I don't typically get into vax news, preferring instead to stick to research and make informed choices on a vax-by-vax basis and letting others do the same. And I am not a big fan of 'scare tactics' in the media (on either side of the issue). But my husband is currently overseas on a submarine with the Navy for several months and there are MANY sailors becoming ill from a variety of mandated H1N1 vaccinations. So this much I know is true. There have also been confirmed deaths (at least one officer that I know of). We should NOT be mandating a vaccine that has NOT been adequately tested. And it certainly should not be given to children. I do not wish to have my husband or my children used as guinea pigs for this particular trial, and I am sure there are many other parents out there who feel the same way.
Doctor will NOT give H1N1 vaccination to his children:
The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function. The complex interaction between the sensitivity of the corpuscular receptor-deficient glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the male prepuce is required for normal copulatory behavior. ~Dr. Christopher Cold, M.D. and Dr. John Taylor, M.D.
We have found that most fully informed parents do not wish to amputate the prepuce organ from their newborn son for several reasons - one being the excruciating pain it causes a baby at a time when baby's sensitivity is heightened and he is new to the world, and a second being the many functions the foreskin serves on the body of all mammals on earth (male and female).
The two most common types of circumcision surgery in North America are the Gomco and Plastibell. Recently, many parents have been told that the Plastibell style of circumcision surgery does not hurt. This is far from the truth. Cutting occurs in exactly the same manner as other prepuce (foreskin) amputations, but it is a plastic bell used to cover the glans (head) and separate the prepuce from the glans so it can be severed. Rather than cutting high up on the shaft as in some amputations, the person cutting with the Plastibell typically cuts further toward the glans, and leaves the bell and string in place to sever the remaining part of the prepuce.
Even if circumcision was entirely pain free, to amputate the prepuce would still be removing a healthy, vital, fully functioning organ from a non-consenting person. We forever change the sexuality of this future adult man and his partner. All human beings - male and female - have the basic human right of genital integrity. They have a right to all their functioning, healthy body parts. A man (even as a newborn) has a right to his whole, intact penis, to do with as he pleases.
In the documentary, CUT: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision, it is noted that a man's sexual life without the prepuce may still be great -- but it is as though his sexuality is an orchestra missing the entire strings section. The music just isn't the same. It cannot be. The #1 organ necessary for full functioning was taken from him. Men (and women) ought to have their full 'orchestra' intact.
Studying this topic as a young grad student, I was continuously floored with the amount of information and research we do have that is not shared openly with the general public (or taught as a standard in medical school). Even those who will be working in obstetrics, gynecology, or pediatrics are rarely well versed in research of the prepuce if they have completed their training in the United States. As part of my research, I reviewed top used medical anatomy textbooks and found the prepuce organ to be missing from most of them. It is also rarely examined (or present) on cadavers practiced upon in medical schools across the nation.
When parents are asked "do you want your son circumcised" they answer 'yes' or 'no' without ever being fully informed of what that question entails. Their doctor may not even be fully informed on the topic. (Side note: If you work on a labor and delivery floor and are the one posing this question to parents, you might consider rephrasing the question to accurately represent these new, perfect, little babies: "Do you wish to keep your son intact?" and make sure parents at your hospital have access to full and accurate information before making their decision).
It is crucial that we spread this wealth of knowledge. Rarely is there a body organ that comes fully formed and functioning at birth on all mammals (male and female alike) that is not also important and useful throughout life. Even the appendix has important functions that we were once in the dark on. The prepuce, however, is an organ that we do know a lot about -- we just have to start talking about it!
The following is an excerpt from the outstanding book, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision, written by Dr. Fleiss and Dr. Hodges (two experts on the prepuce who have studied the subjects of intact care and circumcision for the past 30+ years). Fleiss is a practicing (Jewish) pediatrician in Los Angeles, and Hodges has served at Yale University for many years.
After Fleiss and Hodges' teachings, there is a video clip below in which Marilyn Milos (founder of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers) discusses some of the ins-and-outs of the functions of the foreskin. Her input adds to the reading by Fleiss and Hodges in a manner that is easy to understand and thorough.
The foreskin has a great number of important protective, sensory, and sexual functions.
The Foreskin in Babyhood
Babies are born perfect. Every part of your baby’s body is there for a purpose. Every part of your baby’s body helps him grow, develop, learn, and experience our wondrous world. The foreskin is one of these special body parts. In fact, the foreskin is an important body part throughout the entire life of the male.
The foreskin adds more to the penis than just increased sexual functioning and pleasure. It keeps your baby’s penis safe, warm, clean, and moist. It allows the baby’s glans (head) to complete its development normally. The glans is meant to be an internal organ, covered and protected from the outside world.
No attempt should be made to retract the foreskin before the penis has fully developed. Premature retraction causes the glans to become dry, hard, and scarred. The foreskin protects the glans from injury simply by covering it. The first person to retract the foreskin and expose the glans should be the child himself, and only when the child is ready to do so. It is best that parents avoid concerning themselves with this natural process. All by themselves, little boys will make the discovery that their foreskin can be retracted.
Intact vs. Circumcised Newborn Baby Top Right: Circumcised by Plastibell Bottom Right: Circumcised by Gomco Photos shared for educational purposes only.
Protection
Just as the eyelid protects the eye, the foreskin protects the glans, keeping its surface soft, moist, warm and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands – glands that produce the moisturizing oil that our skin needs to stay healthy.(2) The foreskin produces the moisturizer that keeps the surface of the glans glistening, smooth, soft, and a deep healthy red or purple color.
The foreskin will protect the entire penis when accidents happen, such as contusions, abrasions, lacerations, and burns. The foreskin is the first layer – a double layer – of defense from injury to the rest of the penis.
Self-Cleansing Function
The intact penis is naturally clean. The common view of the penis or the foreskin as ‘dirty’ is unscientific and irrational. The penis, however, does provide an entry point into the body, and it is exposed to foreign microbes every day, especially during sexual intercourse. The immunological functions of the foreskin and the self-cleansing functions of the penis protect the body from harm.
Every time a genitally intact male urinates, the urine stream flushes out the urethra and foreskin of foreign microbes that may have strayed inside. In healthy individuals, urine is sterile and has a disinfectant quality. Researchers have demonstrated that the swirling action of urine as it rushes through the foreskin flushes it out effortlessly and naturally.(3) This function is especially efficient when the foreskin is long and the preputial orifice is narrow.
