Truth Frequency Radio

Nov 14, 2012

Despite Modest Improvement, Premature Birth Rates Cause Concern

Nov 14, 2012

Kaiser Health News

A new report from the March of Dimes gives the U.S. a ‘C’ in preterm birth rate reductions.

Kaiser Health News Capsules blog: U.S. Lowering Rate Of Premature Births, But Slowly
The United States is slowly reducing its rate of premature births, bringing the rate to 11.7 percent in 2011, but the figure is still higher than public health advocates believe it should be. The updated figures come from The March of Dimes, … It gives the U.S. a ‘C’ in overall preterm birth rate reductions. … In a report released earlier this year, the March of Dimes noted that the U.S. ranks 131 out of 184 countries — putting it close to countries such as Somalia, Thailand and Turkey (Kulkarni, 11/13).

Georgia Health News: Ga. Improved On Preterm Births, Still Gets Low Grade
Georgia lowered its preterm birth rate last year, but the state still received a “D”’ grade on the annual preterm birth report card released Tuesday by the March of Dimes. The reduction of Georgia’s preterm birth rate – from 13.8 percent to 13.2 percent – is part of a national trend. Forty states saw improvement in their rates between 2010 and 2011 (Miller, 11/13).

MPR: Minn. Launches Effort To Prevent Early Birth
A new Minnesota birth campaign seeks to dispel the notion that it’s safe to schedule an elective delivery before 39 weeks of pregnancy. Approximately one in 10 babies born in Minnesota is premature. Some of those preterm births are unavoidable, but health officials believe many mothers are giving birth through Caesarean sections or induced labor earlier than they should, causing unnecessary health problems for some newborns (Benson, 11/13).

Having a ‘harmless’ ultrasound? Beware of serious infections

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 by: Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

ultrasound(NaturalNews) Unlike when you have an x-ray or CT scan, you are not exposed to ionizing radiation exposure when you have an ultrasound test. Instead, the ultrasound machine creates images using high-frequency sound waves which reflect off body structures to create images of various parts of the body. Ultrasounds are very common and are used for examining breasts, unborn babies, arms and legs, hearts, ovaries and more.

A transducer (handheld probe) slides over the area being examined and the whole test is painless. Sounds harmless, right? Not necessarily.

While some people have raised questions about the high-frequency sounds damaging fetuses, now there is another concern. It turns out that reports are accumulating that show the clear, water-based conducting gel that’s applied to the skin so the transducer will slide easily can be contaminated with bacteria that can cause life-threatening illnesses.

In the upcoming December issue of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, the journal of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, guidelines are being proposed by epidemiologists from Beaumont Health System in hopes of reducing the risk of infection from contaminated gels. The recommendations are based on the authors’ firsthand experiences with an outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa that was traced to ultrasound transmission gel contaminated with this bacteria. Pseudomonas aeruginosa can cause serious infections, including pneumonia, urinary tract infections and bacteremia (spread of the bacteria to the bloodstream). It is especially dangerous in patients with compromised immune systems. And it can be fatal.

In December of 2011, researchers discovered an unusual cluster of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a cardiovascular surgery intensive care unit during routine infection control surveillance. The outbreak was tracked down to bottles of ultrasound transmission gel that were contaminated during the manufacturing process and that were being used for intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. This information eventually resulted in a national recall of the product.

Unfortunately, it turns out that this wasn’t a one-time fluke that can be blamed on a sloppy manufacturer. An investigation found these gels can actually serve as mediums for bacterial growth. Additional studies have now shown contaminated gels were source of other outbreaks of infection in the last 20 years.

“After our investigation of the Pseudomonas outbreak last year linked the source of the outbreak to contaminated ultrasound gel, we were surprised to find that very little guidance is available on appropriate uses for different ultrasound gel products,” said Susan Oleszkowicz, MPH, lead author of the paper, in a statement to the media.

The new proposed guidelines for recommended uses of ultrasound transmission gels call on manufacturers of ultrasound gel and professional societies to take an active role in developing recommendations for appropriate and intended use of these products. The guidelines specifically point out the critical need for sterile, single-dose ultrasound gel in any invasive procedure or procedures involving non-intact skin or fresh surgical wounds and the fact that sterile, single-dose ultrasound gel should be used with newborns or critically ill children. The authors also state that multi-dose, non-sterile gel can still be used on intact skin, but potentially contaminated containers should be sealed appropriately when not in use, and replaced when empty, not simply refilled.


American Academy of Pediatrics says pesticides aren’t bad for babies – Eat more!

