Wellness Archives - Page 3 of 7

Shifting the Germ Theory Paradigm

Since the founding of the germ theory of disease, scientists have offered a holistic perspective. At long last, their efforts are taking hold.

I grew up in a household afraid of germs. When my sister was born, my father had all guests put on surgical masks to protect her. We all had our tonsils taken out “just because,” and antibiotics were considered a miracle discovered by science. My generation was the one first introduced to fast food—we really believed it was food! Our mothers were sold the idea that formula could be better than breast milk. So began the modern, manipulated, misdirected generation.

Fortunately, before I had my kids, I was introduced to chiropractic. I discovered the body’s amazing intelligence and its innate ability to heal itself. I learned about nourishment, a healthy attitude and a functional nervous system. Among the many teachings of chiropractic’s founder, D.D. Palmer, and his son, B.J., I was most fascinated with B.J.’s comment, “If the ‘germ theory of disease’ were correct, there’d be no one living to believe it.”

Fortunately, my husband and I were able to live the “chiropractic lifestyle” with our kids. Years before the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended breastfeeding (yes, they finally did in the ’90s) we were strong advocates for it. Long before the allopathic healthcare system was recognizing the importance of nutrition, we as chiropractors were recommending and consuming good, wholesome, pesticide-free foods.

In 1951, again far ahead of the times, B.J. Palmer published a statement warning against the use of antibiotics. We knew that germs were not the cause of disease and we cautioned against the overuse of antibiotics decades before USA Today headlined their dangers in the 1990s. We also let our kids play in the sunshine (without toxic sunscreen) and in the backyard dirt, decades before the study came out saying exposure to animals and dirt is healthier than living in antimicrobial households. We insisted that symptoms should not be suppressed with drugs, but rather allowed to run their course while addressing the cause (which is actually the path of healing, not disease). When we questioned the use of vaccines (a practice rooted in mainstream, germ-phobic theories) we were further scorned for our blasphemous perspective.

We met other practitioners—naturopaths, homeopaths, midwives and herbalists, as well as parents who also understood these basic principles—and we rejoiced that there were others who were living from this logical but undermined paradigm. But we remained a marginalized group. Often ostracized, certainly ridiculed…and in some instances, violently opposed.

Understanding the Paradigm

The germ theory proposes that microorganisms are the overriding cause of many diseases. It was initiated by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century when he examined humans and animals that showed signs of being sick and found that they had very high levels of bacteria and viruses compared to those who were not sick. He then made the assumption that germs infect our body and cause sickness and disease. Pasteur, along with German physician Robert Koch, is considered one of the fathers of the germ theory. The practice of allopathic, conventional medicine to this day is still based on this theory.

Less known is that several of Pasteur’s contemporaries refuted his idea that germs cause disease. Claude Bernard, a colleague and physiologist of that era, resolved that the health of the individual was determined by her internal environment. “The terrain is everything,” he wrote; “the germ is nothing.” Other scientists tested Bernard’s theory. Elie Metchnikoff, a Russian immunologist a generation younger than Bernard and Pasteur, suggested that a synergistic interaction exists between bacteria and its host. He, too, claimed that germs were not the problem. To prove it, he consumed cultures containing millions of cholera bacteria; he lived to write about it, and didn’t even get sick.

His contemporary, French chemist and biologist Antoine Bechamp, also believed that a healthy body would be immune to harmful bacteria, and only a weakened body could harbor harmful bacteria. His research contributed to this understanding when he discovered that there were living organisms in our bodies called microzymas, which essentially form into healthy cells in the healthy body and morph into unhealthy cells when the terrain is less than ideal. The conclusion: Germs do not invade us, but rather are “grown” within us when there is diseased tissue to live on.

Rudolf Virchow, another 19th-century scientist (dubbed the Father of Pathology), wrote, “If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat—diseased tissue— rather than being the cause of diseased tissue; e.g. mosquitoes seek the stagnant water, but do not cause the pool to become stagnant.”

In this day and age, we have been taught that germs— bacteria and viruses—are bad, which ignores the vital functions they perform. They are designed to decompose dead and dying material. Germs are our planet’s recyclers; without them, life on earth couldn’t exist.

Out of the billions of bacteria and viruses we have in our bodies, most are considered “friendly germs.” Bacteria is essential for proper digestion and it scavenges dead cells in our body so they can be replaced by new healthy cells. When our body tissues become weak due to poor health management, normal bacteria and viruses start to multiply and scavenge our unhealthy, dying cells. Our immune system responds as a survival mechanism and we develop the symptoms of being “sick,” but the germs are just doing their job.

The question then becomes, what creates sickness and illness? Is it the germs or is it an unhealthy body? It has been said that on Pasteur’s deathbed, he admitted that Bernard was right and he, Pasteur, was wrong. Nonetheless, an era of antibiotic drugs, chemical pesticides and herbicides, vaccines and antibacterial soaps has ensued, resulting in a germphobic society and a pharmaceutical empire to lead the attack. But even worse, all of these weapons have interfered with the body’s natural microbiome and impaired our immunity.

Fast forward to June 2012, when the release of coordinated research from the Human Microbiome Project Consortium organized by the National Institutes of Health rocked the world. As The New York Times reported, “200 scientists at 80 institutions sequenced the genetic material of bacteria taken from 250 healthy people. They discovered more strains than they had ever imagined—as many as a thousand bacterial strains on each person. And each person’s collection of microbes was different from the next person’s. To the scientists’ surprise, they also found genetic signatures of disease causing bacteria lurking in everyone’s microbiome. But instead of making people ill, or even infectious, these disease-causing microbes simply live peacefully among their neighbors.”

