So fantastic, I had to pass it along!

http://jeremyscorner-grifter.blogspot.com/


I just copied and pasted what she wrote....no credit for this whatsoever. I will say this is one of the most concise, clear breakdowns of this particular debate that I've read in a long time.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Cesarean section is NOT the reason the maternal mortality rate has gone down

It has been a while since I posted another OB myth. Today's myth comes to us courtesy of Dr. Amy. Another Amy, Amy Romano, wrote a blog post in which she questions the lack of attention to the maternity care situation in an article written by Dr. Atul Gawande. In her blog post, she says,

Gawande saw a fall over time in perinatal and maternal mortality and attributed it to advances in hospital-based obstetrics. But he knows as well as anyone that correlation is not the same as causation. While a few medical advances — oxytocics and ergot derivatives to control hemorrhages, antibiotics to treat infection, and surfactant to treat respiratory distress in premature infants — have certainly prevented deaths, much of the fall in mortality likely comes from basic improvements in public health and hygiene. By looking through the bifocal lenses of medicine and history, Gawande makes an erroneous assumption that, when it comes to giving birth, more technology is inherently better. What he fails to ask is the very question at the heart of The Cost Conundrum: could we get the same or even better outcomes with fewer risky and costly procedures?

Of course, leave it to Dr. Amy to come around and champion the cause of medical technology. In the comments section, she says,

Basic improvements in public health and hygeine occured in the late 19th and early 20th Century. The spectacular drop in maternal mortality (99%) and neonatal mortality (90%) occurred between 1940-1980, long after basic advances in public health.

One of the advances most closely associated with the drop in maternal and neonatal mortality is the development and improvement of epidural anesthesia, making Cesarean section far less risky and far more common.

But Dr. Amy makes the same mistake that Amy Romano pointed out Dr. Atul Gawande made, and that most hospital birth advocates make: correlation is not the same as causation.

Dr. Amy mentions that the "spectacular drop" in maternal mortality, which occurred between 1940-1980, can be largely attributed to the use of the epidural, and therefore the relative safety of the cesarean section. This is an inherently illogical conclusion, as it assumes that cesarean sections were previously risky due to the method of anesthesia. In fact, the two biggest risks of cesarean section were (and still are) blood loss and infection, neither of which have anything to do with the method of anesthesia.

One of the main causes of blood loss during cesarean section prior to the end of the 19th century was the fact that physicians did not suture the uterus closed, fearing infection from the internal sutures. In 1882, Max Saumlnger, of Leipzig began arguing in favor of uterine sutures, and together with the development of silver wire sutures, physicians began using internal sutures, which necessarily reduced the rate of severe hemorrhage. From the late 1800s to the 1920s, physicians continued to improve the procedure itself, including performing the surgery earlier in labor, before the mother was on the verge of death, and using a transverse incision. (Please view this publication for more on the history of the cesarean section.) The first spinal block was not used until 1943 (ref), so while the epidural certainly contributed to overall improvements in the surgery, advances that directly eliminated or reduced factors that contributed to maternal mortality were already in place.

So what were women dying in or after childbirth dying from? The most feared complications of childbirth pre-1950s were hemorrhage, obstructed labor, and infection.


Hemorrhage

Blood loss is one of the most feared complications in childbirth. It is a reasonable fear! When the placenta separates from the uterus, several minor and major blood vessels are left exposed, and continue to pump blood until the uterus clamps down and closes them off. In some cases, the uterus does not do this adequately, or fast enough, which can result in blood loss, shock, and eventually death for the mother. Prior to the 1930s, there was not much modern medicine could do for blood loss. Midwives had traditionally used herbal remedies, such as ergot, to treat hemorrhage, but it was slow-acting and had serious side effects, including the potential to cause death. In 1909, the hormone oxytocin was discovered, but was not widely available. In 1935, the specific oxytocic agent in ergot was isolated, and preparations were made available. But the real discovery came in 1953, when the biochemist Vincent du Vigneaud discovered a way to create a manufacture-able, synthetic version of oxytocin (now known as pitocin). (ref)

No one can argue that the discovery of oxytocics was a significant step in advancing women's health, but equally significant was the improvement in women's lifestyles and nutrition. A study was done in Maryland which looked at a certain population of women's diets, which diet was considered to be comparable to that of women in the late 19th century, and found that 70% these women were severely anemic, and many had contracted pelvises (more on that in a minute). (ref) According to this publication, anemia in pregnant women reduces a woman’s ability to survive bleeding during and after childbirth, and is associated with 22% of mother's deaths (as of 2006). While oxytocics can slow a postpartum hemorrhage and prevent many immediate deaths, a reduction of severe anemia in pregnant women helps ensure they will survive in the days and weeks following a major hemorrhage. With increased proper nutrition among childbearing women over the years, it's no wonder that the maternal mortality rate has continued to decline. It is interesting to note that severe anemia due to poor nutrition still accounts for a significant portion of maternal deaths today in developing countries and poorer populations.

(It is also worth noting that while postpartum hemorrhage is typically associated with vaginal birth, the average blood loss from a c-section is twice that of an average vaginal birth. (ref) In addition, since 1998, the rate of blood transfusions in the US among all delivering women has increased by 90%. (ref))


Obstructed Labor

Obstructed labor, for various reasons, was a common cause of death previous to the improvements made in the safety of the cesarean section. If a baby was transverse, or stuck in the pelvis, or for whatever reason could not be delivered, it resulted in the mother's death. Prior to the improvements made to the overall safety of the cesarean section, if a woman did not die from the obstructed labor, she would certainly die from any surgical attempt made to save the baby. In that respect, one could argue that cesarean sections are the one of the main reasons for the reduction of maternal deaths due to obstructed labor. However, at the same time as improvements in obstetric care were developing, the number of obstructed labors were decreasing.