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

pesticides(NaturalNews) For the very first time, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has come forward with an official position on organic foods and their role in childhood health and development. But rather than encourage parents to avoid buying pesticide-laden conventional foods, the group, which openly admits that conventional produce is loaded with toxic pesticides, says parents should keep on feeding their children conventional produce despite the dangers involved.

The duplicitous report by AAP, which reads as though it was written by the chemical industry, concedes that organic produce has significantly lower pesticide levels than conventional produce, and that this variance could be significant for childhood health outcomes. And yet in the same breath, the report concludes that since there is supposedly no “direct evidence” that consuming a solely organic diet leads to better health outcomes than a mixed or conventional diet, the jury is still out as to whether or not pesticides are truly dangerous for children.

AAP: Conventional produce might be toxic, but keep on feeding it to your kids

A primary impetus behind the report’s outrageous conclusions appears to be grounded in the idea that organic produce is more expensive than conventional produce, and that parents might buy less food for their children if it is all organic. Because of this, AAP experts have apparently decided to altogether ignore the dangers associated with pesticide exposure, and instead urge parents to keep on buying fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat-free dairy products for their families, regardless of how these questionable products are made.

“The pediatric group suggests, as agrochemical manufacturers have for decades, that the question of whether pesticides harm children will remain unanswered until results from experiments provide definite proof of harm,” writes Charlotte Vallaeys for the Cornucopia Institute about the AAP report. “With this expectation, the AAP joins the agribusiness and pesticide lobbyists in setting an impossible standard.”

“When pesticides have been found to be toxic and carcinogenic to lab animals, have been correlated with higher rates of ADHD in children, and have been shown to lead to neurological harm in farm workers and their children, the basic assumption should be that they are harmful until proven safe, not the other way around.”

System Announces It Will Use DNA Stolen From Babies

After years of denying that blood samples were taken at birth, bioethicists are arguing for the State’s right to seize newborns’ blood samples for global database.

Aaron Dykes
November 13, 2012

For years, the system denied that blood samples from newborns were being taken at birth and databased into DNA ‘warehouses.’ Alex Jones and other alternative researchers railed against it for more than a decade. Now, that period of denial is over, and the same system is instead declaring its right to do so.

Bioethicists in the Science Translational Medicine journal argued that researchers should be able to retain and peruse the “genetic treasure trove” of blood samples taken during routine screenings at hospitals after birth, despite long-standing objections over privacy, parental rights and disclosure.

In fact, governments across the Western world — and almost every state in the United States — have been collecting, retaining, researching and cataloguing genetic material of babies without any statutory authority to do so, and without parental knowledge for decades.

Long legal battles in states including Minnesota and Texas have resulted in decisions requiring informed consent over these practices, given the existence of genetic privacy laws, and yet health departments and other related entities have petitioned for exemptions from these requirements. In essence, the State has, in many cases, declared ownership over your DNA, keeping genetic material indefinitely. However, in Minnesota and Texas, authorities have been ordered to destroy millions of samples to comply with privacy laws.

Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care, worked on many of these cases, and breaks down the issue in the following video:

“The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research,” Brase states. “It does not require consent and there are no requirements to inform parents about the warehousing of their child’s DNA for the purpose of genetic research.

A 2008 law signed by President George W. Bush appears to give legitimacy to storing and researching newborn genetic material, despite legal challenges and outcry from people like Congressman Ron Paul, who say the law is unconstitutional.

Now, bioethicists Michelle Huckaby Lewis, Michael E. Scheurer, Robert C. Green and Amy L. McGuire have written a white paper to argue for the legitimacy of preserving these DNA samples for research, in spite of parental objections and clear civil rights issues.

The abstract for their policy paper, Research Results: Preserving Newborn Blood Samples, summarizes the issue:

Retention and use, without explicit parental permission, of residual dried blood samples from newborn screening has generated public controversy over concerns about violations of family privacy rights and loss of parental autonomy. The public debate about this issue has included little discussion about the destruction of a potentially valuable public resource that can be used for research that may yield improvements in public health. The research community must advocate for policies and infrastructure that promote retention of residual dried blood samples and their use in biomedical research.

These bioethicists have complained that a “narrow view of privacy is hampering research,” insisting instead that “the research community must advocate for policies that support the retention of these samples and their use in biomedical research,” as author Michelle Lewis stated. These DNA sample must be used to the “fullest extent possible to improve the health of our citizenry,” according to the authors.

The policy is squarely on the side of larger State power, where the concerns of the individual are swept aside in the name of the “greater good.” These authors emphasize the potential for research in medical treatments and other potentially life-saving solutions, and yet the era has dawned where consumer-patients are offered access to costly patented genetic interventions where an individual’s God-given genetic material is sold back to them for a price.

