C-sections can result in problems in the mother such as infections, loss of blood, placenta problems, complications in future pregnancies, ongoing pelvic pain, uterine rupture and bowel blockage. Babies can experience breathing problems, difficulty breastfeeding, childhood onset diabetes and asthma.

So with more and more information exposing how cesareans do more harm than good, why is this labor surgery continuing to skyrocket with 1 in 3 women in the US delivering by cesarean? Many people believe that the rise in C-section rates is due to complications in pregnancy and labor that make this surgery necessary. This article will expose the real reasons of the increased cesarean rates and how to prevent this procedure.

The Real Causes
One of the main reasons for the upsurge is the casual attitude toward the idea of unnecessary interventions and surgery. Our culture has become increasingly tolerant of clinical procedures, even when they are not medically necessary. Many common interventions such as Pitocin and Epidurals can cause side effects that prevent the mother from finding comfort. This causes the body to progress too slowly, which can result in fetal distress and increase the likelihood of a cesarean. Instead physicians should be informing more women on the complications and long-term problems that can occur, using interventions and procedures only when necessary.

Over the years there has become less and less of a focus on enhancing women's confidence in the ability of the body during labor. Simply spending more time educating women on how to handle the birthing process, as well as fostering an environment to help make the mother as comfortable as possible, are healthier and less expensive alternatives to the operation.

It should come to no surprise that monetary and personal incentives also have a role in the sharp ascent in the surgical procedure. Payment schedules compensate more for a C-section as opposed to a vaginal birth. In addition to the higher monetary payout, the personal perks can be just as inviting. A C-section can be less time consuming and even better, a scheduled C-section can allow the practitioner to organize their work and personal life more efficiently without having to support a longer vaginal birth, while at the same time, earning more profit.

Women need to try to and avoid having a cesarean by focusing on proper health, nutrition and exercise throughout pregnancy. Practicing mind-body techniques such as yoga and meditation help to build body awareness and increase confidence in the ability of your body and your baby. These techniques can decrease the chances of requiring a cesarean and facilitate a successful, natural birth.

Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times – but possibly as much as six times – more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.[1]

Risk estimates for radiation-induced cancer – principally derived from the atomic bomb survivor study (ABSS) – are based on the effects of high energy gamma-rays and thus the implication is that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancer arising from mammography may be higher tha n that assumed based on standard risks estimates.

Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.[2]

This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.[3]

Colloidal Silver

Three cases of necrotizing fasciitis, as it is called, stand out in particular:

Lana Kuykendall, a 36-year-old mother of twins, was admitted to Greenville Memorial Hospital in South Carolina May 11, just days after giving birth, complaining of a sore spot on one of her legs. Soon after, she was diagnosed with the flesh-eating condition.

Another involves 24-year-old Georgia student Aimee Copeland, who has also had several operations and remains in critical condition herself in Doctors Hospital of Augusta. Doctors believe she may have contracted the fasciitis after sustaining a very large cut in her leg in a zip-line accident and falling into the Little Tallapoosa River in Georgia on May 1. They say her infection was likely caused by Aeromonos hydrophila bacteria, which are found in fresh or brackish water, and could have entered her body through the wound

The third case also involves a Georgia resident. Bobby Vaughn, 32, has been reported as being in good condition, though his initial infection "went from the size of a little peanut to a grapefruit fast," he told a local TV station. He's had at least five surgeries.

What's the enemy's strength?
As the cases pile up, scores of Americans are asking a couple of important questions, such as, why are these cases cropping up now, and – perhaps more vitally – what can be done to prevent a flesh-eating, antibiotic-resistant bacteria from invading their bodies?

For starters, it's important to know what we're up against.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, there are about 10,000 to 15,000 necrotizing fasciitis infections each year in the U.S., with 2,000 to 3,000 deaths. And often, doctors say, it's initially difficult to diagnose, which raises the mortality rate.

