autism and infant formula

Page 4 of 6 [ 86 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

30 Aug 2009, 10:55 pm

So my interest was at least peaked enough to look into it for myself. All I could find was a single source, cornucopia.org which you previously mentioned, for your argument. It's not even an actual study. I did, however, come across a study (with actual participants) that claims the exact opposite to be true.

http://www.internationalbreastfeedingjournal.com/content/1/1/16

This study found that children who were breastfed or fed formula with DHA/ARA supplementation did not develop autism as frequently as children who were fed non-supplemented formula. There were findings about how DHA and ARA in formula can lead to digestive problems, but not autism.

The part that doesn't make any sense is that all formulas today contain DHA/ARA. It's no longer about some marketing gimmick. Nobody is paying more for it. If the manufacturer's had any reason to believe that it was not beneficial, they would likely be thrilled to omit it because it would be one less expense. I don't see any advantage to them, at this point, to continue to add something that was either unnecessary, or perhaps harmful. What could their motives possibly be?

I also have to agree with fiddlerpianist's implication that perhaps you are only here to barrage us with your hypothesis, and not to actually engage in dialogue. This is a support-based community, not a courtroom. I haven't noticed you on the parenting board, which leads me to wonder, what are your motives? You don't appear to be looking for support, ideas, or encouragement. I'm really not sure why you are here at all.

2ukenkerl
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,277

30 Aug 2009, 11:19 pm

pesky wrote:

Infant Formula and Increase in Autism

My name is Michael Pescatore and my son Joseph is severely autistic.He was born without complications and was developing normally.At about 14 months of age he started to lose acquired language and display autistic-like behavior.

That doesn't sound like Kanners, that sounds like CDD!! ! http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/cdd.html

BTW some evidence suggests, and I believe, that it is NOT because of a trigger, but the ABSENCE or DELAY of one! You see, around 2yo, pruning takes place. If it is done wrong, or continues, there will be REGRESSION!

pesky wrote:

He does not speak and is now four and a half years old.He is the youngest of my four children.He is also the first autistic child throughout our extended families.I am guessing that I can rule out family history.
I have spent the past three years researching causation.I started at the beginning,since that seemed like the logical place to start. What I have found leads me to believe that autism is a man made disease. For causation to be determined several conditions must be satisfied. Vaccinations with mercury,bottles made from BPA,cell phone radiation and several other theories have emerged from desperate parents searching for a cause. Although I don't totally disagree that some of these things may be harmful, they also do not explain or satisfy several facts.

Well, that IS common for CDD!

pesky wrote:

Here are a few well know facts about autism:
The rate of autism has increased from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 150 since the early 1980's.
It affect males more frequently than females with a ratio of 4:1.
The increase has been seen globally.

Like I said, thoise are NOT facts! If the actual numbers went DOWN, the diagnosed ones would STILL go up! You might as well saying that more people are autistic now because so many drink orange juice, and you decided to count THEM now. Basically you ARE saying that.

pesky wrote:

Autistic children suffer from digestive issues. Casein and Gluten protein intolerance.

Not all do. Even so, the digestive disorders don't indicate autism.

pesky wrote:

Regressive autism is associated with vaccination injury suggesting compromised immune system.

WRONG! That is just one theory. AND, again, most autism is NOT regressive. In fact, I don't consider CDD autism. really, how could you? Even YALE says "With CDD children develop a condition which resembles autism but only after a relatively prolonged period (usually 2 to 4 years) of clearly normal development (Volkmar, 1994). This condition apparently differs from autism in the pattern of onset, course, and outcome (Volkmar, 1994)." NOTE, they say it RESEMBLES autism and it DIFFERS from autism.... So THEY don't consider it autism.

pesky wrote:

Autistic children are deficient in anti-oxidant lines of defense implicating oxidative stress.

Where do you get THAT!?!?

pesky wrote:

I will try to satisfy these facts:
Since the early 1980's infant formula manufacturers have constantly changed the fats and composition of their products. They introduced MCT oil (medium chain triglyceride oil),hydrolyzed proteins,and finally Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (LCPUFAs).

