The Crunchy Christian

Article: Breastfeeding Would Save Lives and Money

2010-04-05T17:32:00.000-04:00

Taken from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100405/ap_on_he_me/us_med_breast_feeding_savings

CHICAGO – The lives of nearly 900 babies would be saved each year, along with billions of dollars, if 90 percent of U.S. women fed their babies breast milk only for the first six months of life, a cost analysis says.
Those startling results, published online Monday in the journal Pediatrics, are only an estimate. But several experts who reviewed the analysis said the methods and conclusions seem sound.
"The health care system has got to be aware that breast-feeding makes a profound difference," said Dr. Ruth Lawrence, who heads the American Academy of Pediatrics' breast-feeding section.
The findings suggest that there are hundreds of deaths and many more costly illnesses each year from health problems that breast-feeding may help prevent. These include stomach viruses, ear infections, asthma, juvenile diabetes, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and even childhood leukemia.
The magnitude of health benefits linked to breast-feeding is vastly underappreciated, said lead author Dr. Melissa Bartick, an internist and instructor at Harvard Medical School. Breast-feeding is sometimes considered a lifestyle choice, but Bartick calls it a public health issue.
Among the benefits: Breast milk contains antibodies that help babies fight infections; it also can affect insulin levels in the blood, which may make breast-fed babies less likely to develop diabetes and obesity.
The analysis studied the prevalence of 10 common childhood illnesses, costs of treating those diseases, including hospitalization, and the level of disease protection other studies have linked with breast-feeding.
The $13 billion in estimated losses due to the low breast-feeding rate includes an economists' calculation partly based on lost potential lifetime wages — $10.56 million per death.
The methods were similar to a widely cited 2001 government report that said $3.6 billion could be saved each year if 50 percent of mothers breast-fed their babies for six months. Medical costs have climbed since then and breast-feeding rates have increased only slightly.
About 43 percent of U.S. mothers do at least some breast-feeding for six months, but only 12 percent follow government guidelines recommending that babies receive only breast milk for six months.
Dr. Larry Gray, a University of Chicago pediatrician, called the analysis compelling and said it's reasonable to strive for 90 percent compliance.
But he also said mothers who don't breast-feed for six months shouldn't be blamed or made to feel guilty, because their jobs and other demands often make it impossible to do so.
"We'd all love as pediatricians to be able to carry this information into the boardrooms by saying we all gain by small changes at the workplace" that encourage breast-feeding, Gray said.
Bartick said there are some encouraging signs. The government's new health care overhaul requires large employers to provide private places for working mothers to pump breast milk. And under a provision enacted April 1 by the Joint Commission, a hospital accrediting agency, hospitals may be evaluated on their efforts to ensure that newborns are fed only breast milk before they're sent home.
The pediatrics academy says babies should be given a chance to start breast-feeding immediately after birth. Bartick said that often doesn't happen, and at many hospitals newborns are offered formula even when their mothers intend to breast-feed.
"Hospital practices need to change to be more in line with evidence-based care," Bartick said. "We really shouldn't be blaming mothers for this."

Article: US C-Section Rate Hits 32%

2010-03-23T20:58:00.002-04:00

Taken From: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/health/24birth.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes

Caesarean Births Are at a High in U.S.
By DENISE GRADY
Published: March 23, 2010

The Caesarean section rate in the United States reached 32 percent in 2007, the country’s highest rate ever, health officials are reporting.
The rate has been climbing steadily since 1996, setting records year after year, and Caesarean section has become the most common operation in American hospitals. About 1.4 million Caesareans were performed in 2007, the latest year for which figures are available.
The increases — documented in a report published Tuesday — have caused debate and concern for years. When needed, a Caesarean can save the mother and her child from injury or death, but most experts doubt that one in three women need surgery to give birth. Critics say the operation is being performed too often, needlessly exposing women and babies to the risks of major surgery. The ideal rate is not known, but the World Health Organization and health agencies in the United States have suggested 15 percent.
The continuing rise “is not going to be good for anybody,” said Dr. George A. Macones, the chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University in St. Louis and a spokesman for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “What we’re worried about is, the Caesarean section rate is going up, but we’re not improving the health of babies being delivered or of moms.”
Risks to the mother increase with each subsequent Caesarean, because the surgery raises the odds that the uterus will rupture in the next pregnancy, an event that can be life-threatening for both the mother and the baby. Caesareans also increase the risk of dangerous abnormalities in the placenta during later pregnancies, which can cause hemorrhaging and lead to a hysterectomy. Repeated Caesareans can make it risky or even impossible to have a large family.
The new report notes that Caesareans also pose a risk of surgical complications and are more likely than normal births to cause problems that put the mother back in the hospital and the infant in an intensive-care unit. The report states, “In addition to health and safety risks for mothers and newborns, hospital charges for a Caesarean delivery are almost double those for a vaginal delivery, imposing significant costs.”
Fay Menacker, an author of the report and a statistician at the National Center for Health Statistics, which published the report, said, “There’s been an increase for women of all ages and racial and ethnic groups, and all states.”
The highest rates of Caesarean births were in New Jersey (38.3 percent) and Florida (37.2 percent), and the lowest were in Utah (22.2 percent) and Alaska (22.6 percent).
The report notes that the rate in the United States is higher than those in most other industrialized countries. But rates have soared to 40 percent in some developing countries in Latin America, and the rates in Puerto Rico and China are approaching 50 percent. A report by the World Health Organization published earlier this year in The Lancet, a medical journal, said hospitals in China might be doing unnecessary operations to make money.
There is no single reason for the continuing increase in the United States. Rising multiple births because of fertility treatments have a role, because they often require Caesareans. But, the report notes, Caesarean rates for singletons increased substantially more than those for multiples. Another factor is that more older women are giving birth nowadays, and they are more likely to have Caesareans — but women under 25 had the greatest increases in Caesareans from 2000 to 2007.
Nonmedical issues are also involved. Obstetricians, fearful of being sued if there is harm to a baby after a normal labor and delivery, are quicker than they used to be to perform a Caesarean.
“The threshold for doing a Caesarean section is going down, and one of the major factors is professional liability, ending up in court,” Dr. Macones said.
In an article last month in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, the obstetricians’ college reported that a poll of 5,644 of its members found that 29 percent said they were performing more Caesareans because they feared lawsuits. Eight percent said they had quit delivering babies, and nearly a third of those said it was because of liability issues.
Some of the increase in Caesareans has also come from women requesting the surgery even when it is not medically necessary, Dr. Macones said. Caesareans have become so common that many people do not realize they are major abdominal surgery, with all the attendant risks.
In addition, the increased tendency to induce labor before a woman’s due date, for reasons of convenience, has helped push up the Caesarean rate, because induction is more likely than natural labor to fail and result in a Caesarean.
“We should do inductions for good solid medical reasons, not for convenience or the day of the week,” Dr. Macones said. “Sometimes patients push you.”
Another obstetrician also said patients requested what she called “social inductions,” for example, because a grandmother was visiting from out of town and hoping to see the baby before she had to leave. Another reason is the pending deployment of a husband to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Repeat Caesareans are another part of the problem. They account for about 40 percent of the total and have become increasingly common in the past 15 years as more and more hospitals have refused to allow women who have had a Caesarean to try to give birth normally. Fewer than 10 percent of women who had Caesareans now have vaginal births, compared with 28.3 percent in 1996. Many hospitals banned vaginal birth after Caesarean because of stringent guidelines set by the obstetricians’ college, which said surgery and anesthesia teams should be “immediately available” whenever a woman with a prior Caesarean was in labor.
An expert panel convened earlier this month by the National Institutes of Health said there were too many barriers to vaginal birth after a Caesarean and suggested ways to reduce them. It urged the obstetricians’ group to reassess its guidelines on “immediate availability,” and it urged hospitals to publicize their rates of vaginal birth after a Caesarean, so women could make informed choices about where to give birth. It also acknowledged the problem of malpractice suits but did not make a specific recommendation about how to solve it.
Dr. Macones said the panel’s advice made sense, but he added: “The first thing we should be trying to do is lower the primary C-section rate. Then we wouldn’t get into this trouble.”
Dr. Menacker said: “It looks as if this is a trend that is continuing. I don’t know what the future will hold.”

Article: Too Many Women Dying While Having Babies

2010-03-12T12:56:00.002-05:00

Taken From: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1971633,00.html

Amnesty International may be best known to American audiences for bringing to light horror stories overseas such as the disappearance of political activists in Argentina or the abysmal conditions inside South African prisons under apartheid. But in a new report on pregnancy and childbirth care in the U.S., Amnesty details the maternal health care crisis in this country as part of a systemic violation of women's rights.