While MRSA is very common in many U.S. hospitals, researchers and scientists say it can also be spread in the public, such as on buses and trains. "Though people can avoid direct contact with a sneeze or cough, Professor Thomas from the University of York highlights the possibility of becoming infected from touching surfaces. In this way, every day settings and public surfaces act as viable means to contract an infection," said a report in the online journal MRSA Topic.

Stop the exposure and spread
The most problematic aspect of necrotizing fasciitis is that it has become increasingly resistant to traditional antibiotic therapy.

So how do we prevent its spread? What can be done to keep the public safe, especially anyone who has to be admitted to a hospital?

For one, some states are now mandating that all patients who are admitted to hospitals be screened immediately for MRSA and, if they are found to be carriers, then they are decontaminated and isolated. "The bulk of scientific evidence says that screening, combined with some form of intervention to reduce subsequent transmission, does have the effect of reducing MRSA infection rate in hospitals," writes Cale Street for MRSA Topic.

The spread of the MRSA superbug, which is essentially a staph infection, can also be accomplished by preventing exposure and practicing some basic hygiene. According to multiple sources, washing your hands, especially with an alcohol-based solution, is effective; making sure all wounds are covered with proper bandages will reduce exposure; and refraining from touching other peoples' bandages and wounds (without gloves for sure) will all help reduce exposure to, and the spread of, this potentially deadly disease.

Other practical things such as never sharing personal care items like a razor, drying towels in a dryer rather than letting them air-dry, wiping down gym equipment you may use with an antibacterial wipe or spray and the like will help reduce the likelihood of you coming in contact with the disease or spreading it if you happen to be carrying it.

The goal is to take the steps necessary to decolonize the bacteria. Otherwise, it will thrive and spread, say experts.

(OMNS April 10, 2012) The biggest vitamin D story in 2011 was the report on dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) [1]. This report was prepared during a two-year process by 14 nutrition experts, with funding from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health and Health Canada.

The committee reviewed the evidence for beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D, relying solely on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of its liking for benefits, and prospective cohort studies for adverse effects. RCTs were considered to have the highest quality, with observational studies of moderate quality and ecological studies of very low quality. However, the case can be made that since solar UVB is the primary source of vitamin D for most people, observational and ecological studies are the most relevant and therefore are of high quality, and in fact, have provided most of the information on the health benefits of vitamin D. However, the committee appeared to have a bias of excluding RCTs on such outcomes as cancer and influenza incidence and effects during pregnancy that were not in line with its eventual recommendations. The only benefit the committee found for vitamin D was for bone health. The committee recommended 600 IU/d vitamin D and a serum 25(OH)D concentration (a precursor to the active form of vitamin D) of 20 ng/ml (50 nmol/l) for those aged 1-70 years, and 800 IU/d for those 71 years or older. One-third of Americans have serum 25(OH)D concentrations below 20 ng/ml. The consensus from a wide variety of studies for the optimal concentration is at least 30 ng/ml and more likely over 40 ng/ml based on observational studies. The committee also noted that some prospective studies found increased risk of some health outcomes for higher serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations. However, such studies are bedeviled by changes in serum 25(OH)D concentration during the follow-up period since only one value from the time of enrollment is used.

Recommendations Still Too Low

This report has been severely criticized by the vitamin D research community, with over 125 journal publications to date disagreeing with the recommendations. A representative paper stated: "The IOM recommendations for vitamin D fail in a major way on logic, on science, and on effective public health guidance. Moreover, by failing to use a physiological referent, the IOM approach constitutes precisely the wrong model for development of nutritional policy." [2]. The case could be made that the IOM committee, by setting the recommended dose so unreasonably low, is putting the U.S. population at greatly increased health risk. Further, much of the rest of the world's countries look to the IOM report for guidance, placing a major portion of the world's population at risk.