Instead of the “one germ, one disease” theory that has dominated allopathic medicine for centuries, these findings imply that there is an entire ecosystem of bacteria symbiotically at work in the body, a concept understood by holistic practitioners for centuries. “This is a whole new way of looking at human biology and human disease,” says Dr. Phillip Tarr, a researcher and professor of pediatrics at the Washington University School of Medicine. “It’s awe-inspiring and it also offers incredible new opportunities.”

The following quote by Ronald J. Glasser, M.D., sums up the health crossroads we now face. This former assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota writes, “It is the body that is the hero, not science, not antibiotics…not machines or new devices. The task of the physician today is what it has always been, to help the body do what it has learned so well to do on its own during its unending struggle for survival—to heal itself. It is the body, not medicine, that is the hero.” As more doctors realize the self-evident principles of supporting the terrain, perhaps the allopathic model of killing the “bad” germs to fight disease may finally shift to improving the terrain to support the friendly bacteria.

The body, like all of nature, exists by maintaining a state of balance. It is dependent upon an environment that nourishes and nurtures with interconnectivity and cooperation between whole systems, and an underlying recognition of intelligence and a respect for the natural processes and order. Therefore, the essentials for a healthy terrain can be broken into several general premises: Nourishing the Terrain, Coordinating the Function and Trusting the Process.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

Embracing a Life of Joy

by Sandra Dodd – ICPA.org:

How many things do you do because you’re supposed to? Because your relatives and neighbors expect it? Because it’s easy and you don’t have to think about it? How many of those things are taking you and your kids in a positive and healthy direction?

Changing paradigms is an option! If you’re operating on one plane, with one set of rules and expectations, it is possible—and often advisable—to shift and see things differently. It’s just thinking. It won’t hurt you.

Is school the center of children’s lives? Should it be?

Is the only acceptable goal of adult life having the most expensive house and furniture credit will buy?

It doesn’t take much of a shift to consider house and education secondary instead of primary. What might be primary, then? Health? Joy? Togetherness and love?

Part of the pre-packaged life Americans are issued is the idea that happiness comes after college, after homeownership, after the new car. The stick that holds that carrot will not bend. If happiness depends on performance and acquisition, how long will it last? How long will your car be the newest on your street before unhappiness returns?

Here’s a little paradigm shift for you to practice. Perhaps happiness shouldn’t be your primary goal. Try joy. Try the idea that it might be enjoyable to cook, to set the table, to see your family, rather than the idea that you’ll be happy after dinner’s done and cleaned up. My guess is that such happiness might last a couple of seconds before you look around and see something else between you and happiness. Joy, however, can be ongoing, and can be felt before, during and after the meeting of goals.

Enjoyment—that word itself is hardly used. Enjoyment is seen nearly as a sin by some people: “You’re not here to have fun, you’re here to work.” Why can’t work bring joy? Any tiny moment can be enjoyed: the feel of warm, running water when you wash your hands; a view of light and shadow on the floor, or pictures in the clouds; the feel of an old book. Seeing an old friend can bring pure, tingly joy for which there are no words.

If you practice noticing and experiencing joy—if you take a second out of each hour to find joy—your life will improve with each remembrance of your new primary goal. You don’t need someone else to give you permission, or to decide if what gave you joy was an acceptable source of enjoyment.

Can learning be fun? If it’s not fun, it won’t stick. Can laundry be fun? If you have to do laundry and you choose not to enjoy it, an hour or more of your precious time on Earth has been wasted. Can looking at your child bring you joy, even when he needs a bath and has lost a shoe and hasn’t lived up to some expectation that only exists in your mind? If not, a paradigm shift could help you both.

Your life is yours, and it is being lived even as you read this. Do not wait for approval. Do not wait for instructions, or for a proctor to say, “Open your lifebook now and write.” Have all the joy you want, and help your children, neighbors and relatives find some, too. Joy doesn’t cost anything but some reuseable thought and awareness. Tell your kids it’s recyclable. They’ll love that!

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

Your Inner Knowing – Trusting the Process for Natural Birthing

by Author Jeanne Ohm, DC – ICPA.org:

It is sometimes called “our inner knowing,” “the gut feeling,” or “the wisdom within.” Whatever its name, the experience is universal. It is a feeling, a word, an image that stands out bolder than the regular stream of conscious thought and it makes a slightly deeper impression on our minds. It will continue to guide us, depending on our receptive attention to it.

Natural processes like pregnancy and birth are dependent upon a woman’s ability to trust in her inner knowing. This wisdom leads women to support and trust the process rather than work against it. In this way, nature is allowed to take its course.

For centuries, this very intuition led women in their decisions for their own health and the well being of their families. Relying on its ageless wisdom, women listened to its promptings and trusted its guidance.

During birth, women used to decide which position would be most comfortable. They were free to move about during labor and delivery to manage the pain. Somehow, they knew that the squat position allowed the pelvis to open up more freely—one-third more in fact! If other people were present at the birth, they were there to support, not direct the process. Timing was not an issue; the baby was born at just the right moment. Once born, the mother immediately held, caressed, and nursed the baby. Separation was unheard of. Mother and child recovered quickly and grew strong together. There was confidence in this process as in any other body process: with respect and a sense of fulfillment.

Today, however, the birth process has turned into a technological procedure. The medical system in the United States is considered to be the most highly advanced in the world. We spend more on birth than any other country in the world. We expect this technology to improve our lives and solve our problems. We are led to believe this technology alone leads to improved outcomes. Why then does the World Health Organization rank the United States as 24th (last) among all industrialized nations in infant mortality and low birth weight?

Doris Hare, president of the American Foundation of Maternal and Child Health says, “It compels us to ask, what proportions of these complications, which have had their onset during labor and birth, are the direct result of aggressive obstetric procedures?”