It is an emerging paradigm of total state control over life, reproduction, screening for “designer babies” and other related areas controlled by the system for the benefit of insider crony corporate interests. And the collectivist “bioethicists,” (who are really neo-eugenicists), are arguing for so-called ethical tradeoffs in every conceivable field — from abortion, cloning, artificial insemination, end of life care (a.k.a. death panels), animal rights, transhumanism, euthanasia, eugenics, life extension, human experimentation and much more.

Their philosophy, to empower the technocratic state and selectively advance preferred individuals under that system, comes from the classical Eugenics era, where leading voices like T. H. Huxley, president of the Royal Society of Science and grandfather of author Aldous Huxley and biologist/UNESCO founder Julian Huxley, argued that under eugenics, it is “ethical” to replace inferior individuals (and their reproductive rights) with that of superior individuals. It is an elitist creed that has passed down from the ages and continues today in the hands of the globalist cabal steering the emerging world government system.

Leading bioethicists have argued, in official white papers mind you, that babies should be allowed to be killed up to age 3, that health care rationing and death panels are justifiable, that water supplies should be laced with lithium and other mind-altering drugs to socially control the population, and much more.

Globalist Proclaim Right to Newborns’ Blood for Database
November 14, 2012

After years of denying that blood samples were taken at birth, bioethicists are arguing for the State’s right to seize newborns’ blood samples for global database.

Mother’s Blood Pressure Could Affect Baby’s IQ, Study Says

bloodpressuremonitoring 245x153 Mother’s Blood Pressure Could Affect Baby’s IQ, Study Saysby
November 4th, 2012| Updated 11/04/2012 at 2:44 am
Your mother doesn’t only pass on genes and nutrition when you are in the womb; she could even be passing on the effects of high blood pressure. Suggesting a correlation between a mom’s high blood pressure and a baby’s IQ, a new study shows that men whose mothers had hypertension during pregnancy scored lower on cognitive tests than those whose mother’s had normal blood pressure—indicating women should pay extra close attention to this vital marker while carrying a child and even before.Finnish scientists found 398 men who had taken the nationally-required test for the Finnish Defense Forces, at age 20 and again at age 69. They examined their scores in visuospatial reasoning, arithmetic, and verbal areas and tied these results to information about their mother’s blood pressure during pregnancy.As reported by CNN, the men whose moms had a hypertensive disorder (like preeclampsia) during pregnancy scored lower on arithmetic and “total cognitive ability” than those who did not. The most notable result-differences were found in math—where the men averaged 4.36 points lower at age 69 and 2.88 points lower at age 20.It’s estimated that about 10 percent of women suffer a hypertensive disorder while pregnant. For many, this means weeks of bed-rest and a high-risk pregnancy. Women who have Type 2 diabetes, chronic hypertension, a multiple-birth pregnancy, or using IVF are more at risk for such a condition. The answer, as with so many other health conditions, lies in prevention.

Genetically Modified Humans? New Gene-Altering Drug Paves Way for Mass Modification

Mike Barrett
Activist Post

We’ve seen genetically modified mosquitoes, genetically modified plants, and genetically modified cows, but could we soon be dealing with our own genetic alterations – genetically modified humans? As the months and years pass, scientists seem to be getting closer to ‘manufacturing’ humankind, with some of the most recent ‘advancements’ revolving around a new approved drug therapy that is designed to ‘correct genetic errors’.

Glybera, the drug which was approved in Europe on November 1, was created to combat against a rare disorder leading to disrupted fat production. Those suffering this rare disease possess what scientists describe as a damaged gene; the drug is meant to repair the damaged gene.

While the drug is only meant to be given to 1 or 2 out of every million people, it paves way for further experimentation into the field of biotechnology and human alteration. Soon, doctors may be giving out drugs to treat any ‘defects’ in genes, whether it be for the so-called ‘fat’ gene or another instance where a damaged gene is present. It could even apply to purported ‘criminal’ genes that are said to predict an individual’s future ‘life of crime’. It may sound crazy, but scientists are already making even more serious moves that will alter or ‘create’ humankind.

Further Genetically Modifying Humanity

Although gene-altering drugs are indeed helping to pave the way for further human genetic modification, it is only a single move in the game. Just a few months ago, we reported on the very first group of genetically modified babies being ‘created’ in the United States. The scientists stated that 30 babies were born using genetic modification techniques. In addition, 2 of the babies tested were found to contain genes from a total of 3 different parents. Genetecists state that this genetic modification method may one day be used to create genetically modified babies “with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence.”