Obstructed labor is usually due to three main causes: malpositioned fetus (as in transverse lie), malpresentation (as in brow first), and cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD). One of the main causes of CPD is an inadequate bone or skeletal structure, directly related to poor nutrition. (See this article for a more detailed discussion of nutrition and obstructed labor). In the late 19th century, this often meant rickets. Women and children in urban areas, working in factories where they were largely not exposed to sunlight, and eating poorly, suffered this condition which often resulted in pelvic deformities.

In the book, Women's Bodies: A Social History of Women's Encounter with Health, Ill-Health, and Medicine, the author estimates that in some areas at this time, one out of every four women suffered from some degree of pelvic contraction. The percentage of women with contracted pelvises who died as a result of obstructed labor varied, from 20% of mildly contracted pelvises to almost 50% of severely contracted pelvises. With the total percentage of women presenting with a malpresentation or or malposition averaging around only 4% of total births, the reduction in the number of women with some degree of pelvic contraction, who accounted for perhaps 25% of all births in some areas, would have a particularly important effect on the overall maternal mortality rate.

How was this achieved? By the 1920s, researchers had learned what was causing rickets and other similar bone-deformity diseases, and successfully patented a method of irradiating food, and began a campaign to irradiate commonly eaten foods in an attempt to lower the incidence of rickets. (ref) By the 1940s, Vitamin D-fortified milk was ubiquitous, and the incidence of death of children due to rickets had been reduced to less than 75 cases a year. (ref)

So while the improved safety of c-sections certainly positively impacted the maternal mortality rate among women with malpresentations or malpositions, the largest reduction in maternal morality rate from obstructed labor has quite clearly come from better nutrition and lifestyle, which prevents contracted pelvises in the first place.


Infection

In the early days of hospital birth, another common cause of maternal death was "childbed fever," or puerperal sepsis. Puerperal fever is an infection caused by transmission of bacteria (most often Group A Streptococcus) to a woman, resulting in sepsis, and if untreated, death. Prior to the advent of antibiotics, puerperal fever was one of the leading causes of death among women in hospitals. Puerperal fever was known to kill postpartum women before the advent of hospital birth, but the incidence of it was apparently uncommon. When birth moved into the hospitals, doctors themselves caused outbreaks of the infection by going from patient to patient and performing vaginal exams without gloves, clean clothes, or washing their hands. In some cases, doctors would go from an autopsy to an exam of a pregnant or recently-delivered woman. (Read this article for more discussion on the history of childbed fever.)

In the mid- to late 19th century, several doctors put forth the idea of bacteria transmission as the cause of puerperal fever, but were dismissed. By the turn of the century, the theory of bacteria transmission was widely accepted, but aseptic routine was still not widely practiced. According to the article referenced above, the maternal mortality rate continued to stay the same until the 1930s, the United States continuing to have the worst maternal mortality rate among industrialized nations.

In 1935, a German doctor introduced the use of prontosil, a sulfonamide dye, the precursor to the use of penicillin and modern antibiotics, as a treatment for puerperal fever. It worked remarkably well, and by the end of WWII, penicillin was widely available and used to combat all types of infections, puerperal fever included. The result was that by 1949, the maternal mortality rate in the United States dropped by more than 700%. (ref)


What does all this mean? It means that the time period which Dr. Amy was referring to - the 1940s - might have seen the advent of the epidural, but that was almost certainly not the reason why our maternal mortality rate declined. The 1940s saw a reduction in bone deformity diseases, a reduction in anemia, a reduction in transmission of bacteria, and a successful way to treat bacterial infections. These advances were by and large brought about by cleaner conditions, better health, and better nutrition. The cesarean section has certainly had its place in the preservation of women's lives, but was not the first or the last word in maternal mortality, as proponents would like to argue.

But even if the c-section were the saving grace of modern women, surely we should be seeing an even more dramatic drop in maternal mortality today? Not so. In 2003, the maternal mortality in the United States ROSE to 12.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, to a rate higher than it had ever been since 1976. (see more numbers here.) The United States ranks 41st, continuing to rank last among industrialized nations as we did before all these new advances, for maternal mortality. Women are still dying in or after childbirth! Study after study continue to come out that show the risks of cesarean section relative to vaginal birth, and show the benefit of low-intervention births. It is obvious that the cesarean section, while essential to many women in high-risk situations, is NOT the primary reason maternal mortality rates fell in our country.

And I would like to ask the Dr. Amys and Atul Gawandes of the world what Amy Romano is asking: could we get the same or even better outcomes with fewer risky and costly procedures?

Seriously.

And lets not pull out some ridiculous foolishness like "Baby's in 3rd world, starving countries die so homebirth/uc is dumb" because that is honestly just retarded, high-school logic.

This is what inspiration looks like.

This is absolutely worth your time.

Black Family: A Doula Story 56 mins

Produced by Danny Alpert

A Doula Story documents one African American woman’s fierce commitment to empower pregnant teenagers with the skills and knowledge they need to become confident, nurturing mothers. Produced by The Kindling Group, a Chicago-based nonprofit organization, this powerful film follows Loretha Weisinger back to the same disadvantaged Chicago neighborhood where she once struggled as a teen mom. Loretha uses patience, compassion and humor to teach “her girls” about everything from the importance of breastfeeding and reading to their babies, to communicating effectively with health care professionals.