DHA and ARA are now added to infant formula as a marketing tool. Their claim is improvement in brain and eye development. These LCPUFAs are considered essential fatty acids. They can only be made in the human body from elongation and desaturation of precursor fatty acids found in diet. Females are more efficient at this process than males. This establishes two important facts. Females are better equipped to produce more and protect from excessive dietary supply. It is important to note that recently the manufacturer of these supplements released the results of a clinical study in Jan.2009. At five times the current dosage in infant formula, some benefit has been found for females while none for males. Overall,when all results were examined,there was no benefit of DHA/ARA supplementation. Not only does does it affect gender differently,but parents are paying extra for a benefit that doesn't exist. The manufacturer is unaware of the reason for this discrepancy.

DHA/ARA infant formula is available worldwide. It is an environmental factor. Since diets around the world are so different it has been overlooked as a contributing factor. If a sole source of nutrition during critical stages of development is important, one must know that it is safe. The FDA has labeled DHASCO/ARASCO (DHA single cell organism/ ARA single cell organism) supplementation as Generally Regarded As Safe. The responsibility of safety is left up to the infant formula manufacturer.

DHASCO/ARASCO are structurally different than natural DHA/ARA found in breast milk. They are extracted from algae and fungus by hexane. The structural differences lie in the esterification of the triglyceride. I will not go in to too much detail. DHASCO and ARASCO are devoid of palmitic and oleic acids that are normally found in breast milk. These saturated fatty acids are critical for proper protein to protein signaling. Saturated fat and polyunsaturated fat are incompatible. Incorporation of LCPUFAs through diet will drive saturated fat out of cellular membranes. This may cause a disruption of palmitoylation. This disruption will alter proper digestion and protein signaling involved with neurotransmission.

DHA is well known for its anti-inflammatory properties. It counters the inflammatory properties of ARA. The way that it exerts this is still unknown. DHA is also known to suppress the immune system.Dr.Jon Poling has a daughter with autism. Recently he settled out of court over a complaint regarding vaccination injury. His daughter,Hannah,had an underlying condition called a mitochondrial dysfunction. This condition caused his daughter to become autistic immediately following a series of vaccinations. Ironically,being a neurologist,he has researched and written several publications on DHA.DHA will cause a mitochondrial dysfunction when uncontrollable oxidation occurs. This is a reaction called oxidative stress. How does oxidative stress initiate? Add DHA to ferrous sulfate and a Fenton reaction will occur. Ferrous sulfate is the iron supplement added to infant formula. Note that the manufacturer of DHASCO and ARASCO has a specific final step in processing that removes trace metals from DHASCO and ARASCO to keep it from oxidizing. They are also aware that their product will be added to an iron fortified infant formula. They,not unlike the FDA,are not responsible for infant formula safety.

I tried to keep it short and to the point. The science involved is very complicated and most of it is still under investigation. Almost every scientific and medical publication that I have read has determined the same thing. The exact mechanisms involved with DHA and ARA metabolism warrant further research. My theory of today's infant formula causing autism may seem completely ridiculous. What I find even more ridiculous is the fact that infant formula supplements may be added as long as they are generally regarded as safe. After 176 pages of adverse reports to the FDA and failure to establish a benefit, the infant formula companies continue to profit on deception and lack of concern for safety. "Does it pick my pocket or break my leg?"Abraham Lincoln-It does both.

I have so much more to share including my complaint v. Mead Johnson and its outcome.Feel free to contact me anytime.

Warmest regards,
Michael Pescatore
[email protected]

It WILL be interesting to see where this DOES go. STILL, CDD was described, according to yale, in 1908. That was a VERY long time ago. 101 years ago! BTW most cases in that 1:150 are NOT CDD!! !! !! In fact, technically, NONE should be!

pesky
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 42
Location: u.s.