This increase in technology leads to restrictions that apparently cause more harm than good. “Women are strapped down with monitors and forced into positions which are counter to gravity and normal physiology. They are forced into the hospitals schedule, inconsiderate of their normal birthing rhythms. This greatly slows down the natural momentum. The origin of this position had nothing to do with being safer for the mom or baby and yet its practice has remained unquestioned for centuries!

These restrictions in birth make women feel afraid and powerless. Fear shuts down the process both psychologically and physically. It actually constricts blood vessels and contracts muscles. This leads to greater pain. Drugs are given to ease the pain and the woman’s physical strength and uterine function is impaired further. Her ability to stay connected with her body is impaired and even cut off. She is not told that the drugs can harm her child’s developing organs and even intelligence.

Because of drugs and maternal positions, women strain and push excessively to get the baby out. Doctors pull and twist the infant’s delicate head and spine to get the shoulders out.

Even in what is called “natural birth,” standard birthing procedures pull the head and neck. Research shows that the routine force used in birth, may injure and damage the baby’s spinal cord and nerves. One medical study published in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology by Dr. Abraham Towbin addresses this issue even further. He says, “The birth process even under optimal controlled conditions is potentially a traumatic, crippling event for the fetus… Moreover during the last part of delivery, during the final extraction of the fetus, mechanical stress imposed by obstetrical manipulation—even the application of standard orthodox procedures—may prove intolerable to the fetus.”

Birth in our country is one of the most profound examples of how we have allowed the mystique of technology to overcome practical intuition. Before our high-tech involvement, women gave birth without outside interference. They trusted their intuition and their body’s inherent ability to function as it was created to.

It is no coincidence indeed; the very same procedures where a woman’s intuition has been violated the most— modern birthing—is also one of the greatest causes of injury to a newborn. It is also no coincidence that the health care provider who supports parents’ intuition and trust in the body’s self healing, natural processes—the chiropractor—is also the one who is most able to help reduce and correct the damaging effects of birth trauma.

Doctors of Chiropractic are seriously concerned with the amount of force being used during births. They know injury to the nervous system has a tremendous effect on a child’s ability to be healthy. This is because chiropractors work with so many children whose health has been impaired so early on in life. These birth injuries can have life-long health consequences.

One study done by Dr. Gutman, a German medical researcher, found that 80% of the newborns he examined had damage to the nerves in their necks from birth! These same children were all suffering from chronic ear and throat infections, colic, asthma, and other common childhood conditions. With specific corrections made to the misalignments in their upper necks, almost all of these children regained their health. His study, along with hundreds of case studies, shows how interferences to a child’s nervous system impair the body’s function and health.

With this research available to us, it is imperative that we as mothers become involved in our birthing decisions. We must look to decrease the possibilities of birth trauma in any way we can. Undue force and stress has become routine procedure in our modern birthing techniques. Doris Haire, former president of the International Childbirth Education Association, has investigated birthing procedures throughout the world. Her comments on births in America are not so favorable. She says, “Of all the 36 countries I have visited to observe maternity facilities, I am absolutely convinced that the United States has to be the most bizarre on earth in its management of obstetrics.”

I can remember giving a class in our community about birth trauma. When I was done, a woman in the audience raised her hand. “You are being very gracious,” she said. “I am an obstetric nurse and I have seen tremendous amounts of force used to pull out babies. One doctor resorted to putting his foot up against the table to gain greater leverage when he pulled on the baby’s neck. Than with all of his strength and weight put into it, he pulled that baby out by its head.” Most children born in modern societies with high-tech procedures have been injured at birth because of this type of unnecessary trauma to their tiny spines and delicate nervous systems.

With this evidence in hand, doctors of chiropractic are greatly concerned with routine birth procedures that lead to injury. This has led them to develop specific techniques to care for women during pregnancy. Chiropractic care throughout pregnancy removes interference to the mother’s nervous system, enhancing baby development and uterine function. It balances her pelvic muscles and ligaments and allows the baby to get into the best possible position for birth. Chiropractic care, therefore, facilitates an easier and safer birth for both mother and baby.

As mothers, it is important for us to take responsibility and make our own choices in our families’ health from conception on. Those choices need to be made from the place of inner knowing that we have, not from the fear-based approach we are taught to take. Today, it is tough for us to stand out on our inner knowing when the ways of the world are telling us otherwise. Our society does not teach us to trust the process by any means, but rather implants thoughts of fear and misgiving when the body is performing normal, natural functions.

We have been taught to fear pain, suppress symptoms, control the unscheduled timing of natural processes, and shun differences in our individual body responses. If it doesn’t fit within the norm, the average, the routine, it is not acceptable. We have been forced to restrain feelings, symptoms, and any other untimely expressions of life. We are led to look outside ourselves for solutions rather than trusting our inner wisdom.

Christine Northrup, M.D., a former obstetrician says, “I’ve learned that women and men who have a great deal of self-confidence and self-trust can go into most situations and get their needs met. One of the key ways a woman can develop a sense of trust in her own power is through birth, but most women today lack confidence in their bodies.”

Doctors of chiropractic enhance the natural process of birth and reduce birth trauma by encouraging pregnant mothers to choose safe procedures, supportive practitioners, and healthy environments for birth. They recognize that birth is a normal, natural process directed by the body’s inherent wisdom to function accordingly. They remove interference to her nervous system, optimizing this function. They offer the pregnant mother assurance and confidence in her body’s ability to accomplish this natural process. The philosophy of chiropractic and the supportive science behind it is in trusting the body’s ability to function in accordance with its own inborn intelligence.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

Birth – What Are the Philosophical Options?

by Carol Phillips D.C. – ICPA.org:

A woman’s body is exquisitely designed to conceive, nurture, and birth another human being. After conception, a woman and unborn child will unite in an oceanic blend of energy and identity… where one ends and the other begins no one knows.

