As advances continue in the realm of mobile devices and wearable gadgets, we always come back to the same handful of barriers that impede progress. Chief among them, of course, is battery technology. Component makers spend millions on research and development in an effort to make the most power-efficient parts possible, but the majority of smartphones still only last a day at most per charge. Where wearables are concerned, these tiny devices come in a wide range of flexible shapes that often severely limit vendors’ options when it comes to battery size and placement.
Battery technology has never been able to keep pace with other components, but a new breakthrough unveiled this week by Samsung could represent one of the most important advancements in mobile battery tech we’ve seen in quite some time.
Samsung is known most widely by consumers as a smartphone maker. The company’s Galaxy brand Android phones helped propel Samsung to the top of the industry where shipment volume is concerned, and Samsung is still the world’s No. 1 phone vendor despite recent struggles.
But the South Korean electronics giant is much more than just a phone maker. Samsung has a number of other high-profile businesses, and components may be chief among them. In fact, Samsung bucked a seven-quarter earnings slide in the third quarter this year thanks largely to its component business, which counts Apple among its largest customers.
Samsung makes a portion of the new A9 chipsets that power Apple’s iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus, and the company also manufactures a wide range of other components, including batteries. This past week at the annual InterBattery 2015 expo in Seoul, South Korea, Samsung showed off two new batteries that represent major steps forward in battery tech for mobile devices.
Dubbed “Stripe” and “Band,” these new Samsung batteries are thin and flexible, allowing them to fit into spaces and components that could otherwise not house a battery.
The new batteries are still in the prototype phase, but testing appears to be going quite well. According to Samsung, its new battery tech has the potential to increase battery life in some mobile devices by as much as 50%. Also of note, these new flexible batteries were able to withstand 50,000 bends during Samsung’s tests, suggesting durability will not be a concern.
Samsung’s Band battery is designed to be housed in the flexible band of a smartwatch or fitness tracker, though its applications could certainly extend beyond those categories. Meanwhile, the Stripe battery can “bend and conform freely as a fiber and is equipped with innovative energy density,” according to Samsung.
The company continued, “Since it is adaptable to various forms – such as a necklace, hairband, t-shirt accessories, and more – it will in result fuel the growth of battery application market including wearables.”
Nikola Tesla is finally beginning to attract real attention and encourage serious debate more than 70 years after his death.
Was he for real? A crackpot? Part of an early experiment in corporate-government control?
We know that he was undoubtedly persecuted by the energy power brokers of his day — namely Thomas Edison, whom we are taught in school to revere as a genius. He was also attacked by J.P. Morgan and other “captains of industry.” Upon Tesla’s death on January 7th, 1943, the U.S. government moved into his lab and apartment confiscating all of his scientific research, some of which has been released by the FBI through the Freedom of Information Act. (I’ve embedded the first 250 pages below and have added a link to the .pdf of the final pages, 290 in total).
Besides his persecution by corporate-government interests (which is practically a certification of authenticity), there is at least one solid indication of Nikola Tesla’s integrity — he tore up a contract with Westinghouse that was worth billions in order to save the company from paying him his huge royalty payments.
But, let’s take a look at what Nikola Tesla — a man who died broke and alone — has actually given to the world. For better or worse, with credit or without, he changed the face of the planet in ways that perhaps no man ever has.
1. Alternating Current — This is where it all began, and what ultimately caused such a stir at the 1893 World’s Expo in Chicago. A war was leveled ever-after between the vision of Edison and the vision of Tesla for how electricity would be produced and distributed. The division can be summarized as one of cost and safety: The DC current that Edison (backed by General Electric) had been working on was costly over long distances, and produced dangerous sparking from the required converter (called a commutator). Regardless, Edison and his backers utilized the general “dangers” of electric current to instill fear in Tesla’s alternative: Alternating Current. As proof, Edison sometimes electrocuted animals at demonstrations. Consequently, Edison gave the world the electric chair, while simultaneously maligning Tesla’s attempt to offer safety at a lower cost. Tesla responded by demonstrating that AC was perfectly safe by famously shooting current through his own body to produce light. This Edison-Tesla (GE-Westinghouse) feud in 1893 was the culmination of over a decade of shady business deals, stolen ideas, and patent suppression that Edison and his moneyed interests wielded over Tesla’s inventions. Yet, despite it all, it is Tesla’s system that provides power generation and distribution to North America in our modern era.
2. Light — Of course he didn’t invent light itself, but he did invent how light can be harnessed and distributed. Tesla developed and used fluorescent bulbs in his lab some 40 years before industry “invented” them. At the World’s Fair, Tesla took glass tubes and bent them into famous scientists’ names, in effect creating the first neon signs. However, it is his Tesla Coil that might be the most impressive, and controversial. The Tesla Coil is certainly something that big industry would have liked to suppress: the concept that the Earth itself is a magnet that can generate electricity (electromagnetism) utilizing frequencies as a transmitter. All that is needed on the other end is the receiver — much like a radio.
3. X-rays — Electromagnetic and ionizing radiation was heavily researched in the late 1800s, but Tesla researched the entire gamut. Everything from a precursor to Kirlian photography, which has the ability to document life force, to what we now use in medical diagnostics, this was a transformative invention of which Tesla played a central role. X-rays, like so many of Tesla’s contributions, stemmed from his belief that everything we need to understand the universe is virtually around us at all times, but we need to use our minds to develop real-world devices to augment our innate perception of existence.
