Inflammation in Pregnancy Linked to Autism and Vaccines

By JEFFREY AUFDERHEIDE | VACTRUTH | MARCH 25, 2013

If you are pregnant, your doctor may be the greatest threat to your child’s developing brain.

Let me explain.

During pregnancy, your immune response is more prone to systemic inflammation than when you are not pregnant. This type of response may be harmful to the developing fetus and an unintended consequence of your body protecting itself throughout pregnancy.

For example, scientists know that women infected with the flu early in their pregnancy are considerably more likely to give birth to a child with schizophrenia, cerebral palsy, or autism. It was once thought that the mother passed the virus to the baby.

However, it is now known that the mother’s inflammatory immune response to a bacterial or viral infection can injure the baby’s brain. But here’s the catch often ignored by doctors and health agencies.

Data from Caltech researcher Paul Patterson shows that stimulation of the immune system without an infective agent in mice can produce similar results. [1]

Does this mean doctors can continue to pretend the 25 micrograms of mercury in every flu vaccine is safe?

Regardless, many doctors, professional organizations, and government agencies use a shotgun approach and recommend flu vaccines to all pregnant women in any trimester. [2]

Instead of a few pregnant women being at risk for excessive immune stimulation, I’m going to show you powerful information that shows the government’s foolish vaccine policy is putting all pregnant women at risk.

Before I show you how vaccines are causing inflammation in pregnant women, though, I think it is wise to consider the counsel of economist Milton Friedman. He once said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

Important Recent Study Finds Autism Linked with Inflammation

A recent study in January 2013 funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that maternal inflammation during early pregnancy increased a child’s risk of developing autism. [3]

Researchers from the study were able to review a central archive known as the Finnish Maternity Cohort (FMC) serum bank – a collection of prenatal serum samples gathered since 1983. Serum is drawn during the first and early second trimesters from more than 98% of pregnant women in Finland. [3]

Out of 1.6 million+ samples, scientists analyzed 677 cases of autism, looking for a well-established low-grade inflammation marker called C-reactive protein (CRP). High levels of CRP can be an indication that the body is responding to a bacterial or viral infection. [3]

The results of the study were clear: A potential 80% increased risk of childhood autism followed exposure to elevated maternal CRP. The data shows the higher the level of CRP in the mother, the greater the risk of autism in the child.

What can vaccines do while you are pregnant?

Vaccines Cause Inflammation in Pregnant Women

Given in context with the information provided above, what you read next may anger you.

In 2011 a study measured the levels of inflammatory responses in pregnant women who were injected with the flu vaccine. Samples were taken at one day, two days, and one week following injection. [4]

Here is how the researchers explained what they found.

Significant increases in CRP (C-reactive protein) were seen at one and two days post-vaccination (ps<05). A similar effect was seen for TNF-α, for which an increase at two days post-vaccination approached statistical significance (p=.06). There was considerable variability in magnitude of response; coefficients of variation for change at two days post-vaccination ranged from 122% to 728%, with the greatest variability in IL-6 responses at this timepoint.(emphasis mine)

They concluded:

As adverse perinatal health outcomes including preeclampsia and preterm birth have an inflammatory component, a tendency toward greater inflammatory responding to immune triggers may predict risk of adverse outcomes, providing insight into biological mechanisms underlying risk… further research is needed to confirm that the mild inflammatory response elicited by vaccination is benign in pregnancy.

This last paragraph is an admission that vaccines are interfering with the maternal immune system and likely changing the outcome of the pregnancy! The simple fact is the “experts” don’t know if vaccines are harming the baby’s brain.

The children in this study are now two to three years old. How about following up and seeing how many of them have autism or are delayed in reaching their developmental milestones?

If I were a mother in this vaccine trial, I would want to know if vaccine-induced inflammation could have had an effect on my child’s brain. The tragedy is even if there was evidence a vaccine harmed my child, current laws completely protect vaccine manufacturers and doctors from any liability.

This should be a huge red flag for you.

Conclusion

The message here isn’t necessarily that viruses and bacteria damage the fetus; it is the mother’s inflammatory response. It is well established that vaccines cause systemic inflammation, which could be harming your child’s brain.

Think about this. 1 in 50 children now have autism!

Doctors and nurses will give you a lot of lip service telling you vaccines are safe. They have a nasty habit of assuming everyone is of the exact same health status and genetic makeup.

The fact is, they have no way of knowing if injecting you with toxic vaccines will injure your child’s brain in the long term.

As a concerned parent, investigate the vaccine schedule right now. See how many vaccines your doctor plans to inject into your child. Check out what is in the vaccines. Lastly, make your decision based on information and not your doctor fearing you.

Jeffry John Aufderheide is the father of a child injured as a result of vaccination. As editor of VacTruth.com, he promotes well-educated health professionals, informed consent, and full disclosure and accountability of adverse reactions to vaccines.

