(VI) Mothers suffering from toxic chemical exposure more likely to have autistic and ADHD children, research suggests (DM) / Proposal to stop using toxic mercury fillings on children, pregnant women shot down by feds
Mothers suffering from toxic chemical exposure more likely to have autistic and ADHD children, research suggests
(NaturalNews) The modern world is a chemical minefield, and a new study from The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio has found that chronic exposure to chemical pollutants can have a disastrous effect on the health of children. Mothers who are particularly sensitive to chemical exposure, it turns out, have a significantly higher risk than other mothers of bearing children with autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Researchers from the UT Health Science Center in San Antonio looked at several hundred mothers for their study, some of whom were acutely sensitive to chemicals and others who were not. They compared the health of these mothers’ children to one another using a qualitative patient assessment tool known as QEESI, or Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory, a 50-question survey used by physicians across the globe to assess and diagnose chemical intolerance.
Based on an inventory of 282 mothers of children with ASD (autism spectrum disorder), 258 mothers of children with ADHD, and 154 control mothers whose children had no developmental disorders, the team learned that the most chemically intolerant mothers had the highest likelihood of bearing children with developmental disorders.
Chemically-sensitive mothers were three times more likely to have a child with autism, in fact, and 2.3 times more likely to have a child with ADHD.
Engine exhaust, pesticides in food, vaccines, and more: a chemical holocaust against our children
Chemical intolerance, according to experts, affects anywhere between 10 and 30 percent of people currently living in the U.S. Though the types of chemicals to which these folks are extra sensitive are toxic to all people, those with a chemical intolerance diagnosis have trouble functioning normally when exposed to even minute levels of things like gasoline exhaust, paint fumes, and pesticides in food.
Their children are also affected, suffering both acute and chronic health problems when exposed to things like smoke, artificial fragrances, household cleaning solutions and food preservatives.
Chemicals in vaccines are another source of chemical exposure that, though not mentioned in the study, present at-risk children with an even higher risk.
“We are most concerned about how vulnerable the children with ADHD and autism were to environmental exposures,” stated Lynne P. Heilbrun, M.P.H., an autism research coordinator at UT Health Science Center’s Department of Family and Community Medicine, and primary author of the study about the findings.
“Mothers reported that their children were significantly more sensitive to everyday exposures such as engine exhaust, gasoline, smoke, fragrances and cleaners than their neurotypical peers.”
Chemical pollution causes ADHD and ASD children to suffer more than other children
Many of these sources of chemical exposure are also triggers responsible for causing ADHD and ASD in the first place. Chemically-sensitive mothers exposed to these chemicals during pregnancy appear to transfer this toxicity to their children, who are then assaulted by vaccines as part of a larger framework of chemical violence against humans.
The result is that these chemically-damaged children end up suffering more than other children, as illustrated by the study. Here’s what else the researchers, publishing their findings in The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, found concerning developmentally challenged children born to chemically-sensitive mothers:
The children with ADHD were 1.7 times more likely than control children (ASD were 4.9 times more likely) to have had multiple infections requiring prolonged use of antibiotics.
Children with ADHD were twice as likely as control children (ASD were 1.6 times more likely) to have allergies.
Children with ADHD were twice as likely (ASD were 3.5 times more likely) to have had nausea, headaches, dizziness or trouble breathing when exposed to smoke, nail polish remover, engine exhaust, gasoline, air fresheners or cleaning agents than control children.
Children with ADHD were twice as likely as controls (ASD were 4.8 times more likely) to have strong food preferences or cravings for cheese, chips, bread, pasta, rice, sugar, salt and chocolate.
Proposal to stop using toxic mercury fillings on children, pregnant women shot down by feds
(NaturalNews) It recently went public that the Obama administration, through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), shut down a proposal that would have protected pregnant women and young children from mercury poisoning when going to the dentist.
Top officials within the regime reportedly shut down a proposal by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that would have instructed oral health doctors to stop using mercury fillings to treat cavities in pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under age six, and anyone with kidney disease, neurological problems, and/or a sensitivity to mercury exposure.
The proposal came about after several dental patients speaking at a town hall meeting in San Francisco back in 2011 explained how severe health problems from which they were suffering disappeared after they had their mercury amalgam fillings removed.
The FDA responded by coming up with a plan that Center for Devices and Radiological Health Jeffrey Shuren stated, at the time, would result in policy changes within the next year. But the FDA’s proposal was quietly trashed by HHS, which refuses to acknowledge the dangers of amalgam fillings.
“Mercury is one of the most poisonous substances known to mankind,” stated holistic physician Dr. David Brownstein, M.D., to Newsmax Health. “It is a potent neurotoxin and is associated with numerous neurological and immune system problems.”
“The only reason the government stopped the proposal is because of money. It’s cheaper to put mercury fillings in someone’s mouth than non-mercury fillings.”
Obama opposes mercury in coal plant pollution, but sees nothing wrong with mercury in fillings and vaccines
Because resin composite fillings tend to cost more than mercury-based fillings, Dr. Brownstein says composites cost about $100 more per tooth, the government may just be looking out for its bottom line.
After all, eliminating amalgam fillings as an option would result in major cost increases for Medicare and Medicaid.
(If this is the case then it just shows the stupidity of this administration. In the long run it will cost more, as the toxic mercury will lead to host of other diseases later in life, raising health cost even more. –MrT.)
But the Obama regime remains outspoken about the dangers of mercury from other sources, including coal power plants that produce mercury during combustion. Why, then, does it remain silent about mercury in people’s mouths, or in childhood vaccines?
“President Obama wants to cut emissions from coal-fired power plants because they emit mercury,” says Dr. Brownstein. “But then he says it’s okay to have mercury installed in our mouths.”
“But the two most common sources of mercury in the human body come from dental fillings containing mercury, and vaccines, and the government allows both of them. The government’s priorities are totally misguided. There’s no excuse that mercury fillings are still allowed to be used.”
Flu vaccines, by the way, contain as much as 25,000 times the maximum legal limit of mercury for drinking water, as we uncovered here at the Natural News Forensic Food lab last year. And yet there hasn’t been a peep from the Obama administration about developing safe flu shots that don’t pose a mercury risk to young children and pregnant mothers.
As for the coal-fired power plants, the Supreme Court on June 29 blocked the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate mercury emissions. The court ruled, following challenges from some 20 U.S. states, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to take into account how the restrictions would “punish” producers and consumers of energy with higher costs.
“It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia.