Sweet Homebirth (Video)
Midwives have existed since the
beginning of humanity. Why, then, is it so difficult to find a midwife in America?
What events occured between the mid 1800's until the present day which nearly made
midwifery extinct in America? And why are more families now looking into homebirth as a
refuge from hospital care?
Home Sweet Homebirth provides
|Off the Line- ARCHIVE
MARCH 24, 01:27 EST
Study: Solvents Cause Birth Defects
By ERIC FIDLER
Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO (AP) Women exposed to certain solvents on the job are 13 times more likely
to give birth to a baby with major defects, researchers reported today in the Journal of
the American Medical Association. The researchers also found an increased risk of
miscarriages, low birth weight, fetal distress and prematurity.
The study looked at what are called organic solvents,
which are used in many industries and trades. The chemicals found in paints,
pesticides, adhesives, lacquers and cleaning agents have been linked to a host of
physical and mental problems in adults.
Problems among women exposed to organic solvents were most
often found among those who worked in factories, as laboratory technicians, in graphic
design or printing and as chemists, according to the study.
The study was led by Dr. Sohail Khattak of the Hospital
for Sick Children in Toronto. Dr. Richard Schwarz, obstetrics consultant to the March of
Dimes, said the study was too small to draw definite conclusions about the risk of birth
defects. He also questioned its methods because the study group was selected from women
who had called with concerns about pregnancy. But he said: ``It's a red-flag kind of
study. We shouldn't ignore it. I suggest it requires a further look.''
The researchers looked at 125 pregnant women who had been
exposed to organic solvents during their first trimester between 1987 and 1996. They were
compared with 125 pregnant women not exposed to solvents.
Of the group exposed to solvents on the job, 113 gave
birth, eight suffered miscarriages and four had abortions. There were 13 major birth
defects and five minor ones among their babies; there were one major malformation and one
minor one among the women not exposed to solvents. Nine of the exposed group had premature
births, compared with three in the control group. Eight babies in the exposed group were
underweight, compared with three in the control group.
Sixteen women who were exposed for more than seven months
had labor with fetal distress that required resuscitation, while only one member of the
control group did.Khattak said such chemical exposure is avoidable. ``If proper
precautions are taken and the guidelines for proper handling followed, the risk is no
greater than that for the general population,'' he said.
Khattak said his was the first study to follow women
through their pregnancies rather than look at medical records.That, he said, explains why
its findings were so clear while previous studies on solvents and birth defects have been
Heather Walsh was nursing her four-month old baby
in a restaurant in Laramie, Wyoming when owner
Theresa Frausto told her to do it in the bathroom.
When Mother Walsh decided to leave the restaurant,
she told the owner she would tell the world Frausto's
restaurant wasn't breastfeeding friendly. The owner
pinched her, and was subsequently fined $170
Sheila Herman, Bismarck, North Dakota
British Medical Journal
1999;318:417 ( 13 February )
Advertising Standards Authority
finds against Nestlé
Annabel Ferriman , BMJ
The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against Nestlé over its
marketing of infant formula in developing countries. The complaint concerned a 1996
newspaper advertisement in which Nestlé claimed that it had marketed infant formula
"ethically and responsibly" both before and since the introduction of the
international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes in 1981.
The standards authority's ruling, which has not been officially released pending an appeal
by Nestlé, found that Nestlé could not adequately support its claim and that the
advertisement "went too far." The ruling was due to be published in the
authority's monthly report for February, but it has been held back because Nestlé has
lodged an appeal against the adjudication.
The appeal application is being considered by the chairman of the authority, Lord Rodgers
of Quarry Bank. The original complaint against Nestlé was brought by Baby Milk Action, a
non-profit organisation in Cambridge, which campaigns against inappropriate infant
Baby Milk Action objected to an advertisement in the Oxford Independent, a student
newspaper, that was published in 1996. The standards authority examined submissions from
Baby Milk Action and Nestlé for nearly two years.
The authority's council discussed the complaint at their meeting in January and,
"after extensive discussion and consideration," prepared its adjudication, which
was due to be published on 10 February.
Mike Brady, campaign coordinator for Baby Milk Action, said: "We first received a
draft ruling on our complaints from the [standards authority] in August 1997, five months
after we complained. Nestlé's challenges delayed the case progressing to the
[authority's] council until December 1998. The council finally made its ruling in January
1999. How long will Nestlé's appeal keep it from the public?"
A spokesman for the advertising authority said: "We reached a decision in January;
then Nestlé appealed. It is standard practice if we receive an appeal not to publish the
A spokeswoman for Nestlé said: "We don't think it is appropriate to comment as the
matter is under appeal."
Whooping Cough or Asthma?
When the rising rate of asthma in childhood is a major
pediatric problem, we must keep in mind long term
consequences of early vaccinations and the interaction of many vaccinations.
Esther Culpin studied 446 children in Christchurch, New Zealand, who had all been
breastfed exclusively for six months and weaned after one year. Of them, 243
had been immunized against whooping cough (pertussis) and 203 had not been
Of the immunized group, 26 (10.97%) had been diagnosed as asthmatic. Of the
non-immunized group, only 4 (1.97%) had asthma.
Another study was done with 274 pupils of the British Rudolf Steiner Schools.