Pesticide exposure linked to Lower Intelligence

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | MAY 1, 2012

A new study published on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that when pregnant women are exposed to moderate levels of a common pesticide knows as Chlorpyrifos or CPF, their children tend to experience changes in the structure of their brains. These changes, the study says, are long lasting and often result in lower levels of intelligence.

“Prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos (CPF), an organophosphate insecticide, is associated with neurobehavioral deficits in humans and animal models. We investigated associations between CPF exposure and brain morphology using magnetic resonance imaging in 40 children.”

The study published on Monday links exposure to this and other commonly used chemicals to the depletion of the brain. The chemicals which are widely used all over the world, but more specifically in agricultural areas, are usually in products like pesticides and commercial pest control brands. The study analyzed the exposure of pregnant women in New York City, who were particularly tested for CPF.

The number of women included in the study was 369 in total. The observations were done before 2001, when CPF was officially banned from US household use, although it continues to be used worldwide in agricultural products. During the investigation, researchers compared 20 children ages 5 to 11, with mothers that had been exposed to CPF. The findings concluded that there were significant abnormalities in brain structure when those 20 children were compared to others from mothers who had had low exposure.

All test subjects, the study says, were exposed to levels below the amounts established by US laws. This indicates that even in low amounts, the consequences of direct contact with CPF an similar chemicals can be devastating for both the mother and the child. The results are very meaningful harm to children brain development which in most cases impairs them from having a completely well-functioning brain. “The present study provides evidence that the prenatal period is a vulnerable time for the developing child,” warns Virginia Rauh, professor at the Mailman School of Public Health and Deputy Director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, who is also the lead investigator of the study.

“Toxic exposure during this critical period can have far-reaching effects on brain development and behavioral functioning,” she added. Experiments were aided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology to scan children’s brains. The scans show that parts of the brain are abnormally larger than usual and that some physical differences between male and female brain structured had changed after being exposed to high levels of CPF containing pesticides.

Although researchers recommend further study of the long-term effects of CPF in children, they have concluded that the images do show deficits in IQ which match those previously reported in children who have been exposed to chemicals like the ones being tested for in this experiment. “By combining brain imaging and community-based research, we now have much stronger evidence linking exposure to chlorpyrifos with neurodevelopmental problems,” said author Bradley Peterson, chief of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute.

Although the use of CPF was banned in 2001, the product continues to be used in food crops that may be imported to the US and other parts of the world, as well as wood, golf courses, parks, highways and so on. Although exposure is now much lower than before 2001, there still great potential for mothers who are pregnant to be exposed to CPF, even if they live far away from agricultural areas of the world. “In the past, high CPF exposure was associated with enlargement of superior temporal, posterior middle temporal, and inferior postcentral gyri bilaterally,                     and enlarged superior frontal gyrus, gyrus rectus, cuneus, and precuneus along the mesial wall of the right hemisphere,” say the authors.

Overall, the study conclusively shows clear associations between prenatal exposure to environmental neurotoxicant(s), at permitted levels and structural changes in the developing human brain.

Pseudoscience: Babies drugged in the Womb for Obesity

By JULIE -ANNE BARNES | MAIL ONLINE | APRIL 1, 2012

Babies are being medicated in the womb in an attempt to prevent them from being  born obese.

In a world first, dangerously overweight mothers-to-be in four British cities have started taking a diabetes drug during their pregnancy.

The doctors behind the controversial NHS trial say that obesity among pregnant women is reaching epidemic proportions and they need to act now to protect the health of tomorrow’s children.

However, there is likely to be unease about resorting to medication in pregnancy for a problem that can be treated through changes in diet and exercise.

If the strategy is a success, the treatment could be in widespread use in as little as five years, with tens of thousands of overweight but otherwise healthy mothers-to-be drugged each year.

The Daily Mail recently revealed the rise of the ‘sumo baby’, with the number of newborns weighing more than 11lb soaring by 50 per cent over the last four years.

More than 15 per cent of pregnant women are obese. This raises their odds of dying in pregnancy, of their baby being stillborn and of a host of pregnancy complications, some of which can be fatal.

Big babies are around twice as likely to grow into overweight adults, suggesting obesity and the lifetime of ill-health it can bring is ‘programmed’ in the womb. The trial involves 400 pregnant women in Liverpool, Coventry, Sheffield and Edinburgh.

They have started taking metformin, which has been safely used by diabetics for decades and is cleared for the treatment of diabetes in pregnancy. It costs just pence per tablet.

Read Full Article →

Pregnant Women Being Dosed with Chemotherapy

by Christina Luisa
NaturalNews.com
August 24, 2011

In the world of medicine, the toxicity of chemotherapy drugs is widely known. They make your hair fall out, after all, and that’s on top of the muscle wasting, vomiting and overall health deterioration that chemo drugs admittedly produce. But now the insanity has reached a new low with doctors routinely prescribing chemotherapy drugs to pregnant women!