31 Aug 2009, 8:07 am

There is a clinical study ongoing worldwide.They are using our children as part of their experiment.By now there should be thousands of studies that boast the benefit of DHASCO/ARASCO supplementation.There isn't.Instead they have the most recent findings published.No benefit overall and no explanation whyhttp://aapnews.aappublications.org/c ... 5/209-Read this.Serious safety issues that still haven't been addressed.You honestly think that the manufacturers would be happy to admit that they are unsure why they can not verify the benefit that they falsely market.I'm sure they would be happy to explain the fact that these supplements are affecting gender differently and they don't know how or why.In fact they would probably be delighted to reveal the fact that they don't really know what affect these supplements may have on infant development,both short and long term.Why doesn't someone show me a study explaining benefits past the age of 18 months.Its been seven years in the U.S. and an additional five worldwide.Millions of infants later-surely these is concrete evidence of benefit.I'll post some more links to establish the facts. Even closer to breast milk-Closer than what?

pesky
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 42
Location: u.s.

31 Aug 2009, 8:11 am

There is a clinical study ongoing worldwide.They are using our children as part of their experiment.By now there should be thousands of studies that boast the benefit of DHASCO/ARASCO supplementation.There isn't.Instead they have the most recent findings published.No benefit overall and no explanation why http://aapnews.aappublications.org/cgi/ ... l/20/5/209 - Read this.Serious safety issues that still haven't been addressed.You honestly think that the manufacturers would be happy to admit that they are unsure why they can not verify the benefit that they falsely market.I'm sure they would be happy to explain the fact that these supplements are affecting gender differently and they don't know how or why.In fact they would probably be delighted to reveal the fact that they don't really know what affect these supplements may have on infant development,both short and long term.Why doesn't someone show me a study explaining benefits past the age of 18 months.Its been seven years in the U.S. and an additional five worldwide.Millions of infants later-surely these is concrete evidence of benefit.I'll post some more links to establish the facts. Even closer to breast milk-Closer than what?

Last edited by pesky on 31 Aug 2009, 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

pesky
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 42
Location: u.s.

31 Aug 2009, 8:12 am

This is nonsense from cornucopia.org?No it is fact http://www.cornucopia.org/DHA/DHA_QuestionsAnswers.pdf
wait,here is the FDA's response to benefits http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Prod ... 108079.htm

Who is being deceptive?You think infant formula today is safe and natural ?http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/01/monitoring-safety.html

Last edited by pesky on 31 Aug 2009, 8:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

pesky
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 42
Location: u.s.

31 Aug 2009, 8:57 am

Hey fiddlerpianist-Maybe you are not concerned with the safety of infant formula.I am giving you the links to credible resources but you must know better.For someone who doesn't care about safety,you visit my page frequently to add your comments.My topic might not be what you are interested in but there may be others who are.I think I have a right to post what I feel is important.You don't see me on your page acting like a jackass.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

31 Aug 2009, 9:20 am

There is a huge missing piece in this theory and in all the enviromental theories. This missing piece is mechanism of action. Nobody actually understands what phsyiologically goes on in the brain to cause the different phenomena that people have lumped together and called autism. Proving that something is potentially toxic or even actually toxic is not the same as proving that it causes autism. Until it is known exactly what autism is neurologically (instead of just behaviorally), it is not possible to know what- if any-enviromental triggers cause it.

The mere observation that A and B both increased together over time means nothing. And that's all any enviromental cause hypothesis has done. It is also important to note that an increase in autism diagnosis does not mean there has actually been an increase in autism. The DSM criteria has been expanded to cover people who would not have recieved a diagnosis in the past, and in the case of many posters here-didn't. Obviously when diagnostic criteria gets expanded, the number of cases is bound to go up.

There have been social changes as well as enviromental changes over time. The rise of tech and the increasing number of women in tech fields (up from 0, or close to 0) means that more couples who may be carrying recessive genes for autism that gets expressed as "nerdiness" will meet and have kids. Women on the whole have also been having children later in life, another enviromental change that has nothing to do with consuming a toxin. Is that a factor? I don't know. But insisting that one pet toxin is what is causing the rise in autism diagnoses blinds you to other possible causes. And proving that something is toxic is not the same thing as proving it causes autism.

pesky
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 42
Location: u.s.