There were 125 immunized versus 149 non-innunized students. Of those vaccinated
against whooping cough, 23 (18.4%) were asthmatic. Among the non-immunized kids,
only 6 (4.02%) were asthmatic.
Michel Odent, Primal Health Research,
59 Roderick Rd., London, UK NW3 2NP
Hepatitis B vaccine: Is it worth the
Interestingly enough, one of the most prestigious
schools, STANFORD UNIVERSITY,is NOT in agreement about vaccinating newborns against
Hepatitis B. In his teaching module, Eliseo Perez-Stable, MD, says the following:
"ACIP, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice
recommend universal immunization of all infants against HBV, regardless of risk.
Although this policy is moderately economically
attractive, many have criticized the unneeded vaccinations and the added pain of more
Bloom and colleagues completed a cost
effectiveness study on HBV vaccination strategies and concluded that the
strategy with the lowest cost per year of life saved was:
l) Screen all pregnant women
2) If HBsAg positive (if mother has Hepatitis B): vaccinate infant against HBV and
3) vaccinate all children at l0 years and re-vaccinate with a booster l0 years later.
I urge you to send this information on to others. I am committed to stopping the
routine vaccine of newborns throughout N. America. Babies' immune systems are not
developed enough to take this vaccine. I fear that this is a huge money-making
scheme on the part of the pharmaceutical companies and that it is going to have huge
health costs for the general public.
Contact at least one public health official in your community today and let them know
there is a campaign to end the vaccination of babies against Hepatitis B. When the
people lead, the leaders follow.
Yours in partnership to save one child's life,
Gloria Lemay, Private Birth Attendant, Mother, Grandmother, Uppity Woman
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Notice of Ontario Court (General Division)
Catherine Young ,
The Compleat Mother Magazine
and The Friends of Breastfeeding Society
Mead Johnson Nutritionals, makers of
at Frontenac County Court House
5 Court St., Kingston, Ontario
April 19, 1999
De Allen Lalonde, of Mead Johnson said
Catherine Young was "completely innacurate"
in publishing the statement that pregnant women
were given formula tins, in violation of the WHO Code,
at a Baby Steps Seminar,
by Mead Johnson employees.
Any women who received formula, coupons, pacifiers,
or formula flyers at a Baby Steps Seminar are asked
to contact Catherine Young.
email: [email protected]
post: RR3 Clifford Ontario Canada N0G 1M0
BELKIN REPORT Belkin Limited All Rights Reserved
November 8, 1998
Mindless Vaccination Bureaucracy
My daughter Lyla Rose Belkin died on September 16, 1998 at the age of five weeks, shortly
after receiving a Hepatitis B vaccine booster shot. The following comments are intended to
be a heads up to parents and potential parents about the risks of the Hepatitis B vaccine
(HBV), and a firsthand report questioning the scientific legitimacy of the vaccine
industry, which provides $800 million of annual revenue to Merck the company which
makes the Hepatitis B vaccine distributed in the US.
Lyla Rose Belkin was a lively, alert five-week-old baby when I last held her in my arms.
Little did I imagine as she gazed intently into my eyes with all the innocence and wonder
of a newborn child that she would die that night. She was never ill before receiving the
Hepatitis B shot that afternoon. At her final feeding that night, she was agitated and
feisty -- and then fell asleep and didnt wake up. The autopsy ruled out choking. A
swollen brain was the only abnormal finding. Most doctors I spoke to at the time said it
must have been Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), a catch-all diagnosis for
unexplainable childhood mortality. The first instinctive reaction in such a situation is
for parents to blame themselves. For many weeks, my wife and I agonized over what we might
have missed or could have done differently. Meanwhile, the logical part of my brain kept
returning to the obvious medical event that preceded Lylas death -- and that
internal voice kept asking the question could the Hepatitis B Vaccine that Lyla received
that afternoon have killed her? Most doctors I asked scoffed at that notion and said the
vaccine was perfectly safe. But I began to search around on the Internet and Medline and
discovered disturbing evidence of adverse reactions to this vaccine.
In the US, the Hepatitis B disease mainly infects intravenous drug users, homosexuals,
prostitutes and promiscuous heterosexuals. The disease is transmitted by blood, through
sex or dirty needles. How could a newborn baby possibly get Hepatitis B if the mother was
screened and tested negative, as my wife was? It is almost impossible. Unless a newborn
child is having unprotected sex or sharing needles with an infected junkie, it is
extremely unlikely to get the Hepatitis B disease. So then why are most US babies
inoculated at birth by their Hospital or Pediatrician with the Hepatitis B vaccine? That
is a question every parent should ask before getting this vaccination. Ive
discovered the answer is -- an unrestrained health bureaucracy decided it couldnt
get junkies, gays, prostitutes and promiscuous heterosexuals to take the Hepatitis B
vaccine -- so they mandated that all babies must be vaccinated at birth. Drug companies
such as Merck (reaching for new markets) were instrumental in pushing government
scientists to adopt an at-birth Hepatitis B vaccination policy, although the vaccine was
never tested in newborns and no vaccines had ever been mandated at birth before. It is
widely recognized that newborns have under-developed immune systems, which can be
overwhelmed or shocked.
My search for answers about a link between the Hepatitis B vaccine and my daughters
death led me to a Hepatitis B vaccine workshop on October 26th at the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), Institute of Medicine entitled Vaccine Safety Forum -- Neonatal Deaths.
