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."
March 23, 2010
Article: US C-Section Rate Hits 32%
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.”
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.”
March 12, 2010
Article: Too Many Women Dying While Having Babies
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
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.
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.
November 10, 2009
Mail Call!!!
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!
Send me an e-mail at TheCrunchyChristian@live.com and let me know!
November 6, 2009
Article: SIDS and Mattresses
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
November 4, 2009
Article: Gardasil
Fast Facts and Takeaways of this article:
--------------------------------------
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.”
- 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
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.
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.
September 25, 2009
Pesticides In Food And Water
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
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
September 22, 2009
Boiling Water As A Natural Weed Killer
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)