More recently, a committee of the U.S. Endocrine Society comprised of vitamin D researchers reviewed the evidence and issued their recommendations. They considered both skeletal and non-skeletal effects. They recommended 600-1000 IU/d vitamin D for those aged 1-18 years and 1500-2000 IU/d for those aged 19 years or older [3]. These doses are preferable because they have a reasonable likelihood of raising serum 25(OH)D concentrations above 30 ng/ml (75 nmol/l).
Pregnancy

Meanwhile, the evidence of beneficial effects of vitamin D continues to grow. One RCT ignored by the IOM committee was that of supplementing pregnant and nursing women with 4000 IU/d vitamin D3 [4]. The study was completed before the IOM report was completed and brought to the committee's attention, but was not yet published. Important findings from the study include that it took about 4000 IU/d to increase 25(OH)D concentrations to over 40 ng/ml. The study explained that at this concentration, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations reached equilibrium with 25(OH)D, and higher doses did not increase 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations much more, which alleviated many concerns about overdoses. The study found no evidence of hypercalcemia or hypercalcuria even with these large doses. Further, this higher dose generated a sufficient concentration of unconverted vitamin D3 in breast milk that the nursing infant could produce its own 25(OH)D. The effects of vitamin D during fetal development are largely mediated through 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (the active form of vitamin D) binding to vitamin D receptors, which then regulate the expression of over 200 genes, upregulating about two-thirds, downregulating one-third.
Cancer

One of the important benefits of vitamin D is a reduction of cancer risk. There are many ecological observational studies and two RCTs supporting a role of vitamin D in reducing risk of about 15 types of cancer and increasing survival in about seven types of cancer. A meta-analysis of case-control and prospective studies for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer found that an increase of serum 25(OH)D concentration of 10 ng/ml was associated with a 15% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence, an 11% reduction in breast cancer incidence, but no effect for prostate cancer [5]. Ecological studies support a role of UVB in reducing risk of prostate cancer, so it could be that observational studies have not looked at the right period of life or serum 25(OH)D concentrations.

Another paper on women diagnosed with breast cancer found increased survival for those with higher serum 25(OH)D concentrations. In those with lower vitamin D concentrations, overall mortality rate increased by 8% while distant disease rates decreased by 14% per 10 nmol/l decrement in 25(OH)D [6].
HIV-AIDS

A study in the U.S. found those with HIV not using vitamin D supplements were very likely to be vitamin D deficient [7]. As vitamin D has important immune protection properties, this finding suggests that those with HIV or AIDS should be supplementing with vitamin D.
Dementia and Cognitive Impairment

A cross-sectional study in the U.S. found a significant inverse correlation between serum 25(OH)D concentration and cognitive impairment [8]. Since it was a cross-sectional study, the serum 25(OH)D concentration could be influenced by the disease state rather than vise versa. However, other studies suggest that low 25(OH)D concentrations are a risk factor for cognitive impairment and dementia.
Tuberculosis

A RCT study in the UK involving four doses of 2.5 mg (100,000 IU) adjunctive vitamin D in adults, raising serum 25 with pulmonary tuberculosis found a reduction in sputum conversion time of 36.0 days vs 43.5 days for the controls [9]. However, the effect depended on vitamin D receptor genotype. Those with TaqI or tt genotype had statistically significant reductions, while those with FokI genotype did not receive a benefit. This study indicates that vitamin D receptor alleles affect how effective vitamin D can be against infections.
Life Expectancy

A recent population study estimated, for the six geopolitical regions of the world the reduction in all-cause mortality rates from increasing mean serum 25(OH)D concentrations. [10]. The current understanding of the serum 25(OH)D-disease outcome relations for cancers, cardiovascular disease, respiratory infections, respiratory diseases, tuberculosis, diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease, falls and fractures, meningitis, Parkinson's disease, maternal sepsis and hypertension, and multiple sclerosis was used in the calculations. Estimated reductions in mortality rates from increasing serum 25(OH)D from 20 ng/ml to over 40 ng/ml ranged from 7% for Africa to 17% for Europe. Since life expectancies varied by region, the estimated increase in life expectancy was about two years in all regions.
Supplements and Serum 25(OH)D

