Re: Interesting Research findings

[Guest guest]

Don't get me wrong since I am a breastfeeding advocate. I nursed my first

son for 13 months and my second son for 26 months. My second is the one

with Autism.

However, knowing what I know now about the possibility of the mercury

fillings in my mouth (I have 10) could have attributed to my son's Autism, I

would have opted for the formula in a jiffy.

Interesting Research findings

>

>

>

> It is my hope that this type of research and awareness helps mothers

> achieve the best neurobehavioral, social, and overall healthy,

> outcomes of their pregnancies.

> Reem

>

> About developmental delays:

>

> Children breastfed for 9 months or more present significantly less

> suspected developmental delay (25.5%, measured by the Denver II test)

> than those breast fed for less than 1 month (42.4%). Barros

> FC. " Breast feeding, pacifier use and infant development at 12

> months of age: a birth cohort study in Brazil. " Paediatr Perinat

> Epidemiol 1997 Oct;11(4):441-50

>

> Regarding vaccinations, it seems that those infants who were

> breastfed longer (@12 mths.) are better protected from the harms of

> the vaccines (other factors of course taken into account) as well as

> from the disease that the vaccination provides immunization against -

> because their antibody level is higher than formula-fed babies:

>

> The antibody levels of immunized infants were significantly higher in

> the breastfed than the formula-fed group. These findings are strong

> evidence that breastfeeding enhances the active humoral immune

> response in the first year of life. Papst, H.F. , Spady,

> D.W. " Effect of Breast Feeding on Antibody Response to Conjugate

> Vaccine " . Lancet, 1990

>

> The breastfed group had significantly higher antibody levels than two

> formula-fed groups together. Breastfed infants thus showed better

> serum and secretory responses to perioral and parenteral vaccines

> than the formula fed, whether with a conventional or low-protein

> content. Van-Coric, M. " Antibody Responses to Parental & Oral

> Vaccines Where Impaired by Conventional and Low-Protein Formulas as

> Compared to Breast Feeding " . Acta Paediatr Scand 1990; 79: 1137-42

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Texas Autism Advocacy

> www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

>

> Unlocking Autism

> www.UnlockingAutism.org

>

> Autism-Awareness-Action

> Worldwide internet group for parents who have a

> child with AUTISM.

>

> SeekingJoyinDisability - Prayer support for those touched by Disability:

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SeekingJoyinDisability/

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I nursed both of mine too. I have fillings too.

However were you given any shots while pregnant? I

was given 7 weeks of monster shots- you know the kind

you see in the stein movies? I was given one a

week for 7 weeks early on for Progestrone- I have

none-zero progestrone.

Candis

--- ginam wrote:

> Don't get me wrong since I am a breastfeeding

> advocate. I nursed my first

> son for 13 months and my second son for 26 months.

> My second is the one

> with Autism.

>

> However, knowing what I know now about the

> possibility of the mercury

> fillings in my mouth (I have 10) could have

> attributed to my son's Autism, I

> would have opted for the formula in a jiffy.

>

>

> Interesting

> Research findings

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> > It is my hope that this type of research and

> awareness helps mothers

> > achieve the best neurobehavioral, social, and

> overall healthy,

> > outcomes of their pregnancies.

> > Reem

> >

> > About developmental delays:

> >

> > Children breastfed for 9 months or more present

> significantly less

> > suspected developmental delay (25.5%, measured by

> the Denver II test)

> > than those breast fed for less than 1 month

> (42.4%). Barros

> > FC. " Breast feeding, pacifier use and infant

> development at 12

> > months of age: a birth cohort study in Brazil. "

> Paediatr Perinat

> > Epidemiol 1997 Oct;11(4):441-50

> >

> > Regarding vaccinations, it seems that those

> infants who were

> > breastfed longer (@12 mths.) are better protected

> from the harms of

> > the vaccines (other factors of course taken into

> account) as well as

> > from the disease that the vaccination provides

> immunization against -

> > because their antibody level is higher than

> formula-fed babies:

