Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
proverbialwisdom
proverbialwisdom's Journal
proverbialwisdom's Journal
May 19, 2015
Link from: https://twitter.com/foodawakenings
Yahoo News: McDonald's Destroyed the Gut Bacteria of a College Kid in 10 Days
https://www.yahoo.com/food/mcdonalds-destroyed-the-gut-bacteria-of-a-college-118784365977.html
McDonald's Destroyed the Gut Bacteria of a College Kid in 10 Days
May 12, 2015
By Khushbu Shah
It’s common knowledge that fast food isn’t exactly healthy, but just how unhealthy is it? According to Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, it is devastating to a human’s gut bacteria. He writes in The Conversation, that eating that type of highly processed food can wreak total havoc on the healthy bacteria in a person’s digestive system. Spector wanted to find out just how bad McDonald’s is for gut bacteria for his upcoming book The Diet Myth.
Spector had his son, a student at the University of Aberystwyth, eat only McDonald’s for 10 days straight. Tom was allowed to eat Big Macs, chicken nuggets, fries, and Coca-Cola. Throughout the experiment, Tom sent his stool samples out to be analyzed by different labs. Tom notes that he felt fine for the first three days, but he started to slowly go “downhill.” He became lethargic and after a week, his friends said he had taken on a “strange grey” color.
As for the lab results, they were shocking. Spector writes that Tom’s gut bacteria were “devastated.” Over the 10 days, Tom lost nearly 1,400 types of bacteria species, or nearly 40 percent of his total variety. Even after two weeks of returning to a normal diet, the microbes in his gut did not recover. Spector notes that “the loss of [gut bacteria] diversity is a universal signal of ill health.” He adds that humans rely on the bacteria “to produce much of our essential nutrients and vitamins.”
McDonald's Destroyed the Gut Bacteria of a College Kid in 10 Days
May 12, 2015
By Khushbu Shah
It’s common knowledge that fast food isn’t exactly healthy, but just how unhealthy is it? According to Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, it is devastating to a human’s gut bacteria. He writes in The Conversation, that eating that type of highly processed food can wreak total havoc on the healthy bacteria in a person’s digestive system. Spector wanted to find out just how bad McDonald’s is for gut bacteria for his upcoming book The Diet Myth.
Spector had his son, a student at the University of Aberystwyth, eat only McDonald’s for 10 days straight. Tom was allowed to eat Big Macs, chicken nuggets, fries, and Coca-Cola. Throughout the experiment, Tom sent his stool samples out to be analyzed by different labs. Tom notes that he felt fine for the first three days, but he started to slowly go “downhill.” He became lethargic and after a week, his friends said he had taken on a “strange grey” color.
As for the lab results, they were shocking. Spector writes that Tom’s gut bacteria were “devastated.” Over the 10 days, Tom lost nearly 1,400 types of bacteria species, or nearly 40 percent of his total variety. Even after two weeks of returning to a normal diet, the microbes in his gut did not recover. Spector notes that “the loss of [gut bacteria] diversity is a universal signal of ill health.” He adds that humans rely on the bacteria “to produce much of our essential nutrients and vitamins.”
Link from: https://twitter.com/foodawakenings
May 19, 2015
Illogical.
[center]
[/center]
Also from Twitter: http://www.vaccinatecalifornia.org/california_democrats_pass_resolution_supporting_removing_pbes
May 18, 2015
21% of pediatric sub specialists would deviate from CDC schedule for their own child in this survey.
Pediatric sub-specialists, you will note, are the most highly educated/trained individuals in the field of pediatrics and likely view "the CDC" as peers rather than authority figures beyond question or reproach, unlike many here and in the media.
Are you calling these pediatric sub-specialists "ant-vaxxers" or other derogatory names, too? THINK AGAIN. Link above in OP.
SURVEY: http://file.scirp.org/html/22932.html
May 18, 2015
Your framing is wrong. Stay tuned.
