Study: 95 Percent of Baby Foods Have Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ

Human society is really in that bad of shape, where defenseless and innocent babies are exposed to toxic food that harms them.

A new study finds 95 percent of tested baby foods contain toxic chemicals that lower babies’ IQ, including arsenic and lead.

What it means for babies’ health: The chemicals found in baby food arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury are neurotoxins that can permanently alter the developing brain, erode IQ, and affect behavior.

Why baby foods contain these toxic heavy metals: These four harmful metals are found in all food not just baby food. They occur naturally or from pollution in the environment. Crops absorb them from soil and water, and they are even found in organic food. Their presence in baby food raises unique concern, because babies are more sensitive to the toxic impacts.

Link to the full study: https://www.healthybabyfood.org/sites/healthybabyfoods.org/files/2019-10/BabyFoodReport_FULLREPORT_ENGLISH_R5b.pdf

Dangers of Vaping: It Can Cause Real Harm

Vaping comes with serious risks to one’s health — it isn’t always the harmless activity that many think it is. A significant part of today’s youth are now addicted to nicotine, and it’s in the news more and more what some of the terrible problems heavy vaping users have had. There are people now facing permanent damage to their lungs as a result of vaping. By comparison, smoking cigarettes is of course terrible for one’s health as well, and more studies need to be done on vaping, but people at least need to see much more that vaping can cause major health problems. The reason so many teens are addicted today is because they view vaping as safe when it really isn’t that safe of an activity.

Anthony Mayo, 19, fell seriously ill last week in Erie, Pennsylvania and he was unable to breathe on his own because his lungs had became severely congested with solidified vape oil.

Anthony’s father, ieth Mayo, told Metro US that doctors warned him ‘right now, at the age of 19, (Anthony’s) got the lungs of a 60-year-old, two-pack-a-day, smoker.’ The teen’s lungs are likely to be scarred for life, according to his doctor.

Keith said his son had been vaping for approximately two years and had tried flavored oils such as blue raspberry, Swedish fish, cotton candy, cinnamon toast crunch, among others. He also vaped THC on occasion, which is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

‘It’s solidified. It’s caking everything inside of his lungs,’ Keith said.

[…]

Anthony is now recovering at Millcreek Community Hospital where doctors put him on 100% oxygen to allow him to breathe and help him expel some of the oil.

‘And then they heat (the oxygen mixture) and put a little moisture in it, so it will go in there and liquefy some of that stuff (caked oil) and encourage him to cough it up…the first couple days he has been coughing and it was blood-tinged, now it’s just brown, dark dark green,’ Keith said.

‘He is going to have some scarring. Whether it’s profound, we don’t know yet. It’s a wait and see type of thing. He’s young, he’s 19, so he can recover from this.’

Keith said his son vaped two to three times a day outside their home, but said he did not realize how detrimental vaping could be to his son’s lungs.

‘His whole spin on it was it was cool and not that bad for you. I was just as guilty. I went along with it. I never got into it, but I didn’t also prevent it either,’ he said, adding that he believes vape companies are targeting young people like his son.

‘The flavors that they’re coming out with…It’s not for your construction worker who can’t afford to light up at a building that they’re working, or the executive who is walking to a meeting smoking a cigarette. No, these flavors are all targeting kids or young adults.’

Anthony’s condition is the first recorded instance of its kind in Pennsylvania, Keith said, however it appears similar to a Texas woman who was just officially diagnosed with acute respiratory distress syndrome, a rapidly progressive disease in which fluid leaks into the lungs making it difficult or impossible to breathe.

The Mayos’ situation come as both state and federal governments have begun to crack down on flavored e-cigarettes and vape oil.

New York became the first state to ban flavored e-cigarettes on Tuesday. Last week, President Donald Trump revealed plans to enact a similar ban on a federal level, as the CDC announced there are now 530 confirmed cases of lung injury associated with vaping on Thursday.

Vaping shot to popularity after being marketed as a healthier way of getting a nicotine hit than traditional cigarettes.

Secondhand vaping exposure also presents a danger, and here’s another article:

Adam Hergenreder started vaping about two years ago at age 16. The mint and mango flavors were his favorites.

Now Hergenreder, of Gurnee, is hospitalized and unable to breathe without a steady flow of oxygen through tubes affixed to his nostrils. Doctors have told the 18-year-old that images of his lungs from a chest X-ray look like those of a man in his 70s. His lungs may never be the same again, and vaping is likely to blame.

