Truth and Hammer

Author: Truth & Hammer

Explore Shipwrecks And Coral Reefs From The Comfort Of Your Home With This Virtual Experience

Getting out into the ocean to explore a coral reef or a shipwreck can be one of the best experiences ever. However, it’s not always possible to grab your dive gear and find a shipwreck to explore but luckily, there is another option. You can virtually explore watery shipwrecks from the comfort of your home.

At the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, you can dive into a Virtual Archaeology Museum.

There are videos and mosaic maps of 19th and 20th-century shipwrecks. Currently, you can explore 5 separate shipwrecks, each of the wrecks are thousands of feet below the surface. Four of the wrecks are in the Gulf of Mexico and the fifth wreck is located off the coast of North Carolina.

According to Mike Celata, the regional director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for the Gulf of Mexico, “with the ROVs, we can clearly examine the artifacts in these shipwrecks up close, in thousands of feet of water. Through the use of 3-D models, we can see each shipwreck site as a whole and monitor changes to it over time.”

If you don’t anticipate having the opportunity go on a deep sea dive in the near future, then consider checking out this museum to get a taste for deep ocean exploration.

Visit the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for more information!

This content was originally published here.

June 14, 2019
Cedar waxwings are social nomads, controllers of pests

I was in first grade when American goldfinches got me excited about birds. They were so yellow. Nothing in my crayon box could match their brilliance. I had to stand on my tiptoes to peer out the window to see them.

But if goldfinches were the bait, it was cedar waxwings that set the hook. There were mountain ash trees outside the children’s library that I frequented in grammar school. The waxwings returned every winter to pluck the orange berries outside the window. They were splendid birds, adorned with a crest. They were a creamy gray color, but with a peach complexion around the head, a black mask and a yellowish belly. They had red tips along the wing feathers and yellow tips on the tail feathers that made them appear as if they had been delicately dipped in sealing wax. I was smitten.

I still am. Even their social habits are intriguing. Cedar waxwings are highly gregarious. They do not defend territories while breeding. They’ve been known to groom each other and to sit on a berry branch and pass food down the line to hungry compatriots. Over much of the year, they wander in large flocks, settling down wherever food is plentiful. They leave the flock only long enough to nest, raising two broods per year. Once the young have fledged, the whole family rejoins the flock. You can identify the youngsters in the crowd because they are streaky along the breast, a remnant of the camouflage that kept them inconspicuous on the nest.

Cedar waxwings whistle. It’s a high, reedy sound that they frequently make while flying, but they’ll also whistle while just sitting in the tree, nibbling fruit. I usually hear them before I see them. It’s typical for social birds to make a lot of noise while flying. It keeps the group together. Finches also vocalize on the wing.

Cedar waxwings are romantic. Their courtship displays are tender, as they hop toward each other on a branch, alternately bending and bowing to one another. Often they exchange gifts, such as a berry or flower petal. The male will initiate the exchange, bringing the token to the female. She may hop away with it, then return and pass the gift back. This can happen several times before she ultimately eats it. Both mates explore nesting sites together, but she makes the final decision.

Cedar waxwings are opportunistic. They feed mostly on fruit, but are quick to dine on flying insects whenever a major hatch fills the air. Although they are not as nimble as swallows, they can still climb, hover and swoop swallow-like, snatching bugs from the air. It’s common to see them feasting above a Maine river in summer. They also glean insects from vegetation, including spruce budworms.

Cedar waxwings even eat fruit before it’s fruit. They devour the petals of blossoming trees this time of year. It’s not an unusual behavior, as cardinals, finches, mockingbirds, blue jays and grouse do it, too. Cardinals, in particular, relish forsythia flowers. The petals provide enough nutrition until the actual berries emerge. In another couple of weeks, I expect to see waxwings foraging on the ground, gobbling all the wild strawberries they can find.

Cedar waxwings are among the latest species to nest. While most songbirds time their baby-making to coincide with spring’s insect boom, waxwings wait until the trees have filled with fruit. They begin feeding their hatchlings insects, which provides the protein chicks need to grow quickly. Then they switch to berries, giving the kids the energy they need to keep up. Only a few seed-eaters nest later than waxwings.

Cedar waxwings roam the continent. In summer, they breed throughout the northern United States and southern Canada. After that, they may go anywhere, ranging as far south as Costa Rica. Wherever fruit has ripened, they may pop up. Their name stems from a fondness for cedar berries where they were first identified.

Some Maine fruit is too hard, even when fully mature. The freeze-thaw of winter ultimately turns such berries to edible mush. One moment, waxwings may be completely absent from the state. The next, hundreds can arrive just as the crabapples have softened sufficiently. America’s fondness for planting ornamental trees has benefited fruit-eating birds, and the population of cedar waxwings has remained steady or increased.

So there you have it: a beautiful bird, a social nomad, a controller of pests and disperser of seeds and a hopeless romantic. That makes an impression on a fourth-grader.

Bob Duchesne serves as vice president of Maine Audubon’s Penobscot Valley Chapter. He developed the Maine Birding Trail, with information at mainebirdingtrail.com. He can be reached at duchesne@midmaine.com.

This content was originally published here.

June 14, 2019
Jennifer Lopez Said Her First Two Marriages Don’t Count – Jennifer Lopez Alex Rodriguez Wedding Details

Jennifer Lopez is known for her impressive singing, acting, and dancing career and her ability to work a giant hat like it’s nobody’s business, but it’s no secret that everyone is also super interested in her love life. Over the course of her career, she’s dated Ben Affleck, Diddy, and her backup dancer Casper Smart, and she’s also been married three times. In the new mini documentary following her on the It’s My Party Tour: Showtime!, Jennifer opened up about her love life and savagely said her first two marriages don’t even count. Please join me in stanning this legend!

So after she told someone that she and her fiancé Alex Rodriguez are getting married next year in what’s likely to be a big church wedding, she explained why she got married three times before. (For those who don’t remember when Jennifer got married the first two times, she married a waiter in 1997 and a dancer in 2001.)

She said, “I’ve been married three times, and once was nine months and once was 11 months, so I don’t really count those. But I was married to Marc [Anthony] for 10 years, with the kids. I was very young the first two times I tried to get married.”

She also admitted that she tends to want someone around all the time. She explained, “It seems like in this life you’re always surrounded by people, you’re never lonely—but it’s very lonely. So you always want somebody with you.” She went on to say, “And I felt like if I got married, I felt like I would always have somebody, but that’s not how life works.” Ultimately, she acknowledged that getting married simply for the company was “a bad reason to get married.” Ya live and ya learn!

Luckily, she doesn’t have to worry about that with A-Rod because she said she’s getting married to someone who makes her a better person.

A post shared by Jennifer Lopez (@jlo) on Apr 12, 2019 at 4:55pm PDT

Ugh, it’s not even the wedding yet and I’m already cryin’!!

Shannon Barbour News Writer Shannon is a news writer at Cosmopolitan.com, and when she’s not obsessing about Cardi B, she’s thinking about Justin Bieber and still trying to memorize Beyoncé’s Beychella choreography.

This content was originally published here.

June 14, 2019
WaPo Says Anti-Vaxxers are Dangerous Should be Arrested

You may have noticed a recent article in the Washington Post by Juliette N. Kayyem entitled, “Anti-vaxxers are dangerous. Make them face isolation, fines, arrests.”(1)

My initial reaction was the article must have been written by a moron. However, my opinion changed when I discovered the author, Ms. Kayyem, graduated Harvard law school in 1995. So, it appears this article is a carefully crafted piece of pro-vaccine industry propaganda. In other words, a large pile of nonsense and misinformation masquerading as authoritative information. Propaganda pieces typically contain nonsense and blatant lies. That’s OK because the “Big Lie” becomes believable if repeated often enough. (Who Said That?)(9) Let’s take a look at the main point and the most glaring falsehood in the article: “Anti-Vaxxers Are Dangerous.”

What is an Anti-Vaxxer?

The catch word, “anti-vaxxer” has become popular in the vaccine industry propaganda machine as a pejorative term for children who have been vaccine injured, and whose mothers no longer vaccinate them. This is aptly described by Barbara Loe Fisher in her article: “No Mercy for Mothers Or Their Vaccine Injured Children“(2)

The Big Lie: Unvaccinated are Dangerous

The easiest way to demonstrate the Big Lie: “Unvaccinated are Dangerous”, is to ask the CDC, the US Government Center for Disease Control.

It is universally agreed those most susceptible to the ravages of infectious disease are the immuno-compromised, such as those undergoing bone marrow transplantation. If the “Unvaccinated Are A Danger”, then one would expect the CDC to advise keeping the unvaccinated away from the immunocompromised, those having bone marrow transplants. Quite to the contrary, the CDC says the exact opposite. The recently vaccinated, not the unvaccinated, must be kept away from the transplant ward.(3)
The CDC document, “Guidelines for Preventing Opportunistic Infections Among Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients.” contains this quote.(3)

“Visitors who might have communicable infectious diseases (e.g., URIs, flu-like illnesses, recent exposure to communicable diseases, an active shingles rash whether covered or not, a VZV-like rash (note: VZV is Varcella, chickenpox) within 6 weeks of receiving a live-attenuated VZV vaccine, or a history of receiving an oral polio vaccine within the previous 3-6 weeks) should not be allowed in the HSCT center (note HSCT is hematopoetic stem cell transplant center) or allowed to have direct contact with HSCT recipients or candidates undergoing conditioning therapy (AII).”(3)

Not sure you want to believe the CDC? Instead, lets ask the University of Kentucky Transplant Service (4). Are the unvaccinated a danger? and should they be kept away from the transplant ward? Again, they say the exact opposite, adults and children who are recently vaccinated with the chickenpox or polio vaccine are a danger and should be kept away from immunocompromised transplant patients.

Still Dont Believe it? Maybe the University of Kentucky is an exception? All transplant wards across the nation follow the American Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation Guidelines.(5) What do they say? Are the unvaccinated a danger to be kept from visiting the transplant ward? No, again they say quite the opposite. Those who have been recently vaccinated are a danger. Nowhere in this document do they say the unvaccinated are a danger. Quite to the contrary they say those recently vaccinated with the following vaccinations are a danger to the transplant ward: MMR (measles mumps rubella) Polio vaccine (OPV), Varicella Vaccine, Rotavirus vaccine, Influenza Vaccine (LAIV).(5)

The Varivax Package Insert Says Vaccinated Are a Danger to Others

This information is readily available. All you need to do is read the package insert for the vaccine. Merck, the manufacturer of the Varivax (chickenpox) vaccine openly admits in their product insert that people recently vacccinated with the Varivax vaccine pose a danger to the immune-compromised, pregnant mothers and infants.(7) The danger is due to transmission of live vaccine virus from those recently vaccinated to those contacts around them. This is a quote from the Varivax product insert:

“Due to the concern for transmission of vaccine virus, vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid whenever possible close association with susceptible high-risk individuals for up to six weeks following vaccination with VARIVAX. Susceptible high-risk individuals include:” Immuno-compromised, pregnant mothers, and infants-(shortened for brevity).(7)

Healthy Unvaccinated People are not Dangerous

The reality is that healthy unvaccinated individuals are NOT DANGEROUS, and are allowed visitation rights on the transplant wards across the country. It is the recently vaccinated who are “dangerous” and are restricted from visiting the transplant ward. Perhaps someone reading this could inform Juliette N. Kayyem and the Washington Post of this information so their blatantly incorrect article can be retracted, or at least modified to correct the false information contained.

The Unvaccinated are Causing the Measles Outbreaks

Another BIG Lie in this Washington Post article by Juliette N. Kayyem is the blame for the recent measles outbreak falls squarely on the unvaccinated. For this reason, the unvaccinated should be branded as criminals to be arrested, found guilty and sent to prison. For the moment let us ignore the obvious contrary argument that persecuting the unvaccinated like this is a violation of just about every form of national and international human rights and civil liberties laws you can think of.

Measles Outbreaks are Caused by the Vaccine Program Itself

Lets take a look at what Dr. Levy in 1984 J Epidemiology has to say about this in his article: “The future of measles in highly immunized populations.”(6) Dr. Levy is not alone in stating the obvious. Because of limitations and failures in the measles vaccine program ( i.e. primary and secondary vaccine failure), we are creating a larger population of susceptible individuals, than before the vaccine era.(6) Dr. Levy is saying the measles vaccine program itself is creating a larger population of people susceptible to contracting measles, and this is the reason we are seeing periodic measles outbreaks which are predicted to increase.

Dr. Levy says:

“despite short-term success in eliminating the disease (measles), long-range projections demonstrate that the proportion of susceptibles in the year 2050 may be greater than in the prevaccine era. Present vaccine technology and public health policy must be altered to deal with this eventuality.”(6)

What Dr. Levy is saying is that the unvaccinated are NOT to blame for periodic recurrent measles outbreaks. We will be seeing more and more of these outbreaks as a result of primary and secondary vaccine failure.

Dr. Gregory Poland, world expert on measles vaccine, said in Vaccine 2012, that measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations occur because of primary and secondary vaccine failure.(8) Here is a quote:

“Thus, measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced.. This leads to a paradoxical situation whereby measles in highly immunized societies occurs primarily among those previously immunized” (Quote Gregory Poland)(8)

Similar measles outbreaks have been documented in other highly vaccinated populations in countries such as Israel, Nigeria, Korea, Czech Republic, Australia and Japan involving the vaccinated as well as unvaccinated.(8) This is discussed in more detail in my previous article.

Conclusion: Pro Vaccine Industry Propaganda has reached a new extreme which threatens to label the unvaccinated as criminals to be arrested and sent to prison. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s official, you are now living in a police state.

Push Back by Rep Daryl D. Metcalfe Pennsylvania

Daryl D. Metcalfe, a Pennsylvania Republican is pushing back. He is introducing House Bill 286, also known as the Informed Consent Protection Act which makes it illegal for pediatricians to “Fire” a patient or family for not following the CDC vaccination schedule. It also makes it illegal for pediatricians to “Game the System” by accepting cash kickbacks from insurance companies for vaccinating children. Watch this video of the News Conference:

1) Anti-vaxxers are dangerous. Make them face isolation, fines, arrests.
Juliette N. Kayyem Wasington Post Harvard Law School with a Juris Doctor degree in 1995.

We are viewing the measles outbreak though a public health lens. We need to change our orientation. This is a public safety crisis and hopes for people to “get the shot” are well past the pretty please stage. My latest for the Washington Post

In the same way we have created sex-offenders lists to protect our children, communities can inventory families that choose not to be vaccinated, notifying employers of these parents as well as neighbors who may choose not to expose their children.

2) No Mercy for Mothers Or Their Vaccine Injured Children
by Barbara Loe Fisher Published April 25, 2019 | Opinion

3) CDC Guidelines for Preventing Opportunistic Infections Among Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients
Recommendations of CDC, the Infectious Disease Society of America, and the American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation

HSCT Center Visitors

Visitors who might have communicable infectious diseases (e.g., URIs, flu-like illnesses, recent exposure to communicable diseases, an active shingles rash whether covered or not, a VZV-like rash within 6 weeks of receiving a live-attenuated VZV vaccine, or a history of receiving an oral polio vaccine within the previous 3-6 weeks) should not be allowed in the HSCT center or allowed to have direct contact with HSCT recipients or candidates undergoing conditioning therapy (AII).

University of Kentucky Markey Center Patient Care Standards Chapter 4: Visiting Patients on the Transplant Unit Reviewed May 2012 Page 1 of 3 Chapter Four: Visiting Patients on the Transplant Unit Purpose: To provide visitation guidelines which are designed to minimize the risk of transmission of bacterial, fungal, viral, and other infectious organisms from visitors to patients in the transplant unit.