4. Radio — Guglielmo Marconi was initially credited, and most believe him to be the inventor of radio to this day. However, the Supreme Court overturned Marconi’s patent in 1943, when it was proven that Tesla invented the radio years previous to Marconi. Radio signals are just another frequency that needs a transmitter and receiver, which Tesla also demonstrated in 1893 during a presentation before The National Electric Light Association. In 1897 Tesla applied for two patents US 645576, and US 649621. In 1904, however, The U.S. Patent Office reversed its decision, awarding Marconi a patent for the invention of radio, possibly influenced by Marconi’s financial backers in the States, who included Thomas Edison and Andrew Carnegie. This also allowed the U.S. government (among others) to avoid having to pay the royalties that were being claimed by Tesla.
5. Remote Control — This invention was a natural outcropping of radio. Patent No. 613809 was the first remote controlled model boat, demonstrated in 1898. Utilizing several large batteries; radio signals controlled switches, which then energized the boat’s propeller, rudder, and scaled-down running lights. While this exact technology was not widely used for some time, we now can see the power that was appropriated by the military in its pursuit of remote controlled war. Radio controlled tanks were introduced by the Germans in WWII, and developments in this realm have since slid quickly away from the direction of human freedom.
6. Electric Motor — Tesla’s invention of the electric motor has finally been popularized by a carbrandishing his name. While the technical specifications are beyond the scope of this summary, suffice to say that Tesla’s invention of a motor with rotating magnetic fields could have freed mankind much sooner from the stranglehold of Big Oil. However, his invention in 1930 succumbed to the economic crisis and the world war that followed. Nevertheless, this invention has fundamentally changed the landscape of what we now take for granted: industrial fans, household applicances, water pumps, machine tools, power tools, disk drives, electric wristwatches and compressors.
8. Laser — Tesla’s invention of the laser may be one of the best examples of the good and evil bound up together within the mind of man. Lasers have transformed surgical applications in an undeniably beneficial way, and they have given rise to much of our current digital media. However, with this leap in innovation we have also crossed into the land of science fiction. From Reagan’s “Star Wars” laser defense system to today’s Orwellian “non-lethal” weapons’ arsenal, which includes laser rifles and directed energy “death rays,” there is great potential for development in both directions.
9 and 10. Wireless Communications and Limitless Free Energy — These two are inextricably linked, as they were the last straw for the power elite — what good is energy if it can’t be metered and controlled? Free? Never. J.P. Morgan backed Tesla with $150,000 to build a tower that would use the natural frequencies of our universe to transmit data, including a wide range of information communicated through images, voice messages, and text. This represented the world’s first wireless communications, but it also meant that aside from the cost of the tower itself, the universe was filled with free energy that could be utilized to form a world wide web connecting all people in all places, as well as allow people to harness the free energy around them. Essentially, the 0’s and 1’s of the universe are embedded in the fabric of existence for each of us to access as needed. Nikola Tesla was dedicated to empowering the individual to receive and transmit this data virtually free of charge. But we know the ending to that story . . . until now?
Tesla had perhaps thousands of other ideas and inventions that remain unreleased. A look at hishundreds of patents shows a glimpse of the scope he intended to offer. If you feel that the additional technical and scientific research of Nikola Tesla should be revealed for public scrutiny and discussion, instead of suppressed by big industry and even our supposed institutions of higher education, join the world’s call to tell power brokers everywhere that we are ready to Occupy Energy and learn about what our universe really has to offer.
The release of Nikola Tesla’s technical and scientific research — specifically his research into harnessing electricity from the ionosphere at a facility called Wardenclyffe — is a necessary step toward true freedom of information. Please add your voice by sharing this information with as many people as possible.
It’s long been suspected that the underwear men use and the positions they hold their bodies in can affect sperm quality, and now new research has backed up the notion that men should be free and unfettered in the interest of having children.
According to a recent study, men who wore boxer shorts during the day and nothing to bed had significantly lower levels of damaged DNA in their sperm compared to those who wore tight underpants during the day and at night.
“Among men in the general population attempting pregnancy, type of underwear worn during the day and to bed is associated with semen quality,”said lead researcher Katherine Sapra of the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. “Reducing exposure for bed decreases DNA fragmentation; better semen quality parameters are observed in men wearing boxers during the day and none to bed.”
The study tracked 500 men over the course of a year, taking note of the underwear choices they made and the quality of their sperm.
The researchers found that those who slept naked and wore loose-fitting boxers during the day experienced 25 percent less DNA fragmentation than those who opted for tight underwear like briefs. Although the sample size in the study was relatively small, it’s further evidence that adopting a more liberal approach when it comes to undergarments could pose considerable health benefits for men’s fertility.
“We have known for some time that men who increase the temperature of their testicles, either through the heat exposure at work or by wearing tight underwear, have poorer semen quality compared to men whose testicles are cooler,” said Allan Pacey, a male fertility expert at Sheffield University in the UK, who was not involved with the study. “What has never adequately been shown is whether men can improve things by changing the choice of their underwear, but this study – although quite small – goes some way to suggest that is true.”
Beyond merely analysing sperm quality, however, future research would offer even more valuable insight if it focused on quantifying the effects of a man’s underwear choice. “What we really need to see is whether switching to looser underwear makes their partners get pregnant more often or quicker than they would have done had the men continued to wear tight underwear,” he said.
But in the meantime, prospective dads – or men who simply want to look after the health of their sperm – have nothing to lose by adopting more flexible garb (or even going without entirely), knowing that in doing so, they may well be protecting their power to procreate.
