Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
First Ob/Gyn Visit
I wrote about it on my kids' blog for the benefit of those relatives who read their blog and not mine (which is really in the best interest of all involved ;-)
http://connorcam.blogspot.com/2010/03/first-obgyn-visit.html
http://connorcam.blogspot.com/2010/03/first-obgyn-visit.html
Monday, March 15, 2010
Researcher Involved in Famous Danish Vaccines Studies Embezzles Millions
I posted about this on facebook but didn't get any responses so I need to post it here because I feel my friends aren't taking the JOURNEY with me.
The CDC, Paul Offit, and recently US courts have relied on these Danish studies as definitive proof that vaccines do not cause autism. They are quoted ad nauseum by the pro-vaccine camp. In fact, just a few days ago it made the news that the US courts have decided that no, vaccines did not cause any autism. Yet, this happens, and very few people publish it.
"Danish police are investigating Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has vanished along with almost $2 million that he had supposedly spent on research."
Let me tell you the story so you can understand why this should be in the news everywhere right now.
Here is an article printed in the British Medical Journal back in 2002 detailing the first of several studies done in Denmark supposedly proving there is no connection between autism and vaccines. (Click Here)
Notice something very important about this study - it says there is no connection between autism and the MMR VACCINE, not all vaccines.
An exerpt:
"Records were retrieved from three sources: the unique identification number assigned to each child at birth; MMR vaccination data reported to the National Board of Health by general practitioners, who give all MMR vaccinations and are reimbursed for their reports; and diagnoses of autism recorded in the Danish Psychiatric Central Registry.
...The authors found that “There was no increase in the risk of autistic disorder or other autistic-spectrum disorders among vaccinated children as compared with unvaccinated children (adjusted relative risk of autistic disorder, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24; adjusted relative risk of other autistic-spectrum disorders, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07).”"
Here's a link to that study, with P Thorsen on the research team: (click here)
Here is an article about the recent federal court decision that there is no connection, because of another large Danish study showing no change in autism rates once thimerosal (mercury) was removed from vaccines. (Click here)
An exerpt:
"From the late 1990s to the present, scientists have looked closely at the evidence, and every well-done study has pointed to the same conclusion: thimerosal in vaccines has no link to autism. In one very large Danish study, autism rates rose after thimerosal was removed from vaccines. Another study looking at California, Sweden, and Denmark found the same thing. These results directly contradict the claim that thimerosal causes autism."
Here is a link to that particular Danish study: (Click here). Our good friend P Thorsen is on the research team. Their conclusion: "The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data do not support a correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism."
Notice there was an INCREASE in autism. A recent article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr points out this important information: "His study has long been criticized as fraudulent since it failed to disclose that the increase was an artifact of new mandates requiring, for the first time, that autism cases be reported on the national registry. This new law and the opening of a clinic dedicated to autism treatment in Copenhagen accounted for the sudden rise in reported cases rather than, as Thorsen seemed to suggest, the removal of mercury from vaccines. Despite this obvious chicanery, CDC has long touted the study as the principal proof that mercury-laced vaccines are safe for infants and young children." (click here for full article)
Now look at this wonderful news article printed in February about how Poul Thorsen took money he supposedly spent on research and is now hiding out in America. (Click here)
An exerpt:
"Until last March, the man was head of an 80 million kroner joint research project between the US government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the University of Southern Denmark and Aarhus University.
Jørgen Jørgensen, Aarhus University’s rector, confirmed that police charges have been filed against the former researcher and that it concerns a sum of around 10 million kroner. Numerous applications for funding for the research were apparently signed with forged signatures.
The scientist – who is reportedly living and working in Atlanta in the US – resigned from his post last March. But he allegedly continued to pass himself off as the head of the international project, which dealt primarily with research into the possible causes of autism."
Excuse me? Is no one else realising what this means? Does no one else feel like maybe these studies are now SUSPECT? ANYONE?
I actually don't know if vaccines, be them with mercury or not, cause autism. NO ONE DOES. Because no studies out there actually compare completely non-vaccinated children to children vaxed on schedule. the research is simply not being done. How easy they could alleviate the fears if actual research was done. But no, they won't do it. So they took out mercury. It's still in the flu vaccine, and still leaves aluminum. This link at eMedicine described the damage excess aluminum can do, including the following: "Aluminum causes an oxidative stress within brain tissue. Since the elimination half-life of aluminum from the human brain is 7 years, this can result in cumulative damage via the element's interference with neurofilament axonal transport and neurofilament assembly. Some experts believe it plays a role in leading to the formation of Alzheimerlike neurofibrillary tangles." (click here)
Dr. Bob Sears, who is actually pro-vaccines, says this about aluminum safety levels and vaccines: "All these warnings seem to apply mainly to premature babies and kidney patients. What about larger, full-term babies with healthy kidneys? Using the 5 mcg/kg/day criterion from the first document as a minimum amount we know a healthy baby could handle, a 12-pound 2-month-old baby could safely get at least 30 micrograms of aluminum in one day. A 22 pound one-year-old could get at least 50 micrograms safely...
A newborn who gets a Hepatitis B injection on day one of life would get 250 micrograms of aluminum. This would be repeated at one month of age with the next Hep B shot. When a baby gets the first big round of shots at 2 months, the total dose of aluminum can vary from 295 micrograms (if a non-aluminum HIB and the lowest aluminum brand of DTaP is used) to a whopping 1225 micrograms if the highest aluminum brands are used and Hep B vaccine is also given. These doses are repeated at 4 and 6 months. A child would continue to get some aluminum throughout the first 2 years with most rounds of shots.
Just to remind you, the FDA feels that premature babies and any patient with impaired kidney function shouldn't get more than 10 to 25 micrograms of injected aluminum at any one time." (click for full article)
And yet I am the one who is paranoid about vaccines? Why aren't all of us?
The CDC, Paul Offit, and recently US courts have relied on these Danish studies as definitive proof that vaccines do not cause autism. They are quoted ad nauseum by the pro-vaccine camp. In fact, just a few days ago it made the news that the US courts have decided that no, vaccines did not cause any autism. Yet, this happens, and very few people publish it.
"Danish police are investigating Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has vanished along with almost $2 million that he had supposedly spent on research."
Let me tell you the story so you can understand why this should be in the news everywhere right now.
Here is an article printed in the British Medical Journal back in 2002 detailing the first of several studies done in Denmark supposedly proving there is no connection between autism and vaccines. (Click Here)
Notice something very important about this study - it says there is no connection between autism and the MMR VACCINE, not all vaccines.
An exerpt:
"Records were retrieved from three sources: the unique identification number assigned to each child at birth; MMR vaccination data reported to the National Board of Health by general practitioners, who give all MMR vaccinations and are reimbursed for their reports; and diagnoses of autism recorded in the Danish Psychiatric Central Registry.
...The authors found that “There was no increase in the risk of autistic disorder or other autistic-spectrum disorders among vaccinated children as compared with unvaccinated children (adjusted relative risk of autistic disorder, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24; adjusted relative risk of other autistic-spectrum disorders, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07).”"
Here's a link to that study, with P Thorsen on the research team: (click here)
Here is an article about the recent federal court decision that there is no connection, because of another large Danish study showing no change in autism rates once thimerosal (mercury) was removed from vaccines. (Click here)
An exerpt:
"From the late 1990s to the present, scientists have looked closely at the evidence, and every well-done study has pointed to the same conclusion: thimerosal in vaccines has no link to autism. In one very large Danish study, autism rates rose after thimerosal was removed from vaccines. Another study looking at California, Sweden, and Denmark found the same thing. These results directly contradict the claim that thimerosal causes autism."
Here is a link to that particular Danish study: (Click here). Our good friend P Thorsen is on the research team. Their conclusion: "The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data do not support a correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism."
Notice there was an INCREASE in autism. A recent article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr points out this important information: "His study has long been criticized as fraudulent since it failed to disclose that the increase was an artifact of new mandates requiring, for the first time, that autism cases be reported on the national registry. This new law and the opening of a clinic dedicated to autism treatment in Copenhagen accounted for the sudden rise in reported cases rather than, as Thorsen seemed to suggest, the removal of mercury from vaccines. Despite this obvious chicanery, CDC has long touted the study as the principal proof that mercury-laced vaccines are safe for infants and young children." (click here for full article)
Now look at this wonderful news article printed in February about how Poul Thorsen took money he supposedly spent on research and is now hiding out in America. (Click here)
An exerpt:
"Until last March, the man was head of an 80 million kroner joint research project between the US government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the University of Southern Denmark and Aarhus University.
Jørgen Jørgensen, Aarhus University’s rector, confirmed that police charges have been filed against the former researcher and that it concerns a sum of around 10 million kroner. Numerous applications for funding for the research were apparently signed with forged signatures.
The scientist – who is reportedly living and working in Atlanta in the US – resigned from his post last March. But he allegedly continued to pass himself off as the head of the international project, which dealt primarily with research into the possible causes of autism."
Excuse me? Is no one else realising what this means? Does no one else feel like maybe these studies are now SUSPECT? ANYONE?
I actually don't know if vaccines, be them with mercury or not, cause autism. NO ONE DOES. Because no studies out there actually compare completely non-vaccinated children to children vaxed on schedule. the research is simply not being done. How easy they could alleviate the fears if actual research was done. But no, they won't do it. So they took out mercury. It's still in the flu vaccine, and still leaves aluminum. This link at eMedicine described the damage excess aluminum can do, including the following: "Aluminum causes an oxidative stress within brain tissue. Since the elimination half-life of aluminum from the human brain is 7 years, this can result in cumulative damage via the element's interference with neurofilament axonal transport and neurofilament assembly. Some experts believe it plays a role in leading to the formation of Alzheimerlike neurofibrillary tangles." (click here)
Dr. Bob Sears, who is actually pro-vaccines, says this about aluminum safety levels and vaccines: "All these warnings seem to apply mainly to premature babies and kidney patients. What about larger, full-term babies with healthy kidneys? Using the 5 mcg/kg/day criterion from the first document as a minimum amount we know a healthy baby could handle, a 12-pound 2-month-old baby could safely get at least 30 micrograms of aluminum in one day. A 22 pound one-year-old could get at least 50 micrograms safely...
A newborn who gets a Hepatitis B injection on day one of life would get 250 micrograms of aluminum. This would be repeated at one month of age with the next Hep B shot. When a baby gets the first big round of shots at 2 months, the total dose of aluminum can vary from 295 micrograms (if a non-aluminum HIB and the lowest aluminum brand of DTaP is used) to a whopping 1225 micrograms if the highest aluminum brands are used and Hep B vaccine is also given. These doses are repeated at 4 and 6 months. A child would continue to get some aluminum throughout the first 2 years with most rounds of shots.
Just to remind you, the FDA feels that premature babies and any patient with impaired kidney function shouldn't get more than 10 to 25 micrograms of injected aluminum at any one time." (click for full article)
And yet I am the one who is paranoid about vaccines? Why aren't all of us?
Friday, March 05, 2010
Navigating the World of Prenatal Testing: Part 2
ULTRASOUNDS
To begin with, ultrasound is not just used in ultrasonography - the doppler your midwife or Ob uses to hear your baby's heartrate also uses ultrasound technology.
Here is what the AAFP says about it:
"No evidence directly links improved fetal outcomes with routine ultrasound screening.10 However, there is good evidence that early ultrasonography (i.e., before 14 weeks’ gestation) accurately determines gestational age, decreases the need for labor induction after 41 weeks’ gestation, and detects multiple pregnancies.2 Ultrasonography at 10 to 14 weeks’ gestation can measure nuchal translucency as a screening test for Down syndrome. Pregnant women should be offered an ultrasound scan to search for structural anomalies between 18 and 20 weeks’ gestation.2,16 Diagnostic ultrasound exposure has not been proven to harm the mother or fetus, but more research on its risks is needed."
Here is what the APA says about it:
"The ultrasound is a noninvasive procedure that, when used properly, has not demonstrated fetal harm. The long term effects of repeated ultrasound exposures on the fetus are not fully known. It is recommended that ultrasound only be used if medically indicated."
And this article from Midwifery Today, titled: Ultrasound: Weighing the Propaganda Against the Facts, by Beverley Lawrence Beech, includes the following:
"When ultrasound was first developed researchers suggested that "the possibility of hazard should be kept under constant review" (Donald, 1980), and they said that it would never be used on babies under three months. However, as soon as vaginal probe ultrasound was developed, which could get good pictures in early pregnancies (and get nearer to the baby giving it a bigger dose), this initial caution was ignored.