A woman becomes a parent at the moment of conception. Every decision made from that moment on will affect her unborn child in some way. In order for her influence to have a positive affect, a woman must be prepared to make educated and informed decisions concerning the foods she will consume, the thoughts and images she will imprint on her baby’s developing brain, and the birth model she will embrace – technological, holistic, or humanistic. A female child spends her entire early life preparing for the possibility of motherhood so she can inadvertently make those decisions.

During childhood, a young girl learns to parent by example. She watches her mother and records subconsciously what she observes. Later, a teenage girl prepares her body for motherhood. Without her conscious knowledge, a teenager stores some of the nutrients she consumes to insure she has the building blocks to form a body for future children. For example, she must consume folic acid to prevent birth defects; essential fatty acids to build the central nervous system and peripheral nerves of a future embryo; and calcium for future fetal bone growth. Nature does its best to insure that a woman is prepared for parenting, but the forces of nature are not enough if she is not an active participant. Her body can not store what she does not consume. Consequently, we must educate our young girls early on about the concept of preparing their bodies for conception.

Conceiving and nurturing the unborn child are only two of the most important concepts we must teach future parents. Entrusted with the guardianship of a new life, a pregnant mother must also learn that all decisions surrounding her pregnancy, labor, and delivery should be based on knowledge and confidence rather than fear or impatience. Therefore, one of the most important concepts a parent must educate herself about is the birth model she will choose to adopt.

There are three basic philosophical models that a pregnant parent may choose from. The first and most commonly adopted is the technocratic model. In this paradigm, a parent accepts that the human body functions like a machine. Robbie Davis-Floyd in Birth As An American Rite of Passage demonstrates how this model, which is the foundation of modern obstetrics, views the female body as unpredictable and inherently defective. Consequently, it may malfunction at any time. The basic tenet of this model of birth holds that some degree of intervention is necessary in all births. Women who embrace the technocratic model enter the birthing room believing that science is there to take care of them and save them from the pain and anguish of childbirth.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the holistic model. Within this paradigm of birth, the family is the significant social unit instead of the hospital. Under the holistic model, the human body is a living organism with its own innate wisdom, an energy field constantly responding to all other energy fields. Female physiological processes, including birth, are healthy and safe and need no medical intervention. Under this model, the mother’s mental and emotional attitudes affect her performance during birth, as do the beliefs and actions of the partner. It is almost impossible for a parent who adopts the holistic paradigm to deliver within the hospital environment because of the inherent institutional management of birth associated with the technocratic approach.

In-between these two diametrically opposed models of birth lie the humanistic model. When adopting this paradigm, a mother believes she is an individual and must be treated as such. She believes she has the right to promote shared decision-making and responsibility for all aspects of the birth process. This model views the parent holistically while remaining open to the use of technology if applied judiciously. When a pregnant parent adopts a humanistic model, she surrounds herself with loving people who are willing to assist her by walking with her, rubbing her back, helping her move in and out of the bath, holding her, encouraging her, and providing support for any decision she makes. Her birth may occur either in the home, a birthing center, or a hospital if she has a birth attendant who also adopts the humanistic model.

Before women can make decisions concerning which birth model best suits her own philosophical beliefs, she must know that she has several options. As a profession, we must educate ourselves and our patients about the two models that are most suited to our vitalistic belief system. If we all learn how to honor the inherent wisdom of women and developing newborns, we can have a positive impact on the mental, physical, and spiritual growth and development of the next generation.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

The Homebirth Advantage

by Ronnie Falcão, LM, MS– ICPA.org:

When it comes to what’s best for you and your baby, you can consider a midwife-assisted home birth as safe an option as birthing in a hospital or free-standing birth center. At a home birth, your privacy will be respected and you can enjoy birthing in an intimate, family atmosphere. By birthing at home, you’ll be treated like a woman going through a natural process. Too often in hospitals, birthing women are made to feel more like patients with a dangerous condition.

Homebirth midwives carry the same equipment and medications found in a birth center. These includes hand held Dopplers and state-of-the-art machines for continuous monitoring of the baby’s heart rate, if necessary. Midwives also bring suctioning equipment and an oxygen tank to every birth, in the rare event they are needed. Anti-hemorrhagic medications will be on hand to prevent postpartum hemorrhaging, as will suturing equipment in case you tear.

In fact, midwives practicing in homes or independent birth centers can do everything that a midwife in a hospital could do. A 2009 Canadian study compared safety rates for planned home births and planned hospital births attended by the same cohort of midwives. They also evaluated the safety of planned physician-attended hospital births for a matched population of low-risk women who could have opted for home birth or hospital-birth midwives. Of the three groups, the home birth group had the highest safety statistics, including the lowest rate of interventions, serious perineal tearing and hemorrhaging. Babies born at home required resuscitation less often than those born in the hospital, and were less likely to experience meconium aspiration. Thus, the study indicated that home births were not only safer for low-risk mothers than any other birthing environment, but that they also called for less medical intervention.

One key difference is that professional midwives, in whichever setting they practice, work to recognize problems that could potentially interfere with a safe birth, and seek to correct them before they become major problems. They are also trained to handle life-threatening emergencies that can occur suddenly during a birthing, such as shoulder dystocia, postpartum hemorrhage or placental problems. Interestingly, each one of these emergencies occurs beyond the point when a cesarean section is still an option.

During the hours leading up to a birth, if a cesarean becomes necessary, there is a safety margin of 30 to 75 minutes in which to assemble a surgical team. For this reason, many midwives recommend that women labor within 30 minutes of a hospital as their emergency backup plan. This provides the same safety margin as women birthing in hospitals.

