Quarterly Publication of the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association
Uncovering The Biology of Belief Interview: Dr. Bruce Lipton Wellness Approach for Children The Deadly Influence of Formula
International Chiropractic Pediatric Association
Womenâ€™s Health Risks
International Chiropractic Pediatric Association
Uncovering the Biology of Belief
An Interview with Dr. Bruce Lipton Dennis Perman, D.C.
Pregnancy Matters: Ultrasound Dennis Perman, D.C.
Kid Bits: Baby Food News Randall Neustaedter, O.M.D.
Family Wellness: A Wellness Approach for Children
Bruce Lipton, Ph.D.
Our mission is to provide education, training, and support research on
chiropractic care in pregnancy and throughout childhood because all
The Deadly Influence of Formula in America Linda Folden Palmer, D.C.
children need chiropractic care.
Sleeping Through the Night by Katherine Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Anthony Carrino, D.C., F.I.C.P.A.
Womenâ€™s Health Risks Associated with Orthodox Medicine - Part I
Evangelo Fotinopoulos, D.C., F.I.C.P.A.
Gary Null, Ph.D., Debora Rasio, M.D., and Martin Feldman, M.D.
Board Claudia Anrig, D.C.
Stephen Marini, D.C., Ph.D. Jeanne Ohm, D.C. F.I.C.P.A. James Thompson, D.C., F.I.C.P.A.
pathWAYS is a quarterly publication of the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association
ICPA 327 N Middletown Rd Media, PA 19063
Design by Tina Aitala Engblom
from the editor jeanne ohm,d.c.
We hope you enjoy our new look for our ICPA
I have opened a special account just for this purpose
magazine. We will be sending it out quarterly / sea-
and we are accepting funds to get this project
sonally. For future issues we will be offering you the
underway. One year’s worth of advertising in a
opportunity to purchase additional copies for your
major publication costs approximately $40,000. We
patients. Please stay tuned to our Ped Ex e-news
need all of your participation
updates for ordering information.
and are launching a special
Another project we are launching on your behalf is
fund raiser to meet the needed
additional advertising in major national publica-
goals. We would like our first
tions. We have had such an overwhelming response
ad to be in this fall issue so
from our members and the public about our ad
our final donation deadline is
in Mothering Magazine and the traffic to our
June 30, 2004. Please realize
Membership Referral Directory has increased
the impact this will have on
significantly. We feel if we can advertise in publica-
your practice, the profession
tions like Parenting and/or Child, we will be reaching
and of course, the children.
a larger audience on your behalf. Our goal remains
The Board of Directors wants
consistent with yours—children need chiropractic
to thank each and every one of your for your
care and parents need to know about this!
on-going support and enthusiasm for the ICPA and
Our only challenge with this is the cost. Major
its growth. We want to acknowledge that your
publications are beyond our financial capabilities at
continued participation is the reason for our growth
this time. I was discussing this at a recent seminar,
and we sincerely appreciate you. As practitioners
and explaining we will be needing additional funding
ourselves, we strive to meet your expectations and
from our members to launch this campaign. One of
needs in your own communities as you work with
our members, Dr. Jason Nobles, stood up and
more and more families. Please consider yourself a
brought me a check for $1,000 saying, please let me
part of our family and let’s grow together in
be the first to contribute to this project. I will help in
research, training, education and service.
any way I can—this is not happening anywhere else in chiropractic and we need it!
The following excerpts are taken from several of Bruce Lipton’s articles. His ground-breaking theories and the ability to relate them to chiropractic are worth reading all of his articles in their entirety. Dr. Lipton is our keynote speaker at our Spring Extravaganza this year in NJ.
Uncovering the Biology of Belief Bruce Lipton, Ph.D.
Recent advances in cellular science are heralding an important turning point. For almost fifty years, we have held the illusion that our health and fate were preprogrammed in our genes, a concept referred to as genetic determinacy. Though mass consciousness is currently imbued with the belief that the character of ones life is genetically predetermined, a radically new understanding is unfolding at the leading edge of science. This new awareness is bringing conventional biomedical philosophy into close alliance with D.D. Palmer’s original Chiropractic philosophy. Through the action of the nervous system, each individual cell is also influenced by a much larger environment, that experienced by the whole organism. Your liver cell knows what’s going on in your liver, but through the nervous system, it also aware of what’s going on in your job or in your relationships. The cells receive environmental signals via the central nervous system. In truth, the cell’s receive a “perception” of the environment
as interpreted by the Educated brain. Our nervous system tabulates approximately four billion environmental signals per second. Its primary role is to “read” the environment and make appropriate adjustments of growth and protection behaviors in order to ensure survival. Memory systems evolved to facilitate information handling by storing previously “learned” experiences. Memories, which represent perceptions, are scored on the basis of whether they support growth or require a protection response. In chiropractic philosophy, these learned perceptions constitute the Educated Intellect, which is by evolutionary design, a derivative of the collective Innate Intelligence. Perception of environmental threats suppress a cell’s growth activities and cause it to modify its cytoskeletal in adopting a protection “posture.” Suppressing growth mechanisms conserves valuable energy needed in exercising life-saving protection behaviors. In humans, a similar systemic switch functions to shut down our growth processes and prepares us for launching a protection response. This switching mechanism is represented by the HypothalamusPituitary-Adrenal (HPA) axis. The brain’s hypothalamus is instrumental in perceiving and assessing environmental signals. The perception of stress causes the hypothalamus to secrete corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF), which in turn, activates certain pituitary cells to release adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) into the blood. ACTH stimulates the adrenal gland to secrete adrenal hormones. These hormones constitute a “master switch” that regulates the systems growthprotection activity and routes vascular flow in preparation for “fight or flight” reactions. Firstly, adrenal hormones shunt blood from the viscera and
redirect it toward the body’s somatic tissues, which adopts a protective posture. Reduced blood flow to the viscera, by definition, implies a suppression of growth-related behaviors. Secondly, adrenal hormones directly inhibit the action of the immune system, the internal “protection” mechanism. The adrenal system’s function is to protect the body from threats it perceives in the external environment. Adrenal suppression of the high budget immune system makes more energy available to the somatic system. Consequently, the more stress one experiences, the more susceptible they will be to dis-ease.
Adrenal hormones also reroute brain blood flow by constricting forebrain blood vessels and dilating hindbrain vessels. Fight or flight situations are more successfully handled using hindbrain-mediated reflex behaviors. Constriction of forebrain blood flow suppresses “logic” or “executive reasoning,” since slower thinking responses ultimately jeopardize fight-flight reactions. Have you ever experienced a loss of intelligence in response to adrenal-mediated “exam stress?” Collectively, HPA stress suppresses visceral-mediated growth, inhibits the continued on page 4
An Interview with Dr. Bruce Lipton MasterTalk Volume 3, Number 9 by Dennis Perman, D.C.
Earlier this year, ODOC had the opportunity to bring Bruce Lipton, Ph.D. and Dennis Perman, D.C., to our Spring Convention. From that association, Dr. Lipton had the opportunity to speak to the Masters Circle programs throughout America, which lead Dr. Perman to do an interview with Bruce for the MasterTalk recordings. This interview has been transcribed and is presented here with the permission of Dr. Perman. Attend the ICPA Extravaganza this spring and hear the Masters Circle Dr. Bob Hoffman and Bruce Lipton, Ph.D. DENNIS: We are on location in the MVP in Chicago and I just had the extraordinary experience of three hours with one of the most brilliant presentations I have had in recent memory. The gentleman I am about to introduce to you is an absolute treasure in chiropractic. Remarkably, he is not a chiropractor. But he is someone who got turned on to the chiropractic message in a very unique way and has something so significant to offer…This is future Nobel Prize stuff, people…Let me introduce to the MasterTalk audience, Dr. Bruce Lipton. BRUCE: Thank you so much. DENNIS: Bruce, to try and encapsulate your research in a twelve-minute interview is near impossible. But I need you to make an opening statement about continued on page 5
Uncovering the Biology of Belief continued from page 2 immune system and stunts intelligence. The degree of expression of these influences is directly related to the level of perceived stress. The more stress, the less growth. The interference with growth due to chronic stress leads to dis-ease, since the body is unable to adequately maintain its metabolic vitality. In conclusion, conventional allopathic medicine is now beginning to realize that genetic expression, which influences the character of the body, is under the control of the environment. However, the growth or protection
by mental processes independently of external influence.” When Educated perceives an environmental stress, it will signal the requirement for a protection response. Protection behaviors, mediated by the somatic nervous system will adjust the spine to provide a defensive posture. Consider the relationship between a powerful alpha-male dog and a dog of lesser rank. The latter will acquire a protective submissive posture, lowered head and body, in order to avoid inciting the wrath of the alpha-male.
