Polio Vaccine in India

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/28/polio-eradication-campaign.aspx?e_cid=20120828_DNL_artNew_1

By Dr. Mercola

If you listen to mainstream media news, you'll be told that polio has now been eradicated in India – an accomplishment the Polio Global Eradication Initiative (PGEI), founded in 1988 by the World Health Organization (WHO), Rotary International, UNICEF, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are attributing to the intense polio vaccination campaign.
The Indian government reportedly had 2.3 million vaccine administrators visit over 200 million households, with oral polio vaccinations given to nearly 170 million children 5 years of age and younger;¹ health officials are now doubling their efforts to conquer polio in Pakistan as well.
What you're NOT learning from the mainstream media, however, is that there's a growing public movement fighting the profound misinformation about the vaccine, mainly because VACCINE-CAUSED polio is maiming and even killing a growing number of children every day, far outstripping the damage done by the wild-type polio that has been supplanted by the manmade form found within the vaccine.

The Polio Vaccine is Causing a Deadly Polio-Like Disease in Children

A paper published earlier this year in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics should have made headlines around the globe, as it estimated there were 47,500 cases of a polio-like condition linked to the oral polio vaccine in 2011 alone.
Researchers reported:²

"…while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere [First, do no harm] was violated."

Another way the public is being misled about India's claims to be polio-free is that this is only referring to "wild" polio cases – not vaccine-caused polio, which is occurring on a massive scale every year.
The problem is that while the oral vaccine has reined in wild polio, the wild virus is being replaced by vaccine-derived polio virus (VDPV), which causes the same symptoms of acute flaccid paralysis associated with classically-defined polio. (Health officials don't call it polio because it isn't "wild.")
Environmental surveillance for VDPV is now being conducted in a number of countries, including Australia, Egypt, Haiti, and Indonesia. In essence, this much-heralded vaccine strategy has replaced one infectious disease with another, more virulent strain... What kind of success is that, really?

Third World Countries Using Dangerous and Dated Vaccines

While most affluent nations now rely on inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), many third-world countries still use an oral polio vaccine as it's far less expensive and simpler to administer. However, the oral polio vaccine is made from a live polio virus, which carries a risk of causing polio in populations who may not normally even be at risk of infection. The virus in the vaccine can also mutate into a deadlier version, igniting new outbreaks.
Genetic analysis has proven that such mutated viruses have caused at least seven separate outbreaks in Nigeria. Polio outbreaks in Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 2002 were also traced to an "attenuated" strain of oral polio vaccine (OPV) that mutated back to even greater virulence than wild polio.
According to a 2010 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, outbreaks of vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) have been occurring at a rate of once or twice per year, since the year 2000.³ And it's estimated that up to 180 Indian children develop vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP) each year.⁴
The live polio virus from the vaccine can remain in your throat for one to two weeks, and in your feces for up to two months.⁵ So not only is the vaccine recipient at risk, but he or she can potentially spread the disease as long as the virus remains in feces – which, incidentally, turns on its head the age-old pro-vaccination dogma that the non-vaccinated represent an infection risk to the vaccinated.

Pakistan: Over 3,000 Children Given Expired Polio Drops

Over 3,000 children under 5 years old, and some only a few months old, were given expired polio drops in Pakistan earlier this year, resulting in serious illnesses that sent the children to the hospital.
While the original story quoting the sick children's parents was pulled from the Internet, a "cache" of the story was still available and follow-up stories reported that some Pakistani health officials had been suspended for providing the expired drops, which were distributed during a spring 2012 vaccination campaign.
Side effects reported due to the expired vaccines ranged from high fever to chest infections, and it's said that government officials originally tried to cover up the mishap…

Media is Not Giving the Whole Picture on the Oral Polio Vaccine Controversy

Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), spoke with Voice of America (VOA) about the intensive polio vaccine campaigns in the developing world. Unfortunately, much of Barbara's interview and insights were edited out of the video, as she explains below:

"I taped an interview with Voice of America on the subject of intensive polio vaccine campaigns in the developing world. Brian Padden, a veteran VOA reporter of 25 years, really pressed me to do the interview even though I told him I was on deadline with another project and could not come into the office – so he came to my house!
Anyway, I have interviewed with VOA periodically for radio and print articles since the 1980's with fair treatment. However, this time I was set up by his editors to be painted into the 'anti-vaccine' corner and the text of the article (reference below) and my excerpted quote from the longer interview I gave does not accurately reflect the substance of what I said.
I actually gave the reporter this Indian journal article⁶ and raised the issue of the reported increases in Acute Flaccid Paralysis among Indian children given monthly doses of OPV [oral polio vaccine]. l told him that developed countries like the US had replaced live virus polio vaccine (OPV) with inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) more than a decade ago to prevent cases of vaccine-strain polio because OPV, being a live virus vaccine, causes recently vaccinated children to shed vaccine-strain polio virus in their body fluids for a period of time following vaccination. In underdeveloped countries with poverty and poor sanitation (like open sewage), vaccine-strain viruses can contaminate water and facilitate transmission of vaccine-strain paralytic polio.
I brought up the issue of poverty, including poor sanitation, malnutrition, and limited access to health care facilities (for example, to undergo re-hydradation from diarrhea) as being an important cause of disease and poor health separate from vaccination.
I did question whether repeated mass vaccination campaigns in underdeveloped countries were more a function of pharmaceutical companies seeking to sell product rather than making investments in infrastructure that address the basic causes of poor health. And I also questioned the lack of safety science to demonstrate that it is safe to give children MONTHLY polio vaccinations when children in the developed world only receive 5 doses.
As you know, NVIC does not oppose the use of polio vaccine but we do not support excessive, repeated OPV vaccination campaigns in impoverished populations when that approach is not backed up with good safety science.
We do oppose use of government enforcement mechanisms to aggressively implement mass vaccination campaigns that fail to obtain the voluntary, informed consent of the parents of children being vaccinated. We do this because NVIC defends the ethical principal of informed consent to medical risk taking, which is a human right, and we defend that right without compromise.
It is too bad that either he chose, or his editors did not allow him, to use the substantive comments I made in my interview about addressing poverty, malnutrition and the root causes of disease versus simply giving these children OPV vaccine over and over again, when the vaccine can cause vaccine-strain polio, there are no safety studies showing that it is safe to give children monthly doses of OPV and the report out of India indicates that increases in Acute Flaccid Paralysis may be associated with repeated OPV vaccination in children."

Has the Chemical Synthesis of Polio Virus Made Global Eradication Impossible?

In 2002, it was reported that fully infectious polio virus had been recreated in a lab. While this was heralded as a milestone in biology, it was met with great unease by the general public who worried that polio could now be used as a weapon of bioterrorism. And, the very fact that it can be synthetically created technically means that global eradication is now impossible. Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo.com stated:

"One thing, which should not be overlooked is that the researchers who broke this story also revealed another highly disturbing fact: infectious polio virus has been known to be capable of de novo synthesis for over 10 years – essentially implying global polio eradication is now by principle impossible."