There really are not words to express my personal feelings about this woman and what she is doing.

My attention was brought to this Article by Heather Cushman Dowdee

Essay
Industrial Childbirth

“Revisiting my son’s birth has made me angry.”

* Shonagh Strachan
* | 15 Oct 2008
* | 74 comments

* mother
* childbirth

Industrial Childbirth

My experience of childbirth was not an unusually traumatic one. In medical parlance I had an NVD: a Normal Vaginal Delivery. The midwives were pleasant. I was given an epidural. I was admitted to hospital at 2pm and delivered a healthy baby boy ( 8lb 7oz ) eleven hours later. This is the essential information, is it not? This is the only kind of information that we ever really hear about other women’s experiences with childbirth.

But there is more to it than that. It took me a while to sort out my feelings after the birth – the elation you feel at the presence of a new life combined with your physical exhaustion leave room for little else. And I never really experienced the hopeless grief of the flippantly named “baby blues” in the weeks or months that followed. What I felt – when I was finally able to identify the reasons for my confusion – was anger.

Is anger only blame and self-pity? Or can it be illuminating? For me it can – anger has traveled beyond blame, beyond the individuals involved and my personal experience, and shocked me into changing my whole outlook on life.

I wasn’t angry during my pregnancy at the lack of options for childbirth. I never knew what else I could expect. I wasn’t angry during any stage of my labor. As soon as I was admitted, I was told that I was two centimeters dilated and my waters were to be broken with something resembling a crochet hook. “Okay.” After that I wandered the halls and breathed through contractions for a few hours. When I was re-examined, I hadn’t “progressed” enough. I was told this was dangerous for the baby, and I needed an Oxytocin drip to speed up and strengthen the contractions. “Okay.” Now, these heightened contractions would be very painful so I’d probably be requiring pain-relief. “Okay.” The epidural is probably the most effective “Okay.”

I gritted my teeth but I wasn’t angry as the drip was repeatedly and painfully inserted incorrectly into my hand, or as the epidural took 20 minutes to stick into my spine. I wasn’t angry that I wasn’t allowed to eat anything even though I was very hungry. And I wasn’t angry that my parents weren’t allowed to see me in the delivery ward after driving for hours to be there.

As I watched the clock pass midnight into Halloween, fireworks cracked and flared outside the hospital. I smiled knowing that my baby would have great birthday parties to come. And for this next hour, I shivered in freezing shock, immobilized on the delivery table, uncaring and unangered as the drugs wore off so I could finally push. I wasn’t angry because the hospital staff was just doing their jobs and it seemed so normal for them. I was moving towards having my baby and this is what every mother went through.

The point at which I started to feel a twinge of anger was when, after the delivery, I wasn’t allowed to feed my baby. It was only then that my instinct was strong enough to say, “No. This is really wrong.” There is a period of about an hour after the birth where the newborn is alert and breastfeeding can be established. However, after a brief hold, he was taken away as I was given a Syntometrine injection and his placenta was delivered (by tugging on the cord). He remained away as I was stitched and examined and had to wait for a doctor to examine me.

By the time I was given the all clear (in tears at this point asking, “Can I feed him now?”), I had to be moved from the delivery ward and down to the post-natal ward. It was now 2 am, so friends and family in the waiting room were told to go home without ever having seen the baby or me. The baby’s dad had been present at the birth but was also sent home. Yet again I asked, “Please, can I try to feed my baby?” but he had to be taken away again – this time for a Vitamin K injection and for the nurse to bathe him and put his first vest and Baby Gro on.

When she brought him back he was tired and wanted to sleep. The nurse asked if I still wanted to feed and gave a little perfunctory hold of him up to one breast and then the other and said, incredibly, “No. He’s not a boob man is he?” She then put him down to sleep in the cot beside me, told me to sleep too and that I could try again when he woke up. I spent that first night wide awake, watching every twitch my new son made, desperate to hold him, horrified that I hadn’t managed to take him to my breast after he was born.

When he finally did wake up, I remember ringing for the nurse – looking for her permission to pick him up! This same nurse was the one who would throw back the curtains from around the beds at night if anyone dared to wish for some privacy.

Thankfully, my baby started to feed hungrily the next day. The rest of my stay in hospital was a blur of no sleep, noise, crying babies, feeding times, masses of visitors for two hours and then being left completely on my own. On the second day I remember being allowed to meet my teary mom at the end of the corridor as she passed me some supplies. Later that day I finally managed to have the baby fed and sleepy at a time when there was a lull in hospital activity. I was just dropping off – for the first time in about 70 hours – when I was woken up to bring the baby in for a BCG injection. I did so in floods of exhausted tears.

I gave birth to my son at the Holles Street National Maternity Hospital, in Dublin. Obstetricians at Holles Street have pioneered a policy of “active management” – an obstetrician-led intervention process that speeds up hospital labor. It begins with ARM – artificial rupture of the membrane of the amniotic sac or “breaking the waters” – though this may leave the fetus unprotected and vulnerable to pressure and infection. It continues with monitoring the birthing women and administering to them if they aren’t progressing “correctly.” In Holles Street, for example, the decided-upon correct rate of cervical dilation is 1cm/hour. If the mother “fails to progress” at this rate, she is hooked up to an Oxytocin drip which causes the onset of sudden intense contractions. In 2004 (the year I gave birth), 55 percent of first-time mothers at Holles Street were told they had “failed to progress” and needed to be sped up in this way (unsurprisingly, a slightly larger percentage opted for an epidural to ease the pain). Active management is currently used widely throughout the world.

The most oft-stated defense for the prevalence of today’s medicalized births is that in pre-hospital years gone by, childbirth could be a death sentence. The reality, though, is that most complications during pregnancy and childbirth occurred due to poor maternal nutrition and infections that are now easily treatable or preventable with better hygiene. The high-tech medical interventions available today certainly save some lives but in many cases – especially where active management is practiced – these interventions are often used unnecessarily.

There is also an often noted “cascade of intervention” where once one medical procedure has been carried out, another follows, and then another – leading to more invasive and traumatic interventions and often culminating in a caesarean section. In Ireland, the average rate of C-section is one of the highest in Europe at 25 percent. The midwife-endorsed alternative to this policy of aggressive intervention is “wait and see.” Strangely enough, this usually works out just fine.

In theory, a woman has the right to refuse any of the interventions offered to her. In practice, the normality of intervention and the culture of risk minimization (read: liability minimization) mean that women do not feel empowered to say “no.” I certainly never thought about saying “no” or asking what the alternatives were. I blame myself for this – that I was not more informed and proactive. But I am also angry at the bullying system in place. It is hurried and overwhelming so there is never time or space to question the “professional” medical opinion as to what is really right for you and your baby. So we become numbers, subject to routine interventions.

At Holles Street membrane rupture is carried out routinely. A “managed” third stage of labor is also routinely administered – with hormone injections and cord tugging to deliver the placenta. This is justified by saying that it reduces the risk of postpartum hemorrhage – a fact disputed by many midwives who argue that the early cord clamping involved is potentially injurious for the newborn and that the third stage of a normal birth should never be managed.

Until recently, episiotomy (cutting the perineum to allow more room for the baby) was routine. It is now being shown to be usually unnecessary and at worst a mutilation. Until recently, if a woman had one caesarean section, she could not expect to be allowed to try for a vaginal delivery in subsequent births (this is now slowly changing). At Our Lady of Lourdes hospital in Drogheda, Dr. Michael Neary carried out unnecessary routine hysterectomies, post-caesarean-section, over the course of 25 years before it was brought to light in 1998. At the same hospital (and at Holles Street, the Coombe and others around the country) between the 1950s and the 1980s, hundreds of women underwent a procedure known as a symphysiotomy. Here, a woman’s pelvis was literally sawn apart during childbirth, as an alternative to a cesarean-section. The justification seemed to be a good catholic one – the pelvis would heal widened and the woman would be able to bear more children – even though most were never even told what procedure had been carried out on them and many suffered life-long pain, incontinence, problems walking and arthritis. This is the history of routine interventions by those who know what’s best for us.

Our collective idea of childbirth is pretty nasty – blood and fluid, panting and screaming, stretched anatomy, the emergent gooey greyish-purple alien… horrible! Remember when you first heard about sex? Remember how horrible that seemed? But sex isn’t horrible, is it? What’s missing – and indescribable to a virgin child – is the emotional element. Sex is a natural and beautiful process, all entangled with love and passion. So too, and a million times more, is birth. In essence, our modern patriarchal institutionalized world has a childish view of childbirth. It can’t imagine that something that looks so gruesome could be anything but a horrendous experience and one that should be shortened and medicated. But childbirth is not a medical procedure any more than sex is.

Now, I’m not saying that every woman should have a pain-free, blissful, complication-free birth. I am saying that fear has no place in the process. Fear causes adrenaline production. This initiates the “flight or fight” response where blood drains from the uterus to the limbs, slowing the process of labor until the primeval woman escapes to a safe place to give birth. Meditation and relaxation techniques during childbirth – which are often described to women as methods for coping with pain – can in fact be methods of preventing pain by preventing fear. As with sexual intercourse, if a woman does not feel safe, relaxed and preferably loved, she will experience tension and pain during childbirth.

Without ever taking a single deep breath or doing a second’s meditation, what woman wouldn’t feel more relaxed anywhere but on a table in a hospital delivery “suite”? Looking back on it, it seems like the most ridiculous place to try to give birth. As with sex, your body wants a darkened, intimate, safe and private place to give itself over to its natural urges and processes. Instead, we retain bizarre postures under the bright lights and the ready interference and stares of strangers. Could you orgasm under the same conditions? Are you surprised then that our labors “fail to progress,” with fear and adrenaline coursing through every vein in our bodies? Overcome it with drugs. Pull, drag and cut those children out of us. Then tell us to be thankful. Mothers, partners, sisters and doctors tell us we are endangering lives, we are taking risks. Fill us with fear. No woman wants to endanger her child’s life so almost every woman does what she’s told and gets hospitalized.

Is it shocking to hear that many women liken the experience of “normal” hospital childbirth to being sexually assaulted? Aside from the obvious – the exposure of your most intimate areas to complete strangers – there is an utter lack of control over what is being done to your body. Your consent may never be sought for certain procedures – or it may be sought in the coercive manner of institutions that count on your fear for your cooperation. The feelings that may be experienced afterwards are those of shame and guilt that you weren’t able to give birth naturally, that you didn’t ask the right questions, that you gave up control and weren’t strong enough to resist certain things being done. These feelings can be particularly strong if the mother is separated from her newborn – for example, after an emergency C-section or if a baby is incubated. In some of these cases, mothers can experience bonding problems with the infant. Even once bonding is achieved, the guilt that accompanies this can be life-long.

