Playing online casino Malaysia through Alibaba33 online casino Malaysia can be a fun and rewarding experience for those who enjoy playing games for fun. trusted online casino malaysia alibaba33Bet on your favourite slots, live, sporting events and win big! If you enjoy sports, slots like Mega888 ewallet Alibaba33 online casino Malaysia has something for you.

Viagra Malaysia treat erectile dysfunction with the original ED treatment that has helped men feel confident in bed for decades. We’ll connect you with a licensed viagra malaysia healthcare provider to evaluate if our prescription ED treatments could be right for you, including super-affordable generic Viagra viagramalaysiaofficial Viagra is an oral ED medication that works by suppressing an enzyme in the body called PDE5.

Category: Children - Organic Lifestyle Magazine Category: Children - Organic Lifestyle Magazine

Being Outdoors Improves Children’s Ability to Learn

A study recently published in the academic journal, Frontiers in Psychology, found that teaching a lesson to children outside allowed teachers to retain the attention of the kids for almost twice compared to a subsequent indoor lesson.

We wanted to see if we could put the nature effect to work in a school setting. If you took a bunch of squirmy third-graders outdoors for lessons, would they show a benefit of having a lesson in nature, or would they just be bouncing off the walls afterward?” – Ming Kuo, lead study author

Recommended: Common Bad Parenting Advice You Should Ignore

The study was conducted over a 10-week period in a Midwestern elementary school. Two third-grade classrooms participated. One of the classrooms had a teacher who was enthusiastic about the concept while the other teacher who was skeptical, thinking like many do that there would be too many distractions. Each teacher held one lesson a week outside before returning to their regular classroom setting.

The outdoor classroom was a grassy spot just outside the school, within view of a wooded area. Following the outdoor lesson, class engagement was assessed in four ways: the teacher’s perception of the students’ level of engagements; the students’ ratings of theirs and their classmates’ engagement; the number of ‘redirects’ during the lesson, when teachers had to call the kids’ attention back to the lesson; and independent photo ratings, where ratings of classroom engagement by an independent observer were based on photos of the observation period.” – TreeHugger

Recommended: How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

What was the effect of lessons outside regarding classroom engagement? Does outdoor learning leave pupils too excited to focus? In this study, classroom engagement was improved after lessons in nature. The advantage of the time outside held true for “four of five measures of classroom engagement.”

We found higher levels of classroom engagement after lessons in nature than after carefully matched classroom-based counterparts; these differences could not be explained by differences in teacher, instructional approach, class (students, classroom, and class size), time of year, or time of day, nor the order of the indoor and outdoor lessons on a given topic. It would seem that lessons in nature boost subsequent classroom engagement, and boost it a great deal; after a lesson in nature, teachers were able to teach for almost twice as long without having to interrupt instruction to redirect students’ attention. This nature advantage persisted across 10 different weeks and lesson topics, and held not only for a teacher with positive expectations for nature-based lessons but also for a teacher who anticipated negative effects of such lessons. The findings here suggest that lessons in nature allow students to simultaneously learn classroom curriculum while rejuvenating their capacity for learning, or “refuel in flight.” Because providing children with more contact with nature in the course of the school day is likely to yield a whole host of additional dividends as well, including improved physical and mental health (see Chawla, 2015 for review), the findings here argue for including more lessons in nature in formal education.

Recommended Reading:

This video takes things a step further, check it out!




Study ranks Wealthiest Countries on Childhood Mortality – U.S. Ranks Last

United States children are 70 percent to die before adulthood than kids born into modern, wealthy democratic countries, according to the new Health Affairs study.

The research indicates that since 1961, more than 600,000 children would have been saved by having been born in another wealthy country.

In all the wealthy, democratic countries we studied children are dying less often then they were 50 years ago. But we found that children are dying more often in the United States than in any similar country.” – Ashish Thakrar, the study’s lead author

It really seems to be the impact of our fragmented health care system,” Thakrar says. “Mothers who are qualifying for Medicaid for the first time because they’re mothers might be seeing doctors for the first time. They might not have a family physician, or a clear support system.”