The relation between oral vitamin D intake and serum 25(OH)D concentration was explored based on individuals ordering 25(OH)D test kits [11]. The important finding was that there is a very large spread in the serum 25(OH)D concentration for any given oral intake: the value can be about 45 ng/ml either side of the regression fit to the data. Another recent paper based on serum 25(OH)D concentration measurements at six Veterans Administration Medical Centers found that serum 25(OH)D concentrations could not be predicted on readily identifiable factors [12]. These findings strongly suggests that those interested in achieving an optimal 25(OH)D concentration should have their serum 25(OH)D concentration measured after taking vitamin D supplements for a couple of months, and, preferably, both before dosing and again after dosing for four to six months. Also included in the paper was a graph showing that the increase in 25(OH)D is up to 12 ng/ml per 1000 IU/d for those with starting 25(OH)D concentrations near 5 ng/ml, dropping to less than 2 ng/ml for those with greater than 80 ng/ml.

While the evidence of beneficial effects of vitamin D continues to expand, the IOM committee members continue to defend their original report. Thus, it seems to be up to individuals and their doctors to review the evidence and respond as they see fit. For those interested in obtaining additional information, these websites may be helpful:

http://www.VitaminDCouncil.org
http://www.GrassrootsHealth.net
http://www.VitaminDWiki.com
http://www.pubmed.gov
http://www.scholar.google.com

The first two are organizations devoted to educating the public about vitamin D; the third is a resource trying to put online as much information about vitamin D as possible; the last two are sites where titles, abstracts, and, in some cases, complete papers on vitamin D can be found by use of search words.
Disclosure:

William B. Grant, Ph.D. is affiliated with the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC) and receives funding from the UV Foundation (McLean, VA), Bio-Tech Pharmacal (Fayetteville, AR), the Vitamin D Council (San Luis Obispo, CA), and the Vitamin D Society (Canada).

A significant percentage of autism patients showed elevations in antibodies against gliadin and cerebellar peptides simultaneously.

We conclude that a subgroup of patients with autism produce antibodies against Purkinje cells [a GABA-producing neuron from the cerebral cortex] and gliadin peptides, which may be responsible for some of the neurological symptoms in autism.

It has been suggested that peptides from gluten and casein may have a role in the origins of autism and that the physiology and psychology of autism might be explained by excessive opioid activity linked to these peptides. Research has reported abnormal levels of peptides in the urine and cerebrospinal fluid of persons with autism. If this is the case, diets free of gluten and /or casein should reduce the symptoms associated with autism.

by Pat Robinson

Saccharomyces boulardii has therapeutic value in treating Clostridium difficile infection.