But surely many mothers experience hospital births without mental trauma? Surely the fact that there is a healthy infant in your arms makes up for anything you went through? Aren’t you safe? Shouldn’t you be grateful to the hospital for delivering your baby? (Do women ever get to feel grateful to themselves, to feel the power and ability of their own bodies?) Won’t questioning the event just cause unnecessary pain and distress for women – shouldn’t they just forget about it and move on with their lives? Like survivors of sexual assault, survivors may live years, or their whole lives, unconscious of feeling anguish or anger about their experiences. But this doesn’t mean they are unaffected by them.

It is my belief that at some deep level, we all feel that we have been robbed. We pass through our childbirth initiation to become disempowered, disconnected, long-suffering, patriarchal mothers. We tell our horror stories as just that, or we say nothing at all. But it doesn’t have to be this way. If I ever have another child, it will not be in the same way. And it doesn’t stop there. I will never again blindly place my trust in authoritarian professionals and institutions. I will recognize all capitalist patriarchy for what it is and I will do my best to speak out against it.

Every day, in every way, my son is a wonderful gift. I would go through ten more hospital births just to keep him. I am sorry for his shabby entrance into this world but I am thankful to this little person for helping me to see something: the bald, blatant, oppressive, damaging, misogynistic forces at play in the most vital aspects of women’s lives. Revisiting his birth has made me angry, but that has made so much else clear: how blinded we can be by the guise of protection, how crippled we can be made by fear.

I wish that we talked about it. That we could stop reveling in horror stories and better place our fingers on the reason for our traumatic births – not the curse of Eve medicated to by our benevolent system – but the systematic violence that delivers our babies for fear that we might give birth to them ourselves. For in the process we might begin to understand our own strength and find words for our anger. We might begin to disobey.
Read more articles from Issue #80 - The Freedom From Want

From Dr. Mercola's Website

Prominent Scientist Warns of HPV Vaccine Dangers

one less, gardasil, cervarix, HPV, human papilloma virus, virus, vaccine, STD, fertility, infertility, sterility, sterilization, population control, abortion, reproductive problems, pregnancy, WHO, world health organizationIndependent health researcher Grace Filby, who won a Churchill Fellowship for her research into phage therapy, is calling on the government for more research into the possible side-effects of the HPV vaccine that is currently being given to teenage girls.

Filby believes that not enough is known about the effects of the vaccine on children with pre-existing medical conditions and weakened immune systems. She says, "We simply do not know whether the vaccine interacts with other medication or medical conditions, and the manufacturers have not studied it yet. This could be a very valid reason why some families and schools might hesitate or opt out."

She has this week written to UK education ministers and health officials calling for urgent small-scale independent studies that would highlight any health problems stemming from vaccinations already carried out.
Sources:

* Medical News Today October 1, 2008


Here at Last — New Krill for Women
Find Out More

Dr. Mercola Dr. Mercola's Comments:

According to the CDC, the human papilloma virus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted disease in America. More than 6 million women contract it annually, yet cervical cancer claims less than 3,900 women – most of which are due to not getting regular Pap smears. In the U.K., cervical cancer claims a mere 400 lives per year.

Why is your risk of dying from cervical cancer so low?

Because your immune system is usually strong enough to clear up this kind of infection on its own, and does so in more than 90 percent of all cases. The CDC even admits to this fact on their website.

And, as long as you’re getting regular PAP smears, cervical cancer can be caught in its early, and easily treatable, stages.

So, the question begs to be asked: WHY is the HPV vaccine being pushed so vigorously when:

1. it prevents a type of cancer that is very rare to begin with
2. it protects against a virus that, 98 percent of the time, is not the cause of cervical cancer
3. it prevents a type of cancer that can be easily caught and treated by promoting regular gynecological exams
4. it offers less protection than what promotion of safe sex practices could accomplish
5. it is promoted to girls years before becoming sexually active, even though the vaccine may only offer about three years worth of protection
6. it prevents just 4 out of more than 100 strains of HPV; all of which your body can clear up on its own in 90 percent of all cases anyway
7. it has NOT been proven safe. No one knows if it can cause cancer or infertility, for example

And why would the feds go so far as to add Gardasil to the list of vaccinations that all female immigrants ages 11 to 26 MUST get before they can obtain a green card? We’re not dealing with potential import of bubonic plague here…

According to a New England Journal of Medicine study, the use of condoms reduces the incidence of HPV by 70 percent, offering FAR better protection than Gardasil, for example.

The HPV vaccine is a total head-scratcher of a mystery as far as what its ultimate purpose is, because “curing the rampant health disaster of cervical cancer” is certainly NOT it.

And since when do we have to be vaccinated against cancer in order to be let into a country?

Does the HPV Vaccine LITERALLY Mean “One Less”?

Marketing geniuses are known to play on words and create slogans with quirky double meanings, and if you’ve been tracking the concerns raised about the potential hazards of Gardasil and Cervarix, the potential for these HPV vaccines to cause infertility – whether purposely or inadvertently – is being heard with ever increasing frequency.

The federal government's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received over 9,000 reports of problems since the vaccine's introduction in 2006, which include at least 28 spontaneous abortions, and 27 deaths.

Is it possible that Gardasil’s cry to fame, ‘One Less’, is turning out to be nothing but a sick, ironic play on words?

Anti-Fertility Vaccines

The World Health Organization (WHO) and its subsidiaries have been actively researching and funding the development of contraceptive / anti-fertility vaccines that prevent full-term pregnancies to take place, for over 20 years. There’s even a Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO!