the chiropractor needs to seriously consider the role of auto-suggestion in the healing process
posture of an individual’s tissues and organs is mediated by the nervous system’s perception of its environment. Perceptions are beliefs. Misperceptions can inappropriately increase or decrease physiologic mechanisms and produce dis-ease. The role of perception and mind is now becoming a point of focus in allopathic healthcare, as they try to unravel the mysteries of the placebo effect and the role of pyschosomatic stress. The power of perceptions or beliefs in promoting health or disease was originally recognized by D. D. Palmer. In chiropractic, perceptions constitute the Educated, and it is this Educated that so worries and bothers Innate. He wrote, “The determining cause of disease are traumatism, poison and auto-suggestion.” Auto-suggestion (personal beliefs, self-talk) produces “auto-traumatic action directed to any organ or portion of the body, thereby modifying bodily functions, exciting or relieving morbid conditions
After holding this posture for a long time (i.e., a chronic protection response), the dog’s spine will acquire obvious subluxations that would adversely impact its health. A spinal adjustment would alleviate these subluxations. However, if the dog returns to the same environment, it will continue to perceive a need for a protection posture. Under such circumstances, the dog’s Educated mind will employ auto-suggestion mechanisms that will return the spine to its subluxated condition. In addition to the adjustment, the dog will need to either alter its environment or alter its perceptions, in order to remain free of dis-ease. As Palmer suggests, the chiropractor needs to seriously consider the role of auto-suggestion in the healing process. While adjustments alone can alleviate subluxations, problems generated by an erring Educated, may require the need for “reeducation” as a means of reversing dis-ease producing beliefs.
In 1907, chiropractors rejected D. D. Palmer’s philosophy as being too religious or metaphysical. In an effort to present themselves in a more “scientific” light, the profession has been gradually moving toward allopathic science for the last ninety years. Interestingly, allopaths have now begun to realize Palmer’s truths. If things continue as they are, allopaths may soon be more “chiropractic” than chiropractors! Bruce H. Lipton, scientist and lecturer, received his Ph.D. at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville (1971). He served as an Associate Professor of Anatomy at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine. Lipton’s research on mechanisms controlling cell behavior employed cloned human muscle cells. In addition, he lectured in Cell Biology, Histology and Embryology. Bruce resigned his tenured position to pursue independent research integrating quantum physics with cell biology. His breakthrough studies on the cell membrane, the “skin” of the cell, revealed that the behavior and health of the cell was controlled by the environment, findings that were in direct contrast with prevailing dogma that life is controlled by genes. Lipton returned to academia as a Research Fellow at Stanford University’s School of Medicine to test his hypotheses (19871992). His ideas concerning environmental control were substantiated in two major scientific publications. The new research reveals the biochemical pathways connecting the mind and body and provides insight into the molecular basis of consciousness and the future of human evolution.
www.brucelipton.com References available online: www.icpa4kids.com
An Interview with Dr. Bruce Lipton continued from page 3 the environment vs. the previous understanding of the primacy of DNA. Could you give us a one or two-minute synopsis of what you just spoke about so I can use it as a jumping off point for the rest of the interview? BRUCE: Absolutely. The basic question we bring up is that our current belief or nature is that we believe that we are genetic automatons…that the concept of genetic determinism wherein our genes control our biology, our behavior, our emotions so that we become more or less a machine, and the character and quality of the machine is based on heredity, so that we become more or less a victim, I guess. If we got good stuff we are very happy and if we have negative characters we attribute that to things out of our control…our genes. DENNIS: Now, this idea of the signal that turns on what makes us tick, makes us work, being from the outside rather from the inside is a revolution! It is opposite of what has been “established,” quote-unquote, in organized science. So, this not only demonstrates a proof for the chiropractic premise, but it also very much demonstrates the proof for the Masters Circle premise, because what we say is, “Who you are determines how or what you do works…that success comes from you, not to you.” I would like to spend some time talking about perception and belief, and how those factors contribute to the internal environment that leads to better and better function. BRUCE: Yes, so basically as we talked about, the old idea was that genes controlled it, but the new idea recognizes a new idea, a new process called epigenetics, and that means control above the genes. This is all within about the last decade or so. It is such a radical departure from our belief because it shows that genes don’t actually control anything, but that genes are responsive to the environment. So the cells have perception molecules that read the environment and then adjust the genes. The nature of it is very dynamic. Basically, it says that the genes would never know the plan for the future. So the belief that we are genetically determined is really fallacious, because how could a system know what was going to happen next and already plan for it. The system is dynamic, the genes turn on and off as they’re needed, and the response of the gene matches the need of the environment. So, then all of a sudden, we realize that then between the genes and expression is the perception. Well, the relevance about the perception is that that is a live-time event, as I am perceiving the environment right now. Well, the interesting part about the perceptions, is that these perceptions are then interpreted by the body which the adjusts the behavior and the genes of the system to meet the demands or needs of the environment. Well, there are two levels of perception. One level of perception is that which we have learned over time. Once it is
learned, we don’t have to relearn them again and again and again. So that, when the stimulus shows up, instead of going through our cognition and awareness, it just bypasses that and goes right to the learned behavior. In chiropractic, that is called “The Educated Mind.” The Educated Mind is a very good thing because it allows our mind not to be focused on everything at once, and therefore, all the small details are taken care of. This is a good thing, but it has potential for messing with us, the reason being that we acquire the Educated through our experiences. Therefore, the experiences we have had may be good experiences, or bad experiences. Whatever way they are, we learn them, so that a negative experience could become an educated process that runs our biology. Then,
…the conscious decision-making says, I am observing my behavior and the old way I used to do this. I used to make stupid mistakes, castigate myself or problems and be mad at myself. Now, with consciousness, when I observe that behavior, I have the power to say, “Don’t play that tape, let’s play a different one, a new tape. So I begin to learn, and as I learn I can re-educate the “Educated.”
instead of doing an adjustment that is a benefit to us, we adjust ourselves out of sync with the environment. And since it is “Educated,” we don’t even see that, and as a result the unfoldment of our life is controlled by our past experience. DENNIS: So this is the contrast you were talking about between the subconscious programming and the conscious decision-making. BRUCE: Yes, and the conscious decision-making says, I am observing my behavior and the old way I used to do this. I used to make stupid mistakes, castigate myself or problems and be mad at myself. Now, with consciousness, when I observe that behavior, I have the power to say, “Don’t play that tape, let’s play a different one, a new tape. So I begin to learn, and as I learn I can re-educate the “Educated.” continued on page 6 pathways
An Interview with Dr. Bruce Lipton continued from page 5 So the problem I was trying to bring out in today’s lecture was very importantly this…That the Educated tapes that run our lives were acquired in our earliest formative period, during our fetal development and through the first six years of our life. These are not tapes that we created with consciousness; these are observed behaviors in our environments. We observed how our parents handled their lives, how they handled each other and all the nuances of dealing with the community. We “download” those exactly. The relevance is that when we are not paying attention, by definition, the Educated runs our system. Therefore, when we are not paying attention, we are exercising and expressing behaviors that are not ours from our conscious belief, and maybe conflict with our conscious beliefs.
how good you are and all that, rather than the kind of signals from a dysfunctional family, like, “you’re a stupid child” or “ you’re not good at these things,” or that you don’t deserve something.
DENNIS: So you would say then, from that then you would conclude that putting yourself in an environment of positivity that is consistently re-enforcing the conscious decisionmaking that comes from that positive environment would probably make it easier for someone to succeed.
goes into protection. Would you elaborate on that a bit?
DENNIS: Or what you hear in certain chiropractic gatherings nowadays, about the demise of the profession, about how difficult it is to make it right now. That clearly is not true; there never has been a better time to be a Chiropractor.
