Friday, May 21, 2010

Chocolate flavored formula!

Enfamil has hit a new low, by now marketing Chocolate flavored formula for toddlers. Wow, enfamil, way to start children off healthy. Not only are you packing kids full of fake DHA that comes from fermented algea (see previous blog post) but now you are packing them full of sugar and sweets. How does giving something so sweet set a child up for healthy eating habits. I know I already have a hard enough time getting them to eat their veggies and healthy food, how is this going to get toddlers to start eating them? What would most children want? Not only that but I am so tired of hearing in their ads about the whole DHA/ARA crap. What they put into their products is not natural DHA/ARA. Is is man made, and proven to not have the benifits of the natural form. Not to mention the the neurotoxins that are used to create the artificial DHD/ARA. This also adds to another new product by enfamil for getting babies to sleep through the night. WHAT! There is a reason they have to wake up so much to eat at night and here they go trying to mess with a natural process that in the long run is going to cause more harm then good including increasing these babies risk for SIDS. It looks to me, like this company, along with many other formula companies that uses this artificial fatty acid as a marketing tool when tests have shown it does nothing compared to the natural form of it....but wait they claim to care about babies health, how again is the healthy for them....??

Friday, April 30, 2010

Doctor rapes patients and gets a slap on the wrist.

Ok so I will admit, this is a purely pissed off post. This story written by the Chicago Tribune outlines a nasty, demented man who was trusted by women to provide proper care and instead they were sexually assaulted and raped! According to this story, many reports were made against Dr. Smith from numerous women over at least 9 years from 2000 till 2009. The complaints ranged from unwanted touching to full on penetration with his penis! Since when is this kind of behavior acceptable? The answer, it is NEVER acceptable. One would think that this would constitute losing ones license to practice, right? Well apparently they felt it was better to only suspend his license for 9 months. So, because he is a doctor, he can assault and rape women and not only get away with it, but will in the future be allowed to practice again. This man has proved he is unable to control himself and takes advantage of his patients at their most vulnerable time. This makes me physically ill, that not only did they NOT press any charges, but they are actually going to allow him to continue to practice medicine!

EFM(External Fetal Monitoring) is it too common and does it really benefit mothers and babies?

The use of EFM has long been argued about whether it is truly needed or even useful. EFM in the beginning was only used on high risk mothers in an attempt to decrease cerebral palsy(CP) in infants who were deprived of oxygen due to lack of oxygen. It has since grown into a standard of care for all birthing women. Many women do not question why this has become a requirement for everyone. In most hospitals in the US it is now stand practice for all women to be continually monitored for the entire labor, even those who are classified as "low risk". Many women do not question this practice at all, they agree, thinking that this is one more thing that will guarantee them a healthy baby. But the this is far from the truth. Since EFM has become standard care, the rate of CP in infants has NOT gone down, but the cesarean rate has drastically risen. The reason given for the raise in the cesarean rate by doctors? Maternal request. No one would admit that the over use of EFM could possibly be a problem. But finally an OB is speaking about EFM and had quiet a bit to say about just how unreliable and poor this procedure is. This is what Alex Friedman, a fellow
in maternal-fetal medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania said.
But fetal heart monitoring is an appallingly poor test. The test misses the majority of babies with cerebral palsy, the condition researchers hoped it would prevent. It causes increased rates of a painful and invasive surgery: cesarean section. Even worse, almost all women undergo continuous heart monitoring during labor, not just those at highest risk.

He also said:
The complication we feared most was hypoxia, the baby not getting enough oxygen during labor. Going too long without adequate oxygen could result in a serious permanent injury, such as cerebral palsy, or even death.

No test is perfect. But almost every time we whisked a mother back to the operating room, and I cut through skin, fat, fascia, and finally the muscle of the uterus, expecting a blue, floppy baby, the child I delivered emerged pink, healthy, and a little bit angry.

Were we saving lives and averting disaster? Or were we performing unnecessary surgery?

If EFM is so unreliable, then I ask why is it still even used, or at least why is it standard for all birthing patients? This to me does NOT look like evidence based medicine. Why?
Steven Clark and Gary Hankins, two prominent obstetricians, voiced my frustration. "A test leading to an unnecessary major abdominal operation in more than 99.5 percent of cases should be regarded by the medical community as absurd at best," they wrote in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. "Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring has probably done more harm than good."

If you would like to read the entire article, written by Alex Friedman see link included.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Legally protecting doctors who lie to their patients?

So the state of Oklahoma is trying to pass a bill (HB 2656) that would legally protect a doctor that withholds or lies to a mother about the condition of her unborn baby, if he thinks it will prevent her from obtaining an abortion. And all I can say is WOW! Since when is it ever ok for a doctor to LIE to their patient, let alone taking away her RIGHT to make her own medical choices. Now I know that abortion is a very hot button topic but I am sorry, it is NEVER ethical for a doctor to LIE to their patient. Now, I will admit that I am not for abortion, I don't believe in it, I don't personally feel that it is right, BUT just because I may not agree with it does NOT give me the right to take the choice away from someone else! People of OK, you need to stand up and tell your politicians that you will NOT allow the law to cover the asses of doctors who want to lie to their patients.

A little about me.