In fact, in the journal Science in 2002 it was reported:⁷

"The charade about polio eradication and the great savings it will bring has persisted to date. It is a paradox, that while the director general of WHO, Margret Chan, and Bill Gates are trying to muster support for polio eradication it has been known to the scientific community, for over 10 years, that eradication of polio is impossible. This is because in 2002 scientists had synthesized a chemical called poliovirus a chemical called poliovirus in a test-tube with the empirical formula c332,652H492,388N98,245O131,196P7,501S2,340.
It has been demonstrated that by positioning the atoms in sequence, a particle can emerge with all the properties required for its proliferation and survival in nature… the test-tube synthesis of poliovirus has wiped out any possibility of eradicating poliovirus in the future. Poliovirus cannot be declared extinct because the sequence of its genome is known and modern biotechnology allows it to be resurrected at any time in vitro.
Man can thus never let down his guard against poliovirus. indeed the 18-year-old global eradication campaign for polioviruses will have to be continued in some format forever. The long promised 'infinite' monetary benefits from ceasing to vaccinate against poliovirus will never be achieved. The attraction that 'eradication' has for policy makers will vanish once this truth is widely known."

The sentiment was repeated again in 2006:⁸

"…does the test-tube synthesis negate efforts to eradicate poliovirus? The conceptual answer to this is yes. Poliovirus cannot be declared extinct because the sequence of its genome is known and modern biotechnology allows it to be resurrected at any time in vitro. This is true for all viruses, including smallpox."

Polio Vaccine Has Been Linked to Cancer

You might be like me and be an American who received polio shots in the 1950's and 60's. I have not been, but many have ended up being informed – 40 years later – that many of those experimental polio shots were contaminated with a monkey virus, simian virus 40 (SV40), that causes cancer in lab animals and has been linked to brain, bone, lung, and lymphatic cancers in children and adults.^9-10
They weren't told the whole truth about polio vaccine risks, and vaccine makers and health officials are still frugal with the facts when it comes to vaccine risks. Many make blanket statements saying that "vaccines are safe," when in fact such a statement simply cannot be made without misrepresenting the facts.
The truth is, there are risks associated with any vaccine, and they clearly do not work for everyone. And even when they do work, you oftentimes end up with more virulent and hardy viruses… Not to mention, policy makers seem to be overlooking the poignant fact that people in third-world countries are in desperate need of clean water, healthy food and sanitation, which would work wonders for preventing many of the infectious diseases they are spending billions on vaccines for…

The Underlying Causes of Polio are Being Ignored

Vaccines alone don't eradicate disease. Polio spreads, after all, largely through feces-contaminated water, so ignoring that major risk factor while trying to eradicate the disease is ignorant, to put it nicely. What if, just what if, the same amount of money that has been spent on vaccines over the past decade had been spent on sanitation facilities, toilets, healthy food and clean water instead?
Sayer Ji expands:¹¹

"Due to the fact that polio spreads through the fecal-oral route (i.e. the virus is transmitted from the stool of an infected person to the mouth of another person through a contaminated object, e.g. utensil) focusing on hygiene, sanitation and proper nutrition (to support innate immunity) is a logical way to prevent transmission in the first place, as well as reducing morbidity associated with an infection when it does occur.
Instead, a large portion of the world's vaccines are given to the third world as 'charity,' when the underlying conditions of economic impoverishment, poor nutrition, chemical exposures, and socio-political unrest are never addressed. You simply can't vaccinate people out of these conditions, and as India's new epidemic of vaccine-induced polio cases clearly demonstrates, the 'cure' may be far worse than the disease itself."

As an aside, did you know you can reduce your risk of contracting polio simply by cutting back on sugar? The evidence suggesting that a diet high in refined sugar (as well as other forms of fructose) increases your risk of contracting polio is discussed in the book Diet Prevents Polio, written by Benjamin P. Sandler, M.D. The book was published in 1951, at the height of the polio epidemic.
In general, it makes perfect sense that high sugar/fructose consumption could raise your risk of polio, as it, just like other infections, only tends to cause complications when your immune system is weakened, which can easily happen through poor nutrition (high fructose consumption), stress, and lack of sleep.
So, the polio vaccine is not the only, nor the ultimate, solution to prevent this disease. Maintaining a strong and well-functioning immune system will always be your first line of defense, as this will reduce your risk of any number of diseases, including polio – and this is, unfortunately, what most people in third-world countries are missing.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference Right NOW

I urge you to do your homework before giving your children to any vaccine. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a top-notch source that provides well-referenced information on vaccines and infectious diseases. For a full list of precautions for children, teenagers and adults, read the manufacturer product inserts, and get more information about how to recognize a vaccine reaction at www.NVIC.org.
Protecting your right to informed consent is essential. NVIC has been the leading advocate for informed consent to vaccination since its inception. Signing up to be a user of NVIC's free online Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. NVIC is 100 percent funded by donations, so please, take a moment right now to make a donation to the NVIC.
Your tax-deductible donation allows NVIC to furnish the public with life-saving information on informed vaccine decision-making, vaccine injury reduction and research. They support the availability of all preventive health care options, including vaccination, and the right of consumers to make educated, voluntary health care choices.

Donating Milk... to who?

This is a great article on why it is important to double-check who you are donating to, when donating your extra milk. 

Thinking of Donating Your Breastmilk? Read This First.

September 2nd, 2007 by MamaBear Many women who pump for their babies often find that they have way more than their baby will ever consume. It is at this point that the thought of donating that extra milk to a needy baby comes to mind.
There are three ways of milk donation that are available so far:

• Informal milk donation, mother-to-mother
• Formal milk donation to a HMBANA milk bank, to help babies in the NICU
• Formal milk donation to Prolacta Bioscience, a for-profit milk processing company, usually through a milk depot that calls itself a “milk bank”