Though urine passes through the foreskin every day, the inner foreskin is remarkably free of urea – a by-product of liver metabolism that is secreted in the urine. Studies demonstrate that washings from the foreskin are rich in fructose, acid phosphatase, and mucin, but never urea. It appears that the secretions of seminal vesicles, prostate, and urethral mucous glands, collectively or individually, keep the foreskin clear and clean as well. (4) These self-cleansing functions of the penis are analogous to the self-cleansing functions of the eye, which similarly maintains its cleanliness through fluid washings (tears) and mucus secretion. Therefore, you never need to worry about the foreskin being ‘unclean.’
Self-Protecting Functions
The urinary meatus (the opening of the glans through which urine and semen flow), is an entry point into the body. From infancy to adulthood, the foreskin ensures optimal protection of the glans and urinary meatus from contaminants of all kinds. During childhood, the foreskin is also usually firmly attached to the glans to prevent contaminants from invading the urethra. The neck of the foreskin places the vulnerable urinary meatus at a distance from the external environment and defends it against invading contaminants. The fusion of the foreskin and glans and the nonexpandability of the preputial orifice in the child’s penis are therefore necessary for the health of the child. Even after the foreskin separates from the glans and becomes retractable, it continues throughout life to cover the glans and meatus in order to protect these delicate structures from dirty, contamination, abrasion, or bacterial invasion.
Immunological Protection
The mucous membranes that line all body orifaces are the body’s first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme. (5) Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother’s milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, aboud in the foreskin’s outer surface. (6) Plasma cells in the foreskin’s mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulin’s, antibodies that defend against infection. (7)
Rigorously controlled studies have also demonstrated that the foreskin plays a protective role in shielding the rest of the penis and thus the rest of the body from the contagion of common sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) encountered during sexual activity. (8)
In infancy, antibacterial substances, such as the complex sugars (glyconutrients) in breastmilk, the oligosaccharides, are passed from mother to child during breastfeeding and are secreted in the baby’s urine. (9) The penis retains these substances in the foreskin. Universy studies have shown that these substances protect against urinary tract infections (UTIs), as well as from infections of other parts of the body. (10) Babies excrete in their urine 300-500 mililgrams of oligosaccharides every day. These compounds prevent virulent strains of Escherichia coli (e.Coli) from adhering to the mucosal lining of the entire urinary tract, including the foreskin and glans.
Researchers conducting immunological experiments with the foreskins of bulls have found that plasma cells in the mucosal lining of the foreskin secrete immunoglobulin. (11) The researchers hypothesize that this provides immunity from bacteria and other germs. This is likely to work the same in other mammals, including humans.
Apocrine glands are important glands found in the skin. They are found in the foreskin and elsewhere on the body. (12) They secrete the important lysosomal enzymes cathepsin B, lysozyme, chymotrypsin, and neutrophilelastase. (13) All of these enzymes help protect the body from many kinds of bacteria. These enzymes are also found in tears and other bodily fluids. Human apocrine glands also produce cytokine, a nonantibody protein that generates an immune response on contact with specific antigens. (14) All these substances have immunological functions and protect the penis from viral and bacterial pathogens. This natural protective function has been destroyed in circumcised males.
Antibacterial Function
To help fight harmful bacteria, the foreskin supports a rich flora of beneficial bacteria. Friendly bacteria exist in a symbiotic relationship with the body and are found on all body surfaces and through the gastrointestinal, genitourinary tract (the urinary system that runs from the kidneys, through the bladder, and out the penis), and the mouth. Friendly bacteria also thrive in the eyes. Without the presence of friendly bacteria, the human body would be vulnerable to attack from pathogenic bacteria.
The good bacteria that live in the inside of the foreskin are similar to the bacteria found in the mouth, nose, the female genitals, and the skin in general. It must be stressed that this good bacteria is both harmless and highly beneficial. Without these friendly bacteria, the urethra would become an easy entry point for germs and harmful stains of bacteria, which could cause disease. Coverage During Erection
During erection, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. In some males, the penis can extend to twice its flaccid length. Sometimes, it can become even longer. The double-layered foreskin provides exactly the right amount of skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.
It is important to consider the fact that every penis is unique. By looking at an infant’s penis, it is impossible to predict how big his penis will become when he is an adult. Heredity does play a role in determining the ultimate shape, size, and configuration of the penis, but it is still difficult to predict the adult size and shape of an infant’s penis even if one looks at the penises of his father, brothers, and other male relatives.
What we can say with certainty is that your baby’s penis will develop and mature according to his own unique genetic coding. Thus, the amount of foreskin he is born with is exactly the amount he will need for his penis to develop properly and experience comfortable, pleasurable erections throughout life. As a result, the idea that any amount of penile skin can be cut off without affecting the later function of the penis is false. In nature there is no surplus, only economy. Everything provided is required.
In the natural penis, as the shaft elongates during erection, the lips of the foreskin slowly expand. The glans begins slowly to protrude through the widening opening. Since the foreskin is soft, elastic, and pliable, it can easily and comfortably stretch to allow the passage of the glans. The stretching process elicits pleasurable sensations as the foreskin gently unrolls (everts) over the glans and shaft. Eventually, in most males, the glans can be fully exposed.
Some males, well endowed with a generous foreskin, have the glans fully covered even when the penis is fully erect. Most, however, if they choose, can manually roll the foreskin all the way back to expose the glans.
During full erection, the sensitive inner sleeve of the foreskin is turned inside out, exposing it. In this position it receives and transmits pleasurable sensations. The natural penis is a marvelously engineered organ for receiving and giving natural pleasure.
Needless to say, circumcision destroys all these functions and imposes a diminished, scarred, immobile, dowel-like penis that has permanently lost the ability to experience normal levels of sexual sensations. A circumcised male, or his partner, for that matter, can never know the intimacy of the normal penis and the ability of the foreskin to open and glide up and down the shaft. An entire dimension of sexuality has been lost to both the male and his sexual partner.
Erogenous Sensitivity
The foreskin is more sensitive than the fingertips, the glans (head) of the penis, or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the body. (15) These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations of texture. (16) This function enables genitally intact males to experience a superior dimension of sexual pleasure, compared to males who were circumcised. Intact males can be more tender, gentle, relaxed, and loving during sex because the slightest and subtlest gesture or motion evokes deeply satisfying sensations. Circumcised males have to work harder just to feel sensations. This is an unhealthy situation for both the male and his partner. Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions
The intact penis has moving parts. The foreskin’s double-layered sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile shaft. The foreskin can usually be slipped all the way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion stimulates the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans.
This is the natural way that the penis is erotically stimulated. The movement of the foreskin over the glans and the pressure of the glans pressing against the foreskin is pleasurable. Sadly, males circumcised at birth can never imagine the pleasure of this natural sensation.