BRUCE: That is, unless your Educated is off. I talk about this in the lecture. I talk about how living systems have an “Innate” and an “Educated.” Innate is always 100% right and 100% right for you. The Educated is where the problems come from. Chiropractic, as a profession, is a living system. What I experience is that DENNIS: This is what Larry Chiropractic, in general, [Markson] talks about experiences its own subIf we were raised in a family situation when he talks about MFTP, luxations, meaning, that Mothers, Fathers, Teachers where the parents always expressed it has an Innate, which is and Preachers. It is that Philosophy. And it has an “win-win” situations, where they were purpose of many of the Educated, all the little technologies that we use always in balance with the environment details you learn in coursin the Masters, affirmaes. What has happened is and all that. Then just think about tions, visualization, goalthat people have gotten setting, resource-building, it, our Educated Mind would be so caught up in, which anchoring, to be able details are the right or programmed with all those types of to selectively create new wrong details, that their conscious impressions, so Educated is in the way of programs. Therefore, the rest of our that you can override the the bigger picture…the lives, even if we weren’t conscious, Subconscious Educated. Innate, the Philosophy. If everyone would back off BRUCE: Right, and in that that Educated process would always their Educated and get process, put in a better lead us to success, even without us back in alignment with Educated. It is not to not their Philosophy, then the have Educated, Educated is paying attention. Subluxation would disapgreat because… Let us think pear and there would be of it this way. If we were harmony in the field. So, raised in a family situation where the parents always expressed “win-win” situations, it is interesting, in that Chiropractic is a patient in and of where they were always in balance with the environment itself. and all that. Then just think about it, our Educated Mind DENNIS: What a brilliant over-riding metaphor! That really would be programmed with all those types of programs. takes us to the next topic I would like for us to talk about, Therefore, the rest of our lives, even if we weren’t conscious, which is the Love and Fear Continuum. You made an amazing that Educated process would always lead us to success, comment about the relationship between survival and the even without us paying attention. amount of energy that goes into growth vs. the amount that
BRUCE: Not probably…would! Therefore, what you have to do is find yourself an environment that supports you, that sends you environmental signals of how qualified you are,
BRUCE: Very basically then, if I look at the biological functions, I would tell you is that the simplest thing you can say about any living system is that it has two main behaviors, growth and protection. Both of these are required for survival. The problem is, the system was designed for only short or acute responses of protection and therefore, being in growth most of the time. Yet the world that we live in has
us in such fear of everything that we are spending more and DENNIS: Boy, oh boy, we could talk a couple of hours on more time in protection. The consequences biologically are, the that one! cells don’t have the luxury to be both in growth and protection. BRUCE: We sure could, maybe twelve, in fact. At the simple level, they respond to either the one or the other. If we live in a threatening environment, we send signals DENNIS: Yes, in fact, the twelve hours of your complete to our cells that they need to be in protection. They don’t presentation, which everyone should make it their business grow in the aspect and as a result, we start short-changing to hear…it’s spectacular! our physiology by not supporting our own growth and main- I want you to talk about community. It is critically important. tenance. You need to grow every day of your life. Every day What we have been trying to do at the Masters Circle over you are losing billions and billions of cells. If growth is what the last several years is to create more of a unified front, to replaces them and you are in protection, then when you lose create more of a sense of community between chiropractors, those cells, there are no new cells to replace them. And if even chiropractors who have different viewpoints. We feel you stay in protection for some period of time, this chronic there is more commonality than there is difference. You nature will cause a depletion of the support of the system. made some very interesting comments about cells deferring their own perspective to Then, dis-ease is rampant in become part of a central the biology. It requires that voice, a central way of we undo our need for proteclooking at things. Please tion. We find that most of So, you want to enhance the system, talk about that. these are beliefs and are not really substantiated at all. you want it to support itself, encourage BRUCE: As I was talking about, every cell has its own Innate Intelligence, to add something besides just removing and that survival is based on awareness. So when stress. You need to add wholeness and we look at evolution, as BRUCE: The interesting part wellness back in, which is the wonderyou go up the evolutionis that we talk about a ary scale you see there is continuum with growth on ful part of chiropractic. It is not just more and more awareness one end and protection at about trying to remove stress, but also in each system. Well, the other end. Stress puts each system is still made us into protection. When a about showing a fuller, more whole, out of cells. Every cell is healer in any way says, all I still the intelligent unit. more complete picture of how to live. have to do is just remove the So, what is the difference stress, then we have that a cell living on between scale with stress at one end its own and a cell living in and you remove it. But now, an organism as a commuyou are in the middle of the nity? What is the difference? The answer is that, when you scale, at a zero point…one direction is growth and the other alone you only have your own awareness to survive by. are is still the stress you just came out of. If you are at zero, you are still not in growth. So the removing of stress without the When you are in a community, you share awareness, so enhancement of joy, which is the feeling you would have every member of the community brings in an additional when everything is working in harmony. Joy encourages piece of awareness. Since survival is in direct proportion to growth…stress encourages protection. The removal of stress awareness, then a person who lives alone is threatening takes you to zero, it doesn’t mean you have any growth but their own survival as compared to someone who particithat you just have less stress. Now you are on that very nar- pates in the community. Why? Because the community row pivot point, zero, which is real close to falling off into enhances the support of all…one for all and all for one, as dis-ease again. So, you want to enhance the system, you the nature of the community. Therefore, you get the benefits want it to support itself, encourage its growth and mainte- of being in an environment that provides you with more nance. You need to add something besides just removing options, alternatives and visions than the individual itself stress. You need to add wholeness and wellness back in, can find. By coming into a community that endorses and which is the wonderful part of chiropractic. It is not just supports and encourages the labors you are involved with, about trying to remove stress, but also about showing a then your work is a lot easier because, with all this additional information being shared through the community, it is not fuller, more whole, more complete picture of how to live. DENNIS: Now comment on the effects of joy and stress on the system you just described.
its growth and maintenance. You need
continued on page 24 pathways
P R E G N A N C Y MAT T E R S
Ultrasound in Pregnancy RPU can identify a low-lying placenta (placenta previa). However, 19 of 20 women who have placenta previa detected on an early scan will be needlessly worried: the placenta will effectively move up without causing problems at the birth. Furthermore, detection of placenta previa by RPU has not been found to be safer than detection in labor.
Ultrasound: high-frequency sound waves that travel at 10 to 20 million cycles per second. The pattern of echo waves creates a picture of tissue and bone. In 1987, UK radiologist H.D. Meire, who had been performing pregnancy scans for 20 years, commented, “The casual observer might be forgiven for wondering why the medical profession is now involved in the wholesale examination of pregnant patients with machines emanating vastly different powers of energy which is not proven to be harmless to obtain information which is not proven to be of any clinical value by operators who are not certified as competent to perform the operations”. Routine prenatal ultrasound (RPU) actually detects only between 17 and 85 percent of the 1 in 50 babies who have major abnormalities at birth.
The American College of Obstetricians has concluded that “in a population of women with low-risk pregnancies, neither a reduction in perinatal morbidity and mortality nor a lower rate of unnecessary interventions can be expected from routine diagnostic ultrasound. Thus ultrasound should be performed for specific indications in low-risk pregnancy. Effects of ultrasound include cavitation, a process wherein the small pockets of gas that exist within mammalian tissue vibrate and then collapse. In this situation “...temperatures of many thousands of degrees Celsius in the gas create a wide range of chemical products, some of which are potentially toxic. These violent processes may be produced by microsecond pulses of the kind which are used in medical diagnosis.” (American Institute of Ultrasound Medicine Bioeffects Report 1988). The significance of cavitation in human tissue is unknown.
Studies have suggested that these effects are of real concern in living tissues: •
Cell abnormalities caused by exposure to ultrasound were seen to persist for several generations.
In newborn rats (similar stage of development as human fetuses at four to five months in utero), ultrasound can damage the myelin that covers nerves.
Exposing mice to dosages typical of obstetric ultrasound cased a 22% reduction in the rate of cell division and doubling of the rate of aptosis (programmed cell death), in the cells of the small intestine.
Two long-term randomized controlled trials comparing exposed and unexposed childrens’ development at eight to nine years old found no measurable effect from ultrasound. However, the authors comment that intensities used today are many times higher than there were in 1979 and 1981.
—Excerpted from “Ultrasound Scans: Cause for Concern” References available online: www.icpa4kids.com
K I D B I TS
Baby Food News
Randall Neustaedter, O.M.D.
Here’s the punch line. Make your own baby food.