Breastmilk donation is one of the most beautiful, pure, and selfless acts a mother could do for another. Unfortunately, some people are exploiting this generosity and using it for their own ends. If you are a mother intent on donating your excess breast milk to help a needy baby, one option that will allow you to be sure that your intended recipient is a baby and not a for-profit milk processing company is informal milk donation. Informal milk donation is when you donate your breastmilk directly to the family that will be feeding their baby with it. The biggest hurdle with this for most milk donors and recipients seems to be finding a family near them that either needs milk or has a surplus of it.
The best option right now in North America for informal milk donation match-up is an organization called MilkShare. With MilkShare, you can meet your recipient and get to know your recipient family. The only fee involved is a one-time $15 fee for the recipient to join MilkShare. That is all, and $15 is a bargain compared to all the other options available to recipients out there. Donors join for free.
Another match-up organization which will hopefully be up and running soon is Milk Match. It is a forum that will be devoted exclusively to matching up donor and recipient moms informally, though it hasn’t started quite yet. It is not known at this time whether Milk Match will charge a fee for its services.
It is important when engaging in informal breast milk donation to get to know the family you are dealing with, both on the recipient and donor sides. For the recipient, it’s important to screen your breast milk donor by getting blood tests done, which should be at the recipient’s expense, and asking any relevant questions about lifestyle, the same way a milk bank would. The recipient could also learn to pasteurize the breast milk at home very easily and cheaply, if there is a concern about potential pathogens in the milk even after screening with a blood test. If applicable, the recipient should pay for shipping expenses; the donor should never have to incur any expense for donation. No money should be exchanged for the milk itself, as that may tarnish the altruism of the act.
For the donor, it’s important to make sure that the breastmilk you are so generously donating is going to a baby and not to an organization that will re-sell your milk (that’s why it’s important to get to know the family you’re donating to, in addition to the satisfaction of getting to know the baby you are helping to nourish with your milk!) It is an extremely rewarding act, the act of milk donation, when both recipient and donor know each other directly, without a middle-man.
However, there are many legitimate reasons to donate to HMBANA milk banks, a collection of eleven milk banks in North America, as well. HMBANA milk banks take breast milk donations from screened donors, pasteurize the donated milk, and provide it to needy babies in NICUs all across North America for a fee of $3.50/ounce. Often, raw donated breast milk can’t be given to delicate preemies because everything they come in contact with must be free from pathogens, and it is possible that unpasteurized donor milk could contain pathogens that for a normal infant wouldn’t cause a problem but in a preemie could be devastating. This is why HMBANA milk banks provide such a valuable service to the babies that need it the most, including abandoned babies who don’t have parents to advocate for them through MilkShare. What is especially compelling about HMBANA milk banks and what convinces me that they are truly there for the benefit of sick babies is that if the family cannot afford to pay $3.50/ounce for the milk, which is reportedly less than what it costs the HMBANA banks to process it, HMBANA banks will waive this fee for a critically ill baby. Truly, HMBANA milk banks are a godsend to babies in the NICU, regardless of whether or not they have a family to care for them, and regardless of whether their family can afford to pay for the pasteurized breastmilk.
There is a third option for breastmilk donation that everyone should be aware of but that I do not recommend. There are several milk depots across the United States that call themselves milk banks, but these “milk banks” are NOT affiliated with HMBANA milk banks at all. These “milk banks” don’t actually distribute milk to needy babies. These so-called “milk banks” are collection stations, sometimes freestanding, sometimes found inside hospitals or birthing centers, taking in milk to sell it directly to a company called Prolacta Bioscience (the price Prolacta pays for the raw milk ranges from $.50-$2/ounce). To all outward appearances, these milk depots look and sound like a real milk bank, but they do not distribute any milk to any babies, which is part of what real milk banks do.
Prolacta Bioscience, the company which processes the donated breast milk collected at these milk depots, is the only for-profit human milk processing company in the world. It processes donated breast milk and turns it into human milk fortifier, which is meant to be added to human milk, for preemies. What Prolacta doesn’t mention on any of its publications is that this human milk fortifier carries a price tag of $6.25/milliliter, which, when converted to ounces, is $184.83/ounce. This is alarming enough, but since Prolacta is a for-profit company and not in any way associated with HMBANA, if a family with a critically ill baby can’t pay or doesn’t have health insurance or Medicaid, they don’t get the human milk fortifier, even if their baby needs it. Additionally, there are no peer-reviewed studies so far that have even proven Prolacta’s human milk fortifier to be necessary. HMBANA milk banks already have the technology in place to provide preemies with higher-calorie milk, and preemies have already been known to thrive off of the HMBANA-provided milk, so the necessity of Prolacta’s human milk fortifier is questionable. Furthermore, if people donate to a Prolacta “milk bank” and give their breastmilk to Prolacta Bioscience instead of a HMBANA milk bank (both organizations have very similar screening criteria and thus receive donations from the same pool of donors), this depletes the supply going into HMBANA banks which means fewer preemies get the milk they so desperately need at a price that could be afforded.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the only thing disturbing about the for-profit business model thus far. In addition to not easily disclosing the price of their human milk fortifier, and not explicitly informing its donors that their milk will be sold for a profit, Prolacta also reportedly has their donors sign a contract which essentially strips the donors of all the rights to their own breastmilk. Any royalties made off the sale of their breast milk, and any findings made from studying the components in their breast milk, the donors have no right to have. If Prolacta chooses to share their findings with their donors, it will be at Prolacta’s discretion, but the donors give up the right to any royalties or knowledge gleaned from the study of their breast milk the instant they sign a contract with Prolacta. Prolacta can patent components found in any of the human breast milk they receive, which means that Prolacta could potentially use these patented components, manufacture them, and sell them to formula companies so that formula can become even “closer to mother’s own milk.” This not only affects donors and recipients of Prolacta’s products today; it has the potential to affect breastfeeding for the future. If the public becomes convinced that formula is so close to mother’s milk that breastfeeding is unnecessary, then more people will choose to formula-feed instead of breastfeed, and the breastfeeding mothers that do remain will be seen as a societal “nuisance” because they insist on feeding their children in a way that’s “inconvenient” or “obsolete” or incompatible with the way society runs. As it is, with the advent of DHA and ARA being added to formulas to make them more like breast milk, already many people, including doctors, have the perception that formula is “just as good” or “almost as good” as breast milk, which is simply not true. Formula is still far inferior to breastmilk, for many, many reasons beyond talk of mere “components,” but even with the addition of 50 more components (not likely within this lifetime), formula would still be far inferior to breastmilk, given that there are at many hundreds of components in breast milk, many of which do not tolerate heat-treatment or sterilization, which all formula undergoes during manufacturing.
(Martek Bioscience owns the patent on DHA and ARA, for anyone that’s interested. DHA and ARA really are found in breast milk, and those components have been isolated in a lab and now are manufactured to be sold as supplements for adults and children or as additions to formula, so this concept of patenting manufactured breastmilk components isn’t some hokey-conspiracy science fiction fantasy. It’s happening now.)
I’m not saying improving formula for infants is a bad thing. Far from it. I have to supplement with formula for my own baby, so I want what I feed her to be as good as possible. The problem I have with this scheme is the way the donor milk is being obtained from generous donor moms and the implication that the addition of “breastmilk components” in formula has on the future of breastfeeding and mothers’ right to breastfeed. Is it possible that in the far future (100 years from now), women who choose to breastfeed be taxed by the government because the formula lobby insisted on it? If formula becomes perceived by the majority of the population as “just as good” as mothers’ milk, even if it isn’t, because of formula marketing (their marketing tactics are clearly working today, since even some doctors are convinced formula is “almost as good” as breastmilk), and if most voters are formula-feeders 100 years from now, it’s definitely possible. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my granddaughters and great-granddaughters to be taxed for breastfeeding.
All speculation aside, what I’m saying is, inform yourself. Ask lots of questions before donating to anyone. If you are interested in breast milk donation, especially in donating to a milk “bank” that is partnered with Prolacta, read the contract very carefully before signing, especially the parts about the rights you will be signing over to Prolacta. Prolacta often offers a free breast pump to its donors, and this offer can seem very attractive, but it’s not worth signing away all the rights to your own milk for a breast pump. If after asking all your questions, you have more questions than answers, you may want to consider donating elsewhere.
The following milk depots partner with Prolacta, which means that ALL the milk donations donated to the following milk “banks” are sold to Prolacta Bioscience for $.50-$2/ounce (usually $1/ounce). Prolacta then processes the raw donated breast milk and re-sells it for $184.83/ounce. Also, the following milk depots require donors to sign a contract which reportedly strips the donors of their rights to their own milk. None of the following milk “banks” distribute milk to needy babies:

• The National Milk Bank
• The University of Minnesota Medical Center
• Milkbanking.net
• The Family Birth Center
• The Mother’s Touch, The Birth Connection Milk Bank
• The Whole Woman, Inc.
• South Coast Milk Bank
• Milkin’ Mamas
• Miami Maternity Center

The above list is not comprehensive and does not include all of the milk banks that partner with Prolacta. You need to ask the milk bank you donate your milk to whether or not Prolacta processes its milk in order to be sure.
The following organization partners with Prolacta and sells at least 75% of its milk donations to Prolacta Bioscience for $1/ounce:

• The International Breast Milk Project

It has still not been confirmed by the IBMP’s founder, Jill Youse, what has happened to all the money made from selling the milk to Prolacta thus far. 100% of that money, for three months (May 31, 2007-August 31, 2007), was promised toward the building of a health facility at the Lewa Children’s Home at Eldoret, Kenya. During those three months, the International Breast Milk Project reportedly earned at least $50,000 in sales of donated breastmilk to Prolacta (~$25,000 for June and ~$25,000 for July. It is not known how much was earned for August 2007). This amount of money still has NOT been sent to the Lewa Children’s Home, according to the IBMP. As of the date of this posting, many questions still remain unanswered about how much breastmilk and money are really going to Africa.
ETA:  The IBMP has updated their site a few times since the original posting of this entry.  Happily, according to the newly updated FAQ section of the IBMP site (which is ever-changing), the money in question was donated to Africa.  Hopefully the IBMP will continue its charitable efforts in Africa because, after all, that is the reason why the organization exists.

