autism and infant formula

Post Reply New Topic

DHA is an Omega 3!! !! ARA is in phosphatidyl choline, etc.... So IT is important. IT is an omega 6.

You are NUTS! BTW they are NOT created by the pharmacuetical industry.

Again,I am not saying that the new components in infant formula will cause every child to become autistic.I am trying to warn parents of how dangerous they are.I HAVE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS RESEARCHING CAUSATION.These components will oxidize when combined with iron.They will deplete first and second lines of anti-oxidant defense-vitamins,minerals,catalase,superoxide dismutase,glutathione.Then protein and dna damage may result.These novel oils are structurally different than naturally occuring DHA and ARA.These structural differences affect protein palmitoylation.Palmitoylation is critical for proper protein signaling.DHA/ARA will disrupt protein palmitoylation.Results-digestive disorders-casein,gluten intolerance-
By the way, 2002 isn't the first time they altered the fatty acid profile of infant formula.That would be in the early 1980's.Wow,that coincides with the spike in the increase in autism.In 2009 the manufacturer of these oils admitted no benefit for males at five times the current dosage.They cannot explain this different gender affect.Maybe you can.

Males and females DO have different EPA/DHA ratios, but I DOUBT it is that pronounced in babies. Logically, it would be more relevant after 8yo! ARA IS used to create chemicals that DO help brain function. The difference to ME is like night and day, and that is apparently COMMON!

And it is NOT snake oil! It is most prevalent in FISH! Yeah, I know what you meant but HERE I can say the truth, correct you, and STILL make it sound like a joke! So NO, it isn't snake oil, it is FISH oil! Apparently, THAT is the reason that, at least when I was a kid, fish was considered BRAIN FOOD! Apparently, they have done that for HUNDREDS of years! The ONLY reason why they said young babies shouldn't eat a lot of fish was because of the small bones. Then again, some fish was FINE!

It is one thing to say that infant formula may contain toxins that could pose a danger if consumed. It's quite another to then make an unscientific leap to claim it causes autism. I completely understand your frustration in wanting an answer as to why. I also have an autistic child and after learning more about it, discovered that his dad is likely an aspie as well, and I also share many of their traits. We know, in our case, that it is genetic. I think if you do some more reading on here that you'll find many people saying a similar thing. Besides, many more babies are breastfed today then they were in the past 50 years or so. Formula use has been decreasing as autism rates have been increasing. I'd also be interested in seeing a credible source for your claims. Just because something is on the internet, it doesn't mean that it is true.

Let me make ONE thing VERY clear!! !! !! !! !

There absolutely HAD to be a spike in the 1980s! If something happened, in the 1980s, to reduce autism cases down to 20% of what they were previously, so 4/5ths of ALL autism just VANISHED! The number of autism cases would STILL SKYROCKET in the US and some other places! That is FACT!! !! !! !! WHY?????????? FOUR reasons!

1. Because prior to that autism cases had to follow a FAR stricter set of rules.
2. Because a novel diagnosis means some "mental doctors" are eager to diagnose it.
3. Because MORE people can get financial support and will thus look for it.
4. Because those diagnosing it MAKE MONEY!

I am SICK of people refering to a sudden spike when it is a GIVEN! Why don't you talk about how people travel so much farther than they did in the 19th and early twentieth century? Why not talk about how those playing video games has increased so much since the early 60s? How about the reduction of power needs of electronic equipment since the 60s? What about the depth of TVs since the 80s? How about the fact that IBM sales SKYROCKETED after they introduced their computers? How about how they showed ANOTHER spike with the PC? HEY, how about how internet use has increased since 1990? How about the U.S. Debt Since 2008!

They are all GIVENS!

WOW, you spent countless hours! I did also. Of course, I was researching it in GENERAL.

And HOW can you say they are structurally different from natural oils when many ARE natural? And almost ALL oil oxidizes! I watched a show once that spoke of a scam in the vegetable oil market and that IT would oxidize. The CURE????? VITAMIN E! It turns out that IT prevents the oxidation. BTW I actually take a product that has a lot of casein AND DHA! I feel fine.

Since when are scientific and medical publications not reliable information.Yes,the DHASCO and ARASCO used in today's infant formula is manufactured by extraction from algea and fungus by the neurotoxin hexane.Check out cornucopia.org-I have spoken with Charlotte and Mark Kastel. DHASCO is not from fish,flax or any other natural source.Neither is ARASCO.Look on Martek Biosciences website.They manufacture these novel oils.See for yourself.THE IS NO BENEFIT FOR MALES IN BRAIN AND EYE DEVELOPMENT AT FIVE TIMES THE CURRENT DOSAGE.Natural dha and ara are important for proper development.NATURAL DHA and ARA.Parents are paying for a benefit that doesn't exist.Scientist don't fully understand the exact mechanisms involved in natural DHA and ARA metabolism.You think they know anything about DHASCO and ARASCO. Saturated fat is essential as well for proper development.This is why whole milk is recommended over 1% or 2%.Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids drive saturated fatty acids out of cellular membranes.The omega three PUFAs are well known to be heart protective because of this action.Are you saying that we should disrupt protein palmitoylation?Should we be altering the fatty acid profile of infants?