Hergenreder said he started off using nicotine vapes and bought them in convenience stores, even though he was underage. But last year he also began buying THC-filled devices, called dab sticks, off the street. These products are often altered by those who sell them illegally. Those in the vaping industry have blamed homemade, illegal devices for the recent rash of hospitalizations, though public health experts have said they can’t confirm that.
[…]
Even before the hospitalizations, physicians and addiction experts warned of the danger of vapes, or e-cigarettes, popular among young people. Besides the addictive properties of nicotine, they also contain chemicals used for flavoring that can cause harm to the lungs.

Hergenreder said he and his peers heard the warnings from teachers and parents, but didn’t believe “how dangerous it is.” He continued to vape — up to one and a half pods a day.

 

“People just see that little (vape) pod and think, how could that do anything to my body?” Hergenreder said Tuesday from his hospital bed at Advocate Condell Medical Center in Libertyville, where his mother took him late Saturday after he spent days throwing up violently. “I’m glad I could be an example and show people that (vaping products) aren’t good at all. They will mess up your lungs.”

[…]

The family said they want to share their story in hopes that others will stay away from e-cigarettes, which experts say are appealing to teens because the slim, rectangular devices are easy to hide and don’t have the smell of traditional tobacco cigarettes. The devices heat up a pod filled with a flavored liquid that can contain nicotine or THC, which creates an aerosol to inhale.

“I feel stupid,” Adam Hergenreder said. “I want other people to stop (vaping). It’s going to attack your lungs.”

Broken Bonds and World Economies

The current world is one in which lenders are actually paying large amounts of people to borrow money from them. On first glance this use of negative interest rates sounds like a terrific thing — debt caused by high interest rates remains a crushing force and notable source of human suffering. Upon closer look, however, the reason that lenders are actually paying people to borrow their money for a return is due to economic weakness and some pessimistic expectations that it’ll continue into the future. It is in some sense a major anticipation of a bleak future, and it’s related to what’s known as an inverted yield curve, a term that’s being used much more frequently in the news these days.

An inverted yield curve basically means that a long-term return (yield) on a bond is less than the short-term return. (This turns the supposed logic of the system on its head since we’d naturally expect someone who puts their money away for a longer period of time to be rewarded more.) It has long been a signal that a recession is coming, although the annual revision to the monthly jobs data by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has historically tended to be a more reliable indicator of recession or economic weakness, and many news outlets don’t mention that historically an inverted yield curve has preceded a recession by about 22 months.

A recession is what many people rightfully understand as bad or at least not so good economic times, but the more technical definition is at least two consecutive quarters where the economy contracts rather than grows. More sensibly, a recession is a lack of demand (where demand is people’s ability to purchase goods and services), and the sensible governmental officials among us have for decades understood this and how to escape or mitigate recessions. It’s simple enough — if a recession is a lack of demand, demand must be boosted, such as through increasing government spending and/or cutting taxes. This creates more ability for people to make purchases, which has a positive effect on important economic indicators such as employment.

Accompanying the inverted yield curves of today is negative interest rates, something that has gone from — in the words of one commentator — a curiosity to a market mainstay. As even university business professors are admitting, this is a sign of something seriously wrong with the economies of the world. They are basically dysfunctional in some sense and seriously flawed to create such a structure. To keep economies moving along decently, interest rates now often have to be negative to keep enough money flowing in the system (in people’s pockets) and demand at somewhat acceptable levels. High interest rates are of course a problem for the burden they tend to cause the vast majority of people, but negative interest rates are an indication that the economies of the world have very fundamental problems.

The market structures of many world economies has been deliberately structured in ways that benefit the upper class at the expense of everyone else. The propaganda is regularly that inequality was caused by a natural outcome of the market, but that is the opposite of the truth. Policies such as rules on copyrights and patents aren’t the free market at work — they’re government intervention, aka structuring of the market. It is simple enough to prove in example after example how the markets were rigged to redistribute income upward and create unjust outcomes. Patents on goods such as prescription drugs increase their prices significantly, which takes too much money from the pockets of many people and redistributes it to the the upper class people who own stock in pharmaceutical companies. There is an immense barrier to entry for foreign doctors in the U.S. (one has to complete a U.S. residency program to practice medicine there), which pushes the wages of U.S. doctors to twice what doctors make in other countries and adds up to over $500 per family annually (while there is a shortage of doctors). Public pension funds in the U.S. have been structured to provide too many fees to high class managers. The list goes on — there are lots of ways that markets were deliberately structured against the benefit of the majority of the population.

What happens when too much money flows to the top is that the upper class — the now famous 1 percent — tend to spend much less of it as a percentage than the average person would. Saving money is to a significant extent a virtue, but what happens when the 1 percent (who spend less as a percentage of their income than working-class people) don’t spend all that money is that much of the money then sits idly, not purchasing goods or services and therefore not creating jobs. There is less demand in the economy this way, and the 1 percent benefiting from a market rigged in their favor means less money for everyone else to spend, and it of course creates the curious to mainstay phenomena such as negative interest rates.