Allowed Visitors:

1. A patient’s nurse will assess all visitors for signs and symptoms of infectious diseases or organisms.

2.Anyone with evidence of even a mild communicable illness or infection, or who has been exposed to one, will not be allowed to visit patients.

3.Adults who meet the following requirements:
a)Have not received a live polio vaccine in the previous 3 months
b) Have not received live chicken pox vaccine in the previous 2 weeks
c) Have not been exposed to chicken pox in the previous 4 weeks
d) Do not have a fever, cold of any sort, cough, sneezing, conjunctivitis, sore throat, ear infection, wheezing, cold sores, or any skin rash.e)Have not been exposed to TB
f)Do not have shingles

4.Children who meet the following requirements:
a)Must be at least 10 years of age or receive special permission from staff
b) Children must be under the direct supervision of a responsible adult at all times.The responsible adult must not be the patient.
c) Have not received a live polio vaccine in the previous 3 months
d) Have not received live chicken pox vaccine in the previous 2 weeks
e) Have not been exposed to chicken pox in the previous 4 weeks
f) Do not have a fever, cold of any sort, cough, sneezing, conjunctivitis, sore throat, ear infection, wheezing, cold sores, or any skin rash.g)Have not been exposed to TB
h) Do not have shinglesi) During the RSV/Flu season (December -March) children less than 10 years old may not visit patients in the transplant unit

American Society for Blood and Bone marrow transplantation GUIDELINES Guidelines for Preventing Infectious Complications among Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Recipients:A Global Perspective Marcie Tomblyn, Tom Chiller, Hermann Einsele, Ronald Gress, Kent Sepkowitz, Jan Storek,John R. Wingard, Jo-Anne H. Young, Michael A. BoeckhBiol Blood Marrow Transplant 15: 1143-1238 (2009)Ó2009 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Infants and children who have recently received the OPV vaccine should be excluded from visiting the HCT unit for 4 to 6 weeks after receipt of vaccine to minimize the risk of transmission and vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis among HCT recipients (AII)[734]

Until further data on the risks of transmission of vaccine virus become available,HCT units may wish to exclude infants who have re-cently received rotavirus vaccine from visiting for 2to 4 weeks after receiving a vaccine dose (CIII).

Health care center personnel and HCT center visitors who receive LAIV Live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) instead of TIV shouldavoid contact with severely immunosuppressed per-sons for 7 days after vaccination (CIII)[307]

However, HCT centers should exclude visitors who develop a varicella- or zoster-like rash aftervaccination (AIII). If a household member developsa varicella or zoster-like rash after vaccination, closecontact with the HCT recipient should be avoidedand affected areas should be covered (AIII).

Individuals who experience a vaccine-associatedrash within 1 month after varicella vaccinationshould be excluded from visiting the HCT centerand should avoid close contact with HCT recipientsin the home setting (BIII).

Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine (AIII):Household members should receive age-appropri-ate MMR vaccination as recommended. However,vaccine recipients who develop a fever and/or rash postvaccination should be excluded from visiting the HCT center while symptomatic and should avoid close contact with HCT recipients in the home setting (BIII)

6) Am J Epidemiol. 1984 Jul;120(1):39-48.
The future of measles in highly immunized populations. A modeling approach. Levy DL.

Little is known about how an intensive measles elimination program changes the overall immune status of the population. A computer model was created to study the effect of the measles elimination program in the United States on the number of susceptibles in the population. The simulation reveals that in the prevaccine era, approximately 10.6% of the population was susceptible to measles, most of whom were children less than 10 years of age. With the institution of the measles immunization program, the proportion of susceptibles in the population fell to 3.1% from 1978 through 1981, but then began to rise by approximately 0.1% per year to reach about 10.9% in the year 2050. The susceptibles at this time were distributed evenly throughout all age groups. The model did not consider the potential effect of waning immunity. The results of this study suggest that measles elimination in the United States has been achieved by an effective immunization program aimed at young susceptibles combined with a highly, naturally immunized adult population. However, despite short-term success in eliminating the disease, long-range projections demonstrate that the proportion of susceptibles in the year 2050 may be greater than in the prevaccine era. Present vaccine technology and public health policy must be altered to deal with this eventuality.

7) VARIVAX: Package Insert and Label Information
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. 23 January 2019

VARIVAX- varicella-zoster virus strain oka/merck live antigen injection, powder, lyophilized, for suspension Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

Risk of Vaccine Virus Transmission

Post-marketing experience suggests that transmission of vaccine virus may occur rarely between healthy vaccinees who develop a varicella-like rash and healthy susceptible contacts. Transmission of vaccine virus from a mother who did not develop a varicella-like rash to her newborn infant has been reported.

Due to the concern for transmission of vaccine virus, vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid whenever possible close association with susceptible high-risk individuals for up to six weeks following vaccination with VARIVAX. Susceptible high-risk individuals include:

Immunocompromised individuals;
Pregnant women without documented history of varicella or laboratory evidence of prior infection;
Newborn infants of mothers without documented history of varicella or laboratory evidence of prior infection and all newborn infants born at <28 weeks gestation regardless of materna; varicella immunity.

8) Measles Outbreaks Fake News Hysteria by Jeffrey Dach MD

9) “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Quote attributed to Joseph Goebbels.

