Archive for the 'Pregnancy & Childbirth' Category

Flu Shot or NOT

We don’t do shots…period. And even if we did, we’d no doubt NOT get the flu shot for a number of reasons.

For one, mercury has not been removed from these shots (thimersol really, which is 50% mercury). Even a little bit of a carcinogenic toxin that is ACCUMULATIVE in the body, is too much in my eyes. And food for thought on all those other childhood vaccines that supposedly have mercury removed, most still retain “traces” of mercury. The difference in how the vaccines are labelled is probably related to whether or not thimersol is used as an “ingredient” or in the processing. Either way, a little bit is in there no matter what.

My question would be, before I inject my child, who is regulating the traces and determining how much all together my child will be storing up in his body? No one, you say? Okay, well then, thank you but I think I will wait until someone PROVES to me that any level is safe (which won’t happen because it isn’t a possibility).

Another thing that is really getting my goat is that I KNOW many people that have been told by their doctors to give the flu vaccine to their babies. Recently a friend was encouraged to give the flu shot to her 4 month old. According to the flu shot manufacturers and CDC last year, the vaccine is “safe” for children of the age of FIVE and up. But recently the CDC changed their flu shot recommendations.

Suddenly, the flu vaccine is safe for children 6 months and up. And suddenly, any child under 9 years getting the flu vaccine for the first time, now requires TWO doses.

After reviewing some of the pharmaceutical vaccine inserts, I’m baffled. Some state that no tests have been done to determine if “this shot works”. Okay, those are really my words but thats the premise of their convoluted statement.

So check out this CDC recommendation on the FluMist (LAIV) vaccine. Scroll down to “Primary Changes and Updates in the Recommendations”. This is one quoted recommendation;

ACIP reemphasizes the importance of administering 2 doses of vaccine to all children aged 6 months–8 years if they have not been vaccinated previously at any time with either LAIV (doses separated by >6 weeks) or TIV (doses separated by >4 weeks), on the basis of accumulating data indicating that 2 doses are required for protection in these children (see Vaccine Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Safety).

So basically, they are changing the safe to use age from 5 years to 6 months and two doses. Now check this page at the CDC out. Here is the quote from the CDC page on who should not use the LAIV flu vaccine.

LAIV is not currently licensed for use in the following groups, and these persons should not be vaccinated with LAIV:

  • persons with a history of hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, to any of the components of LAIV or to eggs.
  • persons aged less than 5 years or those aged 50 years and older;
  • persons with any of the underlying medical conditions that serve as an indication for routine influenza vaccination, including asthma, reactive airways disease, or other chronic disorders of the pulmonary or cardiovascular systems;
  • other underlying medical conditions, including such metabolic diseases as diabetes, renal dysfunction, and hemoglobinopathies; or known or suspected immunodeficiency diseases or immunosuppressed states;
  • children or adolescents receiving aspirin or other salicylates (because of the association of Reye syndrome with
    wild-type influenza virus infection);
  • persons with a history of GBS; or
  • pregnant women

If I’m not mistaken, these two quotes conflict greatly with one another. One states that the LAIV flu vaccine is not licensed for use in children under 5 years and the other recommends its use in children from 6 months to 8 years. I just don’t get it. Why are we using our children as guinea pigs?

And in other news….just the other day, I was at the gym and reading “Health” magazine, which I consider a fairly mainstream mag. I discovered this article on the flu vax, “Read this BEFORE you get a flu shot“.

Any comments?

Another breastfeeding story that’ll enrage you

OT -Breastfeeding -Please help!
Posted by: “Brooke” cjtdtd@yahoo.com cjtdtd
Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:57 am (PST)
On June 14th (my anniversary) a few of my children (I have 8) took
me to Applebee’s for lunch. For my own privacy I asked for the
corner booth. I sat facing into the corner not facing the room. My
then 7 month old baby boy needed to nurse so we did.

A server (Jessica Balswick) came to me and stated that the manager asked her
to come speak to me because she was a female. She said the manager
said if we wanted to breastfeed we had to cover the baby’s head with
a blanket. I told her since it was hot out that I didn’t have a
blanket. She reiterated so I stopped nursing and asked to speak
with the manager.

Continue reading ‘Another breastfeeding story that’ll enrage you’

More news on Bisphenol A

The FDA has found in tests of canned infant formula that the plastic linings of the cans are leeching Bisphenol A into the formula IN MUCH HIGHER LEVELS (according to EWG) THAN FOUND TO CAUSE SERIOUS ADVERSE AFFECTS IN ANIMAL TESTS.