When, oh When to Potty Train???

My little guy is now 18 months old and I have been considering potty training but was hesitant for many reasons...

I, myself, was potty trained at 18 months old (per my mother).  I used to think that was normal until I started hearing so much talk among parents about struggling with 2, 3 and even 4 year olds to potty train! I began to question whether 18 months was really doable or if I was some wonder child that potty trained way before my time. 

Just a few days ago, my husband and I were discussing how incredibly fast Colin picks up on new things and new words.  It seems that he is able to comprehend much of what we are saying to him, even though he can't verbalize the same. 

Then a friend of mine said she was going to start potty training with her little girl who is just a few weeks older than Colin.  That got the wheels turning in my head and I thought, "I wonder if this really is possible and maybe even a really good idea because they are young enough to understand and catch on but not so old to be stubborn and refuse to use the potty, completely...."  Hmm....

So, I am excited to say that we have started the process of learning to use the potty!!!

I am planning on basically spending 3 days with Colin running free (and naked) and taking every opportunity to practice using the potty.  After day 3, we will continue but perhaps add some shorts and if that goes well, we will eventually add some training pants or undies.  I am very excited and have no doubt that Colin is capable of learning.  I just hope I can keep up with his abilities!! 

Here is a link that I found interesting and helpful in this endeavor. 

International Symbol for Breastfeeding

Did you know that this is the international symbol for breastfeeding?  I saw this the other day and thought I'd share.

Good Reading: "Breastmilk... what's in it?"

I found this reading very, very interesting!  Hope you do, too.

Dreaded Ammonia...

For those who use cloth diapers, you might have had an experience (or two) with the dreaded ammonia problem. So far, I have been lucky to avoid it, but I found this info posted by another cloth diapering mama and thought I would share in case it helps someone.

Rinse, Rinse, Rinse! Use lots of water. That is the best way to get rid of ammonia. It is a by product of urine but needs water to break it down further and release it from the diaper.

I use a wet pail, and I know that isn't really practical for everyone, but it has worked really well for us. I've never had any ammonia issues.

Here's some info on what ammonia is and how it occurs:

The kidneys secrete NH3 to neutralize excess acid. It is quickly converted to urea, which is much less toxic, particularly less basic. This urea is a major component of the dry weight of urine. As a urine soaked diaper dries out, the urea breaks down back into ammonia and other by-products and the ammonia becomes trapped in the diaper as it attaches to the fibers. It is a base and is very caustic to the skin, especially when it is concentrated in a night-time diaper. Most of the chemical reactions resulting in ammonia occur in the absence of oxygen and a warm environment over an extended period of time, i.e. a night-time diaper that is usually on the child for 10+ hours, non-breathable covers with PUL or similar material and warmth from the child's own body head. Night-time diapers that do not get rinsed well and then are repeatedly used (adding to the ammonia build-up) can lead to rashes and ammonia burns.

Ammonium compounds should never be allowed to come in contact with bases, i.e. bleach (unless in an intended and contained reaction), as dangerous quantities of ammonia gas could be released. Caution should be used that the chemical is never mixed into any liquid containing bleach, or a poisonous gas may result. Mixing with chlorine-containing products or strong oxidants, such as household bleach, can lead to hazardous compounds such as chloramines.

The reason why bleach works to remove ammonia from diapers is this: Chloramine can be removed from tap water by treatment with superchlorination (10 ppm or more of free chlorine, such as from a dose of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hypochlorite"]sodium hypochlorite bleach[/URL]; also known as clorox or household bleach, or pool sanitizer) while maintaining a pH of about 7 (such as from a dose of hydrochloric acid). [B]Hypochlorous acid[/B] from the free chlorine [B]strips the ammonia from the chloramine[/B][B], and the ammonia outgasses from the surface of the bulk water[/B]. This process takes about 24 hours for normal tap water concentrations of a few ppm of chloramine.

Residual free chlorine can then be removed by exposure to bright sunlight for about 4 hours. This completes the process of removing the ammonia.

I found this on Howstuffworks.com -

Remove Ammonia Spots and Stains From:

Cotton, Linen

Flush area with cool water until all trace of ammonia is gone. Launder as soon as possible. The acid treatment recommended for other fabrics cannot be used on cotton or linen, as they may be permanently damaged by acids.

Remove Ammonia Spots and Stains From:

Felt

With a sponge dipped in cool water and wrung out, gently brush (the method of using a stiff-bristled brush to gently remove dried stains and spots) in the direction of the nap. If any stain remains, neutralize it with a few drops of lemon juice, white vinegar, or 10% acetic acid solution. Sponge thoroughly with cool water. Since felt is composed mainly of wool fibers, an ammonia stain may damage it permanently.

I found this on a cloth diapering site, and unlike most of what I have found on ammonia on other cloth diapering sites, this seems to be very accurate, practical and helpful information.

Ammonia can be caused in two ways:

1. Chemical formation because urine contains urea ((NH2)2CO). The body really wants to get rid of ammonia (NH4+), but ammonia is toxic, so it is converted to urea in the liver. Over time and with sufficient heat, urea will convert back to ammonia in your diapers;

and

2. Biological formation due to bacterial buildup in the diapers. Often older babies have more ammonia problems, probably because they have started solids and have more bacteria in their intestines and therefore in their feces.

You can do a few things to keep ammonia at bay.

1. Keep an open pail. Many of the reactions that turn urea back into ammonia are anaerobic (don't use oxygen), so keeping the lid off will keep a higher concentration of oxygen circulating around your diapers.

2. Wash frequently with vinegar in the pre-rinse. Ammonia is basic and vinegar is an acid. An acid plus a base makes a salt and water. Usually the salt is water soluble, which makes it easier to get rid of in your wash.

3. Keep your diaper pail somewhere cool. Reaction rates double for every 10 degrees celcius rise in temperature. Therefore, if your house goes from 20 degrees in the winter to 30 degrees in the summer, you will get ammonia problems twice as often in the summer.

4. Don't use baking soda unless you want to have to use more vinegar. Baking soda is a base, so you will need more vinegar to neutralize both the baking soda and the ammonia.

5. Use enough soap in the wash to actually get your diapers clean. Getting rid of the bacteria (soap doesn't usually kill bacteria, just interacts with their ability to adhere to the fabric), will keep your ammonia problems at bay.