Probiotics

1. Supplementation of mothers and their babies with the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri reduces igE-associated eczema and may reduce respiratory allergic disease later in life.
2. Lactobacillus reuteri and Bifidobacterium lactis supplementation of children fed formula reduces adverse events, e.g. antibioic use, diarrhea, etc.
3. Long term use of probiotics and synbiotics reduce the incidence and severity of respiratory diseases during the cold season.
4. Probiotic bacteria reduce the duration and severity of common cold episodes.
5. Postnatal probiotic and prebiotic treatment is safe and increases resistance to respiratory infections during the first 2 years of life.
6. Probiotic therapy has therapeutic value in treating Klebsiella infection in children.
7. Lactobacillus rhamnosus and Lactobacillus reuteri reduce the duration of diarrhea in children with mild gastroenteritis.
8. Lactobacillus acidophilus can alleviate the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis.
9. Acute non- inflammatory gastroenteritis improvement is accelerated by probiotic yogurt consumption.
10. Lactobacillus reuteri significantly shortens the duration of watery diarrhea associated with rotavirus gastroenteritis in children between 6 and 36 months.
11. The probiotics Bifidobacterium breve and Lactobacillus casei reduce complications in patients with SIRS.
12. Probiotics demonstrate immunomodulatory effects in atopic pediatric patients by increasing the TH1 immune response which counterbalances the dominant TH2 immune response.
13. Lactobacillus plantarum reduces the negative effects of antibiotic treatment with Clostridium difficile.
14. Probiotics may have a preventive and therapeutic role in antibiotic-associated diarrhea subsequent to treatment for Clostridium difficile.
15. A combination of lactobacillus reuteri and lactobacillus rhamnosus were helpful in vaginosis and bacterial vaginitis treatment.
16. Saccharomyces boulardii inhibits Escherichia colia infection in children.
17. Probiotic strains from breast milk are superior to antibiotics in the treatment of infectious mastitits.
18. Human breast milk contains Lactobacillius strains which are effective in the treatment of mastitis during lactation.
19. Probiotics prophylaxis was as effective as antibiotic prophylaxis in children with persistent primary vesicoureteral reflux.
20. Supplemental Lactobacillus plantarum is effective in reducing pancreatic sepsis in patients with acute pancreatitis.
21. Probiotics appear to have a role in preventing recurrent urinary tract infections in women.
22. The consumption of fermented milk with Lactobacillus casei in lactating mothers has a positive effect on the mother and offspring's immunological status.
23. Probiotics prevent IgE-associated allergy until age 5 years in cesarean-delivered children.
24. Probiotics may reduce postoperative infections after abdominal surgery.
25. Probiotics have a favorable effect on immune status in multiple sclerosis patients.
26. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium lactis are safe and effective in reducing early otitis media and antibiotic use and the risk of respiratory infections during the first year of life.
27. Saccharomyces Boulardii diminishes bacterial infections and offers health benefits in the therapy of acute necrotizing pancreatitis.
28. Postnatal probiotic and prebiotic treatment is safe and increases resistance to respiratory infections during the first 2 years of life.
29. Lactobacillus reuteri may have therapeutic potential in the treatment of allergic airway disease.
30. Consumption of a fermented dairy product containing the probiotic Lactobacillus casei reduces the duration of respiratory infections in the elderly.
31. Specific strains of lactobacilli isolated from kimchi can effectively suppress airway hyper-responsiveness.
32. Probiotics manifest anti-influenza and ant-herpes activity.
33. Probiotics may contribute to a reversal of colitis through modulating the intestinal barrier properties.
34. Cow milk allergy symptoms are reduced in mice fed dietary synbiotics during oral sensitization with whey.
35. Gluten induces coeliac-like disease in sensitized mice that is prevented by probiotics.

Experts from the University of Idaho in the US were 'astonished' to find that just traces of common medication such as anti-depressants can bring on the disorder.

They made the discovery by observing the changes in the genetic pathways of fish swimming in water contaminated with psychoactive drugs.
Lead scientist Dr Michael Thomas said: 'While others have envisioned a causal role for psychotropic drugs in idiopathic autism, we were astonished to find evidence that this might occur at very low dosages, such as those found in aquatic systems.'

The fish were exposed to two kinds of anti-depressants – Prozac and venlafaxine – and a drug used to control seizures, called carbamazepine.

Concentrations were comparable with the highest estimated environmental levels.

They found patterns of gene activity in the fathead minnows that mimicked those seen in humans susceptible to the developmental disorder.

WHAT IS AUTISM AND HOW IS IT TREATED?

Autistic spectrum disorders begin in childhood and last through adulthood.

Symptoms include problems with social interaction, an impaired ability to communicate and unusual patterns of thought and physical behaviour.

There is no cure for ASD but a wide range of treatments can help improve symptoms.

The number of cases of ASD has increased over the past 20 years, but many believe this is due to improved rates of diagnosis.