Here’s a new compelling reason. The European Food Safety Authority (equivalent to the FDA) announced that baby food jars contain a substance known to cause cancer and liver damage. The chemical, called semicarbazide, is found in the sealing gaskets of glass jars with metal lids. The chemical leaches into the foods contained in these jars. Other foods besides that older children consume are also contaminated with the chemical (pickles, jams, fruit juice, and mayonnaise). I have written before about the increased susceptibility of infants and children to carcinogens. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has drafted an assessment of cancer risk from toxic exposure in children. Based on animal studies and the dynamic action of carcinogens, the report estimates that children under two years of age are ten times more likely to develop cancer from exposure to carcinogens than adults, and children between ages 2 and 15 are three times as likely. Those types of estimates have led the European safety community to jump on the potential danger of baby food jars. The European Food Authority’s chair, Dr. Sue Barlow, said, “It would be prudent to reduce the presence of semicarbazide in baby foods as swiftly as technological progress allows.” According to BBC News a joint food and
packaging industry taskforce was formed in the UK to eliminate semicarbazide from the metal twist caps used with glass jars. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has denied any dangers from exposure to the chemical, advising consumers not to avoid food packaged in glass jars. “At this time, FDA’s preliminary conclusion is that the levels of semicarbazide reported in foods in Europe are very low and present no risk to the public health,” the agency said in a statement. Nonetheless, according to an Associated Press report, “American manufacturer Heinz, which makes baby food and other products in jars, said it is already testing alternative caps and hopes to have new baby food jars—free of the chemical—on supermarket shelves worldwide within six months.” I encourage parents to make their own baby food from organic vegetables, fruits, grains, and meats. An excellent book does exist that gives detailed instructions for home preparation of foods for children aged 5 months to 3 years (Super Baby Food by Ruth Yaron, F.J. Roberts Publisher, 608 pages, 1998). I agree with most of her methods except for the use of microwaves for heating foods, a certain hypervigilance about microbes, and the early introduction of cereals. Besides the risk from this specific chemical exposure, jars of prepared baby food are lower in vitamin content than homemade food and much more expensive.
FA M I LY W E L L N E S S
A Wellness Approach for Children By Jane Sheppard In raising healthy children, it’s not enough to just focus on the physical aspect of health. To be truly healthy, a child’s emotional health must be nurtured and strengthened. Developing a mental attitude of wellness is also essential. When we adopt an attitude of wellness, we take on a belief that being well is a natural, normal state. Our goal is to have outstanding, vibrant health, not just to be free of disease. With a wellness attitude, we know that we have control over our own body and how healthy it will be. We can teach and help our children to grow up with an attitude of wellness. Children have much more control over their own health than you may think. The mind is a very powerful mechanism with miraculous control over health and healing. The more children learn to use the extraordinary powers of their minds, the healthier and happier they will be. They may also live longer than someone who takes a passive approach to health. Children can learn that negative, unhealthy lifestyles are choices that contribute to sickness. We all know what a struggle it can be to encourage children to eat the foods that we know are essential for health, and to avoid junk food. When our children are very young, we can pretty easily restrict the things we know to be unhealthy for them. However, as they get older, telling them that they cannot have sugar or other problem food is not productive. They will feel deprived and will probably rebel. Anything that is forbidden is tempting. Children need to know they have a choice—they can either choose good health and wellness or opt for poor health and sickness. They need to be taught the facts so they are able to make educated choices. Talk to them about the effects
that food has on their body. They can understand that sugar lowers their immunity, making them more susceptible to sickness, as well as contribute to tooth decay. You can explain to them how eating healthy foods will give them more energy and make them feel better. This can be taught in very simple, fun and creative ways. It may take a while to actually sink in, and at first the lure of scrumptious tasting sugar and white flour “treats” that all the other kids are eating may be too much to refuse, but eventually the time and energy you put into health education will pay off. If children are raised with a respectful attitude of wellness, as they get older they will most likely choose to turn down things that they know are not healthy for them. Respectful is a key word, meaning not nagging or shaming them about food. As they get even older, they can be taught that smoking cigarettes or taking drugs is their choice to opt for sickness. Telling them to “just say no” and forbidding them to smoke or take drugs is not enough. They need to understand the health consequences and realities of putting these substances in their bodies. Children are very intelligent, but they need to be reminded that they are powerful and they have choices. They can understand the consequences of their choices. Talk to your children about how strong their bodies are and the extraordinary things their bodies can do. Show them how their bodies can miraculously heal a cut, how their heart works and how they can strengthen their heart through exercise and healthy food, how their immune system fights off germs and other invaders, and how getting enough sleep makes them feel better throughout the
day. All these things can be taught in fun and imaginative ways with drawings, stories, etc. Children are fascinated with their bodies and they want to know how they work. Dr. Wayne Dyer tells us in his book, What Do You Really Want For Your Children?, “the more children learn from you to rid themselves of attitudes which foster sickness, the more you are helping them to enjoy life each day. They will actually live longer and more productive lives if they learn wellness as very young children.” Parents frequently make statements that reinforce a sickness attitude. Did your mother ever tell you that if you don’t wear a scarf, you’ll catch a cold and be sick? A wellness approach would be to say, “You are so strong and healthy that you probably won’t develop a cold, even if the other kids do, but here is a scarf to keep you warm and comfortable outside”. Dr. Dyer also cautions us to resist taking frequent trips to the doctor and using medications for everyday aches and pains and common ailments such as a cold. When we teach children that there is a pill for every complaint and that a doctor visit is part of every cure, we disempower them and set them up to rely too heavily on drugs and doctors throughout their lives. They need to know they are in charge of their own health. In order to teach our children to choose health, we must model wellness and take charge of our own health. Wellness is not just having an absence of symptoms. It’s asking yourself how you can attain outstanding health. It’s making exercise and stress reduction a daily part of your lifestyle, choosing healthy foods and modeling this behavior for your children. As Dr. Dyer puts it, “It means simply being as healthy as you possibly can be, and being determined not to allow your wonderful body, the place where your mind currently resides, to deteriorate unnecessarily.” There has been much research on the relationship between illness and attitudes. The research suggests that even cancer and heart disease are strongly related to a person’s inner attitudes. Dr. Harrison tells us in his book, Loving Your Disease, that “Predispositions to disease are often not passed on in a physical sense but rather through the messages parents give their offspring and the living habits and diet they pass down”. Dr. Dyer recognizes the obvious elements of wellness that include diet, exercise, and eliminating negative lifestyle habits. In addition, he suggests two elements that will help children as much as the physical components. These elements are using visualization and having a sense of humor. They are just as important as diet and exercise. Positive imagery or visualization is a powerful tool that children can use to help them become capable, healthy and vibrant people. Visualization puts the imagination to work to help achieve a desired outcome. It is the process of creating positive thoughts and images in the mind to
communicate with the body. It is one of the strongest and most effective ways to make happen what you want in your life. Children can be taught to regularly see themselves in their minds as being radiantly healthy, vibrant, and actively participating in whatever activities they want to do. Positive imagery or visualization is very helpful for children who are overweight or who have acne or other skin diseases and need to establish a better self-image. Verbal affirmations can be used with imagery. A good affirmation for a child to say regularly is “I am good to my body and my body is good to me” or “Every day I am feeling better and growing more vibrantly healthy”. Children can also use visualization to help their body to heal. Studies show that there are significant remission rates among people healing from cancer who use visualization as part of the healing process. Laughter is a strong healer and health builder. Dr. Dyer tells us that “when children laugh they are actually releasing into their bloodstream chemicals which are necessary for the prevention and cure of disease”. Have fun with your children. Be a little crazy and silly and laugh as much as you can. Each good belly laugh means that you and your children are becoming more physically and emotionally sound. Healthy Child Online is a comprehensive resource providing parents and caregivers with free information and safe, natural products to enhance the health and lives of children. Healthy Child Online is a project of Future Generations, started by Jane Sheppard, a work-athome mother, in 1997. The children are our future, and Future Generations is dedicated to protecting and enhancing the health and well-being of children by: •
Providing information about how to promote vibrant health naturally.
Raising awareness about how the profit-driven food, chemical, and medical, and entertainment industries have spawned some unhealthy foods, drugs, vaccines, pesticides, and other products and practices, and are perpetuating an unsafe environment for children.
Supporting parents and caregivers in switching to a more natural, respectful, nurturing way of tending to babies and children’s needs and helping children to become happy, loving, emotionally-secure adults. We advocate natural, holistic, heart-centered, attachment parenting.
www.healthychild.com/database/ a_wellness_approach_for_children.htm Print a handout version of this article at: www.icpa4kids.com/patientnewsletter001.htm
the deadly influence of formula in america This groundbreaking analysis from noted author, health educator and advocate Dr. Linda Folden Palmer is the first time a health expert has published an examination of the available scientific research comparing the death rates of formula-fed and breastfed babies. While the results hold no surprises for breastfeeding educators and advocates, the study may prove to be a rude awakening for the millions of Americans who have bought into the myth that infant formula is a perfectly safe breast milk substitute. The following article was summarized by editors of Natural Family On-line.
Homebirth or hospital? Cloth or disposable? Early exposure to large numbers of other children? Extreme or relaxed sanitation? Pets in the house? The answers to the swirl of questions surrounding the birth of a baby are not simple. There are no overall right or wrong answers. Parenting involves a huge number of choices, starting from before conception and reaching through childhood and beyond.