It’s becoming more well-known all the time that the system isn’t right, and there are those that argue to reform it and those who argue that fundamental change is needed. The lack of real democracy in the economic system is an interesting note for countries such as the United States that supposedly value democracy so much. The economy is valuable to discuss in politics because it is fundamental and covers much of life, and its current indicators are revealing that it needs change that’s truly fundamental.

The Regressive Austerity Arguments of the Washington Post

Austerity is where governments refuse to pursue policies that boost consumer demand. Austerity really has hurt a lot of people and there’s even evidence that the poverty it caused has ruined millions of lives.

Last week the Washington Post ran a column by Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, one of the many pro-austerity organizations that received generous funding from the late Peter Peterson. The immediate target of the column was the standoff over the debt ceiling, but the usual complaints about debt and deficits were right up front in the first two paragraphs.

“At the same time, the federal debt as a share of the economy is the highest it has ever been other than just after World War II. ….”

“So our plan is to borrow a jaw-dropping roughly $900 billion in each of those years — much of it from foreign countries — without a strategy or even an acknowledgment of the choices being made because no one wants to be held accountable.”

This passes for wisdom at the Washington Post, but it is actually dangerously wrong-headed thinking that rich people (like the owner of the Washington Post) use their power to endlessly barrage the public with.

The basic story of the twelve years since the collapse of the housing bubble is that the U.S. economy has suffered from a lack of demand. We need actors in the economy to spend more money. The lack of spending over this period has cost us trillions of dollars in lost output.

This should not just be an abstraction. Millions of people who wanted jobs in the decade from 2008 to 2018 did not have them because the Washington Post and its clique of “responsible” budget types joined in calls for austerity. This meant millions of families took a whack to their income, throwing some into poverty, leading many to lose houses, and some to become homeless.

At this point, the evidence from the harm from austerity in the United States (it’s worse in Europe) is overwhelming, but just like the Pravda in the days of the Soviet Union, we never see the Washington Post, or most other major news outlets, acknowledge the horrible cost of unnecessary austerity. We just get more of the same, as though the paper is hoping its readers will simply ignore the damage done by austerity.

And it is not just an occasion column from a Peter Peterson funded group, the Post’s regular economic columnist, Robert Samuelson, routinely complains about budget deficits, as do the Post editorial writers. We get the same story in the news section as well, for example, this piece last week telling us about the need to “fix” the budget. The Post is effectively implying that a lower budget deficit, which results in lower output and higher unemployment is “fixed.”

If the Post cared about the logic of its argument, instead of just repeating platitudes about the evils of budget deficits, it should quickly recognize that its push for austerity makes no economic sense. The argument of the evils of a budget deficit is that it is supposed to lead to high interest rates and crowd out investment.

That leaves the economy poorer in the future, since less investment leads to less productivity growth, so the economy will be able to produce fewer goods and services in future years. (The implicit assumption is that the economy is near its full employment level of output so that efforts by the Fed to keep interest rates down by printing money would lead to inflation.)

The nice part of this story is that there is a clear prediction which we can examine; high budget deficits lead to high interest rates. Or, if the Fed is asleep on the job, high budget deficits will lead to high inflation.

The interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds at the end of last week was just over 2.0 percent. That is incredibly low by historic standards and far lower than the rates of over 5.0 percent that we saw when the government was running a surplus in the late 1990s. The inflation rate is hovering near 2.0 percent and has actually been trending slightly downward in recent months. So where is the bad story of the budget deficit?

In the classic deficit crowding out investment story, if we cut the budget deficit, investment rises to replace any lost demand associated with lower government spending or higher taxes. We can also see some increased consumption, mostly due to mortgage refinancing, and some increase in net exports due to a lower valued dollar.

But what area of spending does the Washington Post and its gang of deficit hawks think will fill the gap if it could find politicians willing to carry through the austerity it continually demands? It shouldn’t be too much to ask a newspaper that endlessly harps on the need for lower deficits to have a remotely coherent story on how lower deficits could help the economy.

There is also the burden on our children story that the Peter Peterson gang and the Post likes to harangue readers with. Our children will inherit this horrible $20 trillion debt that they will have to pay off over their lifetimes.

This story makes even less sense than the crowding out story. The burden of the debt is measured by the interest paid to bondholders, which is actually at a historically low level relative to GDP. It’s around 1.5 percent, after we subtract the interest rebated by the Fed to the Treasury. It had been over 3.0 percent of GDP in the early and mid-1990s.