So I am finally getting around to sharing my story of how and why I started this blog. I would have never guessed 15 years ago that I would be on this journey of learning and changing my beliefs as not only a person but as a parent. When I had my first child, I was just like a large majority of the US. I went to the doctor regularly, as did my first born. If the doctor told me something needed to be done, it was just done without question. I never ever dared to ask the hardcore questions that ALL people need to ask and discuss when it comes to making medical decisions. I blindly followed the advice given by my CNM and her OB when I was told my son needed to be born by cesarean after only 14 hours of labor and reaching 7 cm. We were both fine and healthy, great heart tones, and I was ready to keep going, but it was getting late and I am sure they were getting tired of waiting around. The post op infection in my wound was torture on my entire family. My son was fully vaccinated as I bought into the hype that they were safe, why on earth would they give them to children if there was ANY indication that they were not safe. He went in for every single well baby check that I was told I HAD to bring him to. I was berated every time I took him in for one thing or another. For many years after he was born I continued thinking that ALL doctors know best and truly only had mine and my sons best interest in mind and would NEVER recommend anything that would carry major risk. Over time I have learned that most of the time this is not the case. I should have learned earlier when I was a young girl, watching my mom, fighting for her life from breast cancer. She had this cancer for roughly 10 years and when she brought the lump in her breast up to her doctor he told her it was nothing to worry about. Patted her on the head and told her to let him do the worrying. For 10 YEARS he did nothing. Not even a referral for a mammogram. Mom, blindly followed what he said as she had been raised the same way, doctor knows best. 10 years later when her insurance changed she though she would go in for a check up and see what her new doc would say, assuming it would be the same, that it was nothing to worry about. That day my moms life and mine came crashing in. Upon feeling the lump, her new doc informed her that she could guarantee that it was cancer and she was in surgery that same week. It had spread so much that it went into all her lymph nodes on 1 side and they all had to be removed. Her recovery was very long and painful, with staph infections and daily de-breeing sessions to clear away the dead tissue in hopes it would heal. Chemo and radiation both followed and this amazingly strong women endured over a year of hell, fighting for her life. I could very well have lost my mom. The prognosis they gave her was not very promising and I am so very thankful that they were wrong and 20 years later she is still with me and my family. I now have a total of 4 children and with each one I have learned more and more. I no longer vaccinate my children and I research any procedures or treatments that are recommended and I make it a point to grill the doctor now so I know fully what is going to happen, what all the risks are and to determine if the benefit will outweigh any risks. Now I do NOT want this to be mistaken as a doctor hating blog. I don't hate doctors in general, of course there are a few in my own personal like that I do despise from personal experience. But I think that there are still way to many people who put way to much trust in their doctors to make their decisions for them. Doctors are no different from you or me, we are ALL human. Doctors can and DO make mistakes all the time. We, all of us, need to start taking a bigger role in our healthcare choices. Doctors need to be more transparent to their patients about conflict of interest, for example I feel that any doctor that gets ANYTHING from formula companies(pens, lunches, free samples etc) should have to disclose that information with their patients when they recommend formula feeding. Anyway I think this has gotten quiet long, but I am planning on being more active with this blog, posting on a regular basis, hopefully every day! Thanks for reading!

Monday, November 16, 2009

New visiting rules for L&D?? Even more reason to have your baby at home!

With the big bad swine flu going around many if not all hospitals have imposed new rules on visitors that also extend to L&D and post-partum units. Now I can completely get the rules for others in the hospital as they are sick, that is what hospitals are for, sick people. BUT birth IS NOT AN ILLNESS! But they are still limiting mothers to only 1 or 2 (if they are lucky) people. Some hospitals are even going as far as saying only these same 1 or 2 people for your entire stay! No children allowed at all, in many cases this includes siblings. I find this just wrong. If a mom chooses to birth in a hospital she should go in knowing that it could be 24 hours to a week before she sees her children again! Talk about helping to nurture a new growing family. And what kind of start is this rule going to do to young children? Possibly resentment that the new baby already is taking mommy away? Who knows, depends on the child and their age. I know my kids could bearly go 12 hours without seeing me when I had my last baby, and there is no way any of them could have gone a whole week! Don't get me wrong I can totally see saying no children who are not siblings and so on but not letting family and siblings in to see mom is pretty extreme! This is just one more reason ladies to have your babies at home. Why go to a hospital where there is already so many things you can catch, MRSA, resistant infections and now the flu and possibly swine flu. Stay home, where you are already used to your germs and so will your baby. Your house is going to be cleaner and safer then the hospital for your baby! And YOU can choose who you let see and touch your baby, cause we all know that not all docs and nurses are all that great at washing their hands as much as they should.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Ohhh scarey H1N1

The Swine Flu is a big story in the news for the last several months. Big scary stories about people dying, sick and in the hospital. And in turn there is now this wonderful new vaccine (Gag note sarcasm) to keep people from getting it. I for one am not buying into this whole pandemic crap. Yes just as the seasonal flu there will be people who get it, get sick and even die. Pushing this new vaccine through the FDA is NOT the answer. Big Pharma got tons of money( AND no liability for anyone injured or killed from this vaccine) to make this vaccine, I wonder will it be anything like the 70's when the vaccine ended up killing more people then the actual swine flu did? I think so and I think things are going to get a lot worse with vaccine related stuff as more and more people, kids and pregnant women are vaccinated. I wonder how many babies are going to be born with birth defects or even dead because they are giving this vaccine to pregnant women when they haven't done any real studies on dangers. How many children and adults are going to die or suffer injury or illness from this vaccine before they stop! There are already several states where the vaccine is MANDATORY meaning that if you don't take your child in to get this shot, then you, the parent could go to jail and/or lose custody of your children! This is down right insanity! Since when is it OK for the government to tell us we have to be injected with poison or inject our children with this poison or lose them! I for one have been exposed to the swine flu and believe that my whole family had a mild case of it, so for us why in the hell would I get this for myself or my family! Most people have already been exposed, or had a mild case and not even know. Their bodies have built up anti-bodies already so this shot will do nothing for them except pump them up full of toxins. But that doesn't matter to the government! They want to make sure that they get their money back they shelled out for this vaccine. Not only that how are they really going to know who has it and who doesn't since the CDC stopped verifying all suspected cases of the swine flu. I am at this point even more disgusted with the US. If it ever gets to a point where all states require the vaccine regardless of religious or physological exemption then I will no longer be a US citizen. I will not stand back anymore and allow the government tell me how to raise my children and force me to shot them up with toxic shots.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Are we really as free as we think?