There is a string of corruption following the use of this chemical…read on……AND PASS IT ON!!!!!!!

http://www.ewg.org/reports/bpaformula

Cool site

A really cool site I stumbled upon the other day;

http://www.economads.com/libaware.php 

Mastitis and Natural Healing links

Some links to natural healing and Mastitis
Townsend Newsletter (Healing with Homeopathy: the Homeopathic Treatment of mastitis - excerpts from Whole Woman Homeopathy, The Comprehensive Guide to Homeopathic Treatment for PMS, Menopause, Cystitis, and Other Problems)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_2002_June/ai_86387611

Excerpts from the Wise Woman Herbal for the Childbearing Years by Susun Weed.
http://members.aol.com/kristachan/mastitis.htm

From Kellymom;
http://www.kellymom.com/herbal/natural-treatments.html#mastitis

And a few more…

http://www.homemademedicine.com/breastfeeding.html

http://www.herbs2000.com/disorders/mastitis.htm

Voluntary C-Sections Result in More Baby Deaths

(this was originally posted in October but I somehow corrupted the post so here it is again)

New York Times: Voluntary C-Sections Result in More Baby Deaths
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR

A recent study of nearly six million births has found that the risk of death to newborns delivered by voluntary Caesarean section is much higher than previously believed.

Researchers have found that the neonatal mortality rate for Caesarean delivery among low-risk women is 1.77 deaths per 1,000 live births, while the rate for vaginal delivery is 0.62 deaths per 1,000. Their findings were published in this month’s issue of Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care.

The percentage of Caesarean births in the United States increased to 29.1 percent in 2004 from 20.7 percent in 1996, according to background information in the report.Mortality in Caesarean deliveries has consistently been about 1½ times that of vaginal delivery, but it had been assumed that the difference was due to the higher risk profile of mothers who undergo the operation.This study, according to the authors, is the first to examine the risk of Caesarean delivery among low-risk mothers who have no known medical reason for the operation.

Congenital malformations were the leading cause of neonatal death regardless of the type of delivery. But the risk in first Caesarean deliveries persisted even when deaths from congenital malformation were excluded from the calculation.

Intrauterine hypoxia — lack of oxygen — can be both a reason for performing a Caesarean section and a cause of death, but even eliminating those deaths left a neonatal mortality rate for Caesarean deliveries in the cases studied at more than twice that for vaginal births.

“Neonatal deaths are rare for low-risk women — on the order of about one death per 1,000 live births — but even after we adjusted for socioeconomic and medical risk factors, the difference persisted,” said Marian F. MacDorman, a statistician with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the lead author of the study.

“This is nothing to get people really alarmed, but it is of concern given that we’re seeing a rapid increase in Caesarean births to women with no risks,” Dr. MacDorman said.

Continue reading ‘Voluntary C-Sections Result in More Baby Deaths’

09/09/2006: “Breastfeeding Awards”

C’mon, don’t ya think we all deserve one? lol.

http://www.geocities.com/kellysb/graphics/bf-milestones.html

I’m not generally a cutsie sort of gal but I thought these were noteworthy.

07/11/2006: “Mercury Actually Banned in Vax’s”

Mercury actually banned in vaccines for children under 3 and pregnant mamas! Wow….making progress.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/state/14963917.htm

06/04/2006: “Links of the Day!”

Flavoring perils get harder look
Probe grows; chemicals linked to lung disease
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.additives03jun03,0,2018179.story

Lauren’s Comments: So they say that a flavoring chemical used in many foods is “okay” to consume but highly toxic if inhaled. Workers that handle the chemicals are at risk but tell me…who really wants to CONSUME an ingredient that is THAT toxic if inhaled?

Mom’s diet can tinker with baby’s genes
Dietary supplement can make generations of mice obese.
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-10.html

Lauren’s Comments: Very interesting flip to the pregnancy supplementation of folic acid that we’ve
been drilled about.

Rise in Rate of Twin Births May Be Tied to Dairy Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/health/30twin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Lauren’s Comments: Bovine Growth Hormone rearing its ugly Monsanto head! Yet another reason to use ONLY organic dairy and animal products. Note that NYT requires you to register for free before viewing these articles. IMHO, it’s very worth the hassle.

Holy Mackerel and Other Guilt-Free Fish
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/dining/31fish.html

And the direct link to the NYT listing of what fish can be eaten once a week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/dining/31fbox.html

Proposal would ban perfume, other scents in public
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=a9a6b4c7-ca02-4dfc-8999-26dad5cc0110

Lauren’s Comments: WAY TO GO Ottowa!!!