Majid Ali, M.D.
Are the unborn babies from women of low-income families more likely to suffer nutritional deficiencies than the unborn babies of women from high-income families? If so, can such babies be expected to face higher in-the-womb developmental challenges?
* Are the unborn babies of low-income expecting women (“low-income unborns”) more likely to face higher toxic loads, since nutrients are the primary detox molecules in the body?
* Are the low-income unborns more likely to face higher levels of maternal stress hormones?
* Are the low-income unborns more likely to be more insulin-toxic? (Insulin toxicity is more common among low-income women.)
* Are the low-income unborns more likely to face higher levels of maternal hormones? (Girls of low-income families have a much higher rate of precocious sexual development.)
* Are the low-income unborns more likely to face higher levels of maternal hypertension molecules? (Girls of low-income families have higher rates of prehypertension.)
* Are the low-income unborns more likely to be challenged by higher load of maternal toxic metals (lead, mercury, arsenic, and others.)?
* Are the low-income unborns more likely to develop under greater cellular fermentation conditions of their mothers? (Bowel, blood, and ,liver fermentation in my clinical experience is more common among the poor.)
Some time spent on the internet will convince anyone that the answers to all of the above questions are affirmative. If so, would the low-income unborns not have lower IQs (indicating more challenged neurodevelopment, hence lower IQs?
The answer to the question is a resounding yes.
Consider the following text from National Geographic of January 2015:
“In the late 1980s, when the crack cocaine epidemic was ravaging America’s cities, Hallam Hurt, a neonatologist in Philadelphia, worried about the damage being done to children born to addicted mothers. She and her colleagues, studying children from low-income families, compared four-year-olds who’d been exposed to the drug with those who hadn’t. They couldn’t find any significant differences. Instead, what they discovered was that in both groups the children’s IQs were much lower than average. “These little children were coming in cute as buttons, and yet their IQs were like 82 and 83,” Hurt says. “Average IQ is 100. It was shocking.”
The Philadelphia doctors doing the study were under Freud’s influence and were apparently uninfluenced by Darwin. They did not address any of the above-mentioned nutritional, metabolic, and toxicity issues. They did do some excellent work to see how much good could be done for the affected children by giving greater attention to them in the family and school setting.