go out. Thank you for a second chance.”

Bittylab also posted a number of apologies, including one directing readers to the company Facebook page, on Twitter.

However, not everyone is buying the apology or that the campaign was a misunderstanding. Here are some of the Tweets to Bittylab in response to the apology:

“.@bittylab The same tweet was repeated constantly. There’s no misunderstanding.”

“It seems @bittylab is basing its campaign around helping needy insecure men ‘reclaim’ their wives from breastfeeding newborns. Unbelievable.”

“Dear @bittylab: I had no urge to ‘reclaim’ my wife from my child, because a) I am a grown up and b) I did not ‘claim’ her in the first place”

“@simply_hayley @bittylab Just seen an apology on their FB page. Too late after the campaign had gone live but respect them for responding.”

“@bittylab the word “reclaim” is a huge issue. Even if you didn’t mean sexually, it’s still treating women & their time like man’s property”

“How about supporting mom #breastfeeding instead? “@bittylab: Feeling like you’re competing with your newborn for mommy’s attention?”

Whether Bittylab meant to be sexist or really was attempting to give new parents a little more family time remains controversial. Some potential customers have also stated that, although they might have considered trying Bittylab products in the past, this failed Twitter campaign has made them decide otherwise.

Baby bottle makers can take a valuable lesson away from Bittylab’s Twitter ad mistake: Do not imply that women belong to their husbands or that husband must compete with their babies. If your aim is to sell more baby bottles, you will fail.

What do you think about the “reclaim your wife” Twitter campaign from Bittylab?

Bittylab Baby Bottle Sexist “Reclaim Your Wife” Advertising Campaign Fails is a post from: The Inquisitr

As reported yesterday, The Jim Henson Company, which created such characters and shows as The Muppets and Fraggle Rock, has renounced Chick-Fil-A and severed ties with the anti-gay company. In a statement, The Jim Henson Company announced:

“The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.”

The Other 98%, a group on Facebook who believe that the economy and American democracy are being hijacked by an elite 2% that is selling out the American dream, took the statement from The Jim Henson Company and produced a meme that is now circulating on Facebook.

Although some of the comments about the Facebook meme illustrating that The Jim Henson Company has severed its ties with Chick-Fil-A are negative, many fans of The Muppets have expressed their support. Here are some of the fan comments about the meme:

“Way to go, Jim Henson Company!!!! So there, Chick-Fil-A! Love this!”

“Just when I thought I loved the Muppets as much as possible… Yet another reason gets added to the list. Hurray!”

“I always did love the Muppets! (and every project Jim Henson ever touched) Thank you Jim Henson Company for doing the right thing and giving me still another reason to appreciate you!”

“Yay! The muppets are boycotting Chick-fil-A!”

“Jim Henson was a kind man with a good heart. I’m glad to see that his legacy lives on.”

As of writing this, the Muppets Facebook meme has 15,043 likes and 14,429 shares.

What do you think about the Facebook meme currently circulating in which The Muppets pass on the message from The Jim Henson Company about severing ties with Chick-Fil-A?

The Muppets Sever Ties With Anti-Gay Chick-Fil-A Via Facebook Meme From The Other 98% is a post from: The Inquisitr

A 35-year-old woman, Sarah Louise Catt, admitted in a Leeds Crown Court today that she aborted her own pregnancy by taking medication that she had allegedly purchased on the internet. She pleaded guilty to a charge under Section 58 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which, if convicted, carries a maximum life imprisonment sentence.

Catt, who has two other children, ages 8 and 10, was 30 weeks pregnant in March 2012 according to an ultrasound scan she received, reports the Daily Mail. According to police, she intentionally ended her pregnancy within a week of her due date.

According to the law in the country, an abortion is legal in the UK during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy so long as certain criteria are met. However, Catt was well past the 24 week month when she aborted her pregnancy.

As reported by The Independent, Chief Inspector Kerrin Smith of the North Yorkshire Police, stated:

“Sarah Catt has today entered a guilty plea to the court. This marks the end of a long police investigation but many questions remain unanswered.”

Smith added:

“Although a guilty plea has been entered today, Sarah Catt has not co-operated with the investigation at any stage and so the question ‘What has happened to the baby which Catt was carrying?’ remains unanswered.

To date no remains of that pregnancy and no child has been traced.”

While investigating the case, North Yorkshire Police gathered evidence that Catt had purchased a medication over the internet that would facilitate the labor and birth of a child. Unfortunately, taking the medication resulted in the abortion of her pregnancy during her third trimester, which, by law, is illegal.

In fact, police believe that Catt aborted her pregnancy within a week of her due date. As reported  by the Yorkshire Post, Smith concludes:

“The evidence shows this to have happened in the final phase of pregnancy, the third trimester, ie within the last week of the due date that this baby should have been born.”

Catt and her husband have refused to comment on the case.

Do you think that Catt should be charged for aborting her own pregnancy using a medication that she purchased on the internet?

Woman Admits To Aborting Pregnancy One Week Before Due Date is a post from: The Inquisitr

Due to concerns about Salmonella contamination, Cargill Meat Solutions in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced a recall yesterday of 29,339 pounds of fresh ground beef products.

Cargill Meat Solutions is recalling 14 pound chub packages of “Grnd Beef Fine 85/15″, packed 3 chubs to approximate 42-pound cases. The meat affected by this Salmonella recall were sold wholesale and for further processing. All of the products are marked with the establishment number “EST. 9400″ inside the USDA mark of inspection and were produced by Cargill Meat Solutions on May 25, 2012. The affected products were shipped to distribution centers in Connecticut, Maine and New York for further distribution.

Additionally, although the sell-by date has passed for all of the beef affected by the Salmonella recall, Cargill Meat Solutions and FSIS are urging consumers to check their freezers for any frozen and possibly contaminated beef products.

Consumers are also warned that the products affected by this Salmonella recall were produced by Cargill Meat Solutions but were then repackaged into consumer-size packages and sold under different retail brand names.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Salmonella causes diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. Symptoms usually lasts 4 to 7 days. High risk individuals such as infants, the elderly, and individuals with compromised immune systems are at risk for severe symptoms, including severe diarrhea resulting in hospitalization.

FSIS became aware of the problem with the Cargill Meat Solutions ground beef products after a multi-state outbreak of Salmonella involving 33 infected individuals from 7 states. The onset of the illnesses ranged from June 6, 2012 to June 13, 2012.

Consumers who have questions about the possibly Salmonella-contaminated beef are encouraged to call Cargill Meat Solutions’ consumer information line at 888-812-1646.

Does this latest food recall from Cargill Meat Solutions make you worry about the safety of your food?

Cargill Meat Solutions Recalls 29,339 Pounds Of Ground Beef For Salmonella Contamination is a post from: The Inquisitr

Pandemic experts have announced a new model for disease control that better takes into account the movement of people through airports throughout the United States, reports a press release from MIT Media Relations.

In past pandemic models, the roles of certain airports were overestimated while the roles of other airports were underestimated. For example, it was assumed that, of the travelers at the Honolulu airport, half would travel to San Francisco, California and the other half to Anchorage, Alaska. However, the Honolulu airport receives only 30 percent as much air traffic as the Kennedy International Airport in New York, meaning that the airports are not equal in the spread of a pandemic.

The new model for pandemic disease control is more realistic, taking into account actual travel patterns of individual fliers.

As Ruben Juanes, the ARCO Associate Professor in Energy Studies in MIT’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE), comments about the updated pandemic model:

“Our work is the first to look at the spatial spreading of contagion processes at early times, and to propose a predictor for which ‘nodes’ — in this case, airports — will lead to more aggressive spatial spreading. The findings could form the basis for an initial evaluation of vaccine allocation strategies in the event of an outbreak, and could inform national security agencies of the most vulnerable pathways for biological attacks in a densely connected world.”

Previous pandemic models assumed a random, homogenous diffusion of travelers throughout airports. However, using cellphone data to model human mobility patterns and trace contagion processes in social networks, the researchers discovered that people do not travel randomly but tend to create patterns that can be replicated to figure out the movement of a pandemic.

According to graduate student Christos Nicolaides:

“The results from our model are very different from those of a conventional model that relies on the random diffusion of travelers … [and] similar to the advective flow of fluid. The advective transport process relies on distinctive properties of the substance that’s moving, as opposed to diffusion, which assumes a random flow. If you include diffusion only in the model, the biggest airport hubs in terms of traffic would be the most influential spreaders of disease. But that’s not accurate.”

The results of this study should help to better control the spread of disease through airports in the event of a pandemic.

For a look into the flow of people through airports in the United States, check out the following video from MIT News:

New Model For Pandemic Disease Control Announced For U.S. Airpoirts is a post from: The Inquisitr

Food insecurity affects obesity rates among children because mothers living with household food insecurity are more likely to engage in infant feeding styles such as restrictive feeding and pressuring feeding than mothers who are not food insecure, says a new study published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), food security as defined at the World Food Summit of 1996 exists “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life.” Food insecurity is the opposite, when people do not have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life.

In the United States, the  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) aims to fight food insecurity by providing “supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.” Despite the program, however, up to 37 percent of participants in the WIC program remain food insecure.

According to previous research, food insecurity is linked with obesity. One reason for the link is that individuals suffering from food insecurity cannot make healthy food choices, instead being forced to eat low-cost, low-nutrition food such as inexpensive fast food and overly processed foods.

In the present study conducted by researchers at the Department of Pediatrics in the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in Bronx, New York, the researchers investigated the relationship between “household food insecurity and maternal feeding styles, infant feeding practices, and perceptions and attitudes about infant weight in low-income mothers.”

The researchers recruited and interviewed a group of 201 pairs of mothers with infants between the ages of 2 weeks and 6 months. All of the mothers were participating in the WIC program, and 35 percent of the participants reported household food insecurity. Two of the questions asked to assess food insecurity were “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more” and “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost foods because we were running out of money to buy food.”

To determined a link between food insecurity and obesity, the factors that the researchers examined included (1) controlling feeding styles (restrictive and pressuring); (2) infant feeding practices, including breastfeeding, juice consumption, and adding cereal to the bottle; and (3) perceptions and attitudes about infant weight.

A restrictive feeding style was determined with the following two assessments: (1) If I did not guide or regulate my child’s eating, he/she would eat much more than he/she should; and (2) I have to be especially careful to make sure my child does not eat too much. A pressuring feeding style was determined with the following three assessments: (1) I have to be especially careful to make sure my child eats enough; (2) If I did not guide or regulate my child’s eating, he/she would eat much less than he/she should; and (3) Even when my child seems done, I try to feed him/her a little bit more.

According to the study, mothers struggling with food insecurity were more likely to exhibit restrictive and pressuring infant feeding styles compared with mothers not struggling with food insecurity. Food insecure mothers were also more concerned about their infant becoming overweight in the future. Being concerned about future overweight and obesity resulted in more restrictive and pressuring infant feeding styles.

As the researchers concluded, an “[i]ncreased concern about future overweight and controlling feeding styles represent potential mechanisms by which food insecurity could be related to obesity.” In other words, mothers struggling with food insecurity are more likely to worry about their children’s weight in the future; to combat these future weight worries, these mothers then engage in damaging feeding styles such as withholding food or forcing their children to eat more food than wanted, both of which are linked to an increased risk of obesity.

As the researchers conclude:

“As policy makers aim to prevent early obesity, it may be important to both decrease the overall rates of food insecurity and reduce controlling feeding styles in families who remain food insecure. As the pediatric community aims to reduce early toxic stress that affects many low-income children, WIC may serve as an opportune place for family interventions focusing on reducing sources of stress.”

What do you think about the link between food insecurity and obesity among children?

Food Insecurity, Feeding Style Linked To Obesity is a post from: The Inquisitr

Women who use marijuana before pregnancy more than double their risk of giving birth to a premature baby, says a study conducted by researchers at the University of Adelaide and published in the journal PLoS ONE.