This content was originally published here.

June 14, 2019
I’m a better mother because I only have one child

Before I decided that my only child would be my last, I agonized for years over what my family and friends would think of me. Would they call me selfish or uncaring for not giving my kid a sibling, a so-called “built-in friend for life”? The reason I decided not to have a second child is simply because, from a mental health perspective, I needed to be able to survive.

When I was diagnosed with endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome in my 20s, my doctors said I might never be able to conceive. But against all odds, I got pregnant after just five months of trying. My partner and I were thrilled at the news, but almost immediately, my natural, low-level anxiety amped up into something I didn’t recognize. At a subsequent appointment with my OB/GYN, I confessed that my anxious feelings were getting out of control and taking over my life. I told her about how I would regularly sit on the edge of the bathtub at home, sobbing and worrying over what could go wrong with the pregnancy. I was terrified that I would lose the baby.

She immediately referred me to a hospital clinic that specialized in reproductive transitions and, eventually, I saw a psychiatrist. Looking back now, I should have realized that I was at risk for a mood disorder during pregnancy. I had my first instance of clinical depression as a teen, and several episodes afterwards. I’d taken antidepressants on and off for years. And whenever life threw me a curveball, I automatically turned to therapists. My new psychiatrist explained that I was more likely to suffer from postpartum depression because of my mental health history.

“I was done”

When my daughter came into the world five and a half years ago, I had brief moments of new-mother bliss before the darkness descended and the postpartum depression and anxiety quietly set in. Suddenly, I couldn’t cope, and I didn’t recognize myself. When I eventually got help and started taking medication, my mood slowly improved, but I remember thinking to myself in the months and years to come: How can I ever do this to myself again?

Around the one-year mark, it seemed like all my friends were already thinking about having a second baby. It was as if they had miraculously emerged from the mental fog and physical exhaustion of new parenthood and were eager to try for another child. Did they have amnesia? How could they be so keen to go back to the sleep deprivation and constant breastfeeding all over again so soon? It baffled me and, in my darkest moments, it seemed like they were just asking for more misery.

I had postpartum depression and swore I’d never have more kids. Now I’m pregnantI had conflicted feelings about having a second child, and my husband was happy with one. Part of me felt like I was abnormal to think about putting my mental health first and that I should put the needs of my daughter before my own. But how could I be the mother she deserved when I was already struggling with just one?

Turns out, I couldn’t do it. After a lot of therapy sessions and tough conversations with my husband, I finally admitted the secret truth festering in my heart: Although, in theory, I wanted another child—someone for my daughter to grow up with, someone I could lavish more of my motherly love on—from an emotional well-being perspective, I was done having children. The choice was between keeping my mental health stable and having a bonus child, just for the sake of it.

Having one child means that my husband and I don’t have to divide and conquer, like many other parents with multiple children do. We don’t each have to take a kid when they have sibling squabbles. We can also arrange date nights more easily and sleepovers with both sets of grandparents, where one of us takes our daughter and stays over there to give the other spouse the house to themselves.

We couldn’t do this with a new baby. I would inevitably be left alone with a newborn for extended periods of time, and this would be slightly traumatic for me. I didn’t want to go through the emotional purgatory of postpartum depression and anxiety again, not to mention the physical exhaustion and monotony. Having my husband around to support me is crucial to not only my physical health but also my mental well-being, and if he was out of the house or in another room entertaining my daughter, I know it would also take a huge emotional toll on me.

Letting go of those dreams

“It can be hard to let go of past wishes for a larger family, but a second or third child comes with many added demands and stressors,” explains Cara Brown, a psychiatrist at the Women’s Mood and Anxiety Clinic, Reproductive Transitions, at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. “Any woman with a mental health history who is thinking of having another child needs to consider many factors, including her current mental health stability, the severity of her illness, her coping abilities at work and home, her parenting and function with her current child, the mental health of her partner, her needs for psychotherapy and medications and the intensity of the needs of her current children.”

Deep down, I knew the chances of me being able to manage my mental health would decrease dramatically if I welcomed another child into the world. I just couldn’t see myself managing two kids’ schedules or being outnumbered if they had meltdowns at the same time. I knew I would panic and feel overwhelmed and end up just wanting to hide. The truth was disheartening on a primal level, but I had to face reality and accept my limitations. Besides, I knew I’d rather be a present, loving mother to one child than an unwell parent who couldn’t handle raising multiple children.

Postpartum risks

Brown states that after one episode of postpartum depression, the risk of recurrence is estimated to be up to 50 percent, possibly higher if a woman continues to be symptomatic or had severe illness.

“For some women, examining these factors and weighing the benefits and risks will lead her to decide to have one child or a smaller family, even if this wasn’t what she imagined previously,” she says. “This is a very valid decision. It’s important to make an informed choice and not just have another child because it’s expected by society or your extended family or culture. Sometimes it’s also necessary to set boundaries and ask well-intentioned family members to stop inquiring about this very personal matter.”

After I gave birth, I was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and premenstrual dysphoric disorder, which is severe depression, anxiety and irritability that surfaces seven to 10 days before your period. I felt completely overwhelmed. And just last year, I was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, which was another shock because I didn’t know it could show up in your 40s. Brown says that comorbidity among conditions is common and often sees these conditions present together.For me, it’s a trifecta of mental health challenges that I sometimes struggle to handle. And I’m not going to lie: I get by fine most of the time, but there are definitely some days when motherhood and my mental illnesses inevitably collide.