The report, titled "Deadly Delivery," notes that the likelihood of a woman dying in childbirth in the U.S. is ﬁve times greater than in Greece, four times greater than in Germany, and three times greater than in Spain. Every day in the U.S., more than two women die of pregnancy-related causes, with the maternal mortality ratio doubling from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 births in 2006. (And as shocking as these figures are, Amnesty notes that the actual number of maternal deaths in the U.S. may be a lot higher since there are no federal requirements to report these outcomes and since data collection at the state and local levels needs to be improved.) "In the U.S., we spend more than any country on health care, yet American women are at greater risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes than in 40 other countries," says Nan Strauss, the report's co-author, who spent two years investigating the issue of maternal mortality worldwide. "We thought that was scandalous." (See the most common hospital mishaps.)

According to Amnesty, which gathered data from many sources including the CDC, approximately half of the pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. are preventable, the result of systemic failures including barriers to accessing care; inadequate, neglectful, or discriminatory care; and overuse of risky interventions like inducing labor and delivering via cesarean section. "Women are not dying from complex, mysterious causes that we don't know how to treat," says Strauss. "Women are dying because it's a fragmented system, and they are not getting the comprehensive services that they need."

The report notes that black women in the U.S. are nearly four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women, although they are no more likely to suffer certain complications like hemorrhage.

The Amnesty report comes on the heels of an investigation in California that found maternal deaths have tripled there in recent years as well as a maternal-mortality alert issued in January by the Joint Commission, a group that accredits hospitals and other medical organizations, which noted that common preventable errors included failure to control blood pressure in hypertensive women and failure to pay attention to vital signs following c-sections. And just this week, a panel of medical experts at a conference held by the National Institutes of Health recommended that physicians' organizations revisit policies that prevent women from having vaginal births after having had a cesarean. Such policies, designed in part to protect against litigation, have contributed to the U.S. cesarean rate rising to nearly 32% in 2007, the most recent year for which data is available.

The Amnesty report spotlights numerous barriers women face in accessing care, even among those who are insured or qualify for Medicaid. Poverty is a major factor, but all women are put at risk by overuse of obstetrical intervention and barriers in access to more woman-centered, physiologic care provided by family-practice physicians and midwives.

Amnesty is calling on Obama to create an Office of Maternal Health within the Department of Health and Human Services to improve outcomes and reduce disparities, among other recommendations. The report also calls on the government to address the shortage of maternal-care providers.

"Access is only one factor," cautions Maureen Corry, executive director of Childbirth Connection, a research and advocacy organziation that recently convened more than 100 stakeholders, including members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the NIH, in a large symposium on transforming maternity care. "We need to make sure that we reduce the overuse of interventions that are not always necessary, like C-sections, and increase access to the care that we know is good for mothers and babies, like labor support."

FREE Web Discussion on Fertility and Early Pregnancy

2010-03-12T12:00:00.003-05:00

Hi everyone!

I will be hosting a web discussion on fertility and early pregnancy and you are all welcome to join! Just e-mail me at TheCrunchyChristian@live.com and express your interest.

The first discussion will be hosted on March 22 at 8:30 PM. I plan on scheduling more later on for people who cannot attend the first one.

Here are some of the topics being covered:

-Charting: How-to, Technical Setup for Fertility Friend, Trying to Avoid Pregnancy, Trying to Conceive, Implantation Dips, thermometer questions.
-Hormones: FSH, LH, Estridol, Progesterone, TSH, Testosterone. Progesterone discussion into the first trimester.
-Cervix: Where is it, what is it, and what does it do? Detecting cervical cysts. What happens during pregnancy?
-Cervical Fluid: Normal vs. Abnormal
-Fertility Supplements: Dong Quai, Soy Isoflavones, Evening Primrose Oil, Parsley, B6, Wild Yam, pineapple core, etc.
-Fertility Drugs: Mucinex, Clomid, Prometrium, Injectibles, baby asprin, birth control pills.
-Fertility Testing: Blood tests, HSG, ultrasound
-The phases of your cycle: Menses, Follicular Phase, "Ovulation Phase", and Luteal Phase.
-The Two Waiting Weeks: Early pregnancy symptoms, Early fetal development
-"BFP" and Beyond: Common early pregnancy symptoms, causes, and how to ease them. Choosing a medical professional. Miscarriages and rates.

Please feel free to expound on the topics listed here if you have any other questions you think of.

In the future, I hope to offer more information on pregnancy, labor, and delivery.

Mail Call!!!

2009-11-10T15:39:00.003-05:00

Do you like The Crunchy Christian? Do you want to hear more about certain topics? Let me know!

Send me an e-mail at TheCrunchyChristian@live.com and let me know!

Article: SIDS and Mattresses

2009-11-06T11:14:00.005-05:00

TCC's Note: I do not necessarily support everything in this article but I think this is a MUST read for everyone. Even if you do not have children, the same concept can be applied to an adult mattress.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.healthychild.com/toxic-sleep/has-the-cause-of-crib-death-sids-been-found/

Has The Cause of Crib Death (SIDS) Been Found?

Toxic Gases in Baby Crib Mattresses

By Jane Sheppard

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). These four words can incite a considerable amount of terror in a parent of an infant. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), also known as crib death or cot death, is the number one cause of death for infants from one month to one year of age. 90% of all SIDS deaths are in babies under six months old. Ongoing SIDS research occasionally leads to discoveries of risk factors associated with these deaths, but after over 50 years, researchers say they still do not know how or why it happens. The prevailing official viewpoint on SIDS is that the cause is unknown (SIDS Alliance 2001).

It may seem inconceivable that over a million babies have died of this "syndrome", and after almost half a century and many millions of dollars spent, no one in this age of science and technology can tell us why. But what parents are virtually oblivious to (through no fault of their own) is that a highly convincing explanation for this tragedy has been found, along with a simple means of eliminating it. This explanation is backed by a significant amount of evidence, but has been and continues to be completely ignored by SIDS organizations, the medical community, and the government - for a variety of reasons, including politics, financial liability, and vested interests. Publication of these findings continues to be denied and suppressed. The result is that babies continue to be at risk from deaths that may easily be prevented.

Toxic Gases in Mattresses

Dr. Jim Sprott, OBE, a New Zealand scientist and chemist, states with certainty that crib death is caused by toxic gases, which can be generated from a baby's mattress. Chemical compounds containing phosphorus, arsenic and antimony have been added to mattresses as fire retardants and for other purposes since the early 1950's. A fungus that commonly grows in be
dding can interact with these chemicals to create poisonous gases (Richardson 1994). These heavier-than-air gases are concentrated in a thin layer on the baby's mattress or are diffused away and dissipated into the surrounding atmosphere. If a baby breathes or absorbs a lethal dose of the gases, the central nervous system shuts down, stopping breathing and then heart function. These gases can fatally poison a baby, without waking the sleeping baby and without any struggle by the baby. A normal autopsy would not reveal any sign that the baby was poisoned (Sprott 1996).

In spite of denial and opposition from orthodox SIDS organizations, no research has disproved this gaseous poisoning explanation for crib death. No valid criticism of this explanation has ever been provided. This logical finding explains every factor already known about crib death, and is backed by scientific research (Sprott 1996, 2000) and 11 years of practical proof consisting of a crib death prevention campaign that continues in New Zealand.

Ongoing research continues to support these findings. A four and a half year study by the Scottish Cot Death Trust published in the British Medical Journal (November 2, 2002) has shown that the re-use of infant mattresses triples the risk of cot death (Tappin 2002). Dr. Sprott explains that the risk of death increases when mattresses are re-used from one baby to the next because the fungus has already had a chance to establish itself in the used mattress. When the next baby uses the same mattress, the fungus is soon active. Toxic gas production begins sooner and is generated in greater volume. It is known that crib death rates increase markedly from the first baby in a family to the second, and from the second to the third, and so on (Mitchell 2001). Dr. Sprott warns, however, that new mattresses can also be unsafe because fungal growth can quickly become established in a new mattress once a baby begins sleeping on it (Sprott 2003).

The fundamental solution is urgent action to eliminate all sources of phosphorus, arsenic and antimony from all mattresses. But this is not happening now, and is not likely to happen anytime soon, so exposure to these gases must be prevented. The intervening solution is to prevent babies from being exposed to the gases by wrapping mattresses in a gas-impermeable cover made from high-grade polyethylene and ensuring that bedding used on top of a wrapped mattress does not contain any phosphorus, arsenic or antimony.