According to previous research conducted by researchers at Tufts University, mothers who used marijuana as teenagers put their children at an increased risk for future drug use and abuse. As Research Assistant Professor John J. Byrnes, the lead author of the Tufts study, commented:

“[T]he results suggest that maternal drug use, even prior to pregnancy, can impact future offspring.”

The present study on maternal marijuana use from the University of Adelaide brings more bad news to women who used marijuana prior to conceiving.

According to the study, which looked at 3,234 healthy pregnant women without any previous children, factors such as a family history of low birth weight, diabetes before and during pregnancy, and hypertension all increase the risk for premature birth.

More surprisingly, however, is that regular marijuana use up to the time of conception is associated with a more than doubled increase risk of giving birth to a premature baby. As the researchers conclude:

“We have shown that marijuana is a strong environmental risk factor…in this population. We are unable to determine whether this association is due to a toxic effect of marijuana or is a marker of a suite of lifestyle factors that contribute to the risk. Pre-pregnancy marijuana use may be a more reliable marker since one can anticipate that women would be more likely to disclose it than persistent marijuana use during pregnancy.”

However, as the researchers point out, the reason for the increased risk of premature birth linked to marijuana use has yet to be determined. The marijuana may be directly to blame, or additional lifestyle factors associated with marijuana use may be the cause.

The results of this study are in contrast with a previous study that did not find a link between maternal marijuana use and premature birth.

Using Marijuana Before Pregnancy More Than Doubles The Risk Of Premature Birth, Says Study is a post from: The Inquisitr

Is a mass murderer like James Holmes, the suspect in the shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater that killed 12 people and wounded 59 others, mentally ill or simply seeking revenge for perceived wrongs? Experts who study the motivation of mass murderers disagree on the answer.

According to James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University in Boston, most mass murderers are not mentally ill. Fox, who has written several books on mass murder and school violence, told MSNBC:

“It takes a certain degree of clear-headedness to plan and execute a crime like this.”

As Fox further stated in a phone interview, mass murderers like Holmes “often times feel that they are right and everybody else is wrong….They really tend to externalize blame, to see other people as responsible for their problems.”

Rather than mentally ill individuals, Fox believes that most mass murderers simply want revenge:

“They basically want revenge. Contrary to the common misperception that these guys suddenly snap and go berserk, these are well-planned executions.”

One notable exception is Jared Loughner, the man who shot and killed six people in Arizona in 2011 including  then-member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Other experts, however, disagree about the nature of mass murderers. Dave Cullen, who writes for The New York Times, covered the shooting in Columbine in 1999. Cullen initially believed that mass murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were outcast loners who exacted revenge against the jocks for relentlessly bullying. Cullen now believes that Klebold was deeply depressed and turned his anger outward.

Many experts also believe that mass murderer Seung-Hui Cho, the troubled young man who killed 32 people and wounded 25 others at Virginia Tech in April 2007, was also mentally ill.

Nevertheless, the controversy about the motives behind mass murderers still exists. According to Roger L. Depue who oversaw the F.B.I.’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime and who  wrote Between Good and Evil: A Master Profiler’s Hunt for Society’s Most Violent Predators, mass murderers like Cho act “out of a distorted sense of unfairness and disappointment stemming from their own actual inadequacies and unsatisfied needs for attention, adulation, power and control.” That is, many mass murderers act out of revenge.

The question remains: Is James Holmes mentally ill, or was the mass murderer acting out of revenge?

The only fact that anyone, both experts and the general public, will ever know for sure is that mass murderers have an “amazing ability to shut off knowledge of the consequences of their actions and of the difference between right and wrong.”

As the Sky Valley Chronicle aptly repeats, Stanton Samenow, a forensic psychologist and author of the 2004 book Inside the Criminal Mind, famously said:

“They [Mass murderers] seem to have an unfathomable ability to shut off knowledge of the consequences, of the difference between right and wrong. It’s critical for us to try to understand that worldview and mental makeup.

They just can shut it off. No thoughts about right or wrong or the consequences.

It is simply the eternal moment for them: no past, no future only the right now and there is nothing wrong (in their mind) with what they are doing ‘right now’.”

Do you think that a mass murderer like James Holmes is mentally ill or simply seeking revenge?

Was Mass Murderer James Holmes Mentally Ill Or Seeking Revenge? Experts Disagree is a post from: The Inquisitr

Getting an Olympic tattoo to celebrate her role in the 2012 Olympic torch relay is all the Jerri Peterson wanted. Little did she know that she should have asked her tattoo artist to consult a dictionary before permanently decorating her body with a misspelled Olympic tattoo.

Peterson, 54, was selected to participate in the 2012 Olympic Torch Relay for her years of charity fundraising. She was 1 of 70 international employees selected by the hotel chain for which she works to take part in the relay as a thank you for charity work.

To commemorate the honor, Peterson decided to get an Olympic tattoo on her ankle. As she told the BBC News:

“I always wanted to have a tattoo but I never quite felt passionate about any one thing to have it put on my body permanently.

So when I was selected for this wonderful honour, I thought ‘that’s it – I’m ready to have my tattoo’.”

Unfortunately, her tattoo artist misspelled “Olympic” as “Oylmpic.”

Peterson did not notice the mistake on her Olympic tattoo until a friend pointed out the error:

“I looked at it and I was so disappointed. I called my husband and he giggled a little bit.

Then I started laughing about it and I’ve laughed ever since.”

After discovering the mistake in her Olympic tattoo, Peterson contacted the artist. He offered to fix the mistake, but Peterson ultimately decided to keep her Olympic tattoo as is:

“He felt so bad when he found out.

He wanted to fix it but I decided I want to keep it. It’s fine.

It’s the Oy-limpics – it’s as unique as I am.”

And the lesson of the story is: Always confirm with spell check before committing to any permanent ink on your body.

Would you have been as understanding had your tattoo artist messed up your Olympic tattoo?

Olympic Tattoo Spelling Mistake: Make Sure Your Artist Consults A Dictionary is a post from: The Inquisitr

Green technology company GreenSpacers announced a national campaign to promote the use of safer, more effective houseplants that are grown using hydroculture techniques. The campaign dubbed the Kickstarter campaign, which is headed by GreenSpacers founder and CEO Noah Berk, is aimed at homeowners in an attempt to create awareness of the benefits of the hydroculture growing method.

Unlike plants traditionally grown in soil, green technology using hydroculture techniques eliminates soil-borne pathogens including mold, fungus, and most plant pests. Thus, growing houseplants using hydroponic green technology naturally improves the air quality in a home.

Unfortunately, the hydroculture growing method is largely uncommon in the United States.

As Berk states about his company’s green technology efforts:

“I’ve put all of my efforts towards building this dream – leaving a fantastic sales job at a great company, using my own savings for start-up costs, and working countless hours – because I believe in this vision wholeheartedly. Three years of hard work have culminated in launching this campaign.”

The green technology of hydroculture is a gardening method that involves rooting plants in water and a clay aggregate, which eliminates the need for soil. The benefits of this green technology include faster plant growth, easier maintenance, longer life span, better air purification, and the elimination mold and fungus found in soil-grown houseplants.

Additionally, studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s indicated that plants grown using hydroculture green technology are more effective at removing VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) due to the porous nature of the clay aggregate. Oxygen passes more easily to the roots of the plant where microbes “eat” the harmful chemicals.

As Berk comments on this green technology:

“The benefits far outweigh the effort it takes to launch the trend. Houseplants have the ability to purify the air –and very little has been done to inform the public of these natural air cleaners. I want to be the one who tells people they can easily grow their own fresh air with the hydroculture.”

Berk hopes to expand his green technology residential business into e-commerce, consumer retail  as well as to establish production in Florida, which would allow him to convert plants with more ease because of the ideal tropical growing conditions.

Would you consider growing plants using hydroponic green technology in your home as well to improve your indoor air quality?

Green Technology Company Uses Soil-Free Houseplants To Improve Air Quality Naturally is a post from: The Inquisitr

How exactly are breastfeeding and nut allergies related? Does breastfeeding cause nut allergies? Or do babies with a family history of nut allergies breastfeed for longer? These are the questions that food allergy experts are currently asking.

In terms of recommendations for breastfeeding and nut allergies, groups such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) urge women to exclusively breastfeed for the first six months of life. Babies who are exclusively breastfed for the first six months are less likely to suffer from infections and other health problems such as obesity. However, the link between breastfeeding and nut allergies is still unclear.

Some research says that breastfeeding reduces the risk of nut allergies. However, other research indicates that the link between breastfeeding and nut allergies is causal.

For example, a recent study from the Australian National University caused a serious controversy when the researchers concluded that babies who were exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life had an increased risk of developing potentially fatal peanut allergies.

As Marjan Kljakovic, the lead author of the study and a Professor of General Practice, says about the supposed link between breastfeeding and nut allergies:

“Despite breastfeeding being recommended as the sole source of nutrition in the first six months of life, an increasing number of studies have implicated breastfeeding as a cause of the increasing trend in nut allergy.”

However, other food allergies experts warn that the study might not be telling the whole story about the link between breastfeeding and nut allergies.

As Professor Katie Allen, pediatric gastroenterologist and food allergy researcher with Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, argues:

“That is just not true. We believe that breastfeeding neither causes nor prevents food allergy.

It is true that it appears that people who have [a family history of] nut allergies are breastfeeding longer, but we strongly believe that is due to the fact that these people have been reading previous guidelines that recommend that breastfeeding prevents allergy.”

In other words, the link between breastfeeding and nut allergies that appears to be causal is just correlational. Babies with a family history of nut allergies are more likely to be breastfed longer, which makes breastfeeding appear to be the cause of later allergies. In reality, though, the child was predisposed for a nut allergy; breastfeeding had nothing to do with the development of the allergy.

Additionally, the study from Australian National University failed to take into account the mothers’ diets during pregnancy and breastfeeding. However, Kljakovic still recommended that women avoid nuts and peanuts while pregnant or breastfeeding.

As Allen comments:

“The report only asked if they were breastfeeding or not, not about maternal dietary practices. Therefore the authors cannot conclude, in any way whatsoever, about maternal dietary practices including exposure to nuts and its risk of peanut allergy.”

In other words, the study linking breastfeeding and nut allergies as having a causal relationship is too flawed to draw any legitimate conclusions. More likely, the link between breastfeeding and nut allergies is a result of mothers with a family history of food allergies delaying the introduction of solid foods.

Both WHO and NHMRC recommend delaying solid foods until six months of age to prevent health problems including food allergies.

What do you think about the study that links breastfeeding and nut allergies?

Link Between Breastfeeding And Nut Allergies Questioned is a post from: The Inquisitr

That breast milk is best for babies is a widely known fact. Many infant formula manufacturers claim to be able to closely replicate the components of breast milk in their artificial baby milk. However, researchers have recently uncovered 100 components in breast milk that cannot be duplicated in the ingredients in formula.

Levels of nutrients such as carbohydrates, protein, vitamins, and minerals often significantly differ between breast milk and infant formula.

As Dr. Hessa Khalfan Al Ghazal, the Director of the Executive Committee for the Sharjah Baby Friendly Emirate Campaign, explains:

“When it comes to carbohydrate content, breast milk triumphs over formula. It also comes out on top when comparing lactose levels. This lactose superiority is a double-sided advantage, because research has conclusively proved that lactose contributes to the development of a larger brain. This makes breast milk a “smarter” choice – both literally and figuratively.”

Proponents of infant formula have previously tried to argue that formula contains more of both protein and iron than breast milk. However, although true, the protein and iron found in breast milk is more easily digested by babies. In other words, the higher contents of protein and iron is necessary to make up for the fact that much of both nutrients will not be absorbed by the baby.

Additionally, the higher contents of some vitamins and minerals in formula compared to breast milk may actually be detrimental to babies. Getting too many vitamins and minerals can change the balance in the gut, leading to health problems.

Breast milk also contains living antibodies passed from mother to baby that can never be replicated in an unliving formula.