That’s when I hide in my room, lie in the dark and feel too agitated to deal with the normal ups and downs of parenthood, like my daughter spilling milk all over the floor or not getting dressed after being asked 10 times. These aren’t major problems, but when I’m not feeling well mentally, they can be the last straw to my self-control. But I don’t want to be like this or miss out on my daughter’s childhood. I want to be calm and in the moment, not constantly looking to escape through my phone. I want to soak up the joy of motherhood and navigate through all its stages with the confidence that I can do this because I’m also taking care of myself.

Liza Weiser, a psychologist based in Thornhill, Ontario, agrees. “A woman isn’t a failure for deciding not to have any more children,” she says. “Raising one child doesn’t mean that all your difficulties disappear. It’s just that your ability to deal with them and recognize your limits improves. A mother with mental health challenges will probably still struggle to some extent, but having just one kid means that she is better able to take care of herself when there are fewer household and family demands.”

The happiness equation

There is some pretty convincing research that supports stopping at one child for your mental health. Hans-Peter Kohler, a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, discovered that second and third children don’t necessarily increase parents’ happiness. He studied 35,000 adult identical twins in Denmark and concluded that having more children actually makes mothers less happy.

Recent research from Australia also reveals that having a second child worsens parents’ mental health. The study followed approximately 20,000 Australians for up to 16 years. The results showed that second and third children increase the demands of the parents’ role and double the time pressure for parents (especially for mothers). Interestingly, researchers also found that, while a mother’s mental health improves with the birth of her first child, it declines sharply and remains low after the second child arrives.

Photo: Courtesy of Tara Mandarano

Being a better mom

These days, I go to therapy twice a month and see a psychiatrist, who is able to prescribe medication to balance my moods and dampen my tendency toward anxiety. I am open with my daughter about my mental health and try to explain it to her in a kid-friendly way. We talk about my “feelings doctor” and why going to see her makes her mama feel better.

I’ve also discovered there are many psychological perks to being a parent to an only child. My husband and I can tag-team and take breaks when situations with our daughter get overwhelming. I can also practise self-care more often because I have someone to look after her when I need time to myself. Sometimes it’s something simple, like being able to catch up on reading on the couch while my husband gives our daughter a bath and gets her ready for bed. Even though I can hear all the noise and chaos going on upstairs, I’m detached from it, in my own little bubble for a while. When I have a particularly tough day, this act of kindness is a lifesaver for my emotional sanity. Over the past five years, I’ve learned that prioritizing my own mental health makes me a better mother and improves my relationship with my daughter.

“Maternal mental health is of utmost importance for childhood attachment and development,” says Brown. “If a mother decides not to have another child because she feels like she will be more mentally well parenting one child, then that is the best decision for her and her family. Yet, making this choice can be very difficult for some women. It’s not uncommon for a woman to experience feelings of loss when she lets go of past expectations she had for her family.”

The decision to be a one-child family didn’t really hit home for me until I elected to have a hysterectomy last year due to ongoing pelvic pain. Once nearly all my reproductive parts (bar one ovary) were gone, there was no possibility of changing my mind or going back in time. But I’ve finally come to a place of peace and acceptance about being “one and done.” I don’t need a certain number of children to “complete” our family. And I’m still a real mother, even if I only raise one child. Having another kid would have been an emotional disaster for me, and I would have been in way over my head. I’m grateful that my daughter now has a healthy, happy and loving mother instead.

Read more:
How to deal with postpartum anxiety
Parenting through severe postpartum depression

The post I’m a better mother because I only have one child appeared first on Today’s Parent.

This content was originally published here.

June 14, 2019
Researchers Develop Vaccine That Could Possibly Prevent Alzheimer’s

Researchers at the University of New Mexico are working on a vaccine that they hope could prevent Alzheimer’s disease. As of now, a cure for Alzheimer’s does not exist, which is why UNM’s Health and Science Department associate Professor Kiran Bhaskar, made it a point to study the disease for the last decade and started to research the vaccine in 2013.

Bhaskar and his research team began to test the vaccine on a group of mice and has not yet been shown if it works in people. The group of mice all had Alzheimer’s disease and were given a series of injections. Ph.D. student Nicole Maphis sated the vaccine targets a specific protein known as “tau” that is commonly found in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. Maphis stated, “These antibodies seem to have cleared (out) pathological tau. Pathological tau is one of the components of these tangles that we find in the brains of patients with Alzheimer’s disease.”

Watch the video

The tangles “disrupt the ability of neurons to communicate with one another”, adding that tau protein is usually a stabilizing structure inside of neurons. All mice were given a series of maze-like test, and those that received the vaccine performed better than those that hadn’t. The worry that researchers have with these vaccines, is that sometimes, the drugs that work in mice don’t always have the same effect in humans. A clinical trial involving humans will be required to see if the drug actually helps humans, which researchers say is difficult and expensive undertaking with unfortunately no guarantee of success.

Researchers need to have a clinical version of the vaccine in order for them to test in people. Testing a small group would cost the UNM Health Sciences Department nearly $2 million, which is why they are currently looking for a partnership to help them toward a “clinical-grade vaccine.” Once they develop a vaccine that is safe for humans, they will submit it to the FDA for approval, which might take another five years.