A landmark study on home birth safety was published in the British Medical Journal in June 2005. Like the 2009 study, this study showed that home births and hospital births had similar overall safety rates, but that there were fewer interventions and fewer complications for the home births. This prospective study with a rigorous research design is was most comprehensive North American study regarding birthing location options. A suite of home birth safety studies from the United Kingdom in 1996 also showed home to be as safe as or safer than a hospital for low- and moderate-risk women. In a 1999 review of all the literature on the relative safety of different birthing locations, childbirth researchers Luke Zander and Geoffrey Chamberlain concluded, “No evidence exists to support the claim that a hospital is the safest place for women to have normal births.”

Safety Begins at Home

There are several reasons why midwife-attended home births are safer than hospital births for most women. The first is that birth is a natural bodily process that works best without interference. A home birth with a midwife attending assures you that risky medical intervention will be kept to a minimum. (For example, Pitocin and epidural anesthesia, routinely administered in hospitals, introduce significant risks to both mother and baby.) Most problems that arise at home can be corrected with position changes or by providing the mother with food or better hydration— safe and helpful tools which are, ironically, often forbidden in many hospitals.

The second reason that home birth is safer is that the infection rate at home births is less than half that of hospital births. There are several reasons for this. First, the baby is born with the mother’s antibodies, passed through the placenta. These include immunity to the family’s household germs. Hospitals are notoriously germ-infested, and a mother isn’t able to offer herself or her baby the same degree of immunity from that environment. Second, homebirth midwives know not to wash off the protective, antibacterial vernix covering the baby’s skin. Third, because mothers and babies are never separated, the baby’s immature immune system is able to function optimally, without the stress and disruption of the baby being taken from its mother. Furthermore, the continuous mother-baby interaction fosters successful breastfeeding, which is the baby’s best protection against infection from the moment of birth. Midwives provide continuity of care and comprehensive mother/baby care at a level impossible in the assembly-line nature of hospitals.

Many women wonder whether they’ll be able to give birth at home without drugs; in fact, most women do just fine. Many women who have had babies both at home and in the hospital assert that birthing is much less painful at home, in familiar surroundings, with birth attendants who could cater to every need.

Childbirth classes teach about the fear-tension-pain cycle, whereby fear increases tension, causing the cervix to constrict rather than dilate, which in turn increases pain. It’s a process that’s counterproductive to birthing. When fear is absent from the birthing environment, the opposite cycle can play out: confidence-relaxation-comfort. That is, the more confident you are, the better able you are to relax, and the more comfortable you’ll be. This allows your body to secrete endorphins, which are the natural pain relief intended by nature for the mother’s body during natural childbirth.

As a laboring woman’s body produces more oxytocin to increase the effectiveness of her contractions, she also produces an equivalent level of endorphins for pain relief. (These endorphins aren’t produced if the mother is under stress or feeling afraid.) It is not uncommon for women to become increasingly relaxed as labor progresses, due to their endorphin levels climbing as the intensity increases. It’s easy to imagine how being in your own home can increase your confidence and ability to relax. A birthing tub provides even greater comfort, immersing the mother in the warm weightlessness of water.

Water birthing offers the woman the option of laboring and birthing in a tub. When a baby is born in water, the baby continues to receive all of its oxygen through the placenta until it is above water and using its lungs successfully. Thus, there is no risk of drowning, even if the baby crowns slowly over several contractions. The buoyancy provided by the water seems to help the mother and baby find the optimal position for birthing. In addition, the warm water increases blood flow to the uterus, which not only provides the necessary oxygen to the baby, but facilitates cervical dilation and reduces pain. Babies born in water are usually in excellent condition, and they are easily comforted by the familiarity of warm water.

The experience of birth for the baby at home is usually very gentle. We know that babies recognize voices during late pregnancy, so it is believed that the baby recognizes the midwife’s voice as someone nonthreatening and familiar. Homebirth midwives don’t use any devices that go inside the uterus or might be uncomfortable for the baby, and women are encouraged to birth in a position they choose. Positions chosen by the mother, such as an upright position, or on her hands and knees, tend to minimize stress on the baby and facilitate an easier birth.

Many homebirth couples choose to catch their own baby, and the assessment of baby’s well-being right at birth can be easily done with the baby still in the mother’s arms. Some midwives don’t ever hold the baby until the mother feels ready to have the baby weighed. Most parts of the newborn exam can be performed with the baby in the arms of the mom or dad. And because there is no rush to cut the cord, the baby receives all of its nutrient-rich cord blood, as nature intends.

Families who already have a little one at home appreciate how much easier it is for the older sibling to adjust to a new baby when their mom doesn’t mysteriously disappear for a few days. It may be wise to have a special family friend or a professional child doula there to care for the older child during the birth, but many siblings happily participate during the birth or sleep right through the excitement.

Easier Than You Think

The logistics of planning a home birth are often not as complex as couples assume. Babies born at home get a birth certificate and social security number, just like hospital born babies. (Your midwife can provide the necessary paperwork.) Birth kits with disposable supplies can be easily purchased online. Even larger items, such as birthing tubs, can be affordably purchased or rented.

Home birth provides an opportunity for a safe and satisfying birth experience, putting the needs of the baby first. She’s the most important person during the event: Shouldn’t she be treated like it?

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

Why Wear Your Baby?

by Sharon Reuven – ICPA.org:

More and more frequently, parents can be seen with their babies tucked snugly into cloth carriers of various types in malls, on the street, and in the home. This mode of baby travel is steadily gaining popularity and for good reason: soft carriers have proven to be a simple, practical way to incorporate baby care into busy lifestyles.

Although baby wearing is an old concept, researchers in the past fifty years have confirmed the wisdom of this timeless practice. Studies have revealed that our children’s social, emotional, and physical development are all significantly affected by early exposure to motion and human contact.