This news about the 100 components in breast milk that cannot be duplicated in formula comes amid a renewed push by the Sharjah Baby Friendly Emirate Campaign to promote the benefits of breast milk compared to formula. Currently in Sharjah, 40 percent of mothers resort to formula upon returning to work. The Sharjah Baby Friendly Emirate Campaign hopes that this recent research will inspire mothers to think twice about using formula instead of feeding their babies breast milk.

As Dr. Al Ghazal comments:

“Our role is not to criticize artificial milk for the sake of being negative, but to constructively point out what is best for the baby. The undisputed facts show beyond a doubt that breast milk is vastly superior in virtually every vital area.”

Are you surprised that breast milk contains so many ingredients that cannot be duplicated in formula?

Breast Milk Contains Over 100 Ingredients Not Possible In Formula is a post from: The Inquisitr

Have it your way? Not at a Burger King in Mayfield Heights, Ohio. That is, unless your way includes someone standing in the lettuce on your burger.

An employee at the Burger King recently posted a picture of himself standing in the lettuce bins at the restaurant. The photo was initially posted on 4Chan, a website that allows users to post images and participate in discussion anonymously. The picture included the caption: “This is the lettuce you eat at Burger King.”

Gross? Yes! Disgusting? Yes! Proof that some Burger King employees are idiots. Definitely yes!

The Burger King employee that posted the picture forgot to remove the geo-location tags. Angry 4Chan users quickly identified the Burger King location at which the photo was taken.

When contacted by Cleveland.com, Mike, the Mayfield Heights Burger King manager, said only:

“We don’t believe it is true.”

Bryson Thornton, director of global communications for Burger King, however, confirmed on MSNBC that the picture had been taken at a Burger King restaurant. Thornton also clarified that the Burger King in question is “independently owned and operated by a Burger King franchisee.”

As reported by Scene Magazine, Andrea, a manager during the breakfast shift at the Burger King, assures customers that the employee in question will be fired:

“Whoever this is is getting fired. And whoever the manager was at the time will be fired, too.”

When she eventually saw the picture, she stated simply:

“Oh, I know who that is. He’s getting fired.”

Bryson W. Thornton, Global Communications Director for Burger King, released the following statement about the photograph:

“We are aware of the photo that was allegedly posted by an employee at a Burger King restaurant in Ohio and are taking the issue very seriously. Food safety is a top priority for Burger King restaurants and the company has strict policies regarding its food handling procedures. We are investigating the matter and will take appropriate action as necessary.”

Commented Twitter user Breaking News:

What Is Wrong With This Picture????: This isn’t exactly “my way”… Burger King Employee Posts… goo.gl/fb/UUoSH

— Breaking News (@BreakingNews___) July 18, 2012

My thoughts exactly.

Are you worried about what employees are doing to your food at Burger King and other fast food establishments?

Burger King Employee Stands In Lettuce, Posts Picture On 4Chan, Gets Fired is a post from: The Inquisitr

Hyatt Corporation announced today that its hotels and resorts throughout the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean will begin offering healthier food choices on its children’s menus. The new innovative Hyatt menu, “For Kids By Kids,”  provides more nutritious, fresh, and interactive foods geared towards children.

Instead of more typical burgers, French fries, and chicken fingers, the new Hyatt children’s menu includes the following offerings:

• Fruits or vegetables as a default side item, free refills on low-fat milk, and natural beef and sustainable fish
• Sophisticated twists on kid-friendly favorites (e.g. Sunbutter, Jelly and Banana Sandwich)
• Reduced fat, calories, and sodium content
• Option for children to order off the regular Hyatt menu, a half portion at half the price
• Interactive elements like a QR code that leads to games and more info about the “For Kids By Kids” concept

To make sure that kids would be happy with the new Hyatt kids’ menu, Hyatt Corporation enlisted the help of a group of children. The group was led by 11-year-old Haile Thomas, who is spearheading a campaign for healthy eating through her online show Kids Can Cook.

The new Hyatt children’s menu, which features a three-course organic meal offering, was created exclusively for Hyatt by food pioneer and chef Alice Waters (of Chez Panisse fame).

As Waters comments:

“All children deserve to eat real food – fresh, seasonal, organic, and delicious. I wanted to do a small, three course meal, within the context of Hyatt’s initiative, that could be sourced exclusively from organic farms across the country. Of course it’s about taste and ripeness and seasonality—but it’s bigger than that, too: it’s about supporting the people who are taking care of the land for our future generations.”

In light of the obesity epidemic sweeping many developed countries including the United States and Canada, providing kids with healthier food options is paramount

As Susan Santiago, vice president of food and beverage, North America operations, Hyatt Hotels & Resorts, explains:

“We have made an industry-leading commitment to serving food and beverages that are good for our people, our planet and our communities. That is why we have transformed our children’s menu and looked to experts such as Alice Waters, to help guide our offerings. The new menu is just one of the ways we will be looking to impact health and wellness of the children that stay with us.  We hope that this critical step forward will change the way that our guests and the industry think about kids menus.”

What do you think about the new healthier kid’s menu offered by Hyatt?

Hyatt To Offer Healthier Food Choices For Children With New “For Kids By Kids” Menu is a post from: The Inquisitr

Mitt Romney may disagree with a ban on formula freebies in hospitals, but breastfeeding advocates in Massachusetts can rejoice over a new decision on giving away free formula packs to new mothers. As of the beginning of July, all 49 maternity hospitals in the state had voluntarily eliminated the infant formula giveaways, reports CBS News.

Massachusetts first tried to instill a ban on formula freebies to new mothers in hospitals back in December 2005. However, as reported by Time, then governor Mitt Romney disagreed with such as ban. As Mitt Romney stated in February 2006, the decision to accept formula freebies should be up to each individual mother:

“We’re not disputing the health benefits of breast-feeding, but we think that new mothers should make that choice. If they choose to bottle-feed, they should be supported in that decision.”

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney’s uninformed logic, offering free formula to new mothers is associated with a decreased breastfeeding rate. As Anne Merewood, the director of The Breastfeeding Center at Boston Medical Center, explains:

“Someone might go home from the hospital determined to breast-feed, but if there’s formula sitting right there, they are more likely to use it. If it’s being endorsed by hospitals, people think there can’t be anything wrong with it.”

Mitt Romney might think that the decision to accept and use formula freebies is up to each individual mother, but reality indicates that mothers who are offered free infant formula as less likely to meet their breastfeeding goals. With the benefits of breastfeeding well-documented, formula freebies most definitely negatively impact women and babies.

Peggy O’Mara, the editor-in-chief of Mothering magazine, criticizes the practice of offering formula freebies to new mothers that Mitt Romney supports:

“It is naïve to believe that the formula industry’s distribution of formula to you is an innocent gift. A “gift” of formula is like a “gift” of a pack of cigarettes when you’re trying to quit smoking; it will undermine your resolve. The formula company has bought your name and address from the hospital, without your knowledge, and will now solicit you for sales. Do you really want this commercial intrusion into your life?”

When Massachusetts first tried to instill the ban on formula freebies in birthing hospitals, the ban passed. However, Mitt Romney quickly replaced council members who were in favor of the ban, and the decision was overturned several months later.

Dr. Lauren Smith, the medical director of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, is excited that the state has finally repassed the decision on the ban on formula freebies that Mitt Romney originally helped overturn. As The Boston Globe reports:

“We applaud the effort of all of the hospitals to make this explicit statement of their support of breast-feeding here in the Commonwealth.”

According to a 2011 study, just 25 percent of hospitals ban formula freebies to new mothers, a figure that is up from the mere 14 percent in 2007.

Do you agree with Mitt Romney that the decision to accept free infant formula should be up to each individual woman? Or do you agree that formula freebies hurt attempts at breastfeeding?

Mitt Romney Hates Breastfeeding, Disagrees With Ban On Infant Formula Freebies In Massachusetts Hospitals is a post from: The Inquisitr

Dog owners including the Mawaka family, the owners of Toby, a 6-year-old Boston terrier (pictured above), are suing Nestle Purina and several mega-stores after jerky treats from China sickened and killed their beloved pets.

Recent complaints by pet owners and veterinarians implicated three top brands of chicken jerky treats in causing harm and even death to dogs that consumed the treats. The three jerky treats are Waggin’ Train and Canyon Creek Ranch, both produced by Nestle Purina, and Milo’s Kitchen Home-style Dog Treats, produced by the Del Monte Corp. The Waggin’ Train and Canyon Creek Ranch jerky treats were produced and supplied by JOC Great Wall Corp. Ltd. of Nanjing, China.

The original complaint was filed back in April by Dennis Adkins, 57, of Orland Park, Illinois. Adkins believes that his 9-year-old Pomeranian, Cleo, who died in March, was sickened by eating Waggin’ Train “Yam Good” dog jerky treats produced by Nestle Purina Pet Care Co.

The current lawsuit adds to the complaint six pet owners in states from coast to coast who are suing Nestle Purina as well as Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco, which are three big retailers that sell the jerky treats.

Named as a plaintiff in the jerky treat lawsuit is Elizabeth Mawaka, a pastor’s wife from Hartford, Connecticut, who believes her two Boston terriers, Max and Toby, died after eating the suspect chicken jerky treats. Said Philip Mawaka, 69, Elizabeth’s husband:

“Toby was falling over and crying out in pain and we would give him another treat because we thought we were doing something nice for him because he was hurting.”

The other dog owners included in the lawsuit over the jerky treats include the following pet owners from across the country:

Mary Ellis of Ontario, Calif., who claims that the Waggin’ Train jerky treats she bought in February sickened two of her dogs, Buster and Boomer, both 9, and killed Maggie, 12.
Maria Higginbotham, Gig Harbor, Wash., who contends that Chik n’ Biscuit dog treats sickened her two rat terriers, Bandit, 3, and Kali, 8.
Dwayne and Kaiya Holley of Hempstead, Long Island, N.Y., who say that Waggin’ Train Yam Good jerky treats bought from Wal-Mart led to the death from kidney failure of their 5-year-old Yorkshire terrier, Bootsie, in March.
Deborah Cowan, Perryton, Texas, who believes chicken jerky tenders caused kidney damage that sickened her 8-year-old dog, Rowdy.
Cindi Farkas, of Howell, N.J., who says her dog Chanel, 6, was diagnosed with kidney disease after eating one half of a jerky treat each day for three weeks this spring.

The dog owners are frustrated that makers and distributors of the jerky treats have yet to voluntarily recall the suspect products in spite of three federal warnings since 2007 about possible safety issues and nearly 1,000 reports to the FDA of dogs sickened or killed by the jerky treats.

The dog owners also believe that Nestle Purina, Wal-mart, Target, and Costco have violated implied warranties of safety and healthfulness of the jerky treats as well as violated commerce rules governing sale of sound merchandise.

Says Tamara Ward, an FDA spokesperson in an email to MSNBC:

“FDA is working and discussing with industry and retailers how we can mutually collaborate and share data, scientific exchanges, etc. We are committed to solving the problem and Costco is one of several parties interested in determining the root cause of the illnesses.”

Until a resolution is determined, dog owners can follow the example of Rachael Chambers, a California woman who is protesting after her dog died from eating the jerky treats. As Chambers argues:

“What’s killing these dogs is somewhat of a mystery. It really falls on the distributors of these products to do the right thing.”

Del Monte, the makers of one of the jerky treats, released the following statement after being contacted by Central Coast News:

“Milo’s Kitchen considers the safety of pets our highest priority. Pets are family and we are committed to providing safe, healthy and nutritious treats for dogs. Here at Milo’s Kitchen, we are pet parents too and we understand that the information that has been released regarding the FDA warning about chicken jerky made in China is confusing and concerning. To clarify, all of our treats, including our Chicken Jerky variety, are made with nutritious and quality ingredients that meet the standards and specifications of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). The health and wellness of all animals is very important to us so we have been closely monitoring external testing by the American FDA, the American Veterinarian Medical Association (AVMA) and several animal health diagnostic laboratories, none of which has identified any connection between illness and chicken jerky treats. Additionally, we at Milo’s Kitchen have conducted our own extensive internal testing, all of which has shown our Chicken Jerky to be safe for dogs to enjoy. As is the case with all foods and snacks for dogs, we encourage pet parents to read feeding instructions and to feed with confidence as directed. Each scenario is completely independent and is reviewed on a case by case scenario. Out of respect for our pet owners, we do not share the content of the interaction or the number of interactions.”