Research by Lieberskind revealed "the persistence of abnormal behaviour . . . in cells exposed to a single dose diagnostic ultrasound ten generations after insonation." She concluded, "If germ cells were . . . involved, the effects might not become apparent until the next generation" (Lieberskind, 1979). When asked what problems should be looked for in human studies, she suggested: "Subtle ones. I’d look for possible behavioural changes, in reflexes, IQ, attention span" (Bolsen, 1982).
Because ultrasound has been developed rapidly without proper evaluation it is extremely difficult to prove that ultrasound exposure causes subtle effects. After all, it took over ten years to prove that the gross abnormalities found in some newborn babies were caused by thalidomide. However, there are a number of ultrasound studies which raise serious questions that still have to be addressed."
Why do I want one? Obsessive thought. There's no logical explanation for me to want one, since any concerns I have about fetal growth and placental location can be determined other ways. I got one with Connor and felt better afterwards. I didn't get one with Deirdre because I didn't get my medicaid approved in time and ended up paranoid the whole pregnancy.
So this is one of those areas where I'm a total hypocrite and you shouldn't listen to me. Skip the ultrasound unless there's an indication for one. Whenever the medical community says "we actually don't know what the longterm effects are of this procedure," you should proceed with great caution.
GLUCOSE CHALLENGE AND GLUCOSE TOLERANCE
These tests look for Gestational Diabetes, which is essentially diabetes that is only present while you are pregnant.
The glucose challenge requires the mother to drink a high-sugar drink and have her blood drawn an hour later to see how her body responds to sugar. Some doctors let the mother just have jelly beans or something besides the nasty drink. If she tests positive, she will have the glucose tolerance test, which requires that she fast the night before. She then has her blood drawn, drinks the nasty drink again, and has her blood tested every hour for 3 hours.
If your blood tests come back abnormal, you can generally manage with a change in diet and activity level. If a retest still comes back abnormal, your doctor may suggest taking insulin.
The controversy around this test is that the natural birthing world claims it does nothing to change birth outcomes.
"In Type I diabetes, extremes of low and high blood glucose early in pregnancy can cause congenital anomalies or kill the forming embryo. Gestationally diabetic women make normal or above-normal amounts of insulin and have normal blood sugar metabolism in the first trimester. With either Types I or II, diabetes of long standing may damage maternal blood vessels and kidneys, causing hypertension or kidney complications. These may in turn jeopardize the fetus. Gestational diabetics do not have long- standing diabetes. The one problem GD shares with both types is that chronic hyperglycemia can overfeed the fetus, resulting in macrosomia (generally defined as birth weight greater than 4000 g) or large-for- gestational-age (LGA) (greater than the 90th percentile) babies.
...In addition, glucose level turned out to be a poor predictor of macrosomia. Other factors such as race, age, parity, sex, and especially maternal weight, far outweighed glucose intolerance in determining birth weight. Hunter and Keirse observed that GD mothers had a 3-fold risk of giving birth to a baby weighing over 4500 g compared with normoglycemic women. However, a woman weighing over 90 kg had a 26-fold risk of having a baby this heavy compared with normal weight women (Hunter and Keirse 1989). Oats and colleagues could not find a significant association between glucose levels and birth weight until birth weight exceeded the 90th percentile. Even then, 77 percent of women had normal glucose tolerance (Oats et al. 1980)." SOURCE LINK
What this means, in simpler terms, is that if a woman already has diabetes when she becomes pregnant, there are risks to her and her fetus. Gestational Diabetes does not pose the same risks, showing up later in the pregnancy.
What to do if you are diagnosed with GD? This advice is taken from Givingbirthnaturally.com:
"Instead of submitting to the GCT, ask for a hemoglobin A1C: it’s a blood test that gives a three-month measure of your sugars over that time. It’s a much better snapshot of what your sugars have done over time than the GCT or OGTT. If they’ve been high during the past three months, then the odds are greater that you do have GD.
If you are diagnosed with GD, work with a nutritionist or dietician to control your sugars. If they are within normal limits, then you have no increased risks of complications and should be treated like any other patient. You may have to undergo Biophysical Profile (BPP) and non-stress tests at the end of pregnancy, but if they are fine there is NO REASON to have an induction or c-section. You should be able to birth freely in whatever position you choose. Also, advocate for food and drink during birth! If your sugars get too high/low, it will impact the baby’s sugars.
