Scientists have uncovered a trio of genes tied to migraine headaches, including one in which the link is exclusive to women, according to a study published Sunday.

Migraines are acutely debilitating headaches -- sometimes with an "aura", in which patients have the impression of seeing through frosted glass -- that strike up to 20 percent of the population.

Scientists describe the condition, which is three to four times more common in women, as a brain disorder in which neurons, or brain cells, respond abnormally to stimuli.

The precise cause it unknown, but inheritance is thought to play a significant role.

To assess the genetic component, Markus Schuerks of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston coordinated an international sweep of genomes in 23,230 women, 5,122 of whom suffered from migraines.

All diseases begin in the gut - Hippocrates,460-370 BC

Many children and adults have digestive problems that they are not even aware of. Colic, bloating, flatulence, diarrhea, constipation, feeding difficulties, trouble sleeping, and many other "chronic" but accepted maladies. When looking at a child with digestive problems, the majority of cases will have started at or around the time of weaning.

When the mother replaces breast milk with formula other food components get introduced that are not natural to a babies gut flora, like gluten, Enzymatically hydrolyzed reduced minerals, whey protein concentrate, palm olein, soy, coconut, high-oleic safflower oils, lactose etc...

Many adults don't remember much of their eating habits in the first years of life. Assuming they did not have a severe reaction to these new compounds which would have raised red flags for any parents, they could have had little noticed or missed responses to the food like a fussy sleeper, or a baby that vomits a lot. Many parents will tell you this is "normal for a baby", they will "grow out of it". While this is true for some, in more and more cases around the world people are realizing that it doesn't have to be this way. Unless there is an undiagnosed medical condition babies that are feed the way their guts were designed DO NOT HAVE THESE PROBLEMS!!

Recently Kenneth Feinberg, the lawyer overseeing the $20 billion Gulf Coast Claims Facility to "make it right" for people harmed by the British Petroleum oil blowout disaster, told a Louisiana House and Senate committee that he had not seen any claims, or any scientific evidence, linking BP's oil and dispersant release to chemical illnesses. Feinberg also stated that chemical illnesses take years to show up -- conveniently well after his tenure with the compensation fund.

Instead of tossing the media a juicy bone, Feinberg tossed a red herring. He is wrong at worst, or intentionally misleading at best, on all points.

The GCCF process makes it difficult for people to be compensated for medical claims or even raise illness claims, while making it easy to release claims and rights to future medical care and benefits for chemical illnesses or other medically-proven illness related to the BP blowout and disaster response.

In fact the GCCF process is so blatantly egregious in terms of protecting corporate liability at the expense of human rights and health that a bill was introduced in the Louisiana state legislature, specifically targeting the BP oil disaster, to declare such "contractual releases are invalid as against public policy" and the release of claims to future medical care and related benefits null and void. In Louisiana. BP lobbyists are reportedly out in force, trying to gut the legislation.

Further, the pro-industry bias in the GCCF process turned thousands of people away. Over 130,000-plus claimants have filed lawsuits, now consolidated in Louisiana federal court under Judge Carl Barbier. According to one of the law firms involved, many of these claimants have indicated concerns about health and desire medical monitoring.

U.S. babies are dying at an increased rate. While the United States spends billions on medical care, as of 2006, the US ranked 28th in the world in infant mortality, more than twice that of the lowest ranked countries. (DHHS, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics. Health United States 2010, Table 20, p. 131, February 2011.)

The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age:

4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)

This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate.

Published in inaugural issue of the Journal of Parkinson's Disease.

In a new study published today in the inaugural issue of the Journal of Parkinson's Disease, Israeli researchers report that by tracking pharmacy purchases of anti-Parkinson drugs they could estimate the number of Parkinson's disease (PD) cases in a large population. The study identified a sharp rise in PD prevalence from 170/100,000 in 2000 to 256/100,000 in 2007 in Israel, which warrants further investigation.

Surprisingly, much of the world lacks accurate figures for the percentage of the population (prevalence) with PD and the rate of occurrence of new cases (incidence). Reliable estimates using "epidemiological" population studies are essential to identify risk factors for developing the disease, and thereby reduce risk. They are also essential for planning how many patients with the disease may need treatment by health services.

I see there has been another so called 'study'.

In this instance, they examined blood pressure levels in children to test the effects of 'second hand smoke' on blood pressure.

The interesting thing is that their results show a drop in blood pressure in girls, but a raise in pressure in the boys. Neither change was significant however.

Overall there is apparently a greater drop amongst the girls compared to the boys. [-1.8 compared to +1.6].

In an honest world, this 'study' would be consigned to the bin where it belongs. In a world where governments wanted to promote smoking, they could announce the 'study' as good news and could trumpet the 'fact' that overall, passive smoking reduces blood pressure in children.

I came across a telling item of news the other day.

The WHO has stated that mobile/cell phones are an increased cancer risk.

"A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

So what is interesting about that?

The above conclusion was reached after a large study, but what's more important is that that study is backed by laboratory experimentation.

Compare that with the 'risks' posed by smoking - many 'studies' which are not peer reviewed and laboratory experiments that have singularly failed to prove anything.

Compare also the attitude of the WHO - it warns phone users that there may be a risk, but has declared an all out war on smoking.

If the WHO was consistent it would have to start a movement banning all mobile/cell phones. Everything points to the phones being more hazardous than smoking but the WHO does nothing. Is that not strange?

Here is an interesting example of how a lie appears from nowhere and will doubtless become part of the vast portfolio of lies put around by the Anti-smoking crowd.

At a dentists' conference in Ireland recently, Dr Conor McAlister talked about the alarming rise in oral cancer, instances of which apparently increased by 30% in the last decade. Naturally he stated that the big risk factors are smoking and alcohol.

For years now, virtually every known disease known to man has been blamed on smoking, so adding another one to the list will not raise a single eyebrow. Add to this the logical association of the mouth with smoking and drinking and no one is going to question it.

Now take Dr McAlister's comment that smoking and drinking are risk factors. With a simple stroke of the pen, that will soon be reported as "smoking and drinking cause oral cancer" This is one of the more subtle of the propagandist's tools - taking a supposition and turning it into hard fact.

Scientists discover how nicotine affects the pathway in the brain that controls appetite, a discovery that may lead to new obesity treatments and quitting tobacco without gaining weight.

Yale University researchers found a specific subclass of brain receptors which influences nicotine's ability in reducing appetite in rodents.

The lab study carried out on mice showed that a nicotine-like drug, cytisine, specifically activates nicotinic receptors in a part of brain known as hypothalamus that controls appetite.

The attachment of nicotinic molecules or any compound mimicking them to these receptors enhances the activity of pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) neurons, which affects obesity in humans and animals.

"We found that nicotine reduced eating and body fat through receptors implicated in nicotine aversion and withdrawal rather than reward and reinforcement," said lead author Marina Picciotto, whose study was published in the journal Science.

New studies suggest that genetic backgrounds may be to blame for smokers that have a hard time quitting or cutting down on their habit.

Several genes can dictate how prone you are to take up smoking or how easily you can quit, based on the studies.

In three separate studies that collected data from 140,000 people, scientists identified that there are three genetic mutations that increase the number of cigarettes people smoke a day.

A common single-letter change was found in the genetic code that lies in parts of the DNA molecule that contain genes that influence nicotine addiction and lung cancer risk.

However, any potential benefits from the research still have a long way in the future, said Amanda Sandford, lead research at Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

"Smokers who want to quit should not wait for treatment tailored to their genetic make-up," Sandford said.