The NAS was concerned enough about reports of Hepatitis B vaccine-related infant deaths
and adverse reactions to hold a special workshop on the subject. Doctors and scientists
flew in from all over the US and Europe to attend. I sat in the back and soaked it all up.
It was a real eye-opener. There were basically four constituencies represented: 1) Serious
scientists observing or presenting research studies. 2) Center for Disease Control (CDC)
pseudo-statisticians and FDA officials. 3) Merck and other corporate drug officials and 4)
Parents of vaccine-related dead or severely injured children.
The presentations included a study of Animal
Models of Newborn Response to Antigen Presentation, which showed that newborn immune
systems were undeveloped and strikingly different than those of adults. The message I
received was that immune response in a newborn to shocks such as being injected with a
vaccine was potentially unknown, since newborn T-Cells have a radically different behavior
then those of adults. Another presentation was Strategies for Evaluating the Biologic
Mechanisms of Hepatitis B Vaccine Reactions, in which vaccine researcher Dr. Bonnie Dunbar
of Baylor College related numerous Hepatitis B-vaccine related cases of nervous system
damage in adults, such as Multiple Sclerosis, seizures and blindness. On the more positive
side, the FDA presented a seemingly reassuring study from its Vaccine Adverse Effects
Reporting System (VAERS), which showed only 19 neonatal deaths reported since 1991 related
to Hepatitis B vaccination.
I found the VAERS study data to be completely deceptive. Since I was sitting in that room
and my daughter had died during their sample period and wasnt counted -- I wondered
why. In fact, the New York City Coroner called VAERS to report my daughters
Hepatitis B Vaccine-related
infant death and no one ever returned their call! What kind of reporting system
doesnt return the calls of the NY City Medical Examiner -- and how many other
reports were ignored? This is supposed to be the emergency 911 number for disasters such
as bad lots of vaccine that could poison thousands of other babies. With the personal
knowledge that the VAERS data was completely flawed, I sat in that room and listened in
amazement as CDC officials and Dr. Sharrar of Merck (their head of vaccine safety) made
disparaging comments about any possible risk from Hepatitis B vaccination, despite the
evidence just presented by impartial scientists.
I studied statistics and econometrics at UC Berkeley and have developed innovative methods
of applying probability to financial and economic data in my consulting business with some
of the largest financial institutions in the world. That training and experience qualifies
me to criticize the statistical legitimacy of the VAERS study, on which Sharrar of Merck
and the CDC pseudo-scientists based their pro-vaccination stance. Their comments were
scathingly dismissive of any
possible risk from the vaccine. But that VAERS study is not a legitimate sample of a data
set from which any conclusions about the larger population can be made. VAERS doesnt
return coroners calls, leading to the suspicion that deaths and adverse effects from
vaccination are woefully under-reported. To conclude that the Hepatitis B vaccine is safe
because VAERS only reports 19 deaths is scientific fraud. In fact, I obtained the raw data
from the VAERS system and found 54 reported SIDS cases after Hepatitis B vaccination in
just the 18 months from January 1996 -- May 1997. Thats almost 15 times as many
deaths per year as their own flawed study reported. There are 17,000 reports of adverse
reactions to Hepatitis B vaccine in the 1996-97 raw data. Clearly something is fishy about
VAERS. VAERS was set up by the FDA and CDC and is supposed to be monitored by vaccine
manufacturers. If there are 17,000 reports and VAERS doesnt even return the NY
Medical Examiners call, how many other deaths and injuries go unreported? I came
away from that NAS workshop with the distinct impression that Merck
and the CDC didnt know and didnt really want to know how many babies are being
killed or injured by Hepatitis B vaccination. This is a bureaucratic vaccination program
that is on auto-pilot flying into a mountain. The CDC bureaucrats have a vested interest
in the status quo. If there were 17,000 reports of a dangerous disease in a 18 month
period, the CDC would be all over the case. But when there are 17,000 reports of adverse
reactions to a vaccine the CDC advocates for "public health" -- the CDC
dismisses it as a coincidence. Merck makes $50 a shot from the three-shot series. Where do
you think the allegiance of their vaccine safety official Dr. Sharrar lies? He was by far
the most arrogant character at the workshop. Merck has sales of upwards of $800 million a
year from vaccines.
Vaccination can be a lifesaver if an epidemic is raging, but in this case the risk of
vaccination outweighs the risk of infants getting the disease. Surely, the hepatitis B
vaccine doesnt injure every child that gets it, but in some unknown number of cases,
it appears to be a death sentence and/or a nervous system toxin to innocent children who
are at no risk of getting the disease the vaccine is supposed to protect against. My
observations of Merck and CDC scientists at the Vaccine Safety Forum left me with the
distinct impression that they had absolutely no idea which babies might be killed or
injured by this vaccine. Furthermore, they used obviously flawed scientific data to
arrogantly steamroller any opposition to their power. Parents should be aware that the
Hepatitis B vaccine is not administered for the well-being of their child. Rather, it is
delivered by the long arm of some incompetent and mindless bureaucracy in the name of
stamping out a disease most babies cant possibly get. The Drug Company/CDC/FDA
alliance has really pulled the wool over the medical professions eyes with the
Hepatitis B vaccine. The American Pediatric Society bought the alliances sales pitch
and now recommends that all infants get this vaccine at birth. So now the first thing most
babies get in life is a shock to their immune system from a vaccine against a non-existent
risk of contracting Hepatitis B. Clearly, the interests of newborn babies were not
represented on the original panel that created this vaccination policy in 1991. This
vaccine has no benefit whatsoever for newborns, in fact it wears off and they will need
booster shots later in life when they actually could get exposed to the disease.