6. After your cold prerinse/soak, wash in the hottest water you can to completely dissolve the ammonia salts that are present in the diapers.

This was the response to a question from another mama:

"What type of soap you use probably won't affect things much. Some people find that Bac Out seems to get rid of their problems. It has no caustic ingredients (no bases), so it will not contribute to the problem anyway. Your cheapest method will probably be to find cheap vinegar in bulk and a laundry detergent that you can buy locally that has no dyes, brighteners or enzymes.

I just use normal, cheap white vinegar. I buy it in 4 L (I think that's about a gallon?) jugs and go through 1 every 2 weeks.

4 L divided by 14 days means that I use approximately 1 1/3 cups per load. I have a front loader, so keep that in mind.

I add it to the cold pre-rinse I do before washing."

Best wishes!

Bumbo Exchange

There have been some growing concerns among parents about the safety of the bumbo because it doesn't have a safety restraint for the child while seated. These concerns have been voiced to the maker of the bumbo but they have refused to add a seat belt-type restraint to increase the safety of their product. Another company, Prince Lionheart, has offered to replace any bumbo with their product called the bebePOD for the cost of shipping. The bebePOD has a safety restraint and straps to attach the seat to a chair for use as a high-chair. If you are interested in making the exchange, the deadline is coming up soon. Your bumbo must be sent and postmarked by January 31st to qualify for the free exchange.

Here is a link to find out more: www.facebook.com/PrinceLionheartFamily?sk=app_10442206389

Plastic & Chemical Exposure

I have been really thinking a lot about plastic products that we use with our baby. It concerns me when I hear talk of chemicals/pesticides/toxins and carcinogens coming in contact with my child on a daily basis. I know I can't remove every harmful thing, but with things like Autism and ADHD on the rise in an unprecedented way, I want to limit the exposure to harmful things, as much as I can.

I found this blog post today and thought it was helpful and informative so I thought I'd share.

Reducing our exposure to toxins found in plastics

Welcome to the January Carnival of Natural Parenting: Experiments in Natural Family Living
This post was written for inclusion in the monthly Carnival of Natural Parenting hosted by Hobo Mama and Code Name: Mama. This month our participants have reported on weeklong trials to make their lives a little greener and gentler. Please read to the end to find a list of links to the other carnival participants.


What a great time of year to make changes towards more natural family living! 2011 was a year of change for our family, and I’d like take more positive steps in this fresh new year. This month’s Carnival theme was a perfect opportunity for our family to clear out some clutter from the kitchen. Our targets: melamine plates and plastic drinking cups.

Toxic plastic and melamine tableware

For the last 2 weeks we have been making some minor adjustments to our tableware in favour of greener and less toxic alternatives, and I’ll tell you why...

Melamine plates

Why would I want to throw out these cute melamine plates and bowls which have accumulated over the years? They have such bright, fun patterns which the boys adore, and best of all they don’t smash when dropped (or let’s face it, thrown) on the floor by a toddler.

I have actually been meaning to discard these items of tableware for some time, since I first read of the dangers of melamine during the awful melamine scandal in China^[1]. Quite honestly, there are so many things we would like to change/do better/do without, that this had slipped down my list of priorities. I had wanted to indulge in a little research first, and after a few minutes reading some articles online, I now wish I had acted a lot sooner. This is one experiment in natural family living that I want to make sure becomes a permanent change!

Melamine is a chemical compound which forms a white crystalline powder, but can be mixed with formaldehyde to produce a hard plastic, known as melamine resin. It is this resin that is used to make, among other things, the children’s plates we have been ignorantly using for the past few years. Melamine resin is not microwave safe, and can degrade when exposed to high temperatures. As the plates are worn down or damaged, the melamine resin breaks down to its component parts. In both cases, this can cause exposure to both melamine and formaldehyde which is a known carcinogen^[2].

It wasn’t hard to push the melamine to the back of the cupboard for now, and swap it for porcelain tableware for the children. Porcelain and other ceramics certainly don’t show signs of wear as quickly as melamine, and can cope with high temperatures without leaching toxins. We already had plenty of porcelain, but these sorts of ceramic plates are easy and cheap to purchase (especially second hand!). The only downside is that they are of course rather breakable. It’s currently not a problem in our family since our twins are now 4 and don’t generally fling things from the table, and our 10 month old feeds himself straight off his wooden high chair tray. Our twin’s verdict on the new plates? They didn’t even notice until I asked them, and simply shrugged like teenage boys. However, they did take far more notice of our next change...

Plastic cups and cutlery

The banished melamine plates and bowls have been joined by plastic cups and cutlery. Our boys have been rather attached to their old colourful plastic sippy cups! As much as we had tried to offer drinks in normal glass cups, they still often asked for their clever-cup-with-a-lid. Sadly for them, I now realise that they probably contain bisphenol-A (BPA) and other nasty chemicals.

Bisphenol-A is commonly abbreviated to BPA, and is a chemical used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics. It is part of a group of chemicals which exhibit similar effects to oestrogen, thus disrupting the body’s hormone system. Oestrogen (estrogen) itself is a natural hormone found in animals and some insects, which has wide ranging functions, from regulating aspects of the reproductive system to affecting fat deposition and even mental health ^[3].

BPA’s oestrogenic activity has been studied for decades. There is a huge amount of compelling research out there, and I wish I had the time to break it all down! Just a few examples of its effects on the body include:

• Hyperactivity, attention deficits and a heightened sensitivity to drugs of abuse ^[4]
• An increase in the risk of breast cancer ^[5,6] and induced cancerous growth in the lab^[7]
• Problems with the development of the reproductive system, female fertility^[8] and male sexual dysfunction^[9]
• Reduced brain function related to regulation of moods and formation of memories^[10]

The body’s hormonal system is highly sensitive, and low doses of this oestrogen-mimicking chemical have been found to cause serious health problems. There is a consensus among many experts that the average level of BPA found in humans is greater than the levels found to cause harm in laboratory studies. As you can imagine, the effects of BPA will be greater in developing babies and children. BPA can leach out of polycarbonate plastics when they are heated, scratched, cleaned using harsh detergents, exposed to UV light, and as they naturally degrade over time. BPA was banned from infant feeding bottles and cups in Europe over a year ago^[11], but some of our cups were bought before the ban came into force.

BPA-free plastic is not necessarily safe either. For years the manufacturer’s defended their use of this chemical, until they were forced to withdraw it. I wonder how many other chemicals in plastics pose health risks? In March 2011, a US research team examined over 450 BPA-free products to determine if other potentially damaging chemicals were released during use^[12]. They exposed commonly available plastic products to general wear from heat, UV light and microwaving and found that almost all plastics leached out chemicals which had oestrogenic activity. In fact, some of these chemicals in BPA-free plastics had more oestrogenic activity than BPA itself. The true health effects of many of these chemicals are unknown, and not widely publicised like those of BPA.

Even though the oestrogenic activity and health effects of BPA are well known, this chemical is still found in a whole host of plastics which commonly come into contact with our food and drink. I was surprised to read that it is used in the lining of cans ^[13], thermal paper of till receipts ^[14], and even in the epoxy resins used to reline old water pipes ^[15]! It seems hard to completely avoid exposure, which makes it especially important to switch our children’s drinking cups to a more suitable alternative.