Between 2001 and 2010, researchers found a 76 percent increased of death for infants in the U.S. compared to 19 peer countries. The US also maintains an infant death rate from extreme prematurity three times that of its peer countries. Read more at Vox.com

Must Read:



USDA Walks Back Healthy School Lunch Policies

The United States Department of Agriculture has rolled back several healthy school lunch requirements. These changes include allowing schools to serve flavored milk, opt out of whole grain requirements, and more slowly reduce the sodium in their offerings. In the USDA’s press release, Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture, cited their reasons for the changes, “Based on the feedback we’ve gotten from students, schools, and food service professionals in local schools across America, it’s clear that many still face challenges incorporating some of the meal pattern requirements. Schools want to offer food that students actually want to eat. It doesn’t do any good to serve nutritious meals if they wind up in the trash can. These flexibilities give schools the local control they need to provide nutritious meals that school children find appetizing.”

Many of the issues cited by the USDA as problematic for school lunch providers are not actually a problem. A statement released by Center for Science in the Public Interest Vice President for Nutrition Margo G. Wootan:

Virtually 100 percent of schools are already complying with the final nutrition standards, including the first phase of sodium reduction…Nine out of 10 school-aged children are eating too much salt, which is why reducing sodium levels in school meals is so important. The USDA should be doubling down on helping schools reduce sodium, not slowing down progress, as the Trump administration proposed today.”

Diet is the foundation of health, and it’s fitting that the government making it easier to serve schoolchildren less nutritious lunches is also the administration dismantling the current healthcare system without a viable system to take its place. The USDA considers the school lunch program a part of its nutrition safety net. So why is it making it easier for vulnerable school children to eat poorly?

Nutrition Education and Healthy Choices

Today, one in five children between the ages of 6-19 is obese, and that number has tripled since the 1970s. More than one-third of Americans are obese. The healthcare costs for an obese person are nearly $1,500 higher for an obese person than a normal weight person. Our health nationwide is not improving because we are failing to properly educate kids about healthy food and healthy lifestyle choices. Only one in ten Americans eat enough vegetables. Combine that with a nutrition safety net willing to compromise health standards out of concern with program operators, school nutrition professionals, industry, and other stakeholders. It’s no wonder kids don’t know how important healthy food choices are, let alone how to make them.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:

 




One Million Receive Faulty Dengvaxia Vaccine Which May Cause Dengue Rather Than Prevent it

The Philippines’ Department of Health launched the world’s first public dengue immunization drive last year to the tune of $69.54 million. Dengvaxia is the vaccine used, produced by Sanofi. On Dec 1st, the Department of Health halted the use of Dengvaxia. Sanofi said the vaccine should not have been used. Nearly 734,000 children aged 9 and over in the Philippines have received the vaccine.

As far as we know, as far as we are made aware, there are no reported deaths that are related to dengue vaccination…

Sanofi said the vaccine should only be used on individuals previously infected with dengue, due to evidence it can worsen the disease in people not previously exposed to the infection.

Related: Vaccines, Retroviruses, DNA, and the Discovery That Destroyed Judy Mikovits’ Career

What Is Dengue Fever?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), dengue is a mosquito-borne “pandemic-prone viral disease” and can produce severe flu-like symptoms, breathing problems, hemorrhaging, and organ failure. WHO says that about half the world’s population is at risk of dengue, and estimates indicate nearly 400 million are infected every year. Dengue is a leading cause of serious illness and death among children in many Asian and Latin American countries. The global incidence of dengue has risen dramatically in recent decades, according to WHO.

…but the World Health Organization issued a report in mid-2016 that identified the risk.

What We Know

Sanofi’s Dengvaxia is the first-ever approved vaccine for dengue. The company says the vaccine is also registered in Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, Thailand, and Venezuela. The vaccine has also been used in a public immunization program in Brazil, which makes a total of around one million people who have had a dose of the drug.