However, many dog owners are still wary about the safety of jerky treats. I know that I will not be buying any jerky treats for my beloved pets until the cause of these dog deaths is conclusively determined and the problem sorted out.

Will you be buying jerky treats for your dog anytime in the near future?

Pet Owners Sue Over Jerky Treats Dog Deaths is a post from: The Inquisitr

Truvada, a pill available on the market since 2004 as a medication to treat individuals already infected with HIV, had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the first medication shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection.

Produced by Gilead Sciences Inc., Truvada is a daily HIV pill that is a combination of two older HIV drugs, Emtriva and Viread. The drug has been used to treat HIV patients. However, research beginning in 2010 indicated that Truvada could prevent HIV-negative individuals from contracting the virus when the drug was used as a precautionary measure.

As James Deluca, vice president of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, comments on the new use of the Truvada HIV pill:

“It really marks a new era in HIV prevention because in adding Truvada as a prevention strategy, what comes with it is expanded access to HIV testing, condoms and prevention counseling and support.”

In one three year study, daily doses of Truvada reduced the risk of HIV infection in healthy gay and bisexual men by 42 percent. In another study, Truvada reduced the risk of infection by 75 percent in heterosexual couples in which only one partner was HIV-positive.

Truvada would be another tool in the fight against HIV for specific individuals such as those in sexual relationships with infected partners.

Because Truvada is already a medication that is marketed as a treatment for the disease, some doctors already prescribe the HIV pill as a preventive measure to certain patients. The new approval by the FDA will allow Truvada to be marketed as an HIV prevention drug.

As Dr. Tom Giordano of Baylor College of Medicine explains:

“It’s been most effective in people who are at very high risk and are able to take the drug on a regular basis. When you really boil it down that’s going to be a relatively focused population, but it’s an important population to treat.”

Do you think that the use of Truvada as a preventative HIV pill will help lower HIV rates in certain high risk individuals?

Truvada, Pill To Prevent HIV, Approved By FDA is a post from: The Inquisitr

According to a recent study published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics, the HPV vaccine is effective in lowering rates of human papillomavirus (HPV) among young women. Furthermore, the HPV vaccine provides herd immunity, with rates of infection decreasing from 30.2 percent to 15.4 percent among the young women in the study who had not received the vaccine. The country of Australia will be taking advantage of the herd immunity offered by the HPV vaccine by implementing a new National Immunization Program-sponsored school-based initiative.

Through the HPV vaccine initiative announced on July 12, Australia became the first country to provide the Gardasil® HPV vaccine to boys between the ages of 12 and 13. Older boys can also receive the HPV vaccine at school under a catch-up program taking place over the next two years.

The inventor of the HPV vaccine, Professor Ian Frazer, believes that Australia is at the forefront of an important public health initiative:

“The addition of the HPV vaccine for young males on the National Immunization Program is good news for the young men of Australia. This is a very safe and effective vaccine and vaccinating boys will also further benefit women who have not been vaccinated through herd immunity.”

Tanya Plibersek, the minister of health in Australia, echoed similar sentiments in a press release about the new HPV vaccine initiative, stating that the “government-sponsored initiative was targeted to synergize with the current immunization program in girls to decrease the incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the Australian population.”

The new National Immunization Program will cost an estimated AUD$21.1m over the span of four years. However, because cervical cancer, which is caused by the HPV virus in 99 percent of cases, is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer among women throughout the world. The incidence rate for cervical cancer is approximately 9 percent of new cancer cases annually. The Gardasil® HPV vaccine protects against the four most common strains of the virus, which account for 70 percent of cervical cancer cases caused by HPV. The HPV virus is also responsible for other less common cancers including cancers of the vulva, vagina, penis, anus, tongue, tonsils, and throat.

Thus, in the long run, the new HPV vaccine initiative in Australia will save the country more money in health care cancer costs than the program requires to run.

Although the HPV vaccine has proven effective, large-scale vaccination programs have so far been largely unsuccessful due to societal friction towards the vaccine. Hopefully the new HPV vaccine program in Australia will shed light on the healthcare policy changes required for the world to deal with an increasing incidence of HPV-related cancers.

Would you like to see your country develop a large-scale HPV vaccine program?

HPV Vaccine Program In Australia To Take Herd-Immunity Approach is a post from: The Inquisitr

Participating on at least two sports a year would significantly reduce obesity rates among adolescents, says a new study published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics. Obesity rates would further decrease if teenagers actively commuted, i.e., walked or biked, to school.

That sports participation is inversely associated with weight and obesity among adolescents is well known. However, researchers at the The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire recently investigated the associations between weight status and different forms of physical activity including actively commuting to school among teenagers.

For the study, the researchers conducted telephone surveys with 1718 high school students and their parents in New Hampshire and Vermont. The researchers collected data on weight and obesity as well as  team sports participation, other extracurricular physical activity, active commuting, physical education, recreational activity for fun, screen time, diet quality, and general demographics.

Of the teenagers participating in the study, 29 percent were considered overweight and 13 percent suffered from obesity.

However, the researchers discovered that participation in sports teams was inversely related to overweight and obesity. Furthermore, according to the study, rates of adolescent overweight would decrease by 11 percent and rates of adolescent obesity would decrease by 26 percent if teenagers participating in at least two sports teams each year.

Additionally, if teenagers walked or biked to school instead of driving, then obesity prevalence would decrease by 22 percent.

As the researcher conclude, ensuring that all adolescents participate in some sort of sport should be a priority in reducing obesity rates:

“Sports participation was inversely associated with overweight/obesity and obesity, even after adjusting for previous body weight. Increasing opportunities for all adolescents, regardless of athletic ability, to participate in sports should be prioritized for obesity prevention.”

Further research needs to be conducted on the lack of influence of active community on overweight among adolescents.

Do your kids participate in sports?

Sports, Walking To School Reduce Obesity Among Adolescents, Says Study is a post from: The Inquisitr

Amid recent criticism by researchers at the University of Queensland that argues that anti-bed-sharing policies are more dangerous than co-sleeping, a new study published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics also concludes that co-sleeping in which a parents shares a sleeping surface with an infant can be done safely so long as certain precautions are taken.

Co-sleeping, or bed-sharing, is a common practice in much of the world. However, in developed countries such as the United States, co-sleeping with an infant is discouraged. According to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2011, parents should sleep in the same room as their baby but not on the same sleep surface.

However, many parents do end up co-sleeping at least part of the time. The majority of babies do not have any problems sharing a sleep surface with an adult.

In a new study, researchers at the Departments of Women’s and Children’s Health and Preventive
and Social Medicine at the University of Otago in New Zealand sought to compare desaturation events and rebreathing episodes between co-sleeping and crib-sleeping infants. Desaturation events are when oxygen levels drop by more than 3 percent. Rebreathing episodes are when an individual partially or completely inhales previously exhaled gases.

To examine the effects of co-sleeping on desaturation events and rebreathing episodes, the researchers studied forty healthy full-term infants between the ages of 0 and 6 months old who regularly bed-shared with at least one parent and forty comparative infants who slept in cribs. The behavior of the parents and the infants were recorded using infrared video. Oxygen levels and body temperatures were also recorded.

According to the study, the co-sleeping infants experienced “more episodes of mild oxygen desaturation associated with the warmer microenvironment and responded more frequently to rebreathe stimuli” in comparison to the infant who slept in cribs.

However, more severe desaturation events and longer apneic events in which the baby stopped breathing were rare but occurred among both the co-sleeping and the crib-sleeping infants.

All of the babies participating in the study were healthy and at a low risk for SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). Being healthy, all of the co-sleeping infants responded appropriately to potential stressors such as temperature changes and decreased oxygen. Therefore, the researcher conclude that only infants who do not respond to the microenvironment created by co-sleeping are at an increased risk for fatal sleep accidents.

In their concluding remarks, the researchers reiterate some important points about safe co-sleeping, acknowledging that co-sleeping results in both “beneficial and potentially compromising situations.” If parents take precautions and avoid smoking, alcohol, and overheating while sharing a sleep surface with a baby, then co-sleeping can be done safely with a low-risk infant.

“Infant homeostatic responses and frequent maternal interactions seemed to keep these low-risk infants safe. However, we suggest that it is potentially hazardous for an infant to sleep in the same bed as their parent, if the infant and/or mother are unresponsive. We acknowledge that BS [bed-sharing] is a practice valued by many; thus, it is important to identify the specific dangers related to this practice. Keeping the infant smoke-free at all times, including during pregnancy, is perhaps the most important message, as well as avoiding consumption of alcohol or sedating drugs on the BS night; keeping the infant’s face clear; and avoiding the use of thick insulation as overbedding.”

Additional studies need to be conducted on the effects and potential dangers of co-sleeping on high-risk infants.

Do you co-sleep with your young children?

Smoking, Alcohol, Overheating Dangerous To Co-Sleeping Babies, Says Study is a post from: The Inquisitr

Prenatal exposure to the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) has been linked to poorer behavior in children in previous studies. However, exposure to BPA in bisphenol-A-glycidyl-methacrylate-based dental composite is also linked to worse psychosocial outcomes in children, says a new study published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

In the present study conducted by researchers at the New England Research Institutes in Watertown, Massachusetts, the researchers sought to determine whether greater exposure to BPA in dental composites is associated with psychosocial problems in children.

For the study, data was collected on 534 children between 6 and 10 years old from six community dental clinics in Boston and Maine between 1997 and 2005. The children were randomly assigned to treatment plans consisting of either bisphenol-A-glycidyl-methacrylate-based composite or urethane-dimethacrylate-based polyacid-modified composite for subsequent dental work.

To determine a link, if any, between exposure to BPA in dental work and psychosocial problems in children, psychosocial assessments were also made on the children participating in the study using two validated instruments, the Child Behavior Checklist parent-report and the Behavior Assessment for Children Self-Report, both of which are widely used in screening children and teenagers for psychosocial problems.

According to the study, increased exposure to BPA in dental work is associated with an increased risk for psychosocial problems among children. The greater the exposure to BPA, the greater the increase in risk.

Children with the highest exposure to BPA in dental work were more likely to report more anxiety, depression, social stress, and interpersonal relation problems. Parents were also more likely to report psychosocial problems in children assigned to the bisphenol-A-glycidyl-methacrylate-based composite group.

The use of other non-BPA-based types of dental composites was not linked to impaired psychosocial problems among the children.

As the researchers conclude:

“Greater exposure to bisGMA-based dental composite restorations was associated with impaired psychosocial function in children, whereas no adverse psychosocial outcomes were observed with greater urethane dimethacrylate-based compomer or amalgam treatment levels.”

The results of this study are in stark contrast with previous statements about the safety of BPA-based composites from the American Dental Association (ADA). In a statement issued two years ago, the ADA maintains that the benefits of dental materials containing BPA outweigh any risks:

“According to the CDC, dental caries remains the most common chronic disease of children aged 5 to 17 years—5 times more common than asthma (59% versus 11%).⁴ Untreated cavities can cause pain, dysfunction, absence from school, and poor appearance—problems that can greatly affect a child’s quality of life. The utility of composite resin materials for both restoring dental health and preventing caries is well established, while any health risks from their use are not. The ADA fully supports continued research into the safety of BPA; but, based on current evidence, the ADA does not believe there is a basis for health concerns relative to BPA exposure from any dental material. “

In the same statement, the ADA summarizes:

“The ADA is a professional association of dentists committed to the public’s oral health. As such, the ADA supports ongoing research on the safety of existing dental materials and in the development of new materials. Based on current research the Association agrees with the authoritative government agencies that the low-level of BPA exposure that may result from dental sealants and composites poses no known health threat.”

However, the results of the present study on exposure to BPA and an increased risk for psychosocial problems in children may warrant that the ADA change its stance.