Have you seen the US infant mortality rate lately? We're 56th in the developed world in 2014 -56th!
SOURCE: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
The CDC reported in 2011 that 1 in 6 children in the US had a developmental disability: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/05/19/peds.2010-2989.abstract
Also, more than half of American children suffer from chronic ill-health: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876285910002500
RELATED: http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/04/0960327111407644.full.pdf+html
http://www.vcstar.com/news/state/whats-next-for-vaccination-bill
What's next for vaccination bill?
11:41 AM, May 14, 2015
Following approval by the Senate, the bill that would eliminate the personal choice exemption that allows parents to decide not to vaccinate their children and still attend school now moves to the Assembly for consideration.
First, the Assembly Rules Committee will determine to which committee or committees SB 277 will be assigned. Preliminary indications are that, unlike in the Senate where it was considered by three separate policy committees, it will be heard in the Assembly only by the Health Committee.
The Assembly committee hearing will likely take place sometime after June 8. Policy committees must act on all bills by July 17.
If the bill advances out of committee, it would then be considered by the full Assembly, likely in early September.
If, as is likely, the bill is amended by the Assembly, it will then be returned to the Senate for concurrence on those amendments.
A final vote to send it to the governor would have to be taken by Sept. 11.
If it is sent to Gov. Jerry Brown, he would then have until Oct. 11 to decide whether to sign or veto the bill.
POLL
What's next for vaccination bill?
11:41 AM, May 14, 2015
Following approval by the Senate, the bill that would eliminate the personal choice exemption that allows parents to decide not to vaccinate their children and still attend school now moves to the Assembly for consideration.
First, the Assembly Rules Committee will determine to which committee or committees SB 277 will be assigned. Preliminary indications are that, unlike in the Senate where it was considered by three separate policy committees, it will be heard in the Assembly only by the Health Committee.
The Assembly committee hearing will likely take place sometime after June 8. Policy committees must act on all bills by July 17.
If the bill advances out of committee, it would then be considered by the full Assembly, likely in early September.
If, as is likely, the bill is amended by the Assembly, it will then be returned to the Senate for concurrence on those amendments.
A final vote to send it to the governor would have to be taken by Sept. 11.
If it is sent to Gov. Jerry Brown, he would then have until Oct. 11 to decide whether to sign or veto the bill.
POLL
Your framing is wrong. Stay tuned.
May 17, 2015
In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown revised/corrected a BAD law on flame retardants he signed in 1975.
Lessons learned?
http://blogs.kqed.org/science/2013/11/21/its-official-toxic-flame-retardants-no-longer-required-in-furniture/
It’s Official: Toxic Flame Retardants No Longer Required in Furniture
Amy Standen, KQED Science | November 21, 2013 | 27 Comments
Governor Jerry Brown has revised a controversial law he signed into existence during his first stint as governor, back in 1975.
The obscure-sounding “Technical Bulletin 117?, or TB 117, effectively required furniture manufacturers to inject flame-retardant chemicals into all upholstered furniture sold in the state.
With California’s law a de facto national standard, a typical sofa now hits the market with two to three pounds of chemicals that can cause cancer and reproductive problems.
Starting in January, 2014, a new flame retardant standard will take effect, eliminating the need for furniture makers to inject the chemicals into upholstered chairs, sofas, and other items.
Flame-retardants may also disappear from baby gear, such as booster seats and changing pads, which will no longer be subject to flammability standards.
“It’s wonderful, after years of work, to see this become a reality” said Arlene Blum, a visiting scholar in chemistry at the University of California Berkeley and director of the Green Science Policy Institute.
Starting in January, toxics-wary consumers can look for furniture with the “TB 117-2013? tag, and ask whether the item has been treated with flame-retardant chemicals.
“I was practically screaming with happiness,” said Blum, who’s been working on the flame retardant issue since the 1970s.