Related: How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

Sanofi explained “new findings” at a news conference in Manila, but the World Health Organization issued a report in mid-2016 that identified the risk. A non-governmental organization said it had received information that three children died who were vaccinated with Dengvaxia, and a senator said he was aware of two other cases. The Department of Health Undersecretary Gerardo Bayugo told Reuters that the three children referenced died due to causes not related to the vaccine, and Sanofi claims that no deaths have been attributed to the program.

For those not previously infected by dengue virus, the analysis found that in the longer term, more cases of severe disease could occur following vaccination upon a subsequent dengue infection,” – Sanofi

The WHO now recommends that Dengvaxia is only to be administered to subjects “known to have been infected with dengue prior to vaccination,” pending a full review of the study.

As far as we know, as far as we are made aware, there are no reported deaths that are related to dengue vaccination.” – Ruby Dizon, Sanofi’s Medical Director

What’s Being Done?

The Philippines ordered a probe on Monday into the immunization program, and the program was suspended on Friday, December 1st. According to Health Secretary Francisco Duque III, further information will be released on Dec. 12 or 13 by the WHO advisory body, Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization.

Sources:



Study: DTP Increases Mortality in Infants 5 to 10 Fold Compared to Unvaccinated

For years public health advocates wanted the CDC and WHO to run studies on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations and compares health outcomes. A team of Native scientists have conducted such a study and the consequences are alarming. The study, financed in part by the Danish authorities and lead by Dr. Soren Wengel Mogensen, was published in January in EBioMedicine.

The data suggest that the DTP vaccine reduces infections from those 3 germs, but data also shows that children are more likley to die from other causes. Mogensen’s team discovered that DTP inoculated African Americans had 5-10 times higher mortality than their unvaccinated peers.

 Though protective against the target disease, DTP may increase susceptibility to unrelated infections… DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated.  No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP.” – Vaxxed vs. Non-Vaxxed Study

Related: How Plumbing (Not Vaccines) Eradicated Disease

Mogensen and his colleagues hypothesize that the DTP vaccine weakens the immune system, which supports the conclusions of prior studies. An earlier study by Dr. Peter Aaby, on the introduction of DTP in rural Guinea-Bissau, indicated a 2-fold greater mortality among vaccinated kids. The Aaby report is just one of many studies that adopted kids and documented vaccination status. All of them suggested that DTP-vaccinated kids died at rates far exceeding mortality.

In the primary analysis, DTP-vaccinated infants experienced mortalities five times greater than DTP-unvaccinated infants.  Mortalities to vaccinated girls were 9.98 times those among females in the unvaccinated control group, while mortalities to vaccinated boys were 3.93 times the controls.  Oddly, the scientists found that children receiving the oral polio vaccine simultaneously with DTP fared much better than children who did not.  The OPV vaccine appeared to modify the negative effect of the DTP vaccine, reducing mortalities to 3.52 times those experienced among the control group.  Overall, mortalities among vaccinated children were 10 times the control group when children received only the DTP.” – Robert F Kennedy

Related: How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

Moreover, Mogensen and his colleagues observe that the research reviewed by SAGE probably exacerbated the deadly effect of the DTP vaccine due to unusually high mortality in the control groups,

Unvaccinated children in these studies have usually been frail children too sick or malnourished to get vaccinated and the studies may therefore have underestimated the negative effect of DTP”. The Mogensen study sought to avoid this pitfall by removing orphans and children from the control group and the research group and by utilizing controls. It included children who had been breastfed. All of the infants were healthy at the right time of vaccination. Nevertheless, the Mogensen authors went longer and point out that, even in their analysis, the unvaccinated kids had status. They conclude that, “The estimate from the natural experiment may therefore still be conservative.”

Recommended: Lyme Disease – Holistic Protocol to Completely Rebuild the Immune System

From the early 1980s, a cascade of lawsuits filed throughout the United States drove DTP manufacturers and threatening to shut down production of vaccines and the DTP shot. That threat led the U.S. Congress to bestow legal immunity on vaccine makers during the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program from 1986, conducted in December, 1987, from the rollout of “Vaccine Court.” After the recommendation from the Institute of Medicine, thimerosal was removed by vaccine manufacturers from the American DTaP involving 2001-2003. But, multi-dose DTP vaccines given to thousands of children across the African continent carry on to contain huge doses of thimerosal (25mcg of ethylmercury per booth) that exceed the EPA’s maximum exposure levels by many times. Neither the CDC nor the WHO has ever published a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study that will be necessary to determine the total health consequences of the potent toxin on African children. The Mogensen report is a call for such a research.