I don't think I am getting my point across.I guess there are people who feel I am against them.I am trying to warn parents of the hiddens danger in today's infant formula.It is not ok to add synthetic LCPUFAs to infant formula.After seven years in this country,no benefit can be proven.Even the manufacturer states this fact.Even if it were 100% safe,its only a marketing tool.I have the reports from the FDA.The only way some parents learned that it harmed their child is by mistake.They used a formula NOT containing DHASCO and ARASCO and their children's digestive disorders disappeared almost immediately.They took the time to contact the formula company and got no response.The took the additional step to contact the FDA.Now DHASCO and ARASCO is used in almost every brand of formula.Some children will just have to suffer so profits can be made.I know of two ways that these supplements can cause serious harm.How many are acceptable?

Well, you STARTED by saying DHA and ARA, and NOW say DHASCO and ARASCO!

tryptophan is ALSO good, needed, essential, etc.... some IDIOT at some company decided to genetically modify a bacteria which was then used to create it, and they created something they CALLED tryptophan. Next thing you know, people died, and the FDA BANNED tryptophan! But the junk he created was NOT tryptophan. They analysed it and found it was different.

So if you want to complain about a particular item, complain about IT! A lot of the oils I am taking ARE 100% NATURAL! The others seem pure enough though, as I am sure you are aware, MOST things don't say how they are refined. There IS a FEDERAL law saying that they have to meet certain purity levels, etc... but, obviously, few seem to care. That is not a problem with DHA, ARA, or tryptophan, it is a problem with IDIOTS that don't care how they run their business. Have you heard how white SUGAR or JELLO are made? YIKES! Who dreams that stuff up!?!?!? I STOPPED eating Jello. Sugar is in SO many things, etc.... that I really couldn't stop THAT.

And the low fat in 1-2% low-fat milk is really only good for losing weight. People generally recommend whole milk. Even THAT is not REALLY whole milk. REAL whole milk has more fat but a lot of it is sold as cream, etc...

The highlighted word is your problem. You've either done a research study which indicates a relation between formula and autism, or you haven't. You either know or you don't. Belief is not a factor.

That's exactly what I was talking in my previous post, about "Just because it did/didn't happen to one person, doesn't mean it's true/false. It's ONE person out of millions."

I believe that you were suggesting that it caused autism. Do you have anything to go on other than gut feeling or correlation? I am suggesting that you prove the causation.

I refer to DHA and ARA to DHASCO and ARASCO because these are the oils that are added.The can will say DHA/ARA.The manufacturer tricks consumers to believe that they use natural DHA and ARA.They use synthetic DHASCO and ARASCO because they can manufacture it at a low cost.Natural DHA and ARA will be digested and incorporated into phospholipids much differently.These differences may make a huge impact on downstream signaling.Altering the esterification of a triglyceride will change the way it is utilized in the body.The esterification of DHASCO and ARASCO TAG not only makes it more vulnerable to oxidation but also drives saturated fat(needed for proper protein signaling)out of cellular membranes.When the manufacturer published results from clinical studies they were using natural DHA/ARA.The most recent studies show no benefit.How could they publish studies of DHASCO/ARASCO effects on brain and eye development before they were actually introduced to infant formula?They used natural sources of DHA/ARA.After seven years of use in the U.S.,and five additional years worldwide,there is no benefit from their synthetic oils.They also use carrageenan as an emulsifier.Its banned in other countries because when it degrades it becomes poligeenan(known carcinogen).They use it as a thickening agent because it is cheap.They don't know how it degrades in an immature digestive system and don't care.Infants have been used as lab rats for the past seven years for a company to increase profits.Am I the only person that is horrified by this?

If you don't believe that I am being honest prove me wrong.Go to any infant formula website and ask a relevant question.Not a question that they have a preprogrammed answer for.Ask how their DHASCO/ARASCO structural differences from natural sources result in the same benefit in development.Why do you use carrageenan as an emulsifier when it is banned in other countries?How come your DHASCO/ARASCO affects gender differently?If there is no benefit for boys,shouldn't there be formula without these supplements?Have other parents had children with serious digestive issues from consuming these new supplements?I am willing to bet that you will not get a response.An educated consumer is their worst enemy.

Uh.

Please tell me why on god's green earth that something derived from kelp would be banned.

google carrageenan and cancer.I'm not the one who banned it.Domoic acid comes from kelp-super toxic.Should we add that to infant formula?Ever hear of red tide?Comes from kelp degrading.I have some education in organic chemistry,do you?Some things on God's green earth are toxic.

Improvements in brain and eye development.Think about that for a momement.If these supplements are powerful enough to make improvements in brain and eye development,shouldn't we know exactly how this is accomplished?It took the makers of WD-40 forty attempts to get their formulation correct.Do you honestly believe that the addition of synthetic DHA/ARA was done correctly on its first attempt?I have a little less faith in multi-billion dollar drug companies.How many products have they rushed to the shelves only to remove them after people were harmed or killed?I am not the most intelligent person on the planet.What I know now came from extensive research which was very difficult for me.What I do know is that these supplements are being added despite lack of proven benefit.Should we be adding what we know very little about?If something has the potential to be harmful,then it some instances,it will cause harm.Not fully understanding this potential makes it even more dangerous.Benefit should outweigh risk.With no benefit you are left with only risk.These are the same individuals over vaccinating our children.Somehow I am the jerk for exposing the truth.I didn't find the sole cause of asd, merely a potential environmental factor that could be contributing.What do I gain from informing parents of the danger from today's formula?Shouldn't we ask the appropriate questions and demand answers regarding safety of infant formula ingredients?I guess we should accept the fact that these ingredients are generally regarded as safe from the FDA and not 100% safe.

Last edited by pesky on 30 Aug 2009, 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.