However, no anti-fertility vaccine has ever been placed on the market and promoted as such as of yet.

Instead, as described in a 1993 journal paper published in The British Medical Bulletin, anti-fertility vaccines were being engineered “incorporating tetanus or diphtheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides.”

The authors of this article state,

"The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone that signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system.”

Free tetanus vaccines that were offered to young women of childbearing age for years in countries such as Tanzania, Nigeria, Mexico, and the Philippines, were found to contain human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG), which causes spontaneous abortions if the woman becomes pregnant.

While the woman is not technically sterilized, once injected with hCG, she may never be able to carry a child full term thereafter.

HCG-containing anti-fertility vaccines have also been pursued for more than two decades by the Indian National Institute of Immunology, and The Population Council of the Rockefeller University, among others.

In fact, there are no less than 50 research papers detailing research on “contraceptive vaccines” in the PubMed database.

One disturbing paper published in the FASEB Journal in 1993 states:

“… we initiated studies relating to possible mechanisms of action and potential side effects of this vaccine, which should be relevant to world-wide regulation of population growth.”

So again, why the frantic push for the HPV vaccine, created for young, fertile women, when there’s NO solid, rational basis for its use?

Massive Brazilian Vaccination Program Raises Suspicions of Covert Sterilization Plans

A much more recent case of illogical mass vaccinations against a minor health problem is that of the massive, mandatory vaccination program in Brazil, which has raised suspicions among international pro-life activists, who note that the program is similar to other vaccination programs in recent years that have included a hidden sterilizing agent in the vaccines.

The campaign to “annihilate rubella” began in early August this year, mandating rubella vaccinations for all women ages 12 to 49, and 12 to 39 for men; a total of 70 million people, despite the fact that only 17 Brazilian children per year suffer birth defects from the disease.

Adolfo Castañeda of Human Life International notes that just two years ago, researchers found that the rubella vaccine used in a similar campaign in Argentina was laced with human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG).

“The suspicion that brought about the investigation [into the rubella vaccine] was caused by the fact that there were very few cases of the disease in Argentina, which didn’t merit a large-scale campaign,” Castañeda said, adding, “The ages for women are the same as those who received the vaccines in Nicaragua, where they included a hormone that sterilizes the woman who receives it, and similar to the age of those who received another sterilizing hormone in the Philippines.”

Polysorbate-80 – One Less Mouse, Researchers Found

Now, let me state clearly that there’s no proof of hCG being present in any of the current HPV vaccines.

I am merely playing devil’s advocate as I examine the similarities between these other irrational vaccination programs in other countries for relatively minor public health concerns -- that turn out to have far more sinister agendas than mere greed – compared to the fervent, irrational push behind the HPV vaccine here in the U.S.

However, Gardasil does contain Polysorbate-80 – a surfactant used in pharmacology to deliver certain drugs or chemical agents across the blood-brain barrier -- which has been linked to infertility in mice.

Researchers Gajdova et.al. found that administration of Polysorbate-80 decreased the weight of the uterus and ovaries, and caused chronic estrogenic stimulation. The ovaries of the mice were also without corpora lutea (a mass of progesterone-secreting endocrine tissue that forms immediately after ovulation) and had degenerative follicles.

So what might the estrogenic effects of Polysorbate-80 be on pre-adolescent girls and pregnant women?

Anti-Fertility Vaccine Ingredient Also Has Clinical Application in Cancer Vaccines…

A potential coincidence I find most disturbing is some of the more recent research detailing the use of hCG, and other molecules, in vaccines against hCG-producing cancers, such as – certain cervical cancers.

One 2005 paper titled, Recent advances in contraceptive vaccine development: a mini-review published in the journal Human Reproduction concludes:

“At the present time, studies are focused on increasing the immunogenicity and efficacy of the birth control vaccine, and examining its clinical applications in various HCG-producing cancers.”

But research published just a few months ago in the journal Molecular Cancer states that the free β-subunit of hCG (hCGβ) – which was originally considered biologically non-functional -- has recently been shown to stimulate tumor growth, and lead to more aggressive tumors that are more resistant to therapy.

Again, I’m mentioning all of this because it just goes to show that pharmaceutical companies have little or no clue of the extent of harm these vaccines might cause, especially long-term. Something believed to be completely non-functional or harmless can turn out to be a MAJOR cause for concern after more thorough investigation.

For example, Gardasil also contains L-histadine, and histamines have been found to increase clot production five-fold when combined with, guess what? Surfactants! (L-histidine can also pass through your placental wall to your fetus.)

Granted, this laboratory investigative report titled Surfactants Attenuate Gas Embolism-induced Thrombin Production used surfactants like Perftoran, not Polysorbate-80, in their trials, but could Polysorbate-80 have a similar effect?

Could this explain why death from blood clots within hours or days is the MOST COMMON form of death after receiving Gardasil?

The HPV vaccine clearly has a lot of questions left to be answered. And those questions should be answered BEFORE pushing Gardasil on an unsuspecting public at the rate that it’s being done.

Be One Less to Get Gardasil

I think this would be a more appropriate message to send out to young women: There is absolutely no reason to risk the serious side effects of this vaccine to prevent an infection that goes away on its own 90 percent of the time. And there’s no guarantee that you’ll be protected anyway, since you can still get HPV once you’ve had the vaccine. It’s really a no-win situation for those who receive it.

Of course, you can radically reduce your risk of getting HPV in the first place if you follow safe-sex practices, or wait to have sex until you’re in a committed relationship. Then, keep your immune system in tip-top shape, and it will be more than able to shake any HPV virus that comes its way.