This is simply a case of ravenous corporate greed and mindless bureaucracy teaming up to
overwhelm common sense. Merck in particular has gone way over the edge with this
vaccination program. Ignoring and suppressing reports of adverse reactions to their
profitable Hepatitis B vaccine verges on criminal conduct. A major media organization will
soon present an investigative report on the issues discussed here. Nothing will ever bring
my lovely daughter Lyla back, but other needless deaths and injuries can be prevented if
this senseless Hepatitis B newborn vaccination program is halted. Please contact Belkin
Limited in New York City if you are aware of other infant deaths that may be related to
the Hepatitis B vaccine.
Michael Belkin can be reached at [email protected]
Diapers: The Bottom Line on Pollution
The disposable diaper accounts for 40% of landfill waste and each child who is diapered in
this manner will contribute one ton of waste in his or her first two years in diapers.
Although it is technically illegal to dump untreated human waste into a landfill, this is
done regularly with Pampers and Huggies. Cloth diapers are superior for hygiene
(less diaper rash) and as an indicator that your child is well hydrated (which is not easy
to tell with newborns in plastic diapers.
The hyperbole and rhetoric which espouses the use
of disposables and tries to indicate the 'environmental damage' of cloth diapers (like
water use in a washing machine) means nothing when you consider: "'What type of
diaper would you choose if you had to keep the garbage you output, in your
livingroom?" I guarantee that under-enlightened, convenience-loving Americans and
Canadians would choose cloth diapers hands down. And did you know a cloth diapered baby
will potty train up to six months earlier than a paper diapered one? And wet diapers hung
on a clothes horse will
eliminate the need for a vaporiser in dry weather?
Nicole Miller, B.A. B.Ed. Toronto, Ontario
(With two babes, 2.5 and 1.5 both lovingly raised in cloth diapers).
Diet and Menstrual Pain
Doctors at Georgetown University Medical Center
have completed a groundbreaking study using foods to heal menstrual pain and premenstrual
syndrome. Thirty-seven women have completed the trial.
Previous research has shown that greatly reducing the fat content of the diet lowers the
amount of estrogen in the blood by 30 percent or more, which should reduce the changes in
the uterus over a woman's monthly cycle. In the new study, each woman followed a
very-low-fat, vegetarian diet for two
months, and her pain and other symptoms were compared to their pre-study levels. A
separate part of the study tested the effects of a nutritional supplement.
About two-thirds of the participants benefited from the diet change. For about one in
three, the pain reduction was profound.
"Up until now, doctors have been treating menstrual pain with drugs such as ibuprofen
and birth control pills to manage premenstrual and menstrual pain," said principal
investigator Neal D. Barnard, M.D. "Nutrition gives many women a much better
The participants met as a group once a week during the study to learn how nutrition
affects hormones and pain and how to follow a vegetarian diet at home, work, and
Research dietitian Patricia Bertron, R.D., says, "The diet change felt like a major
one for the first week or two. But as the participants started to feel better, lose
weight, and find their pain diminishing, they came to embrace the new way of eating."
Indeed, many participants refused to give up the diet entirely when the study design
required them to move on to the supplement phase.
(From Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine)
Banning the Promotion of Formula
Federal legislation to curb industry marketing practices in the sale of infant
formula and to enforce a World Health Assembly code banning the promotion of formula was
called for by a Cornell University physician and nutritional scientist. Mothers who don't
breastfeed, he claims, endanger their babies' health.
Michael Latham, M.D., professor of international nutrition at Cornell, said he is urging
Washington to act to curb what he called "aggressive" marketing and promotion of
infant formula in the United States and abroad, which, he said, "violates a basic
human right of mothers and babies to give and
receive breastmilk. This violation, which is largely ignored, is harmful to the health,
nutritional status, and even the survival of infants all over the world," he said at
the National Breastfeeding Policy Conference, sponsored by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services, held
last month in Washington, D.C.
"The negative impact that the marketing and promotion of infant formula has on the
health of babies in this country can be compared to the deleterious effects that cigarette
marketing has on the health of teens and adults." Latham noted that in the 1970s a
public outcry over the role of industry in the decline of breastfeeding, accompanied by an
increased understanding of the harmful effects of bottle-feeding in developing countries,
resulted in the World Health Assembly issuing the International Code of Marketing of
Breastmilk Substitutes in 1981. The code prohibits advertising to the
public, free samples to mothers, gifts or personal samples to health workers, and images
idealizing formula feeding.
The code, which can be enforced only by national governments, is intended not to restrict
women's choice, Latham said, but to enable them to make a fully informed choice, free of
industry pressure. Only one country, the
United States, voted against the code. Although Washington has since supported the code at
the international level, Latham said that the government has done little to support
national breastfeeding initiatives or to enforce the code nationally by passing
legislation to restrict certain marketing practices and to close loopholes.The negative
health effects of not breastfeeding are finally being recognized, Latham said.
The conference sought to establish, for the first time, a national breastfeeding policy.
Diane Wiessinger, an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant and who
co-authored the presentation, reported that about 60 percent of U.S. mothers breastfeed
their babies at birth, but that
only about 20 percent of infants still receive any breastmilk by six months of age.
"Although breastfeeding has increased in recent years, the gap between scientific and
public understanding of the risks associated with not breedfeeding is still very
large," she said. According to Latham, widely documented risks of not breastfeeding
include reduced IQ, compromised
psychological development, greater rates of ear infections, diarrhea, obesity, allergies
and even certain life-threatening illnesses and diseases.
The influential American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement in December of
1997 strongly supporting breastfeeding, Latham said.
"Yet, infant formula manufacturers spend billions of dollars marketing to health care
professionals because each mother who bottle-feeds represents $800 in sales," he
added. "As a result of aggressive and pervasive marketing of infant formula, we have
lost a breastfeeding culture in this country in
just a few generations.
Latham also went on to criticize the medical profession, which may unknowingly helped the
formula industry by advocating to foster bottle-feeding as superior to breastfeeding.
"The health profession has worked, largely unwittingly, along with the formula
industry to render breastfeeding both superior and too serious -- and thus to make it seem
unattainable and undesirable. Instead, we need to promote breastfeeding as normal and
healthful for mother and baby and as an
expected part of the everyday life of the average human being. Not to do so is hazardous
to the health and well-being of the nation's infants," added Latham, who also offered
numerous recommendations to promote breastfeeding.
(From National Breastfeeding Policy Conference)
Catherine vs. the Post
Below are a number of correspondences
between Cahterine Young and the powers-that-be in the Canadian Post Office.
Initial Email from Catherine
Canada Post email:
Hello President of Canada Post George Clermont and anyone else concerned:
Canada Post recently produced a 90 cent stamp in the Art Canada series, of the painting
byBruno Bobak, called Farmer's Family.
Unfortunately, the farmer is holding a baby bottle.
Canada has adopted the World Health Organization Code,
and section 3 states clearly: no bottles or pacifiers are
to be advertised to pregnant and lactating women.
The 90 cent stamp violates the WHO code.
and must be removed from public sale at once.
Canada Post Chairman and CEO Georges Clermont:
Canada Post email:
The Friends of Breastfeeding Society,
RR#3 Clifford, Ontario, Canada, N0G 1M0
email: [email protected]
Reply from Jim Philips
From: stampmk[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: November 5, 1998 2:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bruno Bobak stamp
Attention Catherine Young:
Dear Catherine: I have recieved your message to the President of Canada Post
regarding the bottle on the Masterpieces of Canadian Art stamp featuring a painting by
Stamps are not advertisments! They are a means paying postage for the service of
delivering mail. Commemorative stamps, such as the one in question commemorate
Candian history, culture, etc and art. Bruno Bobak's The Farmers Family is a
Canadian work of art that just happens to have a bottle within the painting and thus the
The bottle is not a baby bottle, or at least not a human baby bottle, but rather a bottle
for the pig, also on the stamp. The baby is in fact breast feeding and the male
figure is holding a bottle to feed the pig. As far as we know the World Health Organation
does not cover bottle feeding and pigs.
Manager, Stamp Marketing
Canada Post Corporation
Answer from Catherine
The 90 cent stamp that is so offensive shows no pig.There is a man, a woman, a baby, and a
baby bottle held by theman, against the woman's neck.
For whatever inane reason you chose this piece to commemorate art, you are indeed
violating the WHO code, and this stamp must be retracted.
I grew up on a pig farm, and occassionally we did feed orphan pigs artificially. I assure
you, in those instances we used a wine bottle and a long rubber teat. We never used
a baby bottle, which would never satisfy a beast.
Please read following email, and don't treat us like fools.
Chair, The Friends of Breastfeeding Society
RR#3 Clifford, Ontario, Canada N0G 1M0
Rebuttal Letter from the Director, Stamp Products, Canada Post
To The Friends of Breastfeeding Society:
Re: concerns about the "Farmer's Family" stamp by Bruno Bobak. The image
depicted on the stamp shows the mother preparing to breastfeed her child, while the farmer
is preparing to feed the baby pig from the bottle. The artist Mr. Bobak,
explained the bottle is not intended for the human baby. The Masterpiece of Canadian
Art stamp is, in fact, supportive of your organization's point of view.
Director, Stamp Products, Canada Post
Georges Clermont, Director, Canada Post
Catherine's rebuttal to the rebuttal
Dear Micheline, Bruno, and Georges Clermont,
Director of Canada Post:
Next time, get your art from a mother. The only nipple visible on this stamp, is the
one on the dreaded baby bottle, in the farmer's hand under his partner's ear. ( Orphan
piglets fed artificially are usually given a wine bottle with a rubber teat, to satisfy
their appetite.) By showing the baby bottle so prominently, and having the recipient
pig hidden, your message, Canada Post, violates The World Health Organization Code of
marketing of breastmilk substitutes, which Canada has endorsed:
1. Aim: The Code aims to protect and promote breastfeeding.
2. Scope: The Code applies to breastmilk substitutes when marketed or otherwise
3.Advertising: No advertising of formula, bottles, or pacifiers to the public. No
promotion of products, no product displays.