31 Aug 2009, 10:01 am

Wow, an intelligent response.Thank you.As I have mentioned earlier,I have not found the cause of 100% of asd.I am merely trying to emphasize how very little is known about the new infant formulas.Since they contain DHASCO/ARASCO that are highly vulnerable to oxidation and are new to the food chain,they pose very important safety issues that haven't been addressed.When you combined these components with the iron supplement used they will peroxidize.The neurotoxic by-products created have just recently been classified.Being that no established long term benefits have been published to date establishes that the are solely added to increase profit.If these newly classified neurotoxic components are suspect in causation of other neurodegenerative disease as well as initiation of oxidative stress,would they be safe to add to an infant during critical stages of development?Google peroxidation of dha.google dha and ferrous sulfate-the iron supplement used.google autism and oxidative stress.google TBARS of dha.
If a supplement has the potential to cause harm,it will cause harm.We know to not strike matches around gasoline because it will ignite.We now know that smoking will cause serious health issues.People had to experience harm or even death to make this common knowledge.Look how long it took to determine the health implications of smoking.If it has potential to cause harm it has no business in infant formula.How long will it take for this to become common knowledge and practice?http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2459249

Last edited by pesky on 31 Aug 2009, 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

fiddlerpianist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,821
Location: The Autistic Hinterlands

31 Aug 2009, 10:31 am

pesky wrote:

Hey fiddlerpianist-Maybe you are not concerned with the safety of infant formula...For someone who doesn't care about safety,you visit my page frequently to add your comments.

I never said that I don't care about the safety of infant formula. You are jumping to conclusions. That and I am trying to carry on a real argument with you. It appears, however, that I am banging my head into a brick wall.

pesky wrote:

am merely trying to emphasize how very little is known about the new infant formulas.

You seem confident that you know quite a bit about them. And I don't think that's all you're trying to emphasize. Let's go back to your original post:

pesky wrote:

I believe that DHA/ARA supplemented infant formula is contributing to autism.

Where are the studies that back this up? As far as I can tell, you are using your own reasoning to conclude that an ingredient identified as a neurotoxin has to be contributing to autism.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and there may be others that share your opinion here. But when someone challenges your assertion with, "Where is the evidence?" don't counter with, "You must not care about infant formula safety." That's simply a red herring.

pesky wrote:

You don't see me on your page acting like a jackass.

First off, this isn't your page. In case you didn't realize, this is a discussion forum. There are, in fact, other people here with other points of view. Secondly, I'm simply trying to hold you to the boundaries of a real discussion. If you're not willing to participate, your accusation is very ironic indeed.

_________________
"That leap of logic should have broken his legs." - Janissy

pesky
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 42
Location: u.s.

31 Aug 2009, 11:12 am

My own research?I've given you the links to see the scientific research.Are you telling me that DHA will not peroxidize when added to iron and become neurotoxic?You ask me for scientific research and I provide it.You ignore it and tell me I am jumping to conclusions.I have read and understand that DHA-hydroperoxides-cause neuronal apoptosis and necrosis.This is scientific fact-not a conclusion that I have jumped to.I do know a great deal about the ingredients in today's infant formulas.I do believe that DHASCO/ARASCO is contributing to severe neurological dysfunction.I am trying to warn parents about the dangers of infant formula today.I am trying to share over three years of research that establishes what I have posted.Look up http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=2459249
The difference between a person like you and me is that the more I know,the more I realize I don't know.The less that you know,the more you think you know.You obviously know very little about neurology.

fiddlerpianist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,821
Location: The Autistic Hinterlands

31 Aug 2009, 11:37 am

pesky wrote:

Are you telling me that DHA will not peroxidize when added to iron and become neurotoxic?