So I have been rolling around the idea for this entry for some time. Thinking about how free we really are. And saying to myself wow, how free we ARE NOT. Birth,vaxing,breastfeeding,home schooling, choosing whether or not to take your kids to the doctor are all examples of how we really are not free.
Birth: Many places you can not birth where you want. Many states still have legislation against home birth midwives and birth centers. If your in the hospital you don't have any say in YOUR own care. You get a blanket consent form to sign(and most women don't even know that's what they are signing) that gives them the "right" to do and give you anything since they already have your consent they don't really have to tell you. If you don't play the good patient and go along with what they want you to do then here comes the bullying and scare tactics. If that doesn't work then they can even go as far as involving DHS, having your kids taken away and getting a court order to FORCE you to do what THEY want. Here is a link to mom who LOST HER BABY due to not consenting to an UNNEEDED c/section. She ended up having baby, vaginally with no complications and healthy mom AND BABY, and she still lost her child. Where then is her FREEDOM to CHOOSE her own care???
Vaxing: There are very few states where parents can opt out of vaxing their kids and still have them in school. There are many states where unless there is a medical contraindication. So in order for your kids to go to school they HAVE to basically be poisened again the parents wishes. How then are you FREE to CHOOSE how to care for your child?
Breastfeeding: There are still states where breastfeeding in public is still not protected. Moms getting arrested, harassed and embarrassed for feeding their child!
Home schooling: More and more parents are choosing to home school their children and I for one do not blame them. If I could do it I would in a heart beat. With the way school are I would rather teach them myself. For those who can and do teach their kids there is always the unsupervised DHS/DYFC/CPS what ever they are called that can swoop in and getcha for home schooling, saying your kids are not meeting the so called standard. I have heard many home schooling moms talk about how they keep very in detail diaries about everything they do so they they will have evidence to back them up in case DHS gets bored and comes after them.Again are we really FREE to CHOOSE what and how our kids learn, Nope.
Doctors and medical care for your kids: Now this one is a little more grey area kind of. I personally have fallen victim to DHS for not taking my kids in for well baby/child checks. All of my kids are healthy and when sick or when its NEEDED my kids are seen by a doctor. But I got dinged for not taking them in for their check ups???WHAT!! There is no LAW that requires it and its against what I believe so again how am I FREE to CHOOSE when to take them in. Another story that has been in the news OK since when does a JUDGE(if in fact it is a real judge and not what I got called a Referee) to decide what a person wants or what a family has decided as what is best for them. At 13 years old in any state he would be old enough to choose what parent he wanted to live with, get condoms or BC(if her were a she), choose to have baby ect but now he is too young to make up his OWN mind about chemo? I know even at my age chemo scares the crap outta me and I probably wouldn't want to do it either but they can FORCE him to?
I do not hate the US, far from it. I just think they are getting further and further away from where we should be. They don't feel they have to right to tell a women what to do with her body when it comes to whether or not they can choose to have an abortion but THEY can choose FOR US how we birth and raise them?? So much for smaller government, all I see is it getting bigger and bigger. Giving away all the power to DHS and striping parents constitutional rights away. Ripping families apart. Man I hope Obama gets his shit together on this one.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

I'll sign yours if you sign mine.

If your a VBAC mom or someone who has tried for a VBAC you know that almost all providers have a oh so (not so) nice consent that they make you sign. And for the most part all the ones I have seen/read pretty much say that you are a bad mom and list on and on all these risks to VBACing (most of which are completely not true or risks are inaccurate) and non that come with a repeat c/section. This consent was brought to my attention and I think it is BRILLIANT!!! And just for shit and grins will be having my next CP sign it if I decide to have anymore kids.

"I, the undersigned physician, have, in violation of the Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Patient Self Determination Act, the ethical guidelines of the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Constitutional Law (the right to privacy and self determination protected by the 1st and 14th amendments), international tort law, and case law (of particular interest "In re A.C.", 1987, "In re Fetus Brown, 689 N.E.2d 397, 400 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)", and "In re Baby Boy Doe, 632 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)") and the Patient Rights as determined by this institution, deprived my client,________________, of her right to self determination and her right to bodily integrity by ignoring her repeated refusal for delivery by repeat cesarean section. I acknowledge that by refusing to honor my client's denial of consent, I have not only violated the above laws, but I also affirm that I have used unwarranted and unethical pressure including emotional threats to my client's and her unborn child's life and safety, in my attempts to obtain such consent. I further affirm that I have stressed the risks of vaginal birth after cesarean, but neglected to inform my patient of the risks of delivery by repeat cesarean section. I further affirm that I understand, that should I resort to physical force, including but not limited to physical or chemical restraints to compel my client's cooperation, I will be guilty of criminal battery, which is defined as "any form of non-consensual touching or treatment that occurs in a medical setting". In compensation for the above violations of my client's rights, I hereby guarantee the following:a healthy baby, born in perfect condition, with no physical, mental or developmental defecits whatsoever, whether arising from surgery or any other cause no complications for the infant, including but not limited to: persistent pulmonary hypertension, transient tachypnea of the newborn, respiratory distress syndrome, iatrogenic prematurity, lacerations, or hematomaa speedy, uncomplicated post-operative recovery for my client. Specifically, I guarantee that my client shall not experience nerve damage, organ damage, hemorrhage (whether sufficient to require transfusion or not), disability or disfigurement, intraoperative or postoperative infection of the wound or surrounding skin and tissues, post partum depression and post partum post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and other conditions not listed here. Signed,_____________________"

Baby bled to death after circumcision, inquest told

So many people are reading this and asking, what are the real odds that a child will bleed to death from a circumcision? Well I don't know what the odds are but there has to be some risk as with any surgery that can be a risk. Hemorrage, infection and wound healing problems are pretty much risk with ANY kind of surgical procedure. Why would you put this kind of risk on your baby for something that is COSMETIC is beyond me..........

Windsor A nine-week-old baby boy bled to death hours after being
circumcised, an inquest was told. Celian Noumbiwe was operated on in 2007 at a doctor’s surgery in Reading but later his parents opened his nappy and found a “huge amount” of blood.

Recording a narrative verdict, the Berkshire Coroner
criticised the lack of advice given to the couple on
postoperative care, noting that the emergency number given to them did not work. After the surgery, Carole Youmby and her partner, Monthe Bautrel, originally from France, were encouraged to leave the surgery with the baby within ten minutes when he should have been observed for longer, the court was told. Ms Youmby said that she had been told that the child’s nappy should not be changed for four hours. After calling the emergency number several times, the couple decided to call their GP in the morning. The next day, February 22, 2007, the child was taken from his home in Slough to the nearby Wexham Park Hospital where he died in his mother’s arms.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Cesarean mothers being denied insurance coverage due to previous cesarean delivery!

Just one more thing against moms who have had cesareans. They are getting denied for insurance! And IF they can get coverage its at a higher premium!

After Cesareans, Some See Higher Insurance Cost

Monday, May 26, 2008

DHA/ARA that is added to infant formula..

I got this in my in box and was not to shocked when reading it. I have never heard anywhere else about DHA/ARA being possibly harmful but what made me not so surprised is its all about the money. It always has and as far as I can see it always will be the biggest factor. Everything from pregnancy through the first several years these companies see dollar signs. Nothing more and now this growing trend is more and more spilling over to our care providers as well. They see a pregnant mom walk in and they see dollars, more money for them and if your a first time mom watch out your are the biggest target!

Think about It

Common ingredient in infant formula was found to be linked to diarrhea, severe dehydration and seizures in babies, according to complaints submitted to the FDA.

A shocking report has been released on the adverse health effects of fatty acids found in infant formulas. The Cornucopia Institute, a US-based corporate watchdog group, presented their findings on the fatty acids DHA and ARA, which are now commonly added to formula.

The report is based on a Freedom of Information Act request that the Cornucopia Institute filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the result of which was the uncovering of 98 reports filed by parents and physicians detailing incidences when babies had reacted adversely to formula containing DHA/ARA. The reported incidences range from cases of vomiting and diarrhea that stopped when babies switched to non-DHA/ARA formula to babies being treated in intensive care units for severe dehydration and seizures.