Once the baby is born, nurse IMMEDIATELY! This will stabilize the baby’s sugar. Do NOT let anyone take the baby for a blood test right away. By depriving the baby of food right away, they will cause the baby to become hypoglycemic. Also, mild hypoglycemia without any other symptoms isn’t usually cause for concern."
I intend to follow my glucometer and as long as everything is turning up fine, I intend to turn down this test, or do it myself.
GROUP B STREP INFECTION
The bacteria that causes this infection lives normally in the vaginas and anuses of up to 40% of healthy adult women. If you test positive for it, there is a 1 in 200 chance of you passing on the infection to your baby through vaginal birth, which could cause respiratory, gastrointestinal and other problems. The general treatment for it is antibiotics given to the mother during labor.
The test is done with swabs taken to the vagin and anus, which are then tested in a lab.
In 2009, The Cochrane Collaboration reviewed the evidence for using antibiotics and found the following:
"This review finds that giving antibiotics is not supported by conclusive evidence."
The continue: "Very few of the women in labor who are GBS positive give birth to babies who are infected with GBS and antibiotics can have harmful effects such as severe maternal allergic reactions, increase in drug-resistant organisms and exposure of newborn infants to resistant bacteria, and postnatal maternal and neonatal yeast infections."
In addition, an article in Midwifery Today poses the supposition that GBS infections may in fact be introduced by the healthcare provider who does cervical checks after the membranes have ruptured (your waters have broken).
"Many of these infections may be iatrogenic, caused by the hospital protocols. The strep bacillus originates in the anus. When the membranes are ruptured, fluid washes down and out of the vagina—until someone checks the cervix. Every time a cervical check is done, the examiner may carry GBS up on his or her gloved finger and deposit it on the cervix. Inserting an internal electro-fetal monitor electrode or an internal monitoring catheter also opens a pathway for bacteria to enter. Any of these scenarios could also explain why length of time after rupture of membranes correlates with infection rate. No randomized controlled studies have been undertaken comparing women with no vaginal checks or internal monitors to women with frequent vaginal checks."
A good friend of mine, who had an unassisted homebirth and is currently doing her own prenatal care for a second pregnancy, did a blog post about GBS that I think says it all, including natural treatments you can undertake yourself. CLICK HERE
I actually intend to turn down this test. If you do take it and test positive, I recommend doing what you can to avoid having to take antibiotics to treat it. Use alternatives, and ask to take the test again closer to the birth.
FETAL NON-STRESS TEST
This is called non-stress because it does not stress the baby. A fetal monitor is strapped onto the mother to measure the baby's heartrate, while another monitor is attached to measure contractions. Movement and heartrate will be followed for about a half hour. The test essentially checks to see if the baby's heartrate is reacting appropriates in times of movement and times of rest. If it isn't, it could indicate a need for further testing to see if the baby is getting enough oxygen/the placenta is doing its job.
I don't yet see any downsides to this.
BIOPHYSICAL PROFILE
This test combines a Non-Stress Test with an ultrasound. This test monitors and "scores" breathing, movement, muscle tone, heart rate and amniotic fluid.
Midwifery Today has this to say about it:
"Many North American women are being told at the very end of their pregnancies to go to an ultrasound clinic and have a biophysical profile. Most are impressed by the thoroughness of their practitioner and have no idea what this test involves or what sort of harm could follow from consenting to this diagnostic procedure. They will probably not be told that there is no scientific basis for having faith in the test results and that no improvement in health has been proved from large numbers of fetuses being "profiled." Certainly no one will mention that the only benefits of the procedure are one, the ultrasound clinic will earn $275, and two, medical practitioners will be able to cover themselves legally in the very rare instance that a baby might die in utero.
Until recently, physicians and midwives would tell women who were carrying their babies beyond 41 weeks gestational age to do kick counts. If the baby makes 10 distinct movements between the hours of 9 am and 3 pm, it is widely accepted that the baby is thriving."
They go onto warn that "An unusual number of diagnoses seem to be made that "there is not enough amniotic fluid." This seems to be the factor in this outline that is most often used as an excuse for induction. It is important for parents to know that this is likely an inaccurate assessment.