A 100% successful crib death prevention campaign has been going on in New Zealand for the past 11 years. Midwives and other healthcare professionals throughout New Zealand have been actively advising parents to wrap mattresses. During this time, there has not been a single SIDS death reported among the over 100,000 New Zealand babies who have slept on mattresses wrapped in a specially formulated polyethylene cover. The number of crib deaths in New Zealand that have occurred since mattress-wrapping began in 1994 is about 810. The number of crib deaths that have occurred in New Zealand on a properly wrapped mattress is zero.

In early 2002, a German doctor published the results of the New Zealand mattress-wrapping campaign, including statistical analysis carried out in conjunction with the University of Munich (Kapuste 2002). The statistics showed that the proof of the validity of mattress-wrapping for crib death prevention was one billion times the level of proof generally accepted by the medical community as proving a scientific proposition.

Prior to the commencement of mattress-wrapping, New Zealand had the highest crib death rate in the world (2.1 deaths per 1000 live births). Following the adoption of mattress-wrapping by many parents in New Zealand, the New Zealand crib death rate has fallen by 70%, and the Pakeha (non-Maori) crib death rate has fallen by an estimated 85% (NZMH). Pakeha parents have adopted mattress-wrapping with enthusiasm. "These reductions cannot be attributed to orthodox cot death prevention advice," said Dr Sprott. "There has been no material change in that advice since 1992. The only significant change in cot death prevention advice, which has occurred since 1994, is the nationwide dissemination of my recommendations to wrap babies' mattresses."

Parents Are Denied Findings

So why isn't this profound and critically important information making the headlines of major newspapers or all over the evening news? Why aren't crib death researchers and the government of the United States telling parents to wrap babies' mattresses? Why are the manufacturers still adding fire retardants and other chemicals to mattresses?

There are various reasons, but one possible reason is that mattress manufacturers are required to use fire retardants through government regulations. Admitting that these chemicals are causing deaths would mean admitting to major liability. Furthermore, crib death research has been a significant source of funding for medical researchers in the U.S. Unfortunately, the ongoing complex and expensive research that leads to the discovery of "risk factors" for a so-called "syndrome" has pushed aside the simple and inexpensive solution of mattress-wrapping; a solution that can do no harm.

The Cot Death Cover-Up? (Penguin books, NZ, 1996), by Dr. Jim Sprott, reveals the amazing story of denial on the part of crib death researchers and the medical community, and the failure of these entities to accept such a simple explanation. Dr. Sprott first suggested a toxic gas theory for crib death in 1986, and in 1989 Barry Richardson of Britain, also a consulting chemist acting independently, publicized research on the finding. In response, the British government set up expert committees to investigate the findings. One committee published the Turner Report, which recommended the removal of the chemicals from baby mattresses and for babies to be tested for antimony. A second committee published the 1998 Limerick Report, which is frequently cited by SIDS organizations as finding no evidence to substantiate the claim that toxic gases cause crib death. Contrary to this publicity, the Limerick Report did not disprove the theory (Fitzpatrick 1998) - in fact, it provides further confirmation of it (Sprott 2000).

The main orthodox crib death prevention recommendation is to put babies to sleep on their backs. We know that babies do still die when sleeping on their backs, although face-up sleeping does reduce the risk. The gases are denser than air and tend to settle in a thin layer directly on top of the mattress, so babies sleeping face-down are more likely to inhale a lethal dose of the gases. The gases are also absorbed through babies' skin, and this is one of the major reasons why face-up sleeping provides only partial protection against crib death (Sprott 1996).

However, no babies have died sleeping on a properly wrapped mattress. This is crucial information for parents. 2,100 babies continue to die every year in the United States from SIDS. Parents should be provided with the information so that they are able to decide for themselves whether they want to wait for the SIDS research organizations or the government to endorse mattress-wrapping or to "play it safe" as many parents have done in New Zealand. As Dr. Sprott points out and no one has denied, "All New Zealand crib deaths since mattress-wrapping began in late 1994 have occurred when parents have not wrapped their babies' mattresses. An inexpensive, non-toxic protective cover can surely do no harm."

The assumption that our government agencies do everything they can to protect our children is naive. The U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission has stated that BabeSafe mattress covers do not constitute any safety risk to babies. These covers (manufactured in New Zealand) are the only mattress covers designed to protect babies from toxic gases generated in mattresses. Yet even though BabeSafe products are simple, inexpensive, and safe, the FDA requires the manufacturer to go through the expensive, complex, time-consuming procedure of obtaining pre-market approval in order for BabeSafe covers to be bulk imported into the U.S.

Instead of putting unnecessary hurdles in the way of a harmless and potentially live-saving product, why don't the authorities endorse mattress-wrapping in the U.S. to see if the results achieved in New Zealand could be duplicated here? The score in New Zealand is now 810 deaths (orthodox crib death prevention advice) to none (mattress-wrapping). With so many more babies born in the U.S. than in New Zealand, the potential to save lives is dramatically greater - thousands every year. Why should even one baby be denied something that could potentially save his or her life?

Though the toxic gas explanation has not yet been 100% scientifically proven to cause crib death, why take any chances when you don't have to? The 100% successful cot death prevention campaign in New Zealand is enough evidence to warrant taking a precautionary approach.

Find an organic crib mattress that does not off-gas

See section on Baby Mattresses in our report Protect Your Baby from Toxic Exposures
Co-sleeping and Toxic Gases in Adult Mattresses
Factors That May Increase the Risk of Crib Death (including the vaccination link)

Use a Healthy, Non-Toxic Crib Mattress

The NaturePedic No-Compromise organic crib mattress was designed by an environmental engineer to eliminate materials which may be toxic, hazardous, or otherwise potentially harmful to babies. These baby mattresses do not contain any antimony, arsenic, or phosphorus. They do not contain PVC, phthalates, PBDEs, toxic fire retardants, or polyurethane foam. The NaturePedic No-Compromise Baby Mattresses do not need to be wrapped since they are designed to be safe for babies and are proven to not off-gas.

IMPORTANT NOTES:

Use the information provided here as an educational resource for determining your options and making your own informed choices. Healthy Child does NOT make ANY claims that using a non-toxic mattress or wrapping a mattress will prevent SIDS since this has not been 100% scientifically proven. Vaccines are also known to cause baby deaths and there may also be other factors involved in SIDS. However, the fact that there have been no SIDS deaths among the vast number of babies in New Zealand who have slept on correctly wrapped mattresses is crucial information for parents. This fact cannot be denied and should not be suppressed. The evidence is very compelling, and we believe that parents should be informed so they can make their own decisions on how to protect their babies.

Has the toxic gas theory been disproven?

Position Papers publicized by US SIDS organizations say there is not enough evidence to support the toxic gas theory, and that parents should continue to put their babies to sleep on vinyl-covered crib mattresses. They base this on a report commissioned by the British government, under Lady Limerick. The 1998 UK Limerick Report did not disprove the toxic gas theory for cot death (crib death). In fact, the Limerick Committee's research proved the gas generation on which the toxic gas theory is based. For information on fallacies contained in the Limerick Report, visit http://www.cotlife2000.com and click on the side heading "Limerick Report".
See Jane's recent blog post on why it's important to not ignore this issue:
http://www.healthychild.com/blog/are-toxic-gases-in-crib-mattresses-causing-crib-death-sids/

References
Fitzpatrick, M.G. 1998. SIDS and The Toxic Gas Theory (letter), New Zealand Medical Journal, October 9, 1998.
Kapuste, H. 2002. Giftige Gase im Kinderbett ("Toxic Gases in Infants' Beds"), Zeitschrift fuer Umweltmedizin No. 44; January-April 2002:18-20
Mitchell, P.R. 2001. Analysis of Official UK Statistics for Cot Deaths and Infant Deaths by Other Causes, 1996-1999.
New Zealand Ministry of Health (NZMH) Cot Death Statistics.
Richardson, B.A. 1994. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: A Possible Primary Cause. Journal of Forensic Science Soc. Jul-Sep; 34(3):199-204.
SIDS Alliance. 2001. www.sidsalliance.org
Sprott, T.J. 2000. Critique of the 1998 UK Limerick Report. www.cotlife2000.com
Sprott, T.J. 1996. The Cot Death Cover-Up? Auckland, New Zealand: Penguin Books.
Sprott, T.J. 2000. Personal communication with an officer of the Ministry of Health. August 11, 2000.
Sprott, T.J. 2000. Research Which Confirms and Supports the Toxic Gas Theory For Cot Death
Sprott, T.J. 2003. The Cause of Cot Death and How to Prevent It, Cot Life 2000, March 2003
Tappin et al, Used infant mattresses and sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland: case-control study, British Medical Journal 2002; 325:1007

Article: Gardasil

2009-11-04T15:35:00.006-05:00

Fast Facts and Takeaways of this article:

Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in development of Gardasil and Cervarix does not believe they are efficient
70% of cases of HPV will resolve by themselves without treatment within a year.
90% of cases of HPV will resolve by themselves without treatment within two years.
5% of cases of HPV will become cervical cancer.
"...conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment."
Quote from article: When asked why she was speaking out, she said: “I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.”
Quote from article: The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."
Since 2006, 44 girls have died from Gardasil injections. That's more than one mortality per month just from the vaccine.
15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects.These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others.

--------------------------------------
Article Take From: http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/10/25/top_stories/doc4ae4b76d07e16766677720.txt

Gardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell

Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

“I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn’t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,” said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that “even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”

There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.

Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment. Even if 70 percent of women get the shot and required boosters over the same time period, which is highly unlikely, Harper says Gardasil still could not claim to do as much as traditional care is already doing.

Dr. Harper, who also serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization, further undercut the case for mass vaccination by saying that “four out of five women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.”

Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, “If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them.”

However, at this point, Dr. Harper dropped an even bigger bombshell on the audience when she announced that, “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years.”

Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, studied only a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old “is a great big public health experiment.”

At the time, which was at the height of Merck’s controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, “but no one will print it.”

“It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls,” she said at the time. “There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue.”

When asked why she was speaking out, she said: “I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.”

Since the drug’s introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

Dr. Harper also participated in the research on Glaxo-Smith-Kline’s version of the drug, Cervarix, currently in use in the UK but not yet approved here. Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction including nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, convulsions, seizures and hyperventilation. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total. The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.

The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

Ms. Robinson said she respects Dr. Harper’s candor. “I think she’s a scientist, a researcher, and she’s genuine enough a scientist to be open about the risks. I respect that in her.”

However, she failed to make the case for Gardasil. “For me, it was hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women.”

Toothpaste

2009-11-04T11:54:00.003-05:00

I have been an avid user of Crest toothpaste. I admit it. It cleaned well. It tasted good. My personal favorite was Crest Pro-Health Mint (click on the link to see the MSDS).

I now do not use regular conventional toothpaste. Why? Well that's a good question. Let's look at the ingredients that were in my Crest Pro-Health that are listed on the MSDS and what we know about them:

Glycerin - Used usually for water-binding properties. Keeps products moist instead of drying out. Derived from fats and oils, classified by FDA as a sugar alcohol.
Hydrated silica - Sand, or a component of sand. Used in glass-making. Known to cause lung disease and cancer when long-term (i.e. occupational) exposure is present. (See this information on the CDC website).
Tribasic sodium phosphate dodecahydrate - The only way for me to do this justice is to quote straight from the MSDS: "Handling: Wash thoroughly after handling. Minimize dust generation and accumulation. Do not get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing. Keep container tightly closed. Do not ingest or inhale. Use with adequate ventilation. Discard contaminated shoes. " Ummmm...ok. That's a no. I don't want that in my toothpaste. (Click on the chemical's name for the MSDS).
Propylene glycol - Used in a variet of applications including food additive. According to the MSDS:
"The substance may be toxic to central nervous system (CNS).
Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage." Ok...that makes this one another no-no in my house. Especially considering it's in so much food and other products!

So that begs the next logical question: What would YOU do for a Klondike bar?
I mean...
What do you use instead of the conventional toothpaste?

Well, we have personally switched to Tooth Chips. It's "soap for teeth". Or so says the website. In the short time I've used this, I've noticed that my teeth have gotten whiter, and it still does the job. According to the website, it's made with organic oils and essential oils. No artificial sweeteners, silica, glycerin, etc.

There are plenty of other natural and good-for-you toothpastes available, but remember.....what you put in your mouth will be able to get in your blood and in your digestive tract.

This is just another little lesson in 'reading labels 101', brought to you by The Crunchy Christian.

Interested in seeing the MSDS sheet for other P&G items? Check out this list. It has information on all of their products.

Pesticides In Food And Water

2009-09-25T22:35:00.003-04:00

I found this site very good resource for information about pesticides. It lists several foods and what kinds of pesticide toxins can be found on that food (and in water) according to studies conducted by the USDA.

According the the FAQ on the site, the USDA prepares the food the same way we would. They get rid of the bad or inedible parts of the food and wash it prior to testing.

Interestingly enough, there are still pesticides on the food after washing. There are even known carcinogens that still linger. According to the website, due to America's poor stewardship over the farming industry, even all organic foods have been contaminated so now there is virtually no food that is without pesticide residue. Organic foods only have much, much less.

Some of the pesticides used have been banned in many other major indstrialized nations, yet the US continues to use them so long as there is minimal harm, or no absolute definitive link is found between the pesticide and the health issues at hand. Some pesticides, as you will find on the website, are known carcinogens, neurotoxins, and can even effect reproductive or developmental health.

Check here to see what pesticides are found on various foods (including bottled water)!

http://www.whatsinmyfood.org/index.jsp

Boiling Water As A Natural Weed Killer

2009-09-22T18:32:00.004-04:00

Want to be able to clear your patio or the kids' play area of weeds without having to use chemicals that are bad for you, your family, and your pets? Here's the answer to your dilemma: Boiling Water.

Yes! It's true! You, too can use just boiling water as a natural weed killer! I finally did my own experiment in my own backyard to see if it would really work. Here is the photographic evidence for yourself:

Before:

This weed was growing in between concrete slabs, making my patio look just tacky. So I just heated up some water in my coffee maker and within a day or two....

After:

It was dead! Notice the greenery beside it in the same crack is also dead! The hot water actually scalds the plant at it's roots. How ingenious is that!? So all that's left is to go out and sweep the patio once the weeds are dead!

Really! That's it! It's the end of the article already! It doesn't get much simpler than hot water!

Homemade Laundry Detergent

2009-09-16T23:03:00.006-04:00

Laundry Detergent Recipie from the Duggars. http://www.duggarfamily.com/recipes.html

Ingredients:

1 bar of soap (Fels-Naptha is suggested but I've heard this contains a form of petroleum and you may want to find a more crunchy soap to substitute it with. If you decide to use this, it's $3.75 at this site for 2 bars' worth, already shredded)

1/2 cup Borax ($4.70 at this site - That comes to about $0.47 for each batch of detergent. There is 9.5 cups in each 76 ounce box...or so I read)

1 cup Arm and Hammer Super Washing Soda ($2.00 at this site)

4 cups water (to start)

Instructions (Short version. See the Duggar's site for longer version):

Grate one bar of soap. Mix with 4 cups of water. Heat until all soap has melted and been mixed with the water. Pour into a large container. Add Super Washing Soda and Borax. Add 5 gallons of water. Mix well. Let sit overnight. Add 5 more gallons of water. Mix well. You now have 10 gallons of laundry detergent!

This will make 10 gallons of liquid laundry detergent. Your total cost to make this would be less than $4.50 (not including the 10 gallons of tap water to make it).

In regular machines, use about 1/2 - 5/8 cup (I use 1/2 cup but the Duggar site calls for 5/8 cup). In HE machines, use 1/4 cup.

This should last for about 320 loads in a regular machine, 640 loads in an HE machine.

The best I could find online just by doing a quick google search was about $3.50 for enough detergent to do 28 loads.

So.....

$3.50 for 28 loads or.....

$4.50 for 320 loads.

Hmmmmm.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusions:

So naturally, I put this recipe to the test. Results - it works! It actually got all the stink out of my hubby's socks! WHEW! I actually used a bar of dove soap and found that it did not thicken as much as I would have liked. Because of this, I ended up only making 5 gallons of detergent.

If your family is anything like my hubby though, they will still miss the fragrence of regular commercial laundry detergent. If this happens, try adding 1 - 2 drops of essential oils per gallon of laundry detergent liquid after it has cooled.

Ants

2009-09-13T12:57:00.003-04:00

Have an ant infestation? Want to find a way to get rid of ants without putting your family, particularly young children and pets who like to put everything in their mouths, at risk by exposing them to poisonous chemcials?

Try cornmeal. Ants are unable to digest cornmeal properly. Some people even claim it makes the ants explode - though I've never seen this happen, myself.

Natural Weed Killers

2009-09-13T12:53:00.005-04:00

I will be starting experimentation (hopefully tomorrow) to kill weeds using natural methods.