“[S]witching underwear is hardly a risky thing to do,” said Pacey, “so buying some looser pants might be good advice for would-be fathers.”
Evolving CPR guidelines follow the growing understanding of the physiology surrounding cardiac arrest. For example, it’s been shown that the maintenance of high-quality chest compressions with minimal interruptions is a cornerstone of providing adequate CPR.1 However, the role of airway and ventilation management during CPR remains less well understood.
Although the safest and most effective airway management for the patient in cardiac arrest still remains to be ascertained, the initial approach in airway management in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), however, is typically the application of the bag-valve mask (BVM) to assist ventilation. The gold standard for airway management for OHCA has historically been endotracheal intubation (ETI), a procedure requiring considerable training and skills maintenance to be performed successfully.2,3
The development of additional airway adjuncts—including supraglottic airways (SGAs) such as the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and the King Laryngeal Tube (King LT)—have offered an intermediate approach, providing an advanced airway alternative while generally requiring less training and skill than that required for ETI. Application of these approaches in the prehospital setting has varied widely, depending principally upon the treatment protocols of individual services.
Substantial published research, however, has suggested that advanced airway use in OHCA management is associated with worsened patient outcomes.4–12 This suggests that some survival advantage is associated either with the BVM device specifically, with avoiding the use of advanced airways, or perhaps reasons associated with both.
The objective of the following study was to elucidate a relationship between survival from OHCA and the type of airway technique employed during resuscitative efforts. The spectrum of resuscitative literature was studied to isolate factors associated with survival from OHCA relative to the use of BVM alone vs. advanced airways. Consideration was given to examining each study for any evidence regarding the maintenance of the quality of CPR during resuscitation efforts and its potential relationship to “the BVM effect.”
The authors conducted a literature review in July 2014 to identify papers addressing airway management during OHCA. Electronic databases PubMed and Google Scholar were searched using the keywords out-of-hospital, prehospital, emergency medical services, heart arrest, cardiac arrest, airway and survival. Relevant material was also obtained through reviewing references from articles identified in the study and by contacting subject matter experts. A total of 171 scientific studies were found.
The various airway management techniques analyzed were BVM, SGA (LMA, King LT, Combitube), esophageal obturator airway (EOA) and ETI. Generally the comparisons in the studies focused between BVM and advanced airways or among different advanced airways. Primary outcomes largely focused on survival to discharge, with some studies including neurological function post-discharge as well.
Specific attention was then directed toward criteria addressing cardiac arrest management in the out-of-hospital environment, cardiac arrest victims, comparison of advanced airway with BVM and survival outcomes.
Exclusion criteria included qualitative studies, studies focused on traumatic arrests, studies comparing only advanced airways excluding BVM, and studies solely commenting on the training or feasibility of certain airway use.
Our search found nine observational studies meeting our inclusion criteria and specifically associating survival from OHCA with the type of airway management used during CPR. These papers were published from 1997 to 2014 with patient data ranging from 1990 to 2011. Patient populations varied substantially, with the smallest sample size being 355 and the largest being 649,359.
The datasets covered many different regions across the world, including North America, Europe and Asia. Each paper employed a set of controls for confounding variables, and generally followed the collection of data using recommended Utstein guidelines. Statistical analysis generally involved multivariate regression models with some studies using propensity-score matching.
Study 1 reviewed data from 1991 through 1994 collected in a “Heartstart” program.4 Resuscitation was attempted for 8,651 patients with 3,427 (39.6%) attempts at ETI. The primary results found a survival to discharge rate for patients receiving ETI of 3.7% vs. 9.1% for patients receiving BVM alone (p < 0.001).
Of interest, the proportion of patients intubated increased with the number of defibrillatory attempts and was higher in patients with unwitnessed arrest. The trend in decreased survival with ETI vs. BVM persisted regardless of EMS witnessed, bystander witnessed or unwitnessed arrest, or number of shocks.
The EMS providers in the study followed European Resuscitation Council guidelines, which stated that intubation should only be attempted after three shocks if spontaneous circulation hadn’t been restored. However, a substantial proportion of patients shocked less than three times were intubated, suggesting that these patients regained a pulse but were either not spontaneously breathing or deteriorated into a non-shockable rhythm.4
Study 2 examined almost 11,000 patients with OHCA in which ETI was attempted in 5,118 (47.5%) patients.5This study demonstrated a lower chance of one-month survival correlated with the use of ETI during management of OHCA. Patients who were successfully intubated had a 3.6% one-month survival rate vs. 6.4% who weren’t intubated.5
The authors, in noting the limitations of their study, found that there was no way to control for experience or training in placement of airways by the medics delivering care and that their study wasn’t randomized, making control for possible confounders difficult.5
Study 3 highlighted the unique characteristics of pediatric patients and adults in the OHCA patient population.6 The authors studied 624 patients divided into three age groups: < 1 year (infants; n = 277), 1–11 years (children; n = 154), and 12–19 years (adolescents; n = 193). The study had significant power in their age comparisons and was able to show statistically significant differences among the various age groups studied.