In the natural penis, the foreskin is the most important source of erotogenic, orgasm-inducing sensations. As we learned in the previous chapter, the foreskin contains a highly organized erotogenic sensory nerve-receptor system. It transmits special sexual sensations to the central nervous system and brain. The glans also has erotogenic sensory nerve receptors along its rim (the corona glandis), but far fewer than the foreskin. The massaging action of the foreskin against the glans produces sexual stimulation in both organs – something else that the circumcised male will never experience.
Some genitally intact males can even stimulate themselves to orgasm without touching their penis. They simply clench the groin muscles that help fill the penis with blood. Each voluntary contraction of the muscles forces more blood into the erectile tissues. This causes the shaft and glans to engorge even further and pushes the glans through the lips of the foreskin. Each dilation of the lips of the foreskin stimulates the specialized nerve receptors in the foreskin. In addition, the tension exerted on the foreskin stimulates the nerve receptors in the glans. The resulting sensation can lead to orgasm. A circumcised male would never be able to accomplish this natural feat.
Natural gliding function of the human foreskin.
The Foreskin Enhances Forepleasure
Forepleasure is the pleasurable stimulation of the genitals with or without the intention of eliciting orgasm. Forepleasure takes place during foreplay. Forepleasure of the penis stimulates the brain to release beneficial and health-giving hormones into the bloodstream. These hormones improve overall bodily health, improve the emotional state, and can even reduce pain in any part of the body. Forepleasure, as the name implies, feels great.
Orgasm and ejaculations are usually the smallest part of sexual activity. They take only a few seconds and generally signal the end of sex interest. The period devoted to forepleasure is the greatest component of sexual activity and can continue as long as there is interest to do so. The intact penis is masterfully designed to give and receive forepleasure. Its many surfaces, structures, and moving parts lend themselves to pleasurable exploration. Unrolling the foreskin and exposing the glans is an intimate discovery that provides fascination and delight, since different parts of the penis respond to different kinds of pleasurable attentions. The exploration and discovery of these differences provide a lifetime of intimate enjoyment and satisfaction.
Sexual Functions of the Foreskin During Intercourse
One of the foreskin’s functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle, and slow movement between the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the males’ foreskin is missing.
The foreskin fosters intimacy between the two partners by enveloping the glans and maintaining it as an internal organ. The sexual experience is enhanced when the foreskin slips back to allow the male’s internal organ, the glans, to meet the female’s internal organ – a moment of supreme intimacy and beauty.
You may have heard circumcision promoters allege that the foreskin is ‘dangerously thin and delicate; and that it ‘rips and tears easily during intercourse.’ This is unscientific nonsense and has no basis in anatomical fact. I am sorry to say that it is a deception calculated to provide false reassurance to anxious circumcised males and to frighten parents into letting their children be circumcised. The simple truth is that the foreskin is perfectly designed to function effortlessly and pleasurably during sexual activity. Its double-layered integument is strong, flexible, and resilient. The foreskin is a durable and vigorous organ that enhances and facilitates sexual intercourse. If it didn’t, it would have atrophied years ago.
Self-Lubricating Function
Analogous to the eyelid, the foreskin protects and preserves the sensitivity of the glans by maintaining optimal levels of moisture, warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans is an internal organ. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands and relies on the foreskin for production and distribution of sebum to maintain proper epithelial lubrication. Lubrication is naturally secreted by Cowper’s glands in the urethra. This clear fluid begins to flow out of the meatus as the male becomes sexually aroused.
During intercourse, this natural lubricant assists the male in inserting the penis in to the vagina. Because the fluid is sheltered under the foreskin of the erect penis it is less likely to dry up. Instead, it keeps the penis well lubricated and prevents the vagina from drying out.
In the circumcised penis, the Cowper’s gland fluid quickly evaporates. When the circumcised male inserts his dry penis into the vagina, it soon uses up all the female’s natural lubricants, causing friction and pain for both partners. This can lead to small tears and painful bleeding in the organs of both partners. It comes as no surprise that in the United States today, where a large majority of sexually active adult males have been circumcised, painful vaginal dryness is the biggest complaint women have about sex. This is also the reason that there is such a large industry in the United States that manufactures artificial sexual lubricants. I doubt there has been a study to determine the longer-term effects of using these chemicals on such delicate organs.
Genitally intact males are free of the need for lubricants of any kind either for manual stimulation of the penis, or for vaginal intercourse.
Many circumcised males must also resort to using these artificially factory-made lubricants to masturbate. Other circumcised males research orgasm by friction of their hand over their externalized glans. They have been deprived of the gliding movement of the foreskin to stimulate themselves naturally. The penis is a different organ without a foreskin, and a sexual function is altered when the foreskin has been amputated.
Many circumcised men will think they are normal because they are able to function sexually to their satisfaction, never realizing that their sexual functioning as an adult was changed forever by a medically unnecessary and extremely painful procedure done to them as an infant.
In my practice, I have examined little boys how have had so much foreskin removed that there is hardly any loose skin on their penis. The skin on their flaccid nonerect penis is taut. I wonder what will happen to a boy with such a radical circumcision when he gets an erection: Will he be able to have as much pleasure from his penis as he would have had if the circumciser had amputated less of his prepuce organ? This most unfortunate situation is all too common in the United States.
Production, Retention, and Dispersal of Pheromones
The sense of smell is one of the oldest, most precise, and most important senses in humans. Smells convey vital information to the brain. Pheromones are hormonal chemical messengers secreted by an individual and perceived by another individual of the same species. They create sexual arousal and attraction in the person perceiving the pheromone. These glands are found in the armpits, breasts, and in the genital area. The penis itself is a specific site for these glands. Pheromones are secreted by the apocrine glands in the foreskin. These glands are present at birth, but during puberty they develop in the presence of testosterone.
Although pheromones themselves are odorless, they are released by the foreskin into the air where they are perceived by the vomeronasal organ, a small tubular structure in the mucosa of the nasal septum. This organ is a component of the accessory olfactory system. The olfactory area of the cerebral cortex is closely associated with the limbic system, the part of the brain that organizes emotional responses, mood, memory, and sexual arousal. Although most complex smells and their emotional associations are learned, the identification of pheromones is hardwired into the brain. The automatic sexual arousal elicited by the perception of pheromones is as certain as the automatic pleasure reflex elicited by a caress.
The perception of any scent associated with pheromones varies from individual to individual and depends largely on bacteria. The bacteria itself may be needed to chemically interact with the pheromones to make them active. (17) Diet, bathing habits, and general health also impact the quality of these scents. The predominant odor associated with male pheromones is musk. Nearly all human cultures esteem the rich, earthy, musky, pheromone-rich scent produced by the glands in the foreskin. Perfume makers obtain musk from the foreskin glands of the musk deer. The nonhuman pheromones contained in this muck are unable to elicit sexual arousal in humans, but the fragrance of the musk itself may, bay association, elicit a pleasant response in humans that evokes a sympathetic erotic arousal. (18) This is, at least, the effect that the perfume industry hopes to create.