4. Information: Information and materials must explain the benefits of breastfeeding, the
health hazards associated with bottle feeding and costs of using infant formula.
Please remove the offending stamp from tax payer funded postal facilites. Do it because
you now know that when babies are breastfed one year, their mommy's are 40% less likely to
be victims of breastcancer, and in Canada, one in eight women get that bad news. (
Those that breastfeed two or more years are 66% less likely to call breastcancer their
And do it because babies who are breastfed one year are going to grow up to be 8.3 IQ
points higher than if they were fed another substance in Bruno Bobak's bottle. Or do it to
protect future babies from cancer, diabetes, diarrhea, ear infection, emotional neglect,
sudden infant death syndrome, urinary tract infection, tonsillectomy, appendicitis,
wheeze, colic, allergies, coeliac, hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, ulcerative colitis,
crohn's disease, auto-immune diseases of the thyroid, respiratory tract illness, lymphoid
hypertrophy, chronic liver disease, high cholestrol, bacteremia, meningitis and the
usually fatal bottlefeeding diseaese: necrotizing enterocolitis.
Or do it because breastfeeding moms will be protected from ovarian cancer, osteoporosis
Do it, because Canada Post has the capability to reach coast to coast, to Grandparents and
schoolchildren and pregnant parents and yep, breastfeeding moms. Do it, because we're
living in tough times, when our medical system is on the verge of collapse and although we
never could afford the sicknesses associated with Bruno's bottles, we now, more than ever,
cannot. Do it because our family support systems caved even before our hospitals, and
young parents need direction to parent well.
Do it, Canada Post, because you care.
Catherine Young, Chairmother,
The Friends of Breastfeeding Society
RR#3 Clifford, Ontario, Canada, N0G 1M0
On Oct 7th, at 11am, Sesame Park aired a song that goes like this: "You have to
eat, to grow up big and healthy" and showed a three month old baby bottlefeeding.
That is a violation of the World Health Code which Canada
adopted: point three__no advertising of breastmilk substitutes,
bottles, pacifiers or baby medicine to pregnant and lacatating
The aim of the code is "To protect and promote breastfeeding
by ensuring appropriate marketing and distribution of breastmilk
Help CBC rethink their typical bottle-feeding culture mindset that
lumps babies and bottles together and stop them from directing that particular twist
toward young minds.Please send them an email with your view on how babies are fed.
CBC's email is : [email protected]
The Friends of Breastfeeding Society
Editor, The Compleat Mother Magazine
When Marilyn Milos of NOCIRC asked Dr. Thomas Wiswell, one of the U.S.'s major
advocates of circumcision, what it would take to change his mind about circumcision he
said, "A million dollars!"
When she asked a retired pediatrician, who claims to have done 10,000 circumcisions, if he
has changed his mind, he said, "If I changed my mind, I would have to put a gun to my
For a basic information packet on circumcision/genital integrity, send $5 and a SASE to:
NOCIRC, P.O. Box 2512, San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512
Parents Sue Over Needles
Thousands of Australian parents are considering suing the Federal Government and state
governments for vaccinating children without their consent. About 50 have already
started legal action, including some parents whose children had adcverse reactions to
vaccines. Parents claimed they were not informed of the risks.
Compensation could run to tens of thousands of dollars for individual cases, predicted
Darwin litigation lawyer, Jonathan Nolan. Mr. Nolan, who claims to be the only
lawyer in Australia acting for parents on this issue, said he had been swamped with calls
since the Federal Government's vaccination drive began six months ago.
He said families from Victoria, Sourth Australia, the Northern Territory, New South
Wales and Tasmania had started legal action, with the first case sue in the Federal Court
on October 2.
Several families, including one from Melbourne, claim their children became autistic and
two families claim their children were hospitalised for a week after being vaccinated.
Other said their children had been jabbed with re-used needles, risking blood-borne
infections or that their attempts to raise their child naturally had been thwarted.
"There are some children it is very inappropriate to vaccinate" said Mr
Nolan. Most (parents) are not so concerned about the money, they just want to warn other
The Federal Government's vaccination drive includes a bid to vaccinate 1.75 million
children against measles, mumps and rubella by November. resident of the Australian
Vaccination Network, Meryl Dorey, said parents were being bullied into agreeing to the
injection without being told all the facts.
'One teacher asked a child why his father did not care that he was going to die from
measles because he was not vaccinated," she said. "Our phones have been running
hot with calls from parents whose children are being harassed and discriminated against in
The AVN is taking the Federal Government to the Human Rights Commossion for alleged
human rights breaches against parents and children during the vaccination process. A
spokesman for federal Health Minister, Michael Wooldridge, declined to
Meryl W. Dorey,
The Australian Vaccination Network, Inc.
PO Box 177 02 6687 1699 Phone
Bangalow NSW 2479 02 6687 2032 FAX
[email protected] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~shotinfo
Any information obtained here is not to be construed as medical OR legal advice. The
decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone.
"THE GREAT AMERICAN MILK-IN"
a new bill being introduced next week, and HR 3531, the New Mothers' Breastfeeding
Promotion and Protection Act
Here is an update on what's happening with the legislation:
1. BREASTFEEDING IN PUBLIC
Many of you have asked why the federal government cannot pass laws ensuring the right of
women to breastfeed in public (as several states have done). The response until now
has been that the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over this area.