They found that “the incidence of OHCA in infants approaches that observed in adults” and is “lower among children and adolescents.” They also found that “survival to discharge was more common among children and adolescents than infants or adults.” Finally, these authors concluded that there was no significant difference in survival among the types of airways used in pediatric OHCA victims.6
Study 4 evaluated 1,294 nontraumatic OHCA patients from 1994–2008 in southwestern Los Angeles County.7This study found that 1,027 (79.4%) patients received ETI, 131 (10.1%) received either Combitube or EOA, and 131 (10.1%) received only BVM. The overall survival to discharge rate was 4.3%. Odds ratio for survival to discharge of patients receiving BVM compared to ETI was 4.5 (95% CI: 2.3–8.9) after adjusting for bystander CPR, witnessed arrest, age, sex and location of arrest.
Interestingly, the authors found that the group receiving Combitube or EOA had no survivors. In this paper there was a reported rate of bystander CPR of 45%, and no significant association was found between the rate of bystander CPR and survival to discharge.7
Research has shown a substantial survival benefit from OHCA with the use of BVM ventilation rather than advanced airways such as ETI or SGA. Photo Courtney McCain
Study 5 analyzed 355 OHCA patients in Tokyo whose time from emergency call to hospital arrival was > 30 minutes.8 This study focused on comparing outcomes between advanced airway use and BVM use in prolonged cardiac arrest. The authors discovered a significant increase in overall return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and ICU admission in patients who received an advanced airway vs. BVM alone. However, no difference in prehospital ROSC or survival to discharge was apparent between the two groups.
Of note, the analysis found a similar time from the emergency call to arrival on scene in both groups, but the patients receiving advanced airways had longer on-scene management times by approximately two minutes. Thus, in OHCA where on-scene care was prolonged, performing an advanced airway may lead to a higher overall rate of ROSC without improving the overall rate of survival.8
Study 6 looked at a South Korean OHCA database including patients from 2006–2008.9 Of 5,278 patients reviewed, 250 (4.7%) received ETI, 391 (7.4%) received LMA and 4,637 (87.9%) received BVM. Overall survival to discharge was found to be 6.9%. Odds ratio for survival to discharge for ETI vs. BVM alone was 1.44 (95% CI: 0.66–3.15) and wasn’t statistically significant. The odds ratio for survival to discharge for the use of LMA vs. BVM alone was 0.45 (CI: 0.25–0.82).
It’s of interest that the study involved EMT-intermediates who were trained in airway placement through the use of manikins as opposed to training on patients in the operating room.
This training using simulation, combined with a median of two LMA uses per provider over two years, might suggest less skill proficiency, though there was no mention in the study of the annual number of ETIs by the providers.9
Study 7 examined the relationship between two advanced airways (SGA and ETI) using data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) PRIMED Trial.10 The authors studied the data from 10,455 adult OHCAs between June 2007 and October 2009. In this study, 8,487 patients (81.2%) received ETI and 1,968 (18.8%) received SGA.
The authors found that the overall survival to hospital discharge with satisfactory functional status was 4.7% with ETI and 3.9% with SGA (adjusted odds ratio: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.04–1.89). However, careful analysis of all data points (as revealed in supplemental data fields within the study) in this report reveals that patients receiving no advanced airways (BVM only or BVM after failed advanced airway attempts) had a significantly higher rate of survival to discharge. Indeed, when the final airway management used was BVM, the odds ratio of survival over the successful use of an ETI was 1.79 (CI: 1.33-2.40; p < 0.001).10
Study 8 presented an observational study of patients from the All-Japan Utstein Registry, a vast nationwide database of OHCA patients.11 This study found favorable outcomes with BVM airway management over ETI that had strong statistical significance due to the power produced by this large patient population, revealing a strong inverse relationship between the use of advanced airways and favorable neurological outcomes.
The overall unadjusted favorable neurological survival in this study was 2.2%, ranging between 1.1% for OHCA patients managed with advanced airways and 2.9% for patients managed with BVM (odds ratio: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.36–0.39). This data must be interpreted carefully with respect to the low overall survival in this observational study as compared to various urban centers across the world.11
Study 9, the most recent study found by the authors on this subject, analyzed 10,691 OHCA patients from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) in 2011.12 Of these patients, 5,991 (56%) were treated with ETI, 3,110 (29%) received SGA and 1,929 (18%) had no advanced airway placement. The data demonstrated 5.4% survival to discharge with good neurological outcomes in patients receiving ETI, 5.2% in patients receiving SGA, and 18.6% in patients receiving BVM only.
Of note, patients receiving ETI tended to be slightly older, more likely to be male, and less likely to receive defibrillation by use of an automated external defibrillator located in a public place. The authors also found that patients receiving BVM alone tended to have suffered OHCA in a public place, that the arrest tended to have been witnessed by EMS, and that the patient was more often in a shockable cardiac rhythm.12
The authors stated their beliefs that the association of improved survival with BVM alone “reflect[ed] the presence of unmeasured and immeasurable confounders.” These confounders could include short distance to the hospital, provider procedural skill, perceived health status of the patient and airway anatomic factors.12
They called for a future study that would integrate information including airway management steps such as duration of attempts, ventilation rates and procedures attempted in the ED.12
The management of OHCA patients remains one of the most difficult clinical challenges in the practice of medicine. These patients may have an arrhythmic cause of arrest that may be rapidly treated through defibrillator efforts, or they may have a cause of arrest that’s the result of a devastating event such as airway obstruction, massive pulmonary embolism, or major trauma that may often be inherently lethal.
The approach to these patients must be systematic, with the rescuer initiating CPR, performing rhythm analysis, managing the airway and providing IV therapy as indicated. The chance of survival for these patients is multifactorial, including the length of time in cardiac arrest, the cause of the arrest and the skill level of the rescuer.