<>
It’s Official: Toxic Flame Retardants No Longer Required in Furniture
Amy Standen, KQED Science | November 21, 2013 | 27 Comments
Governor Jerry Brown has revised a controversial law he signed into existence during his first stint as governor, back in 1975.
The obscure-sounding “Technical Bulletin 117?, or TB 117, effectively required furniture manufacturers to inject flame-retardant chemicals into all upholstered furniture sold in the state.
With California’s law a de facto national standard, a typical sofa now hits the market with two to three pounds of chemicals that can cause cancer and reproductive problems.
Starting in January, 2014, a new flame retardant standard will take effect, eliminating the need for furniture makers to inject the chemicals into upholstered chairs, sofas, and other items.
Flame-retardants may also disappear from baby gear, such as booster seats and changing pads, which will no longer be subject to flammability standards.
“It’s wonderful, after years of work, to see this become a reality” said Arlene Blum, a visiting scholar in chemistry at the University of California Berkeley and director of the Green Science Policy Institute.
Starting in January, toxics-wary consumers can look for furniture with the “TB 117-2013? tag, and ask whether the item has been treated with flame-retardant chemicals.
“I was practically screaming with happiness,” said Blum, who’s been working on the flame retardant issue since the 1970s.
<>
May 14, 2015
And then?
1. SURVEY (NOTE: 21% of PEDIATRIC SUB-SPECIALISTS WOULD DEVIATE FROM CDC GUIDELINES): http://file.scirp.org/html/22932.html
2.
Legal Scholar Mary Holland: Letter to CA Senators Re Vaccination Bill SB277
Senators on the Judiciary Committee
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 2032
Sacramento, CA 95814
May 12, 2015
Dear Senators:
Thank you for having given me the opportunity to address the California Senate Judiciary Committee on April 28, 2015 regarding Senate Bill 277 to restrict childhood vaccination exemptions to medical ones alone. I promised to revert to you regarding California law on informed consent; I do so now, and seek to clarify my comments regarding enforcement, should SB 277 become law.
California law fully embraces the doctrine of informed consent to medical decision-making. The California Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine of informed consent and the right to refuse nonconsensual invasions of bodily integrity in Thor v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 725 (1993). There, the unanimous Court reviewed the federal common law and California precedents on bodily integrity and self-determination, noting, “we respect human dignity by granting individuals the freedom to make choices in accordance with their own values.” Id. at 737. Thor regards the right of a prisoner to refuse life-sustaining treatment. The Court notes that there are countervailing considerations in determining the scope of autonomy, including protecting innocent third parties. Id. at 738. In that case, however, the Court found no compelling countervailing reasons and required that the prison respect the inmate’s desire to refuse medical treatment. Many courts have cited the case with approval since.
While there are no California precedents specifically on informed consent and vaccination, there is a provision in the California Code of Regulations regarding informed consent and medical interventions for children in juvenile detention. Under 15 CCR § 4733, even wards of the state must be provided consent “for all medical or dental treatment.” The section states “informed consent is defined as consent which is obtained without duress or coercion and which clearly and explicitly manifests consent to the proposed medication, treatment or procedure in writing.”
If SB 277 becomes law, parents will not have the ability to consent to vaccination without coercion. As so many parents testified at the hearing, medical exemptions are not available for most families, including those with serious contraindications to vaccination, and homeschooling is an illusory option, especially for those of limited means. Indeed, the intent of SB 277 would seem to be precisely to coerce parents into vaccinating according to the state vaccine schedule, under the banner of paternalism. While protection of other schoolchildren from infectious disease outbreaks is unquestionably an important consideration regarding SB 277, the state has at its disposal the ability to suspend unvaccinated children during outbreaks.
This has worked for decades, and the state did not even choose to employ it during the much-publicized Disneyland measles outbreak. In a legal challenge, the state would be required to prove that the consideration of other schoolchildren requires the exclusion of those with exemptions. Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych’s analysis, attached, explains clearly why such
exclusion of healthy children is unnecessary and irrationally discriminatory outside the context of disease outbreaks.