However, we have been hearing about cases in which women were asked (or told) to stop
breastfeeding while they were on federal property. One instance involved a federal
park, another involved the U.S. Capitol building, and yet another involved the Holocaust
Museum! In light of these events, Rep. Maloney has written legislation to ensure a
woman's right to breastfeed in public on any federal property (where she and her child
have the right to be). The tentatively-titled "Right to Breastfeed Act"
does not yet have a number. It will get a number assigned when the bill gets
introduced. To gain publicity for this bill, on Friday, September 25, 1998, at 12:00
noon, we will host the "Great American Milk-In" where we'll invite you to come
and show your support for breastfeeding moms.
Everyone is invited to join us on the steps of the U.S. Capitol Building. (Come to the
South East corner of the building, as there are steps all around the Capitol) The moms who
were asked to stop breastfeeding on federal property will tell their stories. Media
is expected, so a good showing will make a big difference! Children of all ages,
posters, banners, signs, etc., and, of course, breastfeeding moms are all welcome.
2. COPIES OF H.R. 3531
For a copy of the bill, as well as other information about this issue (statistics, bill
summary, press release), please visit our website at: www.house.gov/maloney/breast.htm
Much more information will soon be posted on our website, including a list of
endorsements, international statistics, a list of state laws on breastfeeding, more
detailed summaries of the legislation, and more. Please be patient. We'll get
the information updated as soon as possible. In the meantime, we hope to see you on
Friday, September 25 at 12 noon for the Great American
Milk-In at the U.S. Capitol.
Hospitals are Dangerous
Dissecting the time patients stay in hospital
saves money and reduces the risk of patients
developing infections by as much as 200 per
cent, a ground-breaking Australian study shows.
Surgery patients who spent an average of 3.2
days at Sydney's Prince of Wales Hospital had
a 16.3 per cent incidence of wound infections.
It was cut to 5.2 per cent for patients who spent
an average of 2.2 days.
"Hospitals are dangerous places," Dr Gideon
Caplan, author of the study, said on labour
day. "They collect the worst bacteria."
The Medical Journal of Australia
Cigarette, Formula Ads The Same
Advertising formula is not the same as advertising
diapers or playpens. It is akin to advertising
cigarettes, banned in Canada and many countries.
Because cigarettes are bad for your health (like
formula); because they are addictive (like formula);
because they are targetted towards vulnerable
people (tobacco towards children, formula towards
new mothers who are trying to do the best for their
babies, and infants who cannot defend themselves
from the advertising).
The fact that many mothers use formula is beside
the point. Many use formula, often, because
they already get too much advertising from too
many people, including health professionals.
Advertising of formula performs no useful function
for the target, as basically all formulas are the same.
For particular health concerns, it should be a health
professional who should be looking at options with
The WHO code bans advertising of formula to the lay
public. It does not seem to be generally known that
the formula companies were involved the development
of the WHO code. They thus agreed that direct
advertising was unethical. All countries of the world
also agreed that it was unethical. Just because they
don't do anything about it (with few exceptions), does
not make that advertising ethical.
Jack Newman, MD, FRCPC
newman <[email protected]>
Day Care Rotavirus Poop
Daycare enrolled babies often transmit rotavirus to each other "via fecal-oral
contact" says William Sears, MD, contributing editor of Parenting, in the July issue.
Peak season of the poop-to-mouth illness is November through April, though anytime can be
rotavirus time for feces-sharing tots. Diarhea, vomiting, and fever are the symptoms, and
usually clear up in five days. Some infected children become dehydrated; 20 died last year
in the US.
Breastfeeding mothers who use daycare needn't worry: a protein in breastmilk can
inhibit the virus. For those who aren't breastfeeding and don't think eliminating other
baby's fecal viruses from their own baby's diet is appropriate, the Rotasheild vaccination
will soon be available to inject into the baby at two, four and six months age.
Unfortunately, only 50 percent of injected babies will have Rotovirus immunity.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether children older than six months will benefit at all,
since they should have developed a natural immunity by then.
In the meantime, Parenting advises parents to bleach the change table three
times a week and make sure the daycare of choice has a hand-washing policy to lessen the
chance of another daycare baby's poo being your baby's first solids.
(Ed. Or breastfeed baby at home and enroll a
Rotashield injected Dr Sears in the daycare centre with a disinfected copy of Parenting,
after washing his hands.)
Danger : Groceries
Over one million acres of genetically-engineered soybean crops are now being harvested,
posing a serious health risk to consumers. Gene tinkering allows the crop to be doused
with additional toxic chemicals. A worldwide boycott of biotech which contain
genetically-altered soybeans or corn has been called for:
Draft Salad Dressings
Quaker Oats Corn Meal
Green Giant Harvest Burgers
McDonalds French Fries
Karo Corn Syrup
Alive Magazine, #170
Breastfeeding and Brains
by John Horwood and David M. Fergusson
Christchurch School of Medicine, Christchurch, New Zealand
A study of 1000 New Zealand children over an 18 year course Method. During
the period from birth to age 1 year, information was collected on maternal
breastfeeding practices. Over the period from 8 to 18 years, sample members were
assessed on a range of measures of cognitive and academic outcomes including measures of
child intelligence quotient; teacher ratings of school performance; standardized tests of
reading comprehension, mathematics, and scholastic ability; pass rates in school leaving
examinations; and leaving school without qualifications.