According to the Alzheimer’s Association, Alzheimer’s is the 6th leading cause of death in the United States and 1 in 3 seniors dies with Alzheimer’s or another dementia. One in 10 people age 65 or older have suffered from Alzheimer’s dementia and over 5.8 million Americans are currently living with it. Scientists believe that the number is set to project to rise to nearly 14 million by 2050.

This content was originally published here.

June 14, 2019
Two hours a week spent outdoors in nature linked with better health | New Scientist

Spending just 2 hours a week in green spaces such as parks, woodlands and fields has been linked with people feeling healthier and happier.

The health benefits of being out in nature have been well-documented and will seem common sense to many of us, but until now no one has quantified exactly how much time might be beneficial. The magic number emerged from analysis of a survey of 20,000 people in England, who reported how long they spent in natural environments in the past week, plus their health and well-being.

While individuals who spent less than 2 hours in nature were no more likely to report good health or well-being than those who spent no time there at all, those who spent more than 2 hours had consistently higher health and well-being levels.

“It’s not a huge amount of time. You can spread it over the course of a week or seem to get it in a single dose, it doesn’t really matter,” says Mathew White at the University of Exeter, UK. Moreover, the threshold is within reach for most people: the analysis found that the average person spent 94 minutes a week exposed to a natural environment.

Green is good

“We have long known that nature is good for physical and mental health and putting numbers on the critical ‘dose of nature’ which gives us the best health is a really important step forward,” says Rachel Stancliffe of the Centre for Sustainable Healthcare in Oxford, UK.

After 2 hours, the health benefits of being out in nature seem to give diminishing returns, with a cut-off after 5 hours. White says that could be explained by many of that group being dog walkers who are out in nature with little choice in the matter. The team controlled for the fact that the health benefits might be a byproduct of physical activity, not contact with nature.

The magnitude of health gains of 2 hours spent in nature appear to be significant, on a par with the health differences associated between living in a well-off area and a deprived one. They also seem to apply to everyone, regardless of age, gender, long term illness or disability. “You don’t have to be running around the park, just sitting on a bench will do,” says White.

Initial findings from an European Union project due to be published later this year suggests 2 hours is not just the magic number for the English, says White, but all Europeans.

Journal reference: Scientific Reports, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3

This content was originally published here.

June 14, 2019
America’s Most Important Natural Gas Export Market

June 13, 2019//-Recently the Trump Administration announced plans to impose a 5 percent tax on all goods imported from Mexico unless “the illegal migration crisis is alleviated.” These tariffs would potentially rise to 25 percent by October.

Many business groups immediately came out against the idea. Neil Bradley, chief policy officer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said “Imposing tariffs on goods from Mexico is exactly the wrong move. These tariffs will be paid by American families and businesses without doing a thing to solve the very real problems at the border.”

Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, who has seen farmers impacted by retaliatory tariffs in our trade war with China, blasted the idea, stating that “trade policy and border security are separate issues. This is a misuse of presidential tariff authority and counter to congressional intent.”

Whenever implementing new policies, the risk of unintended consequences is always present. This means that there can be potential outcomes that are not foreseen by a change in policy. In some cases, new policies have led to worse outcomes because of unintended consequences.

We have already seen this with the trade war with China. After raising tariffs on Chinese goods, China retaliated by raising tariffs on many U.S. goods, including agricultural products. Farmers have been hit hard by this change of policies, which is why Senator Grassley is so sensitive about the issue.

That long preamble brings me to my point, which is the potential impact on our most important natural gas export market.

U.S. natural gas production has surged as a consequence of the shale revolution. After hitting the lowest point in decades in 2005, U.S. natural gas production has risen nearly every year since. Along the way, the U.S. became the world’s top natural gas producer. In 2018, U.S. natural gas production was 73 percent higher than in 2005.

There have been many consequences of this boom. One is that carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. declined by more than any other country over the past decade, largely a result of utilities switching from coal to natural gas. Low natural gas prices benefited consumers, and many industries took advantage by locating new manufacturing capacity in the U.S.

Another consequence is that U.S. export trade in natural gas skyrocketed. In 2005, the U.S. exported about 700 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas, primarily to Canada and Mexico by pipeline. By 2018, total natural gas exports had increased by a factor of five to 3.6 trillion cubic feet (Tcf).

Most of this growth was in exports to Mexico, which imported 1.7 Tcf of U.S. natural gas in 2018. This is a far greater total than for any other country, and is in fact more than all liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to all countries.

Natural gas exports to Mexico

To put this number into perspective, pipeline exports to Mexico are now equivalent to 5.2 percent of total U.S. natural gas production. These exports are a boon to U.S. natural gas producers, as well as pipeline companies that are building out the pipeline infrastructure to move the gas south of the border.

Natural gas demand in Mexico is projected to continuing growing, as a result of new electrical generation capacity additions. That demand will be primarily satisfied by more imports from the U.S. That is, unless Mexico retaliates and natural gas producers end up paying the sort of price U.S. farmers have paid as casualties in a trade war.

By Robert Rapier, Oilprice.com:

This content was originally published here.