Painted ceramic mugs

We may buy some smaller drinking glasses for the children, but for now they have been very happy to drink out of some ceramic mugs that we all painted together this week. These were actually one of their Christmas gifts, and we all enjoyed splashing some paint on the outside and setting it in the oven. For days out and about, we bought some great stainless steel drinks containers which seem really tough and easy to clean.

Stainless steel flasks - BPA free

It hasn’t been hard to stop using plastics and melamine, and we will definitely continue trying to eliminate chemicals in the kitchen to protect our health. I haven't even gone into the environmental concerns about plastic! These tainted items are currently sitting at the back of the cupboard, waiting for me to work out the best way to reuse or be rid of them. Any ideas?

The next thing to go is the non-stick cookware...

Here is the link to her original blog post with a list of references: http://gentlyparentingtwins.blogspot.com/2012/01/reducing-exposure-to-toxins-in-plastics.html

Artificial Materials and Cloth Diapering

Artificial Materials and Cloth Diapering

by Marc Pehkonen, Lori Taylor
fuzbaby
FireFly Diapers

For centuries, naturally occurring absorbent materials were used for diapering infants. These were probably picked from local fibers, easily available, and could have included materials as diverse as moss and linen. Then, in the 20th century, the amazingly rapid development of artificial materials heralded an almost total switch in the West from cloth diapering to disposables. Highly engineered absorbent gels and processed wood pulp replaced reusable natural fibers. Although the vast majority accepted these changes as the inevitable (and even admirable) progress of technology, a small percentage continued to use cloth diapers.

Perhaps you are among those parents choosing to use cloth diapers because you reject the use of artificial materials. You may be concerned to see that such materials are showing up in popular cloth diapering products. Common man-made materials may be a health threat, including polyester fibers, vinyl and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyurethane laminate (PUL), and durable water repellent finishes (DWR).

Introducing Polyester

Polyester was created in a laboratory just 60 years ago, during World War II. It gained popularity as an apparel fiber, particularly in the 1950s, under trade names such as Dacron. It may have become a joke by the 1970s, but it remains, in its various forms, one of the most popular fibers used in clothing.

Polyester is the artificial fiber most commonly blended with cotton, where it is added to reduce cost, speed up drying times, decrease the tendency to wrinkle and improve wear-resistance. Unblended, it is used in a variety of fabrics, including the ubiquitous polyester fleece. In addition, there is a new type of polyester fiber that is made from 100% recycled soda bottles (PET on the bottle stands for polyethylene terephthalate, or polyester). The argument is made that this is a plastic fiber that apparently helps the environment.

You might think, therefore, that water-repellant, 100% recycled polyester fleece would be a good candidate for a diaper cover, and that a soft, poly-cotton blend might make a good diaper. That such a combination would function adequately is not really at issue. The point is that polyester is not the wonder fiber its manufacturers claim.

The use of certain polymeric silicones as cosmetic implants ended in a successful lawsuit against Dow-Corning; the vinyl industry is the subject of mounting litigation (and a critical documentary, the independently-made Blue Vinyl, which aired on HBO in June 2002); and now even supposedly inert polyester is running into trouble.

Researchers at Tufts Medical School noticed that cancer cells being grown in the lab multiplied more quickly in polyester test tubes than in glass. It appears that polyester slowly emits phytoestrogens, which are endocrine disruptors, or compounds similar to estrogen, which can promote certain types of cancer. Enough people are worried about these chemicals that entire conferences are being held to discuss their possible effects. You can see the concerns of the scientific community reflected in this list of topics at a conference being held as we write: http://www.grc.uri.edu/programs/2002/enviend.htm

Polymer Chemistry 101

It is probably a good idea at this point to back up a bit for some chemistry 101. Basic polymer chemistry isn't too complicated, but for most people the manufacture of the plastics that surround us is a mystery, which no doubt suits the chemical producers very well. A working knowledge of the principles involved here will make us more informed users.

Polyester is only one compound in a class of petroleum-derived substances known as polymers. Thus, polyester (in common with most polymers) begins its life in our time as crude oil. Crude oil is a cocktail of components that can be separated by industrial distillation. Gasoline is one of these components, and the precursors of polymers such as polyethylene are also present.

Polymers are made by chemically reacting a lot of little molecules together to make one long molecule, like a string of beads. The little molecules are called monomers and the long molecules are called polymers.

Like this:

O + O + O + . . . makes OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Depending on which polymer is required, different monomers are chosen. Ethylene, the monomer for polyethylene, is obtained directly from the distillation of crude oil; other monomers have to be synthesized from more complex petroleum derivatives, and the path to these monomers can be several steps long. The path for polyester, which is made by reacting ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid, is shown below. Key properties of the intermediate materials are also shown.

The polymers themselves are theoretically quite unreactive and therefore not particularly harmful, but this is most certainly not true of the monomers. Chemical companies usually make a big deal of how stable and unreactive the polymers are, but that's not what we should be interested in. We need to ask, what about the monomers? How unreactive are they?

We need to ask these questions because a small proportion of the monomer will never be converted into polymer. It just gets trapped in between the polymer chains, like peas in spaghetti. Over time this unreacted monomer can escape, either by off-gassing into the atmosphere if the initial monomers were volatile, or by dissolving into water if the monomers were soluble. Because these monomers are so toxic, it takes very small quantities to be harmful to humans, so it is important to know about the monomers before you put the polymers next to your skin or in your home. Since your skin is usually moist, any water-borne monomers will find an easy route into your body.

Polyester is the terminal product in a chain of very reactive and toxic precursors. Most are carcinogens; all are poisonous. And even if none of these chemicals remain entrapped in the final polyester structure (which they most likely do), the manufacturing process requires workers and our environment to be exposed to some or all of the chemicals shown in the flowchart above. There is no doubt that the manufacture of polyester is an environmental and public health burden that we would be better off without.

You may not feel comfortable putting a potential endocrine disruptor next to your child's most sensitive areas. What about some of the other fabrics and fabric treatments used in cloth diapering?

Vinyl and Polyvinyl Chloride

One widely distributed brand of cloth diapers uses PVC or vinyl for its diaper covers.

PVC is a polymer made from vinyl chloride monomer and often contains harmful phthalates as unbound plasticizers. Before you buy a vinyl diaper cover (or anything else made from PVC, especially for your children) consider some of the information available from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on vinyl chloride, the monomer for PVC or polyvinyl chloride. Pay particular attention to the "long-term exposure" sections.

Vinyl baby and children's toys are also very popular, but have raised significant health concerns. Search the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission website for references to vinyl, and see also the article in Mothering magazine, Issue #90, Sep/Oct 1998.

The independent documentary film "Blue Vinyl," which aired this spring (2002) on HBO, primarily dealt with the effects of vinyl siding on residential users and the workers who manufacture and install the siding. Remember, a diaper cover is in much closer proximity to more sensitive skin than vinyl siding and can contain the same off-gassing monomers.

Polyurethane Laminate (PUL)

Polyurethane laminate, or PUL, has gained great popularity as a fabric treatment. It is applied to the surface of a porous fabric (usually polyester, but also cotton) to provide a flexible, totally waterproof layer. Ultrex and Extreme, two woven fabrics commonly used in outdoor clothing, are also polyurethane laminates. PUL makes functionally good diaper covers--it is an effective barrier to liquids.