I am not telling you that.

pesky wrote:

You ask me for scientific research and I provide it.You ignore it and tell me I am jumping to conclusions.I have read and understand that DHA-hydroperoxides-cause neuronal apoptosis and necrosis.This is scientific fact-not a conclusion that I have jumped to.I do know a great deal about the ingredients in today's infant formulas.I do believe that DHASCO/ARASCO is contributing to severe neurological dysfunction.I am trying to warn parents about the dangers of infant formula today.I am trying to share over three years of research that establishes what I have posted.

I have no doubt that is what you believe. However, you provide no compelling evidence to the rest of us to persuade us that we should share in your belief.

pesky wrote:

Look up http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=2459249

Nowhere in that article does it mention autism. You are making the assumption that neuronal apoptosis and necrosis cause autism. It would do you well to cite an article that links these phenomena with autism, for the rest of us who maybe aren't as steeped in neurological research as you.

I agree that there may be very bad things in infant formula. And I don't necessarily trust the FDA to tell me otherwise. I'm not even questioning your position that DHASCO/ARASCO has been demonstrated to be a neurotoxin. I'm questioning the leap you seem to have made from this to suggesting that DHASCO/ARASCO contribute to autism in some cases.

pesky wrote:

The difference between a person like you and me is that the more I know,the more I realize I don't know.The less that you know,the more you think you know.You obviously know very little about neurology.

The difference between you and me is that you let your passions drive your reasoning and I do not. So I am calling you on it. I do care deeply about infants and it's fairly outrageous for you to suggest otherwise. However, I won't take it personally.

I never claimed to be an expert in neurology. I'm simply saying that argument you are trying to make is not sound. As far as I can tell, it is based solely on correlation. Maybe you are leaving out a few details that you assume we know? Maybe you need to back up a few steps and fill us in on why exactly you believe infant formula can be a cause of autism? I'm looking for a syllogism here that will allow me to connect the dots. I have yet to see one.

_________________
"That leap of logic should have broken his legs." - Janissy

pesky
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 42
Location: u.s.

31 Aug 2009, 12:30 pm

Neuronal apoptosis or necrosis results in destruction of brain matter.Destroy enough brain matter and you will have a neurological impairment.The severity of this impairment will depend on the extent of tissue destruction accumulated.This may be grossly oversimplistic.Regardless,if you have a component added to infant formula that may cause this neuronal apoptosis or necrosis,it should be removed immediately.Label it as you want -severe autism etc.Brain tissue destruction is not a desirable outcome of infant formula feeding.Neither are the several other diseases associated with oxidative stress initiated from peroxidation of LCPUFAs.Just my opinion.Here is the association between oxidative stress and autism- http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/oxidative.pdf What have my post said so far? This explains the reaction between ferrous sulfate and DHA-http://www.healthcare.uiowa.edu/corefacilities/esr/publications/2000/pdf/CellMol-2000-46-657-FQS-Fe.pdf

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

31 Aug 2009, 10:29 pm

pesky wrote:

By the way,I was a pro-se litigant v. Mead Johnson regarding the safety of their infant formula.The judge thought that the evidence and written expert report I had submitted to Federal Court was so ridiculous that she has allowed time for me to gather more support.

That's pretty much the same reaction you are getting here. It sounds rediculous, so please gather more support. No one here, I don't think, can prove you right or wrong. If all that you are saying is true, then you should have no problem finding scientists and doctors to back your claim. Then take your evidence to the appropriate channels to ensure the safety of infant formula. I sincerely wish you luck on your endevors. Your intentions are good, but your approach needs a lot of work.

The problem with you going and spreading fears about infant formula to the general public is that a lot of people may become so scared that they avoid infant formula altogether, which is really the only safe alternative that you are advertising. So what then do you suppose a scared new mom will feed her baby, if breastmilk is not a viable option. Maybe cow's milk, homemade formula, juice, or just water? Those options are far more dangerous for a baby's development during the first year. Babies who are fed neither breastmilk nor formula are at risk of severe malnutrition which could easily lead to death. You seem to have taken on this responsibility of getting these formulas off the market. You should also then see to it that safe alternatives are put into place BEFORE going and scaring the crap out of people who may be uneducated, naive, and completely vulnerable, who might then turnaround and start giving their baby plain milk. Your message is appropriate if addressed to the FDA, the courts, or the heads of the industry. Your message can be downright dangerous if addressed to the general public.