June 14, 2019
Wholesale Inflation At 2-Year Low In May

NEW DELHI — Wholesale price-based inflation hit a 22-month low of 2.45 per cent in May helped by falling prices of food articles, fuel and power items, and this in turn may prompt the Reserve Bank to go for another cut in key interest rates in the current fiscal.

The Wholesale Price Index (WPI)-based inflation was at 3.07 per cent in April this year. It was 4.78 per cent in May 2018.

Inflation in food articles basket was 6.99 per cent In May, 2019, down from 7.37 per cent in April, official data released Friday said.

However, onion prices spiked during the month with inflation at 15.89 per cent, as against (-) 3.43 per cent in April. Inflation in pulses continued in double digit for four consecutive months at 18.36 per cent in May, up from 14.32 per cent in the previous month.

WPI inflation in May is the lowest in 22 months, since July 2017, when it was at 1.88 per cent.

India Ratings & Research Principal Economist Sunil Kumar Sinha said the core inflation at 1.2 per cent is 29 months low in May 2019. “This is clearly an indication of weakening of demand impulse in the economy. Dwindling auto and FMCG sales growth has been pointing towards this for past several months.”

This delayed and less than normal monsoon could aggravate the food inflation further in the coming months lest the government monitors the situation proactively, checks speculative activities and intervenes in the market to stabilise prices, he added.

“India Ratings believes there is still a scope of one more rate cut in FY’20. However, besides being dependent on data it will also take into consideration fiscal policy stance of the government,” Sinha said.

Vegetables inflation eased to 33.15 per cent in May, down from 40.65 per cent in the previous month. Inflation in potato was (-) 23.36 per cent, against (-) 17.15 per cent in April.

Inflation in ‘fuel and power’ category cooled to 0.98 per cent, from 3.84 per cent last month on account of softening of global crude oil prices.

Manufactured items too saw decline in prices with inflation at 1.28 per cent in May, against 1.72 per cent in April.

WPI inflation data for March has been revised downwards to 3.10 per cent from provisional 3.18 per cent.

Data released earlier this week showed retail inflation spiked to a 7-month high of 3.05 per cent in May, on costlier vegetables, and protein-rich items.

The Reserve Bank, which mainly factors in retail inflation for monetary policy decision, on June 6, lowered its benchmark lending rate to a nearly 9-year low of 5.75 per cent, even as it upped its inflation projection to 3-3.1 per cent for the first half of 2019-20.

RBI has cut rates three times in a row since February 2019.

Flagging uncertain monsoon, unseasonal spike in vegetable prices, crude oil prices, financial market volatility and fiscal scenario as risks to inflation, the RBI projected upward bias in food inflation in the near-term.

This content was originally published here.

June 14, 2019
Report: Effects Of China-America Trade War Haunt African Economies

June 14, 2019//-Africa’s fear is that a slowdown in China will result in softer demand for commodities, and accordingly lower commodity prices, according to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) latest report.

As happened the last time commodity prices fell dramatically, the undiversified economies will come under pressure as current account balances deteriorate, currencies come under strain, prices go up and central banks push up interest rates.

The report titled ‘Economic Insight: Africa Q2 2019’, commissioned by ICAEW and produced by partner and forecaster Oxford Economics, underscores the role of economic diversity in weathering the storm of unstable oil and commodity prices.

Speaking during the launch of the latest report, Michael Armstrong, ICAEW’s regional director for the Middle East. Asia and Africa, said that the strength of the diversified economies in the east of the continent plays a major role in cushioning them from the shocks of fluctuating commodity prices.

“As it has been since the sharp fall in oil and commodity prices that started in 2014, East Africa is the region in Africa that is estimated to have experienced the most rapid real GDP growth in 2018, and it is forecast to continue doing so over the next two years,” said Mr Armstrong.

“The region’s growth is mainly driven by strong performances in the two major economies: Kenya, a $90bn economy forecast to expand by 5.5% in 2019, and Ethiopia, an $80bn economy forecast to grow by 7.9%. Kenya, in particular, has a dynamic banking sector and its most successful banks are regional leaders,” he added.

The franc zone’s GDP growth is forecast at 4.9% for 2019. Most of the growth will take place in Ivory Coast, which is forecast to show real GDP growth of 7.0% this year thanks in large part to services growth (although cocoa exports are still crucial).

North Africa presents a somewhat mixed bag: Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia have diversified economies, whereas Algeria and Libya are extremely dependent on oil and gas.

The latter two are forecast to have a very disappointing year in 2019: Libya’s economy will contract by 4.1%, and Algeria’s will grow by only 2.0%. This contrasts with a growth rate of 5.5% in Egypt, where government has been exemplary in implementing constructive economic policy.

However, to sustain this kind of growth into the future the government will have to encourage private-sector growth and improve the corporate sector’s access to finance.

Southern Africa is the slowest-growing region on the continent, with GDP growth forecast at barely 1.8% this year: less than a third of East Africa’s growth rate.

Growth in the south is dragged down by South Africa, the region’s dominant economy (it accounts for more than two-thirds of regional output), where growth is forecast to remain at a dismal 0.8% in 2019 – the same level as in 2018.

Slow growth in Angola (+1.1% in 2019, after a 2.5% contraction in 2018), the region’s second-biggest economy, acts as a further brake on the region’s growth.

The full Economic Insight: Africa report can be found here:
https://www.icaew.com/technical/economy/economic-insight/economic-insight-africa

This content was originally published here.

June 14, 2019