The FDA has never been convinced of the safety of DHA/ARA additives, according to the report. In its initial analysis of the additives, the FDA stated it had reached no determination on their safety status. The administration also noted that some studies had reported unexpected deaths among infants who had been fed with DHA/ARA formula. Despite its reservations, inexplicably the FDA did not withhold approval for the additives.

INFACT Canada has long questioned the use of DHA and ARA (also marketed as omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids) in infant formula. All major formula companies have added the fatty acids to their products in recent years, claiming that they aid in brain and eye development. However most test results have found the additives have negligible effects on infant development. But because DHA and ARA are found naturally in breastmilk, formula companies market DHA/ARA formula as "closer to breastmilk."

Martek Biosciences Corporation, the company that supplies almost all formula companies with DHA/ARA, has admitted that the purpose of the additives is not to encourage healthy development, but to be used as a marketing tool. In its promotional material to encourage investment, Martek stated:

"Infant formula is currently a commodity market, with all products being almost identical and marketers competing intensely to differentiate their product. Even if [DHA/ARA] has no benefit, we think it would be widely incorporated into formulas, as a marketing tool and to allow companies to promote their formula as 'closest to human milk.'"

While DHA and ARA are found naturally in breast milk, the idea that Martek's manufactured acids make formula closer to breast milk is ridiculous. Martek produces DHA and ARA from fermented algae and fungus, and uses hexane (a neurotoxin) in the manufacturing process. Simply adding these synthetic substances to formula cannot make artificial baby milk behave like breast milk, which is a complex, living substance that provides babies with the best possible nutrition and immunological protection.

Regular infant formula puts babies' health at risk, but now infants are being harmed for the sake of a marketing tool. This is an egregious case of formula companies putting profit margins above infant health. In light of this report, it is imperative that all parents be made aware of the potential risks of feeding their babies formula with DHA/ARA. The products should be pulled from the market until their safety can be properly assessed by independent investigations.

Babies should not have to get sick just because companies want to raise their sales figures.

For the full report, see:

~ INFACT Canada

Sunday, May 25, 2008

One of my favorite articals

This is one of my most favorite articles! Enjoy.

Pelvises I Have Known and Loved

by Gloria Lemay

What if there were no pelvis? What if it were as insignificant to how a child is born as how big the nose is on the mother's face? After twenty years of watching birth, this is what I have come to. Pelvises open at three stretch points—the symphisis pubis and the two sacroiliac joints. These points are full of relaxin hormones—the pelvis literally begins falling apart at about thirty-four weeks of pregnancy. In addition to this mobile, loose, stretchy pelvis, nature has given human beings the added bonus of having a moldable, pliable, shrinkable baby head. Like a steamer tray for a cooking pot has folding plates that adjust it to any size pot, so do these four overlapping plates that form the infant's skull adjust to fit the mother's body.

Every woman who is alive today is the result of millions of years of natural selection. Today's women are the end result of evolution. We are the ones with the bones that made it all the way here. With the exception of those born in the last thirty years, we almost all go back through our maternal lineage generation after generation having smooth, normal vaginal births. Prior to thirty years ago, major problems in large groups were always attributable to maternal malnutrition (starvation) or sepsis in hospitals.

Twenty years ago, physicians were known to tell women that the reason they had a cesarean was that the child's head was just too big for the size of the pelvis. The trouble began when these same women would stay at home for their next child's birth and give birth to a bigger baby through that same pelvis. This became very embarrassing, and it curtailed this reason being put forward for doing cesareans. What replaced this reason was the post-cesarean statement: "Well, it's a good thing we did the cesarean because the cord was twice around the baby's neck." This is what I've heard a lot of in the past ten years. Doctors must come up with a very good reason for every operation because the family will have such a dreadful time with the new baby and mother when they get home that, without a convincing reason, the fathers would be on the warpath. Just imagine if the doctor said honestly, "Well, Joe, this was one of those times when we jumped the gun—there was actually not a thing wrong with either your baby or your wife. I'm sorry she'll have a six week recovery to go through for nothing." We do know that at least 15 percent of cesareans are unnecessary but the parents are never told. There is a conspiracy among hospital staff to keep this information from families for obvious reasons.

In a similar vein, I find it interesting that in 1999, doctors now advocate discontinuing the use of the electronic fetal monitor. This is something natural birth advocates have campaigned hard for and have not been able to accomplish in the past twenty years. The natural-types were concerned about possible harm to the baby from the Doppler ultrasound radiation as well as discomfort for the mother from the two tight belts around her belly. Now in l999, the doctors have joined the campaign to rid maternity wards of these expensive pieces of technology. Why, you ask. Because it has just dawned on the doctors that the very strip of paper recording fetal heart tones that they thought proved how careful and conscientious they were, and which they thought was their protection, has actually been their worst enemy in a court of law. A good lawyer can take any piece of "evidence" and find an expert to interpret it to his own ends. After a baby dies or is damaged, the hindsight people come in and go over these strips, and the doctors are left with huge legal settlements to make. What the literature indicates now is that when a nurse with a stethoscope listens to the "real" heartbeat through a fetoscope (not the bounced back and recorded beat shown on a monitor read-out) the cesarean rate goes down by 50 percent with no adverse effects on fetal mortality rates.

Of course, I am in favour of the abolition of electronic fetal monitoring but it would be far more uplifting if this was being done for some sort of health improvement and not just more ways to cover butt in court.

Now let's get back to pelvises I have known and loved. When I was a keen beginner midwife, I took many workshops in which I measured pelvises of my classmates. Bi-spinous diameters, sacral promontories, narrow arches—all very important and serious. Gynecoid, android, anthropoid and the dreaded platypelloid all had to be measured, assessed and agonized over. I worried that babies would get "hung up" on spikes and bone spurs that could, according to the folklore, appear out of nowhere. Then one day I heard the head of obstetrics at our local hospital say, "The best pelvimeter is the baby's head." In other words, a head passing through the pelvis would tell you more about the size of it than all the calipers and X-rays in the world. He did not advocate taking pelvic measurements at all. Of course, doing pelvimetry in early pregnancy before the hormones have started relaxing the pelvis is ridiculous.