But what are the precursor monomers for polyurethane? Most are based on TDI, or toluene 2,4-diisocyanate, a highly toxic carcinogen. Again the Disease Control and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have information about TDI, the polyurethane monomer.

NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards
International Chemical Safety Cards (WHO/IPCS/ILO)

Durable Water Repellant Finish (DWR)

Durable Water Repellant finish is a generic term (rather than a trademark) in the outdoor gear industry for a water repellant surface layer, usually sprayed onto the fabric. This layer does not completely fill all the fabric pores (unlike PUL), so the fabric remains breathable. Goretex is probably the most well-known example of a DWR-treated fabric and its treatment contains a fluorocarbon similar to Teflon. The outdoor clothing manufacturer Patagonia describes their DWR finish as "polyurethane" and recommends re-treating "once per season, or more often if the piece gets a lot of use or washing." (Patagonia Product FAQs)

Patagonia recommends the use of Nikwax for re-treatment, which is based on a compound called ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), blended with a mineral wax. It also contains small amounts of an acidified zirconium salt of a weak acid (acetic acid) and ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) to stabilize the emulsion. If you are interested in digging deeper, you could even read a patent for Nikwax or any proprietary formulation. (Nikwax patent).

Patagonia suggests re-treatment if the garment is washed frequently. They cannot expect their hiking garments will be washed as often as diaper cover would be. DWR treatment would not be effective as a barrier unless you keep a bottle or can of Nikwax handy to restore your cover every few washes.

So, What's the Harm? What's the Choice?

You might ask after reading all this, so what is the actual risk to our babies and families? What if we use some PUL or DWR or fleece for the outer parts of diapers and covers that don't touch the skin? How much of the monomers are actually given off? Has anyone performed a study on this?

The problem is that we are not aware of any such specific study. What we do know is this: The short-term risks of exposure to all of the chemicals mentioned is well documented. The exposure tests are usually performed on animals, since most people would not willingly submit themselves to those kinds of tests and would certainly not volunteer their children. Then exposure limits are estimated, usually for adult males. In some unfortunate cases, actual exposures from industrial accidents and the like have been used to refine these limits.

The effects of long-term exposure are more problematic to predict than short-term; often symptoms take years, or even generations, to show up. Long-term studies of the effects of all the monomers mentioned in this article are still underway. Remember also that these chemicals may respond very differently when used for diapering--the long-term studies are considering only the action of these chemicals in water or air. The presence of urea, ammonia, and the salinity of urine may alter the behavior of monomers in unpredictable ways. In the meantime, wool, hemp, and cotton, particularly when grown and processed organically, are not carcinogens.

The main focus here has been the possible health risks of using these materials. Remember also, that continuing to use these materials supports the industries that produce them. That means continued consumption of the world's oil, mineral and energy resources and continued pollution of our air and water. It also means continued exploitation of chemical workers around the world, especially in countries with low safety standards. The fate of these materials after we are done using them also needs to be considered. Are they biodegradable, reusable, recyclable?

There are many reasons to consider the natural alternatives to artificial materials. Wool is breathable, and micro-absorbent, and naturally moisture repellant (but can be treated with lanolin if necessary, but please don't use Nikwax, despite manufacturer recommendations). Wool makes wonderful diaper covers. Cotton and hemp are both highly absorbent and hemp especially can be grown easily without pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. Cotton is not so easy to grow organically, but every year more acres are being converted from conventional production. It is becoming widely available as a diapering fabric. Ask for organic cotton specifically.

As you can see, there's no good reason to use petroleum-based products like polyester, PUL or PVC in your child's diapers when natural fibers work so well and pose no health risks. Choose natural materials, manufactured with minimal processing under fair labor environments.

http://www.diaperpin.com/clothdiapers/article_artificialmaterials.asp

Breasts for Babies

Breasts sell beer but for heaven's sake, they shouldn't be seen feeding babies! (tongue in cheek)

A great article on this topic:

http://www.lifetimemoms.com/multicultural-moms/blog/breasts-to-sell-beer-good-breasts-to-feed-baby-bad?cmpid=PaidMedia_Outbrain_LTM_AllChannels

I’m not really sure why breasts can be openly used to sell beer and entice you to eat chicken wings at Hooters, but when they are used in their actual context—feeding a baby—people get all Puritanical.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

This week another breastfeeding mom, who was covered up, was forced to stop feeding her four-month old in the hallway of Washington D.C., DMV office when two (GASP!) female security guards told her to stop because it was indecent.

Simone Dos Santos, a lawyer herself, was waiting for a traffic hearing and stepped out into the hallway to breastfeed when the guards approached her, though she was covering her baby with a jacket.

"I was shocked, upset and angry that by providing food for my son, I was being treated like a criminal," she said in recent news reports.

As an attorney dos Santos knew that legally she had rights -- 28 states as well as D.C. exempt breastfeeding from public indecency laws.

But it’s a shame that the laws of common sense don’t govern most people. And it is our rights as mothers and the health of our babies who ultimately suffer when women are made to feel uncomfortable when performing the biological norm for infant feeding.

Breastfeeding is what our bodies were made to do. And breast milk is the best preventative infant health we can give our babies. Feeding our young used to be as natural and instinctive as it is for any other animal, but somehow we’ve lost our instincts and our choices about our babies first food are more based on cultural norms than research or facts.

And the oversexualization of the breast hasn’t helped. Breasts are everywhere: on billboards, in magazines and spilling out of skin-tight attire. Bathing suits have grown skimpier by the year. I wonder if any of those female security guards have purchased those tiny bikini tops they are now marketing to 9-year-old girls? Women spend much money to make their breasts bigger, bouncier, rounder and or more perky, but everyone forgets this one indisputable truth: that they are merely mammary glands – fatty tissue with milk ducts designed to feed babies.

Wake up women! Society has told us that it is perfectly acceptable to show our breast on their terms—pushed up, dangling, with a beer, in a wet-T-shirt contest, or parading around a pole, but to show our breasts to feed our babies is indecent!!

I really can’t take it anymore.

Yes, I am a unapologetic first food advocate. I believe that every baby should have fair and equal access to the best infant nutrition possible. But women can’t make those decisions clearly, with this type of hypocrisy and hype crowding the issues. And that makes breastfeeding an issue for every woman.

If we can reclaim our breasts from the advertisers and marketers maybe then we can use them for our babies without being made to feel uncomfortable. Are you ready to get your breasts back?

Oh and the next time I see a man with boobs topless, I’m calling the police. Who's with me?

Treatment for Colic

There has been a lot of research, recently about possible causes of colic and how to best treat them. Many scientists now believe that colic has roots in digestive upset. An article in the NY Times was published not too long ago about the possible benefits of using probiotics for infants to help treat colic symptoms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/health/15really.html?_r=1&ref=health

An Anthropological and Psychological Assessment of Current Infant Care Practices

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201112/dangers-crying-it-out
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/crying-dangerous-kids-one-expert-says-222400379.html

Is Crying it Out Dangerous for Kids?

If the link between parent and child is strong enough that kids can "catch" their parents' stress, it may stand to reason that babies crave the physical connection that comes with a cuddle. It's something that plenty of parents are more than happy to provide during the day but, when it comes to bedtime, the modern emphasis has been on teaching good sleep habits -- and giving mom and dad a break.

Most sleep-deprived parents get to the point where they're willing to try almost anything in order to get a good night's rest. While some decry it as cruel, others have had success with the "cry it out" method -- teaching babies to "self-soothe" by letting their nighttime crying go unanswered.