Read the full text here: www.naturalfamilyonline.com /BF/200312-formula-report2.htm
In many cases, we don’t have the time or energy to investigate and choose from all the available options. We opt for the status quo or simply what seems easiest for our families. Other times, we do not have the luxury of choice; circumstance prevails. Traveling in a car with our children, for instance, is a risk that most of us take because we have little choice. Still, many major parenting decisions, including the decision to breastfeed or use infant formula, remain conscious choices for most parents. What’s often missing from this decision are the facts. Sure, we’ve all heard that “breast is best”—but what are the solid statistics? Is infant formula the perfectly safe breast milk substitute we’ve been led to believe?
The deadly influence of formula Infant formula was designed to be a medical nutritional tool for babies who are unable to breastfeed. Formula does not fully meet the nutritional and immunity needs of infants, leaving their immune systems flailing. An infant’s immune system has three aspects: her own immature, developing immune system; the small component of
By Dr. Linda Folden Palmer
immunities that passes through the placenta during natural childbirth (and to a lesser degree with premature births and cesarean sections); and the most valuable, living portion that is passed on through mother’s milk on an ongoing basis. Remove any of those components and you take away a vital support structure. This brings us face to face with the safety and effectiveness of infant formula as a breast milk substitute. Is formula actually as safe as we have been led to believe? In fact, the answer is a resounding “no.” In fact, the use of infant formula doubles the risk of infant death for American babies. While the dangers of formula feeding aren’t something you’re likely to hear in your doctor’s office, the conclusions can be derived through an examination of the available scientific research on infant mortality in the United States and across the world. There are studies showing artificial feeding’s impact on overall infant death rates in both developing and undeveloped countries. While studies offering comparative death rates are not available for industrialized regions, there are numerous studies providing comparative occurrence rates for many illnesses and disorders in the United States and other industrialized nations. Many more reports are available extolling superior survival rates and decreased illness rates among breastfed
infants, but only those with solid numbers are useful here. We can assemble the statistics from these studies to build a firm picture of the ratio of infant deaths for U.S. formula-fed babies against those who are breastfed.
Why do U.S. babies die? Total U.S. births in 1999: 4,000,000 Total U.S. infant deaths in 1999: 28,000 So how does formula play into these deaths? Let’s look at some of the common causes of infant death and see what current research has to say on the involvement of infant formula.
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) Studies have found a five-fold risk of infant death from SIDS for American formula-fed babies. Heart, circulatory and respiratory failure Scientists worldwide have documented higher blood pressure among formula-fed infants, as well as more apnea and episodes of oxygen desaturation, inferior body temperature regulation, less growth and longer hospital stays. Necrotizing enterocolitis Researchers in the United Kingdom have confirmed that formula-fed infants develop necrotizing enterocolitis six to 10 times more often than breastfed babies.
Diarrhea A summary article for industrialized nations demonstrated an average of triple the risk of diarrhea for formula-fed babies. The risk in China and Israel is reported as slightly less than triple; in Scotland, the risk is five-fold; and a doubled risk is measured in Canada. Respiratory illnesses It is clear that respiratory infections are at least triple in the United States for formula-fed infants. The death rate is likely to be even higher, since some of these studies note that both the severity and extent of respiratory illnesses are considerably higher once they occur. Cancer A joint study between the United States and Canada on neuroblastoma, a common childhood cancer, revealed a doubled risk for children who did not receive breast milk for more than one year. This study is consistent with several other childhood cancer studies in other nations. Low birth-weight and pre-term birth A U.S. study performed at George Washington University Hospital found 2.5 times the number of infections among formula-fed infants in the intensive care unit than among those receiving human milk. Another study at Georgetown University Medical Center also found more than double the number of infections in very low birth-weight infants not receiving human milk. A San Diego study found twice as continued on page 14 pathways
The Deadly Influence of Formula in America continued from page 13 many infections in pre-term, formulafed infants compared with infants who received human milk.
rates and deaths are reduced by breastfeeding. It is clear that the youngest and weakest infants are the ones who are most strongly endangered by infant formula’s inadequacies.
It is worth noting that the eye damage that can occur in very low birth-weight infants, retinopathy of prematurity, occurs only half as often in infants who receive some breast milk. Even a disorder as apparently unrelated to feeding methods as inguinal hernia has been discovered to occur twice as often in artificially fed infants and even more frequently when compared with infants who are exclusively breastfed.
Congenital abnormalities Twenty percent of U.S. infant deaths are attributed to birth defects. While death certificates often list the initial abnormality as the cause of death, infection is actually the final factor in many of these deaths. We have already seen how drastically infection
For example, infants born with phenylketonuria (PKU), a defect in handling a certain protein in the diet, need specialized supplementation to breast milk in order to prevent mental retardation and other difficulties. Yet a study demonstrated that infants who had been breastfed before being diagnosed with PKU fared far better than those who had been fed on formula. The greatest complications for infants with cystic fibrosis are lung infection, decreased oxygenation and malnutrition—all of which are recognized to be complicated by formula feeding.
Complications of pregnancy and birth Complications of pregnancy and birth produce a wide range of injuries and problems for babies. Infection, insufficient neurological recovery and inadequate oxygenation lead to many infant deaths. Artificial feeding certainly has some degree of impact on mortality in these cases. Accidents It seems logical that accidents happen equally among artificially and naturally fed infants. Figures bear this out. One paper actually measured accidental injuries between breast- and formula-fed infants, finding an equal number in both.
The big picture The relative risk for formula feeding in many categories was clearly defined by studies. We are able to select conservative but appropriate rates, as seen in the table below.
Calculating Formula’s Final Impact
Cause of death
Actual U.S. infant deaths (1999)
Relative risk for formula-fed infants
Estimated IMR for breastfed babies
Deaths if all were breastfed
Deaths if all were formula-fed
Lives saved if all were breastfed
Complications of pregnancy & birth
Respiratory distress & infections
37335 IMR 9.4
Infant Mortality Rates (IMR) are the number of infant deaths per 1,000 live births, from 0 to 12 months of age.
photo by Jon Sepúlveda
advances prevent increased deaths. The evidence is quite to the contrary. Some insist that the blame for the United States’ relatively high infant death rate lies with underprivileged communities. Again, it has been shown that elevated death rates among U.S. blacks cannot be attributed to poverty. Hispanic Americans rank similarly to African-American populations for socio-economic factors, but they match non-Hispanic whites in their lower infant mortality rates. The difference is not socio-economic; rather, the difference is in rates of formula use versus breastfeeding.
Based on the current U.S. infant death rate of 6.7 and an average breastfeeding rate of 50%, the American infant mortality rate would climb to 9.4 if all infants were formulafed and would drop to 4.7 if all were breastfed. Twenty-two nations with high rates of breastfeeding have infant mortality rates below 5, while the United States ranks higher in infant death than 41 other nations. Clearly, lower rates for the United States are a possibility.
illness and death rates are much closer to those of babies who are fully formula-fed. Studies also reveal conclusively that the longer breastfeeding lasts, the greater the measurable difference in illness and death rates.
Answering the detractors
From the above statistics, we see that formula feeding costs American babies more than four additional lives per thousand. The final relative risk for formula feeding comes out to 2—that’s double the risk of death for American infants who are fed with formula, compared with babies who are fed naturally.
Criticisms are often spread about studies that find increased illness and death rates associated with formula feeding. For just this reason, each later study aggressively attempts to take into account any factors that have been purported as distorting previous study outcomes. These research papers address as many aspects as possible, from maternal education, to smoking, to income level, to day care usage and many more possibilities. The results continue to reveal the risks of formula feeding.
A multitude of studies demonstrate that when breastfeeding is accompanied by formula supplementation,
It’s commonly said that formula feeding does not risk lives in industrialized nations where education and medical
The ugly truth about formula
A New York study sought to establish the connection between education, income and infant survival. It concluded strongly that the number of illnesses is increased by two to three times in formula-fed babies regardless of socioeconomic status or level of parental education. A later study in Israel confirmed the effects of formula feeding across all classes and education levels. The most recent analysis of this issue, again performed in the United States, reiterated that higher illness rates among formula-fed or formula-supplemented infants “did not differ among income groups.”