One of the midwife "tricks" that we were taught was to ask the mother's shoe size. If the mother wore size five or more shoes, the theory went that her pelvis would be ample. Well, 98 percent of women take over size five shoes so this was a good theory that gave me confidence in women's bodies for a number of years. Then I had a client who came to me at eight months pregnant seeking a home waterbirth. She had, up till that time, been under the care of a hospital nurse-midwifery practise. She was Greek and loved doing gymnastics. Her eighteen-year-old body glowed with good health, and I felt lucky to have her in my practise until I asked the shoe size question. She took size two shoes. She had to buy her shoes in Chinatown to get them small enough—oh dear. I thought briefly of refreshing my rusting pelvimetry skills, but then I reconsidered. I would not lay this small pelvis trip on her. I would be vigilant at her birth and act if the birth seemed obstructed in an unusual way, but I would not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. She gave birth to a seven-pound girl and only pushed about twelve times. She gave birth in a water tub sitting on the lap of her young lover and the scene reminded me of "Blue Lagoon" with Brooke Shields—it was so sexy. So that pelvis ended the shoe size theory forever.

Another pelvis that came my way a few years ago stands out in my mind. This young woman had had a cesarean for her first childbirth experience. She had been induced, and it sounded like the usual cascade of interventions. When she was being stitched up after the surgery her husband said to her, "Never mind, Carol, next baby you can have vaginally." The surgeon made the comment back to him, "Not unless she has a two pound baby." When I met her she was having mild, early birth sensations. Her doula had called me to consult on her birth. She really had a strangely shaped body. She was only about five feet, one inch tall, and most of that was legs. Her pregnant belly looked huge because it just went forward—she had very little space between the crest of her hip and her rib cage. Luckily her own mother was present in the house when I first arrived there. I took her into the kitchen and asked her about her own birth experiences. She had had her first baby vaginally. With her second, there had been a malpresentation and she had undergone a cesarean. Since the grandmother had the same body-type as her daughter, I was heartened by the fact that at least she had had one baby vaginally. Again, this woman dilated in the water tub. It was a planned hospital birth, so at advanced dilation they moved to the hospital. She was pushing when she got there and proceeded to birth a seven-pound girl. She used a squatting bar and was thrilled with her completely spontaneous birth experience. I asked her to write to the surgeon who had made the remark that she couldn't birth a baby over two pounds and let him know that this unscientific, unkind remark had caused her much unneeded worry.

Another group of pelvises that inspire me are those of the pygmy women of Africa. I have an article in my files by an anthropologist who reports that these women have a height of four feet, on average. The average weight of their infants is eight pounds! In relative terms, this is like a woman five feet six giving birth to a fourteen-pound baby. The custom in their villages is that the woman stays alone in her hut for birth until her membranes rupture. At that time, she strolls through the village and finds her midwives. The midwives and the woman hold hands and sing as they walk down to the river. At the edge of the river is a flat, well-worn rock on which all the babies are born. The two midwives squat at the mother's side while she pushes her baby out. One midwife scoops up river water to splash on the newborn to stimulate the first breath. After the placenta is birthed the other midwife finds a narrow place in the cord and chews it to separate the infant. Then, the three walk back to join the people. This article has been a teaching and inspiration for me.

That's the bottom line on pelvises—they don't exist in real midwifery. Any baby can slide through any pelvis with a powerful uterus pistoning down on him/her.

Gloria Lemay is a private birth attendant in Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

ICAN VBAmC video

ICAN released thier new slideshow on VBAmC. I love love love this slideshow. So very powerful! To see the look of wow on their faces. VBAmC IS safe and now the word is spreading! CHeck it out.

Goverment finally links Vaccines with Autizum

Ok so this is something I have been trying to research for a while now. My 2 1/2 year old lost some speach when she was roughly 18 months old. I at first wasn't concerned about it as her sister was only a few months old and I chalked it up to her just regressing. Now for several months I have been getting freaked out by many friends and family with them thinking she is autistic. I firmly believe and sense that my daughter is fine and regression is the problem that can be corrected by some speech therapy. I have done extensive research on this and Aspergers and she has no signs of either other then delayed speech. But the funny thing is she can talk but doesn't do it when we are around as I have heard her talking clear as day to her sister over the baby monitor in their room. I have though felt now for a while that Vaxing isn't 100% safe or healthy and due to the uncertainty of what caused my older daughter to stop talking we decided to at least delay vaxing our youngest and as of now 1 1/2 she still hasn't received any shots. Now that this has come out I don't think any of my children or any more children I may have will be vaxed.

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court - Now What?

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court - Now What?
Posted February 25, 2008 | 12:42 PM (EST)

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."

This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain.

In fact, the government's concession seems to raise more questions than it answers.

1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases?

Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a complex process called "oxidative phosphorylation." If this process is impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue.

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism.

But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings.

But it is not.

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population.

Another article, published in the Journal of Child Neurology and co-authored by Dr. Zimmerman, showed that 38% of Kennedy Krieger Institute autism patients studied had one marker for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, and 47% had a second marker.

The authors -- who reported on a case-study of the same autism claim conceded in Vaccine Court -- noted that "children who have (mitochondrial-related) dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time."

An interesting aspect of Mt disease in autism is that, with ASD, the mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in "classic" cases of Mt disorder. In fact, classic Mt disease is almost always inherited, either passed down by the mother through mitochondrial DNA, or by both parents through nuclear DNA.

In autism-related Mt disease, however, the disorder is not typically found in other family members, and instead appears to be largely of the sporadic variety, which may now account for 75% of all mitochondrial disorders.

Meanwhile, an informal survey of seven families of children with cases currently pending in Vaccine Court revealed that all seven showed markers for mitochondrial dysfunction, dating back to their earliest medical tests. The facts in all seven claims mirror the case just conceded by the government: Normal development followed by vaccination, immediate illness, and rapid decline culminating in an autism diagnosis.

2) With 4,900 cases pending, and more coming, will the government concede those with underlying Mt disease -- and if it not, will the Court award compensation?

The Court will soon begin processing the 4900 cases pending before it. What if 10% to 20% of them can demonstrate the same Mt disease and same set of facts as those in the conceded case? Would the government be obliged to concede 500, or even 1,000 cases? What impact would that have on public opinion? And is there enough money currently in the vaccine injury fund to cover so many settlements?

When asked for a comment last week about the court settlement, a spokesman for HHS furnished the following written statement:

"DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination."

3) If the government is claiming that vaccines did not "cause" autism, but instead aggravated a condition to "manifest" as autism, isn't that a very fine distinction?

For most affected families, such linguistic gymnastics is not so important. And even if a vaccine injury "manifested" as autism in only one case, isn't that still a significant development worthy of informing the public?

On the other hand, perhaps what the government is claiming is that vaccination resulted in the symptoms of autism, but not in an actual, factually correct diagnosis of autism itself.

4) If the government is claiming that this child does NOT have autism, then how many other children might also have something else that merely "mimics" autism?

Is it possible that 10%-20% of the cases that we now label as "autism," are not autism at all, but rather some previously undefined "look-alike" syndrome that merely presents as "features" of autism?