Despite coercion, a substantial percentage of the parents of the estimated 225,000 children with exemptions in California out of a total of 6.2 million would likely not vaccinate their children, because to do so would violate their most deeply held religious and conscientious beliefs. Some will be able to get medical exemptions; others will be able to homeschool; but thousands of families will be unable to do either.
I asked rhetorically how the state would enforce SB 277, and whether it would engage in forced vaccination or imprisonment of parents. Unfortunately, neither of these questions is hyperbolic. “Medical neglect” is a consideration in child removal proceedings, and California’s Department of Children and Family Services has noted that a mother was “behind on [the children’s] immunizations” as one consideration among many in a proceeding to terminate parental rights. Brenda H. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 2003 WL 21054769. Similarly, under California Penal Code Section 270.1(a) a parent or guardian of a child six years old or older may be subject to a fine or imprisonment up to a year, or both, if a child is a “chronic truant…[and the parent] has failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil’s school attendance.” In this context, I believe my questions accurately reflected the concerns of thousands of families who oppose SB 277.
All vaccination decisions, like decisions about all invasive medical procedures, carry the risk of severe injury or death. Congress acknowledged this risk in its 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34. By preserving California’s personal belief exemption, you ensure a modicum of consent for those parents and guardians who cannot vaccinate their children in good conscience. If the state deprives them of that right, pressuring them into making decisions with potentially permanent consequences without free consent, the state would violate their most basic human rights.
Many peer countries with excellent healthcare outcomes have no vaccination mandates, only recommendations, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland, Australia, Sweden, Germany and Japan. California should consider these impressive examples.
I deeply appreciate your efforts to craft an ethical and effective law to protect children. Please feel free to contact me at mary.holland@nyu.edu or at (212) 998-6212 if I can be of any assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Mary S. Holland
Attachment: Letter from Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D.
April 23, 2015
That's not the issue, is it? Step back 30 years in the US, or into another 1st-world country today.
Note the differences in the scope and timing of the RECOMMENDED (NOT MANDATED) immunization schedules. Compare overall health outcomes. Do it, be honest, share what you learn.
Seen this? Check it out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141070770#post37
April 22, 2015
IMO, careful scrutiny of a study by other vetted experts is wise before accepting it at face value.
Wild world we live in: http://e-patients.net/archives/2012/03/former-nejm-editors-on-the-corruption-of-american-medicine-ny-times.html
Study design is critical. Was timing a variable in the new JAMA study, as here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101672031
Dr. Mumper (published, 2013); Dr. Thomas (unpublished, 2015)
This isn't about what I think, incidentally. At the moment, however, I decline further discussion. Guess why.
April 18, 2015
Framing is wrong, it's branding. Aren't these "antivaxer" talking points, too? That word means zip.