Slowly, we are beginning to hear about the value of “attachment style” parenting, the “continuum concept,” and other parenting approaches which emphasize the importance of developing close and responsive ties with our babies. Even hospitals have become more baby – and relationship – friendly in the past decade, with rooming-in becoming the norm in most cases.

This focus on close contact and nurturing is in direct contrast to the oft repeated myth “you’ll spoil him if you pick him up,” which began more than 100 years ago and can still be heard today. Instead, the research has shown many benefits for babies receiving extensive physical contact by means of simply holding and carrying, or through the use of slings and other soft carriers.

A study at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons concluded that babies carried on their mother’s body in the first months of life showed significant increase in bonding and emotional health over babies carried in plastic infant seats. The study evaluated two groups for security after one year. One group had been given soft baby carriers and the other group had received plastic infant seats. A year later, the findings revealed that 83% of the babies carried in the cloth carriers were “securely attached,” compared to only 38% of those carried in the infant seats. In fact, the findings surprisingly revealed that baby wearing was more beneficial in respect to mother-infant bonding than breastfeeding alone.

Baby wearing as a parenting style usually refers to babies worn in slings or other types of soft carriers for a significant portion of the day. Besides the convenience for the wearer (usually Mom or Dad) and the most obvious effect of bonding, the benefits associated with regular baby wearing included: less crying and colic, enhanced learning and social development, and enhanced motor development.

It is easy to see how bonding and emotional security are facilitated by baby wearing. The closeness associated with using a sling allows for the development of an intimate connection between baby and wearer. As in all relationships, simply spending time close together and tuning in to one another can deepen the understanding and communication between two people. The same applies to baby wearing. Parents and babies who regularly practice baby wearing come to know each other very well. This is something baby wearing parents frequently comment on. The establishment of this connection becomes the basis for the formation of a strong relationship and results in other benefits as well. Most baby wearing fathers note that wearing their babies gives them a chance to feel more included in the care of their young children and they especially seem to enjoy the intimacy.

Parents who regularly wear their babies from birth on report that colic is often prevented and crying is minimized.

The prevention of colic has to do with the baby’s transition to life on the outside. Baby wearing provides three elements of familiarity to the newborn: a steady heartbeat, motion and closeness. This familiar environment, reminiscent of the womb, assists the baby in assimilating this vast new world, by establishing a consistent place of safety, comfort and security.

Babies who are regularly worn from infancy soon begin to regard the sling as their safe place and will quietly settle and become content when worn. Providing this predictable place of security helps to ease this life transition for both parents and baby. Once this all-important security has been established, babies tend to confidently move on to explore more of the world about them.

Baby wearing parents also report that their babies do not cry much. The physical proximity enables parents to quickly learn and respond to their babies’ non-crying communication signals. Very early on, baby wearers find they can discern their babies’ cues for food, a diaper change, or even just a change of pace like some action or mellow time.

There are two significant benefits associated with tuning into babies’ non-crying communication. First, a generally quiet and content baby helps new parents to gain confidence in their parenting abilities, and many baby wearers report that parenting a newborn has turned out to be easier than they had expected. Second, it fits naturally into the way babies learn to trust: by experiencing, over time, that their needs are consistently understood and met without undue frustration or alarm.

Carried babies spend more time in the “quiet alert” state, which is the optimum state for learning. As a result, enhanced visual alertness and awareness of the environment are seen in babies who are regularly carried or “worn.” Baby wearing provides closerange exposure to a wide variety of experiences from a safe vantage point. While the wearer makes lunch, visits with friends, shops for groceries, or walks on the beach or in an art gallery, baby is able to absorb the most from each experience. This contrasts with babies who are sat down in the corner of the room away from all the action. Babies who are worn also become very socially attuned, as they are exposed up-close to the language and social environment they will soon become a part of.

Most parents want to give their children a head start in life in any way they can. Baby wearing is a natural way to provide a safe but stimulating environment for their baby, with this early exposure to active life providing a context for learning and for later participation.

Some parents may be concerned that babies who are held so much will NEVER learn to crawl or to walk on their own, but this is simply not the case. Babies who are ready to crawl and to walk are very capable of making it known. And here also is another benefit of baby wearing: motion. Studies have shown that motion is associated with improved gross and fine motor development in young babies, and baby wearing, by definition, involves movement.

Researchers have even seen improvements in awareness of object permanency, goal directedness, social, and language development as a result of increased exposure to motion. In fact, in one study, African babies were found to develop much faster in these areas than babies in our culture. This was thought to be due to three factors: the increase in vestibular stimulation (motion) from being carried almost constantly, exposure to a wide variety of sights and sounds as these babies experience community life in arms, and a rapid response to their cries when they were not being carried.

Baby wearing parents can significantly increase their babies exposure to vestibular stimulation by the natural rhythm of their movements as they participate in various activities throughout the day.

My personal experience using a sling has led me to do some research on this baby care option. My husband and I had bought a sling before our daughter’s birth, and we used it literally from the day she was born. For her first several months of life she pretty much lived in it. I wore her while doing housework and chores, as well as on errands and outings (except of course in the car). My husband also enjoyed wearing her and tells anyone who will listen how great it was for giving him an immediate sense of connection with her.

Breastfeeding was easy when she was in the sling, and I found I could nurse almost anywhere, even while grocery shopping. She seemed to love being worn when I was active, especially if the activity was rhythmic. In the early days, just doing the dishes or going for a walk would put her to sleep. I would wear her while doing chores, knowing that soon she would sleep and I would have a chance to take a break also. I found this invaluable, especially after hearing a friend tell me about being exhausted from dashing madly about trying to get everything done in short intervals while her baby slept.