Evidence has become available demonstrating that providing high-quality CPR—as measured by maintaining a high compression fraction,1 satisfactory compression depth,13 appropriate compression rate,14 and limiting peri-shock pauses15—is essential to optimizing survival with good neurological outcome. Nonetheless, growing evidence suggests an additional association with optimizing survival, namely the choice of airway used during resuscitation.
This article has brought together a number of studies that have found an association between the type of airway utilized during cardiac arrest management and survival. The question arises as to whether the choice of the type of airway utilized during resuscitation—i.e., BVM vs. advanced airway—is an independent predictor of survival or whether the airway choice is associated with other factors that may affect the chance for survival.
For example, in study 9, OHCA patients receiving BVM alone were significantly more likely to have suffered cardiac arrest in the presence of an EMS provider, arrested in a public place or been in a cardiac rhythm amenable to defibrillation.12
The underlying cause of this phenomenon remains to be determined. On the other hand, the above associations addressing the benefit of BVM alone over advanced airway, while statistically significant, weren’t orders of greater magnitude. So, the apparent benefit of BVM alone indeed may yet be found to be related to measurable or unmeasurable confounders, as suggested by study 9’s authors.
The underlying cause of this phenomenon remains to be determined.
We propose the BVM effect of enhanced survival with BVM over advanced airway use is also likely unrelated to the maintenance of the overall quality of CPR. Study 8’s authors also found this BVM effect in their enormous observational study, in spite of their overall reported rate of survival from OHCA of a bit less than 3% (only 1.0% with ETI).11
This low overall survival rate, as compared to centers in which OHCA cardiac arrest quality is carefully managed, raises the possibility of potential confounders that might affect survival, such as the quality of CPR performed. Importantly, traumatic arrests were included in this study,11 likely decreasing overall survival compared to a cardiac arrest patient population not including traumatic arrest patients.10
The BVM effect was also present in observational study 7, examining data from the ROC PRIMED trial.10 This observational analysis of the data from a prospective, randomized trial of OHCA patients included only non-trauma patients and excluded various populations (e.g., pediatrics). The study required that the participating agencies meet benchmarks for quality of CPR.
These studies reveal the existence of a BVM effect from multiple regions of the world that are quite heterogeneous. This suggests that this effect persists across regional variations in training, available equipment, attention to CPR quality and skill levels. This effect was also observed independent of the years studied (1990–2011).
Although it’s possible common underlying phenomena produce this effect, it remains to be demonstrated conclusively why OHCA patients managed with BVM alone seem to have improved survival. It has been well described that the patient in cardiac arrest suffers from over-ventilation during resuscitation.16 We propose that it’s more difficult to over-ventilate patients receiving BVM only, as compared to an advanced airway. Thus, part of the cause of the BVM effect may be due to less over-ventilation of patients.
Other possibilities for the BVM effect include less interruption of chest compressions with BVM compared with ETI and other advanced airways, and the avoidance of the risk of esophageal intubation that may occur with ETI, but further study is needed to elucidate the causes of or associations with the BVM effect.
To better understand the cause of the BVM effect, such studies should include factors such as response time, the time to first compression, the quality of CPR, initial cardiac rhythm, interruptions in chest compressions for airway placement, the rate of assisted ventilation, type of airway selected initially, final type of airway placed, time to airway attempt, number of airway attempts, on-scene time and final determined cause of the cardiac arrest. Only through the careful inclusion of these and possibly other parameters in future studies can the cause of the BVM effect be understood.
Numerous studies addressing airway management in OHCA have shown a strong association between improved survival with treatment using BVM alone rather than with advanced airways. This BVM effect appears to persist despite variations in geographical region, patient population, and CPR quality.
The underlying cause of this phenomenon remains to be determined. Of note, the survival benefit with BVM alone vs. advanced airways doesn’t appear in the pediatric population in the papers reviewed by the authors. The authors recommend that a prospective randomized study be conducted in order to explore this finding and to attempt to determine its causation.
“Birth tourism” mothers had more medically complex deliveries requiring more intensive treatment compared with their peers, a small, retrospective study found.
Michel Mikhael, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Orange County in California, also found that mothers in the “birth tourism” group differed from the control group in age (33 years ±4.5 versus 29.6 years ±7.1, P<0.001) and mode of delivery (71.7% versus 48% for cesarean section, P=0.001); he presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics here.
“Birth tourism” refers to pregnant mothers traveling for the purpose of delivering in the U.S. to obtain benefits and rights of citizenship for their children, according to Mikhael. From 2012 to 2015, he performed a retrospective chart review of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions comparing 50 birth tourism infants and their mothers with 100 controls.
Mikhael found that these children had a median length of hospital stay that was double the control group: 14 versus 7 (P=0.02). Compared with controls, a higher percentage of birth tourism children were likely to be rehospitalized within 30 days of discharge (16.2% versus 5.2%, P=0.001). The author found no differences in birth weight, gestational age, gender, or 5-minute Apgar score.
A higher portion of birth tourism children came from a “referral NICU” (74% versus 32%), and 40% were admitted for surgical evaluation (versus 10% of controls), with about a quarter admitted for respiratory evaluation (26% versus 13%). However, compared with birth tourism children, a larger portion of controls were admitted for prematurity (25% versus 4%, respectively) or “other” reasons (34% versus 18%, respectively).
In terms of insurance, Mikhael reported that 61% of birth tourism mothers were uninsured, with 34.7% on public insurance after mothers changed their residence to the U.S. due to the complex care of their children. In addition, 59% of controls were on public insurance.