This question gets to the heart of what autism actually is. The disorder is defined solely as a collection of features, nothing more. If you have the features (and the diagnosis), you have the disorder. The underlying biology is the great unknown.

But let's say the government does determine that these kids don't have actual "autism" (something I speculated on HuffPost a year ago). Then shouldn't the Feds go back and test all people with ASD for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, perhaps reclassifying many of them?

If so, will we then see "autism" cases drop by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people? Will there be a corresponding ascension of a newly described disorder, perhaps something like "Vaccine Aggravated Mitochondrial Disease with Features of ASD?"

And if this child was technically "misdiagnosed" with DSM-IV autism by Dr Zimmerman, how does he feel about HHS doctors issuing a second opinion re-diagnosis of his patient, whom they presumably had neither met nor examined? (Zimmerman declined an interview).

And along those lines, aren't Bush administration officials somewhat wary of making long-distance, retroactive diagnoses from Washington, given that the Terry Schiavo incident has not yet faded from national memory?

5) Was this child's Mt disease caused by a genetic mutation, as the government implies, and wouldn't that have manifested as "ASD features" anyway?

In the concession, the government notes that the patient had a "single nucleotide change" in the mitochondrial DNA gene T2387C, implying that this was the underlying cause of her manifested "features" of autism.

While it's true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene.

What's more, there is no evidence that this girl, prior to vaccination, suffered from any kind of "disorder" at all- genetic, mitochondrial or otherwise. Some forms of Mt disease are so mild that the person is unaware of being affected. This perfectly developing girl may have had Mt disorder at the time of vaccination, but nobody detected, or even suspected it.

And, there is no evidence to suggest that this girl would have regressed into symptoms consistent with a DSM-IV autism diagnosis without her vaccinations. If there was such evidence, then why on earth would these extremely well-funded government attorneys compensate this alleged injury in Vaccine Court? Why wouldn't they move to dismiss, or at least fight the case at trial?

6) What are the implications for research?

The concession raises at least two critical research questions: What are the causes of Mt dysfunction; and how could vaccines aggravate that dysfunction to the point of "autistic features?"

While some Mt disorders are clearly inherited, the "sporadic" form is thought to account for 75% of all cases, according to the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation. So what causes sporadic Mt disease? "Medicines or other toxins," says the Cleveland Clinic, a leading authority on the subject.

Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms?

Among the prime cellular targets of mercury are mitochondria, and thimerosal-induced cell death has been associated with the depolarization of mitochondrial membrane, according to the International Journal of Molecular Medicine among several others. (Coincidently, the first case of Mt disease was diagnosed in 1959, just 15 years after the first autism case was named, and two decades after thimerosal's introduction as a vaccine preservative.)

Regardless of its cause, shouldn't HHS sponsor research into Mt disease and the biological mechanisms by which vaccines could aggravate the disorder? We still do not know what it was, exactly, about this girl's vaccines that aggravated her condition. Was it the thimerosal? The three live viruses? The two attenuated viruses? Other ingredients like aluminum? A combination of the above?

And of course, if vaccine injuries can aggravate Mt disease to the point of manifesting as autism features, then what other underlying disorders or conditions (genetic, autoimmune, allergic, etc.) might also be aggravated to the same extent?

7) What are the implications for medicine and public health?

Should the government develop and approve new treatments for "aggravated mitochondrial disease with ASD features?" Interestingly, many of the treatments currently deployed in Mt disease (i.e., coenzyme Q10, vitamin B-12, lipoic acid, biotin, dietary changes, etc.) are part of the alternative treatment regimen that many parents use on their children with ASD.

And, if a significant minority of autism cases can be linked to Mt disease and vaccines, shouldn't these products one day carry an FDA Black Box warning label, and shouldn't children with Mt disorders be exempt from mandatory immunization?

8) What are the implications for the vaccine-autism debate?

It's too early to tell. But this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is "absolutely no link" between vaccines and autism.

It also puts the Federal Government's Vaccine Court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy. DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component. And, they insist, it's simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder.

Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case.

9) What is the bottom line here?

The public, (including world leaders) will demand to know what is going on inside the US Federal health establishment. Yes, as of now, n=1, a solitary vaccine-autism concession. But what if n=10% or 20%? Who will pay to clean up that mess?

The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way -- and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions. Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away.

Its key words are "aggravated" and "manifested." Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all.

When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don't say "his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death."

No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today.

Many people look forward to hearing more from HHS officials about why they are settling this claim. But whatever their explanation, they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case:

The United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism.

And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it.

David Kirby is the author of "Evidence of Harm - Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy" (St. Martins Press 2005.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

More on Kiaser OB who killed a baby.

Ok LA Times took down the artical I added to my post about this so I am going to copy a story from another web site but the LA Times artical was longer and had more info. But you will still get the details. The one big thing that I wished had been included in this story was the baby whose spinal cord was severed decribed the force he was using over a period of time and how once he saw the baby was dead he tried blaming the nure and even went to the extent of telling them what to put in the report for medicaid that said the baby was born alive.

A Kaiser Permanente perinatologist has been the subject of numerous staff and patient complaints and his actions may have contributed to terrible medical outcomes, a newspaper has reported.
According to a Los Angeles Times investigation published Tuesday, Dr. Hamid Safari has been under scrutiny for several years and at least one review board has deemed that his conduct needs improvement.
Several instances of possibly inadequate care were cited by the newspaper, including a 2005 delivery at Kaiser's Fresno hospital in which Safari pulled so hard on the head of a baby with a vacuum extractor that the baby's spinal cord was severed and it died.
Kaiser now requires Safari to be monitored by another physician or nurse during deliveries and he is no longer allowed to perform vaginal deliveries.
In September, the state medical board accused Safari of gross negligence, seeking to revoke or suspend his license.
Safari's attorney Stephen D. Schear called the accusations "completely unwarranted."
"If you're doing thousands of high-risk deliveries over the years, it's almost inevitable that there's going to be some unfortunate cases where children die, where things don't go right," Schear said.
Another complaint centers around allegations that Safari resisted a mother's request for a Caesarean section even though the baby was likely suffering from a reduced oxygen supply. The baby girl died before she was 10 months old.
The coroner attributed her death to chronic respiratory diseases, but did not address if these were related to birth trauma.
The mother in that case filed an arbitration claim against Safari that was settled for an undisclosed sum.
Doctors and nurses have made repeated complaints to higher-ups at Kaiser about possible problems with Safari's skills and behavior, according to a Times review of interviews and documents.
The health care provider was in July fined $3 million for its handling of complaints and physician errors. Officials told the Times that Safari's actions played an important role in regulators' decision to investigate Kaiser.
One petition signed by eight of Safari's perinatal peers said they had lost confidence in Safari. But several other doctors signed a letter supporting him.
Kaiser did not let senior officials talk to the Times for its story and warned staffers at Kaiser Fresno not to speak with the newspaper.
In a statement, hospital administrator Susan Ryan said Kaiser was "committed to ensuring the safety of our patients."