My first method will be using boiling water. The second will be vinegar.

Boiling water is supposed to kill weeds by scalding the root, making it unable to get nutrients from the ground.

Vinegar is supposed to somewhat 'poisin' the weed. Vinegar has acidic properties, which is what makes it a perfect replacement for other household items like kitchen wipes. It has disinfecting powers and works like bleach but in a much milder way.

I plan on getting pictures of the reults to share with you! If you have any other natural methods you'd like me to try, just let me know and I will try your method on my weeds! :-)

Extra fun tip: Use the boiling water method as a way to use up leftover water from cooking or cleaning. Something when I boil corn on the cob, eggs, or just run water through the coffee pot to clean it a little, there's a good deal of hot water I end up just tossing down the drain. Well, maybe next time we can just toss it out the window or the door.

Soy

2009-09-09T11:48:00.015-04:00

Soy...the incredibly debatable and curious food topic swarming the vegan media.

Soy milk, soy protein, soy cheese, soy...sauce. mmm...soy sauce.

Oh......sorry. The goal of this article is to take the two debating sides and present them here. You are the judge and jury.

In the one corner, we have the soy proponents. Mostly vegans, crunchies, and lactose-intolerant people. In this circle of people, soy is healthy and a wonderful alternative to meat and a great source of nutrition.

In the other corner are mostly the carnivorous predators of our day...rawr. Mostly people who believe that God meant for us to eat meat and mostly non-vegetarians, but you will find one or two.. (Don't get me wrong, I do eat meat...so I'm lumping myself in as a carnivorous predator). They are anti-soy because of the rumors that it can cause health problems and may even be toxic.

So the question stands. Is soy healthy?

I will take each side and present the debate. I do have an opinion but I'm going to make this as unbiased as possible and then tell you what I think at the end. The easiest way to do this is to start with why people think soy is unhealthy and then discuss why people think this is not true.

Soy is Bad. Bad soy. Bad.
Many people are anti-soy because of all the potential health issues it can cause. Here is a brief list of health concerns in conjunction with consumption of soy:

Soy contains trypsin inhibitors which are known to prevent healthy digestion.

Soy contains goitrogen, which affects thyroid function and iodine uptake, potentially inducing hypothyroidism.

Soy contains phytic acid, which impairs your body's ability to absorb minerals such as iron, causing conditions such as anemia.

Soy contains phytoestrogens, which is thought to raise estrogen levels. This has a variety of affects include the possibility of increasing breast cancer rates in women, premature development in girls, and underdevelopment in boys (if you think that's craziness, wait till you hear about a similar situation with yam containing progesterone).

The use of soy-based formulas in infants has been related to autoimmune thyroid diseases later in life.

Many people also argue that Asians have been eating soy for quite some time, and in large amounts, but it doesn't seem to have the adverse health affects on them. Well what if we told you that Asians don't eat as much soy as you think.

That definitely sounds like soy has a bad rap...but let's see what the other side has to say in defense....

Soy is My Bestest Friend
Addressing each individual issue with the resources I've found:

Organic soy, along with an organic diet should be ok because estrogen only causes cancer when there is also a presence of free radicals (toxins) in the system. Organic soy phytoestrogens can also actually help prevent certain types of cancer.

Many common vegetables contain goitrogens. The best thing to do is to balance your diet by eating foods high in iodine to counter the goitrogens.

Phytic acid has been shown to possibly help prevent different types of cancer, osteoporosis, and Parkinson's.

Now that doesn't sound too bad, does it?

Conclusions
Ultimately, you will need to come to your own conclusions about soy and how it fits into your family's diet.

I personally learned a lot about soy by writing this article and doing the in-depth research I never made the time to do before. My family used to drink soy milk on a regular basis. Then I found out about the adverse health effects and we switched to almond milk and a lactose-free cow's milk. Writing this article made me rely on more than a rumor to substantiate the health issues involved with soy.

So where do I stand now? I think organic soy in moderation is probably the best way to go. Research renders it an undeniable fact (in my mind, at least), that larger amounts of soy in a non-organic diet does increase the risk of various cancers. I personally would not base my diet on tofu, soy milk, soy proteins, etc. But I think my family will return to drinking soy milk (which I happen to find incredibly delicious...especially chocolate soy milk...mmm) so long as it is organic.

Quick Cloth Diapering Beginner's Guide

2009-09-08T10:28:00.035-04:00

Note from the author: This is a quick beginner's guide to most of the major decisions that you would need to make about cloth diapering. This article is a bit lengthy and you may want to print it out so you can circle, scribble, and highlight anything of particular interest to you. To print out just this article and no others, click on the title of this article to bring it up in it's own window. You can print from there.

When most people picture cloth diapering, they envision scrap-like cloth wrapped around a baby's bottom and covered with a plastic cover. Hopefully the baby won't pee while you're holding them....

Today, cloth diapering has taken on a completely new look and has a wide variety of choices to fit various different lifestyles. I can honestly say, as someone who has tried to do the research for herself, the world of cloth diapering can be very intimidating and confusing when entering it alone. So I will be striving to give a short explanation of what the different varieties are, the pros and cons of cloth diapering, and what some experienced cloth diapering moms have to say.

Why cloth diapers?

More and more ladies are making the move to cloth diapering. Why on earth would they do that? Disposables have become a trademark of modern parenting. When I asked a few CDing (cloth diapering) moms, here's what they had to say:

Economical

We've all heard that diapers are expensive. Many people do not realize just how expensive they really are and how inexpensive they CAN be!

This website details the cost of using disposable diapers versus cloth diapers over the first 30 months of a child's life (2 years, 6 months). They used Huggies Supreme as the baseline for the disposable diaper's cost and prefolds and wraps with some accessories for the cloth diapering baseline cost. The bottom line?

Disposable diapers and wipes cost about $2,530 for the first 30 months for each child.

Cloth diapers and cloth wipes cost as little as $778.05 for the first 30 months. These cloth diapers can also be reused from child to child, so it would not necessarily be a recurring cost. The CD cost also includes the energy usage from washing and drying the diapers and the detergent cost.

You can also use this website to find out what the cost difference would be for you if you were to choose a different type of diaper (instead of the prefolds).

And a final note on the economical advantages: If you keep your diapers in good condition, you can resell them when you're done and recoup some of the cost.

Just like that, a family with two children can save over $4,000 in child-rearing costs.

Environmental

There has been a great deal of debate among cloth diaper and disposable diaper proponents as to which diapers are actually more environmentally friendly. Here is the meat of both arguments:

Disposable diaper proponents argue that cloth diapers damage the environment by using energy and water resources to continuously wash and dry the diapers. Resources are also used in producing the diapers, though in the long run, it is less because fewer diapers need to be produced since they are reusable.

Cloth diaper proponents argue that disposables use water and electricity to be produced, plus the mass amounts of wood used as diaper fillers and thus uses more resources over and over again. They also argue that water is a renewable or 'cleanable' resource, since it can be sanitized, filtered, and used again, as is currently done with waste water treatment plants and thus should not be considered in the final damage done to the environment. The final argument is that no disposable diaper is biodegradable in a landfill, even if it is marketed as a 'biodegradable diaper'. Therefore thousands upon thousands of disposable diapers will remain in landfills and produce methane, a toxic gas.

Here are some studies done on the environmental effects of cloth and disposable diapers:

Women's Environmental Network: A Case Study In Waste Prevention, April 2003 (This is a PDF file).

Health

Diaper rash is a very common childhood ailment. It seems virtually unavoidable. But studies have shown that using cloth diapers can reduce the instances of diaper rash for most children (The British Journal of General Practice, August 1997). Many children fare better when in an all-natural cloth diaper, as opposed to a disposable diaper. Some cloth diapers are still harsh enough to cause a bad reaction (some children have reactions to micro-fleece liners, etc), but substances like organic cotton have shown to be mild enough for almost every child in cloth diapers (though I'm sure that there are children that are allergic to cotton that could not use these).

There are other health issues some parents are concerned about. Some studies indicate that disposable diapers can potentially affect the child's future fertility (Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, 2000). Other studies indicate that the mixture of chemicals used in disposables can affect a child's respiratory tract (Anderson Laboratories, Inc, 1999).

For a more extensive overview of environment, health, and economic reasons for cloth diapering, check out The Real Diaper Association's website.

What are the different types of cloth diapers?

There are four major types of cloth diapers. Prefolds or flats, fitteds, pockets, and AIO (All-In-Ones). These go by many descriptions and alternative names and we will try to cover as much as we can in a concise manner. You will need between 24 - 36 diapers and should plan on doing laundry once every 2 - 3 days. Here we go!

