New University of Minnesota research out this week is the first of its kind to show who is having early elective deliveries between 37 and 39 weeks gestation, and whether these deliveries happen following labor induction or cesarean.

Labor induction or cesarean delivery without medical reason before a baby is considered full-term at 39 weeks, or an "early elective delivery," is associated with health problems for mothers and babies.

The study, led by University of Minnesota School of Public Health Assistant Professor Katy Kozhimannil, Ph.D., M.P.A., in collaboration with Children's Hospital of Philadelphia researchers Michelle Macheras, M.A., and Scott A. Lorch, M.D., M.S.C.E., appears in this month's edition of the journal Medical Care.

Researchers reviewed data linking birth certificates with hospital records for all births in California, Missouri and Pennsylvania between 1995 and 2009. The three states represent approximately 20 percent of all U.S. births and encompass a wide range of sociodemographic characteristics and geographic locations.

"Our study showed that early elective deliveries made up more than 3 percent of U.S. births each year over the past 20 years. This may seem to be a small number, but with 4 million births a year in the U.S., each percentage point represents 40,000 babies," said Kozhimannil. "In addition, we showed that there are important sociodemographic differences in the chances a pregnant woman has an early electivecesarean or an early elective induction of labor."

David Perlmutter, MD, FACN, ABIHM is a Board-Certified Neurologist and Fellow of the American College of Nutrition who received his M.D. degree from the University of Miami School of Medicine where he was awarded the Leonard G. Rowntree Research Award. After completing residency training in Neurology, also at the University of Miami, Dr. Perlmutter entered private practice in Naples, Florida where he serves as Medical Director of the Perlmutter Health Center and the Perlmutter Hyperbaric Center. He is recognized internationally as a leader in the field of nutritional influences in neurological disorders.

Dr. Perlmutter is also the author of the international #1 bestseller "Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth About Wheat, Carbs and Sugar - Your Brain's Silent Killers." Dr. Perlmutter explains what happens when the brain encounters carbs and gluten, why your brain thrives on fat and cholesterol, and how you can spur the growth of new brain cells at any age.

The author of this article, and a few other articles hosted on Sott.net, Samantha Chang, recently demanded that Sott.net stop republishing her articles (all of which are on the Ketogenic diet), on pain of "bad things happening" to us (see email below).

Like a good authoritarian follower, Ms. Chang backed up her 'threat' with a symbol of the totalitarian state under which she exists - an image of a United States Dept. of Justice wallet (see below), which seems to suggest that she has perhaps internalized the fascistic ideology of the police state that is the US of A.

Many writers have published information on the benefits of a Ketogenic diet, including research conducted by Sott.net that was made freely available to all. Ms. Chang, however, obviously does not subscribe to the idea of the free flow of vitally important information in an age of massive information control and subversion.

Given that Ms. Chang is obviously more interested in personal profit rather than the dissemination of information that could help many people, we will no longer be carrying her articles. In chasing after self-aggrandizement at the expense of helping others, she has clearly aligned herself with the fundamentals of our pathologically narcissistic global society.

Name: Samantha Chang
E-mail: schang@theimproper.com

Hello,

Please stop copyright infringement violations of my Examiner.com ketogenic diet/cancer articles on SOTT.

I see you've removed my byline from all my past articles after my previous complaint (while keeping in the ENTIRE content of my original pieces). This is blatant copyright infringement and unethical theft. You can use the first graph or two, but then please include a link back to my original article, saying "read more here."

http://www.examiner.com/article/ketogenic-diet-aids-weight-loss-alzheimer-s-ms-and-starves-cancer-say-experts

Please remove today's article (Oct. 12):

http://www.sott.net/article/287169-Ketogenic-diet-helps-weight-loss-epilepsy-MS-Alzheimers-and-starves-cancer

I worked hard on writing piece, which used information I compiled from exclusive interviews with scientists and from other sources. How do you sleep at night? If you choose to ignore this, I can promise bad things will happen to you, if they haven't already.

Samantha Chang - tries to intimidate people with images of DOJ wallets.