If your baby is waking up every hour or two to breastfeed, bottle-feed, or locate his pacifier, you may be wondering just what it is that causes him to wake up so often. The reality is that brief nighttime awakenings are a normal part of human sleep, regardless of age. All babies experience these. The difference with your baby, who requires nighttime care every hour or two, is that you are involved in all his brief awakening periods.
Your baby makes a “sleep association,” wherein he associates certain things with falling asleep and believes he needs these things to fall asleep. My baby, Coleton, spent much time in his early months in my arms, his little head bobbing to the tune of my computer keyboard. From the very moment he was born, he slept beside me, nursing to sleep for every nap and every bedtime. By the time I looked up, he was 12 months old, firmly and totally entrenched in a breastfeeding-to-sleep association.
Your baby, like my Coleton, has learned to associate sucking (having your nipple or his bottle or pacifier in his mouth) with sleeping. I have heard a number of sleep experts refer to this as a “negative sleep association.” I certainly disagree, and so would my baby! It is probably the most positive, natural, pleasant sleep association a baby can have. The problem with this association is not the association itself, but our busy lives. If you had nothing whatsoever to do besides take care of your baby, this would be a very pleasant way to pass your days and nights until he naturally outgrew the need. After all, this is natural. You may not even see this as a problem, in which case it is not. It's all a matter of your perception and your personal needs.
However, in our world, few parents have the luxury of putting everything else on hold until their baby gets older. With this in mind, I will give you a number of ideas so that you can gradually, and lovingly, help your baby learn to fall asleep without this very powerful sleep aid.
To take the steps to change your baby's sleep association, you must complicate night wakings for a while, but in the long run you can wean your baby from using his pacifier, bottle, or your breast as his only nighttime association. In other words, be prepared to disrupt your own nights for a while to make some important, worthwhile long-term changes.
When your baby wakes, go ahead and pop his pacifier or his bottle in his mouth, or nurse him. But, instead of leaving him there and going back to bed, or letting him fall asleep at the breast, let him suck for a few minutes until his sucking slows and he is relaxed and sleepy. Then break the seal with your finger and gently remove the pacifier or nipple.
Often, especially at first, your baby then will startle and root for the nipple. Try to very gently hold his mouth closed with your finger under his chin, or apply pressure to his chin, just under his lip, at the same time rocking or swaying with him. If he struggles against this and fusses or roots for you or his bottle or pacifier, go ahead and replace the nipple, but repeat the removal process as often as necessary until he falls asleep.
How long between removals? Every baby is different, but about ten to sixty seconds between removals usually works. You also should watch your baby's sucking action. If a baby is sucking strongly or swallowing regularly when feeding, wait a few minutes until he slows his pace. Usually, after the initial burst of activity, your baby will slow to a more relaxed, “fluttery” pace; this is a good time to begin your removal attempts.
It may take two to five (or even more) attempts, but eventually your baby will fall asleep without the pacifier or nipple in her mouth. When she has done this a number of times over a period of days, you will notice the removals are much easier, and her awakenings are less frequent.
Pantley's gentle removal plan
“We got to calling this the Big PPO (Pantley-Pull-Off). At first Joshua would see it coming and grab my nipple tighter in anticipation — ouch! But you said to stick with it, and I did. Now he anticipates the PPO and actually lets go and turns and rolls over on his side to go to sleep! I am truly amazed.” --Shannon, mother of 16-month-old Joshua
If your baby doesn't nap well, don't trouble yourself with trying to use the removal technique during the day for naps. Remember that good naps mean better nighttime sleep — and better nighttime sleep means better naps. Once you get your baby sleeping better at night, you can then work on the naptime sleep.
The most important time to use Pantley's gentle removal plan is the first falling asleep of the night. Often the way your baby falls asleep will affect the rest of his awakenings for the night. I suspect that this because of the sleep-association affect that I explained earlier. It seems that the way in which your baby falls asleep for the night is how he expects to remain all night long.
Feeding a sleeping baby
I am a follower of the “never let your baby cry” rule, and I took it very seriously. What I didn't understand, though, is that babies make sounds in their sleep. And these sounds do not mean that baby needs you. Babies moan, grunt, snuffle, whimper, and even cry in their sleep. Babies can even nurse in their sleep.
The next step to helping your baby sleep longer is to determine the difference between sleeping noises and awake noises. When she makes a noise: Stop. Listen. Wait. Peek. As you listen attentively to her noises, and watch her, you will learn the difference between sleeping snorts and “I'm waking up and I need you now” noises.
"Last night he was nursing and I pulled him off and put my finger under his chin. I was thinking, “This will never work; he'll be mad!” — but it worked, he went to sleep! The other trick is working too. When I take him off and then roll over, he thinks I'm asleep, then he goes to sleep, too!” --Carol, mother of nine-month-old Ben
Changing your routine
Very often we have a routine we have followed with our babies since birth. The final step before sleep is always nursing or having a bottle. Some babies can continue this pattern and still sleep through the night. Others, though, need to have the final step in their routine changed before they begin to sleep all night.
What you'll want to do is take an objective look at your final steps in putting your baby to sleep and make some changes if necessary. You may want to use massaging, cuddling, or sleepy-time music to help get your baby to fall asleep. Eventually these steps will take over for nursing or bottle-feeding, and then they too will fade away, and your baby will be sleeping longer.
“I have changed the way I'm putting Carlene to sleep, and it's working! Instead of nursing her down, I just feed her until she is relaxed and then I let her do whatever she wants in the very dim room with me. When she rubs her eyes and looks sleepy, I put her in her crib. I stay there and stand next to the crib, and encourage her to sleep. I say, 'Shhh, it's night-night time, close your eyes, sleepy girl,' and I tell her that it's okay to go to sleep. I rub her head or her tummy. She shuts her eyes right when I do this. It's been a major breakthrough.” --Rene, mother of seven-month-old Carlene
Patience, patience, and just a little more patience
Take a deep breath and repeat after me: “This too shall pass.” You’re in the middle of it all right now, and it’s hard. Keep in mind that your baby’s seeming inability to fall asleep on his own is not his fault. He’s done things this way since the day he was born, and he’d be perfectly happy to keep things as they are. Your goals of helping him feel loved and secure while discovering ways to fall asleep without you — without your succumbing to the temptation of letting him cry it out — are admirable. You have his best interests at heart. Be patient, take your cues from your baby, and in no time at all, your baby will be sleeping. And so will you. Then your concerns will turn to the next phase in this magnificent, challenging, and ultimately rewarding experience we call parenthood.