The authors close with a bracing rebuke to people health labs,

“It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials.  All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.  Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.”

Related Reading:
Source:



Harvard Immunologist: Unvaccinated Children Pose Zero Risk

An open letter written by Tetyana Obukhanych, a Harvard immunologist, has has been circulating around the internet again. We thought it worth republishing. She wrote the letter back in 2015 in response to vaccine legislation. She makes a strong case for unvaccinated children not endangering the rest of the public.

Recommended Reading: Gluten, Candida, Leaky Gut Syndrome, and Autoimmune Diseases

Dear Legislator:

My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.

  1. IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.
  2. Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.
  3. While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.
  4. The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis. The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding.Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters, meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.
  5. Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f).These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children. The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign. Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.
  6. Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.

In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.

How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?

It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events. Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science. A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment.

When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.

Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?

Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:

“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.”

Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called low vaccine responders. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated.

Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait. The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.

Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.

It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.

Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases.

Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?

The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15. Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.

Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism. The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.

Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure.

In summary: 1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all; 2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free; 3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and 4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.

Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue public health risk.

Sincerely Yours,

~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD

Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD, is the author of the book Vaccine Illusion.  She has studied immunology in some of the world’s most prestigious medical institutions. She earned her PhD in Immunology at the Rockefeller University in New York and did postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA and Stanford University in California.

Recommended:
Sources:



Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $417 Million In Lawsuit Linking Baby Powder to Cancer

A jury in Los Angeles ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a record breaking $417 million to Eva Echeverria, a hospitalized woman in California. Eva claimed in her lawsuit that the talc ingredient in the company’s well-known baby powder may cause ovarian cancer when applied regularly to the crotch.

The plaintiff alleged Johnson & Johnson does not adequately warn consumers about talcum powder’s potential cancer risks. She says she used the baby powder daily basis from around the 1950s until 2016. Court papers show she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007.

Related: Galactagogues Foods, Herbs, and other Ways to Increase Breast Milk Production

Mrs. Echeverria is dying from this ovarian cancer and she said to me all she wanted to do was to help the other women throughout the whole country who have ovarian cancer for using Johnson & Johnson for 20 and 30 years,” – Robinson said.

This is not the lawsuit of this kind, or Johnson & Johnson’s first loss, either. In St. Louis, $70 million was awarded to a woman with ovarian cancer due to baby powder usage,

We are pleased the jury did the right thing. They once again reaffirmed the need for Johnson & Johnson to warn the public of the ovarian cancer risk associated with its product,” Attorney Jim Onder

Apparently, Johnson & Johnson is still not adequately warning its customers.

On a side note, did you know Johnson and Johnson produce vaccines?

Related: Why Anti-Vaxxers Don’t Vaccinate

Can talcum powders cause cancer? Many believe so. According to Cancer.org,

It has been suggested that talcum powder might cause cancer in the ovaries if the powder particles (applied to the genital area or on sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or condoms) were to travel through the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes to the ovary. Many studies in women have looked at the possible link between talcum powder and cancer of the ovary. Findings have been mixed, with some studies reporting a slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase.”

There’s a better option.

Homemade Baby Powder Recipe

Ingredients

  • 1/3 cup arrowroot powder
  • ¼ cup bentonite clay powder or White Kaolin Clay
  • 1 tsp chamomile, lavender, or calendula flowers, in powdered form (use a blender)

Instructions

Mix it together, use as needed. If you want, you can add a couple of drops of an essential oil instead of the flower. Be careful with using essential oils and infants. It’s not something that should be taken lightly. Chamomile, lavender, and calendula in controlled amounts are of the few I that are generally considered safe for small children and infants.

If diaper rashes are a problem, the baby’s eco system is unbalanced, and which usually equates to less beneficial bacteria and more Candida in the gut.

Recommended Reading: