RE: How to have healthy children

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/17/00 1:00:35 Uhr, xtina@... writes:

<< Would be nice, but not everyone can have a safe home birth.

Mortality rates historically were higher than they are now because

many could not have a safe homebirth. >>

Homebirth, planned homebirth, is statistically much safer than a hospital

birth. Is this your opinion or do you have studies to back it up?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/17/00 1:29:40 Uhr, xtina@... writes:

<< As for historically, maternal

and infant mortality was quite high even 100 years ago. >>

The infant mortality rate in the US is dismal. We rate 23rd in the world I

believe. This is of course with most births in hospitals and most births

attended by OB's. Where the infant mortality rate is lowest is where there

are midwives in attendence and a large number of home births.(eg Holland)

Your birth may have been very different had you been at home. There are only

a tiny percentage of homebirths where transfer is necessary and an even

smaller percentage where a C-section is necessary. Unfortunately the

hospital environment encourages intervention and the more intervention you

have the more is needed.(eg a C-section) Kimme

[Guest guest]

Jan,

Why do you recommend staying away from root canals? I have never heard

that.

Jan Lips wrote:

> How to have healthy children - some things to consider (and open for

> discussion).

>

> When you read the list I came up with you might wonder if there is any

> place outside Utopia where you could attain all this.

>

> 1. Parents treated homeopathically BEFORE they decide to have children

> (the longer before the better).

> 2. Parents stay away from taking in toxic substances (including but not

> restricted to recreational and medical drugs, alcohol, nicotine, sugar,

> coffee, meat, dairy, eggs...).

> 3. Parents stay away from toxic environments.

> 4. Have peaceful and harmonious relationships.

> 5. Give spirituality a place in your life (I didn't say religion,

> although that's a choice you can make).

> 6. Have a peaceful and harmonious pregnancy.

> 7. Talk positively to your baby during pregnancy and don't stop after.

> 8. Play music that soothes the soul during the pregnancy (that is not

> rock music).

> 9. Stay away from conventional medicines when pregnant (unless there is

> no alternative).

> 10. Have a natural home birth (underwater birth seems marvelous to me).

> 11. Breast feed.

> 12. Stay away from dairy formulas.

> 13. Don't vaccinate.

> 14. Don't give your child meat, dairy and eggs.

> 15. Don't give your child sugar, products with sugar, artificial

> coloring, taste enhancers etc.

> 16. Buy organically grown foods.

> 17. Stay away from conventional doctors, it may be hazardous to your

> health.

> 18. Don't (have your child) drink fluoridated water or use fluoridated

> tooth paste.

> 19. Don't (have your child) drink tap water.

> 20. Don't have anyone put amalgam (mercury) fillings in your (child's)

> mouth and avoid root canals (of course your dentist will tell you that

> they are safe).

> 21. Don't use aluminum cookware or products with aluminum (including

> deodorants).

> 22. Home school - for emotional and mental health. (I know, this is not

> practical for everyone. But just think about it...what would you do

> differently if you could).

> 23. Have a healthy dose of humor every day.

> 24. Touch (caress, hug, massage etc.) your children on a regular basis,

> teach your children that human touch is healthy.

>

> Ad 14: Many diseases (including cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, heart

> attacks, stomach ulcers, obesity, arthritis, kidney and gall stones,

> hypertension, anemia, asthma) are due to over-consumption of animal

> protein. Meats, milk and eggs nowadays are full of antibiotics,

> hormones, vaccines etc. The cultures with the longest life spans in the

> world are totally vegetarian or close to it. Milk consumption promotes

> osteoporosis, in contrast with what advertisers tell you. They only want

> your money.

> Ad 17: When there was a doctors strike in Israel, the mortality rate

> went down 45% (British Medical Journal, March 2000).

>

> This list is not complete, I am sure you can come up with some more

> valid points.

> Doing all this is not a guarantee to have healthy children, but I think

> you might improve your chances by 95%.

>

> Bibliography:

>

> Robbins: Diet for a new America

> Diet for a new World

> Reclaiming our Health

> Guylene Lanctot, MD: The Medical Maffia

> Betty Kamen, Ph.D. and Si Kamen: Osteoporosis - what is it, how to

> prevent it, hoe to stop it.

> Dufty: Sugar Blues

> Reuben, MD: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Nutrition

> S. Mendelsohn, MD: Confessions of a Medical Heretic

> M. Schulz: The Peanuts (or any other book that makes you laugh)

>

> I buy most of those books in second hand book stores. A couple of

> dollars for a lot of good information.

>

> Jan

>

> --

> Jan F. Lips, DHOM, HMC

> Calgary Centre for Homeopathy

> Calgary, Alberta

> Canada

>

[Guest guest]

-<<<<<<<<-- In Vaccinationsegroups, Jan Lips <jan.lips@3...>

wrote:

> How to have healthy children - some things to consider (and open for

> discussion).

>

> When you read the list I came up with you might wonder if there is

any

> place outside Utopia where you could attain all this.

>

> 1. Parents treated homeopathically BEFORE they decide to have

children

> (the longer before the better).

> 2. Parents stay away from taking in toxic substances (including but

not

> restricted to recreational and medical drugs, alcohol, nicotine,

sugar,

> coffee, meat, dairy, eggs...).

> 3. Parents stay away from toxic environments.

> 4. Have peaceful and harmonious relationships.

> 5. Give spirituality a place in your life (I didn't say religion,

> although that's a choice you can make).

> 6. Have a peaceful and harmonious pregnancy.

> 7. Talk positively to your baby during pregnancy and don't stop

after.

> 8. Play music that soothes the soul during the pregnancy (that is

not

> rock music).>>>>>>>

There are a few things on this that I dont agree with but this is the

one i disagree with the most. Musical preferences are entirely

subjective. Although, I am not a big fan of Hard Rock, I do like

rock

music and I find it VERY soothing. To say not rock music, to me,

sounds silly. JMHO

<<<<<<> 9. Stay away from conventional medicines when pregnant

(unless

there

is

> no alternative).

> 10. Have a natural home birth (underwater birth seems marvelous to

me).>>>>>>>>>

Would be nice, but not everyone can have a safe home birth.

Mortality rates historically were higher than they are now because

many could not have a safe homebirth. If you can, and you want to,

wonderful...but not everyone can do it.

[Guest guest]

Im just saying that not everyone can have a safe homebirth, thats all.

It just seemed that 100% success was being implied. I dont think

that my baby and I would have suceeded at it. I was a C-section

because I never dialated past 4 cm after 48 hours. I dont know, maybe

it would have eventually worked, but to tell the truth, Im glad I had

the section because I was VERY tired. As for historically, maternal

and infant mortality was quite high even 100 years ago. Im not saying

present day North America. But women tended to have home births.

True, midwives are much better educated than back then obviously, so

Im not sure if this would still apply if the whole population was

forced to have home births. I for one do not have the confidence in

my body to try one. So, Ill be doing the hospital thing again

whenever the time comes. In Canada though, I dont have to worry about

vax happening in the hospital. Only the eye stuff and vit K. This is

all my opinion, no facts or stats.

>

> In a message dated 11/17/00 1:00:35 Uhr, xtina@h... writes:

>

> << Would be nice, but not everyone can have a safe home birth.

> Mortality rates historically were higher than they are now because

> many could not have a safe homebirth. >>

>

> Homebirth, planned homebirth, is statistically much safer than a

hospital

> birth. Is this your opinion or do you have studies to back it up?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/17/00 1:29:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, xtina@...

writes:

<< As for historically, maternal

and infant mortality was quite high even 100 years ago. >>

but wouldn't you think all mortality rates (in general) were a lot higher

back then, than they are now?? i don't think it was all that bad back

then--having a baby at home...cure for some it was bad, as there are times

when you do need medical intervention, but for the average birth, (and i

don't beleive we have all that many of those anymore--most births are way

over-assisted, in my opinion) i bet things worked out just fine for most.

brigit

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 11/17/00 1:29:40 Uhr, xtina@h... writes:

>

> << As for historically, maternal

> and infant mortality was quite high even 100 years ago. >>

>

> The infant mortality rate in the US is dismal. We rate 23rd in the

world I

> believe. This is of course with most births in hospitals and most

births

> attended by OB's. Where the infant mortality rate is lowest is

where there

> are midwives in attendence and a large number of home births.(eg

Holland)

> Your birth may have been very different had you been at home. There

are only

> a tiny percentage of homebirths where transfer is necessary and an

even

> smaller percentage where a C-section is necessary. Unfortunately

the

> hospital environment encourages intervention and the more

intervention you

> have the more is needed.(eg a C-section) Kimme

This is true, but Im still not convinced to try it at home next

time...LOL

CHristina

[Guest guest]

>>This is

all my opinion, no facts or stats.

<<

WEll, at least I agree with *THIS* part of your statements.

Did you ever think that perhaps you ended up with a c-sec. *BECAUSE* of your

doctor? Aren't 99% of c-secs doctor lead, meaning, if you didn't have X, Y,

or Z done to you, you never would have found yourself in that position? Just

remember, getting into your car to go to the hospital is the FIRST

intervention in labour.

It's not that hard to educate yourself about homebirth, or birth in general.

Heck, you've done it with vax's.

I'm still trying to figure out what you meant about midwives better educated

than " back then " .

Katrina

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/17/00 1:37:41 AM Eastern Standard Time,

squeaksoup@... writes:

<< Unfortunately the

hospital environment encourages intervention and the more intervention you

have the more is needed.(eg a C-section) Kimme >>

I agree completely. I had a wonderful homebirth with no problems. I do

believe that if I was in a hospital they would have been all over me to be on

there " schedule " and try to intervene negatively. I was home, comfortable and

laboring at my own pace.

SAHM to Zia (04/04/00)

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

" The Self is not the individual body or

mind, but rather that aspect deep

inside each person that knows the

TRUTH. "

Swami Vishnu Devananda

TTTTTTTTTTTTTT

[Guest guest]

I have to agree that homebirth is a very personal choice. Everyone should

have the option of having one, but to say it is the best is not viewing all

the different aspects that surround birth. The book " Birthing From Within "

discusses this. I think I saw something about it in " The Vital Touch " as

well. I'm trying to think of where I've seen actual statistics about

infant mortality in hospitals and at home. There was a thorough discussion

of it in one book. Actually, the home birth chapter in " Birthing From

Within " has a very thorough discussion of it with lots of references.

No matter what you do, there's no guarantee you'll have healthy

children. People need to live their lives to the best of their ability. I

couldn't even read half the list because I don't plan my pregnancies.

Adrienne

[Guest guest]

It's been quite a few years now, but maybe my experience would add

something. I had an emergency caesarean with my first child due to placenta

previa. I am grateful that it was an option available to me.

However, I opted to have a vbac the second time. At least here in Anchorage

you could shop around for OB/Gyn's and hospitals. One of the hospitals had

a birthing room, but I chose not go go there because that particular

hospital had a real bias for and emphasis on interventions. The other

hospital had two nurses who themselves had had successful VBACs, so they

were psychologically really behind them. But I also chose to have my

official birthing coach be the woman who taught me in my class - she was not

Lamaze, and taught all kinds of alternative techniques. If I had wanted to,

I could instead have used a midwife.

The OB/gyn I chose had nurse/midwives in his practice as well.

Well, it really worked out well in the end, even though at one point it

looked like things weren't going really well - I had really hard

contractions which were close together and I didn't seem to be dilating. I

had been there since 1AM and hadn't called my coach, so called her in at

6:30 AM. They were starting to get me worried - I was effacing, but not

dilating. Well, when she got there she had them recheck me, and all of a

sudden I had dilated almost 100%. In my case I needed to efface first and

then dilate. She brought some much needed perspective and calm to the

situation and everything proceeded well after that. As tired as I was, if

she hadn't been there, I might have been railroaded into some unnecessary

interventions which could have interfered with my labor and caused me to get

discouraged. They were starting to make me think this would go on forever

at this intense pace (the nurses were all concerned that the contractions

were so strong and I was supposedly not getting anywhere). Anyway, because

I had a really good advocate and had found a sympathetic hospital

environment, I had a successful vbac in 1986.

I had also made sure my OB/gyn knew exactly what interventions (I think I

opted for NONE, but I'm not sure there weren't some conditional ones) I

accepted, and had them in writing.

Hope this adds something. Sandy

[Guest guest]

Now that I think about it, I believe I may have allowed an external monitor.

Sandy

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Im just saying that not everyone can have a safe homebirth, thats all.

> It just seemed that 100% success was being implied. I dont think

> that my baby and I would have suceeded at it. I was a C-section

> because I never dialated past 4 cm after 48 hours. I dont know, maybe

> it would have eventually worked, but to tell the truth, Im glad I had

> the section because I was VERY tired. As for historically, maternal

> and infant mortality was quite high even 100 years ago. Im not saying

> present day North America. But women tended to have home births.

Some reasons for birth, in general (since all births were home births until

about 100 or so yeasr ago), to result in higher maternal and infant

morbidity and mortality were things like poorer hygiene and less sanitary

living conditions, and less prenatal care. What I mean by the latter is

that there wasn't so much knowledge about warning signs during the pregnancy

such as high blood pressure, proteinuria, etc. I'm stumbling with

this...what I mean is that the reason home birth with a properly trained

midwife is safer today than hospital birth (for healthy, lower risk women)

is b/c midwives can detect, through different diagnostic tests and knowledge

of prenatal physiology, which women would be at risk for home births.

Personally I feel that there are very few contraindications for home birth,

but, for example, a midwife can tell if the woman has complete placenta

previa, which would warrant a caesarean. Historically, even if the midwife

could tell this was the case, there was no choice but to birth at home. It

was things like this that caused high mortality, not just birth itself.

Please let me clarify that I am NOT saying that all diagnostic testing is

good, b/c I beleive that most of it does more harm than good, but there can

definitely be an appropriate useage of it. Also, midwives today bring lots

of potentially life-saving, or at least risk-reducing equipment to a home

birth, such as an O2 tank, a shot of oxytocin in case of excessive bleeding

in the woman, epinephrine shots, etc. So in the event of a minor

complication, something can be done, at least to stabilize the woman or

baby. I also believe that in choosing an experienced midwife that I trust

(of course, I am lucky to be able to so, since I am a student midwife and I

have worked with a few of the midwives in my city, and my city has the most

midwives in the province), I completely trust her to say, " you know what,

this is the point at which we would be safer in the hospital. " I also trust

her to say " you don't need to worry about that, you'll be perfectly safe at

home. " When birth was moved to the hospital, morbidity and mortality rates

actually increased at first b/c those smart doctors hadn't quite gotten the

concept of washing their hands down pat. There were (and are) also lots of

weird germs present in hospitals that are sometimes best avoided, and this

was a particular problem before the discovery of antibiotics, as it is once

once again becoming a problem with the overuse of antibiotics. Birth became

popular in the hospital not b/c it was safer but as one of the final steps

in the appropriation of women's health care by men. So that's my spiel on

the safety of home birth, past and present.

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/00 9:15:09 PM Central Standard Time,

sandym@... writes:

<< Phyllis, I would like to see your statistics showing the infant mortality

rate at 26% in the U.S. What is your source? >>

Actually, within the last year or so I read that the US has one of the

highest mortality rates in the world. And the highest of the industrialized

nations. And I believe I read it was at least 25%. I'll have to look

around. It would probably be able to be figured by using the mortality

tables from the CDC.

carol peterson

[Guest guest]

Phyllis, I would like to see your statistics showing the infant mortality

rate at 26% in the U.S. What is your source?