What the ultrasound technician is doing could be compared with viewing an adult in a see-through plexiglass bathtub from below the tub. In such a scenario, it would be difficult to assess how much water is in the tub above the body that is resting on the bottom of the tub. You might be able to get an idea of the water volume by measuring how much water was showing below the elbows and around the knees, but if the elbows were down at the bottom of the tub too, you might think there was very little water.
This is what the technician is trying to do in late pregnancy—find pockets of amniotic fluid in little spaces around the relatively large body of an eight-pound baby who is stuffed tightly into an organ that is about the size of a watermelon (the uterus). If most of the amniotic fluid is near the side of the uterus closest to the woman's spine, it cannot be seen or measured. This diagnosis of low amniotic fluid frightens the parents into acquiescing to an induction of labor. Even though the official BPP guidelines do not require immediate induction for a finding of low amniotic fluid, in practice the parents are pressured to induce. Stories abound of mothers who are induced for this indication and then report having abundant fluid when the membranes released in the birth process. The risks of induction, which can be catastrophic, and the resulting increase in the need for pain relief medication and cesarean section are usually not discussed with the parents before embarking on induction."
If there was a serious reason for concern - no fetal movement at all, no kicks, nothing, I could see how this might be useful. Otherwise, it does seem like an expensive waste of time and unnecessary exposure to ultrasound.
A side note about amniotic levels - the body is constanly replenishing it. If you really are worried about the level, triple your intake of water - just drink it like mad, which you should be doing anyway if you are pregnant.
To begin with, ultrasound is not just used in ultrasonography - the doppler your midwife or Ob uses to hear your baby's heartrate also uses ultrasound technology.
Here is what the AAFP says about it:
"No evidence directly links improved fetal outcomes with routine ultrasound screening.10 However, there is good evidence that early ultrasonography (i.e., before 14 weeks’ gestation) accurately determines gestational age, decreases the need for labor induction after 41 weeks’ gestation, and detects multiple pregnancies.2 Ultrasonography at 10 to 14 weeks’ gestation can measure nuchal translucency as a screening test for Down syndrome. Pregnant women should be offered an ultrasound scan to search for structural anomalies between 18 and 20 weeks’ gestation.2,16 Diagnostic ultrasound exposure has not been proven to harm the mother or fetus, but more research on its risks is needed."
Here is what the APA says about it:
"The ultrasound is a noninvasive procedure that, when used properly, has not demonstrated fetal harm. The long term effects of repeated ultrasound exposures on the fetus are not fully known. It is recommended that ultrasound only be used if medically indicated."
And this article from Midwifery Today, titled: Ultrasound: Weighing the Propaganda Against the Facts, by Beverley Lawrence Beech, includes the following:
"When ultrasound was first developed researchers suggested that "the possibility of hazard should be kept under constant review" (Donald, 1980), and they said that it would never be used on babies under three months. However, as soon as vaginal probe ultrasound was developed, which could get good pictures in early pregnancies (and get nearer to the baby giving it a bigger dose), this initial caution was ignored.
Research by Lieberskind revealed "the persistence of abnormal behaviour . . . in cells exposed to a single dose diagnostic ultrasound ten generations after insonation." She concluded, "If germ cells were . . . involved, the effects might not become apparent until the next generation" (Lieberskind, 1979). When asked what problems should be looked for in human studies, she suggested: "Subtle ones. I’d look for possible behavioural changes, in reflexes, IQ, attention span" (Bolsen, 1982).
Because ultrasound has been developed rapidly without proper evaluation it is extremely difficult to prove that ultrasound exposure causes subtle effects. After all, it took over ten years to prove that the gross abnormalities found in some newborn babies were caused by thalidomide. However, there are a number of ultrasound studies which raise serious questions that still have to be addressed."
Why do I want one? Obsessive thought. There's no logical explanation for me to want one, since any concerns I have about fetal growth and placental location can be determined other ways. I got one with Connor and felt better afterwards. I didn't get one with Deirdre because I didn't get my medicaid approved in time and ended up paranoid the whole pregnancy.
So this is one of those areas where I'm a total hypocrite and you shouldn't listen to me. Skip the ultrasound unless there's an indication for one. Whenever the medical community says "we actually don't know what the longterm effects are of this procedure," you should proceed with great caution.
GLUCOSE CHALLENGE AND GLUCOSE TOLERANCE
These tests look for Gestational Diabetes, which is essentially diabetes that is only present while you are pregnant.