Mikhael noted there have been “no reports in the literature” regarding birth tourism and hospitalization and concluded that the increasing incidence of birth tourism means that “significant social and financial burdens are created with unanticipated medical needs.”
However, MedPage Today clinical reviewer F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., pointed out a few limitations with the data as presented — including the fact that it was a single-center source, which can never give a true picture of something as complex as birth tourism. In addition, the study only examined NICU admissions, which provides an incomplete picture of birth tourism since most infants do not go to the NICU, Wilson said, adding that this could have accounted for some of the between-group differences.
The study also reported that a large majority (80%, or 37) of infants out of 50 in the birth tourism group were admitted “in the latter half of the study period,” and noted that “Recent news reports have shown increasing incidence of birth tourism in the United States.” But Wilson suggests that improved documentation due to national interest in birth tourism may have helped identify more “birth tourists” through chart review as opposed to a true growth in birth tourism.
“I think it’s definitely a reach to suggest that this study shows that birth tourism is on the rise,” Wilson concluded. “The best it says is that birth tourist mothers are significantly different than non-birth-tourist mothers, which isn’t terribly surprising.”
The influence of breast milk on the gut microbiota may predispose to the development of robust populations of memory T-cells and T helper 17 cells within the memory pool to protect against the development of AS, suggested Nathalie Balandraud, MD, PhD, of INSERM in Marseille, and colleagues reporting online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
They conducted a retrospective case-control study in which 203 patients, 18 to 87 years old, with HLA-B27-positive AS were recruited, along with 293 of their healthy siblings, 17 to 89 years old, used as a control group.
Because AS has a strong genetic component, performing the study by comparing patients with intrafamily controls is one way to limit the influence of the genetic component of AS, the authors noted. In addition, 280 healthy controls and 100 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and 112 of their siblings participated.
Breastfeeding data were analyzed in 119 families with AS. Patients were considered breastfed when breastfeeding duration exceeded 48 hours.
Just under 60% of the 203 patients with AS had been breastfed compared with 72% of 293 AS siblings (OR for AS 0.53, 95% CI 0.36-0.77, P=0.0009). The mean age of AS onset was not affected by breastfeeding: 29.9 years in breastfed patients versus 30.8 years in bottle-fed patients (P=0.66).
In 63 of the 119 AS families, all children were breastfed. In this group, 25.9% of the children developed AS. In 38 of 119 AS families, mothers chose to bottle feed only, and in this group, 40.4% of the children developed AS. Breastfeeding was therefore associated with a significantly reduced familial prevalence of AS (P<0.05).
This evidence of protection from breastfeeding “cannot be explained by HLA-B27 imbalance between patients and controls because such an imbalance, if any, should exist in both family groups. Thus, breastfeeding indicates to provide some protection against AS,” the authors wrote.
In 18 families, breastfeeding varied among children. In nine of these 18 families, the child with AS child was the only one who had not been breastfed.
There was no effect of breastfeeding duration on the protective effect against AS. Mean breastfeeding duration was 9.25 weeks for patients with AS compared with 9.43 weeks for their unaffected siblings.
Breastfeeding frequency was similar in the AS siblings and in the 280 unrelated controls. The patients with AS were less often breastfed compared with the 280 unrelated controls (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.42-0.89, P<0.01).
In examining the cohort of patients with RA and their siblings, there was a nonsignificant trend found toward a lower frequency of breastfeeding in patients with RA compared with their siblings (73% versus 78%).
“The major genetic factor in AS is HLA-B27,” Balandraud and colleagues noted. “Here, we only studied patients who were HLA-B27 positive, and did not have HLA-B typing information for family controls. Thus, genetic heterogeneity at the HLA-B locus might impair our findings. Nevertheless, there is no reason why mothers choosing to breastfeed or not would be HLA-B27 dependent.”
85% of tampons and feminine hygiene products contaminated with cancer-causing glyphosate herbicide
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, over 50 American women were killed by their tampons. Although the FDA and the feminine hygiene industry have gone to tremendous lengths to try to memory hole this true history (and label it just a “rumor”), tampons made from certain non-natural fibers were found to harbor deadly bacteria and release a sufficient quantity of chemicals to kill or injure over a thousand women.
The worst offenders were Procter and Gamble’s ultra-absorbent Rely tampons. According to the book Soap Opera: The Inside Story of Procter and Gamble, the company dismissed consumer complaints about the tampons for years. A 1975 company memo disclosed that Rely tampons contained known cancer-causing agents and that the product altered the natural organisms found in the vagina. Rely tampons were taken off the shelves in 1980, but many women claim they left a legacy of hysterectomies and loss of fertility.
Among health-conscious women, the toxicity of mainstream tampons has long been an issue of concern. “Just as I say heck no to Cottonseed oil, it is for the same reason I say heck no to sticking toxic cotton up into my nethers,” writes Meghan Telpner. “Did ya know that 84 million pounds of pesticides are sprayed on 14.4 million acres of conventional cotton grown each year in the US.”
The rayon/viscose used in Tampax is made from wood pulp. Last I checked, there were no such thing as rayon trees and trees don’t magically turn into rayon- it takes hundreds of chemicals. The chlorine bleaching of wood pulp is where the greatest danger lies. The process creates chlorinated hydrocarbons, a hazardous group of chemicals with byproducts that includes dioxins, some of the most toxic substances known. Parts per million my cooch! There are no safe levels dioxins, they are impossible to break down and so keep building up in our tissues.