There may have been particular midwives who had fabulous records, but that

is not proof that all midwives had such good records. (I doubt that

midwives who weren't very good were writing books about their lack of

success.) Any more than a particular doctor somewhere being great has

anything to do with other doctors being great.

There is also no point in comparing women who have lived their lives

squatting with the modern woman.

I find it hard to believe that home births are always safer than hospital

births. Any absolute statement like that tends to discredit the point.

While I would agree, once again, that homebirths are statistically safer

than hospital births, there are situations that arise which are sometimes

better handled in the hospital. Given that one doesn't know if one is going

to be the person experiencing that difficulty, I would reiterate that it is

best to be fully informed of all risks, so as best to make a reasoned

decision, weighing those risks and deciding which risks one wants to take,

however small.

And just because some people experience easy births does not mean it is

merely a matter of will or possible for everyone to do so. To me it is

similar to those who say it is a matter of will to cure cancer or any other

disease. While it is important to have a good attitude, and the mind/body

connection is profound, it is not merely a matter of will. We all need some

humility here. Implying that it was easy or possible for one person so it

should be easy or possible for another just adds a layer of pain and guilt

to those who have done everything possible to get well or give birth

naturally. Or whatever.

It is also a subtle way, I'm sure unintended, of blaming the victim.

We are all different. Period. Sandy

[Guest guest]

Okay, first of all I have nothing against having a homebirth......or a

hospital birth. As a mother of 2 unvaxed kids who are extremely

health......both of whom were born C-section after a combined 50 hrs of

labor, I am beginning to tire of the constant slamming of

C-sections.......my son and daughter are very health and no worse or

better of than a homebirth or regular delivery. Now as for those of you

who think c/s should never happen......i am unable to dialate....i have

an incompetent cervix.....no matter what i tried......yes even herbal

things nothing worked. So PLEASE enough with the slamming of c/s.

Thank you.

Love,

Gori

[Guest guest]

I agree Gori! I have 2 perfect children too, both vaccine free and both c/s

babies. My first baby was suppose to be a homebirth, yet after 24 hrs we

has to transfer to the hospital and ultimately had to have an emergency c/s

to save her life. With my second baby we opted to do a repeat c/s after

exploring all of our options. While I think it is absolutely wonderful for

all of you that had homebirths(I wish I got to experience it!)it is not for

everyone.

I'm content knowing I did the best thing for my children, even if that meant

having c-sections.

List Owner of Vaccinations and Vaccine Info

www.geocities.com/mom2q (my work in progress!)

Mom of two great kids who are vaccine free!

Re: How to have healthy children

Okay, first of all I have nothing against having a homebirth......or a

hospital birth. As a mother of 2 unvaxed kids who are extremely

health......both of whom were born C-section after a combined 50 hrs of

labor, I am beginning to tire of the constant slamming of

C-sections.......my son and daughter are very health and no worse or

better of than a homebirth or regular delivery. Now as for those of you

who think c/s should never happen......i am unable to dialate....i have

an incompetent cervix.....no matter what i tried......yes even herbal

things nothing worked. So PLEASE enough with the slamming of c/s.

Thank you.

Love,

Gori

[Guest guest]

phyllis wrote:

This is really fabulous looking at the infant mortality rates in the US today

is something

> like 26% of which over 98% is hospital births.

While the US does have a very high infant mortality rate for an overdeveloped

country, I don't think a quarter of babies are dying at birth. Maybe you're

thinking of where the US ranks internationally in terms of its infant mortality

rate. It used to be about 22nd a few years ago, but is now about 17th. In

other words, 16 other countries have lower mortality rates, and many of them are

less developed or underdeveloped countries.

>

>

>

> You spoke about planned homebirth beginning safe.. Many women give birth

> in Taxi cabs, on their livingroom or bathroom floors.....I even saw a woman

> in a video on TV from a surveillance camera in a convenience store in

> England who gave birth while she was standing in an isle looking for a

> product. The baby was born in her panty hose.

Often births like these do go smoothly, but one important point is that when

people compare morbidity and mortality rates of home and hospital birth,

sometimes home birth appears, by the numbers, to be less safe. That is b/c some

of these " studies " are including unplanned home births, which do have an

increased chance of problems, especially when there has been little prenatal

care. When studies are done, like the one by one of my profs (and my neighbour)

Holliday Tyson ( " Outcomes of 1001 Midwife-Attended Home Births in Toronto

1983-1988 " ), the results show that home births are indeed safer. Women and

babies were dying at birth 100 years ago on this continent b/c of things like

unsterilized equipment and attempted delivery of babies who were lying

transverse (very rare) or a complete placenta previa (very rare) or abruptio

placentae (also very rare). Women and babies don't genreally die fom these

things today, unless they don't have access to emergency facilities, b/c of

caregivers' ablity to diagnose them, and b/c we do have the medical technology

which we can rely on to save lives in these very rare cases. Today in North

America women VERY rarely die during childbirth, and babies do, sometimes b/c of

mismanagement, or perhaps overmanagement, of labour, and other such things - I'm

sure you can all rattle off a few things from the tops of your heads.

Unfortunately today it is often less clear what the cause is when something goes

wrong, b/c there are so many interventions that often unfold in a domino fashion

- you know - woman's set up with an IV and continuous EFM, stuck on her back,

given pitocin if she hasn't already been induced, then she needs an epidural,

now both drugs, plus the woman's immobility are causing baby to be distressed,

they screw an internal monitor into the baby's head, no doubt causing even more

distress, they turn the pit down, they turn it back up, epidural needs to be

topped up, more drugs to the baby, they stick the bay's head again to get a

blood gas reading to see if the baby's really in distress, which by now of

course she is, then they do a section. Of course, I just described one of the

worst case scenarios, but I can't tell you how many births I've been at that

progressed exactly like this. And I didn't even include the attempted forceps

and/or vacuum extraction. So who really knows why babies are dying at birth

today. It's certainly not b/c women aren't able to birth their babies. That's

my $2 worth!

>

>

[Guest guest]

i would do a c/s over a vax any day, in other words, I think it would be

safer to have your kids by c/s, than vaxed.

At 02:00 AM 11/28/00 -0500, you wrote:

>Okay, first of all I have nothing against having a homebirth......or a

>hospital birth. As a mother of 2 unvaxed kids who are extremely

>health......both of whom were born C-section after a combined 50 hrs of

>labor, I am beginning to tire of the constant slamming of

>C-sections.......my son and daughter are very health and no worse or

>better of than a homebirth or regular delivery. Now as for those of you

>who think c/s should never happen......i am unable to dialate....i have

>an incompetent cervix.....no matter what i tried......yes even herbal

>things nothing worked. So PLEASE enough with the slamming of c/s.

>Thank you.

>

> Love,

> Gori

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/00 10:15:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, sandym@... writes:

<<<And just because some people experience easy births does not mean it is

merely a matter of will or possible for everyone to do so. To me it is

similar to those who say it is a matter of will to cure cancer or any other

disease. While it is important to have a good attitude, and the mind/body

connection is profound, it is not merely a matter of will. We all need some

humility here. Implying that it was easy or possible for one person so it

should be easy or possible for another just adds a layer of pain and guilt

to those who have done everything possible to get well or give birth

naturally. Or whatever.>>>

i believe a lot of a woman's "success", in having the birth of her choice, is due in large part to how informed you are going in...how many people do absolutely nothing to prepare for a birth or maybe take a lamaze class?? most, i'd venture a guess. if we took the time to prepare ourselves with education and knowledge, i think there'd be lots more "successful" births out there. when you go in having no idea what to expect and no real idea of what you'd like, then you might get whatever happens or whatever the ob wishes. as in most things--the more knowledgeable and prepared you are, usually the better off you'll be... brigit

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/28/00 2:02:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, Goriana1@... writes:

<<< I am beginning to tire of the constant slamming of

C-sections.......my son and daughter are very health and no worse or

better of than a homebirth or regular delivery. Now as for those of you

who think c/s should never happen......i am unable to dialate....i have

an incompetent cervix.....no matter what i tried......yes even herbal

things nothing worked. So PLEASE enough with the slamming of c/s. >>>

gori,

i really don't think ANYONE is trying to imply that there is anything "wrong" with you for having a c/s...as in your case, it's a neccessity. but, there are a lot of women who opt for one, just to make it more convenient for them or because their dr. pressured them into it and in those cases, i must agree that it is not in the childs best interest. there are drugs involved etc. for someone to suggest that hoembirths are less intervened with and in general more natural then most hospital births and c/s, is not "slammming" anyone, i think they are just making a generalization--not intended at one one of us in particular...

brigit

...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/28/00 9:51:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, roylance@... writes:

<<,I am not sure my parents were vaxed. (born in 34 and 38)>>

i would say that your parents most likely had at least small pox and polio, is this right--anyone know? brigit

[Guest guest]

Doesn't a c/s make the hospital and the dr more money??

If I had it to do over again, I would not want a c/s but I was innocent on

this topic as I was on vax and I just trusted the dr!!!

But the c/s didn't hurt my kids nearly as much as the vax!!!

>

[Guest guest]

>>>

It is true that in today's miasm loaded, drug, vaccinated parents it is many

times hard for the uterus to function properly. The humans have been so

manipulated with drug and vaccine therapies that things are tremendously

tainted in comparison to 80 years ago...(4 generations back)..... This is

true....Even if your ancestors did not have difficulty with birthing,

conceiving or lactating, it does not mean that you will not have these

problems.>>>

***

This is something I think about a lot... How my vaccinations have effected

the children I have given birth to and the 4 of my children who are fully

vaxed (with the exception of chicken pox and anything new that comes along)

will effect theirs. I used to watch Dr. Who all the time and remember one

episode where the " mutts " or mutants were one group against those without

genetic mutations. (my mind wanders all over these days lately) but of

course, even in generations to come should we find this sort of thing no one

will take the responsibility.

Do my children have problems because I was vaxed and then they were on top

of that? I am not sure my parents were vaxed. (born in 34 and 38)

Does anyone know the Native American quote about thinking about the next 7

generations before doing something? I have been looking for it but can't

find it.

thanks-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/29/00 10:51:36 AM Central Standard Time,

1levy1@... writes:

<< According to " 's Obstetrics " (1997), the perinatal (20 weeks

gestation to

28 days postpartum) death rate in the US was 12.8/1000 in 1991, compared to

39/1000 in 1950. In 1994 the infant death rate (0 - 28 days) was

495/100,000,

which equals 4.95/1000.

>>

According to the CDC-HCHS figures (using your data that included 20wks

gestation to 28 days after birth), the figure is 25.7 in 1991. NOT including

pre-birth " deaths " , the number is 5.6 per 1000 for babies born live, but died

before 28 days. And in 1997 the figures are 22.4 and 4.8 respectively. Not

much of an improvement. Taking into consideration that many more women are

opting to abort when problems are found, I don't believe you can necessarily

give all the credit for the " better " rate to doctors or the medical

profession. In 1950, for instance, when doctors were in complete control of

the birth process, the figures are 86.3 and 20.5 respectively. I think, and

this is just my opinion, that these figures reflect the woman's initiative in

the last few years to take control back of HER experience. The rates did not

start to drop measureably until 1980, when " natural " birthing caught on and

LaMaze became the in- thing. And it still doesn't explain why the United

States, a supposedly forward thinking, very industrialized and

techno-advanced country (nbr 1 worldwide maybe?) is still ranked less than

2nd or 3rd in the infant mortality tables.