The glucose challenge requires the mother to drink a high-sugar drink and have her blood drawn an hour later to see how her body responds to sugar. Some doctors let the mother just have jelly beans or something besides the nasty drink. If she tests positive, she will have the glucose tolerance test, which requires that she fast the night before. She then has her blood drawn, drinks the nasty drink again, and has her blood tested every hour for 3 hours.
If your blood tests come back abnormal, you can generally manage with a change in diet and activity level. If a retest still comes back abnormal, your doctor may suggest taking insulin.
The controversy around this test is that the natural birthing world claims it does nothing to change birth outcomes.
"In Type I diabetes, extremes of low and high blood glucose early in pregnancy can cause congenital anomalies or kill the forming embryo. Gestationally diabetic women make normal or above-normal amounts of insulin and have normal blood sugar metabolism in the first trimester. With either Types I or II, diabetes of long standing may damage maternal blood vessels and kidneys, causing hypertension or kidney complications. These may in turn jeopardize the fetus. Gestational diabetics do not have long- standing diabetes. The one problem GD shares with both types is that chronic hyperglycemia can overfeed the fetus, resulting in macrosomia (generally defined as birth weight greater than 4000 g) or large-for- gestational-age (LGA) (greater than the 90th percentile) babies.
...In addition, glucose level turned out to be a poor predictor of macrosomia. Other factors such as race, age, parity, sex, and especially maternal weight, far outweighed glucose intolerance in determining birth weight. Hunter and Keirse observed that GD mothers had a 3-fold risk of giving birth to a baby weighing over 4500 g compared with normoglycemic women. However, a woman weighing over 90 kg had a 26-fold risk of having a baby this heavy compared with normal weight women (Hunter and Keirse 1989). Oats and colleagues could not find a significant association between glucose levels and birth weight until birth weight exceeded the 90th percentile. Even then, 77 percent of women had normal glucose tolerance (Oats et al. 1980)." SOURCE LINK
What this means, in simpler terms, is that if a woman already has diabetes when she becomes pregnant, there are risks to her and her fetus. Gestational Diabetes does not pose the same risks, showing up later in the pregnancy.
What to do if you are diagnosed with GD? This advice is taken from Givingbirthnaturally.com:
"Instead of submitting to the GCT, ask for a hemoglobin A1C: it’s a blood test that gives a three-month measure of your sugars over that time. It’s a much better snapshot of what your sugars have done over time than the GCT or OGTT. If they’ve been high during the past three months, then the odds are greater that you do have GD.
If you are diagnosed with GD, work with a nutritionist or dietician to control your sugars. If they are within normal limits, then you have no increased risks of complications and should be treated like any other patient. You may have to undergo Biophysical Profile (BPP) and non-stress tests at the end of pregnancy, but if they are fine there is NO REASON to have an induction or c-section. You should be able to birth freely in whatever position you choose. Also, advocate for food and drink during birth! If your sugars get too high/low, it will impact the baby’s sugars.
Once the baby is born, nurse IMMEDIATELY! This will stabilize the baby’s sugar. Do NOT let anyone take the baby for a blood test right away. By depriving the baby of food right away, they will cause the baby to become hypoglycemic. Also, mild hypoglycemia without any other symptoms isn’t usually cause for concern."
I intend to follow my glucometer and as long as everything is turning up fine, I intend to turn down this test, or do it myself.
GROUP B STREP INFECTION
The bacteria that causes this infection lives normally in the vaginas and anuses of up to 40% of healthy adult women. If you test positive for it, there is a 1 in 200 chance of you passing on the infection to your baby through vaginal birth, which could cause respiratory, gastrointestinal and other problems. The general treatment for it is antibiotics given to the mother during labor.
The test is done with swabs taken to the vagin and anus, which are then tested in a lab.
In 2009, The Cochrane Collaboration reviewed the evidence for using antibiotics and found the following:
"This review finds that giving antibiotics is not supported by conclusive evidence."
The continue: "Very few of the women in labor who are GBS positive give birth to babies who are infected with GBS and antibiotics can have harmful effects such as severe maternal allergic reactions, increase in drug-resistant organisms and exposure of newborn infants to resistant bacteria, and postnatal maternal and neonatal yeast infections."