Although we managed to avoid colic, there were definitely some occasions when putting her in the sling and walking or dancing around the house was the only thing that would settle her. Most of my family was supportive of the baby wearing concept, yet there were a few who predicted that she would be spoiled from being held so much. However, I continued to wear her and am happy to report that yes, she did learn to crawl, to walk, and to run. At three-and-a-half-years old she is independent, well-adjusted and very active and we still enjoy being around her.

Overall, I credit baby wearing with facilitating the deep closeness that developed between my daughter and me, and also with easing my transition into motherhood. My experience using the sling has prompted me to continue gathering information on baby wearing in our own and in other cultures. My goal is to try to pass this information on to others who may not be aware of the convenience baby wearing affords parents, or the benefits for baby. I have a close friend whose three children are grown and gone, and her lament after seeing the sling in use has been “Why weren’t they around when my kids were babies!?” To whatever extent baby wearing is incorporated into a family’s parenting style, it will usually benefit the whole family. Parents need to know that they do not have to feel guilty about holding and carrying their babies. Human infants have a biological need for extensive human contact and for motion.

Like breastfeeding, baby wearing has endured throughout the ages in other societies and it’s making a comeback in our own as research continues to come in confirming and revealing its many benefits.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

Antibiotics and the Aware Parent

by Claudia Anrig, D.C. – ICPA.org:

Acute Otitis Media is the most common upper respiratory condition treated in pediatric offices and the treatment of this condition continues to be the most controversial in the medical community.

The majority of children suffering from Acute Otitis Media will automatically be placed on antibiotics despite growing evidence that suggests there’s only a marginal benefit from this form of care.

The pediatric community is being confronted primarily by mounting evidence that the standard use of antibiotics may be an outdated practice with little value and what appears to be greater risk to the child.

When prescribing antibiotics for your child your pediatrician should be willing to answer the question, “Does this case warrant a prescription”?

Let’s consider an observation published recently by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians:

“Each course of antibiotics given to a child can make future infections more difficult to treat. The result is an increase in the use of a larger range of—and generally more expensive— antibiotics. In addition, the benefit of antibiotics for Acute Otitis Media is small on average and must be balanced against potential harm of therapy. About 15 percent of children who take antibiotics suffer from diarrhea or vomiting and up to 5 percent have allergic reactions, which can be serious or life threatening. The average preschooler carries around 1 to 2 pounds of bacteria – about 5 percent of his or her body weight. These bacteria have 3.5 billion years of experience in resisting and surviving environmental challenges. Resistant bacteria in a child can be passed to siblings, other family members, neighbors, and peers in group-care or school settings.”

Scientific Evidence

Scientific evidence puts forth the following information:

• Children with high temperature or vomiting improved after an average of three days.

• Children with high temperature or vomiting were likely to benefit from antibiotics, although it’s still reasonable to wait 24 to 48 hours since many children will improve when left to their body’s own natural defenses.

• Children without high temperature or vomiting were not expected to benefit from immediate antibiotics.

Considering this information it’s best to take an option to observe stance since 80 percent of children with Acute Otitis Media get better without antibiotics within 48 to 72 hours.

With this scientific evidence mounting, ask yourself a few questions:

Will my pediatrician continue to prescribe antibiotics to my child based on his or her old programming and habits despite growing evidence that suggests antibiotics make little difference?

Does my pediatrician continue to have concerns that there’s a risk for dangerous complications, such as Acute Mastoiditis, despite the fact that it’s documented as a “rare occurrence”

As a parent, what do you need to know?

• That there is mounting evidence from the research community that the use of antibiotics has very little effect on Acute Otitis Media.

• That your doctor may be prescribing antibiotics based on old habits or the concern of developing acute mastoiditis, which has proven to be rare.

• That when delaying the use of antibiotics for 72 hours, even if your child is suffering from fever and vomiting, 50 percent of all children improve within that time period.

• That children with Acute Otitis Media but without fever and vomiting receive very little benefit from the use of antibiotics (this child should not begin antibiotics unless their condition worsens).

• It’s your child and you can take the initiative by asking your pediatrician to consider waiting 72 hours before introducing the antibiotic.

Prevention is the Key

New guidelines set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians recommend that the clinician take an active role in preventing Acute Otitis Media. A few suggestions included:

• Altering child care center attendance • Breastfeeding for the first 6 months • Avoid supine bottle-feeding (bottle propping) • Reduce or eliminate pacifier in the second six months of life • Eliminate exposure to passive smoke

A Healthy Alternative

Take the common sense approach to otitis media and consider chiropractic care. The Fallon study with 332 participating children suggests that chiropractic care may be more effective than drug therapy.

Be aware that your chiropractor is not opposed to antibiotics when necessary, but the chiropractic profession acknowledges that over usage is prevalent in our country and that the habits of medical doctors may not have caught up with the latest research.

A Final Thought

For the overall wellness of your child, participate in all decisions when it comes to the usage of antibiotics and seek other non-invasive forms of care. Remember, it’s your child and you have a say in his or her care. Most importantly, initiate healthy lifestyle choices for your family and include regular chiropractic care as part of your family’s achievement towards wellness.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

The American Medical Association Restricts Medical Care

excerpt from The Left, the Right, and the State by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.:

Restricting the supply of medical care has a long history. Hippocrates built a thriving medical center on the Greek island of Cos in the fourth century B.C., and taught any student who could pay the tuition. But when the great man died, there was fierce competition for students and patients, and the doctors sought to cartelize the system with the Hippocratic Oath.

The oath pledged devoted care to the sick, but also that “I will hand on” my “learning to my sons, to those of my teachers, and to those pupils duly apprenticed and sworn, and to none others.”

In the modern world, England’s Royal College of Physicians (RCP)—a state-approved licensing agency—has long been the model medical monopoly, exercising iron control over its members’ economic conduct. But this guild-like system wasn’t salable in laissez-faire America.