On Going Green

Being Green has become one of the most trendy things a person can do. It's exploded into a status symbol. Any famous person worth their salt is either planting trees in Africa or flying huge jet-planes around, preaching about being green, promoting eco-friendly habits or posing for organic clothing ads. However, I've noticed that the more trendy something is, the more expensive it tends to be.
Some time ago, I was a member of a naturally minded parenting group that met at each other's homes once a month for play-dates. My experiences with these women were my first hard-core introduction to doing things “green”. These women were all upper-middle class white women (for the most part). They all lived in nice houses, had two cars, manicured lawns, big back-yards, children that wore organic clothes and they all wore Birkenstock's. Ok, not ALL of them wore Birkenstock's but you get the picture. . They all did the same things I did (breastfeeding, cloth-diapering/ec, baby-wearing, etc) our approaches were about as different as they could get. They cloth diapered because it was “natural” and ec'd for the same reason. I did these things because I couldn't afford to do it any other way. These women's children sported the fanciest, prettiest most adorable $15-30 butt-covers I'd ever seen. It goes without saying that breastfeeding is the very best choice for my children's health, but I would be lying if didn't admit that the fact it's 100% FREE played into that choice, as well. For them, it was natural for well educated, progressive women to do the natural thing and nurse their babies. The natural lifestyles these women led came in sharp contrast to their SUV-driving status. My point is that at first glance, it appears that “going green” is something for the rich and famous (or at least the moderately wealthy). If my readers are anything like I was, going green is downright intimidating and may even feel impossibly cost prohibitive.
Thankfully, it doesn't have to be that way and without realizing it, we got greener and greener over the last couple of years, almost by default. “Natural” living is a slippery slope and even though it's not necessarily recognized, its' hard to go natural without going green, too. Surprisingly, in many ways it's actually cheaper than doing things conventionally, too (providing you don't buy into the consumerist gimmicks that have followed the green movement almost since it's inception). For us, it actually started with breastfeeding. Nursing our babies is the simplest, cheapest way to nourish our children. It never occurred to me to do anything else so being a “lactivist” was never part of my motivation for nursing my first child. I did a lot of research on the topic, however, because I wanted to be successful and what I learned caused me to become a rather outspoken breastfeeding supporter. Breastfeeding our babies actually has a significant impact on the the earth and therefore the people around us, not to mention those roly-poly little people that deserve nothing but the best. All health benefits aside, there are no big, pollution spewing factories involved in the manufacture of the bottles that aren't needed, the cans for formula that aren't used or, of course, the unnecessary formula. Some breastfeeding mothers will need some of those things (bottles, for example, or breast-pumps) but not necessarily. For those that do, they are saving so much money by not buying formula, that they can probably afford the extra expense for eco-friendly bottles/nipples/pumps.
From there we came upon the issue of diapering. I remember when I was pregnant with my first, I was absolutely adamant that I would NOT be cloth-diapering. Too much work! I still chuckle at myself, looking back. As it happened, disposable diapers turned out to be a much bigger money-drain than I initially realized so I began the hunt for affordable cloth diapers. It was during an Internet search for these that I came across a post by a woman who was talking about the success she was having with her 5mo old on the potty. I could not believe my eyes. EC (or elimination communication, also known as Infant Potty Training, Early Potty Learning, Natural Infant Hygiene, Trickle Treat and Un-diapering) is a practice as old as humanity. Growing up in the US, though, I had never even heard of it, except when wondering how African women carrying their babes in slings on their backs managed not to get peed on. So, of course, I scoffed at this woman's post and wondered where I could get some of whatever she was on. At the same time, though, she was so enthusiastic that I just had to look it up and figure out what on earth she was talking about. It was not at all what I thought it was and it made so much sense that I couldn't resist giving it a try with my 4mo old daughter. Our successful venture with EC is a story for a different day but it's worth mentioning here because within two months, we were done with disposables, I had a small stash of used cloth diapers and my 5mo old was reliably using the potty. How does this pertain to going green? Paper diapers take up an unbelievable amount of resources. The average baby goes through about 5,000 diapers between birth and toilet training. Diapers made up 3.4 million tons of waste, or 2.1 percent of U.S. garbage, in landfills in 1998 -- the last year this information was collected, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. An interesting excerpt from the following website says this:

“In 1988, over 18 billion diapers were sold and consumed in the United States that year.4  Based on our calculations ...we estimate that 27.4 billion disposable diapers are consumed every year in the U.S.13

No one knows how long it takes for a disposable diaper to decompose, but it is estimated to be about 250-500 years, long after your children, grandchildren and great, great, great grandchildren will be gone.5

Disposable diapers are the third largest single consumer item in landfills, and represent about 4% of solid waste.  In a house with a child in diapers, disposables make up 50% of household waste.5
The manufacture and use of disposable diapers amounts to 2.3 times more water wasted than cloth.3

Over 300 pounds of wood, 50 pounds of petroleum feedstocks and 20 pounds of chlorine are used to produce disposable diapers for one baby EACH YEAR.6”
~ http://www.realdiaperassociation.org/diaperfacts.php