Are you worried about your child’s exposure to BPA?

Exposure To BPA In Dental Work Linked To Psychosocial Problems In Children is a post from: The Inquisitr

Breastfeeding is best for babies, offering nutritional and immunological benefits unmatched by formula. Breastfeeding is also beneficial to women, protecting a mother against breast cancer as well as helping her lose her pregnancy weight faster. A new study  published in the International Journal of Obesity also indicates that women who breastfed continue to keep the weight off better even decades later.

In the study conducted by researchers in England, the researchers looked at  data from nearly 750,000 participants in the Million Women Study, which is a broad ongoing national study of women’s health involving mostly women aged 50 to 64 in the United Kingdom. The researchers discovered that women with children tended to have higher body mass indexes (BMI) later in life than women without children. Calculated from weight and height, BMI is one screening tool for overweight and obesity.

Although women who had children were heavier in general, women who had breastfed their babies tended to have lower BMI than non-breastfeeding women. In other words, breastfeeding continues to offer benefits in terms of weight long after the breastfeeding has ceased.

For every six months of breastfeeding, BMI decreased by about 1 percent on average.

As The Huffington Post reports,  Dr. Kirsty Bobrow, a researcher at the University of Oxford and one of the authors of the study, comments:

“These are long-term effects. For women in this study, childbearing and breastfeeding occurred on average 30 years before women’s weights and heights were recorded.”

As Dr. Bobrow further explains on MSNBC:

“We already know breastfeeding is best for babies, and this study adds to a growing body of evidence that the benefits extend to the mother as well, even 30 years after she’s given birth.”

Even the modest 1 percent decrease in BMI associated with breastfeeding is significant because overweight and obesity are linked to myriad health problems including diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Encouraging women to breastfeed could be a way to fight obesity in the long term.

Breastfeeding burns about 500 calories a day. One explanation for the long-term weight reduction associated with breastfeeding is the “reset hypothesis.” During pregnancy, certain fats accumulate, and insulin resistance as well as lipid and triglyceride levels increase. Breastfeeding may play a key role in reversing the changes by “resetting” maternal metabolism.

However, further research needs to be conducted to establish the mechanisms behind breastfeeding and lower BMI later in life.

The researchers also caution that the relationship between breastfeeding and thinness has not yet been determined to be causal. Women who breastfed their babies just tend to have lower body mass indexes decades after breastfeeding stops. The message, however, seems to be clear: Breastfeeding is beneficial to mothers in the short term and the long term.

Did you breastfeed your children?

Breastfeeding Linked To Thinness, Even Decades Later is a post from: The Inquisitr

Turmeric (Curcuma longa) may benefit diabetes and heart patients by lowering insulin and triglyceride levels as well as by providing cardiovascular protection after cardiovascular by-pass surgery, announces a recent press release for Diabetes Support Supplements, a new dietary supplement from ProactiveLife.

A new study from researchers at Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) and Chiang Mai University of Thailand investigated the impact of the spice turmeric on certain cardiac markers. The research concluded that adding turmeric to an otherwise high fat meal actually lowered  insulin levels and triglycerides. Both triglyceride and insulin levels decreased by about one-third for individuals including turmeric in the meal.

As researcher Sheila West explains:

“Elevated triglycerides are a risk factor for heart disease. It [The result of the study] was surprising. I didn’t expect such a large decrease.”

For the study, the researchers looked at 121 patients whose average age was 61 years old. All of the participants in the study underwent scheduled cardiac by-pass surgery. For three days before the surgery until five days  after, half of the participants took encapsulated turmeric while the other half took a placebo. Only 13.1 percent of the group taking the turmeric had heart attacks during the recovery period after the surgery compared to 30 percent of the placebo group.

The researchers concluded that the turmeric group had a 65 percent lower change of a heart attack than the placebo group.

As the researchers of the Penn State and Chiang Mai University study explain, the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects of the curcuminoids in turmeric may account for cardioprotective effects of the spice.

As  Bharat Aggarwal, a researcher who studies the use of turmeric in cancer therapy at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, comments on the present studies, “It’s very, very encouraging.” Aggarwal further states that “research has suggested inflammation plays an important role in the development of a range of diseases, including heart disease — and curcumins could have an effect on those pathways.”

Other studies have also concluded the benefits of turmeric for cardiovascular health and type 2 diabetes. In a study from from Srinakharinwirot University in  Thailand, researchers discovered that turmeric  reduces the incidence of type 2 diabetes in adults with prediabetes. Another study published in a 2011 issue of Functional Foods in Health and Disease also concluded that turmeric along with olive leaf extract and fenugreek have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties as well as specific insulin sensitizing qualities.

A research team at Columbia University found turmeric could play a significant role in preventing type 2 diabetes:

“Administration of turmeric or curcumin to diabetic rats reduced the blood sugar, Hb and glycosylated hemoglobin levels significantly. Turmeric and curcumin supplementation also reduced the oxidative stress encountered by the diabetic rats.”

ProactiveLife, the makers of Diabetes Support, claim that the supplement contains ten ingredients including turmeric and cocoa powder that naturally lower blood sugar while providing cardiovascular support.

Will you be adding turmeric into your diet?

Turmeric Improves Diabetes By Lowering Insulin Levels, Also Lowers Triglycerides And Improves Cardiovascular Health is a post from: The Inquisitr

Despite recent deaths of children in which the baby and the parent were sharing the same sleeping surface, anti-bed-sharing policies are more dangerous than co-sleeping, say researchers at the University of Queensland (UQ).

According to the 2011 updated guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the AAP recommends against co-sleeping in which the mother and the child share the same sleeping surface. Instead of bed-sharing, parents are encouraged the sleep in the same room as their children. As Rachel Moon, MD, chair of the AAP’s SIDS task force and author of the 2011 guidelines, stated:

“I think you can breastfeed successfully without bed-sharing. We do want the crib right next to the parents’ bed.”

However, Moon also acknowledges that parents sometimes receive mixed messages about co-sleeping: “While their pediatrician might recommend sleeping separately in the same room, the La Leche League, which promotes breastfeeding, encourages bed-sharing as an option.”

Professor Sue Kruske, director of the UQ’s Queensland Centre for Mothers & Babies, believes otherwise. She rejects a recent comment by the Victorian Coroner who labeled co-sleeping in which a parent shares the same bed with an infant younger than a year old as “inherently dangerous.” Kruske believes that comments such as these do not represent current evidence:

“It is not the act of bed sharing that is solely responsible for these deaths. Rather it is other environmental factors that occur in combination with bed sharing.”

For example, in the recent case involving the death of an infant while co-sleeping, a Minnesota mother likely suffocated her young son while sleeping with him on a couch. She admits that she put the child between herself and the back of the couch, which is not recommended by any group that advocates co-sleeping. She also admits that she was drunk, having consumed nearly a fifth of vodka. Being under the influence of any substance is also counter-indicative of safe co-sleeping.

In fact, the majority of so-called “co-sleeping deaths” are in the context of other circumstances including smoking, alcohol and drug use, and unsafe adult sleep environments such as couches. As Kruske comments:

“Prohibiting bed-sharing will actually lead to more harmful practices such as falling asleep with the baby on a couch, which is known to be dangerous, as well as increased cases of babies falling.”

Parents who chose to co-sleep with their babies can do so in ways that make the practice safer such as keeping pillows and blankets away from the child, not using drugs or alcohol, not smoking, and not sleeping on couches or chairs.

As Kruske concludes:

If deaths could be ascribed to co-sleeping without other risk factors present, we would expect a lot more.

“No environment for babies is risk free.

Babies have died alone in cots and babies have died in adult beds.

We give clear advice for reducing risks in cot environments but we have not yet addressed shared sleep environments in the same way.

Many people die in car accidents but we don’t tell people not to drive.

We tell them not to drink and drive, to wear seat belts and not speed.

Similarly, the message for parents is that if you choose, or have no option but to co-sleep, the risks can be reduced by not overheating the baby, not wrapping the baby while bed-sharing, not having either parents as smokers, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.”

Do you agree that anti-bed-sharing policies are more dangerous than co-sleeping with young babies?

Anti-Bed-Sharing Policies More Dangerous Than Co-Sleeping, Say UQ Researchers is a post from: The Inquisitr

Pure cocoa powder may lower the risk for cardiovascular problems among patients with type 2 diabetes, announces a recent press release for Diabetes Support Supplements, a new dietary supplement from ProactiveLife.

Previous research has linked the consumption of pure cocoa powder with an improvement in several important cardiovascular risk factors and a likely reduction of the risk of cardiovascular disease. In a 2011 study published in Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that there is rather strong evidence supporting and demonstrating that cocoa consumption improves cardiovascular risk. In a similar study published in The Journal of Nutrition, researchers also at the Harvard School of Public Health discovered that flavonoid-rich pure cocoa powder significantly improves blood pressure, insulin resistance, lipid profiles, and flow-mediated vascular dilation (FMD).

Additionally, as published in the Journal of American College of Cardiology, patients with type 2 diabetes who consumed pure cocoa powder experienced a 30 percent increase in arterial blood flow.

Finally, a meta-analysis published in the British Medical Journal also concluded the benefits of pure cocoa powder. According to the meta-analysis:

“Five of the seven studies reported a beneficial association between higher levels of chocolate consumption and the risk of cardiometabolic disorders. The highest levels of chocolate consumption were associated with a 37% reduction in cardiovascular disease (relative risk 0.63 (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.90)) and a 29% reduction in stroke compared with the lowest levels.”

ProactiveLife, the makers of Diabetes Support, claim that the supplement contains ten ingredients including pure cocoa powder that naturally lower blood sugar while providing cardiovascular support.

However, both diabetic and non-diabetic individuals must be cautious about the consumption of pure cocoa powder. Consuming cocoa in the form of chocolate can also come with increased calories and high levels of sugar and fat, all of which are detrimental to good health. Eating a high calorie, high fat, high sugar candy bar does not offer the same health benefits as consuming less adulterated pure cocoa powder.

Further research still needs to be conducted to confirm a potentially beneficial effect of pure cocoa powder consumption in both food and supplement sources.

What do you think about the research that says that pure cocoa powder and chocolate are good for the heart?

Pure Cocoa Powder Reduces Cardiovascular Risk In Type 2 Diabetes Patients is a post from: The Inquisitr

Even the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), which many consider a hate group, condemns the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church as a meme currently making the rounds on Facebook reminds internet users. The meme, which is part news release and part commentary, reads:

“News Release

Disclaimer:

NOTE: The Ku Klux Klan, LLC, has not or EVER will have ANY connection with The ‘Westboro Baptist Church.” We absolutely repudiate their activities.”

Beneath the screenshot of the news release, the meme creator has included the following commentary:

“Westboro Baptist Church

Making even the KKK look tasteful since 1991.”

Back in September 2003, the Ku Klux Klan posted a similar news release condemning the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church on its website:

“The Ku Klux Klan, LLC. has not or EVER will have ANY connection with The “Westboro Baptist Church”. We absolutely repudiate their tactics of protesting the funerals of U.S. soldiers, men and women who die serving our Nation. We do NOT question their Christianity or right to speak, publish or preach. We agree with many of their teachings, especially that Homosexuality is an abomination before Yahvey God the Father.”

The KKK has been in the news for decades. Back in the 1960s, the group was linked to a number of murders including the deaths of  James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, three civil rights workers whose murders became known as the Mississippi Burning Case.

More recently, however, the KKK has made headlines for its efforts, and subsequent denial, to adopt a highway in Georgia.

The Westboro Baptist Church, which many also consider a hate group, is also notorious for making headlines for protesting military funerals. As Fred Phelps, the leader of the church, said, “Our attitude toward what’s happening with the war is the Lord is punishing this evil nation for abandoning all moral imperatives that are worth a dime.”

The Westboro Baptist Church began its anti-gay movement in 1991 but made the national spotlight in 1998 when the group was featured on CNN for picketing the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a young man who had been beaten to death because of his homosexuality.