Results. Increasing duration of breastfeeding was associated with consistent
and statistically significant increases in:
1) intelligence quotient assessed at ages 8 and 9 years;
2) reading comprehension, mathematical ability, and scholastic ability assessed during the
period from 10 to 13 years;
3) teacher ratings of reading and mathematics assessed at 8 and 12 years;
4) higher levels of attainment in school leaving examinations.
Children who were breastfed for 8 months had mean test scores that were between
0.35 and 0.59 SD units higher than children who were bottle-fed. Mothers who
elected to breastfeed tended to be older; better educated; from upper socioeconomic status
families; were in a two-parent family; did not smoke during pregnancy; and experienced
above average income and living standards. Additionally, rates of breastfeeding increased
with increasing birth weight, and first-born children were more likely to be breastfed.
Regression adjustment for maternal and other factors associated with breastfeeding
reduced the associations between breastfeeding and cognitive or educational outcomes.
Nonetheless, in 10 of the 12 models, fitted duration of breastfeeding remained a
significant predictor of later cognitive or educational outcomes. After adjustment for
confounding factors, children who were breastfed for 8 months had mean test scores that
were between 0.11 and 0.30 SD units higher than those not breastfed.
Conclusions. It is concluded that breastfeeding is
associated with small but detectable increases in child cognitive ability and educational
achievement. These effects are 1) pervasive, being reflected in a range of measures
including standardized tests, teacher ratings, and academic outcomes in high school; and
2) relatively long-lived, extending throughout childhood into young adulthood.
Crying Over You
Some people's babies cry more than others, said Ronald Barr of McGill University in
Montreal. Comparing data collected from a group of breastfeeding mothers in The
Netherlands with that from a group of !Kung San mothers in Botswana, he found the San
babies cried half as much as the Dutch babies.
The difference, Barr said, is probably due to the two cultures' different feeding
routines. San mothers breastfeed their infants in a "continuous" fashion -
giving them feed for a minute or two every 15 minutes. Western mothers feed their babies
less frequently, but for longer. In addition, San infants are carried in slings, and are
in constant contact with their mothers.
Barr also studied a large group of American mothers in the Boston area, some of whom
were strong proponents of frequent breastfeeding, and others who were not. The babies who
were fed frequently did not cry as much as babies who were fed less often, he found. Barr
has evidence that this difference is due both to the psychological calming effect of
breastfeeding and to the more frequent supply of nutrients.
Barr's findings add to a growing body of literature suggesting that the familiar
problems of child-rearing - endless crying and battles to establish regular sleep patterns
- are not as ubiquitous as was once thought. For instance, another researcher has found
that Dutch babies sleep more hours per day and cry less when awake than American babies -
perhaps because Dutch culture stresses the importance of routine and rest in
child-rearing, whereas American culture stresses the importance of sensory stimulation.
Neither approach is necessarily superior.
"I think what my studies show is that we have lots of room for maneuver when
deciding what to do about breastfeeding," said Barr. "Chances are, infants in
our society are going to cry a heck of a lot more than they do in the !Kung San. If
mothers want to try feeding more often, it's a perfectly appropriate thing to do."
Raspberry Leaf Tea
Raspberry has long been established as a remedy for dysentry and diarrhea. It is mild,
pleasant, soothing. It will remove cankers from mucous membranes, at the same time toning
the tissue involved, be it of the throat (as a gargle) or alimentary tract. It is much
used in relief ofurethral irritation and is soothing to the kidneys, urinary tract, and
Raspberry is a useful solution for the uterus and to stop hemorrhages. Raspberry leaf
tea can be taken freely before and after confinement; it will strengthen and prevent
miscarriage and render parturition lesslaborious. The infusion will also relieve painful
menstration and aid the flow; if too abundant it will decrease without abruptly stopping
In Russia, Malina covers vast areas of the country and is employed for colds, coughs
and difficulty breathing.
A Handbook of Native American Herbs, by Alma R Hutchens,
Shambhala Publications, 1992
Warning: Doctors at Birth
In Canada, an obstetrician is not morally,
ethically, or legally obligated to inform the mother of any risk or side-effect of any
treatment deemed "common." With induction rates now soaring to 35% in many
hospitals, this is "common." One mother became a quadriplegic as a result of
having an epidural. She lost her lawsuit because the 1 in 1,000 did not need to be
disclosed to her.
One mother spent 15 years in court and finally
won $20,000 (meant for lifetime assistance) for her daughter who became permanently blind,
crippled and brain-damaged when the amnio needle pierced the umbilical cord in utero. No
one mentioned risk. The award didn't cover her lawyer's bill.
A young mother in Calgary spent $15,000 on a
lawsuit against the hospital that discharged her with her placenta intact. She has had
five operations to correct the problem, is in pain and will never hav another baby. The
lawyears have dropped the case, sighting an inability fo find experts to testify.
I am carrying on the inquiry at the College of
Physicians and Surgeons regarding my unnecessary and dangerous birth induction, but have
dropped any idea of a lawsuit. I would like to punch out my obstetrician.
Gail Dahl, 607 Lake Linnet Cres. S.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2J 2J3
To order online with your credit
please go to our Subscription