If you have photos of a great man in your life wearing your baby, and you'd be willing to share for a REAL MEN WEAR BABIES photo collage that will appear here, send to Born2BWorn@gmail.com. Include any information if you would like (name/location/baby's age/type of sling/wrap) or you can send anonymously without any info.
The purpose of this collection is to demonstrate that fathers DO frequently wear their little ones as well as mothers, and to encourage other dads to give it a try.
Babywearing has been shown to significantly impact attachment, bonding, and trust between fathers and their children - a social bond that lasts into the teenage years and beyond. Father babywearing as also been shown to decrease stress hormones and lower blood pressure and hypertension in both men and their babies.
*NOTE: I am NOT advocating for the use of an untested vaccine on children OR pregnant women. I would not use my own children as guinea pigs for a trial run of the H1N1 vaccine. However, parents should be aware of what is being asked of them and their little ones. For more on the 'swine flu' and influenza, see here.
Younger children will need two doses of the vaccine against the new pandemic of H1N1 influenza, U.S. officials said on Monday.
They said tests of Sanofi-Pasteur's swine flu vaccine showed children respond to it just as they do to seasonal flu vaccines, with children over 10 needing only a single dose but children under 9 needing two.
Separately, Sanofi said it had won a U.S. government order for 27.3 million more doses of its vaccine and AstraZeneca's MedImmune unit said the U.S. government has ordered 29 million more doses of its needle-free vaccine.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said young children will likely need to have their doses 21 days apart. But he said they could receive seasonal flu shots and H1N1 shots on the same day -- something that could ease the logistics of vaccinating children multiple times.
"As we had hoped, in children the 2009 H1N1 vaccine is acting just like the seasonal flu vaccine," Fauci told reporters in a telephone briefing.
Children aged 10 to 17 mounted an immune response that should protect them from H1N1 within 8 to 10 days, Fauci said.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said 46 U.S. children have died from swine flu, which appears to have first emerged in Mexico in March and which spread around the world to cause a pandemic in only six weeks.
As soon as the new virus was identified, the U.S. government and companies started making a vaccine against it and testing began in August to ensure it was safe and to determine what dose would be needed.
About 25 companies globally are now making H1N1 vaccine.
The United States had ordered 195 million doses of H1N1 vaccine from five makers -- GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Australia's CSL, MedImmune and Novartis. With the new orders from Sanofi and MedImmune, that would make more than 250 million doses.
MORE TO GO AROUND
Most countries ordered H1N1 vaccine with the expectation that two doses would be needed, so many now have more than anticipated.
The CDC has designated about 160 million people to be vaccinated first, including pregnant women, people with heart disease, asthma or diabetes and school-aged children.
With seasonal flu vaccine, children under 9 who are getting a flu vaccine for the first time need two doses, so Fauci said it is likely that young children who have never had a flu vaccine before will need four doses this year -- two seasonal flu doses and two swine flu doses.
But that may not mean four visits to a clinic or doctor's office, the CDC's Dr. Anne Schuchat said. "We do expect, based on what we know about vaccines, that it should be fine for the shot to be given on the same day," she said.
It gets a bit more complicated with MedImmune's nasal spray vaccine, she said. Children getting that needle-free vaccine will likely need to get FluMist, the seasonal version, separately from the swine flu formulated nose spray.
H1N1 is now the dominant strain of influenza circulating globally and Fauci said it is possible it may replace the seasonal form of H1N1 also circulating.
"If you look at the history of where new viruses come in, frequently what they do is come back the next year and displace one or even more than one of the circulating strains," he said. "It is a distinct possibility that this might ultimately be incorporated into a seasonal flu vaccine."
(Additional reporting by David Morgan and Bill Berkrot, editing by Vicki Allen and Cynthia Osterman)
42% of obstetricians were in favor of elective c-section without any medical reason. But only 21% agreed that c/s is as safe as vaginal birth. And only 8% would choose c/s for themselves or their partners.
I personally know 6 OBs who have had homebirths with their own babies -- knowing that the hospital, and especially the OR, is NOT the place to bring babies (or mothers) optimally and safely through birth.
In the end, it really is true that you are much more likely to get surgery when you hire a surgeon! What else should we expect? How many people out there don't realize that obstetrics is a SURGICAL practice?! It is NOT the practice of normal, natural pregnancy or childbirth - or even women's or baby's health for that matter. It is the specialized skill of surgery -- cutting the abdomen, uterus, and surrounding organs to extract a baby. It is a great and useful practice when it is truly NEEDED. But this rarely is the case when it comes to normal, physiological birth.
The ignorance surrounding this subject is infuriating.
Nearly half of obstetricians in Canada say a woman should have the right to choose a caesarean section when there is no medical reason to warrant one.
The finding comes from a nationwide survey of maternity care providers that found many obstetricians appear to support the wide use of technology, despite a push by their own professional body to "normalize" childbirth and reduce Canada's rising C-section rate.
Forty years ago in Canada, five per cent of babies were delivered by caesarean. Today the rate is 28 per cent nationally, and more than 30 per cent in B.C. and P.E.I. More than 78,000 C-sections were performed in Canada last year.
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada says a C-section should not be offered to a pregnant woman unless there is a valid medical reason to perform one.
But the University of B.C.-led study found that 42 per cent of obstetricians were in favour of a woman's right to choose a C-section for herself, even in the absence of a medical indication.
Overall, 549 obstetricians, 897 family physicians, 545 nurses, 400 midwives and 192 doulas from across Canada were surveyed in 2008-2009 on their attitudes toward labour and birth. The study was done against a background of a "technological transformation of birth," the researchers say — rising C-section rates, more induced labours and routine use of epidural analgesia, or local anesthetic.
Among the key findings:
- Most obstetricians agreed that epidural analgesia interferes with the normal progress of labour. Epidurals can slow labour, sometimes so much that labour stops. But 60 per cent of obstetricians agreed that epidurals ought to be routinely offered to women. Midwives and doulas disagreed mostly strongly with the routine use of epidurals.
- The majority of obstetricians are against routine fetal monitoring. "And that's a good thing," says Dr. Michael Klein, emeritus professor of family practice and pediatrics at UBC and the lead author of the study. "But that is not what's happening on the ground."
A recently released Canadian survey of more than 6,000 women who gave birth in the last few years found 91 per cent experienced electronic fetal monitoring during labour; 63 per cent said they had continuous electronic monitoring.
Routine electronic fetal monitoring increases the risk of a C-section, because it can lead to so-called false positives, "meaning it tells you there's a problem, but it turns out there isn't," Klein says.
"People have been hearing that message for 20 years or more, and so they know what the answer to the question is. But, in reality, imagine that you're a physician in your office and you have a woman who is in labour. Where should you be? You should be with her in labour. Where are you? You're in your office.