Saturday, January 5, 2008

Reading like a mad woman!

Hey all sorry I haven't posted anything new in a while I have been without Internet and hope to have it back soon and going to the library really only gives me enough time to check my email. In this time though I have not been wasting a minute. I have been reading like a mad woman and I am finding myself getting more empowered and getting more knowledge then I could have ever thought of. Here is a list of all the books I have read in the last month.
1. Spiritual Midwifery By Ina May Gaskins
2. Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth By Henci Goer
3. The VBAC companion By Korte, Diana.
4. Gentle Birth choices Video
5. The birth partner : everything you need to know to help a woman through childbirth By Penny Simkin.
6. Your pregnancy and Birth By The American College Of OB/GYN (Little note: Gag! Don't recommend this book at ALL!! It was the worst pregnancy and birth book I have ever read!)
And I just finished
7. Born In The USA By Marsden Wagner, M.D., M.S.
I am still reading Birthing from within and love it so far and some Lamaze books. I hope to be able to post tomorrow more about Born In The USA as is was such an eye opening book, and was very refreshing in that an OB!!! wrote it and is saying what we all have been saying about birth all along! That Midwives need to be the primary care provider in low risk pregnancies! Gotta love this OB and I never in my life thought I would say that!

Saturday, November 17, 2007

"CPD" busted

CPD- When a babies head or body is too big to fit through the mothers pelvis. This diagnosis is way overused in the US. So much so that women who have had cesarean sections due to being told this are now going on to prove thier previous car providers wrong and birthing babies LARGER then the babies that were suppose to be "too big". More and more women are questioning that old "your pelvis is too small" line that so many women over the years have been told. ICAN(International Cesarean Awareness Network) posted this video on Youtube full of mothers who birthed babies bigger then their CPD babies who were cut from thier bodies who were only blamed.

I know many women who have been told this and have birthed babies double the birth wieght of their CPD babies. The increase in induction has increased the cesarean rate and the CPD diagnosis ad when you are induced you lack alot if not all of the natural hormones released in your body during natural labor. Womens bodies do not "fail" inductions because their bodies are working wonderfully! If that baby is not ready to come they arn't ready to come.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

circumcision...would you cut parts of your daughter??

My journey to discovery isn't just about birth. The many abuses that are done to pregnant women, laboring women, and babies in birth don't end once the baby is out in the new world. The abuse continues with a procedure that is "cosmetic" and just plain unnecessary! Cutting a piece of skin off your baby boy is now really only done for looks. BUT not enough people are willing to do the research on this topic and still think that it "needs" to be done for "cleanliness" reasons or to protect them from HIV/AIDS or protect their partner from cervical cancer or just because they think it "looks" better. Those are all the reasons I "wanted" to have my son circumcised. I am so thankful that he was not due to GBS that he contracted from the hospital. I have since learned so many things that are done with NO medical evidence I started looking into this and was horrified to learn that there is no medical reason what so ever to cut good skin of your boys penis. Studies have shown time and time again that circumcising doesn't protect them from HIV/AIDS, I doesn't protect future partners from cervical cancer and is not dirty or unsanitary in any way. So why then is it still "routine" to circumcise?? Here are some facts on Circumcision:
How is Circumcision Done?
Most parents don't know what is actually done
to a baby when he is circumcised. The baby is placed spread-eagle on his back on
a board and his arms and legs are strapped down so that he can't move. His
genitals are scrubbed and covered with antiseptic. His foreskin is torn from the
glans and slit lengthwise so that the circumcision instrument can be inserted.
Then his foreskin is cut off. Most parents who see what is done to a baby when
he is circumcised and how he reacts decide against circumcision and let their
baby keep his foreskin intact.

I know I did once I saw an educational video of it being done to a baby complete with sound I said Nope none of my babies will have that done. Here is a video of a circumcision.

When and why did doctors in the U.S. start circumcising babies?

Doctors in the English-speaking countries started circumcising babies in the mid-1800s "to prevent masturbation," which was blamed for causing many diseases, including epilepsy, tuberculosis, and insanity. Other reasons have been given since then, but all of them, including the claim that circumcision prevents cancer of the penis, cancer of the cervix, and venereal diseases, have been dis proven. We now know that the foreskin is a normal, sensitive, functional part of the body.

Wow, and yet even though all those reasons have been proven wrong we are still mutilating our children's penises for the sake of looks!

Is circumcision painful?
Yes. Circumcision is extremely painful - and traumatic - for a baby. Just being strapped down is frightening for a baby. The often repeated statement that babies can't feel pain is not true. Babies are as sensitive to pain as anyone else. Most babies scream frantically when their foreskin is cut off. Some defecate. Some lapse into a coma. The reason some babies don't cry when they are circumcised, is that they can't cry because they are in a state of shock. Most babies are circumcised without anesthesia. Anesthetics injected into the penis don't always work. Being stuck with a needle in the penis is itself painful for a baby, just as if would be for anyone else. Babies are rarely given pain medication right after they are circumcised or during the week to ten days it takes for the wound to heal. Pain medication is not always effective and is never 100% effective.

Hmm would you want something cut off your body if you were going to feel the whole thing?? I think not so why do this to your newborn baby as one of their first experiences in life??

Does circumcision have risks?
Yes. Like any other surgery, circumcision has risks. They include:

Excessive bleeding
Complications from anesthesia
Surgical mistakes, including loss of glans and loss of entire penis

Many circumcised males suffer from:

Extensive scarring
Skin tags and skin bridges
Tearing and bleeding at the scar site
Curvature of the penis
Tight, painful erections
Difficulty ejaculating
Feelings of having been violated
Feelings of having been mutilated

What a list of risks! I know when I asked my care provider the risks of this I was not told over 75% of the risks on this list.

I know alot of people who do it only because they are worried their child will be teased. The is a possibility but you can say the same for their hair color, eye color anything about them so why start removing body part only to prevent teasing. Would you cut off your daughters labia to keep her from being teased? Would you cut off her nipples just because others were doing it to keep her from being teased? I know I wouldn't so why should a boys penis be any different!?
Here are some links with alot of info:

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Kaiser Permanente Doc kills baby and still has a job!