The findings, published in the online journal Public Library of Science ONE, suggest a potential environmental trigger for autism in genetically vulnerable people, the authors of the study claim.

It could radically change treatment for the one in 100 children in England who have autism, improving doctors' understanding of how to prevent or treat the disorder.

The genetic pathways affected were the same as those associated with 'idiopathic' autism spectrum disorders, whose cause is unknown.

Experts suspect the disorders were brought about by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

Caroline Hattersley, Head of Information, Advice and Advocacy at The National Autistic Society, said: 'It’s important that we expand research into the causes of autism. We know that environmental and genetic factors have some role to play, but our understanding is still very limited as it’s such a complex disability.

'However, we need to be cautious when looking at these particular findings. There’s simply not enough evidence to draw any firm conclusions and so people should not be alarmed by this research.'

In some cases, shortened studies don't just make a drug look more effective than it ever could be, but they also turn dangerous and ineffective meds into miracle drugs, according to a study in JAMA. Studies are often cut short when researchers get "overwhelmingly convincing evidence" of a drug's effectiveness. If you want to make money with your drug, find an early spike in the data and run with it before the data dives. Get in, get the result you want, get out fast, and make lots of money.

Crime does pay!
Remember Vioxx? Big Pharma research backing that killer drug was all roses. Merck reported over $11 billion in Vioxx sales during the 5 years the drug was on the market. So far the company has paid nearly $6 billion in litigation settlements and criminal fines over Vioxx. Well, that still leaves quite bit of cash left over to pay the greedy executives who were in charge of the company and making criminal decisions. It's all about getting the FDA approval, buying the politicians, making loads of money (even at the expense of human life) and then minimizing the penalties and rebuilding the public relations for another run.

Oh, Merck claims they did a voluntary recall of Vioxx… but the recall came just days after the announcement that an FDA investigator was releasing a study indicating that Vioxx greatly increased the risk of fatal heart attacks and strokes and had probably been responsible for at least 55,000 American deaths during the five years it had been on the market.

How many really died from Vioxx?
Looking back we see the largest ever rise in US mortality rates occurred in 1999, the very year Vioxx was introduced. Not exactly a smoking-gun until you compare it with the largest ever drop in mortality in 2004, the year Vioxx was withdrawn. The net increase was 100,000 deaths per year in 1999 through 2004. Get the picture yet? This equates to 500,000 people who died needlessly and Vioxx is the prime suspect in these murders.

Where is the outrage?
Remember the Chinese milk scandal in 2008? Crooked dairymen were watering down milk products and then adding a plastic chemical compound called melamine back into the slough to raise the protein content back to normal. As a result, nearly 300,000 babies in China suffered urinary problems, with hundreds requiring hospitalization for kidney stones and six babies even died. This is junior league compared to the possible 500,000 Vioxx deaths!

In the Chinese milk scandal, long prison sentences were imposed on all involved and the guiltiest culprits were executed for their role. American media coverage was extensive, accompanied by our obvious outrage about the Chinese leadership's indifference to human life. We were outraged? Yet we stand by with eyes closed to Big Pharma's callous disregard for life and ever-growing greed for more money.

Merck hasn't given up on bad drugs that kill and maim. The company now pushes their new blockbuster vaccine, Gardasil. Merck kicked off with hardball lobbying to have this vaccine mandated in every state. They tried to make it the law for every boy and girl to receive the $120 per shot, three shots required, or the parents suffer legal repercussions. It's a match made in heaven for both Merck and the politicians in charge. Make a fuzzy study, make a law, make scads of money, pay the fines later.

Vaccine critics are calling the Gardasil HPV virus vaccine "Help Pay for Vioxx".

Bottom line, no profit from any drug, no matter how wonderful they make the studies look, is worth murder. Big Pharma companies are not in the business of curing disease. They are out to make money – even if it costs your life. It's high time for a corporate death penalty in America along with appropriate prison sentences for those behind the crimes.