When a woman becomes pregnant, she is told to avoid alcohol, caffeine, cigarettes, sushi and other conceivable risks to the fetus. Almost every single medication and supplement has warnings that pregnant women should consult a doctor before use.

The utmost of concern is taken to ensure the protection of the unborn child. So does it seem reasonable that researchers claim that exposing pregnant women to chemotherapy (a deadly treatment that kills living cells) does not APPEAR to affect the fetus?

Though still fairly rare (the rate of pregnancy associated cancer is about 1 in 1,000 pregnancies), the incidence of pregnancy associated breast cancer is quickly on the rise.

It is becoming more common that pregnant women with breast cancer or other forms of cancer are being treated with chemotherapy despite the potential danger this is to the life growing inside of them. Doctors have even told pregnant patients they will die within a short period of time if they don’t get chemotherapy, without informing them of more natural and safe options for treating their disease.

New data from researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center says that pregnant women treated for breast cancer supposedly do at least as well as non-pregnant women.

These results contradict earlier studies showing that outcomes were worse for pregnant women treated for breast cancer. Many doctors in the past have also recommended abortion, advising that chemotherapy could cause birth defects.

In a German study examining outcomes among 122 pregnant breast cancer patients, researchers concluded that pregnant patients can often be treated as aggressively as non-pregnant patients, with little evidence of ill effects to their babies.

These findings are said to prove that pregnant women who have breast cancer can be treated successfully without harming their babies. Abortion, the only other option that seems to be prevalently considered in cases of cancer during pregnancy is unnecessary.

Experts admit to being unsure about what is behind the new statistics but are apparently assuming the only important fact from the new research findings is the revelation that women treated while pregnant “do well.”

One more reason not to trust oncologists

Even if cancer is detected in early pregnancy, women are being advised that chemo is completely okay if it is put off until the second trimester, in order to minimize the risk of birth defects.

Studies have shown that the birth defect rate is as high as 20% when chemotherapy is given in the first trimester, but that this rate drops to around 1.3% when chemotherapy is given later in the pregnancy. This percentage is said to be on par with the national average.

Chemotherapy given after the first trimester “does not usually harm the fetus but may cause early labor and low birth weight.” Putting off chemo until the later trimesters is supposedly good reasoning because the first trimester is the most vulnerable period of a pregnancy, when vital organs are still forming.

However, what makes doctors and researchers think that this fact means the rest of the pregnancy does not also require extreme caution, especially when it comes to lethal drugs in large doses?

Pregnant patients are also recommended to receive the same drugs as non-pregnant patients in the same proportional doses according to weight. Chemotherapy treated patients usually get a combination of three drugs — fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide. However, it is clearly stated on Drugs.com that Doxorubicin can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.

This type of barbaric cancer treatment and the potent drug regimen during pregnancy carries the possibility of having disastrous effects in many cases. How could this amount and form of toxicity possibly not have some sort of significant harm on the vulnerable cells developing into a tiny human within a mother’s womb?

Instead of referring pregnant women to natural cancer treatments that are entirely safe for their unborn children, oncologists are pushing them toward the “cure-all” of the corrupt cancer industry chemo. This means more money for them, but what about the children that will likely suffer due to the powerfully toxic treatments they were exposed to while in their mothers womb?

Questionable (uncertain) claims

It is being claimed by researchers, scientists, and doctors that chemotherapy has supposedly no detrimental effect on the fetus and that there is no increased risk of congenital defects in children who are exposed to chemotherapy during pregnancy.

The reasoning used for this is that the placenta acts “as a filter” for most of the products researched and “protects the fetus against the damaging effects of chemotherapy.”

New research is stating that some medications barely penetrate the placenta, while in cases of other drugs the same concentration is found in both the mother and fetus. Does this sound like convincing enough evidence that the fetus is protected from the harmful effects of chemo?

An article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology also claims chemotherapy administered to pregnant women during second or third trimesters for the treatment of breast cancer APPEARS safe for both the fetus and mother.

In fact, many of the articles published on similar research studies on chemotherapy during pregnancy claim that the dangerous treatment APPEARS safe for unborn children. This wording certainly sounds confident and sound.

Although it has been clinically proven chemotherapy and radiation therapy can cause changes in germ cell DNA, most such changes are claimed to “not be viable, yielding only a slightly increased risk of birth defects.” Only a slightly increased risk? Really? Even a New York Times article clearly stated that “Contradictions abound about just how chemotherapy affects babies in utero.”

The same article mentions how the FDA has established 5 categories for the use of drugs during pregnancy, with category A the only unequivocally safe one. Most chemotherapeutic agents fall into category D, meaning there is clear evidence of risk to the fetus.