Fast forward to 2015. Now glyphosate, the chemical found in Monsanto’s “RoundUp” herbicide used on genetically modified cotton crops, is being discovered in the vast majority of feminine hygiene products.
The research team from National University of La Plata headed by Damian Marino revealed their research findings last weekend. Note carefully that such research would never be conducted in a U.S. university because they’ve been infiltrated and bought off by Monsanto. Example: Discredited professor Kevin Folta at the University of Florida, who was caught receiving $25,000 from Monsanto after publicly lying that he had no financial ties to the herbicide company. Even though Folta has been exhaustively exposed as a liar and a violator of university ethics, the University of Florida sees nothing wrong with such deceptions. Click here to read the secret letter where Monsanto agrees to pay him $25,000.
“A team of Argentine scientists found traces of glyphosate in 85% of personal care and feminine hygiene products containing cotton and commonly purchased in drugstores and supermarkets,” writes Revolution News.
“The study looked at a sampling of products from pharmacies and supermarkets in the area of La Plata, and analyzed cotton swabs, gauze and articles for feminine use. The results from all commercial products detected 85% glyphosate and 62% AMPA (metabolite or derivative of glyphosate). Almost 100% of the cotton produced in Argentina is transgenic and glyphosate applications are made while the cocoon is open.”
Also reported by Revolution News:
“The report left us shocked,” said Dr. Medardo Ávila Vázquez, a conference participant and from Cordoba.
“We had focused our attention on the presence of glyphosate in food, but did not think the products we use in all hospitals and health centers in the country to cure patients are contaminated with a carcinogenic product. The authorities must give an immediate response to this situation.”
Glyphosate is a known cancer-causing chemical. The World Health Organization has classified it as “probably carcinogenic,” and many other studies clearly link it to an endocrine disruption process that leads to cancer.
The EPA conspired with Monsanto for decades to deceive the public into thinking glyphosate was harmless, even after knowing the molecule was extremely dangerous.
Forbes.com, named “America’s most evil news publisher” by EVIL.news, has been instrumental in publishing Monsanto’s propaganda via the corporation’s paid professional propagandists such as Henry Miller and Jon Entine. Both have been exposed as “GMO mercenaries” who betray humanity and advocate the chemical poisoning of the world in exchange for money.
Glyphosate has even been found to promote cancer at parts per trillion concentrations, meaning that even low-level exposure from tampons might lead to deadly cancers in women. (The GMO industry says women who are concerned about GMOs are “anti-science” and too stupid to understand technology.)
It is inarguable that the human vagina readily absorbs chemicals found in tampons. When those tampons are made from GMO cotton — the vast majority of cotton that’s commercially grown — they almost always contain glyphosate that gets absorbed through vaginal walls and enters the bloodstream.
This means that even beyond glyphosate contamination in food, women must now consider the possibility that they are being poisoned from glyphosate in the vagina via genetically modified cotton used in tampons and other hygiene products.
To all the bought-off female journalists who are pushing Monsanto’s agenda — like Tamar Haspel of the Monsanto-infiltrated Washington Post — SHAME ON YOU for advancing the chemical industry’s war on women.
The only sure way to avoid GMOs in your vagina is to source certified organic feminine hygiene products made from organic cotton or other organic materials.
It’s easy for consumers to forget that their blue jeans are made from GMO cotton saturated with glyphosate… or that the cotton gauze in their first aid kits are also made with GMO cotton and glyphosate. In fact, even cotton swabs and cotton balls are usually GMO.
So if you really want to stop putting Monsanto in your vagina (or your ears, nose and other place in your body), you’ll need to meticulously source organic, non-GMO products for such needs.
Did you know that $.75 is mandated to be paid into the National Vaccine InjuryCompensation Program , the Federal Vaccine Court every time anyone receives a vaccination? This must be paid by the manufacturer of the vaccines. That is because vaccines are known to cause serious neurological injuries.
The parents in this story believed in vaccine safety and necessity and followed the doctors orders in having their child’s shots. Within 3 days of receiving the pertussis vaccine for whooping cough, their daughter developed life threatening seizures and brain damage and was finally diagnosed with vaccine-related encephalopathy. It took five years to settle their claim and receive the compensation to pay for the child’s lifetime care. The Supreme Court is about to hear a case to make it easier for vaccine-injured families to receive the compensation.
The Supreme Court is about to hear a case to make it easier for vaccine-injured families to receive the compensation. In other countries there has been billions of dollars paid out to victims and the families of the victims of vaccine injuries.
Many Americans don’t even know it exists. Themainstream media almost universally pretends it doesn’t exist. It’s the Federal Vaccine Court (National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program), created by Congress in 1988. This court awards millions of dollars annually to families who have been damaged by vaccines. This court gives legal immunity to pharmaceutical companies, shielding them from a court of law representing a true republic. By setting up a special kangaroo vaccine court, the supply of vaccinescontinues to multiply, even after people have been damaged by them.
This is an abandonment of true judicial process and accountability, essentially giving pharmaceutical companies a license to hurt others and write it off as a cost of doing business. To pay the families off, the federal Vaccine Court requires that vaccine manufacturer hand over 75 cents to a trust fund for every vaccine dose. To this multi-billion dollar vaccine industry, this 75-cent excise tax is just part of the cost of doing business, a cost which they can offset by raising their prices paid by taxpayer funds.
In this madness, the Vaccine Court has literally become a vicious cycle of abuse.