But is "crying it out" about establishing independence? Or is it just a way of making those early years easier for parents?

In an article published this week in Psychology Today, one researcher says that crying it out could be dangerous for children, leading to a lifetime of harm.

"A crying baby in our ancestral environment would have signaled predators to tasty morsels," writes Darcia Narvaez, an Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Collaborative for Ethical Education at the University of Notre Dame. "So our evolved parenting practices alleviated baby distress and precluded crying except in emergencies."

When babies are stressed, their bodies release the hormone cortisol, which can damage or even destroy neurons in their still-developing brains, researchers at Yale University and Harvard Medical School have found. That can lead to a higher incidence of ADHD, poor academic performance, and anti-social tendencies.

Human babies are hardwired for near-constant holding, breastfeeding, and having their other needs met quickly -- the hallmarks of Attachment Parenting, Narvaez points out -- in order for their brains to develop properly. Even Dr. Richard Ferber, whose sleep-training method is commonly called the Cry It Out Method, says that he never intended parents to completely ignore their babies' nighttime tears.

"I've always believed that there are many solutions to sleep problems, and that every family and every child is unique," he said in an interview with BabyTalk. "People want one easy solution, but there's no such thing. I never encouraged parents to let their babies cry it out, but one of the many treatment styles I described in my book is gradual extinction, where you delay your response time to your baby's wakings. I went to great pains in the second edition to clarify that that treatment is not appropriate for every sleep issue, of which there are many."

What he does encourage is teaching children to soothe themselves during normal nighttime wakings. But many parents extend his advice to include all bedtime-related crying. That's the type of crying it out sets kids up for stress-related problems, trust issues, anxiety disorders, reduced brain function, and a lack of independence, Narvaez writes. And since the problems are on a genetic level, they can't necessarily be fixed later in life.

"In studies of rats with high or low nurturing mothers, there is a critical period for turning on genes that control anxiety for the rest of life," Narvaez writes. "If in the first 10 days of life you have low nurturing rat mother (the equivalent of the first 6 months of life in a human), the gene never gets turned on and the rat is anxious towards new situations for the rest of its life, unless drugs are administered to alleviate the anxiety."

Could a lack of nurturing explain our "Prozac Nation?" Narvaez points out that she's witnessed the long-term physical effects of it firsthand.

"I was raised in a middle-class family with a depressed mother, harsh father and overall emotionally unsupportive environment -- not unlike others raised in the USA," she writes. "I have only recently realized from extensive reading about the effects of early parenting on body and brain development that I show the signs of undercare -- poor memory (cortisol released during distress harms hippocampus development), irritable bowel and other poor vagal tone issues, and high social anxiety."

The lack of nurturing, and the prevalence of parents who put their own needs in front of their kids', may be to blame for the mental and physical health problems that are plaguing the United States now.

"If we want a strong country and people," she writes, "we've got to pay attention to what children need for optimal development."

The original link to the article by Darcia Narvaez, Ph.D. Associate Professor at the University of Notre Dame, published in Psychology Today can be found here.

The link to the research done at Harvard & Yale on infant stress can be found here.

Learning Styles

I found this video and it really struck a cord with me.

We are all different. We have different talents and we learn differently.

I think its important to remember that, even when we consider our little ones who are always learning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8limRtHZPs

Play Mats - Safe?

I saw this article and it made me start to question whether or not the play mat that I have is really safe...

Belgium is to ban the sale of all foam puzzle mats for babies and toddlers, citing tests showing they contain a cancer-causing chemical.

Formamides are used to soften the foam in the mats but are corrosive and can be deadly. Toxicologist Alfred Bernard explained:
“They are solvents, residues from the manufacturing process that stay in the product afterwards. They can be absorbed through breathing or through the skin. As a rule, children should not be exposed to these products.”

Belgium becomes the first European country to ban the mats and will impose a 20,000 euro fine for anyone found selling them. Jean-Philippe Ducart, a spokesman for a consumer watchdog said:

“They will be illegal in 2011 but in the meantime we ask that they be withdrawn from the market in the interest of public health and the health of children exposed to them.”

An EU-wide ban on the mats is expected within the next few years.

http://www.euronews.net/2010/12/11/belgium-bans-toxic-children-s-puzzle-mats/

Midwives

The midwife considers the miracle of childbirth as normal, and leaves it alone unless there's trouble. The obstetrician normally sees childbirth as trouble. If he leaves it alone, it's a miracle.-Sheila Stubbs

The "What to Expect" Series Revihttp://www.blogger.cohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifm/img/blank.gifew

The "What to Expect" Series by Arlene Eisenberg, et al
	comments by Kelly Bonyata

The "What to Expect" Series includes the books What to Expect When You're Expecting, What to Expect the First Year and What to Expect the Toddler Years (plus some related books like What to Eat When You're Expecting, and so on).

Update: I've just looked through some of the breastfeeding information in the Third Edition (2002) of What to Expect the First Year. All in all, the general breastfeeding information is significantly better than in the first edition, but quite a number of inaccuracies and misinformation remain scattered throughout. The authors seem to have pushed their comfort level for breastfeeding up to around a year, but they continue to perpetuate myths such as breastfeeding being "exhausting" for mom, particularly when it comes to breastfeeding past a year. In addition, the moms whom I have worked with continue to mention that they go to the book with a question and come away feeling worried, inadequate and guilty.

The book What to Expect the Toddler Years (which has not been updated since the first edition) is very negative when it comes to breastfeeding a toddler, with many comments similar to the ones quoted below from the First Edition of What to Expect the First Year.

The first editions of the books (I've read through the pregnancy, first year and toddler books), give lip service to breastfeeding in the early months (though much of the info is quite outdated), but gets less and less supportive of breastfeeding as babies pass 6 months. Weaning is suggested well before 12 months. The authors also advocate letting baby cry (to do otherwise is "cowardly") and are very much against co-sleeping. Here is a quote from What to Expect the First Year (first edition):

By the end of the first year, however, scientists tell us that breast milk ceases to be adequate--not only is its protein content is insufficient for the older baby, but it suffers from a decline in several vital nutrients including zinc, copper, and potassium. In the second year, infants require the nutrients in cow's milk, and the mother who is still breastfeeding should recognize that although both she and her baby may still be enjoying the experience, breast milk can't be considered a major source of nutrition for her baby. Nor do babies past a year appear to need the sucking breast feeding provides. In spite of much speculation, there's no solid evidence that nursing past the first year--or even well into the second or third or beyond--hinders a child's emotional development. But it does seem that prolonged breastfeeding, like prolonged bottlefeeding, can lead to dental decay.

These statements are so full of misinformation, it's hard to know where to start! See Extended Breastfeeding Fact Sheet for referenced infomation on the nutritional and many other benefits of breastfeeding during the second year and beyond... Cow's milk is certainly not needed for anyone but baby cows... Some babies have breastmilk as their main source of nutrition well into the second year... There are many studies that show that the sucking need (as exhibited through continued pacifier, finger or thumb sucking) persists for several years in many children, with most stopping by age 4-5... There is good evidence that nursing into the second and third year (and beyond) has psychological benefits... There is no evidence that there is a link between extended nursing and dental decay...

http://www.kellymom.com/store/reviews/review_whattoexpect.html