The study that started it all

In 1973, a senior researcher at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social in Mexico City named Dr. Agustin Aviles saw his first pregnant patient with leukemia. This woman became the catalyst for his revolutionary study on the effects of chemo while pregnant and the first of 84 patients who received chemotherapy during pregnancy between 1973 and 2003 (58 of them during the first trimester).

All 84 had acute leukemia, advanced Hodgkin’s or malignant lymphoma and were told by doctors that putting off chemotherapy for even a few days could kill both them and the unborn children in their wombs.

Among all 84 cases in his study, every fetus survived and 5.8% of them had birth defects — most of which were reported to be supposedly minor. In a follow-up study, Aviles examined 43 children born to mothers who received chemo from 1970 to 1986.

The children’s ages ranged from 3 to 19 at the time of his assessment and all were recorded to have normal physical, neurological and psychological development. Because of this study and other more recent ones, doctors have been telling patients they don’t have to make a choice between their lives and the life of their baby.

Although Aviles found that only 5.8 % of the babies of mothers who had undergone chemo in the first trimester were born with defects, other studies have found defects in the 14 to 19 % range when chemo is given in the first trimester. Even during the second and third trimesters, chemo is not risk free. Some studies clearly indicate that chemotherapy increases the risk of stillbirth, low birth weight and retardation.

Pregnant chemo patients are taking a potentially dangerous gamble

Most of the problems described in the babies exposed to chemotherapy in this minor study were said by a doctor to not be related to the treatment, but were “most probably due to other circumstances.” These circumstances were not specified, however.

Some of the problems recorded in the study included: alopecia, trisomia 18 (a chromosomal disorder which caused a baby to die one week after birth), necrotic enterocolitis (a severe bacterial infection of the intestine which caused a baby to die three weeks after birth), sepsis (blood infection), neutropenia (low white blood cell count) and anaemia. Few studies have followed the long-term development of children born to women who received chemotherapy during pregnancy.

Although growing numbers of doctors are recommending chemo as an option for pregnant women, many of these women are still refusing treatment unless they abort their fetus first. However, some women have stated that being pregnant increases their will to survive after being diagnosed.

This is a decision that clearly carries a lot of weight in many different ways, and the only person who should be responsible for deciding what is best for the baby is the mother carrying its life in her body.

Article that talks about risks of chemo during pregnancy: http://www.otispregnancy.org/files/…

Obama May Have Spent $10 Million On Illegal Kenya Abortion Push

Infowars.net

A U.S. Congressman investigating possibly illegal expenditure towards the promotion of abortion in Kenya says he has receivedinformation that indicates the Obama Administration may have funneled more than $10 million in taxpayer funds into the project.

Earlier this month Rep. Chris Smith (R, NJ) wrote to the State Department, calling for a federal probe to determine whether government spending in support of a pro-abortion constitution in Kenya contravened U.S. laws.

Smith, the top ranking Republican on the House Africa and Global Health Subcommittee, along with Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the Ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, outlined their concerns that the Obama Administration’s advocacy, along with a pledge to spend $2 million to build support for the proposed constitution, could constitute a serious violation of the Siljander Amendment and, as such, may be subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Antideficiency Act.

The Siljander Amendment, part of the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act reads, “None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion,” and “violations are subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341.”

Now Rep. Smith says investigators have provided him with fresh information:

“This week I learned that U.S. taxpayer expenditures in support of the proposed constitution may exceed $10 million—five times the level we original suspected,” Smith told the independent pro-life news website LifeNews.com.

“This massive spending will undoubtedly be directed to those entities that are pressing for ratification of the proposed constitution. Such support will further enable passage of a constitution that is opposed by many pro-life leaders in Kenya, because it enshrines new rights to abortion. As such, the funding is a clear violation of federal law against use of U.S. taxpayer funds to lobby for or against abortion,” Smith explained.

He added, “Learning of significant additional U.S. donations gives even more urgency to our request for thorough and objective investigations into all State Department and USAID funded activities related to Kenya’s proposed constitution. I hope that all investigative agencies will take our request seriously and act swiftly in this matter.”

Despite the fact that up to 300,000 abortions take place every year, the practice is not currently permitted in Kenya, except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk. The proposed new constitution, set to undergo a public referendum in August, would effectively legislate for unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason.

According to Human Life International (HLI) up to 20 foreign pro-abortion groups are currently spending money in the African country to gain public approval of the proposed constitution.

Last month, US Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger urged Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga to rally popular support for the constitution, and intimated that the Obama administration would help fund a national campaign in an effort to persuade the public to ratify the document.

Any official probe into U.S. government spending in Kenya is likely to point to one of Obama’s first acts in office, the issuance of an executive order lifting a ban on using taxpayer money to fund international “family planning” groups who counsel women and perform abortions around the world, but mainly in Africa.