In addition, an article in Midwifery Today poses the supposition that GBS infections may in fact be introduced by the healthcare provider who does cervical checks after the membranes have ruptured (your waters have broken).
"Many of these infections may be iatrogenic, caused by the hospital protocols. The strep bacillus originates in the anus. When the membranes are ruptured, fluid washes down and out of the vagina—until someone checks the cervix. Every time a cervical check is done, the examiner may carry GBS up on his or her gloved finger and deposit it on the cervix. Inserting an internal electro-fetal monitor electrode or an internal monitoring catheter also opens a pathway for bacteria to enter. Any of these scenarios could also explain why length of time after rupture of membranes correlates with infection rate. No randomized controlled studies have been undertaken comparing women with no vaginal checks or internal monitors to women with frequent vaginal checks."
A good friend of mine, who had an unassisted homebirth and is currently doing her own prenatal care for a second pregnancy, did a blog post about GBS that I think says it all, including natural treatments you can undertake yourself. CLICK HERE
I actually intend to turn down this test. If you do take it and test positive, I recommend doing what you can to avoid having to take antibiotics to treat it. Use alternatives, and ask to take the test again closer to the birth.
FETAL NON-STRESS TEST
This is called non-stress because it does not stress the baby. A fetal monitor is strapped onto the mother to measure the baby's heartrate, while another monitor is attached to measure contractions. Movement and heartrate will be followed for about a half hour. The test essentially checks to see if the baby's heartrate is reacting appropriates in times of movement and times of rest. If it isn't, it could indicate a need for further testing to see if the baby is getting enough oxygen/the placenta is doing its job.
I don't yet see any downsides to this.
BIOPHYSICAL PROFILE
This test combines a Non-Stress Test with an ultrasound. This test monitors and "scores" breathing, movement, muscle tone, heart rate and amniotic fluid.
Midwifery Today has this to say about it:
"Many North American women are being told at the very end of their pregnancies to go to an ultrasound clinic and have a biophysical profile. Most are impressed by the thoroughness of their practitioner and have no idea what this test involves or what sort of harm could follow from consenting to this diagnostic procedure. They will probably not be told that there is no scientific basis for having faith in the test results and that no improvement in health has been proved from large numbers of fetuses being "profiled." Certainly no one will mention that the only benefits of the procedure are one, the ultrasound clinic will earn $275, and two, medical practitioners will be able to cover themselves legally in the very rare instance that a baby might die in utero.
Until recently, physicians and midwives would tell women who were carrying their babies beyond 41 weeks gestational age to do kick counts. If the baby makes 10 distinct movements between the hours of 9 am and 3 pm, it is widely accepted that the baby is thriving."
They go onto warn that "An unusual number of diagnoses seem to be made that "there is not enough amniotic fluid." This seems to be the factor in this outline that is most often used as an excuse for induction. It is important for parents to know that this is likely an inaccurate assessment.
What the ultrasound technician is doing could be compared with viewing an adult in a see-through plexiglass bathtub from below the tub. In such a scenario, it would be difficult to assess how much water is in the tub above the body that is resting on the bottom of the tub. You might be able to get an idea of the water volume by measuring how much water was showing below the elbows and around the knees, but if the elbows were down at the bottom of the tub too, you might think there was very little water.
This is what the technician is trying to do in late pregnancy—find pockets of amniotic fluid in little spaces around the relatively large body of an eight-pound baby who is stuffed tightly into an organ that is about the size of a watermelon (the uterus). If most of the amniotic fluid is near the side of the uterus closest to the woman's spine, it cannot be seen or measured. This diagnosis of low amniotic fluid frightens the parents into acquiescing to an induction of labor. Even though the official BPP guidelines do not require immediate induction for a finding of low amniotic fluid, in practice the parents are pressured to induce. Stories abound of mothers who are induced for this indication and then report having abundant fluid when the membranes released in the birth process. The risks of induction, which can be catastrophic, and the resulting increase in the need for pain relief medication and cesarean section are usually not discussed with the parents before embarking on induction."
If there was a serious reason for concern - no fetal movement at all, no kicks, nothing, I could see how this might be useful. Otherwise, it does seem like an expensive waste of time and unnecessary exposure to ultrasound.
A side note about amniotic levels - the body is constanly replenishing it. If you really are worried about the level, triple your intake of water - just drink it like mad, which you should be doing anyway if you are pregnant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)