Beyond the first year While the extent of breast milk’s health protection declines with age, a great number of studies demonstrate the continued survival advantage of breastfeeding through the second year and beyond. A World Health Organization study of lessdeveloped countries found a doubled risk of death in the second year of life for those weaned prematurely or never receiving breast milk. A study in The Netherlands found a strong correlation between the extent of breastfeeding and the number of illnesses in children. Significant protection from breastfeeding was noted during the first three years of life. continued on page 24 pathways
Sleeping through the N by Katherine Dettwyler, Ph.D. Department of Anthropology, Texas A & M University
[This essay was originally directed to one person. It has been edited slightly to make it less specific.] Someone from parent-l passed along a post about children sleeping through the night on to me and asked me to respond. I was one of the original parent-l folks, but haven’t been on for a long time. I am an Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition at Texas A&M University, and I do research on infant/child feeding beliefs/practices both cross-culturally and from an evolutionary perspective, as well as research on children’s health and growth. I know from firsthand experience that being a new parent is a difficult time of adjustment, especially when expectations
don’t match reality, especially when our culture has taught us that children should have certain needs / wants / behaviors and then our children don’t seem to fit that mold. This problem of a mismatch between expectations and reality can be very difficult for new parents to accept and adjust to. Sometimes, some children can be encouraged / convinced / forced to fit the mold of cultural expectations, and they do fine. Other times, though they do eventually fit the mold, it is at the expense of their sense of who they are, their self-confidence, their view of the world as a safe and trusting place, sometimes, even, at the expense of their health or life. Probably nowhere do cultural expectations and the reality of children’s needs conflict more than in the two areas of breastfeeding frequency and sleeping behaviors.
Human children are designed (whether you believe by millions of years of evolution, or by God, it doesn’t matter)—to nurse very frequently, based on the composition of the milk of the species, the fact that all higher primates (Primates are the zoological Order to which humans belong, higher primates include monkeys and apes) keep their offspring in the mother’s arms or on her back for several years, the size of the young child’s stomach, the rapidity with which breast milk is digested, the need for an almost constant source of nutrients to grow that huge brain (in humans, especially), and so on. By very frequently, I mean 3-4 times per hour, for a few minutes each time. The way in which some young infants are fed in our culture—trying to get them to shift to a 3-4 hour schedule, with feedings of 15-20 minutes at a time, goes against our basic physiology.
But humans are very adaptable, and some mothers will be able to make sufficient milk with this very infrequent stimulation and draining of the breasts, and some children will be able to adapt to large meals spaced far apart. Unfortunately, some mothers don’t make enough milk with this little nursing, and some babies can’t adjust, and so are fussy, cry a lot, seem to want to nurse “before it is time” and fail to grow and thrive. Of course, usually the mother’s body is blamed—“You can’t make enough milk”—rather than the culturallyimposed expectation that feeding every 3-4 hours should be sufficient, and the mother begins supplementing with formula, which leads to a steady spiral downward to complete weaning from the breast. Human children are also designed to have breast milk be a part of their diet for a minimum of 2.5 years, with many indicators pointing to 6-7 years as the true physiological duration of breastfeeding—regardless of what your cultural beliefs may be. I can provide you with references to my research on this topic if you wish to read more.
co-sleeping clearly shows the dangers of solitary sleeping in young infants, who slip into abnormal patterns of very deep sleep from which it is very difficult for them to rouse themselves when they experience an episode of apnea (stop breathing). When cosleeping, the mother is monitoring the baby’s sleep and breathing patterns, even though she herself is asleep. When the baby has an episode of apnea, she rouses the baby by her movements and touch. This is thought to be the primary mechanism by which co-sleeping protects children from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In other words, many cases of SIDS in solitary sleeping children are thought to be due to them having learned to sleep for long stretches at a time at a very early age, so they find themselves in these deep troughs of sleep, then they may experience an episode of apnea, and no one is there to notice or rouse them from it, so they just never start breathing again. Co-sleeping also allows a mother to monitor the baby’s temperature during the night, to be there if they spit up and start to choke, and just to provide the normal, safe environment that the baby/child has been designed to expect.
The same is true of sleeping. Human children are designed to be sleeping with their parents. The sense of touch is the most important sense to primates, along with sight. Young primates are carried on their mother’s body and sleep with her for years after birth, often until well after weaning. The expected pattern is for mother and child to sleep together, and for child to be able to nurse whenever they want during the night. Normal, healthy, breastfed and co-sleeping children do not sleep “through the night” (say 7-9 hours at a stretch) until they are 3-4 years old, and no longer need night nursing. I repeat— this is NORMAL and HEALTHY. Dr. James McKenna’s research on
Is this convenient for parents? No!
Is this difficult for some new parents to adjust to? Yes! No doubt about it, the gap between what our culture teaches us to expect of the sleep patterns of a young child (read them a story, tuck them in, turn out the light, and not see them again for 8 hours) and the reality of how children actually sleep if healthy and normal, yawns widely. But the first steps to dealing with the fact that your young child doesn’t sleep through the night, or doesn’t want to sleep without you is to realize that: (1) Not sleeping through the night until they are 3 or 4 years of age is
normal and healthy behavior for human infants. (2) Your children are not being difficult or manipulative, they are being normal and healthy, and behaving in ways that are appropriate for our species. Once you understand these simple truths, it becomes much easier to deal with parenting your child at night. Once you give up the idea that you must have 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep at night, and view these nighttime interactions with your child as precious and fleeting, you get used to them very quickly. I highly recommend Dr. Sears’ book on Nighttime Parenting [available from the La Leche League International Catalogue]. Our children’s early years represent the most important and influential time of their lives. It passes all too quickly. But meeting your child’s needs during these first few years will pay off in many ways in the years to come. Feel free to respond, argue, disagree, ask questions, ask for references, etc. Or visit my web page at prairienet.org/laleche/dettwyler.html Dr. Katherine A. Dettwyler is now a semi-retired Adjunct Professor of Anthropology at Texas A&M University, where she taught from 1987 to 2000. She is the author of Dancing Skeletons: Life and Death in West Africa, which recounts tales of her fieldwork on child health in Mali. Dancing Skeletons was awarded the 1995 Margaret Mead Award from the American Anthropological Association and the Society for Applied Anthropology. She is also the co-editor of Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives, which includes her own two chapters “Beauty and the Breast: The Cultural Context of Breastfeeding in the United States,” and “A Time to Wean: The Hominid Blueprint for a Natural Age of Weaning in Modern Human Populations.” pathways
Women’s Health Risks Associated with Orthodox Medicine - Part I by Gary Null, Ph.D., Debora Rasio, M.D., and Martin Feldman, M.D.
During the past century, a medical establishment has evolved that has positioned itself as the exclusive provider of so-called scientific, evidencebased therapies. For the first 70 years of the 20th century, little effort was made to challenge the establishment’s paradigm, which we call the orthodox medical approach. In the past 30 years, however, there has been a growing awareness of the importance of an alternative approach to medical care, one that, either on its own or as a complement to orthodox medicine, emphasizes nontoxic and noninvasive treatments and prevention.
Unfortunately, this new perspective has been fought vigorously. We’ve been told that it is only the treatments of orthodox medicine that have passed careful scientific scrutiny involving double-blind placebo-controlled studies. We’ve also been told that alternative or complementary health care does not have any science to back it up, only anecdotal evidence. These two ideas have led to the widely accepted “truths” that anyone offering an alternative or complementary approach is depriving patients of the proven benefits of safe and effective care, and that people not only do not get well with alternative care but actually are endangered by it. With this report, we question the status quo in one area of orthodox medicine: practices related to women’s health. Our review of the medical literature shows that the safety and effectiveness of many orthodox treatments cannot be assumed. We present dozens of research summaries which reveal that conventional treatments may not deliver the expected benefits or may be associated with an increased risk of various health disorders. This review will be presented in several parts, covering topics ranging from the use of oral contraceptives to surgical practices such as hysterectomies and cesarean sections. In this section, we focus on antenatal care, fetal heart monitoring, and home versus hospital deliveries. Note that all of the studies included in this report come from mainstream medicine’s own respected journals, such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet. There is nothing subjective or political about the conclusions drawn here. The criticism of various therapies in this series comes not from the “alternative” world but from the very heart of orthodox medicine itself. The journal articles speak for themselves. We are a society that claims to live by the gold standard of scientific research, but this report shows that statement to be at odds with reality. It shows that we routinely cause iatrogenic conditions and unnecessary suffering—as well as waste vast sums of money—through a systemic negligence of the facts. This situation must be challenged and remedied.