This is one of the worst stories I have ever read to be all honest. I am so tired of seeing and reading about children dying, being injured, families being torn apart and all that can come with hospital births. The article is really long so I am going to paste a few paragraphs but please read the whole story. You never know the truth about who you are trusting your and your babies life to.
"I've been telling these guys for years that he was going to kill someone,"
said Dr. Gilbert Moran, the former ob-gyn chief. "And no one would

So the Chief of the OB department reported it and the hospital STILL kept him on. What a shame that the safety of the patients didn't come first.
Late one April night, the first of Sarah Valenzuela's twins arrived with little trouble, but the second stayed put.
Though the baby was not in distress, Kaiser Permanente perinatologist Hamid Safari attached a vacuum extractor to the boy's head to draw him out. Again and again he tugged, but still the baby would not come.

OK if that baby wasn't distressed why not let him come on his own. Its perfectly OK to let them come on their own. It can take minutes or hours. I have even seen a day go by between twins. If the baby was OK he should have just let nature do its awesome work!
It took 90 minutes and six tries -- the last with Safari on his knees, pulling. Horrified staffers -- and the boy's father -- looked on as baby Devin finally emerged. His skin was a bloodless white, his neck elongated and floppy.
His spinal cord had been severed.

OMG! I feel so badly for those poor parents! For a grown man to use all his force on that tiny baby what the hell did that OB think was gonna happen!
Safari lashed out at a nurse. "What did you do to that baby? I gave you a good baby," he said, according to a complaint letter the nurse sent to her union representative.

Yeah ok blame the nurse. That poor women was probably horrified at what she had just seen! And then for him to try and blame her! Uggg I feel sick.
Over the years, doctors and nurses repeatedly had complained to higher-ups -- including Kaiser's top medical officer in Northern and Central California -- about problems they saw in Safari's skills and behavior, according to interviews and documents.
This is a story not just of tragic medical outcomes, but of a health plan that did not prevent them.

Just tragic this little boys life could have been spared had the administrators listened to the people who watched his work everyday.
There is so much more to this story that I could go on and on about but I want you to read if for yourself. Make your own conclusion. Is this the kind of system that our women and children should be exposed to. Until we stand up and demand that the treatment of pregnant women and infants stops there will be more stories like this, more babies dying and more mothers going home with no babies or worse babies and kids living a life without their mother.
To see the full story follow the link and on the right side of the page click the print button to get the full text version.
LA Times story

Saturday, October 20, 2007

The legality of VBAC

Ok so I am getting much better at researching things lol I was ok at it in the beginning now I am getting better and better with a little more free time to look through the pages and pages that come up when you search. Anyway I stumbled across this and thought it was a great read on the "truth" about why OB's don't like to do VBAC and why the ACOG has such an interest in it. Not for the better of the patient but for the better of the OB. Here is the intro!

The percentage of births that are cesarean is at an all time high in the United States while the rate for a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) is at an all time low. Legal, medical and economic factors amalgamate to influence these rates. The recommendations of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have also impacted the VBAC and cesarean rates. The ACOG’s recommendations are an example of defensive medicine because the recommendations are not based on scientific evidence; they were imposed solely to prevent obstetrician/gynecologists from medical malpractice lawsuits. As a result, many pregnant women are restricted in choosing a delivery method and are subjected to unnecessary cesarean sections. This paper will examine the legal, medical and economic factors concerning VBACs and cesarean sections. Next, this paper will explore why a woman with a cesarean cannot deliver vaginally in a subsequent pregnancy. Finally, this paper will discuss the ACOG’s recommendations and explain why they constitute a defensive medicine procedure.

And this is all too true. All the scare tactics they use to discourage VBAC is soley because of malpractice and fear of law suits not based on the evidence. The only thing I can say so far that I don't like was this reference:
Eliminating VBACs may result in attempting a VBAC at home or visiting a birthing center that cannot perform an emergency cesarean.[121] Additionally, women trying to avoid another cesarean “have endangered themselves and their babies by staying at home in labor – or even staying in the hospital parking lot – until the last minute.”[122]

VBACing at home is just as safe if not safer then VBACing in a hospital. More one on one care that can catch the signs of a rupture before it happens instead of a few nurses juggling a bunch of patients and soley relying on a machine to tell them the well being of the mom and baby, able to be relaxed and move and eat as needed to keep labor progressing and not having 20 people come in during your labor to only shove their fingers in your vagina so less chance of infection. Over all its so refreshing to see this written by someone who has no ties to the VBAC controversy. Its about time!

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

1 out of 3 women will have a c/section

This is an awesome sideshow of women who have gone through the pain of a c/section. Very powerful and raw. The truth needs to be out there! That c/sections are OVERDONE and COME WITH RISK. It goes so far beyond just physical but the emotional part is worse.

Too many women bury their feelings as we are told that all that matters is a healthy baby. NO that is not ALL that matters. Yes of course we are so happy that are children are healthy but that doesn't erase the pain, the sadness, the loneliness that can come with a c/section. Some women will never get over the experience.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Cytotec is what??

Uhhh so with all that I have learned this one is something that really bothers me more then anything. OK I know that so many meds are used off label but are perfectly OK to do so.But Cytotec is not one of these. It is an ulcer med that too many Ob's across the country are using to induce labor. OK first of all induction is already not a good idea unless there is a true medical need to get the baby out but then again if the baby is in that bad of shape would they really be able to handle the induction process?? So once learning of the use of Cytotec and all the agencies who are against its off label use to induce including the FDA, AAP, AAFPD and the Manufacturer themselves! I felt like I wanted to ripe my hair out. Why do they think its OK when there have been numerous bad outcomes that could have been prevented all for the sake of being able to schedule birth!??? Finally a news channel picked it up and brought it to light. The whole time I am watching this I am cheering and soo happy that finally someone is paying attention to the unneeded horrors that are done not only to pregnant women but laboring women and babies! Now if only a national show would pick this up and really shed light on the truth about birth in America!

Monday, October 8, 2007

A new begining

Hi there, sorry if my page is a little blah right now. I am still learning all this blogging stuff and how to get this arranged right. I will go into my story in a little bit. I can say that I can never have enough thanks to ICAN for all the support I have so needed in the last few years of my life. I have learned so much not just about birth but about myself. Why for so long did I sit back and allow someone else make the decisions for and about me and my children? Why isn't it just standard that EVERYONE educate themselves instead of just taking someones word for it because they have some initials behind their name (Ex: OB, MD, etc). I have come so far. I have changed they way I think about so many things it almost appears I don't really fit in with my mainstream friends anymore. Come with me while I share my ongoing journey not just about birth issues although I will admit that is what I am most interested in.