And, even this is not a generational burden. It is a payment within generations from taxpayers as a whole to the people who own bonds, who are disproportionately wealthy. Much of this money is recaptured with progressive income taxes. More could be captured with more progressive taxes.

But this is actually the less important issue with this sort of accounting. Direct government spending is only one way the government pays for things. It also provides patent and copyright monopolies to provide incentives for innovation and creative work. These are alternatives to direct government payments.

To be specific, if the government wants Pfizer to do research developing new drugs, it can pay the company $5-$10 billion a year to do research developing new drugs. Alternatively, it can tell Pfizer that it will give it a patent monopoly on the drugs its develops and arrest anyone who tries to compete with it.

Generally, the government takes the latter route with innovation. This can lead to a situation where Pfizer is charging prices that are tens of billions of dollars above the free market price. This monopoly price is equivalent to a privately imposed tax that the government has authorized the company to collect.

Anyone seriously interested in calculating the future burdens created by the government would have to include the rents from patent and copyright monopolies, which run into the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and possibly more than $1 trillion. (They are close to $400 billion with prescription drugs alone.) The fact that the deficit hawks never mention the cost of patent and copyright monopolies, shows their lack of seriousness. They are pushing propaganda, not serious analysis.

Research: Junk TV Can Make People Less Intelligent

Perhaps it’s similar to junk food, where it can worsen people’s physical condition.

A raft of new research shows that watching junky cable and other lowbrow TV is actually making people dumber — literally lowering their IQs.

In research published in the American Economic Review this month, Italian researchers showed that people with greater access to former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s trashy entertainment TV network, Mediaset, in the 1980s were much more likely to vote for Berlusconi later in later elections. Furthermore, people with greater exposure to Mediaset as children were “less cognitively sophisticated and civic-minded as adults, and ultimately more vulnerable to Berlusconi’s populist rhetoric.”

From the American Economic Association’s writeup of the research:

In 1980, Berlusconi was an up-and-coming media entrepreneur hoping to fill a void in the television market, which was dominated by a state-owned network driven by an educational mission. Catering to a growing middle class eager to spend on entertainment, Berlusconi spent the decade rolling out Mediaset to new markets throughout the country.

At the time, Mediaset’s programming did not suggest that he was using it as a propaganda tool for political gain. Nearly all the shows were shallow, critically poorly received, and purely for fun with no educational value. Mediaset did not have a news show component until 1990. Yet, the authors found very real effects of their influence on viewers’ political sympathies.

“The language codes that were popularized by TV also made people much more susceptible to the populist party because they used very simple language,” Ruben Durante, one of the paper’s coauthors, said. “They used accessible language. And that can potentially be very powerful.”

Andrea Tesei, another coauthor, spoke to The Washington Post’s Nikita Lalwani about some of the findings.

Lalwani: You show that exposure to entertainment TV most affected the voting behavior of the very young and the very old. Were they affected in the same way?

Tesei: For the elderly, the effect was happening through habit formation. They were hooked by the kind of television that Berlusconi showed — the salacious shows and sports. They were then much more likely to watch news shows on Mediaset when those shows were introduced universally in the ’90s. And we know that news on Mediaset was slanted toward Berlusconi.

Unlike the elderly, kids were not more likely to watch news on Mediaset later on — there was no habit formation. What was happening was that kids who were introduced to Mediaset in the 1980s were much more likely to grow up socially and civically disengaged, and even more, they appear to be more cognitively shallow compared to their peers, who grew up without this entertainment diet. We were able to show that kids who grew up in Mediaset-exposed areas performed significantly worse on standardized exams taken in adulthood.

The results also applied to another Italian populist politician, Beppe Grillo and his Five Star Movement, that was not as ideologically right-wing as Berlusconi. “The fact that our results apply not just to Berlusconi but also to the Five Star Movement suggests that there is perhaps a more general message,” Tesei said. “Less civically minded voters may be more vulnerable to populistic rhetoric.”

Two Hours of Nature a Week is Key for Well-Being and Health

A new reason for wanting to preserve natural environments. There are many people today that are struggling with too much stress and health problems, and some good doctors have started prescribing time in nature because the evidence more and more shows its effectiveness.

Spending at least two hours a week in nature may be a crucial threshold for promoting health and wellbeing, according to a new large-scale study.

Research led by the University of Exeter, published in Scientific Reports and funded by NIHR, found that people who spend at least 120 minutes in nature a week are significantly more likely to report good health and higher psychological wellbeing than those who don’t visit nature at all during an average week. However, no such benefits were found for people who visited natural settings such as town parks, woodlands, country parks and beaches for less than 120 minutes a week.