Although still nefarious, the KKK has really toned down its image in recent years as evidenced by its more humanitarian efforts such as wanting to clean up stretches of highway. And, in light of the recent hate-filled activities of the Westboro Baptist Church, the current KKK is looking more like kittens and sunshine than the mobbing and lynching group of the past.

So, what does it say about the Westboro Baptist Church when even a group like the Ku Klux Klan disagrees with the church’s activities?

What do you think about the connotation that the KKK is tasteful compared to the Westboro Baptist Church?

KKK Denounces The Westboro Baptist Church, Internet Meme Confirms is a post from: The Inquisitr

When the Supreme Court upheld the controversial health care reform two weeks ago, the National Retail Federation (NRF) expressed its intent to redouble its efforts to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, better known as ObamaCare. As House Republicans set out to vote on repealing health care reform today, the NRF remains vocal in its disagreement over the law.

The National Retail Federation is the world’s largest retail trade association and the voice of retail worldwide.

In a statement released this morning, NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay commented on today’s House vote to repeal the health care reform law:

“At a time when the economy is still struggling to recover, Congress needs to repeal the health care law before it costs millions of Americans their jobs.

Congress set out to make health care more accessible by making it more affordable. Instead, what we may well get is a perfect storm of unintended consequences that drives up costs so high that many companies likely will be forced to cut back their payrolls or discontinue health care coverage even if it means paying fines. Instead of making health care more available, the Affordable Care Act is likely to cost many workers both their jobs and their health insurance.

It’s time for Congress to go back to work and come up with true bipartisan health care reform that focuses first on reducing costs and addressing the fundamental flaws of our health care system, rather than destroying jobs and penalizing the very employers who today voluntarily pay for health insurance. As an industry that provides health care coverage for millions of American workers and their families, retail will continue to work with lawmakers to achieve that goal.”

The NRF also recently established a special website to help focus its grassroots and political campaign against health care reform.

Retailers believe that the new health care reform law is bad for business because, instead of making health care more affordable, the mandates are too tricky. As the NRF commented in a joint statement with the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR):

“NRF and NCCR believe the mandate on employers is both punitive and anti-growth — and ultimately hazardous to our economy. Efforts to reduce the cost of health coverage are insufficient and the law is too complex to administer.”

Today’s House vote will decide the fate of the retail industry in the United States.

Do you think that the new health care reform law will be detrimental to retailers?

Retailers Fight To Repeal Health Care Reform is a post from: The Inquisitr

Diabetics who suffer from diabetic peripheral neuropathy may benefit from a new type of stem cell preparation, says a new study published in STEM CELLS Translational Medicine.

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy, or nerve damage, causes pain or loss of feeling in the toes, feet, legs, hands, and arms among diabetic patients. About 70 percent of diabetes suffer from neuropathy. Current treatments for severe diabetic peripheral neuropathy include tricyclic antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and topical agents.

“However, none of these therapies directly targets the inflammation, most have negative side effects and less than 30 percent of patients experience adequate pain relief. Clearly, new therapies are needed,” explains Dr. Ruth Waterman of the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in New Orleans and lead author of the study

However, a new preparation of stem cell treatment may target the inflammation that is thought to be the main cause of neuropathy.

Dr. Waterman recently collaborated with other researchers including Dr. Aline Betancourt from Tulane University’s Center for Stem Cell Research and Regenerative Medicine to develop a new stem cell treatment that controls the inflammation that causes diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Previous studies have indicated that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are safe and effective in treating inflammatory disease such as diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Unfortunately, as Dr. Betancourt explains:

“The problem is that the current methods for preparing these cells yield a mixed pool of undefined cells that aren’t consistently effective in the clinic. Our laboratory developed a new method that results in a consistent, uniform MSC population and optimizes their anti-inflammatory effects. We call these cells MSC2s.”

This new preparation of stem cell treatment had produced significant improvements in inflammation and other symptoms. Mice given the new stem cell treatment preparation saw a 40 percent improvement. Mice given the original preparation saw only a 14 percent improvement.

As Dr. Waterman concludes:

“Moreover the responses did not differ from what we saw in the healthy control group of mice. These findings suggest that the use of anti-inflammatory MSC2 is a promising new therapeutic strategy for diabetic peripheral neuropathy that should be further investigated.”

Would you try the new preparation of stem cell treatment to treat your diabetic peripheral neuropathy?

New Stem Cell Treatment Reduces Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy Inflammation, Benefit to Diabetics [Study] is a post from: The Inquisitr

High-risk premature babies who are born in hospitals with high-level neonatal intensive care units (high-level NICU) fare better than high-risk newborns born in other hospital settings, says a new study published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

Previous data has suggested that giving birth in a high-volume, high-technology hospital with a high-level NICU offers the best outcome for high-risk babies. However, no study had yet examined the effect of delivery hospital on the outcomes of premature babies.

Researchers at the The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania thus sought to determine the effects, if any, on hospital type (high-level NICU or otherwise) on reducing neonatal mortality rates.

For the study, the researchers performed a retrospective population-based cohort study. The researchers looked at data from all hospital-based deliveries in Pennsylvania and California between the years 1995 and 2005 and Missouri between the years 1995 and
2003. All of the babies considered for the study were born between 23 and 37 weeks of gestation. A total of 1,328,132 births were included in the final cohort. Hospital type including hospitals with a high-level NICU were noted.

Compounding factors including gestational age; birth weight; maternal sociodemographic factors such as race, age, education, and insurance status; maternal comorbid conditions; and 49 congenital anomalies were also taken into consideration when analyzing the effect of hospitals including those with a high-level NICU on the outcome of premature babies.

The researchers examined neonatal death rates as well as 5 other complications of premature birth to determine if hospital setting had an effect on outcome.

According to the study, premature babies born in high-level NICU hospitals had significantly fewer in-hospital neonatal deaths in all three states. Furthermore, women who gave birth in a high-level NICU hospital were more likely to have either a pre-existing comorbid condition such as gestational diabetes or a complication of pregnancy such as preterm labor. Babies who were born in high-level NICU hospitals had a younger gestational age on average.

In unadjusted analyses, hospitals with a high-level NICU had higher neonatal death rates. However, after adjusting for factors such as gestational age at birth and other compounding complications and factors, the researchers discovered that delivering at a high-level NICU hospital offered better outcomes for premature babies than premature babies born in other hospital settings.

As the researchers concluded:

“In conclusion, our work suggests that the survival benefit to delivering at a high-level NICU between 1995 and 2005 is larger than previously reported and appears to benefit both extremely preterm and moderately preterm infants.”

However, regional differences existed between the states, which may be attributable to different methods of regionalization.

Are you surprised that premature babies born at hospitals with a high-level NICU fare better than premature babies born in other hospital settings?

Outcomes Better For Premature Babies At High-Level NICU Hospitals is a post from: The Inquisitr

The HPV vaccine has been effective in lowering rates of human papillomavirus (HPV) after the vaccination was licensed for use in the United States in June of 2006, says a new study published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, with 50% percent of sexually active individuals becoming infected with the virus at some point in their lives. Most cases of HPV are asymptomatic, but some individuals will develop genital warts. Some strains of HPV are linked to an increased risk for cervical cancer as well as other, less common cancers including cancers of the vulva, vagina, penis, anus, tongue, tonsils, and throat.

In clinical trials, the HPV vaccine has been shown to be highly effective against the human papillomavirus. Widespread HPV vaccination has thus been recommended for women between 11 and 26 years of age as well as men through age 21. However, the impact of vaccination with the HPV vaccine on HPV prevalence rates in real-world, community settings was still uncertain.

Thus, for the present study, researchers at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati, Ohio sought to compare the prevalence of HPV infection in young women before and after being vaccination with the HPV vaccine. The researchers aimed to determine whether rates of HPV decreased, whether the HPV vaccine provided herd immunity, and whether the HPV vaccine caused increased rates of nonvaccine-type HPV.

The current HPV vaccine protects against only certain strains of the HPV virus. Thus, researchers have been wondering whether individuals vaccinated with the HPV vaccine were at an increased risk for becoming infected with strains of the virus not included in the vaccine. Researchers have also been wondering whether the use of the HPV vaccine provides herd immunity against the strains included in the vaccination.

To determine the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine, the researchers looked at young women who were between 13 and 26 years of age during the years of 2006 and 2007 and who had been or who were sexually active. Rates of HPV infection were assessed before and after the women were vaccinated with the HPV vaccine.

After vaccination with the HPV vaccine occurred, the rates of infected with vaccinated-type HPV strains decreased from 31.7 percent to 13.4 percent. Thus the HPV vaccine was determined to be effective against the HPV virus.

The HPV vaccine also appears to offer herd immunity. Herd immunity occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of the population provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity. After vaccination with the HPV vaccine, the rates of infection decreased from 30.2 percent to 15.4 percent among individuals who had not received the vaccine.

However, nonvaccine-type HPV infections increased  from 60.7 percent to 75.9 percent among the women who had received the HPV vaccine.

The results of this study indicate that the HPV vaccine is highly effective in lowering the rates of HPV infection among sexually-experienced young women. Additionally, the HPV vaccine offers herd immunity, further protecting individuals who have not yet been or who cannot be vaccinated against the virus. These findings indicate the importance of vaccination with the HPV vaccine for all teenagers and young adults.

As the researchers conclude:

“We found evidence of a substantial decrease in vaccine-type HPV prevalence in the community, as well as evidence of herd protection, only 4 years after the quadrivalent HPV vaccine was introduced; this is expected to translate into a decrease in CIN and ultimately cervical cancer in the community.”

Further research needs to be conducted on the increase in nonvaccine-type HPV in participants vaccinated with the HPV vaccine.

Will you vaccinate your children with the HPV vaccine?

HPV Vaccine Effective, Vaccination Offers Herd Immunity [Study] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Children who live with pet dogs have a decreased risk for respiratory tract infections than children who grow up without a furry friend, says a new study published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

Another recent asthma study presented at the 2012 General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology discovered that children living in homes with dogs have a lowered risk for asthma due to an exposure to a unique collection of microbes found within dog-associated house dust. According to that study, doggy dust provides protective factors against a common respiratory virus associated with the development of asthma in children, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The present study discovered that children living with dogs had fewer cases of respiratory tract infections and symptoms including less frequent otitis or ear infections than their dog-less counterparts.

In the study conducted by researchers at the Departments of Pediatrics and Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Kuopio University Hospital in Kuopio, Finland, the researchers followed 397 children from pregnancy onward, studying the frequency of respiratory tract infections and symptoms together with information about dog and cat contacts during the first year of life.

Of 397 children participating in the study, 245 (61.7 percent) had contact with a dog and 136 (34.3 percent) had contact with a cat during the time period of the study.

The children who lived with a dog or a cat during the study were significantly healthier in terms of respiratory tract infections, having fewer weeks with cough, otitis, and rhinitis, than children who did not have a contact with a pet at home. Children with pets also needed fewer courses of antibiotics than children with no cat or dog contacts.

As the researchers conclude:

“According to our results, dog and cat contacts during early infancy may be associated with less morbidity in general (indicated as more healthy weeks) and concomitantly may have a protective effect on respiratory tract symptoms and infections.”

Additionally, living with a pet dog  showed a more significant protective role against respiratory tract infections than living with a pet cat. However, although weaker than dog ownership, cat ownership seemed to also have an overall protective effect for the health of infants during the first year of life.

The researchers speculate that the reason that children who live with dogs have a decreased risk for respiratory tract infections is that “animal contacts could help to mature the immunologic system, leading to more composed immunologic response and shorter duration of infections.”

The results of this study support the theory that contact with animals is important during the first year of life, possibly leading to better resistance to respiratory tract infections during childhood. A dog really is man’s (or baby’s) best friend!

Would you adopt a pet dog to help lower your child’s risk for respiratory tract infections during infancy?

Risk For Respiratory Tract Infections Lowered In Children With Dogs [Study] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Babies who are born prematurely and who suffer from hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar, after birth are at an increased risk for developmental delays, says a new study published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

That premature babies who are born between 32 and 35 weeks of gestation are at an increased risk for both neonatal morbidities and developmental delays in early childhood is widely known. However, what was previously unknown was whether the occurrence of neonatal complications such as hypoglycemia increased the risk for developmental delays during childhood.