2ukenkerl
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,277

01 Sep 2009, 7:20 am

One more thing pesky. Did you give him formula all throughout his life? NORMAL development goes like this....

GROWTH->PRUNE(around 2)->GROWTH->PRUNE(around ->GROWTH->PRUNE(around 13)->GROWTH till about 35(supposedly)

If the problem with the formula is as you said, and you fed him from birth, the problem would have occured during the first growth spurt and he would not have acquired language. The symptoms pattern CDD which does NOT have to do with growth, but PRUNING!

Obviously, pruning happens all the time, but the phase at 2,8, and 13 appears to be REAL MAJOR! Of course, since it tends to rpefer UNUSED neurons, and people don't use all their brains, the one at 8 is not as noticable, and the one at 13 even less so. The one at 2 is another story entirely.

pesky
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 42
Location: u.s.

01 Sep 2009, 8:31 am

My intention is to make parents aware of the danger.There are very few infant formulas not containing DHASCO/ARASCO,but there still are a few.I believe the carnation brand contains DHA/ARA from fish oil-natural source.Although it is also vulnerable to peroxidation,not as much as DHASCO/ARASCO.All forms of DHA/ARA will spoil from oxidation because of their multiple double bonds.Iron and other trace metals will accelerate this process.Also,exposure to air and light.It is extremely important to look at the expiration date and once formula is prepared,refrigerate immediately.The instructions warn to discard after one hour of feeding because of possible bacterial growth.It doesn't warn how unstable DHASCO/ARASCO really is.Keep exposure of prepared formula to light and air to a minimum.Discard if you notice any off color or odor or product seems to be separating.If your child experiences severe feeding intolerances,switch to a brand not containing DHA/ARA or DHASCO/ARASCO and see if it helps.Always keep your medical care provider aware and seek advice when needed.
I have contacted the FDA several times and made them aware.I have yet to receive a single response in regards to my concerns.I have also contacted the formula manufacturer as well as the CDC with the same outcome.I forced the FDA to send me the reports from other parents regarding adverse events reported through the Freedom of Information Act.You can view these reports at my website- www.autisminfantformula.com At first I was sent 5 pages with about fifteen reports.After five additional requests and several phone calls,I was sent a cd containing 176 pages with hundreds of reports.What really bothers me is the fact that the reports that I have submitted were not on those 176 pages.I spoke to the higherups at the FDA and they replied,"We don't know where they are and we do not know what to tell you."This is the same exact response I have gotten from the formula manufacturer.My half dozen reports are missing although I have confirmation that they were received.How many other serious reports are missing?How many reports were submitted to the formula manufacturer?Does this sound like thorough post marketing survielance?I have told everyone who will or will not listen.I am only one voice.If you want to experience this lack of care first hand I suggest sending a quality concern to an infant formula manufacturer.Maybe,if your question is not invasive you will receive a response.I believe that the only serious complaints I received were because the FDA was aware of my Federal complaint.Others who had their infant die are now a part of public record through the judicial system.Their reports would have to be part of the 176 pages.
My intention is not to scare parents but rather make them aware.Potentially dangerous supplements must be used with caution in order to reduce risk.If there were a warning label,this would be helpful.I wouldn't hold my breath.Afterall,synthetic DHASCO/ARASCO make their product" even closer to breast milk".

pesky
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 42
Location: u.s.

06 Sep 2009, 7:52 pm

If scientist can't understand exactly how natural DHA/ARA affects cellular signaling should we be adding synthetic DHASCO/ARASCO to infant formula?Never before have we needed these supplements as infants.To date there is no benefit and only an increased formula price.To me,this is the largest crime conducted by big pharm that picks your pocket and puts you infants in harm's way.

Page 4 of 6 [ 86 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

autism and infant formula Post Reply New Topic

autism and infant formula