Antenatal Care If you assume that more prenatal care equals better pregnancy outcomes, the following research reports may come as a surprise. Several studies have found that fewer prenatal visits to the doctor or fewer medical procedures resulted in similar or better outcomes than more visits or more care. Other studies show that routine ultrasound screening of low-risk women does not translate to improved health in newborns. And when it comes to detecting cases of Down’s syndrome, traditional screening by ultrasound and maternal age is just as effective as the more costly method of blood serum screening. The results of this study, conducted on over 57,000 women, show that those who received the most amount of prenatal care by their physicians had the worst pregnancy outcomes and the highest rate of cesarean sections and induced labor. —Gissler M, Hemminki E, Amount of antenatal care and infant outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994 Jul; 56(1):9-14. The results of this study show that the introduction of a new program of prenatal care consisting of an average of 2.7 fewer than usual prenatal visits was associated with maternal and infant outcomes that were similar to those of women receiving standard number of prenatal visits. —McDuffie RS Jr, Beck A, Bischoff K, Cross J, Orleans M, Effect of frequency of prenatal care visits on perinatal outcome among low-risk women. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1996 Mar 20; 275(11):847-51. This randomized study, conducted on approximately 16,000 women in Zimbabwe, evaluated the effects of a new prenatal program for pregnant women consisting of fewer physician visits (an average of 4 instead of 6 visits), and fewer medical procedures per visit, on maternal and infant outcomes. Women who received less prenatal visits and less medical procedures had significantly lower risk of delivering preterm babies and of experiencing severe hypertension and eclampsia. Other outcomes were similar in the two groups. —Munjanja SP, Lindmark G, Nystrom L, Randomised controlled trial of a reduced-visits programme of antenatal care in Harare, Zimbabwe. Lancet 1996 Aug 10; 348(9024):364-9.
The results of this study show that routine ultrasound screening during pregnancy is not associated with improved newborn health. The study was conducted on 15,151 low-risk pregnant women randomized into two groups. Women in the first group received two ultrasound tests during their pregnancy, those in the second group received an ultrasound scan only if their doctor saw a specific medical need for the exam. No differences in perinatal outcome were detected between the two groups, indicating that routine ultrasound screening in low-risk women may increase health care costs without improving the health of women and their newborns. —Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, LeFevre ML, Bain RP, McNellis D, Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. RADIUS Study Group. N Engl J Med 1993 Sep 16; 329(12):821-7. The results of this study show that routine ultrasonographic screening in low-risk pregnant women is not associated with higher rates of abortion for congenital anomalies or with improved health outcomes of infants born with treatable malformations. —Crane JP, et al., A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasonographic screening: impact on the detection, management, and outcome of anomalous fetuses. The RADIUS Study Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994 Aug; 171(2):392-9. The results of this study show that blood serum screening, introduced as the most effective screening method for Down’s syndrome since 1993, is no more effective than traditional screening by ultrasound and maternal age at detecting cases of Down’s syndrome, and is significantly more costly. The retrospective study was conducted on all women who gave birth at one institution in the period 1993 to 1998. Overall, there were 31,259 deliveries, including 53 cases of Down’s syndrome. The traditional method of screening using maternal age in combination with ultrasound scans detected 68% cases of Down’s syndrome, corresponding to the same effectiveness of screening through blood markers. Traditional screening has been replaced by blood screening based on the unverified assumption that traditional screening could only detect one-third of Down’s cases. This study, however, demonstrates that the benefits of blood screening may be much less than supposed, and undermines the costs-benefit arguments for it. —DT Howe, et al., Six year survey of screening for Down’s syndrome by maternal age and mid-trimester ultrasound scans. BMJ 2000; 320:606-610 (4 March).
Fetal Heart Monitoring Electronic monitoring of fetal heart rates gets a negative report card from the research presented here in terms of its ability to improve fetal outcomes. These studies suggest that the practice is unnecessary and perhaps harmful. One study found that fetal heart monitoring does not lead to a reduced incidence of neurological complications or perinatal mortality, while another found that premature babies monitored electronically have a worse neurological outcome than those monitored with periodic auscultation. Electronic fetal monitoring also is associated with an increased rate of cesarean deliveries and a low Apgar score,8 which is a numerical rating of a baby’s health immediately after delivery. This article emphasizes that, despite early results from uncontrolled trials documenting the beneficial effects of fetal monitoring, randomized trials have consistently failed to demonstrate its efficacy in improving fetal outcome. Electronic monitoring of fetal-heart rates does not result in a decreased incidence of neurological complications or perinatal mortality and is, therefore, unnecessary. —Kaiser G, Do electronic fetal heart rate monitors improve delivery outcomes? J Fla Med Assoc 1991 May; 78(5):303-7. This article presents evidence from randomized controlled trials indicating that fetal heart rate monitoring does not improve fetal outcome, and its use is therefore unjustified. —Parer JT, King T, Fetal heart rate monitoring: is it salvageable? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000 Apr; 182(4):982-7. The results of this study indicate that premature babies who undergo electronic fetal heart rate monitoring have a worse neurological outcome, compared to those monitored with periodic auscultation. In the study, 189 premature babies were randomly assigned to either electronic fetal monitoring or periodic auscultation. Neurological assessment performed at the age of 4, 8, and 18 months
revealed that babies monitored electronically had lower mental- and psychomotor-development scores, compared to those monitored by periodic auscultation. In addition, babies who underwent electronic monitoring had a 2.5fold increased incidence of cerebral palsy, compared to those followed by auscultation. Median time to delivery after the recognition of an abnormal heart rate pattern was 104 minutes in babies monitored electronically and 60 minutes in those monitored by auscultation. These data indicate that fetal heart monitoring is ineffective in improving neurological outcome in prematurely born babies, and its use may be associated with harm. —Shy KK, et al., Effects of electronic fetal-heart-rate monitoring, as compared with periodic auscultation, on the neurologic development of premature infants. N Engl J Med 1990 Mar 1; 322(9):588-93. The results of this study show that electronic fetal monitoring does not improve delivery outcome, while being associated with an increased rate of cesarean deliveries and low Apgar score. —McCusker J, Harris DR, Hosmer DW Jr., Association of electronic fetal monitoring during labor with Cesarean section rate and with neonatal morbidity and mortality. Am J Public Health 1988 Sep; 78(9):1170-4.
Home Versus Hospital Delivery The medical literature offers some encouraging news about the option of delivering at home. A handful of studies, most published since 1995, attest to the safety and effectiveness of home deliveries. These studies attribute a variety of positive results to midwife-managed care. In one study, the risk of infant and neonatal death and the likelihood of delivering a low-birth-weight baby were lower in midwife-attended births, compared with physicianattended births. Another study found that women in midwife-attended
deliveries were less likely to undergo a cesarean section and that fewer diagnoses of fetal distress were made. In total, the studies point to less intervention in midwife-assisted deliveries. A 1996 study in The Lancet found that labor was initiated less often in women attended by midwives only than in women attended by physicians and midwives. Significantly more women were satisfied with the midwife-managed care than with the care managed by a physician and midwife. The results of this study show that the pregnancy outcome of women who delivered their first baby at home is as good as that of women who gave birth to their first baby in the hospital. On the other hand, women who gave birth to at least one child and planned to deliver at home had significantly better pregnancy outcomes than those who planned to deliver in the hospital, indicating that home delivery is as safe, or safer, than hospital delivery. â€”Wiegers TA, Keirse MJ, van der Zee J, Berghs GA, Outcome of planned home and planned hospital births in low risk pregnancies: prospective study in midwifery practices in The Netherlands. BMJ 1996 Nov 23; 313(7068):1309-13. This letter was written in reply to an article published on the Times of May 20, describing hospital delivery as being 3 times safer than home delivery. The letter emphasizes that the author of the Times article compared data from different countries to reach his conclusions, although data were actually not comparable. Evaluation of the National Birthday Trust survey of home births in the U.K., a certainly more appropriate approach to the question of safety of home versus hospital delivery, shows that within a group formed by 3,896 women who delivered at home, there was only one neonatal death (occurring from 0 to 27 days after birth) and no stillbirths, compared to 2 neonatal deaths and 2 stillbirths in a control group of similar, low-risk women who delivered in the hospital. The author concludes that there is no evidence indicating that home delivery carries more risk than hospital delivery in properly screened women. The letter emphasizes that women should receive accurate, up-to-date information, so that they may properly choose between home and hospital delivery. â€”Chamberlain G, Choosing between home and hospital delivery. Risk of home birth in Britain cannot be compared with data from other countries. Letter. BMJ 2000; 320:798 (18 March).