"The electronic fetal monitor is kind of your surrogate presence. It gives you a sense of security that you're somehow in control of the situation, when you're really not."
- 42 per cent of obstetricians were in favour of a woman's right to choose a C-section without medical indication, but only 21 per cent of obstetricians agreed with the statement that a C-section is as safe as a vaginal birth for women, and only eight per cent would choose C-section over vaginal delivery for themselves or their partners.
Klein said the findings reflect a dissonance between "what they feel about this (C-sections) and how they would respond to a request." Only 18 per cent of obstetricians said a C-section is safer than a vaginal birth for babies; 58 per cent disagreed with the statement.
"Women's autonomy is a value that we all share," Klein said. "But we believe that it has to be informed autonomy. And the obstetricians are kind of caught in the middle of this one. 42 per cent of them would support a woman's choice, but the problem is they're also the ones doing the cesarean section, and they're also the ones who have to have very long discussions with people about the benefits and risks of cesarean section. It takes a couple of hours by the time you're through, and nobody has that kind of time."
"It's in many respects easier to go along with the woman's choice — especially if you actually believe cesarean section is not a problem."
Studies show risks to babies from C-sections range from accidental lacerations when the surgeon cuts into the uterus, to neonatal respiratory distress. Risks to women include higher risks of hemorrhage requiring a hysterectomy, blood infections, wound infections and blood clots in the lungs. As well, every C-section increases the risk for another.
Klein said family doctors who provide only prenatal care, and then transfer women to an obstetrician for delivery, have attitudes and beliefs close to those of obstetricians.
- Only 35 per cent of obstetricians were in favour of birth plans and they were ambivalent towards doulas.
- 25 per cent of obstetricians and family doctors believed sexual problems and urinary incontinence could be prevented by C-sections.
- 43 per cent of obstetricians disagreed with the statement, "For a woman, having a vaginal birth is a more empowering experience than delivery by cesarean section."
"You really have to be fair to the obstetricians," Klein says. "What they believe is based on their training, and it's based on their experience, and they are much more likely than midwives to see problems, because they're in the business of problem-solving, while the midwives are in the business of normalizing birth and keeping birth normal. There's an intrinsic difference in style of practice and approach which goes with the territory."
But the survey also found that more than 15 per cent of obstetricians have attitudes on most issues "that fall squarely into midwifery territory," Klein says.
The study is published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.
"Any recommendation to circumcise infant males to reduce the risk of HIV is unethical because it encourages genital cutting on a healthy, non-consenting individual. It is also stupid. Infant males are not at risk of HIV now, and will be at little risk of the only type of transmission (female-to-male) that voluntary, adult male circumcision has been shown to reduce when they begin having sex, even if they do not use condoms, which no one is suggesting they may do after circumcision. Like WHO and UNAIDS, the CDC is considering recommending infant circumcision because they know such recommendations convince parents. If they were confident that men would embrace it, they'd focus on adult volunteers. They know that's a dead-end for mass acceptance, so they recommend it for those who can't say no. It is not force by government, but when told to a receptive audience acting on behalf of another, the difference is in tactic, not outcome."
quote from "Talk about the issue, not Rush Limbaugh" (I am not personally advocating one side or the other on Tony's take of Limbaugh or Obama. What I care about here is the health, safety, human rights, and genital integrity of babies and their freedom to make future bodily choices as consenting adults)
The prepuce organ ("foreskin" or "clitoral hood") is a natural, normal, vital, protective, healing and sexual organ on all mammals. It is an analogous and homologous organ in all girls and boys, women and men. The prepuce contains more nerve endings (currently thought to be 70,000+) than any other part of the human body. There is no body part that is as sensitive and discriminatory as the prepuce organ. It produces its own antibodies, and has its own sphincters to protect the glans (head) of the clitoris/penis. The prepuce has its own gliding mechanisms, produces its own natural lubrication, and has its own mucosal tissue and ridged band. It performs functions similar to those that the eyelid does in protecting the eye, the fingernail in protecting the finger, and yet has unique sexual responsibilities that no other body part can take the place of.
The prepuce is present in both baby girls and baby boys at birth and is securely and tightly fastened to the glans of the clitoris/penis. It stays closely adhered throughout childhood and sometimes into the teenage years. The prepuce serves important health and sexual functions and purposes in both men and women as they grow into adulthood.
The amputation of the prepuce by those attempting to control men's and women's sexuality has a similar history in the United States and around the world. The loss of the prepuce has a similar impact on men and women. Surgical amputation of the prepuce has always been a 'solution' in search of a problem that does not exist. Hopefully soon the Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) of minor children and infants will reach the same legal termination as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the United States.
ALL human beings, male and female alike, have the same basic human right to genital autonomy.
As late as the early 1980s in the United States, some avenues of popular media were promoting female circumcision as a good thing - cosmetic genital surgery that would enhance a woman's desirability and sexuality. Many of the same myths we hear in the beginning of the 21st century about male circumcision were commonly assumed to be true for female circumcision in the 20th century.
Two such articles appeared in Playgirl in 1973 and 1975:
"$100 Surgery for a Million-Dollar Sex Life." Playgirl 2.12 (May, 1975). 52-55.
The Federal law went into effect in March, 1997, in the United States making any non-medically necessary cutting upon the genitals of a minor girl, for any reason, religious or otherwise, and to any degree, a federal crime. Read the U.S. FGM Law here.
"The science is largely complete. Ten epidemiological studies have shown MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism; six have shown thimerosal doesn't cause autism."-- Dr. Paul Offit, "Autism's False Prophets"
"16 studies have shown no causal association between vaccines and autism, and these studies carry weight in the scientific industry."-- Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC Today Show Medical Editor
Conventional wisdom holds that the autism-vaccine question has been "asked and answered," and that at least 16 large, well-constructed epidemiological studies have thoroughly addressed and debunked any hypothesis that childhood vaccination is in any way associated with an increased risk for autism spectrum disorders.
But there are several critical flaws in such an oversimplified generalization, and they are rarely given close examination by public health experts or members of the media.
To begin with, it is unscientific and perilously misleading for anyone to assert that "vaccines and autism" have been studied and that no link has been found. That's because the 16 or so studies constantly cited by critics of the hypothesis have examined just one vaccine and one vaccine ingredient.
And, the population studies themselves have had critical design flaws and limitations.
The current US childhood immunization schedule calls for 28 injections with 11 different vaccines against 15 different diseases by two years of age. Of those 11 vaccines, only the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) shot has been studied in association with autism, (although a CDC study of an MMR-plus-chickenpox vaccine did show that the risk for febrile seizures in infants was doubled.) Meanwhile, those 11 vaccines contain scores of ingredients, only one of which, thimerosal, has ever been tested in association with autism.