Prefolds/Flats

AKA: Chinese prefolds, Indian prefolds, flats, prefolds

What you need to know: You will also need a waterproof wrap or cover and either pins or snappis.

Advantages: These are the most inexpensive form of cloth diapers. They also dry very quickly. These are probably the best option if you plan on line drying your diapers. They can also be used as burp rags, extra inserts, doublers, or liners. Very versatile.

Disadvantages: You may need to learn how to fold or tie these. If your child goes to daycare, you will probably have to supply them with a more daycare-friendly diaper like a pocket or AIO.

Cost: Prefolds start at as little as $1 per diaper depending on the size and type. Usually sold in sets of 12.

Flats are a single layer of diaper that you will need to fold a few times into a triangular shape before putting on a baby.

Prefold diapers already have layers built into them and thus do not need as much folding.

Picture Example:
This is an example of prefold diapers. This image was taken from http://www.greenmountaindiapers.com./ This is a picture of Cloth-eez prefolds. The example on the right of the picture is of a prefold before it has been 'pre-washed' (part of the process of how you prepare prefolds to be used). The example on the left is what a prefold looks like when it is been prepped and ready to use (you only need to 'prep' them once). Flats would be similar to the example on the right but larger.

Fitteds/Contours
AKA: Contours/Fitteds

What you need to know: You will also need a waterproof wrap or cover. You do not have to have pins or snappis.

Advantages: No pins or snappis needed. They are also convenient for line drying.

Disadvantages: These can get pricey. See cost below. Add into that the cost for wraps. But they are still less costly than disposable diapers over time.

Cost: Between about $11 to $23 per diaper for fitteds, $8 - $12 for contours (cost average taken from http://www.jilliansdrawers.com/)

Contours are like prefolds but shaped like a diaper. There are no fasteners. You simply put down the diaper, put the baby on it just like any disposable diaper, fold up the bottom portion between the legs, and either use pins/snappis, or just put a cover over top.

Fitteds are much like disposables in that you fold it up the same and then fasten it in place with velcro (applix) or sewn on snaps.

Picture Example:

This is an example of a Bum Genius bamboo fitted diaper. This is a popular choice for fitted diapers. You put this on just like a disposable diaper but would also put a cover over top.

Pockets

AKA: AI2 (All-In-Two's)

What you need to know: When you purchase a pocket diaper, it should come with the main diaper, an insert, and possibly a doubler.

Advantages: You can use one or two inserts to make the diaper as absorbable as necessary. Some babies will go more during the night and require the extra padding. These dry faster than AIO because they are in separate parts. These are good to use when leaving your child at daycare, with a babysitter, or a church nursery because you can leave the inserts in and it will be easy for the caregivers to change the diaper.

Disadvantages: Cost. Also, these are more time consuming to line dry.

Cost: Between about $18 - $26 (cost average taken from http://www.jilliansdrawers.com/)

Picture Example:
This first picture is an example of a Bum Genius pocket diaper insert. This is what you put into the diaper to absorb the fluid.

This second picture is an example of a Bum Genius fitted diaper. In the back of the diaper, there is a pocket that you can put the insert into.

AIO

AKA: All-in-ones, AIO

What you need to know: This is a one-stop-shop. You buy this, and no other parts are needed to make it complete.

Advantages: This is the simplest cloth diaper to use. No folding, pinning, or stuffing required. This would also be good to leave with a caregiver and requires very little explanation of how to use it.

Disadvantages: These diapers take the longest to dry because it is all in one piece. They are also very costly.

Cost: Between about $16 - $26 (cost average taken from http://www.jilliansdrawers.com/)

Picture example: This is a picture of a Bum Genius AIO diaper with snaps. It works just the same as a disposable diaper but it has snaps and you wash it instead of throwing it out. This is also a particularly popular model.

Where can I buy them?
Recommended stores:

Etsy - This website is for various vendors to sell their items. The link I've provided is specifically for handmade cloth diapers. Most vendors on here will be ladies handmaking these to help support their families.
Green Mountain Diapers - This website is run by a Christian woman. She even presents the gospel on her site. The quality of products sold here and the customer service of this site has received positive feedback time and time again. It continually comes back as a number one favorite.
Cotton Babies - This is also a Christian site. They actually provide diaper grants for missionaries to provide free cloth diapers to those spreading the gospel in other countries. I've also heard lots of good things about this site.

Keep checking back, as this section will be continuously updated with the best known online cloth diaper stores.

Accessories and Extras?
Yes! There are accessories! Be cautioned, as we all know how much women like accessories and options! Ha ha. Some of these accessories are necessities but most are optional.

Wraps/Covers - necessity for prefolds/flats or fitteds/contours

You will need a total of about 4 - 6 wraps or covers total. These come in various colors and sizes. They also have one-size covers that can fit a baby from about 8 pounds up until potty-training. They can range from about $15 up to $40 or more depending on the type you get.

Snappis and Pins - necessity for prefolds/flats, optional for contours, not needed for fitteds

You will either need to purchase snappis or pins. You will not have to have both, but it is suggested to try both to see what you are most comfortable with. Here is an illustration of a snappi in action. It's the best way to understand what it is. These run just a few dollars for a pack of them and you only need 3 - 5.

Cloth Wipes - a necessity unless you plan on buying disposable wipes

You can make these on your own or you can purchase them for a dollar or so a wipe. They come in a variety of sizes and fabrics such as cotton, flannel, or bamboo. Plan for those diaper changes where you'll need almost a handful and buy 30 - 40 wipes.

Wet or Dry Bag, Wet or Dry Pail - a necessity, but don't feel the need to buy it from a cloth diaper store

You will hear the words wet bag, dry bag, wet pail, and dry pail used interchangeably.

Basically, the bag is a bag that you can put soiled diapers into when you are out and about, or you can leave with a daycare to put the soiled diaper into. It is a waterproof bag. If you buy it from a cloth diaper store, you can spend $10 - $30 easily. Alternatively, you can use a big zip-loc bag.

The pail, similarly, is the pail that you put the dirty diapers into. Essentially, a trash can with a reusable liner. Many of the liners are made so you can put them in the wash with the diapers easily. Some of the pails sold in the online stores have nifty extras like carbon filters to keep the odor level to a minimum. On a budget? You can buy a kitchen trash can from the Dollar Store and use regular trash bags until you can get a liner. Be prepared to use one trash bag every 2 - 3 days though unless you plan on rinsing it out when you do laundry.

Diaper Sprayer - not a necessity, but definitely a big help

These nifty little contraptions cost about $40 - $50 a piece and hook up directly to your toilet. They can come with an automatic shut-off switch so if a little one grabs it and squeezes the trigger, it won't spray.

These are used to spray some of the debris off the diaper into the toilet to prep for laundry.

See a picture here. Or, to save some money, build your own!

Options Galore!
Most cloth diapers share similar options. This is a quick review of what the options are when purchasing, and what their advantages/disadvantages may be.

Waterproofing Options
PUL (Polyurethane laminated) fabric - This is a compound that people coat a fabric with to make it waterproof. It is considered by some to be toxic, but many cloth diaper companies put the PUL layer in the middle of the diaper so it never touches your baby's skin.

Wool - Yes, wool will keep your baby from soaking you or anyone or anything else. It is also breathable and can be worn on hot summer days and still keep the baby cooler than they would be in disposables. Not to mention wool is naturally anti-bacterial! Check out The Diaper Hyena for more information about wool.

Snaps vs. Applix (velcro)
For fitteds, pockets, and AIO's, you typically have the option of having either applix or snaps to close the diaper with.

Snaps - The good thing about snaps is that they will last a very long time and not wear out. The bad thing about snaps is that you will have to snap every little snap with a potentially squirmy baby underneath!

Applix - The positive side about applix is that it's very easy to attach, much like a disposable diaper. You just have to hold that squirmy baby down for 5 seconds while you fasten the two tabs. The down side? Applix wears out and will need replaced at some point. It will most likely not last through more than one child, and some don't even make it that long! Also, once baby gets a firm grip and a little strength, they'll be able to pull applix diapers right off!

Materials for the diaper
Diapers and inserts can be made from a myriad of materials. Cotton, flannel, microfleece, polyester, hemp, bamboo, and the list goes on and on.

Cotton, flannel, hemp, and bamboo are considered the least irritating and breathable fabrics. Polyester, microfleece, and other synthetic fabrics tend to be a bit harsher. Also, some moms find that microfleece diapers tend to build up a stench sometimes that can be difficult to get rid of.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

That, in a very large nutshell, is the basics of cloth diapering.