In 1765, John Morgan tried to start an intercolonial medical licensing agency in Philadelphia, based on the RCP. He failed, thanks to bitter infighting among the doctors, but did begin the first American medical school, where he established the “regular mode of practice” as the dominant orthodoxy. Those who innovated were to be punished.

After the Revolution, said historian Jeffrey Lionel Berlant, “a license amounted to little more than a honorific title.” In Connecticut and Massachusetts, for example, unlicensed practitioners were prohibited only from suing for fees. And in the free market 1830s, one state after another repealed penalties against unlicensed practice.

By the mid-nineteenth century, there were virtually no government barriers to entry. As economist Reuben A. Kessel noted, “Medical schools were easy to start, easy to get into, and provided, as might be expected in a free market, a varied menu of medical training that covered the complete quality spectrum.” Many were “organized as profit-making institutions,” and some “were owned by the faculty.”

From time to time, doctors attempted to issue tables of approved fees—with price-cutting called unprofessional—but they failed, because price-fixing cannot long survive in a competitive environment.

Organized medicine’s lobbying against new doctors and new therapies began to be effective in the middle of the century, however. The official reason was the need to battle “quackery.” But as historian Ronald Hamowy has demonstrated in his study of state medical society journals, doctors were actually worried about competition lowering their incomes.

The American Medical Association (AMA) was formed in 1847 to raise doctors’ incomes. Nothing wrong with that, if it had sought to do it through the market. Instead, its strategy, designed by Nathan Smith Davis, was the establishment of state licensing boards run by medical societies. He attacked medical school owners and professors who “swell” the number of “successful candidates” for “pecuniary gain,” fueled by the “competition of rival institutions.” These men advance “their own personal interests in direct collision” with “their regard for the honor and welfare of the profession to which they belong.” The answer? “A board of examination, to sit in judgment” to restrict entry and competition, which he did not point out could only have a pecuniary motive.

As philosopher William James told the Massachusetts legislature in 1898: “our orthodox medical brethren” exhibit “the fiercely partisan attitude of a powerful trade union, they demand legislation against the competition of the ‘scabs.’” And by 1900, every state had strict medical licensure laws.

The Flexner Report of 1910 further restricted entry into the profession, as legislatures closed non-AMA-approved medical schools. In 1906, there were 163 medical schools; in 1920, 85; in 1930, 76; and in 1944, 69. The relative number of physicians dropped 25 percent, but American Medical Association membership zoomed almost 900 percent.

During the great depression, as Milton Friedman notes, the American Medical Association ordered the remaining medical schools to admit fewer students, and every school followed instructions. If they didn’t, they risked losing their AMA accreditation.

Today, with increasing government intervention in medicine — often at the AMA’s behest— the organization exercises somewhat less direct policy control. But it still has tremendous influence on hospitals, medical schools, and licensing boards.

It limits the number of medical schools, and admission to them, and makes sure the right to practice is legally restricted. The two are linked: to get a license, one must graduate from an AMA-approved program. And there is a related AMA effort to stop the immigration of foreign physicians. The American Medical Association also limits the number of hospitals certified for internships, and licensure boards will accept only AMA-approved internships.

The licensure boards—who invariably represent medical societies—can revoke licenses for a variety of reasons, including “unprofessional conduct,” a term undefined in law. In the past, it has included such practices as price advertising.

Medical licensure is a grant of government privilege. Like all such interventions, it harms consumers and would-be competitors. It is a cartelizing device incompatible with the free market. It ought to be abolished.

Children May Not Need Antibiotics for Acute Infective Conjunctivitis

by Pathways Magazine – ICPA.org:

Antibiotics are not necessary for most children with acute infective conjunctivitis, according to the results of a randomized, double-blind trial published in the June 22 Early Online Publication issue of The Lancet.

“We have shown that symptoms resolve without antibiotics in most children with acute infective conjunctivitis,” lead author Peter W. Rose, from the University of Oxford, England, said in a news release. “The health economic argument against antibiotic prescription for acute conjunctivitis is compelling.”

The authors note that each year, one in eight schoolchildren has an episode of acute infective conjunctivitis annually, and that standard clinical practice is to prescribe a topical antibiotic. However, there is little evidence to support this practice.

“Parents should be encouraged to cleanse their children’s eyes if an antibiotic is not prescribed,” the authors conclude. “Parents should be encouraged to treat children themselves without medical consultation, unless their child develops unusual symptoms or the symptoms persist for more than a week.”

1 in 8 schoolchildren has an episode of acute infective conjunctivitis annually, and that standard clinical practice is to prescribe a topical antibiotic. However, there is little evidence to support this practice.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

Treating an Ear Infection

by Joseph Mercola, DO – ICPA.org:

I know antibiotics are not good for my baby, but what do I do if he gets an ear infection?

Avoid dairy. Identify food allergens. Try this safe, economical solution!

The treatment of ear infections in this country is a huge problem. Most of the chronically sick children I see were given antibiotics frequently for recurrent ear infections. The sad tragedy is that nearly all of these are preventable by simply changing the diet. Avoiding milk and dairy is the single largest issue, but clearly other food allergens contribute.

Even with the best diets though a child may get an ear infection. This does not mean that the child needs antibiotics. The simple solution is to put a few drops of breast milk in the ear canal every few hours. This usually works to clear up the infection within 24–48 hours and is far safer, less expensive and a better solution than putting the child on antibiotics. If the mother is not breastfeeding, it is likely she knows someone who is. All that is required for the treatment is about one half ounce of breast milk, so obtaining that from a friend will work just as well.

If you know someone who has a child with ear infections please share this article. You may make a huge impact on the future health of that child.