It is illogical to exonerate all vaccines, all vaccine ingredients, and the total US vaccine program as a whole, based solely on a handful of epidemiological studies of just one vaccine and one vaccine ingredient. It is akin to claiming that every form of animal protein is beneficial to people, when all you have studied is fish.
Now, a new study has shown that giving Hepatitis B vaccine to newborn baby boys may triple the risk of developing an autism spectrum disorder.
An abstract of the study was published in the September, 2009 issue of the respected journal Annals of Epidemiology. In it, Carolyn Gallagher and Melody Goodman of the Graduate Program in Public Health at Stony Brook University Medical Center, NY, wrote that, "Boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD compared to later- or unvaccinated boys."
The conclusion states that: "Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys." The authors used U.S. probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 datasets.
Critics will point out that this sample was limited to boys born before 1999, so the results are only applicable to that U.S. male birth cohort, and that the study's cross-sectional design limits inferences on causality. Another weakness is that the autism diagnoses were parent reported.
On the other hand, these results are generalizable to US boys age 3-17 born prior to 1999; vaccination status was confirmed through medical records; and there was controlling for confounders that may be associated with care seeking behaviors. (The P-value equaled 0.032) The full manuscript is currently under review by another journal.
Assuming that the full manuscript is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it will be among the first university-based population studies to suggest an association between a vaccine and an increased risk for autism. And that would be in direct contradiction to all those MMR and thimerosal studies that purportedly found no such link.
Does that mean that Hepatitis B vaccine causes autism? Of course not (though any relative risk above 2.0 is generally considered to prove causation in a US court of law).
But there are other studies, both published and greatly anticipated, which might support a hypothesized causal association between HepB vaccine and ASD, at least in boys.
Any day now, data culled from CDC's Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring network (ADDM), is expected to be published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, and the numbers are expected to put the rate of autism at around 1 in 100, or higher.
ADDM researchers examine the education and (when possible) medical records of all eight-year-old children in selected US cities and states. They look only at eight-year-old cohorts to allow time for all diagnoses to be made, reported and counted.
So far, ADDM has published data from just two birth cohorts: children born in 1992 (eight-year-olds in 2000) and those born in 1994 (eight-year-olds in 2002). The 1992 cohort revealed an estimated ASD rate of one in 166, or 60-per-10,000. (This has since been revised to 67-per-10,000, or one in 150). For the 1994 cohort, the estimate was virtually unchanged, at 66-per-10,000.
But now that number is expected to exceed 100-per-10,000 for the 1996 birth cohort, born just two years later. The overarching question, of course, will be, "why?"
There are many possible explanations, though a 50% increase in just two years is astonishing, no matter what its cause.
One possible answer is the Hepatitis B vaccine, (which also contained 25 micrograms of mercury containing thimerosal up until 2002). Introduced in 1991, it was the first vaccine ever given on a population basis to newborn babies (within the first three hours after delivery) in human history. But according to the CDC's National Immunization Survey, only 8% of infant children received the Hep B vaccine in 1992, when that birth cohort showed an ASD rate of 1-in-150.
By 1994, the number of children receiving Hep B vaccine had reached just 27% -- and the cohort showed a similar ASD rate, though it did go up by as much as 10% in some locations between the two cohorts.
But by 1996, Hep B coverage rate had risen to 82%. And that is the cohort whose ASD rate rose to around 100-per-10,000 or more.
Correlation, obviously, does not equal causation. But the uptake rate of that particular immunization is at least one environmental factor that did demonstrably change during the period in question.
In addition, some recent studies and Vaccine Court decisions have supported the contention that Hepatitis B vaccine can damage myelin -- the nervous system's main insulating component -- at least in certain genetically susceptible adults and infants.
A study published last October in the journal Neurology found that children who received the Hepatitis B vaccine series were 50% more likely to develop "central nervous system inflammatory demyelination" than children who did not receive the vaccine.
Most of this increase was due to the Engerix B brand of the vaccine, manufactured by the UK's GlaxoSmithKline. That brand increased the risk of demyelination by 74%, and patients with confirmed multiple sclerosis were nearly three times more likely to develop the disorder.
"Hepatitis B vaccination does not generally increase the risk of CNS inflammatory demyelination in childhood," the authors concluded. "However, the Engerix B vaccine appears to increase this risk, particularly for confirmed multiple sclerosis, in the longer term. Our results require confirmation in future studies."
Let's hope that future studies of neonatal HebB administration, demyelinating disorders, and ASD are completed as quickly as possible.
This mother's twins. Born at equal weights and with equal health, her son (valued as a male) was given the human milk designed for him. Her daughter (less valued as female) should not 'steal' her brother's milk, so she was artificially fed with formula and water. The outcome is devastating.
Multinational companies in Vietnam sell baby formula so aggressively that they routinely stretch and sometimes break laws designed to promote breastfeeding, an AP investigation has found.
International guidelines and Vietnamese law recognize breast milk as superior to formula for an infant's health. Yet dozens of interviews with mothers, doctors, health officials and shopkeepers suggest that formula companies pay doctors to peddle their products, promote it for infants under age one and approach mothers and health care workers at health facilities — all of which are against the law.
The number of Vietnamese mothers who exclusively breast-feed in the first six months — the most crucial period — stands at just 17 percent, less than half what it was a decade ago, according to UNICEF. Meanwhile, formula sales in Vietnam jumped 39 percent in 2008, according to a study by Nielsen, a market research firm. Another survey found that the industry spent more than $10 million on advertising last year, placing it among Vietnam's top five advertisers.
The companies say they follow the law and attribute increased sales to other factors, chiefly more working women with money to spend and less time to breast-feed. Health experts agree that these factors have played a role, but also point to relentless marketing by formula companies.
The aggressive marketing of formula is common across the region, from China to Indonesia to the Philippines, according to the International Code Documentation Center, a Malaysia-based nonprofit that seeks to eliminate the irresponsible marketing of baby foods. While companies often violate the voluntary international milk code, the center says, they are usually careful to follow the letter of individual country laws.
When the Philippine government tried to tighten its advertising laws for milk products two years ago, the companies took it to court.
"The health workers there were part of the marketing arm for those products," said Jean-Marc Olive, Vietnam representative for the World Health Organization, who used to work in the Philippines.
Vietnam's struggle shows how difficult it is for developing countries to take on international companies with hefty advertising budgets and aggressive sales and legal teams.
"The companies have millions of dollars and dozens of lawyers, but the Vietnamese government has a tiny budget and just two people promoting breast-feeding," said Annelies Allain of the International Code Documentation Center.