Take a deep breath now. Exhale.

It's a lot to take in and think about. The first step to switching to cloth is deciding what your budget would be. Then go back to the beginning and pick your options, one by one. Use the calculator provided in the section about 'Economical' reasons for cloth diapering to help you figure out what you can afford. You can do it! Look for support groups in your area or on parenting websites if you need help. Pray for wisdom in the matter and absolutely make sure you talk to your hubby about it.

Later, we will be following up with cloth diapering success stories, information on different and suggested methods on washing the diapers, how to remove stains, and more.

Natural Birth Control And Fertility Monitoring

2009-09-07T18:30:00.007-04:00

Warning: Men may want to steer clear of this article. I'm posting this for women who are sincerely interested in finding an alternative to hormonal and barrier methods of birth control or want to get pregnant but do not fully understand their cycles. God meant for sex to be enjoyable between a husband and wife. Worry about unintended pregnancy or stress over trying to get pregnant and fertility should not inhibit a married couple's joy. I will briefly describe the method and provide more resources for more in-depth information.

To start learning about natural family planning (NFP) or the fertility awareness method (FAM), you must have an understanding of the basics of a female menstrual cycle.

Let us start by assuming a woman has a 30 day cycle. There are two parts of this cycle. The first is called the follicular phase (FP). The second phase is called the luteal phase (LP). The FP can vary in length. It can be 5 days, it can be 40 days. There is no set length to the first phase. The second phase is typically 10 - 16 days long and does not vary much from cycle to cycle for each individual woman. Your LP may typically be 11 days. Your friend may typically have a 15 day LP. Ovulation is what separates the two phases.

So a woman with a 30 day cycle will ovulate between cycle day (CD) 14 and cycle day 20. By monitoring your Basil Body Temperature, you can find out how long your LP typically is and confirm when you ovulate. You can monitor your cervical fluid and cervical position to know when you are in the most fertile stage of your cycle.

Basil Body Temperature (BBT):
In the FP, BBT is lower. It will rise the day after ovulation and remain higher until a woman's period begins. At this point, it will drop back down and start all over again.
The only difference between a Basil Body Thermometer and a regular thermometer is that a BBT is more precise. Your typical thermometer may read 98.6 but a BBT would read 98.63. You can find a BBT in any drug store next to the regular thermometers.

Cervical Fluid (CF):
A woman's CF will become very watery or like raw egg whites right before she ovulates. This helps her conceive, so her body naturally prepares for the release of the egg.

Cervical Position (CP):
A woman's cervix will rise very high, become soft, and open up when she is fertile. It is possible for her to check her CP herself. The cervix will drop to a low firm position right before the period begins.

Trying to Conceive:

Having sex as close to the day you ovulate as possible is the best way to get pregnant. If you can have sex the three days before you ovulate and the day you DO ovulate, that will give you the greatest chances of success.

Trying to Avoid:

Either avoid sex while you are in your fertile period, which is the 5 days preceding ovulation, or use a different method of birth control during that time (condoms, etc).

---------------------------------------------

I recommend using Fertility Friend software to chart your cycles. This is very helpful and explains what is happening to your body at different points in your cycle. It is free software. The first 30 days are free on a VIP pass, which has more features. The free version following that is still suitable to help you chart, and definitely easier than the using paper and pencil.

I also recommend reading the book, Taking Charge of Your Fertility, which is a complete guide to using the Fertility Awareness Method, including blank charts in the back you can copy if you would need to use the paper and pencil method. It explains how to chart when you are trying to conceive, trying to avoid, post-partum, while breastfeeding, and pre-menopausal! It is very thorough and a very easy read!

Article: Homebirth As Safe If Not Safer Than Hospital Birth According to New Studies

2009-09-07T17:34:00.004-04:00

Taken from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-09-03-midwife-home-birth_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

By Amanda Gardner, HealthDay
Having your baby at home with a registered midwife is just as safe as a conventional hospital birth, a new study says.
In fact, planned home births of this kind may have a lower rate of complications, according to the study published in the Sept. 15 issue of CMAJ.
Even though the study was conducted in Canada, where attitudes toward midwifery are more accepting than in some other countries, the findings may help to calm an ongoing controversy in the United States and elsewhere.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is opposed to home births, as are certain organizations in Australia and New Zealand. More organizations in Great Britain are supportive and Canadian provinces are currently transitioning to midwifery, said study lead author Patricia Janssen, director of the Master of Public Health Program at the University of British Columbia.
Janssen, a registered nurse who has midwife training though not certification, said: "People who function as independent midwives are not necessarily tightly regulated [in the U.S.] depending on which state you're in, so there may not be a guarantee that they have had an adequate level of training or a certified diploma or anything like that. And they may not be monitored and regulated by a particular professional college."
The controversy has resulted in a lack of clear regulation and licensing requirements in the United States, said Dr. Marjorie Greenfield, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland.
According to Greenfield, the National Association of Certified Professional Midwives does have a certification process but many states don't recognize it. "If you're a woman who wants to have a home birth, how do you determine if this person has appropriate qualifications?" she said.
The authors of the new study compared three different groups of planned births in British Columbia from the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2004: home births attended by registered midwives (midwives are registered in Canada), hospital births attended by the same group of registered midwives, and hospital births attended by physicians. In all, the study included almost 13,000 births.
The mortality rate per 1,000 births was 0.35 in the home birth group, 0.57 in hospital births attended by midwives, and 0.64 among those attended by physicians, according to the study.
Women who gave birth at home were less likely to need interventions or to have problems such as vaginal tearing or hemorrhaging. These babies were also less likely to need oxygen therapy or resuscitation, the study found.
The authors acknowledge that "self-selection" could have skewed the study results, in that women who prefer home deliveries tend to be healthier and otherwise more fit to have a home birth.
Janssen said she hoped "this article will have a major impact in the U.S." But there is a definite "establishment" bias against home births. And the issue is an emotionally charged one, she said.
"There is a political and economic issue about controlling where birth happens, but also a deep belief by physicians that it's not safe to have your baby at home," Greenfield said. "Doctors see every home-birth patient who had a complication, but we don't see the ones that have these beautiful, fabulous babies at home who may breast-feed better or have less hospital-acquired infections. There may be medical benefits," she added.
"Midwifery needs to be regulated. It can't be under the radar because then it's dangerous," Greenfield said. "There has to be a regulatory process and a licensure process [to protect] women who are going to choose home birth anyway."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
emphasis added

C-Sections

2009-09-07T16:25:00.005-04:00

The current c-section rate in America is 31.1% as of 2006. Nearly 1 in every 3 births in the United States is via c-section.

According to the WHO (World Health Organization), rates between 5% and 10% are best for mother and baby. Any nation above 15% has been deemed to do more harm than good (Althabe and Belizan 2006).

C-section rates have been on the rise for the 11th year in a row in the US.

Reasons for c-section are as follows:

35% are repeat c-sections. Many of these do not need to be repeats though and could qualify for VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean). Check out ICAN to find out about a VBAC!

30% of c-sections are due to dystocia, or stalled labor due to abnormalities. Statistically, this means 1 in 10 births result in c-section because the mother is just unable to deliver the baby. This happens either because the baby is in a bad position (not necessarily breech), the mother's pelvic cavity is 'inadequate' or the contractions slow and/or stop (a possible side-effect of an epidural).

12% of c-sections are performed because the baby is breech (studies show it is safer for a mother to deliver a breech baby vaginally rather than surgically).

9% of c-sections are due to fetal distress. This is often brought on by the use of pitocin.

The remainder are due to a myriad of causes including muliples, cord prolapse, etc.

For information on breech presentation/deliver, click here. Also, here are some tips on turning the baby around.

It should be somewhat disturbing that the c-section rate is so high in the United States. It is uncalled for and women should be questioning why.

Here are some tips on how you can avoid an unnecessary c-section:

Labor at home for a while, if possible. If you know you typically deliver your babies very quickly, you probably shouldn't wait. But if your a first time mom or you typically have lengthy deliveries, you can try the 5-1-1 method. Wait until your contractions are 5 minutes apart, last for at least 1 minute, and it continues that way for 1 hour.

If possible, labor without the use of any drugs. Most drugs used in labor have been shown to increase the risk of a c-section. There are many other forms of pain management, such as Hypnobirthing, Hypnobabies, Birthing Tubs, massage, etc. You can also decrease pain by changing positions.

Find a doctor of midwife that is NCB (Natural Childbirth) friendly.