This randomized study, conducted on 1,299 low-risk pregnant women, evaluated pregnancy outcome in women attended by midwives only, or by a combination of midwives, hospital doctors and general physicians. Labor was initiated significantly more often in women followed by physicians and midwives than in those followed by midwives only (33.3% vs. 23.9% of cases). Women attended only by midwives were more likely to have an intact perineum and less likely to undergo episiotomy (surgical enlargement of the vulval orifice during delivery). Perineal tears and rate of complications were similar in the two groups. Significantly more women expressed satisfaction with the midwife-managed care than with the physician-midwife managed care. â€”Turnbull D, et al., Randomised, controlled trial of efficacy of midwife-managed care. Lancet 1996 Jul 27; 348(9022):213-8. The results of this study, conducted on all women who in 1991 delivered by the vaginal route a single baby at 35-43 weeks gestation, show that the risk of infant and neonatal death is 19% and 33% lower, respectively, in
midwife-attended births compared to physician-attended births. The likelihood of delivering a low-birth-weight infant is 31% lower in midwife- versus physician-assisted deliveries. These results suggest that delivery care provided by midwives may be superior to that provided by physicians. —MacDorman MF, Singh GK, Midwifery care, social and medical risk factors, and birth outcomes in the USA. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998 May; 52(5):310-7. The results of this study show that women attended by midwives are 30% less likely to undergo cesarean section compared to those attended by physicians. Furthermore, a diagnosis of fetal distress is made 50% less often in babies delivered by midwives, compared to those delivered by physicians. —Butler J, Abrams B, Parker J, Roberts JM, Laros RK Jr., Supportive nurse-midwife care is associated with a reduced incidence of Cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993 May; 168(5):1407-13. The results of this study show that pregnancy outcomes in women whose pregnancy has been followed by midwives are similar to those of women followed by obstetricians, indicating that routine visits of low-risk pregnant women by obstetricians are unnecessary. Women who experienced complications during labor were promptly recognized by midwives and transferred to obstetrician care.
Gary Null, nationally syndicated talk show host & producer of PBS specials, is a consumer advocate, investigative reporter, NY Times best-selling author and an award-winning documentary filmmaker. Gary believes that, “You must be empowered before you can be whole,” and he empowers all who will listen with life-changing facts that promote wellness. Gary has conducted over a hundred major investigations and has produced numerous documentaries in which he encourages his viewers to take charge of their lives and health. Among his dozens of videos are titles like “The Pain, Profit and Politics of AIDS,” “Chronic Fatigue,” “Diet for a Lifetime, and “Cancer, A Natural Approach.” Gary Null lives the active, healthful life that he advocates. He regularly competes in races and marathons and has trained thousands of people in his “Natural Living Walking and Running Club” to do the same.
www.garynull.com/Article.aspx?article=/Documents/ WomenRisksOrthodoxMedPt1.htm References available online:www.icpa4kids.com
—Law YY, Lam KY, A randomized controlled trial comparing midwife-managed care and obstetrician-managed care for women assessed to be at low risk in the initial intrapartum period. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1999 Apr; 25(2):107-12. The results of this study show that pregnancy outcomes in women who choose to deliver at home and are attended by midwives are similar to those of women who choose to deliver in hospital and are attended by obstetricians. Women who delivered at home received significantly less medication and fewer medical interventions, compared to those who delivered in the hospital. In the case of complications or suspected complications, women were transferred to the hospital and were followed up by obstetricians. —Ackermann-Liebrich U, et al., Home versus hospital deliveries: follow up study of matched pairs for procedures and outcome. Zurich Study Team. BMJ 1996 Nov 23; 313(7068):1313-8.
The Deadly Influence of Formula in America continued from page 15 Other studies show a sizeable increase in illnesses throughout all of childhood for those who were never breastfed or prematurely weaned. In fact, an increased risk of death throughout life has been well documented for people who were formula-fed. Higher blood pressure, more heart disease, obesity, diabetes and artery disease, a nearly doubled rate of Crohn’s disease and tripled rates of celiac disease have all been associated with early formula feeding.
What your doctor doesn’t tell you Pediatricians spend much time frightening parents with 1 in 100,000 risks from vaccine-preventable diseases when parents question the utility and safety of vaccines. “Would you want to risk the life of your child?” they demand. Yet these very same
professionals offer formula samples with the other hand—when the magnitude of health risks associated with the use of formula is 500 times greater. Parenting is all about making choices and weighing risks and benefits. Many parents need to make the riskier choice of formula feeding in order to balance other factors that benefit the family. Yet some parents who have lost their children, possibly based on pediatric advice condoning or encouraging formula-feeding, would surely wish that they had been informed of the very real risks related to using formula. References available online: www.icpa4kids.com
Dr. Linda Folden Palmer consults and lectures on natural infant health, optimal child nutrition and attachment parenting. After running a successful chiropractic practice focused on nutrition and women’s health for more than a decade, Linda’s life became transformed eight years ago by the birth of her son. Her research into his particular health challenges led her to write Baby Matters: What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Caring for Your Baby. Extensively documented, this healthy parenting book presents the scientific evidence behind attachment parenting practices, supporting baby’s immune system, preventing colic and sparing drug usage. You can visit Linda’s web site at www.babyreference.com. You can buy her book at www.icpa4kids.com
An Interview with Dr. Bruce Lipton continued from page 7 incumbent upon you to carry all the weight anymore. DENNIS: So this is true in microcosm about the Masters Circle, but in macrocosm about the entire chiropractic profession, indeed about the world. BRUCE: About the world, and the nature from anywhere from a cell going into an organism, a human that’s in relationship, or a human being a cell in a larger organism or organization…it is all the same thing. That is why Nature has always promoted the formation of communities, because it showed there are limitations on awareness of the individual but no limitations on awareness of groups of individuals. It’s as simple as that. DENNIS: Yes! That sounds simple, but amazingly profound. I wish everyone knew what you just said. DENNIS: In finishing up this interview, I would like you to make a comment about where you see the [chiropractic] profession is headed. You have a unique perspective, being a scientist and also being a philosopher. You can see how society will integrate some of the things we are talking about. What do you see for Chiropractic down the road? BRUCE: Well, if they are not self-destructive, which is a possibility the way I have seen it because of the in-fighting
and all that. If they are not self-destructive, then they are the wave of the future. Allopaths are the ones who are going to drop by the wayside, because their abilities are highly restricted to trauma cases, and outside of that there is very limited use for them. Since most of us don’t have traumas, most of us have experiences where our beliefs and perceptions are altering our physiology and making us sick. This isn’t trauma, it just means we have to adjust our beliefs and perceptions, which is part of the whole chiropractic philosophy. I remember a quote from D.D. Palmer when he said, “When a member of society has fallen, call upon an educator to help remove the stumbling block and to teach them.” This is what Chiropractic can offer. It can offer to remove stumbling blocks, but it also has the correct philosophy to be aligned with the science. By following the philosophy and science of Chiropractic, you will then be generating health just by your beliefs and your education— your character when people come into your office. The nature of it is, Chiropractic has the potential to grow and become the center of the health profession. DENNIS: Thank you, Dr. Bruce Lipton, you are one of the most important people going forward in the Chiropractic profession, I thank you so very much for the work that you do.
thanks! Every month our members, friends and supporters of the ICPA come up with new ways to support our research efforts! Either by hosting patient appreciation days or golf tournaments or kids events in their communities, doctors think of the ICPA first and graciously send their donations our way. This quarter, Dr. Jonas Marry and Dr. Kevin Ross, long time ICPA members and supporters donated funds to our research projects. Davis and Lang Chiropractic Clinic and Millner Family Chiropractic both made generous donations to our Research Fund as well. Nicole Hartman, whoâ€™s father Dr. Harold Harmon passed away, asked friends and family to donate to the ICPA in lieu of flowers. The Chiropractic Resource Organization (www.Chiro.org), a non-profit organization and the leading resource of chiropractic research, presented the ICPA Research Foundation with a check for $1,000 in thanks for our continued work on publishing studies that show the benefit of Chiropractic care for children. Laurent Goldstein, President of Brican (www.bricancorp.com) awarded one of his teleclass listeners with an annual membership to the ICPA. Additional ways you can participate in funding research is by donating an adjustment per month.
We want to personally thank all of our donors for their generosity and commitment to the mission of ICPA.
Guest Speakers Include: Drs. Guy Riekeman Claudia Anrig Bob Hoffman Jeanne Ohm C.J. Mertz Armand Rossi Jim Thompson Anthony Carrino Jim Dubel Pasquale Cerasoli Peter Kevorkian Stephen Marini Carol Phillips Eric Plasker Also presenting will be Bruce Lipton, Ph.D. on the “Science of Chiropractic”
April 29, 30, May 1, 2 2004 Philosophy, Science and Art…Bringing it All Together
Experience the best in chiropractic philosophy, techniques, and current research!
Ocean Place Conference Resort, Long Branch, New Jersey 1 800 411-7321 • 1 732 483-5776
Register On-Line: www.icpa4kids.com
Special ICPA Technique Workshops and CA Program Friday Night New Beginnings Fire Walk Saturday Night Banquet with Incredible Live Musical Entertainment License Renewal Credits Sponsored by Cleveland Chiropractic College
International Chiropractic Pediatric Association
327 N. Middletown Rd. Media, PA 19063
ICPA 327 N. Middletown Rd., Media, PA 19063 Phone: 610 565-2360 • Fax: 610 565-3567