The study used data from nearly 20,000 people in England and found that it didn’t matter whether the 120 minutes was achieved in a single visit or over several shorter visits. It also found the 120 minute threshold applied to both men and women, to older and younger adults, across different occupational and ethnic groups, among those living in both rich and poor areas, and even among people with long term illnesses or disabilities.

Dr Mat White, of the University of Exeter Medical School, who led the study, said: “It’s well known that getting outdoors in nature can be good for people’s health and wellbeing but until now we’ve not been able to say how much is enough. The majority of nature visits in this research took place within just two miles of home so even visiting local urban greenspaces seems to be a good thing. Two hours a week is hopefully a realistic target for many people, especially given that it can be spread over an entire week to get the benefit.”

There is growing evidence that merely living in a greener neighbourhood can be good for health, for instance by reducing air pollution. The data for the current research came from Natural England’s Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey, the world’s largest study collecting data on people’s weekly contact with the natural world.

Co-author of the research, Professor Terry Hartig of Uppsala University in Sweden said: “There are many reasons why spending time in nature may be good for health and wellbeing, including getting perspective on life circumstances, reducing stress, and enjoying quality time with friends and family. The current findings offer valuable support to health practitioners in making recommendations about spending time in nature to promote basic health and wellbeing, similar to guidelines for weekly physical.”

Perseverance for Goals Can Help Fight Mental Health Problems, 18-Year Study Finds

Good new research on treating mental health problems without the use of drugs is out.

People who don’t give up on their goals (or who get better over time at not giving up on their goals) and who have a positive outlook appear to have less anxiety and depression and fewer panic attacks, according to a study of thousands of Americans over the course of 18 years. Surprisingly, a sense of control did not have an effect on the mental health of participants across time.

The study was published by the American Psychological Association in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

“Perseverance cultivates a sense of purposefulness that can create resilience against or decrease current levels of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder,” said Nur Hani Zainal, MS, from The Pennsylvania State University and lead author of the study. “Looking on the bright side of unfortunate events has the same effect because people feel that life is meaningful, understandable and manageable.”

Depression, anxiety and panic disorders are common mental health disorders that can be chronic and debilitating and put a person’s physical health and livelihood at risk, according to Zainal and her co-author, Michelle G. Newman, PhD, also of The Pennsylvania State University.

“Often, people with these disorders are stuck in a cycle of negative thought patterns and behaviors that can make them feel worse,” said Newman. “We wanted to understand what specific coping strategies would be helpful in reducing rates of depression, anxiety and panic attacks.”

Zainal and Newman used data from 3,294 adults who were studied over 18 years. The average age of participants was 45, nearly all were white and slightly fewer than half were college-educated. Data were collected three times, in 1995 to 1996, 2004 to 2005 and 2012 to 2013. At each interval, participants were asked to rate their goal persistence (e.g., “When I encounter problems, I don’t give up until I solve them”), self-mastery (e.g., “I can do just anything I really set my mind to”) and positive reappraisal (e.g., “I can find something positive, even in the worst situations”). Diagnoses for major depressive, anxiety and panic disorders were also collected at each interval.

People who showed more goal persistence and optimism during the first assessment in the mid-1990s had greater reductions in depression, anxiety and panic disorders across the 18 years, according to the authors.

And throughout those years, people who began with fewer mental health problems showed more increased perseverance toward life goals and were better at focusing on the positive side of unfortunate events, said Zainal.

“Our findings suggest that people can improve their mental health by raising or maintaining high levels of tenacity, resilience and optimism,” she said. “Aspiring toward personal and career goals can make people feel like their lives have meaning. On the other hand, disengaging from striving toward those aims or having a cynical attitude can have high mental health costs.”

Unlike in previous research, Zainal and Newman did not find that self-mastery, or feeling in control of one’s fate, had an effect on the mental health of participants across the 18-year period.

“This could have been because the participants, on average, did not show any changes in their use of self-mastery over time,” said Newman. “It is possible that self-mastery is a relatively stable part of a person’s character that does not easily change.”

The authors believe their findings will be beneficial for psychotherapists working with clients dealing with depression, anxiety and panic disorders.

“Clinicians can help their clients understand the vicious cycle caused by giving up on professional and personal aspirations. Giving up may offer temporary emotional relief but can increase the risk of setbacks as regret and disappointment set in,” said Zainal. “Boosting a patient’s optimism and resilience by committing to specific courses of actions to make dreams come to full fruition despite obstacles can generate more positive moods and a sense of purpose.”