Get up and move around a little during labor. Again, this can help decrease discomfort and can help get things moving a little.

Don't let the doctor break your water. Once your water breaks, you typically have a set time limit before they'll want you to get a c-section. Let your body break your water when necessary. Some babies are born in the sac without the water broken and this is completely normal! Having your water broken also unnecessarily opens your body and baby up to the possibility of infection.

Hire a doula. Many studies show that a doula can greatly decrease the number of complications and interventions in labor and delivery. The use of a doula also decreases the frequency of requests for pain medication because the doula is there to support and encourage the mother in labor. They are there to speak for you when you cannot. They are there to comfort you.
Write a bith plan that indicates your wishes and review it with your doctor before you go into labor. Make sure your doctor and hospital get a copy and have it on hand when you go into labor.

But above all, remember that emergencies DO happen. You can do your everything perfectly and to the "T" and a c-section may be unavoidable. We should be thankful that this intervention is available for emergencies, and pray for the wisdom of the midwife or doctor, that they would be able to discern if it should be used.

Click here to locate a doula near you. (see search box on left hand side).

Plastics, Toxins, and BPA

2009-09-07T15:14:00.009-04:00

What is BPA?

BPA (Bisphenol A), is a compound that is used to solidify some plastics and make them more stable and durable.

So why are we talking about it?

BPA can be leached, particularly when heated. If the plastic is a milk jug, baby bottle, or any other container that is holding food, it would be likely that the BPA is leaching directly into the food people are consuming.

How do I know if my container contains BPA?

Look for a symbol on the plastic. It will be a triangle made out of arrows (the recycle symbol) and it will have a number in the middle of it (see picture to left for example).

Types 3 and 7 plastics are known to possibly leach BPA.

Why do they still sell foods in these containers if it is so dangerous?
Many countries have banned or are in the process of banning this substance from baby bottles and the like (see this Wikipedia article). It has been suspected to be hazardous to humans since the 1930's.

The Lang Study (published September of 2008) found evidence that exposure to BPA is strongly associated with heart disease and diabetes.

Can I just buy stuff not in plastic types 3 and 7?
Yes, if your aim is to stay away from BPA. However, you should be aware of the issues with the following plastic types:

Type 1: With repeated use, studies show that plastic type 1 can leach DEHP, which is a probable human carcinogen.
Type 6: Can leach styrene, which has been dubbed by the EPA as a 'suspected carcinogen'.

So what's safe?
Types 2, 4, and 5 plastics are considered safe for food and drink storage. But if there's any doubt, you can always use glass.

Common items in these containers:

Item /// Plastic Type
Milk Jug /// 1 or 2
Water Bottle /// 1
Soda Bottle /// 1
Baby Bottle /// 7
Tupperware /// These vary. Check your tupperware.
Individual Applesause Servings /// 7

Organic

2009-09-07T14:38:00.004-04:00

What does organic mean?

If you purchase an organic product, you can rest assured that it does not contain more than 5% (by US regulations), or was not produced with, any of the following:

Antibiotics
Artificial Additives
Artificial Preservatives
Artificial Sweeteners (Splenda, Aspartame, Nutrasweet)
Bio-Solid Fertilizers (recycled sewage sludge)
Chemical Fertilizers
Chemical Herbicides
Chemical Pesticides
Chemical Ripening
Cloning
Genetic Modifications
Hormone Injections
Irradiation (the practice of exposing food to radiation for the purpose to sterilization)
Steroids

Organic foods are produced using natural methods. They do use fertilizers and pesticides, but they are naturally produced and not chemically based.

There is no known nutritional value difference between organic and non-organic foods. The main purpose of consuming organic foods is to avoid the potential ill-effects from that can come from non-organic foods.

Even though a product is marked organic, it may still contain or be produced with/in:

Containers that may leach BPA
Gluten
Aerosol

Just because a food is marked organic does not mean it is healthy. It only means it will lack the additives and methods of production listed above.

Welcome!

2009-09-07T13:51:00.006-04:00

Hello everyone! I am the 'Crunchy Christian' or CC, if you would.

I believe our first priority is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, make no mistake about that.

This website is to share what I have learned about how I can be a good steward of what God has blessed me with. This includes my home, my family, my dog, and my body. I will be striving to be as informative as possible.

The goal I've set before me in my life is to be a true Proverbs Woman. I want to carry this out in every aspect of my life. This website will address this in a practical way.

Proverbs 31:10-31

:10 An excellent wife, who can find?
For her worth is far above jewels.
Note: The author is speaking of SEARCHING for an excellent wife. She is this way BEFORE marriage. These virtues are not just for married ladies to pursue, but also single lades.
:11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
And he will have no lack of gain.
:12 She does him good and not evil
All the days of her life.
:13 She looks for wool and flax
And works with her hands in delight.
Note: She does not mind having to do this work herself. She doesn't complain about her work.
:14 She is like merchant ships;
She brings her food from afar.
Note: She travels to get the food needed for her family. She does not necessarily settle for what's closest or most convenient.
:15 She rises also while it is still night
And gives food to her household
And portions to her maidens
Note: She gets up before the rest of the household to see that they are provided for. This is an area I admit that I struggle with greatly!!
:16 She considers a field and buys it'
From her earnings she plans a vineyard.
Note: She completes business transactions for the purpose of income and provision for her family. She is capable of doing this on her own or resourceful enough to know who can help her complete a wise transaction.
:17 She girds herself with strength
And makes her arms strong
Note: She is physically fit. She is strong, not only in character, but also capable of physical labor.
:18 She senses that her gain is good
Her lamp does not go out at night.
:19 She stretches out her hands to the distaff,
And her hands grasp the spindle.
Note: She could have a tailor or other professionals do these things, but she is capable of doing them and does them herself for the welfare of her family.
:20 She extends her hand to the poor,
And she stretches out her hands to the needy.
Note: She is giving and loving. But in the context of this scripture, she does these things without causing any issues for her own family such as finances, etc.
:21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household,
For all her household are clothed with scarlet.
Note: She knows snow is coming and plans ahead. She sees to it that her family is prepared for what will come.
:22 She makes coverings for herself'
Her clothing is fine linen and purple.
Note: She takes care of herself and dresses attractively. Attractively does not need to mean scantily. Clean, pressed, and flattering clothing are her aim. If we look at the context of the rest of the Bible, we see that she would do this to please her husband, not herself, other men, or for the purpose of 'fitting in'.
:23 Her husband is known in the gates,
When he sits among the elders of the land.
Note: She does not gossip about him. If she did, everyone would more than likely know she was complaining about him behind his back. She represents him well and honors him by what she does.
:24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
And supplies belts to the tradesmen.
Note: She has ability and skill to generate income. These skills are also useable in her own home.
:25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
And she smiles at the future,
Note: Again shows her good character. She does not fear the future because she is prepared and it is ultimately in God's hands.
:26 She opens her mouth in wisdom,
And the teaching of kindness is on her tounge.
Note: She does not speak ill of people and speaks wisely.
:27 She looks well to the ways of her household'
And does not eat the bread of idleness.
Note: She takes care of her family and is not lazy.
:28 Her children rise up and bless her'
Her husband also, and he praises her, saying:
:29 "Many daughters have done nobly,
But you excel them all."
Note: Her family is not bitter toward her. They find her worthy of praise. Her husband does not complain about her.
:30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,
But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.
:31 Give her the product of her hands,
And let her works praise her in the gates.

Pitocin

2009-09-07T13:01:00.001-04:00

Pitocin (pit-oh-sin) is a drug administered via IV or injection. It is typically given to a pregnant woman for one of two reasons: 1. Her labor has 'stalled' and she is no longer progressing, 2. She is being induced because labor has not yet started on its own.

Pitocin is a man-made form of the hormone oxytocin. Its purpose is to cause the uterus to contract, dialate a woman's cervix, and ultimately cause birth. It is also used if a woman begins hemorrhaging after giving birth to stop the bleeding.

If pitocin is delivered to a pregnant woman in dosages that deliver contractions stronger or more frequent than what the unborn baby is able to handle, the baby may go into a state of fetal distress (irregular fetal heartbeat). Fetal distress accounts for 9% of all c-sections in the United States.

The following quote is taken from an article published by Massage Today. The Truth About Pitocin, by Elaine Stillerman, LMT, March 2006:

"Pitocin was first synthesized in 1953, and became available for use two years later. By 1974, it was an established medical fact that its failure rate was 40% to 50%. In 1978, an FDA advisory committee removed its approval of pitocin for the elective induction of labor. Interestingly, the drug never was approved by the FDA for use in augmenting labor."