In the present study published as “Neonatal Morbidities and Developmental Delay in Moderately Preterm-Born Children”, researchers from the Division of Neonatology at the Beatrix Children’s Hospital at University Medical Center Groningen in The Netherlands sought to determine the effect of neonatal health complications including hypoglycemia on the development at preschool age of children who were born prematurely.

The researchers looked at data on 832 moderately preterm children born between 2002 and 2003. The data examined included

Apgar scores, asphyxia, tertiary NICU admission, hospital transfer, circulatory insufficiency, hypoglycemia, septicemia, mechanical ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure, apneas, caffeine treatment, and hyperbilirubinemia, all of which was obtained from medical records. When the children were between 43 to 49 months old, their development was assessed. The researchers also controlled for compounding factors such as gender, small-for-gestational-age status, gestational age, and maternal education.

According to the study, hypoglycemia and asphyxia were the only two neonatal complications associated with developmental delays, and only hypoglycemia was associated with an increased risk for developmental delays during childhood. In other words, premature babies who suffer from low blood sugar after birth are more likely to suffer from development delays as children.

The the risk of developmental delay increased from 9.1% to almost 20% among premature babies with hypoglycemia.

The reason for the increased risk for developmental delays as a result of hypoglycemia is that low blood sugar can lead to brain injury. Additionally, the risk for hypoglycemia is increased among moderately premature babies because, in comparison with healthy full term, babies born prematurely have fewer glucose stores, less alternative substrates, and less well-developed hormonal counter-regulatory mechanisms to sustain adequate glucose levels after birth.

The results of this study are important for the management of low blood sugar among premature babies. As the researchers conclude:

“Hypoglycemia after moderately-preterm birth is associated with an increased risk of parent-reported developmental delay at age 4. Stricter monitoring and timely treatment of hypoglycemia after birth might benefit the large group of moderately preterm-born children.”

Hypoglycemia can be better managed through regular glucose monitoring during the first 24 hours and administering early, frequent enteral feedings.

Hypoglycemia Increases The Risk For Developmental Delays Among Premature Babies [Study] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Viewing smoking in movies aimed at child and family audiences does not appear to immediately impact beliefs about smoking in preadolescent children, says a new study published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

According to previous research published in The Lancet, viewing smoking in movies promoted smoking initiation among adolescents. In other words, teenagers who see smoking in movies are more likely to begin smoking than teenagers who are not exposed to onscreen smoking.

In the present study, researchers from the Behavioural Science Institute at Radboud University Nijmegen in The Netherlands studied the short-term effects of smoking in movies on the beliefs about smoking in preadolescents.

For the study, two experiments involving a total of 206 children between the ages of 8 and 11 were conducted in which the children viewed a 20-minute segment of a film with or without smoking characters. In the first experiment, 101 children viewed cartoon. In the second experiment, 105 children viewed a family-oriented movie. The children were randomly assigned to which film segment they watched.

After viewing a film, the children were assessed for their beliefs about smoking and their implicit
associations toward smoking. Questions used to assess the impact of smoking in movies included asking the children about their previous smoking habits (had the children ever tried smoking before), whether their parents smoked, and their attitudes towards smoking.

The majority of the children participating in the study on the impact of smoking in movies viewed smoking unfavorably. Viewing smoking movies had no effect on implicit associations toward smoking and only a small effect on one smoking-related cognition, antismoking norms. Exposure to smoking in movies was associated with a shift away from the most antismoking stance.

In general, however, viewing smoking in movies geared towards children and families had very little short-term impact on these preadolescent children’s beliefs about smoking.

However, as the researchers conclude, further research needs to be conducted on the cumulative effects of viewing smoking in movies on young children as well as the effects of viewing smoking in movies aimed at older audiences. As the researchers conclude:

“The current study suggests that prevention and policy initiatives should rather focus on the effect of smoking in family- oriented movies. Thus, tobacco control initiatives in the United States should pay attention to adjusting the rating system to address smoking in PG-13 movies. However, this should not be taken to mean that enriching G- and PG-rated movies with smoking is justified or desirable.”

A significant cumulative effect of viewing smoking in movies cannot yet be ruled out for preadolescent children who are exposed to smoking in cartoon and family-oriented movies.

Do you think that viewing smoking in movies harms children in the long-term?

Smoking In Movies Does Not Impact Kids Short-Term [Study] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Despite claims by manufacturers that 100 percent whey-protein partially hydrolyzed infant formula is a hypoallergenic alternative for babies who are allergic to milk or babies with existing milk allergy symptoms, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that such claims are not backed up by legitimate research, says a new article published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

The article, which was written by the Office of Nutrition, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, College Park, Maryland and published as “FDA’s Health Claim Review: Whey-protein Partially Hydrolyzed Infant Formula and Atopic Dermatitis,” evaluated the scientific evidence for a qualified health claim for 100 percent whey-protein partially hydrolyzed infant formula reduced the risk for atopic dermatitis.

Atopic dermatitis, or eczema, is a chronic skin condition characterized by scaly and itchy rashes. Eczema is most common among infants and is exacerbated by a number of factors including dietary influences such as infant formula feeding instead of breastfeeding and the early introduction of solid foods.

Claims have previously been made that whey-protein partially hydrolyzed infant formula may reduce the risk for atopic dermatitis by breaking down the cow milk protein into smaller peptides, thus reducing allergenicity.

As noted in the article, whey-protein partially hydrolyzed infant formulas have been marketed and sold in the United States safely and legally for decades. Unfortunately, this type of infant formula is not hypoallergenic and may cause allergic reactions in one-third to one-half of babies with milk allergies.

To evaluate the claims that whey-protein partially hydrolyzed infant formula might be hypoallergenic, the FDA looked at 20 studies addressing the relationship between the consumption of the infant formula and a reduced risk of atopic dermatitis. Unfortunately, legitimate conclusions could not be drawn from a majority (16 of 20) of those studies due to inherent problems with the designs of the studies.

After reviewing the remaining 4 studies, the FDA concluded that little to very little credible evidence exists for a qualified health claim about whey-protein partially hydrolyzed infant formula and a reduced risk of  eczema.

The FDA thus issued the following warning so that the qualified health claim would not mislead consumers:

“Very little scientific evidence suggests that, for healthy infants who are not exclusively breastfed and who have a family history of allergy, feeding a 100% Whey-Protein Partially Hydrolyzed infant formula from birth up to 4 months of age instead of a formula containing intact cow’s milk proteins may reduce the risk of developing atopic dermatitis throughout the 1st year of life and up to 3 years of age.”

Additionally, the following warning (including the bolded section) must accompany the previous qualified health claim:

“Partially hydrolyzed formulas should not be fed to infants who are allergic to milk or to infants with existing milk allergy symptoms. If you suspect your baby is already allergic to milk, or if your baby is on a special formula for the treatment of allergy, your baby’s care and feeding choices should be under a doctor’s supervision.”

The FDA will continue to evaluate claims that whey-protein partially hydrolyzed infant formula may reduce the risk of atopic dermatitis among infants.

Are you concerned about the lack of legitimate research backing up the health claims about infant formula?

False Infant Formula Claims: FDA Concludes Whey-Protein Partially Hydrolyzed Baby Formulas Are Not Hypoallergenic is a post from: The Inquisitr

Pregnant women are frequently advised to limit their consumption of caffeine during pregnancy. However, prenatal exposure to caffeine does not increase the risk for behavioral problems in children, says a new study published in the August 2012 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

In the study conducted by researchers at the Department of Psychology at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, the researchers sought to investigate an association between the maternal consumption of caffeine during pregnancy and later behavioral problems in children at five and six years of age.

To determine a link, if any, between caffeine during pregnancy and behavioral problems in children, the researchers measured the consumption of caffeine during pregnancy including coffee, caffeinated tea, and cola during the sixteenth week of gestation. In response to a questionnaire, the mothers participating in the study reported on the type and amount of coffee, tea, and cola that they consumed during the past week.

At five years of age, the mothers as well as teachers of the children born to the women participating in the study evaluated and rated the children’s overall problem behavior, emotional problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention problems, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behavior.

The researchers also took into account compounding factors such as maternal age, ethnicity, cohabitant status, education, smoking and alcohol consumption during pregnancy, child’s gender, family size, and prenatal maternal anxiety.

According to the study, consuming caffeine during pregnancy is not linked to an increased risk for hyperactivity/inattention problems, emotional symptoms, conduct problems, peer relationship problems suboptimal prosocial behavior, or overall problem behavior at five years of age.

In response to the findings, the researchers concluded that advising women to avoid caffeine during pregnancy to reduce the risk of behavioral problems in their children is unwarrented:

“To conclude, this study has provided insight into what extent caffeine consumption during pregnancy contributes to the development of problem behavior. Our results did not provide evidence to advise pregnant women to reduce their caffeine intake to prevent problem behavior in their children.”

However, pregnant women should not binge on lattes and energy drinks just yet. According to The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, consuming high levels of caffeine during pregnancy has been shown to increase the risk of miscarriage and sudden infant death syndrome. Women are advised to consume no more than 200mg of caffeine during pregnancy per day.

Will the results of this study change your attitude about consuming caffeine during pregnancy?

Craving Coffee? Caffeine During Pregnancy Not Linked To Behavioral Problems In Children is a post from: The Inquisitr

The policy of single embryo transfer for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedures has decreased the perinatal mortality rate, says a study presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology held in Istanbul between July 1 and July 4, 2012.

Perinatal deaths are defined as fetal deaths (stillbirths) and neonatal deaths  that occur before 28 days after birth. A policy of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer appears to have reduced the number of perinatal deaths among IVF and ICSI babies.

According to the study led by  Professor Elizabeth Sullivan from the Perinatal & Reproductive Epidemiology Research Unit of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, the total perinatal mortality rate was 16.2 per 1,000 births. However, the death rate following double embryo transfer was significantly higher than the death rate following single embryo transfer.

Single embryo transfer resulted in 13.2 deaths per 1,000 births. Double embryo transfer resulted in 19.1 deaths per 1,000 births.

Based on these findings, Sullivan commented in a statement reported on Doctors Lounge:

“There is justification for advocating SET [single embryo transfer] as first-line management in assisted reproduction, with the aim of minimizing preventable perinatal deaths.”

Because twins accounted for half of the total neonatal deaths and one-third of the perinatal deaths, minimizing the possibility of twins is one way in which single embryo transfer reduces the perinatal mortality rate.

As reported by Science Daily, Sullivan further explains:

“The number of embryos transferred per procedure is the major determinant of multiple pregnancy and multiple delivery, which contribute to an elevated risk of preterm birth and low birth weight, and its sequelae. These are risks in addition to those already faced by women being treated for infertility.”

She also adds:

“Australia and New Zealand have shown that in the right policy environment a voluntary change to SET practice is achievable. In some other countries and regions,” said Professor Sullivan, “the uptake of SET has been more dramatic, particularly where policy initiatives linked to funding have led to significant change in practice without compromising quality or safety.”

Do you agree with a single embryo transfer policy for IVF and ICSI?

Single Embryo Transfer Policies Decrease Perinatal Mortality Rates is a post from: The Inquisitr

Abdellah Nhari, an imam in the northeastern Oujda region of Morocco, recently declared in a sermon that Mokhtar el-Ghzioui, the editor of the daily al-Ahdath al-Maghribia, should be put to death for his support of decriminalizing sex outside of marriage. Three of Morocco’s most prominent conservative clerics have also backed the call for death for the journalist. The Morocco sex debate thus rages on.

Said Hassan al-Kettani, one of the clerics, as reported by the Calhoun Times, “The arrogance of the secularists has become intolerable. A dyouth tells the world he would let his family sin and is then denounced by a sheikh and then it is the latter who is threatened with prison?”

In colloquial Arabic, a ”dayoute” is a cuckold, or a man who willingly allows his wife commit adultery. According to many Muslims, a dayoute must be put to death.