Interestingly enough, that day may come sooner than expected – at least for some of us. Even leading scientists are now pushing for selective breeding based on genetic makeup, ‘handpicking’ genes of offspring, and even developing cloning technology to ‘grow’ human hybrids and other bizarre experiments.

While gene-altering drugs and GM babies may appeal to the general public, scientists and biotech companies heavily funded by the government have been working on achieving a much larger feat -genetically modified humans in the form of ‘super soldiers’. These GM humans go beyond even the imagination, not requiring food or sleep to perform Olympic-style physical feats, while being able to regrow limbs that were destroyed by enemy fire.

The fact is that humankind has been moving toward a genetically altered existence for some time now, unknown by the general public. While the mainstream media will have you believe that drugs to repair damaged genes is the answer, no one really knows the kind of dangers that could come with such advancements. We’ve already seen how genetically modified foods can cause tumors and even early death – why wait to see what happens when altering the human genetic code.

Additional Sources:
Daily Mail

Synthetic Biologist: Cloned Children, ‘Handpicked Genes’ Right Around the Corner

Anthony Gucciardi
Activist Post

If you’ve been following the sci-tech section of any major news site over the past few years, chances are you have seen more than a few stories discussing the possibility of extending the highly problematic act of genetic modifications onto the human race. A step that has been foretold by science fiction novels and simultaneously discounted as conspiracy for years. According to one leading synthetic biologist with a passion for eugenics (meaning ‘selective breeding’) and cloning technology, it may be just around the corner.

Scientist George Church envisions a world where traits are pre-determined by parents for their offspring — children created via cloning technology to create ‘better’ humans. He also claims to be creating Neanderthal cells within his laboratory, holding an inventory of Neanderthal ‘parts’ across the lab space. In the near future, he even plans to ‘create’ a Neanderthal baby within his lab.

You may think that Church is just some mad scientist cooped up in his lab experimenting with genetics in his spare time, but he actually is heavily recognized within the scientific community where like-minded eugenicists seek to push cloning technology into the moral and social stratosphere in order to fulfill their visions. Working as a professor at Harvard Medical School and an adviser to more than 20 major corporations, Church thinks that it’s only a matter of time until someone injects an argument into the mainstream media that allows for full-scale cloning technology to be unleashed upon the world.

In an interview with Bloomberg, he said:

At some point, someone will come up with an airtight argument as to why they should have a cloned child. At that point, cloning will be acceptable. At that point, people will already be choosing traits for their children.

Of course over 40,000 patents currently exist on human genetics, granting the very ownership of the human genome to major corporations who have been seeking to secure a monopoly over the human coding for over 100 years. Altogether, more than 20 percent of the human genome belongs to corporations. This would give major corporations the ability to actually ‘sell’ genes to parents for their new cloned offspring, generating an entire new market for biotechnology giants.

‘Faulty Genetics’ Means no Right to Fertility

And as for those with ‘faulty’ genetics, they may actually not even be allowed to reproduce. In a similar fashion to the rampant eugenics campaign that ran from 1929 to 1974 and claimed a ‘better society’ through forcing sterilizations upon criminals and those with mental health disorder. All in all, more than 60,000 were sterilized nationwide. But now modern technology exists to actually claim that certain individuals will be criminals or suffer from disease in the future. This, in the mind of the eugenicists, gives them the authority to preemptively sterilize certain sectors of the population. This is the same thinking that is used to remove body parts preemptively in those with a particular cancer gene to avoid the onset of cancer.

But the madness doesn’t end there. According to George Church, they also may create various ‘types’ of cloned children such as Neanderthal babies. He stated:

We are creating Neanderthal cells. Let’s say someone has a healthy, normal Neanderthal baby. Well, then, everyone will want to have a Neanderthal kid.

It has already been revealed that many scientists have already secretly created human-animal hybrid experiments in the lab using similar technology. In fact, the ‘horrendous’ creations actually led to some scientists to call for new rules on the subject. Creations that Church asserts will eventually be commonplace if he and his group of Monsanto-esque scientists get their way.

It is concerning enough that genetic modification within crops has led to the onset of tumors, organ damage, and other serious concerns. The health implications alone surrounding the direct genetic modification of humans is enough to sound the alarm. When considering the Orwellian aspects of reproduction control and rampant cloning mixed in with outlandish hybrid experiments, it’s easy to see that there’s simply no place for the unscrupulous usage of such biotechnology. The argument will, however, be thrown right into the mainstream media using a heartwarming story about how cloning can help fuel research for heart disease and cancer — yet another scam.

And if George Church is right, such a scenario could be right around the corner.