http://file.scirp.org/html/22932.html
Open Journal of Pediatrics, 2012, 2, 228-235
OJPed http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojped.2012.23036
Published Online September 2012 http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojped/
Vaccination practices among physicians and their children
Michael Martin1, Vahe Badalyan2
1Department of Pediatrics, Inova Fairfax Hospital for Children, Falls Church, USA
2Department of Gastroenterology, Children’s National Medical Center, Washington DC, USA
Received 1 May 2012; revised 3 July 2012; accepted 30 July 2012
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify vaccination patterns of both general pediatricians and subspecialists with regards to their own children and projected progeny. A 14 question survey was sent randomly to 1000 members of the Academy of Pediatrics in 2009. Two categories of questions included 1) how physicians with children vaccinated them in the past, and 2) how all respondents would vaccinate a child in 2009. A comparison was made between the answers of general and specialty pediatricians. 582 valid questionnaires were received (58.2% response rate) of which 431 were general pediatricians and 151 sub-specialists. No statistical difference was found between general and specialty pediatricians on how they vaccinated their children up until 2009 (95% vs 93%). When asked about vaccinating a future child, a significant proportion of respondents would deviate from CDC guidelines, specialists more than general pediatricians (21% vs 9%). Generalists were more likely to give a future child Hepatitis A (OR: 3.6; 95% CI 1.3 - 10.4), Rotavirus (OR: 2.2; 95% CI 1.1 - 4.4), Meningococcal (OR: 9.9; 95% CI 3.3 - 29.9), and influenza (OR: 5.4; 95% CI 1.1 - 26.7) vaccines. Specialists were more likely to postpone MMR vaccination (OR: 4.4 95% CI 2.3 - 8.6). Safety was listed by both groups as the most common reason for altering the recommended immunization schedule. Until 2009, general pediatricians and pediatric specialists have largely adhered to ACIP recommendations, but due to vaccine safety and other concerns, both groups, albeit a higher percentage of specialists, reported greater numbers willing to diverge from these recommendations.
Open Journal of Pediatrics, 2012, 2, 228-235
OJPed http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojped.2012.23036
Published Online September 2012 http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojped/
Vaccination practices among physicians and their children
Michael Martin1, Vahe Badalyan2
1Department of Pediatrics, Inova Fairfax Hospital for Children, Falls Church, USA
2Department of Gastroenterology, Children’s National Medical Center, Washington DC, USA
Received 1 May 2012; revised 3 July 2012; accepted 30 July 2012
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify vaccination patterns of both general pediatricians and subspecialists with regards to their own children and projected progeny. A 14 question survey was sent randomly to 1000 members of the Academy of Pediatrics in 2009. Two categories of questions included 1) how physicians with children vaccinated them in the past, and 2) how all respondents would vaccinate a child in 2009. A comparison was made between the answers of general and specialty pediatricians. 582 valid questionnaires were received (58.2% response rate) of which 431 were general pediatricians and 151 sub-specialists. No statistical difference was found between general and specialty pediatricians on how they vaccinated their children up until 2009 (95% vs 93%). When asked about vaccinating a future child, a significant proportion of respondents would deviate from CDC guidelines, specialists more than general pediatricians (21% vs 9%). Generalists were more likely to give a future child Hepatitis A (OR: 3.6; 95% CI 1.3 - 10.4), Rotavirus (OR: 2.2; 95% CI 1.1 - 4.4), Meningococcal (OR: 9.9; 95% CI 3.3 - 29.9), and influenza (OR: 5.4; 95% CI 1.1 - 26.7) vaccines. Specialists were more likely to postpone MMR vaccination (OR: 4.4 95% CI 2.3 - 8.6). Safety was listed by both groups as the most common reason for altering the recommended immunization schedule. Until 2009, general pediatricians and pediatric specialists have largely adhered to ACIP recommendations, but due to vaccine safety and other concerns, both groups, albeit a higher percentage of specialists, reported greater numbers willing to diverge from these recommendations.
April 18, 2015
MORE: http://www.walknowforautismspeaks.org/faf/home/default.asp?ievent=1124950
Autism Speaks Walk on April 18 in Los Angeles, CA raises $1,496,069.
http://www.walknowforautismspeaks.org/site/c.igIRL6PIJrH/b.7734443/k.955C/Upcoming_Walks.htm
Walk Name City State Event Date Total Raised
Walk Now for Autism Speaks: Los Angeles Pasadena CA Saturday, April 18, 2015 $1,496,069
Walk Name City State Event Date Total Raised
Walk Now for Autism Speaks: Los Angeles Pasadena CA Saturday, April 18, 2015 $1,496,069
MORE: http://www.walknowforautismspeaks.org/faf/home/default.asp?ievent=1124950
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Feb 10, 2010, 01:12 PMNumber of posts: 4,959