All of the above plus, they are expensive. They don't seem so at first, but the bigger your baby gets, the prices on the packages go up and you get LESS diapers per package. Some people truly feel that cloth diapers start-up cost is rather high (and it certainly can be) but in the long run, it saved us a lot of money. Un-diapering saved us even more money and you can't get much more environmentally friendly than skipping diapers altogether.
Along with diapering comes the question of wipes. Wipes certainly aren't the most expensive item on the “must have” list for parenting but the reality is that every penny counts. I like to sew and I tend to have scrap bits of fabric laying around so, after being inspired by seeing someone else do it, I made a bunch of cloth wipes. I'm so glad I did, too. Not only were they practically free (they can be made out of anything from old towels to old t-shirts) they were so soft and had no chemicals in them. I was a happy “wanna be green” Mama! Four years later, I'm still a fan and I use my home-made wipes for everything from dusting the furniture to washing my face, to say nothing of the stack JUST for my baby's bottom. I'm not saying I never use conventional wipes or that I never buy paper towels. Sometimes I do. But usually, I use my home-made wipes. That reduces my personal use of the world's resources to water and some natural gas-powered washing machine usage. Oh! and laundry detergent (I've heard that you can make your own and I have a recipe but haven't tried it yet).
When we had our first baby, everybody and their brother gave us clothes. At that time, most of them were brand-new clothes as well wishers from seemingly every area of our lives showered us with gifts. When we had our second baby, though, we didn't need all that stuff because we had hand-me downs! We were blessed with another girl, so that made it even easier. I think this is one area of being eco-conscious that people often overlook. The clothing industry is a HUGE one. The clothes do not make themselves, they are usually manufactured in sweatshops (unfortunately) and are often made from non-natural fibers and even when they are not, textile mills are notorious for pollution. Our family is not wealthy enough to feasibly afford organic, fair-trade, entirely natural fiber clothes BUT we can afford hand-me downs! And we do so, without any shame. Good-will, Salvation Army, friends closets, etc, are doing more to help our earth than people realize. And of course, when those clothes are finally beyond wearable, we make wipes! Recently I began turning some baby clothes that weren't in good enough condition to pass to anyone into a patchwork quilt. Someday it would really be nice to be able to afford the aforementioned “super-green” clothes but in the meantime, we do what we can. It saves us a tremendous amount of money and it feels good to know that in some small way, we are doing our part for the environment, too.
It is my opinion that going green goes hand in hand with “waste not, want not”. We live in a disposable society. We want everything now, we want it to require little or no effort on our part to cook, clean up, put together, etc. We love our microwaves, our gadgets, our plastic throw-away containers and our dishwashers. The question is, though, “Do we NEED any of that stuff?” My husband and I have discovered that no, we do not. Having these things is not necessarily wrong, however, if every person was to take a hard look at all their “stuff”, I'm betting we could each pare down some things. This would positively impact the earth, removing one person less of various industrial wastes. Reducing how much we consume is a fantastic way to better our world. The fact is that things sell because there is a demand for them. If there is less of a demand, there is less production and less waste and ultimately, less garbage. Perhaps if, as a society, we moved away from needing to have every gadget and newfangled thing on the market, we'd do better as a planet.
One of the ways my family strives to do this is by paring down stuff in our home we don't actually need. Do I really need another bottle of shampoo to join the collection on the bathtub? Are 25 towels actually a necessity? Do I really need an entire closet-full of sheets for one bed? And what about those towels and sheets? They look ratty and worn? What could they be used for instead of running out and buying something else I don't need? Wouldn't it be better to use them than add another 2 or three bags of garbage to the dumpster? I have a friend that takes old bed-sheets and turns them into diapers for her kid. I know another woman who was very good at making summer play-clothes and pajamas out of things like that. I've seen baby pants made from Dad's old sweatshirts and beautiful diaper covers converted from a sweater that had a hole in it. I made a sling recently out of a sarong that had a hole in it. We ditched our microwave (it broke and we decided not to replace it) and we've never missed it.
There are many other little things that we do in our day-to day lives that I believe makes a difference. They don't have to be expensive or come with trendy labels on them. Most of the changes we have made that are better for our family and our environment were simple, inexpensive things that happened without our even realizing they were “green”. It is just simple, smart, frugal living.

My Work

I have the greatest work in the world;
The job of rocking a baby to sleep,
That of guiding his tottering feet,
A baby's clothes to launder and fold,
A precious life to shape and mold,
A drink to give from a little cup,
At night his toys to gather up,
Hurts to heal and fears to quell,
A baby to keep clean and well,
A stack of diapers to put,
Oh, what a happy worthwhile day!
I am a "Mother."

I have the greatest work in the world;
A husband to encourge when things go wrong,
When he comes from work to greet with a song,
Denims and shirts to wash and mend,
A helping hand, when needed, to lend,
Three times a day is meals to cook,
To strive to be my best to look,
His back to rub at the close of the day,
For his faithfulness to God I pray,
When hubby's in the field I take lemonade,
for all these tasks his love has Paid.
I am a " Wife."

I have the greatest work in the world;
A home to keep happy, clean and bright,
Make things go smooth and strive for the right,
Jams to cook and jellies to make,
Cookies and pies and bread to bake,
Washing, ironing, and sewing to do,
So many tasks, will I ever get though?
Lettuce to wash and peas to pick,
floors to scrub, lost items to seek,
Dishes to wash and windows to shine,
These and many more tasks are mine.
I am a "Homemaker."

Help me, Father, to faithfully work,
Forgive if I unconsciously shirk,
give me the patience and love I pray,
To keep myself in duties way;
With all the hustle that each day brings
May I not neglect the needful things;
Each day to spend time alone with Thee
That Jesus Christ be seen in me.
Thank you for husband, our home, our boys;
Thank you for love which brings me much joy.
Thank you , Lord.

----Mary Lou Burkholder