In early August, during World Breastfeeding Week, the Vietnamese government adopted an ambitious target: a 50 percent exclusive breast-feeding rate by 2015. Health Ministry officials also announced they had uncovered dozens of violations of formula labeling rules.
But only one fine was levied — for less than $200.
Among the most serious violations that sources described separately to the AP were commissions paid to doctors to sell formula.
Workers at a women's health clinic in Dong Nai province had an exclusive deal with Dutch Lady, a brand of Friesland Foods, based in Meppel, the Netherlands, said Dr. Vo Thi Kim Loan, the clinic's former vice director.
"We got a small commission for each can," she said.
Jan Bles, the Vietnam director for Dutch Lady, denied the allegation.
"We do not compensate doctors, clinics, hospital or their staff for selling or promoting our products," he said, although he acknowledged providing furniture for the clinic, whose waiting room is adorned with a large Dutch Lady logo.
Tran Thi Hanh, the clinic director, said the clinic signed a contract to promote a Dutch Lady powdered milk product for pregnant and nursing mothers, but didn't sell products for babies or receive commissions by the can.
The clinic also printed a Dutch Lady logo on registration forms for women who came for ultrasounds or prenatal check-ups, she said. In return, Hanh said, Dutch Lady provided lunch for about 50 staffers from smaller clinics around the province who came to the bigger clinic for training every three months.
Several other big formula companies also tried to land a deal with the clinic, said Loan, the former vice director. Another clinic employee, who declined to give her name because she still works at the clinic, confirmed Loan's account.
The staff didn't promote formula for babies under six months, Loan said, but they frequently pushed it for babies between six and 12 months. Vietnam's law prohibits advertising formula products for children under age one — a weakened version of an earlier law that set the age limit at 2.
Several Hanoi shopkeepers also said that formula companies pay doctors commissions for promoting sales.
It is illegal to sell infant formula inside Vietnamese hospitals, except in pharmacies, but the alley just outside Hanoi's main maternity hospital is lined with shops prominently displaying American and European brands.
"Most customers are sent by their doctors right after they give birth," said Ngo Thanh, 27, who has worked next to the main maternity hospital for five years. She and other shopkeepers said their customers bring labels or plastic caps from formula tins back to their doctors for documenting sales.
Vietnam's low-paid doctors are easy targets for formula companies, which offer them "formidable benefits," said Dr. To Minh Huong, deputy director of Hanoi's main maternity hospital. Last year, she said, company representatives came to the hospital and posed as academic researchers, looking for patient information.
"When we asked for their IDs, they fled," she said.
Formula companies denied paying commissions.
"Our employees are routinely trained and held to high standards of compliance," said Gail Wood, a spokeswoman for Mead Johnson Nutrition, an American firm based in Glenview, Ill.
Vietnamese law also prohibits formula salesmen from approaching health workers or mothers at health care facilities. Wood said staff abide by the law and the international code.
But Nguyen Thi Minh, 29, a Hanoi paralegal, said she was approached by a Mead Johnson salesman at a Hanoi maternity clinic shortly before giving birth.
"I chose Mead Johnson's EnfaGrow because the advertisements said it boosts your child's IQ and makes them taller," Minh said.
Other new mothers were called by phone instead. A dozen told the AP they had been bombarded by calls from salesmen. Minh said she received calls from Abbott and Mead Johnson when her baby was 3 months old. Another mother, Nguyen Lan Huong, said she received four calls from Abbott.
"They must get mothers' names from the hospitals," she said. "They knew my name, my baby's name and his birthday."
Tracey Noe, a spokeswoman for Abbott of Abbott Park, Illinois, said the company only calls women who sign up for promotions, but the women interviewed by the AP said they had not requested information.
"We provide extensive training to our employees and conduct routine audits to ensure compliance," Noe said.
As Vietnam has embraced market reforms and opened up to outside investment, Western products, including baby formula, have gained cachet. More mothers can afford formula, said Bles of Dutch Lady, whose Vietnam profits surged by 30 percent last year.
Company spokesmen point to statistics showing that many Vietnamese women breast-feed at some point after giving birth. In some categories, Vietnam compares favorably with other developing Asian nations.
But health experts say the one number that truly matters is the percentage of women who exclusively breast-feed their children for the first six months. And in this category, Vietnam fares poorly.
"We are one of the worst in the region, and that has happened over the last eight years," said Marjatta Tovanen-Ojutkangas, head of UNICEF's health and nutrition section in Hanoi.
Breast milk significantly reduces infant mortality, according to international health experts, who recommend that mothers exclusively breast-feed for the first six months and continue breast-feeding, supplemented by solid foods, until their babies are two.
The International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes, sponsored by the World Health Organization and UNICEF, is not legally binding. It is up to individual countries to implement the code by enacting their own laws. Vietnam did so in 1994.
But loopholes in Vietnam's decree make it hard to hold formula companies accountable, said Yeong Joo Kean, an attorney with the International Code Documentation Center.
"Just when you think you might have a watertight case, you'll get shot down on a technicality," she said.
In recent years, formula companies have introduced an array of powdered-milk products for older children and mothers. These don't fall under the restrictions of the code or Vietnamese law, so companies can advertise them freely and market their brand.
Nursery schools across Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City are adorned with the logos of Mead Johnson and U.S.-based Abbott, which have provided benches, playground equipment and other gifts. Companies routinely suggest that children will be smarter and stronger if they drink formula, claims widely rejected by independent health professionals.
One television ad for Milex, a Scandinavian brand, shows a young boy dressed up in a NASA uniform, suggesting that powdered milk will make him smart enough to fly to the moon.
Salesmen also often invite women to "child nutrition seminars" at 5-star hotels. About 600 mothers packed a recent Abbott seminar co-sponsored by the Vietnam Nutrition Association, which receives heavy funding from formula companies. They listened to a talk called "Awakening Your Child's Intelligence Potential" and watched a video of a girl learning to talk at 6 months and read at 14 months.
Doctors often appear at these seminars. The ties between the companies and the medical community are very close, said Olive, the WHO representative. Shortly after he arrived in Vietnam, Olive was invited to speak at a pediatrics association meeting and found a formula logo hanging behind the podium.
I don't typically get into vax news, preferring instead to stick to research and make informed choices on a vax-by-vax basis and letting others do the same. And I am not a big fan of 'scare tactics' in the media (on either side of the issue). But my husband is currently overseas on a submarine with the Navy for several months and there are MANY sailors becoming ill from a variety of mandated H1N1 vaccinations. So this much I know is true. There have also been confirmed deaths (at least one officer that I know of). We should NOT be mandating a vaccine that has NOT been adequately tested. And it certainly should not be given to children. I do not wish to have my husband or my children used as guinea pigs for this particular trial, and I am sure there are many other parents out there who feel the same way.