___________

Name: Samantha Chang
E-mail: schang@theimproper.com

Hi,

Thank you for your reply earlier. Please do the same for these other infringing articles (use the first paragraph and add a link with "read more here").

I think there are others, but these 4 bother me the most b/c they are exclusive interviews I spent a lot of time working on:

http://www.sott.net/article/280733-Ketogenic-diet-beats-chemotherapy-for-almost-all-cancers-says-Dr-Thomas-Seyfried

http://www.sott.net/article/277668-Low-carb-ketogenic-diet-can-combat-cancer-because-cancer-is-a-metabolic-disease

http://www.sott.net/article/280646-Texas-man-battles-deadly-lung-cancer-without-chemo-using-ketogenic-diet

http://www.sott.net/article/280615-Low-carb-ketogenic-diet-can-combat-brain-cancer-says-scientist-Adrienne-Scheck

Please do not copy my articles again in the future. For now, I will refrain from reporting SOTT to Google (which I was in the middle of doing when I received your reply).

Google will completely shut down your site immediately if they find these violations. I know this from past experience.

Thank you,
Samantha Chang, Esq.

If you took a little bit of dairy, added a slightly larger serving of vegetables, fruits and proteins, and then piled on as many superfluous oils, fats, and grains as possible, you'd have a mock, but also a reasonably accurate picture of the modern American diet.

The Americans on average eat nearly 2,600 calories a day, almost 500 more than they did thirty years ago, according to the USDA, which uses food production data, along with spoilage and waste estimates, to approximate per capita consumption.

That increase alone should be enough to raise an eyebrow (or three hundred million), but what's most troubling isn't the increase in our caloric intake, so much as its make-up. Over 92% of the uptick in per capita caloric intake since 1970 is attributable to oils, fats, and grains. Thirty years ago, the combination was responsible for roughly 37% of our daily calories; today, it makes up closer to 47% of our diet.

Pediatrician and pro-vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit, who once said a child can safely receive 10,000 vaccines at once, has spoken out repeatedly against vaccine religious exemptions, implying that his opinion is more important than the fundamental moral tenets of a variety of world religions.

Pediatrician and pro-vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit has spoken out repeatedly against vaccine religious exemptions.

For example, in one speech (PDF), he implies that since the Old and New Testaments and the Qur'an predate vaccines, these religions can't be opposed to vaccines. Sadly, Offit appears to suffer from a largely undiagnosed condition common among medical doctors, egoencephalitis (inflammation of the ego part of the brain), which causes its victims to mistakenly believe that their medical degree bestows upon them infinite, authoritative knowledge about everything. Surely one of the 250 vaccines currently in clinical trials or awaiting FDA approval addresses this concern, so there may be hope yet for Dr. Offit.

Could gluten's toxicity extend to the nervous system, producing symptoms identical to classical Parkinson's disease? A new case study adds to a growing body of research indicating that wheat's neurotoxicity is greatly underestimated.
A remarkable new case report describing the dramatic recovery of a 75-year-old Parkinson's disease patient after following a 3-month long gluten free diet reveals the need to explore whether there is an increased prevalence of silent or symptomatic celiac disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity both in those afflicted with Parkinson's disease and the related multi-factorial neurodegenerative condition known as Parkinsonism.

Published in the Journal of Neurology,[i] the report notes that celiac disease often manifests with only neurological symptoms, even in advanced age. This may strike the reader as surprising, considering gastrointestinal complaints are the most commonly noticeable symptom; and yet, when the voluminous published literature on gluten related adverse health effects is taken into account, so-called 'out of intestine' expressions of intolerance to gluten-containing grains are far more common than gut-related ones, with no less than 200 distinct adverse health effects implicated. You can read our summary of the biological carnage exacted by this 'king of grains' here: Wheat: 200 Clinically Confirmed Reasons Not To Eat It. You will notice that harm to the brainfigures high on the list. From schizophrenia to mania, autism to peripheral neuropathy, the central nervous system is particularly sensitive to its adverse effects.