In a TV interview last week, el-Ghzioui incited the current Morocco sex debate when he stated that supported personal freedom including sexual freedom. He also said that he would “be fine with his mother or sister having consensual sexual relations outside of wedlock.”

On June 18, Khadija Riyadi, the head of the Moroccan Association for Human Rights, called for the canceling of article 490 of the penal code criminalizing sex outside of marriage, a remark that initially sparked the current Morocco sex debate in the normally conservative state-run media, reports The Blaze.

Article 490 of the penal code stipulates a prison sentence of one year and one month for anyone caught having extra-marital sex. However, in reality, discrete sex among unmarried couples is common and largely tolerated in Morocco.

As Ryadi argues as part of the Morocco sex debate, “We know that sexual relations outside marriage are common in Morocco. The fact that all that is hidden encourages abuse, and attacks on individual liberty.”

However, conservative Muslims such as the three clerics continue to denounce calls for sexual freedom out of wedlock.

El Moukri Abouzeid, a member of Morocco’s ruling Party of Justice and Development (PJD), stated bluntly:

“Any sexual act outside marriage is considered an act of debauchery, a crime. The permissive philosophies, which were born in Europe, have they improved social and family relations there? I don’t think so.”

On Thursday, around 100 journalists demonstrated outside the offices of the newspaper in support of el-Ghizioui and against the imam’s calls for the journalist’s death amid the Morocco sex debate.

What do you think about the Morocco sex debate and the demand for death for the journalist for publicly supports personal and sexual freedom in the country?

Moroccan Imam Demands Death For Journalist, Morocco Sex Debate Rages is a post from: The Inquisitr

Over 250 breastfeeding mothers descended upon The Park Street Café in Bristol after another breastfeeding mother claims that she was verbally abused by a waitress for attempting to breastfeeding her daughter.

As reported by The Sun, Kelly Schaecher, 28, from Clifton, Bristol, had been preparing to breastfeed her five-month-old daughter, Sasha, while eating at the cafe. After the breastfeeding mother sat down, a waitress told her that she would have to sit in the corner to breastfeed her daughter. In tears, the mother left the cafe.

In a bizarre twist, Schaecher then claims that the waitress followed her out of the cafe and shouted at her, ”Don’t you ever come back to my cafe with your t*** out again!”

Terrified and shocked, the breastfeeding mother says she turned to the waitress who was berating her and said, “You don’t know what’s coming.” Breastfeeding mothers are known to come together in breastfeeding flashmobs and organized nurse-ins to help support other women who have been shamed for breastfeeding in public.

After sharing her horrible experience at the cafe on Twitter and Facebook, more than 250 breastfeeding mothers rallied together outside of the cafe. Participants in the breastfeeding flashmob lined up outside for their chance to enter and breastfeed their babies inside.

Many of the women participating in the flashmob donned signs that read ”Lactavists” and “Mother Suckers.”

The breastfeeding mothers were given free coffee and cakes by apologetic cafe owner Davide Pontini.

Pontini, an Italian entrepreneur, states on The Huffington Post that he supports breastfeeding rights and breastfeeding within his cafe:

“I want to reassure you all that breastfeeding is totally OK in my cafe.

It’s not within my character to hang my head in shame and that’s why I’m here today to speak to you all and apologise.

This whole thing started from a misunderstanding but now things have changed for the better and I hope that women will feel comfortable breastfeeding here.”

Schaefer believes that the breastfeeding flashmob went well. She comments, “What we did was a peaceful gathering, not a protest, and we had a really good reaction from the police and the public.”

The breastfeeding mother also added, “It is exactly what I wanted, we’ve all had free coffee and cakes and now Davide has put the ‘we welcome breastfeeding’ sign in the window.”

Are you surprised by the positive reactions to this breastfeeding flashmob?

Breastfeeding Flashmob Protest Bristol Cafe After Verbal Abuse By Waitress is a post from: The Inquisitr

Many people drink diet soda to lose weight or to avoid gaining weight. However, drinking diet soda can make you fat, leading to obesity and its associated problems, says a new study published in the June 2012 issue of FEMS Microbiology Ecology.

Previous research has discovered a link between consuming diet soda and being overweight or obese. For example, one study found that individuals who drink a diet soda two or more times a day had a five times increase in waist circumference over a period of 10 years compared to individuals who did not drink any diet soda. The reason for the association between diet soda and weight gain was previously unknown.

However, researchers at the Institute of Food, Nutrition, and Health in Zürich, Switzerland recently assessed the impact of dietary energy (sugar) on gut microbial communities (microbes in the intestines) and metabolism.

According to the study, consuming high amounts of fructose (a type of sugar), artificial sweeteners, and sugar alcohols (another type of low-calorie sweetener) significantly changed the microbes in the gut that are responsible for signalling satiety and for metabolism. Additionally, drinking artificially sweetened diet soda can make your body crave sugar.

In other words, drinking diet soda causes your body to think that you are never full and to slow down your metabolism, both of which can lead to obesity.

As reported on Today Health, Amanda Payne, PhD and lead author of the research, comments, “An evolution of the gut flora to this new sweetener-rich environment has a potential to negatively impact our health.”

Payne, herself, says that she tries to stay away from foods that might damage the balance of the microbes in her gut:

“I will say from a personal perspective that I don’t drink sodas–diet or regular–and I rarely eat processed foods, especially if they have high-fructose corn syrup listed on their label.”

Diet soda in large quantities negatively impacts the composition of the microbes in the intestines. More research needs to be conducted on the effects of only one diet soda per day. However, as always, your best bet for good health is to consume diet soda in moderation.

Will the results of this study affect the amount of diet soda that you drink?

Diet Soda Leaves Your Gut Unsatisfied, Contributes To Obesity is a post from: The Inquisitr

Many Americans will find themselves barbecuing burgers, hot dogs, and brats this 4th of July. However, a danger might be lurking on your grill surface in the form of brush debris.

According to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), barbecuing during the 4th of July or any other time of the year because internal injuries have been reported following the unintentional ingestion of wire grill-cleaning brush bristles by both children and adults consuming delicious food fresh off the grill.

The CDC report recounts six cases of injuries that occurred as a result of barbecue brush debris that happened between March 2011 and June 2012.

Are you rethinking your 4th of July festivities yet?

According to the report, a fifty year old man went to the emergency for abdominal pain after eating a steak from a backyard grill. A CT scan revealed that a wire bristle from a grill-cleaning brush had extended through the wall of a loop his small intestine into his omentum. The bristle had to be removed via a laparotomy, a surgical procedure involving a large incision through the abdominal wall to gain access into the abdominal cavity.

In the other cases of 4th of July barbecues going terribly wrong, the patients suffered from pain on swallowing caused by a wire bristle becoming lodged in the neck to abdominal pain from the brush debris perforating parts of the abdomen.

To keep your family and friends safe and healthy this 4th of July, simply check the surface of your grill before putting on the food. Keep the grill surface clear from brush debris and any other foreign objects.

As reported by MSNBC, prevention is the easiest way to avoid a dangerous 4th of July fiasco. Says the CDC:

“Additionally, public awareness might result in careful examination of any grill surface before use, or use of alternative grill-cleaning methods or products.”

Will you check your grill for brush debris before barbecuing this 4th of July?

4th Of July Dangers Lurk On Your Barbecue is a post from: The Inquisitr

Yesterday The Weather Channel Companies (TWCC) announced its upcoming acquisition of the rival online weather service, Weather Underground, which is also known as Wunderground, but fans of Weather Underground are less than thrilled.

Weather Underground president Alan Steremberg was positive about the merger with The Weather Channel, stating “Weather Underground users can expect to see more of the same. But we’ll have a lot more resources to do fun things.”

Current users of Wunderground, however, are not so enthusiastic about the acquisition of the service by The Weather Channel. As Mike Tucker, a computer professional in New Hampshire, exclaimed on Facebook, ”Nooooooooooooooooo! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!”

As reported by The New York Times, Tucker elaborated on his initial disapproval over the acquisition of Weather Underground by The Weather Channel in a telephone interview:

“I’m looking at the site [The Weather Channel] right now, and it’s laden with ads, and promotional things for their shows. I don’t really care about all that stuff. I only care what the weather is.”

In comparison to The Weather Channel website, Tucker calls Weather Underground “simple and somewhat elegant.”

The Weather Channel has been trying to buy Weather Underground for years. However, until recently Wunderground always politely declined.

As Steremberg insists, “This will be a better change, a good change.”

The Weather Channel Companies chairman and CEO David Kenny also added in response to concerns that the merger would have a negative impact on Weather Underground:

“I think that once they [the naysayers] see that we’re only investing in the product, not changing it or dumbing it down or altering it in some way, then I think that will go away.”

Before getting rid of cable last year, I used to watch The Weather Channel for hours on end. I loved the weather shows that were played in between forecasts, and I also really loved the music for background noise. However, I also appreciate the simplicity and speed of Weather Underground. Hopefully this merger can combine the best of both weather services.

Are you optimistic that the acquisition of Weather Underground by The Weather Channel will be for the better?

Stormy Skies: The Weather Channel Buys Weather Underground, Wunderground Fans Unhappy is a post from: The Inquisitr

Doctors who work in solo or small group practices and are and office-based feel that current health care reform is on the wrong track, says a recent survey conducted by Doctor Patient Medical Association Foundation (DPMA Foundation).

The survey was conducted by fax and online between April 18, 2012 to May 22, 2012. Of the original 36,000 surveys on health care reform that were sent to doctors in active clinical practice, 699 were completed for a response rate of 4.3%. The respondents included doctors from 45 states as well as 130 who did not provide geographical information. The majority of the respondents are in solo or small group practice (81%) and office-based (89%) but a small minority are hospital-based (11%).

According to the survey on health care reform, 90% of the doctors who participated believe that health care in the United States in on the wrong track. Sixty-five (65) percent of the respondents blame government involvement for the current problems with the American medical system.

As one respondent identified as a General Surgeon from Georgia wrote as a response to one of the opened ended questions on the survey about health care reform:

“The best chance for controlling cost is limiting government interference and increasing patient responsibility for cost. If the patient pays at time of service and files an insurance claim on their own, it reduces the likelihood of superfluous utilization, AND reduces insurance company denials since the patient is following up on their own claim. Also, removing insurance purchasing from employers makes insurers responsible to policy holder, not employers. Government regulations increase cost by imposing burdens for practices (“compliance officers”, etc) as well as increasing cost of doing business (FDA regs increase cost of medical equipment, for example), but the physicians cannot pass costs to patients because of insurer reimbursement model. The problem is multi-tiered, as will be the solution.”

Even more alarming were some of the responses involving the future careers of doctors in light of the current health care reform.

When asked about how current changes in the medical system would affect their desire to practice medicine, 82.6 percent of the doctors who responded to the survey on health care reform stated that they were thinking about quitting the medical profession.

Furthermore, when asked about lower Medicare and Medicaid payments as a result of health care reform, 48.9 percent of the doctors indicated that they would stop taking new Medicaid patients and 42 percent would stop taking new Medicare patients.

However, not all of the responses were negative. A small percentage (4.6 percent) of the respondents indicated that the changes to the American medical system as a result of health care reform has left them feeling re-energized.

Furthermore, groups such as the American Medical Association (AMA) has expressed support for health care reform. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act, the AMA stated last week:

“The health reform law upheld by the Supreme Court simplifies administrative burdens, including streamlining insurance claims, so physicians and their staff can spend more time with patients and less time on paperwork. It protects those in the Medicare ‘donut hole,’ including the 5.1 million Medicare patients who saved significantly on prescription drugs in 2010 and 2011. These important changes have been made while maintaining our American system with both private and public insurers.”

The DPMA Foundation provides research and information that supports freedom in medicine for doctors and patients across the country.

What do you think about the results of this survey on health care reform? Are you worried that your doctor might quit?

Will Your Doctor Quit? Doctors Pessimistic About Health Care Reform, Says New Survey is a post from: The Inquisitr