Mainstream media fails to talk about the $3 billion awarded to vaccine-injured families
For some reason, its taboo to talk about vaccine injuries, especially in the media. Instead of hearing about the nearly $3 billion in payouts to vaccine-injured families since 1988 from the Vaccine Court, we hear constantly that vaccines are safe and the science behind them is irrefutable. It’s bizarre!
On top of that, many doctors can’t even recognize the causes of nervous system disorders in babies and young children. Perhaps injecting aluminum adjuvants, mercury preservatives, foreign animal cells or aborted human fetal DNA is what’s causing damage. Nervous system disorders are not random.
In this lack of understanding, most vaccine injuries go unreported. Parents with a child with cerebral palsy may be told by their doctor that the disability came from the parents’ DNA. Parents whose child developed seizures and high fevers may be told by their doctor that their child was just having a reaction to cutting teeth. Parent’s whose child has a speech impediment may be told this is normal. In reality, any damage of the nervous system could easily be caused byvaccines, since vaccines contain known neurotoxins.
Healthy baby disabled for life by the whooping cough vaccine; now lives with seizures, cerebral palsy
One of the most debilitating nervous system disorders that are caused by vaccines is encephalopathy. This was the diagnosis given to Angelica, the child of Theresa and Lucas Black, from Virginia. Like most parents, they dutifully followed their doctor’s orders and got their child immunized, believing in vaccine safety and necessity.
However, their daughter Angelica soon developed life-threatening seizures and brain damage within three days after receiving several vaccinations. A Charlotte neurologist later diagnosed Angelica with vaccine-related encephalopathy. Five years later, in 2006, the federal Vaccine Court heard their story and awarded the family $2 million plus $250,000 each year for life for medical expenses.Now, at age 14, Angelica is severely disabled thanks to the vaccines. She can’t speak. She eats through a feeding tube. Angelica requires around-the-clock care. She suffers from cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder.
Thousands of vaccine injuries compensated through the US Vaccine Court; countless others left in the dark
Angelica is not the only one. Thousands of families have sought compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Some have been compensated, some not, and still, there are many vaccine damages that go undiagnosed throughout the country.
India’s increasingly shrill anti-beef lobby is likely to get support from unexpected quarters this week with the World Health Organisation (WHO) putting processed red meat in the same category of cancer-causing substances as arsenic, plutonium and tobacco.
The causative link to cancer was established in 2007 when the World Cancer Research Fund reviewed 14 studies and concluded that red and processed meats were “convincing causes of colorectal cancer.” The evidence is less convincing for other cancers, though some studies have also associated regular meat-eating with stomach cancer.
Apart from the artery-choking saturated fat and cholesterol – which, incidentally, is only found in fats from animal sources and not in nuts and legumes — in meats that clog up the arteries, a nutrient found in red meat has also been shown to trigger a series of reactions in the gut microbes that contribute to the development of heart disease. According to a study published in the journal Nature Medicine, gut bacteria turn L-carnitine found in red meat into a compound called trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO). In studies in mice, TMAO has been shown to clog up the inside lining of the arteries (atherosclerosis) that can completely stop or severely restrict blood flow, leading to heart attacks.
Two studies that included more than 120,000 men and women showed that people who ate the most red meat died younger, mostly because of heart disease and cancer. After 28 years, nearly 24,000 people had died from heart disease and cancer, showed data reviewed by the researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. They found that an additional daily serving – fresh cuts of meat, the size of a deck of cards, or two slices of bacon or cold cuts — raised risk of death by 13%. The risk increased to 20 if the serving was processed, such as bacon, cold cuts or sausages, they reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Iron in the meal
Despite being high in saturated fats and cholesterol that raises weight, block arteries and cause heart disease, red meat in small amounts was long considered a critical part of a balanced diet. It lowers appetite by increasing satiety and is a good source of protein, iron and Vitamin B12 needed for healthy nerves and red blood cells, and zinc, which keeps the immune system working optimally.
Meat is packed with amino acids, which the body cannot make on its own and needs to build protein. And though both amino acids and protein are found in plant sources, they are found in smaller quantities. For example, you get 25 gm of protein from 150 calories worth of red meat and 600 calories worth of shelled peanuts.
Haem iron – from animal sources such as red meat, chicken, liver, shrimp, oysters and eggs – is better absorbed, with 15-35% being utilised by the body as compared to the 2-10% from iron found in fortified cereals, legumes, leafy vegetables, dried peas, beans, dried apricots and raisins.
Iron-deficiency anaemia lowers the blood’s ability to carry oxygen to vital organs. In people otherwise healthy, even mild anaemia can cause tiredness, headache, dizziness, fatigue and lack of concentration. Acute anaemia puts pressure on the heart to compensate for the oxygen deficiency, causing palpitations, chest pain and heart failure.
The Harvard studies show substituting meat with equivalent servings of more healthful protein sources, such as fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, and whole grains give you an edge, with benefits ranging from 7% for substituting fish, 14% for poultry, and 19% for nuts. Does this mean you have to give up eating meat altogether? No. Including a lot of plant fibres in the diet brings down heart and cancer risk to the same levels as vegetarians, showed results of the EPIC trial in 2013 that followed half a million Europeans for 12 years. Eating cold potatoes – with butyrylated resistant starch produced when potatoes are cooked and left to cool — with red meats protects against cancer by lowering DNA damage to the gut cells. It’s best to have red meat as a treat instead of a staple. It’s not worth the risks when healthier and as tasty substitute are available.