New research looks at how the adolescent brain responds to sugar consumption.

It's no secret that teenagers love sugar. One-fifth of the daily diet of a typical American adolescent comes from added sugar - more than any other age group. Half that sugar comes from sweetened beverages such as soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks. But there's more that sets a teen's relationship with sugar apart from an adult's sweet tooth. Not only do teens eat more of it, but it affects their brains differently too. That could have repercussions far more severe than a few cavities.

New research from Yale Medical School shows that sugar may change the still-developing adolescent brain by increasing blood flow to the parts of the brain that control reward and executive function.

With thousands of toxins circulating in the world, it can be very easy to just give up trying to avoid them. Our food supply has been denatured and our air and water have become dangerously polluted. However, there are toxins that we tend to expose ourselves to more commonly throughout our lives that disintegrate our bodies' optimal function. These 5 toxins will cripple your body and brain if left unchecked, so be aware of them, avoid them, and look for solutions to remove them.

Heavy metals

Heavy metals are not something that most people would concern themselves with in regards to food, air, water, and personal care products. But that would be a mistake as they are often at the root of many painful symptoms and disease processes.

Common exposure points to heavy metals include seafood, dental amalgams, vaccinations, personal care products, pots and pans, baking powder, smoke, paint, water, work sites, and chem trails. With the popularity of seafood, prevalence of mercury fillings, and an intense vaccination schedule, one can hardly get out of consuming heavy metals or them put directly into their body.

These deadly toxins can immediately wreak havoc causing chronic pain, fatigue, brain fog, confusion, poor memory, gastrointestinal problems, allergies, headaches, depression, skin problems, insomnia, paralysis, and more.

Learn more about heavy metals and how to remove them.

There are, to my mind, two camps of doctors in terms of their attitude to statins. Some maintain these drugs are 'highly effective' and very safe (and might even be put in the water supply). Others (who bother to look objectively at the research) tell us that statins only help a small minority of people who take them, and have potential harms that are real but underplayed by statin proponents.

Well, some prominent doctors in the latter camp came out swinging recently in the form of a letter they have written to the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE - a body in the UK that sets healthcare policy and is considering recommending much wider the use of statins in people who are well).

The doctors raise a number of concerns about the planned expansion of statin prescribing and the evidence on which this mooted recommendation is based. The authors raise six major issues:

1. The medicalization of millions of healthy individuals
NICE is suggesting we treat ever more people who are healthy. The problem is, in healthy individuals with no evidence of cardiovascular disease, the benefits of statins are vanishingly small, though the hazards are real and significant.

2. Conflicting levels of adverse events
Many 'experts' claim that trials show statins rarely cause problems. Actually, there are many reasons why trials can simple missed harms (like screening out people who are intolerant to statins before the study starts or recognising harms once there is extreme derangement in blood values)

3. Hidden data
The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (CTT) regularly makes very pro-statin pronouncements based on the 'evidence' from trials given to them by drug companies. The problem is, no one is allowed to take a look at this data to verify it and assess its accuracy.

4. Industry bias
It is well recognised that industry funded studies tend to report more benefits and fewer harms than independently funded studies. The problem is, almost all the statin studies are industry-funded and subject to this bias.

Road-trip season is upon us. Whether you're caravanning up to a beach house or dropping the kids off at camp, the summer months are some of the busiest on the roads. And that means it can be an exceptionally dangerous time, as well -- especially considering the results of a new Harris survey.

According to the Harris survey of more than 2,000 adults, Americans know what constitutes dangerous driving, but they still cop to doing it -- including driving while texting (!) and driving after too many drinks (!!). For example, despite a majority of those surveyed affirming that driving while talking on the phone is dangerous, 74 percent said they still did it. And while seven in 10 people knew that driving while talking on a hand-held phone was dangerous, only about half that number thought driving while talking on a hands-free device was also bad news. Though a minority, this group is right -- when it comes to traffic accident risk and reaction time, hands-free conversations have been comparable to hand-held in research.