> >

> > The antibody levels of immunized infants were

> significantly higher in

> > the breastfed than the formula-fed group. These

> findings are strong

> > evidence that breastfeeding enhances the active

> humoral immune

> > response in the first year of life. Papst, H.F. ,

> Spady,

> > D.W. " Effect of Breast Feeding on Antibody

> Response to Conjugate

> > Vaccine " . Lancet, 1990

> >

> > The breastfed group had significantly higher

> antibody levels than two

> > formula-fed groups together. Breastfed infants

> thus showed better

> > serum and secretory responses to perioral and

> parenteral vaccines

> > than the formula fed, whether with a conventional

> or low-protein

> > content. Van-Coric, M. " Antibody Responses to

> Parental & Oral

> > Vaccines Where Impaired by Conventional and

> Low-Protein Formulas as

> > Compared to Breast Feeding " . Acta Paediatr Scand

> 1990; 79: 1137-42

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Texas Autism Advocacy

> > www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

> >

> > Unlocking Autism

> > www.UnlockingAutism.org

> >

> > Autism-Awareness-Action

> > Worldwide internet group for parents who have a

> > child with AUTISM.

> >

> > SeekingJoyinDisability - Prayer support for those

> touched by Disability:

> >

>

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SeekingJoyinDisability/

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

No shots during pregnancy, but I was very nauseated the whole time and on IV

for 4 months for not being able to eat in both pregnancies.

No progesterone either.

Interesting

> > Research findings

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > It is my hope that this type of research and

> > awareness helps mothers

> > > achieve the best neurobehavioral, social, and

> > overall healthy,

> > > outcomes of their pregnancies.

> > > Reem

> > >

> > > About developmental delays:

> > >

> > > Children breastfed for 9 months or more present

> > significantly less

> > > suspected developmental delay (25.5%, measured by

> > the Denver II test)

> > > than those breast fed for less than 1 month

> > (42.4%). Barros

> > > FC. " Breast feeding, pacifier use and infant

> > development at 12

> > > months of age: a birth cohort study in Brazil. "

> > Paediatr Perinat

> > > Epidemiol 1997 Oct;11(4):441-50

> > >

> > > Regarding vaccinations, it seems that those

> > infants who were

> > > breastfed longer (@12 mths.) are better protected

> > from the harms of

> > > the vaccines (other factors of course taken into

> > account) as well as

> > > from the disease that the vaccination provides

> > immunization against -

> > > because their antibody level is higher than

> > formula-fed babies:

> > >

> > > The antibody levels of immunized infants were

> > significantly higher in

> > > the breastfed than the formula-fed group. These

> > findings are strong

> > > evidence that breastfeeding enhances the active

> > humoral immune

> > > response in the first year of life. Papst, H.F. ,

> > Spady,

> > > D.W. " Effect of Breast Feeding on Antibody

> > Response to Conjugate

> > > Vaccine " . Lancet, 1990

> > >

> > > The breastfed group had significantly higher

> > antibody levels than two

> > > formula-fed groups together. Breastfed infants

> > thus showed better

> > > serum and secretory responses to perioral and

> > parenteral vaccines

> > > than the formula fed, whether with a conventional

> > or low-protein

> > > content. Van-Coric, M. " Antibody Responses to

> > Parental & Oral

> > > Vaccines Where Impaired by Conventional and

> > Low-Protein Formulas as

> > > Compared to Breast Feeding " . Acta Paediatr Scand

> > 1990; 79: 1137-42

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Texas Autism Advocacy

> > > www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

> > >

> > > Unlocking Autism

> > > www.UnlockingAutism.org

> > >

> > > Autism-Awareness-Action

> > > Worldwide internet group for parents who have a

> > > child with AUTISM.

> > >

> > > SeekingJoyinDisability - Prayer support for those

> > touched by Disability:

> > >

> >

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SeekingJoyinDisability/

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I breastfed both of my girls, the oldest for 18 months and Rebeka, who has

autism, for 12 months.

I drank too much caffiene during midterms when I was pregnant with Rebeka and

her heartrate became erratic for a couple of days. I immediately stopped

drinking Mountain Dew! I had already quite smoking when I found out I was

pregnant. Rebeka was also an emergency c-section due to pre-eclampsia.

AnaBelle,

the oldest, was a vaginal birth, but they induced due to pre-eclampsia.

I also had a very bad short pregnancy between the girls that ended in a

miscarriage.

Another item to throw into the mix. My husband and I are opposite blood

types, He is O+ and I am A-. AnaBelle is a+, so I had to have the rh shot with

her. Rebeka is A- like me, so I didn't have to have another shot.

Also, I have read recently about research on methylisothiazolinone, a

chemical in shampoo that may affect babies if the mother uses when pregnant.

I'll

paste the article below. It showed up on my walmart.com home page.

Rebeka's mom

Check Your Shampoo for This Chemical When used by pregnant women, a chemical

commonly found in many brands of shampoo, hand lotions, and other personal

hair products may damage the developing nervous system of unborn babies, the BBC

News and HealthDayNews report of new research from the University of

Pittsburgh. <A

HREF= " http://webcenters.compuserve.com/wmconnect/pf/package.jsp?name=fte/lipstic\

k/lipstick & floc=wn-wm " >Here's the bad news: Cow brains may be an ingredient in

your lipstick. The

good news? The FDA is banning it. Well, sort of.</A> After conducting the test

on

rats, the researchers concluded that methylisothiazolinone (or MIT) can affect

the growth of some parts of developing nerve cells. Although they

acknowledged more study is needed, the researchers suggested there is a

potential that

everyday exposure to MIT could be harmful to human fetuses. MIT, used to kill

bacteria that grow near moisture or water, is also a common ingredient in

various personal care products, water cooling systems, and factories that use

water

for manufacturing. The National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., has

identified the following products as containing MIT: Head and Shoulders, Suave,

and Clairol shampoos, Pantene hair conditioner, and Revlon hair color. <A

HREF= " http://webcenters.compuserve.com/wmconnect/homerealestate/package.jsp?name\

=fte/makeupbacteria/makeupbacteria & floc=wn-wm " >Think

twice about indulging in a free makeover at the cosmetic counter. You could be

left with a colony of bacteria on your face. Find out why and what you can do

if you still want the makeover!</A> This study determined that prolonged

exposure

to low levels of MIT inhibited the development of nerve cell structures called

dendrites and axons, which play key roles in enabling one cell to transmit

signals to its neighbors, reports the BBC News. MIT appeared to block the

function of an enzyme that is activated when cells come into contact with each

other.

" This chemical is being used more and more extensively, yet there have been

no neurotoxicity studies in humans to indicate what kind and at what level

exposure is safe, " lead study author Elias Aizenman told the BBC. " I realize

it's

a big leap to suggest there may be a parallel between environmental exposure

and the noticeably higher rates of diagnosed childhood developmental

disabilities, but I would caution that based on our data, there very well could

be

neurodevelopmental consequences from MIT. " <A

HREF= " http://portal.compuserve.com/wrap/linker.asp?floc=wn-wm & ref=http://cssvc.h\

ealth.webmd.compuserve.com/content/article/29/1728_65257.htm?DEST=WebMD_contentS\

RC_csmain " >If you're pregnant, start reading

labels. MIT isn't the only chemical you should avoid. Women of reproductive age

should also avoid using certain nail polishes, perfumes, and hair sprays

containing THIS chemical.</A> " These findings are expected, " Gerald McEwen, vice

president

for science at the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, told

HealthDayNews. " MIT is a biocide. The purpose of it is to kill bacteria. You

would

expect it to be detrimental to any type of cells. " But he doubted that MIT posed

any danger to consumers in the low concentration found in household products.

The study findings were presented to the American Society for Cell Biology. <A

HREF= " http://webcenters.compuserve.com/wmconnect/news/story.jsp?id=2004120616590\

010821022 & dt=20041206165900 & w=PR & floc=wn-wm " >

The industry rebuts this study. Read the other side of the story.</A>